ReportWire

Tag: midterm election

  • They’ve had enough — dozens of lawmakers won’t seek reelection to Congress in 2026 – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    After Americans said goodbye to 2025, dozens of lawmakers will soon say the same to Congress after deciding not to run for reelection in 2026.

    After Americans said goodbye to 2025, dozens of lawmakers will soon say the same to Congress after deciding not to run for reelection in 2026.

    More than 50 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate have announced they won’t run again for their current seats during the midterm elections.

    They include at least 30 Republicans and 23 Democrats.

    There is always turnover in Congress, but the number of lawmakers deciding to leave Capitol Hill has been especially high in recent election cycles.

    In 2022, 2024 and now in 2026, the amount of lawmakers not seeking reelection has been more than 50.

    No members of the Virginia or Maryland congressional delegations have announced plans to leave Congress, however.

    D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, who at age 88 is the oldest member of the House, has continued to hold open the possibility that she will run again. This comes as she faces several opponents in a Democratic primary, and has been urged by a former staffer not to seek reelection.

    Former U.S. Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland retired in 2024, after serving in Congress for nearly four decades.

    Norton has represented the District since 1991 and this is the first election in decades in which she has faced serious opposition, including from D.C. Council members Robert White and Brooke Pinto.

    Lawmakers leaving are frustrated   

    While many lawmakers are retiring with pride over their long years of public service, others are hitting the U.S. Capitol exits because they are frustrated by political gridlock.

    The longest government shutdown in history, in which the House remained out of session, contributed to an overall feeling that lawmakers weren’t getting anything done.

    There is also concern with the growing power of President Donald Trump that Congress is increasingly becoming irrelevant.

    One of the president’s strongest MAGA supporters, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia’s 14th District, surprised many political observers with her announcement that she wouldn’t seek reelection.

    “I refuse to be a battered wife hoping it all goes away and gets better,” she said in a video announcing her decision in November.

    “If I’m cast aside by the president and the MAGA political machine and replaced by neocons, big pharma, Big Tech, military industrial war complex, foreign leaders and the elite donor class that can never, ever relate to real Americans, then many common Americans have been cast aside and replaced as well.”

    Greene has said she has no immediate plans for her political future.

    But others have chosen to leave their frustration in the halls of Congress and try to lead their states from the governor’s mansion.

    Ten Republican House members and one Democrat are running for governor in 2026. That’s the most GOP lawmakers to run for governor in two decades.

    How will the lawmaker exodus impact the midterm elections?

    Democratic congressional leaders believe they have momentum on their side, as they seek to flip control of the House.

    Ironically, that is in part because two Democratic lawmakers decided not to run for reelection in 2025.

    Abigail Spanberger left the House and is now the governor-elect of Virginia. Mikie Sherrill also left the House and is the governor-elect of New Jersey.

    Both will be sworn into their new offices later this month.

    Democrats say their victories are a sign of things to come in the midterm elections, as the party tries to retake power in the House.

    But House Speaker Mike Johnson has publicly remained bullish on the GOP’s efforts to maintain control of the lower chamber.

    Despite all the congressional departures and the tumult of redistricting, Johnson believes he can hold onto his slim majority.

    He has also brushed aside the significance of the Democrats’ victories in Virginia and New Jersey.

    “We’re looking forward to a great election, running on our record and we’re going to get all of our incumbents reelected and we’re going to add to the number here,” Johnson said on the Capitol steps, after the November elections.

    Many incumbents of both parties announced they wouldn’t seek reelection in 2026, in the weeks after those elections.

    One of them was former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who will not seek another term after 38 years in Congress.

    While she’s not running for reelection, not surprisingly, she has a different view than Johnson of what will happen in the midterm elections.

    When Jonathan Karl on ABC’s “This Week” recently started to ask, “So if the Democrats win the House back …” she jumped in and said, “No, not ‘if.’ When the Democrats win the House back.”

    Whatever happens this fall, it’s likely neither party will have more than a slim House majority.

    [ad_2]

    Mitchell Miller

    Source link

  • Commentary: America tried something new in 2025. It’s not going well

    [ad_1]

    Is there a dumpster somewhere to torch and bury this year of bedlam, 2025?

    We near its end with equal amounts relief and trepidation. Surely we can’t be expected to endure another such tumultuous turn around the sun?

    It was only January that Donald Trump moved back into the White House, apparently toting trunkloads of gilt for the walls. Within weeks, he’d declared an emergency at the border; set in motion plans to dismantle government agencies; fired masses of federal workers; and tariffs, tariffs, tariffs.

    Demonstrators at a No Kings rally in Washington, protesting actions by President Trump and Elon Musk.

    (Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

    By spring, the administration was attacking Harvard as a test case for strong-arming higher education. By June, Trump’s grotesquely misnamed Big Beautiful Bill had become law, giving $1 trillion in tax cuts to billionaires and funding a deportation effort (and armed force) that has fundamentally reshaped American immigration law and ended any pretense about targeting “the worst of the worst.”

    Fall and winter have brought questionable bombings of boats in the Caribbean, a further backing away from Ukraine, a crackdown on opposition to Trump by classifying it as leftist terrorism and congressional inaction on healthcare that will leave many struggling to stay insured.

    That’s the short list.

    It was a year when America tried something new, and while adherents of the MAGA movement may celebrate much of it, our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak have a different perspective.

    Here, they renew their annual tradition of looking at the year past and offering some thoughts on what the new year may bring.

    Chabria: Welp, that was something. I can’t say 2025 was a stellar year for the American experiment, but it certainly will make the history books.

    Before we dive into pure politics, I’ll start with something positive. I met a married couple at a No Kings rally in Sacramento who were dressed up as dinosaurs, inspired by the Portland Frog, an activist who wears an inflatable amphibian suit.

    When I asked why, the husband told me, “If you don’t do something soon, you will have democracy be extinct.”

    A woman standing before an American flag during an anti-Trump protest in downtown Los Angeles.

    Crowds participate in No Kings Day in downtown Los Angeles in October.

    (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

    I loved that so many Americans were doing something by turning out to not just protest policies that hit personally, but to rally in support of democracy writ large. For many, it was their first time taking this kind of action, and they were doing it in a way that expressed optimism and possibility rather than giving in to anger or despair. Where there is humor, there is hope.

    Barabak: As in, it only hurts when I laugh?

    In 2024, a plurality of Americans voted to reinstall Trump in the White House — warts, felony conviction and all — mainly in the hope he would bring down the cost of living and make eggs and gasoline affordable again.

    While eggs and gas are no longer exorbitant, the cost of just about everything else continues to climb. Or, in the case of beef, utility bills and insurance, skyrocket.

    Workers adding Donald Trump's name to the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts

    The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts is another of the long-standing institutions Trump has smeared his name across.

    (Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)

    Meantime, the president seems less concerned with improving voters’ lives than smearing his name on every object he lays his eyes on, one of the latest examples being the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

    (The only place Trump doesn’t want to see his name is in those voluminous Epstein files.)

    I wonder: Why stop there? Why not brand these the United States of Trump-erica, then boast we live in the “hottest” country on Planet Trump?

    Chabria: Stop giving him ideas!

    You and I agree that it’s been a difficult year full of absurdity, but we’ve disagreed on how seriously to take Trump as a threat to democracy. As the year closes, I am more concerned than ever.

    It’s not the ugly antics of ego that alarm me, but the devastating policies that will be hard to undo — if we get the chance to undo them.

    The race-based witch hunt of deportations is obviously at the top of that list, but the demolition of both K-12 and higher education; the dismantling of federal agencies, thereby cutting our scientific power as a nation; the increasing oligarchy of tech industrialists; the quiet placement of election deniers in key election posts — these are all hammers bashing away at our democracy.

    Now, we are seeing overt antisemitism and racism on the MAGA right, with alarming acceptance from many. The far right has championed a debate as dumb as it is frightening, about “heritage” Americans being somehow a higher class of citizens than nonwhites.

    Vice President JD Vance speaks at a college campus event in front of a poster reading "This Is the Turning Point."

    Vice President JD Vance speaks at the University of Mississippi in Oxford.

    (Gerald Herbert / Associated Press)

    Recently, Vice President JD Vance gave a speech in which he announced, “In the United States of America, you don’t have to apologize for being white anymore,” and Trump has said he wants to start taking away citizenship from legal immigrants. Both men claim America is a Christian nation, and eschew diversity as a value.

    Do you still think American democracy is secure, and this political moment will pass without lasting damage to our democratic norms?

    Barabak: I’ll start with some differentiation.

    I agree that Trump is sowing seeds or, more specifically, enacting policies and programs, that will germinate and do damage for many years to come.

    Alienating our allies, terrorizing communities with his prejudicial anti-immigrant policies — which go far beyond a reasonable tightening of border security — starving science and other research programs. The list is a long and depressing one, as you suggest.

    But I do believe — cue the trumpets and cherubs — there is nothing beyond the power of voters to fix.

    To quote, well, me, there is no organism on the planet more sensitive to heat and light than a politician. We’ve already seen an anti-Trump backlash in a series of elections held this year, in red and blue state alike. A strong repudiation in the 2026 midterm election will do more than all the editorial tut-tutting and protest marches combined. (Not that either are bad things.)

    A poll worker at Los Angeles' Union Station.

    A stressed-out seeming poll worker in a polling station at Los Angeles’ Union Station.

    (Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

    The best way to preserve our democracy and uphold America’s values is for unhappy citizens to register their dissent via the ballot box. And to address at least one of your concerns, I’m not too worried about Trump somehow nullifying the results, given legal checks and the decentralization of our election system.

    Installing lawmakers in Congress with a mandate to hold Trump to account would be a good start toward repairing at least some of the damage he’s wrought. And if it turns into a Republican rout, it’ll be quite something to watch the president’s onetime allies run for the hills as fast as their weak knees allow.

    Chabria: OMG! It’s a holiday miracle. We agree!

    I think the midterms will be messy, but I don’t think this will be an election where Trump, or anyone, outright tries to undo overall results.

    Although I do think the groundwork will be laid to sow further doubt in our election integrity ahead of 2028, and we will see bogus claims of fraud and lawsuits.

    So the midterms very well could be a reset if Democrats take control of something, anything. We would likely not see past damage repaired, but may see enough opposition to slow the pace of whatever is happening now, and offer transparency and oversight.

    But the 2026 election only matters if people vote, which historically is not something a great number of people do in midterms. At this point, there are few people out there who haven’t heard about the stakes in November, but that still doesn’t translate to folks — lazy, busy, distracted — weighing in.

    If proposed restrictions on mail-in ballots or voter identification take effect, even just in some states, that will also change the outcomes.

    But there is hope, always hope.

    Barabak: On that note, let’s recognize a few of the many good things that happened in 2025.

    MacKenzie Scott donated $700 million to more than a dozen historically Black colleges and universities, showing that not all tech billionaires are selfish and venal.

    The Dodgers won their second championship and, while this San Francisco Giants fan was not pleased, their seven-game thriller against the Toronto Blue Jays was a World Series for the ages.

    And the strength and resilience shown by survivors of January’s SoCal firestorm has been something to behold.

    Any others, beside your demonstrating dinos, who deserve commendation?

    Pope Leo XIV waves after delivering the annual Christmas blessing.

    Pope Leo XIV waves after delivering the Christmas Day blessing from the main balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican.

    (Gregorio Borgia / Associated Press)

    Chabria: Though I’m not Catholic, I have been surprisingly inspired by Pope Leo XIV.

    So I’ll leave us with a bit of his advice for the future: “Be agents of communion, capable of breaking down the logic of division and polarization, of individualism and egocentrism.”

    Many of us are tired, and suffering from Trump fatigue. Regardless, to put it in nonpapal terms, it may be a dumpster — but we’re all in it together.

    Barabak: I’d like to end, as we do each year, with a thank you to our readers.

    Anita and I wouldn’t be here — which would greatly please some folks — but for you. (And a special nod to the paid subscribers out there. You help keep the lights on.)

    Here’s wishing each and all a happy, healthy and prosperous new year.

    We’ll see you again in 2026.

    [ad_2]

    Anita Chabria, Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • ‘Played with fire, got burned’: GOP control of House at risk after court blocks Texas map

    [ad_1]

    A federal court on Tuesday blocked Texas from moving forward with its new congressional map, hastily drawn in hopes of netting up to five additional Republican seats and securing the U.S. House for the GOP in next year’s midterm elections.

    The ruling is a major political blow to the Trump administration, which set off a redistricting arms race throughout the country earlier this year by encouraging Texas lawmakers to redraw the state’s congressional district boundaries mid-decade — an extraordinary move bucking traditional practice.

    The three-judge federal court panel in El Paso said in a 2-1 decision that “substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map,” ordering the state to revert to the maps it had drawn in 2021.

    Texas’ Republican governor, Greg Abbott, who at Trump’s behest directed GOP state lawmakers to proceed with the plan, vowed on Tuesday that the state would appeal the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court.

    Californians responded to Texas’ attempted move by voting on Nov. 4 to approve a new, temporary congressional map for the state, giving Democrats the opportunity to pick up five new seats.

    Initially, the proposal pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, known as Prop. 50, had trigger language that would have conditioned new California maps going into effect based on whether Texas approved its new congressional districts.

    But that language was stripped out last minute, raising the possibility that Democrats enter the 2026 midterm election with a distinct advantage. The language was removed because Texas had already passed its redistricting plan, making the trigger no longer needed, said Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell, who drew the maps for Prop. 50.

    “Our legislature eliminated the trigger because Texas had already triggered it,” Mitchell said Tuesday.

    Newsom celebrated the ruling in a statement to The Times, which he also posted on the social media site X.

    “Donald Trump and Greg Abbott played with fire, got burned — and democracy won,” Newsom said. “This ruling is a win for Texas, and for every American who fights for free and fair elections.”

    An aide to former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who led an effort in California to enshrine nonpartisan districting practices, suggested that California’s effort could face problems going forward after it was sold to the public as a response to Texas.

    “The title of the proposition said it was a response to Texas, and the voter guide mentioned Texas 13 times, so I’d imagine you will find voters who feel misled that if Texas’ gerrymander doesn’t happen, California’s still does,” said Daniel Ketchell, a spokesperson for Schwarzenegger.

    Legal scholars had warned that Texas’ bid would invite accusations and legal challenges of racial gerrymandering that California’s maps would not.

    The new Texas redistricting plan appears to have been instigated by a letter from Assistant Atty. Gen. for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon, who threatened Texas with legal action over three “coalition districts” that she argued were unconstitutional.

    Coalition districts feature multiple minority communities, none of which comprises the majority. The newly configured districts passed by Texas redrew all three, potentially “cracking” racially diverse communities while preserving white-majority districts, legal scholars said.

    “I think the decision was both very smart and very careful in following the law,” Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, said of the 160-page opinion.

    “These are judges who took the law seriously,” Levitt said, “and also judges who were — rightly — absolutely furious at DOJ for a letter starting the whole charade, where the legal ‘reasoning’ wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on.”

    While the Supreme Court’s rulings on redistricting have been sporadic, the justices have generally ruled that purely political redistricting is legal, but that racial gerrymandering is not — a more difficult line to draw in southern states where racial and political lines overlap.

    In 2023, addressing a redistricting fight in Alabama over Black voter representation, the high court ruled in Allen vs. Milligan that discriminating against minority voters in gerrymandering is unconstitutional, ordering the Southern state to create a second minority-majority district.

    The Justice Department is also suing California to attempt to block the use of its new maps in next year’s elections.

    J. Morgan Kousser, a Caltech professor who recently testified in the ongoing case over Texas’ 2021 redistricting effort, said the potential downfall of Texas’ new map was an ironic twist for a president whose strategic goal was to give himself a leg up in the midterms.

    He blamed Tuesday’s court decision — written by a Trump appointee — on the president’s gutting of legal talent at the Justice Department, arguing its legal strategy was flawed from the start.

    “The California gerrymander is likely fixed in stone, because there is no evidence of ‘racial predominance’ in the California action, especially compared to the plentiful evidence of racial motives quoted carefully by the district court in Texas,” Kousser said, “and the opinion of the Texas district court is so meticulous and persuasive that the Supreme Court majority will have difficulty overturning it.”

    “Purging the DOJ left no one to warn the Trump appointees that what they were about to do would likely boomerang,” Kousser added. “This is the law of unintended consequences run riot.”

    Times staff writers Melody Gutierrez and Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • Newsom appears onstage at Texas rally to celebrate Prop. 50 victory, take swipes at Trump

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom strode onstage in Houston on Saturday to a cheering crowd of Texas Democrats, saying Proposition 50’s victory in California on election day was a win for the nation and a firm repudiation of President Trump.

    Newsom possessed the air of a politician running for president at the boisterous rally, a possibility the California governor says he is considering — and the location he chose was not happenstance.

    Newsom accused Trump of pressuring Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to rejigger the state’s congressional districts with the goal of sending more Republicans to Congress, an action that triggered California’s Proposition 50. Newsom successfully pushed for a special election on the ballot measure to counter the efforts in Texas, which the governor said wasan attempt by Trump and the Republicans to “rig” the 2026 midterm election.

    Cheers erupted from the friendly, union-hall crowd when Newsom belittled Trump as an “invasive species” and a “historically unpopular president.”

    “On every issue, on the economy, on terrorists, on immigration, on healthcare, [he’s a] historically unpopular president, and he knows it, and he knows it,” Newsom said. “Why else did he make that call to your governor? Why else did he feel the need to rig the election before even one vote was cast? That’s just weakness, weakness masquerading as strength. That’s Donald Trump, and he had a very bad night on Tuesday.”

    Newsom was the main political force behind Proposition 50, which California voters overwhelmingly approved in Tuesday’s special election. The statewide ballot measure was an attempt to counter Trump’s push to get Republican-led states, most notably Texas, to redraw their electoral maps to keep Democrats from gaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 midterms and upending his agenda. Newsom and California Democrats hope the change will net an additional five Democrats in California’s congressional delegation, canceling out any gains in Texas.

    Newsom thanked Texas Democrats for putting up a fight against the redistricting effort in their state, saying it inspired an uprising.

    “It’s dawning on people, all across the United States of America, what’s at stake,” Newsom told the crowd. “And you put a stake in the ground. People are showing up. I don’t believe in crowns, thrones. No kings.”

    Newsom’s trip to Texas comes as the former San Francisco mayor has been openly flirting with a 2028 run for president. In a recent interview with “CBS News Sunday Morning,” Newsom was asked whether he would give “serious thought” after the 2026 midterms to a White House bid.

    “Yeah, I’d be lying otherwise,” Newsom replied. “I’d just be lying. And I’m not — I can’t do that.”

    In July, Newsom flew to South Carolina, a state that traditionally hosts the South’s first presidential primary. He said he wanted to help his party win back the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026. But South Carolina is a solidly conservative state and did not appear to have a single competitive race.

    During that trip, South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, the highest-ranking Black member of Congress and renowned Democratic kingmaker, told The Times that Newsom would be “a hell of a candidate.” Newsom received similar praise — and encouragement — when he was introduced at the “Take It Back” rally in Houston.

    Newsom now heads to Belém, Brazil, where representatives from 200 nations are gathering to kick off the annual United Nations climate policy summit. For Newsom, it’s a golden opportunity to appear on a world stage and sell himself and California as the antidote to Trump and his attacks on climate change policy.

    The Trump administration this year canceled funding for major clean energy projects such as California’s hydrogen hub and moved to revoke the state’s long-held authority to set stricter vehicle emissions standards than the federal government.

    [ad_2]

    Phil Willon

    Source link

  • As Californians decide fate of Prop. 50, GOP states push their own redistricting plans

    [ad_1]

    The hurried push to revise California’s congressional districts has drawn national attention, large sums of money, and renewed hope among Democrats that the effort may help counter a wave of Republican redistricting initiatives instigated by President Trump.

    But if Democrats succeed in California, the question remains: Will it be enough to shift the balance of power in Congress?

    To regain control of the House, Democrats need to flip three Republican seats in the midterm elections next year. That slim margin prompted the White House to push Republicans this summer to redraw maps in GOP states in an effort to keep Democrats in the minority.

    Texas was the first to signal it would follow Trump’s edict and set off a rare mid-decade redistricting arms race that quickly roped in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom devised Proposition 50 to tap into his state’s massive inventory of congressional seats.

    Californians appear poised to approve the measure Tuesday. If they do, Democrats potentially could gain five seats in the House — an outcome that mainly would offset the Republican effort in Texas that already passed.

    While Democrats and Republicans in other states also have moved to redraw their maps, it is too soon to say which party will see a net gain, or predict voter sentiment a year from now, when a lopsided election in either direction could render the remapping irrelevant.

    GOP leaders in North Carolina and Missouri approved new maps that likely will yield one new GOP seat in each, Ohio Republicans could pick up two more seats in a newly redrawn map approved Friday, and GOP leaders in Indiana, Louisiana, Kansas and Florida are considering or taking steps to redraw their maps. In all, those moves could lead to at least 10 new Republican seats, according to experts tracking the redistricting efforts.

    To counter that, Democrats in Virginia passed a constitutional amendment that, if approved by voters, would give lawmakers the power and option to redraw a new map ahead of next year’s election. Illinois leaders are weighing their redistricting options and New York has filed a lawsuit that seeks to redraw a GOP-held district. But concerns over legal challenges already tanked the party’s efforts in Maryland and the potential dilution of the Black vote has slowed moves in Illinois.

    So far, the partisan maneuvers appear to favor Republicans.

    “Democrats cannot gerrymander their way out of their gerrymandering problem. The math simply doesn’t add up,” said David Daly, a senior fellow at the nonprofit FairVote. “They don’t have enough opportunities or enough targets.”

    Complex factors for Democrats

    Democrats have more than just political calculus to weigh. In many states they are hampered by a mix of constitutional restrictions, legal deadlines and the reality that many of their state maps no longer can be easily redrawn for partisan gain. In California, Prop. 50 marks a departure from the state’s commitment to independent redistricting.

    The hesitancy from Democrats in states such as Maryland and Illinois also underscores the tensions brewing within the party as it tries to maximize its partisan advantage and establish a House majority that could thwart Trump in his last two years in office.

    “Despite deeply shared frustrations about the state of our country, mid-cycle redistricting for Maryland presents a reality where the legal risks are too high, the timeline for action is dangerous, the downside risk to Democrats is catastrophic, and the certainty of our existing map would be undermined,” Bill Ferguson, the Maryland Senate president, wrote in a letter to state lawmakers last week.

    In Illinois, Black Democrats are raising concerns over the plans and pledging to oppose maps that would reduce the share of Black voters in congressional districts where they have historically prevailed.

    “I can’t just think about this as a short-term fight. I have to think about the long-term consequences of doing such a thing,” said state Sen. Willie Preston, chair of the Illinois Senate Black Caucus.

    Adding to those concerns is the possibility that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority could weaken a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act and limit lawmakers’ ability to consider race when redrawing maps. The outcome — and its effect on the 2026 midterms — will depend heavily on the timing and scope of the court’s decision.

    The court has been asked to rule on the case by January, but a decision may come later. Timing is key as many states have filing deadlines for 2026 congressional races or hold their primary election during the spring and summer.

    If the court strikes down the provision, known as Section 2, advocacy groups estimate Republicans could pick up at least a dozen House seats across southern states.

    “I think all of these things are going to contribute to what legislatures decide to do,” said Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice. The looming court ruling, he added, is “an extra layer of uncertainty in an already uncertain moment.”

    Republican-led states press ahead

    Support for Prop. 50 has brought in more than $114 million, the backing of some of the party’s biggest luminaries, including former President Obama, and momentum for national Democrats who want to regain control of Congress after the midterms.

    In an email to supporters Monday, Newsom said fundraising goals had been met and asked proponents of the effort to get involved in other states.

    “I will be asking for you to help others — states like Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and more are all trying to stop Republican mid-decade redistricting efforts. More on that soon,” Newsom wrote.

    Indiana Republican Gov. Mike Braun called a special session set to begin Monday, to “protect Hoosiers from efforts in other states that seek to diminish their voice in Washington and ensure their representation in Congress is fair.”

    In Kansas, the GOP president of the state Senate said last week that there were enough signatures from Republicans in the chamber to call a special session to redraw the state’s maps. Republicans in the state House would need to match the effort to move forward.

    In Louisiana, Republicans in control of the Legislature voted last week to delay the state’s 2026 primary elections. The move is meant to give lawmakers more time to redraw maps in the case that the Supreme Court rules in the federal voting case.

    If the justices strike down the practice of drawing districts based on race, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has indicated the state likely would jump into the mid-decade redistricting race.

    Shaniqua McClendon, head of Vote Save America, said the GOP’s broad redistricting push underscores why Democrats should follow California’s lead — even if they dislike the tactic.

    “Democrats have to be serious about what’s at stake. I know they don’t like the means, but we have to think about the end,” McClendon said. “We have to be able to take back the House — it’s the only way we’ll be able to hold Trump accountable.”

    In New York, a lawsuit filed last week charging that a congressional district disenfranchises Black and Latino voters would be a “Hail Mary” for Democrats hoping to improve their chances in the 2026 midterms there, said Daly, of FairVote.

    Utah also could give Democrats an outside opportunity to pick up a seat, said Dave Wasserman, a congressional forecaster for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. A court ruling this summer required Utah Republican leaders to redraw the state’s congressional map, resulting in two districts that Democrats potentially could flip.

    Wasserman described the various redistricting efforts as an “arms race … Democrats are using what Republicans have done in Texas as a justification for California, and Republicans are using California as justification for their actions in other states.”

    ‘Political tribalism’

    Some political observers said the outcome of California’s election could inspire still more political maneuvering in other states.

    “I think passage of Proposition 50 in California could show other states that voters might support mid-decade redistricting when necessary, when they are under attack,” said Jeffrey Wice, a professor at New York Law School where he directs the New York Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute. “I think it would certainly provide impetus in places like New York to move forward.”

    Similar to California, New York would need to ask voters to approve a constitutional amendment, but that could not take place in time for the midterms.

    “It might also embolden Republican states that have been hesitant to redistrict to say, ‘Well if the voters in California support mid-decade redistricting, maybe they’ll support it here too,’” Wice said.

    To Erik Nisbet, the director of the Center for Communications & Public Policy at Northwestern University, the idea that the mid-decade redistricting trend is gaining traction is part of a broader problem.

    “It is a symptom of this 20-year trend in increasing polarization and political tribalism,” he said. “And, unfortunately, our tribalism is now breaking out, not only between each other, but it’s breaking out between states.”

    He argued that both parties are sacrificing democratic norms and the ideas of procedural fairness as well as a representative democracy for political gain.

    “I am worried about what the end result of this will be,” he said.

    Ceballos reported from Washington, Mehta from Los Angeles.

    [ad_2]

    Ana Ceballos, Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • News Analysis: Prop. 50 is just one part of a historically uncertain moment for American democracy

    [ad_1]

    Is President Trump going to restart nuclear weapons testing? When will this federal shutdown end? Will Californians pass Proposition 50, scramble the state’s congressional maps and shake up next year’s midterm elections?

    Amid a swirl of high-stakes standoffs and unprecedented posturing by Trump, Gov. Gavin Newsom and other leaders in Washington and Sacramento, the future of U.S. politics, and California’s role therein, has felt wildly uncertain of late.

    Political debate — around things such as sending military troops into American cities, cutting off food aid for the poor or questioning constitutional guarantees such as birthright citizenship — has become so untethered to longstanding norms that everything feels novel.

    The pathways for taking political power — as with Trump’s teasing a potential third term, installing federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation, slashing federal budgets without congressional input and pressuring red states to redistrict in his favor before a midterm election — have been so sharply altered that many Americans, and some historians and political experts, have lost confidence in U.S. democracy.

    “It’s completely unprecedented, completely anomalous — representative, I think, of a major transformation of our normal political life,” said Jack Rakove, a Stanford University emeritus professor of history and political science.

    “You can’t compare it to any other episode, any other period, any other set of events in American history. It is unique and radically novel in distressing ways,” Rakove said. “As soon as Trump was reelected, we entered into a constitutional crisis. Why? Because Trump has no respect for constitutional structures.”

    Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement that “President Trump’s unorthodox approach is why he has been so successful and why he has received massive support from the American public.”

    Jackson said Trump has “achieved more than any President has in modern history,” including in “securing the border, getting dangerous criminals off American streets, brokering historic peace deals [and] bringing new investments to the U.S.,” and that the Supreme Court has repeatedly backed his approach as legal.

    “So-called experts can pontificate all they want, but President Trump’s actions have been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court despite a record number of challenges from liberal activists and unlawful rulings from liberal lower court judges,” Jackson said.

    There are many examples of Trump flouting or suggesting he will flout the Constitution or other laws directly, and in ways that make people unsure and concerned about what will come next for the country politically, Rakove and other political experts said. His constant flirting with the idea of a third term in office does that, as does his legal challenge to birthright citizenship and his military’s penchant for blasting alleged drug vessels out of international waters.

    On Wednesday, Trump raised the prospect of further breaching international law and norms by appearing to suggest on social media that, for the first time in three decades, the U.S. would resume testing nuclear weapons.

    “Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis,” Trump wrote — leaving it unclear whether he meant detonating warheads or simply testing the missiles that deliver them.

    There are also many examples, the experts said, of American political norms being tossed aside — and the nation’s political future tossed in the air — by others around Trump, both allies and enemies, who are trying to either please or push back against the unorthodox commander in chief with their own abnormal political maneuvers.

    One example is House Speaker Mike Johnson (R.-La.) refusing to swear in Adelita Grijalva, despite her being elected in September to represent parts of Arizona in Congress. Johnson has cited the shutdown, but others — including Arizona’s attorney general in a lawsuit — have suggested Johnson is trying to prevent a House vote on releasing records about the late Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced billionaire sex offender whom Trump was friends with before a reported falling out years ago.

    Uncertainty about whether those records would implicate Trump or any other powerful people in any wrongdoing has swirled in Washington throughout Trump’s term — showing more staying power than perhaps any other issue, despite Trump’s insistence that he’s done nothing wrong and the issue is a distraction.

    The mid-decade redistricting battle — in which California’s Proposition 50 looms large — is another prime example, the experts said.

    Normally, redistricting occurs each decade, after federal census data comes out. But at Trump’s urging, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott agreed to redraw his state’s congressional lines this year to help ensure Republicans maintain control of the House in the midterms. In response, Newsom and California Democrats introduced Proposition 50, asking California voters to amend the state Constitution to allow Democrats to redraw lines in their favor.

    As a result, Californians — millions of whom have already voted — have been getting bombarded by messages both for and against Proposition 50, many of which are hyper-focused on the uncertain implications for American democracy.

    “Let’s fight back and democracy can be defended,” a Proposition 50 backer wrote on a postcard to one voter. “It is against democracy and rips away the power to draw congressional seats from the people,” opponents of the measure wrote to others.

    H.W. Brands, a U.S. history professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said, “Americans who are worried about democracy are right to be concerned,” because Trump “has broken or threatened many of the guardrails of democracy.”

    But he also noted — partly as a reflection of the dangerous moment the country is in — that Trump has long rejected a particularly “sacred” part of American democracy by refusing to accept his loss to President Biden in 2020, and Americans reelected him in 2024 anyway.

    “Americans have always been divided politically. This is the first time (with the exception of 1860) that the division goes down to the fundamentals of democracy,” Brands wrote in an email — referencing the year the U.S. Confederacy seceded from the Union.

    High stakes

    The uncertainty has festered in an era of rampant political disinformation and under a president who has a penchant for challenging reality outright on a near-daily basis — who on a trip through Asia this week not only said he’d “love” a third term, which is precluded by the Constitution, but claimed, falsely, that he is experiencing his best polling numbers ever.

    The uncertainty has also been compounded by Democrats, who have wielded the only levers of power they have left by refusing to concede to Republicans in the raging shutdown battle in Washington and by putting Proposition 50 to California voters.

    The shutdown has major, immediate implications. Not only are federal employees around the country, including in California, furloughed or without pay checks, but billions in additional federal funding is at risk.

    Democrats have resisted funding the government in an effort to force Republicans to back down from massive cuts to healthcare subsidies that help millions of Californians and many more Americans afford health coverage. The shutdown means Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits could be cut off for more than 40 million people — nearly 1 in 8 Americans — this weekend.

    California and other Democrat-led states have sued the Trump administration, asking a federal court to issue an emergency order requiring the USDA to use existing contingency funds to distribute SNAP funding.

    Jackson, the White House spokesperson, said Democrats should be asked when the shutdown will end, because “they are the ones who have decided to shut down the government so they can use working Americans and SNAP benefits as ‘leverage’ to pursue their radical left wing agenda.”

    The redistricting battle could have even bigger impact.

    If Democrats retook the House next year, it would give them a real source of oversight power to confront Trump and block his MAGA agenda. If Republicans retain control, they will help facilitate Trump’s agenda — just as they have since he took office.

    But even if Proposition 50 passes, as polling suggests it will, it’s not clear that Democrats would win all the races lined up for them in the state, or that those seats would be enough to win Democrats the chamber given efforts to pick up Republican seats in Texas and elsewhere.

    The uncertainty around the midterms is, by extension, producing more uncertainty around the second half of Trump’s term.

    What will Trump do, particularly if Republicans stay in power? Is he stationing troops in American cities as part of some broader play for retaining power, as some Democrats have suggested? Is he setting the groundwork to challenge the integrity of U.S. elections by citing his baseless claims about fraud in 2020 and putting fellow election deniers in charge of reviewing the system?

    Is he really gearing up to contest the constitutional limits on his tenure in the White House? He said he’d “love” to stay in office this week, but then he said it’s “too bad” he’s not allowed to.

    Fire with fire?

    According to David Greenberg, a history professor at Rutgers University, it is Trump’s unorthodox policies and tactics but also his brash demeanor that “make this a more unsettled moment than we are used to feeling.”

    “Sometimes when he’s doing things that other presidents have done, he does it in such an outlandish way that it feels unprecedented,” or is “stylistically” but not substantively unprecedented, Greenberg said. “Self-aggrandizing claims, often untrue. The brazenness with which he insults people. The way he changes his mind on something. That all is highly unusual and unique to Trump.”

    In other instances, Greenberg said, Trump has pushed the boundaries of the law or busted political norms that previous presidents felt bound by.

    “One thing that Trump showed us is just how much of our functioning system depends not just on the letter of the law but on norms,” Greenberg said. “What can the president do? What kind of power can he exert over the Justice Department and who it prosecutes? Well, it turns out he probably can do a lot more than should be permissible.”

    However, the appropriate response is not the one seemingly gaining steam among Democrats — to “be more like Trump” themselves or “fight fire with fire” — but to look for ways to strengthen the political norms and boundaries Trump is ignoring, Greenberg said.

    “The more the public, citizens in general, feel that it’s OK to disregard long-standing ways of doing things that have stood the test of time until now, the more likely we are to enter into a more chaotic world — a world in which there will be less justice, less democracy,” Greenberg said. “It will be more subject to the whims or preferences of whoever is in power — and in a liberal democracy, that is what you are striving to fight against.”

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • Billionaire Tom Steyer drops $12 million to support November redistricting ballot measure

    [ad_1]

    As California voters receive mail ballots for the November special election, which could upend the state’s congressional boundaries and determine control of the House, billionaire hedge-fund founder Tom Steyer said Thursday he will spend $12 million to back Democrats’ efforts to redraw districts to boost their party’s ranks in the legislative body.

    The ballot measure was proposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other California Democrats after President Trump urged Texas leaders to redraw their congressional districts before next year’s midterm election. Buttressing GOP numbers in Congress could help Trump continue enacting his agenda during his final two years in office.

    “We must stop Trump’s election-rigging power grab,” Steyer said in a statement. “The defining fight through Nov. 4 is passing Proposition 50. In order to compete and win, Democrats can’t keep playing by the same old rules. This is how we fight back, and stick it to Trump.”

    Steyer’s announcement makes him the biggest funder of pro-Proposition 50 efforts, surpassing billionaire financier George Soros, who has contributed $10 million to the effort.

    Steyer founded a hedge fund whose investments included massive fossil fuel projects, but after he learned of the environmental consequences of these financial decisions, he divested and has worked to fight climate change. Steyer has spent hundreds of millions of dollars supporting Democratic candidates and causes and more than $300 million on his unsuccessful 2020 presidential campaign.

    Steyer plans to launch a scathing ad Thursday night that imagines Trump watching election returns on Nov. 4 and furiously throwing fast food at a television when he sees Proposition 50 succeeding.

    “Why did you do this to Trump?” the president asks. The ad then shows a fictional TV anchor saying that the ballot measure’s success makes it more likely that Trump will be investigated for corruption and that the records of convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein will be released. “I hate California,” Trump responds.

    The advertisement is scheduled to start airing Thursday night during “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” The late-night show was in the spotlight after it was briefly suspended by Walt Disney Co.-owned ABC last month under pressure from the Trump administration because of a comment Kimmel made about the slaying of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

    The esoteric process of redistricting typically occurs once every decade after the U.S. Census to account for population shifts. The maps, historically drawn in smoke-filled backrooms, protected incumbents and created bizarrely shaped districts, such as the “ribbon of shame” along the California coast.

    In recent decades, good-government advocates have fought to create districts that are logical and geographically compact and do not disenfranchise minority voters. At the forefront of the effort, California voters passed a 2010 ballot measure to create an independent commission to draw the state’s congressional boundaries.

    But this year, Trump and his allies urged leaders of GOP-led states to redraw their congressional districts to boost Republicans’ prospects in next year’s midterm election. The House is closely divided, and retaining Republican control is crucial to Trump’s ability to enact his agenda.

    California Democrats, led by Newson, responded in kind. The state Legislature voted in August to call a special election in November to decide on redrawn districts that could give their party five more seats in the state’s 52-member congressional delegation, the largest in the nation.

    Supporters of Proposition 50 have vastly outraised the committees opposing the measure. Steyer’s announcement came one day after Charles Munger Jr., the largest donor to the opposition, spoke out publicly for the first time about why he had contributed $32 million to the effort.

    “I’m fighting for the ordinary voter to have an effective say in their own government,” Munger told reporters. “I don’t want Californians ignored by the national government because all the districts are fortresses for one party or the other.”

    A longtime opponent of gerrymandering, the bow-tie-wearing Palo Alto physicist bankrolled the 2010 ballot measure that created the independent commission to draw California’s congressional districts.

    Munger, the son of a billionaire who was the right-hand man of investor Warren Buffett, declined to comment about whether he planned to give additional funds.

    “I neither confirm nor deny rumors that involve the tactics of the campaign,” Munger told reporters. “Talk to me after the election is over.”

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • Commentary: Here’s why the redistricting fight is raging. And why it may be moot

    [ad_1]

    A handful of seats are all that keep Republicans in control of the House, giving President Trump untrammeled sway over, well, pretty much everything, from the economy to the jokes on late-night TV to the design of the Cracker Barrel logo.

    It’s a number that’s both tantalizing and fraught, depending on your political perspective.

    For Democrats, that eyelash-thin margin means they’re thisclose to regaining power and a political toehold in next year’s midterm election. All they need is a gain of three House seats. For Trump and fellow Republicans, it means their hegemony over Washington and life as we know it dangles by a perilously thin thread.

    That tension explains the redistricting wars now blazing throughout our great land.

    It started in Texas, where Trump pressured Republicans to redraw congressional lines in hopes of handing the GOP as many as five additional seats. That led California Democrats to ask voters, in a Nov. 4 special election, to approve an eye-for-an-eye gerrymander that could yield their party five new lawmakers.

    Several other states have waded into the fight, assuming control of the House might be decided next year by just a few seats, one way or the other.

    Which could happen.

    Or not.

    Anyone claiming to know for sure is either lying, trying to frighten you into giving money, or both.

    “History is on Democrats’ side, but it’s too early to know what the national political environment is going to be like,” said Nathan Gonzales, one of the country’s top political handicappers and publisher of the nonpartisan campaign guide Inside Elections. “We don’t know the overall mood of the electorate, how satisfied voters [will be] with Republicans in power in Washington or how open to change they’ll be a year from now.”

    A look back offers some clues, though it should be said no two election cycles are alike and the past is only illuminating insofar as it casts light on certain patterns.

    (Take that as a caveat, weasel words or whatever you care to call it.)

    In the last half century, there have been 13 midterm elections. The out party — that is, the one that doesn’t hold the presidency — has won 13 or more House seats in eight of those elections. Going back even further, since World War II the out party has gained an average of more than two dozen House seats.

    In Trump’s last midterm election, in 2018, Democrats won 40 House seats — including seven in California — to seize control. (That was 17 more than they needed.) A Democratic gain of that magnitude seems unlikely next year, barring a complete and utter GOP collapse. That’s because there are fewer Republicans sitting in districts that Democrats carried in the most recent presidential election, which left them highly vulnerable.

    In 2018, 25 Republicans represented districts won by Hillary Clinton. In 2026, there are just three Republicans in districts Kamala Harris carried. (Thirteen Democrats represent districts that Trump won.)

    Let’s pause before diving into more numbers.

    OK. Ready?

    There are 435 House seats on the ballot next year. Most are a lock for one party or the other.

    Based on the current congressional map, Inside Elections rates 64 House seats nationwide as being at least somewhat competitive, with a dozen considered toss-ups. The Cook Political Report, another gold-plated handicapper, rates 72 seats competitive or having the potential to be so, with 18 toss-ups.

    Both agree that two of those coin-flip races are in California, where Democrats Adam Gray and Derek Tran are fighting to hang onto seats they narrowly won in, respectively, the Central Valley and Orange County. (The Democratic gerrymander seeks to shore up those incumbents.)

    You really can’t assess the 2026 odds without knowing how the redistricting fight comes out.

    Republicans could pick up as many as 16 seats through partisan map-making, Inside Elections forecasts, a number that would be reduced if California voters approve Proposition 50. Erin Covey, who analyzes House races for the Cook Report, puts GOP gains as high as 13, again depending on the November outcome in California.

    Obviously, that would boost the GOP’s chances of hanging onto the House, which is precisely why Trump pushed for the extraordinary mid-decade redistricting.

    But there are many other factors at play.

    One huge element is Trump’s approval rating. Simply put, the less popular a president, the more his party tends to suffer at the polls.

    Right now Trump’s approval rating is a dismal 43%, according to the Cook Report’s PollTracker. That could change, but it’s a danger sign for Republicans. Over the past three decades, every time the president’s net job approval was negative a year from the midterm election, his party lost House seats.

    Another thing Democats have going for them is the passion of their voters, who’ve been flocking to the polls in off-year and special elections. The Downballot, which tracks races nationwide, finds Democratic candidates have far surpassed Kamala Harris’ 2024 performance, a potential harbinger of strong turnout in 2026.

    Those advantages are somewhat offset by a GOP edge in two other measures. Republicans have significantly outraised Democrats and have limited the number of House members retiring. Generally speaking, it’s tougher for a party to defend a seat when it comes open.

    In short, for all the partisan passions, the redistricting wars aren’t likely to decide control of the House.

    “Opinions of the economy and Trump’s handling of it, the popularity (or lack thereof) of Republicans’ signature legislation” — the tax-cutting, Medicaid-slashing bill passed in July — as well as “partisan enthusiasm to vote are going to be more determinative to the 2026 outcome than redistricting alone,” Amy Walter, the Cook Report’s editor-in-chief, wrote in a recent analysis.

    In other words, control of the House will most likely rest in the hands of voters, not scheming politicians.

    Which is exactly where it belongs.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • Newsom welcomes Texas Democrats who fled to foil Trump’s redistricting plan

    [ad_1]

    California became center stage for the national political fight over House seats Friday when Gov. Gavin Newsom welcomed Democratic lawmakers from Texas who fled their home state to foil President Trump’s plans to redraw congressional districts.

    California lawmakers plan to respond with their own plan to gerrymander districts to favor Democrats and neutralize any Republican seats gained in Texas in 2026, with a proposed map expected to become public next week, Newsom said at a news conference after meeting with the lawmakers.

    “Make no mistake, California is moving forward,” the governor said. “We are talking about emergency measures to respond to what’s happening in Texas, and we will nullify what happens in Texas.”

    • Share via

    He noted that while Democrats still support the state’s independent redistricting commission, they must counter Trump’s plan in GOP-led states to give their party a better chance in next year’s midterm election.

    “They drew first blood,” he later added of Republicans.

    Asked about the gathering, a Trump administration spokesperson said Newsom was seeking the limelight to further his political ambitions.

    “Gavin Newsom is a loser of the highest order and he will never be president, no matter how hard he prostitutes himself to the press,” said the spokesperson, Steven Cheung.

    Friday marked the second time in two weeks that Texas Democrats have stood next to Newsom at the California governor’s mansion and warned that Republican efforts to draw a new map in their state would dilute the power of Black and brown voters.

    The Texas Democrats hoped that their departure would leave the state Legislature with too few members present to change the map in a special session. They face $500 fines for each day of absence, as well as threats of arrest and removal from office by Gov. Greg Abbott and other Texas GOP officials. Some of the Democratic lawmakers were evacuated from a Chicago hotel where they were staying after a bomb threat Wednesday.

    “We are now facing threats — the threat that we’re going to lose our jobs, the threat of financial ruin, the threat that we will be hunted down as our colleagues sit on their hands and remain silent, as we all get personal threats to our lives,” said Texas state Rep. Ann Johnson, one of six Texas Democrats at the news conference, who was among those evacuated from the Chicago hotel. “We as Democrats are standing up to ensure that the voices of every voter is lifted up in this next election, and that the next election is not stolen from them.”

    Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco); Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San José), chair of the California Democratic congressional delegation; California Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg); state Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) and other elected officials joined the meeting in a show of unity as California Democrats attempt to convince their own state’s voters to fight back.

    Pelosi noted that the state’s congressional delegation is united in backing the redistricting proposal to counter Trump.

    “The president has paved over the Rose Garden. He’s paved over freedom of speech. He’s paved over freedom of education, [an] independent judiciary, the rule of law,” Pelosi said. “He’s gone too far. We will not let him pave over free and fair elections in our country, starting with what he’s trying to do in Texas.”

    She countered an argument some have made — that two wrongs don’t make a right.

    “This is self-defense for our democracy,” she said.

    The California plan calls for the state Legislature to approve a constitutional amendment establishing new congressional voting districts crafted to make GOP members vulnerable.

    Passage of the bill would result in a special election on Nov. 4, with California voters deciding whether the state should temporarily pause the congressional boundaries created by an independent redistricting commission in 2021 and adopt new maps for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections.

    If approved by voters, the measure would include a “trigger” specifying that it would take effect only if Texas or other Republican-led states follow through with redrawing their maps to boost GOP seats before the midterm election. California would revert to its existing redistricting law after the next census and before the 2032 election.

    At least so far, California voters appear uncertain about whether they want to swap Newsom’s plan for the independent redistricting system they previously adopted at the ballot box.

    An Emerson College poll found support for redrawing California’s congressional map at 33% and opposition at 25%. The survey of 1,000 registered voters, conducted Aug. 4 and 5, found that 42% were undecided.

    Newsom has expressed confidence that California voters will back his plan, which he is casting as a rebuttal to Trump’s efforts to “rig” the midterm elections.

    “I’m confident we’ll get it when people know what it is and what it’s not, and I think, at the end of the day, they understand what’s at stake,” Newsom said Thursday.

    Newsom argues that California’s process is more transparent than Trump’s because voters here will see the map and decide whether the state should go forward with it.

    To fulfill Trump’s request for five additional seats, Abbott is attempting to redraw House districts in Texas through a state legislative process that does not require voter approval. It’s unclear what will happen in Austin, with Democrats determined to block the effort and the governor and other Texas Republicans insisting they will keep pressing it.

    The current special session ends Aug. 19. But in an interview with NBC News on Thursday evening, Abbott vowed “to call special session after special session after special session with the same agenda items on there.”

    In addition to arrest on civil warrants, the Democrats are facing threats of being removed from office. Direct-deposit payments to the legislators have been curtailed, forcing them to pick up their checks in person at the state capitol in Austin or go without the money.

    The redistricting fight has strengthened Newsom’s national platform as a potential 2028 presidential contender and bolstered his reputation as a Democrat willing to take the fight to Trump and his allies.

    Since Trump took office in January, Newsom had been walking a fine line between calling out the president and working with him in hopes of being able to join together to rebuild from the California wildfires.

    But Newsom took a hard line after Trump deployed the National Guard during federal immigration raids in Los Angeles in June, prompting the governor and his administration to much more aggressively resist the president’s agenda.

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta, Taryn Luna

    Source link

  • Are Gen Z Men and Women Really Drifting Apart?

    Are Gen Z Men and Women Really Drifting Apart?

    [ad_1]

    Judging by recent headlines, young men and women are more politically divided now than ever before. “A new global gender divide is emerging,” the Financial Times data journalist John Burn-Murdoch wrote in a widely cited January article. Burn-Murdoch’s analysis featured several eye-popping graphs that appeared to show a huge ideological rift opening up between young men and young women over the past decade. The implications—for politics, of course, but also for male-female relations and, by extension, the future of the species—were alarming. A New York Times opinion podcast convened to discuss, according to the episode title, “The Gender Split and the ‘Looming Apocalypse of the Developed World.’” The Washington Post editorial board warned, “If attitudes don’t shift, a political dating mismatch will threaten marriage.”

    But nearly as quickly as the theory gained attention, it has come under scrutiny. “For every survey question where you can find a unique gender gap among the youngest age cohort, you can find many other questions where you don’t find that gap,” John Sides, a political-science professor at Vanderbilt University, told me. “Where we started with this whole conversation was that there’s this big thing happening; it’s happening worldwide. Then you just pick at it for a few minutes, and it becomes this really complex story.” Skeptics point out that, at least as far as the United States goes, the claims about a new gender divide rest on selective readings of inconclusive evidence. Although several studies show young men and women splitting apart, at least as many suggest that the gender gap is stable. And at the ballot box, the evidence of a growing divide is hard to find. The Gen Z war of the sexes, in other words, is probably not apocalyptic. It may not even exist at all.

    The gender gap in voting—women to the left, men to the right—has been a fixture of American politics since at least the 1980 presidential election, when, according to exit polls, Ronald Reagan won 55 percent of male voters but only 47 of women.

    Some evidence suggests that the divide has recently widened. In 2023, according to Gallup data, 18-to-29-year-old women were 15 percentage points more likely than men in the same age group to identify as liberal, compared with only seven points a decade ago. Young men’s ideology has remained more stable, but some surveys suggest that young white men in particular have been drifting rightward. The Harvard Youth Poll, for example, found that 33 percent of white men aged 18 to 24 identified as Republican in 2016, compared with 41 percent in 2023. This trend has begun appearing in new-voter-registration data as well, according to Tom Bonier, a Democratic political strategist. “Believe me, as a partisan Democrat, I would prefer that it’s not the case—but it appears to be true,” he told me. “We’re still generally arguing about if it’s happening, which to me is silly. The conversation hasn’t moved to why.”

    Why indeed? Several factors present themselves for consideration. One is social-media-induced gender polarization. (Think misogynistic “manosphere” influencers and women who talk about how “all men are trash.”) Another, as always, is Donald Trump. Twenty-something-year-old women seemed repelled by Trump’s ascendance in 2016, John Della Volpe, who heads the Harvard Youth Poll, told me. They were much more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton. Then there’s the #MeToo movement, which emerged in 2017, soon after Trump took office. Daniel Cox, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a free-market-conservative think tank, argues that it durably shaped young women’s political consciousness. A 2022 poll found that nearly three-quarters of women under 30 say they support #MeToo, the highest of any age group. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade also seems to have been a turning point. Going into the 2022 midterm election, 61 percent of young women said abortion was a “critical” concern, according to a survey conducted by AEI. “Young women increasingly believe that what happens to any woman in the United States impacts their lives and experiences as well,” Cox told me. “That became really salient after Roe was overturned.” Gen Z women are more likely than Generation X or Baby Boomer women—though slightly less likely than Millennial women—to say that they have been discriminated against because of their gender at some point in their life.

    Not so fast, say young men. Gen Z men are also more likely than older generations to say that they’ve been discriminated against based on gender. “There’s this kind of weird ping-pong going on between Gen Z men and women about who’s really struggling, who’s really the victim,” Richard Reeves, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told me. Reeves, who founded the American Institute for Boys and Men, argues that although men still dominate the highest levels of society in the U.S., those on the lower rungs are doing worse than ever. They are far less likely than women to go to college or find a good job, and far more likely to end up in prison or dead. These young men feel—rightly, in Reeves’s view—that mainstream institutions and the Democratic Party haven’t addressed their problems. And, in the aftermath of #MeToo, some seem to believe that society has turned against men. Survey data indicate that Gen Z men are much less likely to identify as feminists than Millennial men are, and about as likely as middle-aged men. “I really do worry that we’re trending toward a bit of a women’s party and a men’s party in politics,” Reeves told me.

    But if young men and women really were drifting apart politically, you would expect to see evidence on Election Day. And here’s where the theory starts showing cracks. The Cooperative Election Study, a national survey administered by YouGov, found that nearly 68 percent of 18-to-29-year-old men voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election, compared with about 70 percent of women in that age group—the same percentage gap as in 2008. (The split was larger—nearly seven points—in 2016, when Trump’s personal behavior toward women was especially salient.) Catalist, a progressive firm that models election results based on voter-file data, found that the gender divide was roughly the same for all age groups in recent elections. In the 2022 midterms, according to Pew’s analysis of validated voters, considered the gold standard of postelection polling, the youngest voters had the smallest gender divide, and overwhelmingly supported Democrats.

    Many of the polls that show a widening gender divide ask about ideology. But research shows that many people don’t have a clear idea of what the labels mean. Gallup, whose data partly inspired the gender-gap frenzy, notes that only about half of Democrats identify as liberal. Ten percent describe themselves as conservative, and the remainder say their views are moderate. The ideological lines are only slightly less scrambled among self-identified Republicans. “Everything here hinges on what characteristics or questions we are trying to measure,” Sides told me. “When you ask people if they identify as liberal or as a feminist, you learn whether people believe that label describes them. But you didn’t ask how they define that label.” People might dislike the term liberal but still support, say, abortion access and high government spending. Indeed, 2020 polling data from Nationscape, which assesses people’s positions on individual issues, indicated that young men and women are no more divided than older generations. In every age group, for example, women are more in favor of banning assault rifles and providing universal health care than men are, by a comparable margin.

    Or perhaps the unique Gen Z gender divide just hasn’t shown up electorally yet. Most 2024 election polling doesn’t break down different age groups by gender—and even if it did, trying to draw firm conclusions would be foolish. Twenty-somethings are just hard to study. Young people are less engaged in politics, with high rates of independent and unaffiliated voters. Their worldviews are still malleable. Many of them are reluctant to answer questions, especially over the phone. Under those circumstances, even high-quality polls show wildly, even implausibly divergent possibilities for the youth vote. A recent USA Today/Suffolk University poll found that, in a hypothetical 2024 rematch, Trump beat out Biden among registered voters under 35—an almost-unheard-of shift within four years. In October, a New York Times/Siena poll suggested that the youngest generation is equally split between Trump and Biden, whereas last month’s Times survey showed Biden winning young voters by double digits even as he lost ground overall.

    Whatever is going on inside all of those young minds, the old people studying them have yet to figure it out. The biggest chasm, as always, may be not between young men and young women, but between young people and everyone else.

    [ad_2]

    Rose Horowitch

    Source link

  • Republicans Can’t Figure It Out

    Republicans Can’t Figure It Out

    [ad_1]

    Democrats yesterday continued to perform better at the polls than in the polls.

    Even as many Democrats have been driven to a near panic by a succession of recent polls showing President Joe Biden’s extreme vulnerability, the party in yesterday’s elections swept almost all the most closely watched contests. Democrats won the Kentucky governorship by a comfortable margin, romped to a lopsided victory in an Ohio ballot initiative ensuring abortion rights, and easily captured an open Pennsylvania Supreme Court seat. Most impressive, Democrats held the Virginia state Senate and were projected to regain control of the Virginia state House, despite an all-out campaign from Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin to win both chambers. Among the major contests, Democrats fell short only in the governor’s race in Mississippi.

    The results extended the most striking pattern from the 2022 midterm election, when Republicans failed to match the usual gains for the party out of the White House at a time of widespread public dissatisfaction with the president. Democrats, just as they did last November, generated yesterday’s unexpectedly strong results primarily by amassing decisive margins in urban centers and the large inner suburbs around them.

    The outcomes suggested that, as in 2022, an unusually broad group of voters who believe that Democrats have not delivered for their interests voted for the party’s candidates anyway because they apparently considered the Republican alternatives a threat to their rights and values on abortion and other cultural issues.

    “The driving force of our politics since 2018 has been fear and opposition to MAGA,” the Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg told me. “It was the driving force in 2022 and 2023, and it will be in 2024. The truth is, what we’re facing in our domestic politics is unprecedented. Voters understand it, they are voting against it, and they are fighting very hard to prevent our democracy from slipping away.”

    The surprising results yesterday could not have come at a better time for Democratic leaders. Many in the party have been driven to a near frenzy of anxiety by a succession of recent polls showing Biden trailing former President Donald Trump.

    Yesterday’s victories have hardly erased all of Biden’s challenges. For months, polls have consistently found that his approval rating remains stuck at about 40 percent, that about two-thirds of voters believe he’s too old to effectively serve as president for another term, and that far more voters express confidence in Trump’s ability to manage the economy than in Biden’s.

    But, like the 2022 results in many of the key swing states, the Democrats’ solid showing yesterday demonstrated that the party can often overcome those negative assessments by focusing voters’ attention on their doubts about the Trump-era Republican Party. “Once again, we saw that what voters say in polls can be very different than what they do when faced with the stark choice between Democrats who are fighting for a better life for families and dangerous candidates who are dead set on taking away their rights and freedoms,” Jenifer Fernandez Ancona, the chief strategy officer of Way to Win, a liberal group that focuses on electing candidates of color, told me in an email last night.

    Even more than a midterm election, these off-year elections can turn on idiosyncratic local factors. But the common thread through most of the major contests was the Democrats’ continuing strength in racially diverse, well-educated major metropolitan areas, which tend to support liberal positions on cultural issues such as abortion and LGBTQ rights. Those large population centers have trended Democratic for much of the 21st century. But that process accelerated after Trump emerged as the GOP’s leader in 2016, and has further intensified since the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion.

    Across yesterday’s key contests, Democrats maintained a grip on major population centers. In Kentucky, Democratic Governor Andy Beshear carried the counties centered on Louisville and Lexington by about 40 percentage points each over Republican Attorney General Daniel Cameron.

    In Ohio, abortion-rights supporters dominated most of the state’s largest communities. That continued the pattern from the first round of the state’s battle over abortion. In that election, as I wrote, the abortion-rights side, which opposed the change, won 14 of the state’s 17 largest counties, including several that voted for Trump in 2020.

    The results were equally emphatic in yesterday’s vote on a ballot initiative to repeal the six-week-abortion ban that the GOP-controlled state legislature passed, and Republican Governor Mike DeWine signed, in 2019. The abortion ban was buried under a mountain of votes for repeal in the state’s biggest places: An overwhelming two-thirds or more of voters backed repeal in the state’s three largest counties (which are centered on Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati), and the repeal side won 17 of the 20 counties that cast the most ballots, according to the tabulations posted in The New York Times.

    Democrats held the Virginia state Senate through strong performances in suburban areas as well. Especially key were victories in which Democrats ousted a Republican incumbent in a suburban Richmond district, and took an open seat in Loudoun County, an outer suburb of Washington, D.C.

    The race for an open Pennsylvania Supreme Court seat followed similar tracks. Democrat Daniel McCaffery cruised to victory in a race that hinged on debates about abortion and voting rights. Like Democrats in other states, McCaffery amassed insuperable margins in Pennsylvania’s largest population centers: He not only posted big leads in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, but he also built enormous advantages in each of the four large suburban counties outside Philadelphia, according to the latest vote tally.

    From a national perspective, the battle for control of the Virginia state legislature probably offered the most important signal. The Virginia race presented the same competing dynamics that are present nationally. Though Biden won the state by 10 percentage points in 2020, recent polls indicate that more voters there now disapprove than approve of his performance. And just as voters in national polls routinely say they trust Trump more than Biden on the economy and several other major issues, polls found that Virginia voters gave Republicans a double-digit advantage on economy and crime. Beyond all that, Youngkin raised enormous sums to support GOP legislative candidates and campaigned tirelessly for them.

    Yet even with all those tailwinds, Youngkin still failed to overturn the Democratic majority in the state Senate, and lost the GOP majority in the state House. The principal reason for Youngkin’s failure, analysts in both parties agree, was public resistance to his agenda on abortion. Youngkin had elevated the salience of abortion in the contest by explicitly declaring that if voters gave him unified control of both legislative chambers, the GOP would pass a 15-week ban on the procedure, with exceptions for rape, incest, and threats to the life of the mother.

    Youngkin and his advisers described that proposal as a “reasonable” compromise, and hoped it would become a model for Republicans beyond the red states that have already almost all imposed more severe restrictions. But the results made clear that most Virginia voters did not want to roll back access to abortion in the commonwealth, where it is now legal through 26 weeks of pregnancy. “What Virginia showed us is that the Glenn Youngkin playbook failed,” Mini Timmaraju, the CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, an abortion-rights group, told me last night. “We showed that even Republican voters in Virginia weren’t buying it, didn’t go for it, saw right through it.”

    Youngkin’s inability to capture the Virginia state legislature, even with all the advantages he enjoyed, will probably make the 2024 GOP presidential contenders even more skittish about openly embracing a national ban on abortion. But Timmaraju argued that yesterday’s results showed that voters remain focused on threats to abortion rights. “Our job is to make sure that the American people don’t forget who overturned Roe v. Wade,” she told me.

    None of yesterday’s results guarantees success for Biden or Democrats in congressional races next year. It is still easier for other Democrats to overcome doubts about Biden than it will be for the president himself to do so. In particular, the widespread concern in polls that Biden is too old to serve another term is a problem uniquely personal to him. And few Democrats really want to test whether they can hold the White House in 2024 without improving Biden’s ratings for managing the economy. Trump’s base of white voters without a college degree may be more likely to turn out in a presidential than off-year election as well.

    But a clear message from the party’s performance yesterday is that, however disenchanted voters are with the country’s direction under Biden, Democrats can still win elections by running campaigns that prompt voters to consider what Republicans would do with power. “We have an opening here with the effective framing around protecting people’s freedoms,” Fernandez Ancona told me. “Now we can push forward on the economy.”

    Yesterday’s results did not sweep away all the obstacles facing Biden. But the outcome, much like most of the key contests in last fall’s midterm, show that the president still has a viable pathway to a second term through the same large metro areas that keyed this unexpectedly strong showing for Democrats.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • The Next Big Abortion Fight

    The Next Big Abortion Fight

    [ad_1]

    For the 150 or so people who filled a church hall in Toledo, Ohio, for a Thursday-night campaign rally last week, the chant of the evening featured a profanity usually discouraged in a house of God.

    “With all due respect, pastor, hell no!” shouted Betty Montgomery, a former Ohio attorney general. Montgomery is a Republican, which gave the largely Democratic audience even more reason to roar with approval. They had gathered at the Warren AME Church, in Toledo, to voice their opposition to a constitutional amendment that Ohio voters will approve or reject in a statewide referendum on August 8. Many of those in the boisterous crowd were experiencing a feeling unfamiliar to Democrats in the state over the past decade: optimism.

    If enacted, the Republican-backed proposal known as Issue 1 would raise the bar for any future changes to the state constitution. Currently, constitutional amendments in Ohio—including the one on next week’s ballot—need only a bare majority of voters to pass; the proposal seeks to make the threshold a 60-percent supermajority.

    In other years, a rules tweak like this one might pass without much notice. But next week’s referendum has galvanized Democratic opposition inside and outside Ohio, turning what the GOP had hoped would be a sleepy summertime election into an expensive partisan proxy battle. Conservatives have argued that making the constitution harder to amend would protect Ohio from liberal efforts to raise the minimum wage, tighten gun laws, and fight climate change. But the Republican-controlled legislature clearly timed this referendum to intercept a progressive march on one issue in particular: Ohioans will decide in November whether to make access to abortion a constitutional right, and the outcome of next week’s vote could mean the difference between victory and defeat for backers of abortion rights.

    A year after the fall of Roe v. Wade, the back-to-back votes will also test whether abortion as an issue can still propel voters to the polls in support of Democratic candidates and causes. If the abortion-rights side wins next week and in November, Ohio would become the largest GOP-controlled state to enshrine abortion protections into law. The abortion-rights movement is trying to replicate the success it found last summer in another red state, Kansas, where voters decisively rejected an amendment that would have allowed the legislature to ban abortion, presaging a midterm election in which Democrats performed better than expected in states where abortion rights were under threat.

    To prevent Democratic attempts to circumvent conservative state legislatures, Republican lawmakers have sought to restrict ballot initiatives across the country. Similar efforts are under way or have already won approval in states including Florida, Missouri, North Dakota, and Idaho. But to Democrats in Ohio and beyond, the August special election is perhaps the most brazen effort yet by Republicans to subvert the will of voters. Polls show that in Ohio, the abortion-rights amendment is likely to win more than 50 percent of the vote, as have similar ballot measures in other states. For Republicans to propose raising the threshold three months before the abortion vote in November looks like a transparent bid to move the proverbial goalposts right when their opponents are about to score.

    “I don’t think I’ve seen such a naked attempt to stay in power,” a former Democratic governor of Ohio, Dick Celeste, told the church crowd in Toledo. As in Kansas a year ago, the Republican majority in the state legislature scheduled the referendum for August—a time when the party assumed turnout would be low and favorable to their cause. (Adding to the Democratic outrage is the fact that just a few months earlier, Ohio Republicans had voted to restrict local governments from holding August elections, because they tend to draw so few people.) “They’re trying to slip it in,” Kelsey Suffel, a Democratic voter from Perrysburg, told me after she had cast an early vote.

    That Ohio Republicans would try a similar gambit so soon after the defeat their counterparts suffered in Kansas struck many Democrats as a sign of desperation. “The winds of change are blowing,” Celeste said in Toledo. “They’re afraid, and they should be afraid, because the people won’t tolerate it.”

    The upcoming vote will serve as an important measure of strength for Ohio Democrats ahead of elections in the state next year that could determine control of Congress. Democrats have had a long losing streak in Ohio. Donald Trump easily won the state in 2016 and 2020, and Republicans have won every statewide office except for that of Senator Sherrod Brown, who faces reelection next year. Still, there’s reason to believe Celeste is right to be optimistic. A Suffolk University poll released last week found that 57 percent of registered voters planned to vote against Issue 1. (A private survey commissioned by a nonpartisan group also found the August amendment losing, a Republican who had seen the results told me on the condition of anonymity.) Early-voting numbers have swamped predictions of low participation in an August election, suggesting that abortion remains a key motivator for getting people to turn out. Groups opposing the amendment have significantly outspent supporters of the change.

    Abortion isn’t explicitly on the ballot in Ohio next week, but the clear linkage between this referendum and the one on reproductive rights in November has divided the Republican coalition. Although the state’s current Republican governor, Mike DeWine, backs Issue 1, the two living GOP former governors, Bob Taft and John Kasich, oppose it as an overreach by the legislature.

    “That’s the giant cloud on this issue,” Steve Stivers, a former Republican member of Congress who now heads the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, told me. The Chamber of Commerce backs the amendment because, as Stivers said, it’ll help stop “bad ideas” such as raising the minimum wage, marijuana legalization, and proposals supported by organized labor. But, he said, many of his members were worried that the group would be dragged into a fight over abortion, on which it wants to stay neutral: “The timing is not ideal.”

    Democrats have highlighted comments from Republicans who have departed from the party’s official message and drawn a connection between the August referendum and the abortion vote this fall. “They’ve all said the quiet part out loud, which is this election is 100 percent about trying to prevent abortion rights from having a fair election in the fall,” the state Democratic chair, Liz Walters, told me.

    But to broaden its coalition, opponents of the amendment have advanced a simpler argument—preserve “majority rule”—that also seems to be resonating with voters. “I’m in favor of democracy,” explained Ed Moritz, an 85-year-old retired college professor standing outside his home in Cleveland, when I asked him why he was planning to vote no. Once a national bellwether, Ohio has become close to a one-party state in recent years. For Democrats, citizen-led constitutional amendments represent one of the few remaining checks on a legislature dominated by Republicans. Moritz noted that the GOP had already gerrymandered the Ohio legislature by drawing maps to ensure its future majorities. “This,” he said, “is an attempt to gerrymander the entire population.”

    To Frank LaRose, the suggestion that Issue 1 represents an assault on democracy is “hyperbole.” LaRose is Ohio’s Republican secretary of state and, of late, the public face of Issue 1. Traversing Ohio over the past few weeks, he’s used the suddenly high-profile campaign as a launching pad for his bid for the Republican nomination for Senate in 2024.

    LaRose, 44, served for eight years in the state Senate before becoming Ohio’s top elections officer in 2019. (He won a second term last year.) He’s a smooth debater and quick on his feet, but on the Issue 1 campaign, he’s not exactly exuding confidence.

    In an interview, he began by rattling off a litany of complaints about the opposition’s messaging, which he called “intentionally misleading.” LaRose accused Issue 1’s opponents of trying to bamboozle conservative voters with literature showing images of the Constitution being cut to pieces and equating the amendment with “Stop the Steal.” “That’s completely off base,” he said. “We’ve had to compete with that and with a mountain of money that they’ve had, and with a pretty organized and intentional effort by the media on this.”

    LaRose likes to remind people that even if voters approve Issue 1, citizens would still be able to pass, with a simple majority, ballot initiatives to create or repeal statutes in Ohio law. The August proposal applies only to the state constitution, which LaRose said is not designed for policy making. Left unsaid, however, is that unlike an amendment to the constitution, any statutory change approved by the voters could swiftly be reversed by the Republican majority in the legislature.

    “Imagine if the U.S. Constitution changed every year,” he said. “What instability would that create? Well, that’s what’s at risk if we don’t pass Issue 1.” LaRose’s argument ignored the fact that Ohio’s rules for constitutional amendments have been in place for more than a century and, during that time, just 19 of the 77 changes proposed by citizen petitions have passed. (Many others generated by the legislature have won approval by the voters.)

    LaRose has been spending a lot of his time explaining the amendment to confused voters, including Republicans. When I spoke with him last weekend, he had just finished addressing about two dozen people inside a cavernous 19th-century church in Steubenville. He described his stump speech as a “seventh-grade civics class” in which he explained the differences between the rarely amended federal Constitution and Ohio’s routinely amended founding document. The laws that Ohio could be saddled with if the voters reject Issue 1, LaRose warned, went far beyond abortion: “It’s every radical West Coast policy that they can think of that they want to bring to Ohio.”

    The challenges LaRose has faced in selling voters on the proposal soon became apparent. When I asked a pair of women who had questioned LaRose during his speech whether he had persuaded them, one simply replied, “No.” Another frustrated attendee who supported the proposal told LaRose that she had encountered voters who didn’t understand the merits of the idea.

    Republicans have had to spend more time than they’d like defending their claim that Issue 1 is not simply an effort to head off November’s abortion amendment. They have also found themselves playing catch-up on an election that they placed on the ballot. “They got out of the gate earlier than our side,” the state Republican Party chair, Alex Triantafilou, told me, referring to an early round of TV ads that opposition groups began running throughout the state.

    The GOP’s struggle to sell its proposal to voters adds to the perception that the party, in placing the measure on the ballot, was acting not from a position of strength but of weakness. The thinly disguised effort to preempt a simple-majority vote on abortion is surely a concession by Republicans that they are losing on the issue even in what has become a reliably red state.

    When I asked LaRose to respond to the concerns about abortion that Stivers reported from his members in the Chamber of Commerce, he lamented that it was another example of businesses succumbing to “cancel culture.”

    Confidence can be dangerous for a Democrat in Ohio. Barack Obama carried the state twice, but in both 2016 and 2020, late polls showing a tight race were proved wrong by two eight-point Trump victories. A similar trajectory played out last year, when the Republican J. D. Vance pulled away from the Democrat Tim Ryan in the closing weeks to secure a seven-point victory in Ohio’s Senate race.

    “Democrats in the state are beaten down,” says Matt Caffrey, the Columbus-based organizing director for Swing Left, a national group that steers party donors and volunteers to key races across the country. He’s seen the decline firsthand, telling me of the challenge Democrats have had in recruiting canvassers and engaging voters who have grown more discouraged with each defeat.

    That began to change this summer, Caffrey told me. Volunteers have flocked to canvassing events in large numbers, some for the first time—a highly unusual occurrence for a midsummer special election, he said. At a canvass launch I attended in Akron over the weekend, more than three dozen people showed up, including several first-timers. As I followed Democratic canvassers there and in Cleveland over two days last week, not a single voter who answered their door was unaware of the election or undecided about how they’d vote. “It’s kind of an easy campaign,” Michael Todd, a canvasser with the group Ohio Citizen Action in Cleveland, told me. “Not a whole lot of convincing needs to be done.”

    The response has prompted some Democrats to see the August election as an unexpected opportunity to reawaken a moribund state party. The referendum is a first for Swing Left, which has exclusively invested in candidate races since it formed after Trump’s victory in 2016. “It’s a great example of what we’re seeing across the country, which is the fight for reproductive freedom and the fight for democracy becoming closely attached,” the group’s executive director, Yasmin Radjy, told me in Akron. “We also think it’s really important to build momentum in Ohio, a state that we need to keep investing in.”

    A win next week would make the abortion referendum a heavy favorite to pass in November. And although Ohio is unlikely to regain its status as a presidential swing state in 2024, it could help determine control of Congress. Brown’s bid for a fourth term is expected to be one of the hardest-fought Senate races in the country, and at least three Ohio districts could be up for grabs in the closely divided House.

    For Democrats like Caffrey, the temptation to think bigger about a comeback in Ohio is tempered by the lingering uncertainty about next week’s outcome—whether the party will finally close out a victory in a state that has turned red, or confront another disappointment. “It would be hard for Democrats in Ohio to feel complacent. I wish we would be in a position to feel complacent,” Caffrey said with a smile. “This is more about building hope.”

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • Honey, We Dumped the Playbook: 10 Ways the Midterms Rewrote American Politics in 2022

    Honey, We Dumped the Playbook: 10 Ways the Midterms Rewrote American Politics in 2022

    [ad_1]

    One of the few absolute constants of American politics is that every election cycle brings its own surprises. Which, like good drama, makes elections interesting and entertaining—and, often, real nail-biters. 

    Inevitably, no matter how much analysis or how many polls are conducted, the results prove the experts wrong. In fact, arguably—despite advances in knowledge, data, and technology—we’ve been getting it more wrong than ever before. How does that happen?

    Well, this election was a good example of how we become seduced by convenient narratives. One of the obvious tools we use is history. We look back at the accumulated experience of past elections to project what might happen in the future. But this can be extremely misleading and misguided. Because it leads to the kind of thinking I hear all the time from political insiders: “X won’t happen because X has never happened before.”

    Then you have a Black man elected president. And a real estate huckster from New York City. And a peanut farmer from Georgia. And an actor from California. All things never thought possible. Until they happened. So, the only real rule here is: Things aren’t possible in politics—until they are. 

    Let’s look back at the Big Blue Surprise of November 2022. In this election, by using history as a guide, a red wave was predicted. In only two midterms since 1934 has the president’s party not lost seats in the House, and one of those was simply due to a post–9/11 blush of support for the incumbent. 

    Also, over the last decade, Republicans had won most redistricting fights and were therefore expected to pick up seats simply as a result of more GOP-favorable electoral maps. 

    On top of that, the Republicans seemed on the offensive on three key issues that were plaguing the Democrats: the troubled state of the economy, crime, and immigration. 

    Reporters are often criticized for reporting and writing analysis and predictions from their offices in places like Washington, DC, and never getting their boots on the ground around the country.

    But, wait a moment. I can testify to how misleading this sort of anecdotal canvassing can be. For the work I do for the weekly political series The Circus, on Showtime, I spent most of the fall traveling all over America, going to coffee shops, truck stops, bus tours, house parties, and small-town rallies. In fact, since 2016, I have adopted a sort of “momentum test” based on what I see on the ground in the last two weeks leading up to an election. My fieldwork out on the hustings six years ago, for example, told me something tangible during that Hillary ClintonDonald Trump face-off. Yes, I certainly believed, along with 99% of the rest of the country, that Clinton was likely to win. But about seven days before voters went to the polls, I made the assertion on Megyn Kelly’s show, on Fox News, that a person out in the heartland—in the political thick of things during the last week of a campaign—usually gets a sense which direction the momentum is headed. And I said that Trump seemed to have some winds at his back. 

    This past November, as well, those winds were all blowing in a seemingly discernable direction. Our team from The Circus put on a full-scale blitz and went to 17 states in the final few days of the campaign. And if you judged what the outcome might be—simply by the size and enthusiasm of crowds—you’d likely have guessed: red wave. 

    New Hampshire was a good example. Democratic senator Maggie Hassan had seemed in solid shape until the final weeks when polls showed the race tightening. I went to an event at her campaign headquarters, which by any objective standards was modest. A small group of supporters appeared earnest, committed, and dutiful, but hardly excited. On the other hand, Hassan’s MAGA-leaning, Trump-endorsed opponent, retired Army general Don Bolduc, held one of his many town hall meetings and he drew an SRO crowd of supporters who were enthusiastic, committed, and energized.

    [ad_2]

    Mark McKinnon

    Source link

  • The House GOP’s Investigation Conundrum

    The House GOP’s Investigation Conundrum

    [ad_1]

    The list of investigative priorities for the House Judiciary Committee that the incoming chairperson, Jim Jordan, sent to the Justice Department earlier this month reads like an assignment sheet for Fox News.

    And that was before Jordan, with incoming House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chair James Comer, repeatedly insisted the FBI had colluded with “Big Tech” to undermine former president Donald Trump by “suppressing” information about Hunter Biden’s laptop prior to the 2020 election.

    It was also before reports surfaced that Kevin McCarthy, in his bid to secure the votes as speaker, promised far-right members of his caucus that he would authorize investigations into the Justice Department’s treatment of the insurrectionists who rioted in support of Trump on January 6. This was also before McCarthy threatened to launch impeachment proceedings against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

    Two months before taking power, the new House Republican majority has signaled that its investigative agenda will channel the preoccupations of the former president and his die-hard base of supporters. But it has set this course immediately after a midterm election in which voters outside the core conservative states sent an unmistakable signal of their own by repeatedly rejecting Trump-backed candidates in high-profile senate and gubernatorial races. That contrast captures why the GOP’s plans for aggressive investigations of President Joe Biden may present as much political risk for the investigators as it does for the targets.

    House Republicans and their allies are confident that the investigations will weaken Biden in advance of the 2024 presidential election. “This is not just superficial stuff—this is damaging stuff,” former Republican Representative Tom Davis, who chaired the National Republican Congressional Committee, told me.

    But the new majority’s focus on airing echo-chamber conservative obsessions risks further stamping the GOP as the party of Trump precisely as more Republican leaders and donors insist the recent election results demonstrate the need to move beyond him.

    “All these folks are coming out saying, ‘Turn the page; move forward’ … and I think this is really a problem if some of these [House] members are going to continue to look back and embrace Trump at a time when we saw the most Trumpian candidates get their heads handed to them,” former Republican Representative Charlie Dent told me.

    The choices confronting GOP leaders on what—and how—to investigate encapsulates the much larger challenge they will face in managing the House. This month’s midterm election left the GOP with a House majority much smaller than it expected. The results also created a kind of split-personality caucus operating with very different political incentives.

    Most incoming House Republicans represent districts in Trump country: 168 of them hold seats that Trump won by 10 percentage points or more in 2020. Another three dozen represent more marginal Republican-leaning seats that Trump carried by fewer than 10 points two years ago.

    But the GOP majority relies on what will likely be 18 members (when all the final votes are counted) who won districts that voted for Biden in 2020. Eleven of those 18 are in New York and California alone—two states that will likely become considerably more difficult for Republicans in a presidential-election year than during a midterm contest.

    For the Republicans from the hard-core Trump districts, demonstrating a commitment to confronting Biden at every turn is crucial for preempting any possible primary challenges from their right, says the Democratic consultant Meredith Kelly, a former communications director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. But, as Dent told me, the Republicans precariously holding the Biden seats have the “polar opposite” incentive: “They need to have bipartisan victories and wins.”

    Amid that cross-pressure, many analysts second the prediction of outgoing Democratic Representative David Price of North Carolina, a political scientist who has written several books about Congress, that the new GOP House majority is not likely to pass much legislation. The problem, Price told me, is not only the partisan and ideological fracture in the GOP caucus, but that its members do not have “an agenda that they campaigned on or they are committed to.”

    All members of the GOP caucus might agree on legislation to extend the Trump tax cuts, to promote more domestic energy production, or to increase funding for border security. But resistance from the Republicans in blue and purple districts may frustrate many of the right’s most ambitious legislative goals, such as repealing elements of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, passing a national ban on abortion, and forcing cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

    With their legislative opportunities limited, House Republicans may see relentless investigation of Biden and his administration as a path of least resistance that can unite their caucus. And, several observers in both parties told me, all sides in the GOP are likely to support efforts to probe the White House’s policy record. Such targets could include the administration’s handling of border security, the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, and how it is allocating the clean-energy tax credits and loan guarantees that the Inflation Reduction Act established.

    But Republicans have already indicated they are unlikely to stop at such conventional targets.

    Jordan, in his letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland earlier this month, warned of coming investigations into the Justice Department’s treatment of Project Veritas; allegations that the department has targeted conservative parents as “domestic terrorists” for their actions at school-board meetings; and the department’s decision making in the choice to execute a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago.

    At the press conference last week with Jordan, Comer declared that evidence from the GOP’s investigation of Hunter Biden’s business activities, including information obtained from his laptop, “raises troubling questions about whether President Biden is a national-security risk.”

    Jordan, asked at that press conference about the reports that McCarthy has committed to an investigation of the prosecution and treatment of the January 6 rioters, refused to deny it, instead repeating his determination to explore all examples of alleged politicization at the Justice Department. At one point, Jordan, an unwavering defender of Trump through his two impeachments, delivered an impassioned attack on federal law enforcement that reprised a long list of familiar Trump grievances. “When is the FBI going to quit interfering with elections?” Jordan excitedly declared.

    Jordan doesn’t even represent the outer edge of conservative ambition to use House investigations to settle scores for Trump. Earlier this week, Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida tweeted that when Republicans take the majority, they “should take over the @January6thCmte and release every second of footage that will exonerate our Patriots!”

    That might be a bridge too far even for McCarthy. But as he scrambles to overcome conservative resistance to his bid for speaker, he has already shown deference to demands from the Trump-country members who constitute the dominant block in his caucus. One example was the report that he promised Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene that he would allow some investigation into treatment of the January 6 rioters. Another came in his appearance along the Texas border this week. McCarthy went beyond pledging oversight of the Biden administration’s border record to raise the much more incendiary (but also Fox-friendly) notion of impeaching Mayorkas.

    Dent, the former GOP representative, told me that on all these fronts, House Republicans risk pushing oversight to a confrontational peak that may damage its members from marginal seats at least as much as it hurts Biden—particularly if it involves what he described as airing Trump grievances. “These rabbit holes are just fraught with political peril in these more moderate districts,” Dent said.

    Democrats hope that the coming GOP investigations will alienate more voters than they alarm. Several Democratic strategists told me they believe that the focus on so many conservative causes will both spotlight the most extreme Trump-aligned voices in the Republican caucus, such as Jordan and Greene, and strike swing voters as a distraction from their kitchen-table concerns.

    Leslie Dach, a veteran Democratic communications strategist now serving as a senior adviser to the Congressional Integrity Project, a group mobilizing to respond to the investigations, told me the GOP inquiries will inexorably identify the party with the same polarizing style of Trump-like politics that voters just repudiated in states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Arizona. “We saw in this election that voters reject the Trump playbook and MAGA politics, but that is exactly what they will see in these hearings,” he said.

    Congressional investigations always carry the risk of disclosures that could hurt or embarrass Biden and other officials. And whatever they find, investigations also promise to divert significant amounts of the administration’s time and energy. The White House has already staffed up a unit in the counsel’s office dedicated to responding to the inquiries. Cabinet departments are scrambling to do the same.

    Recognizing the potential political risk, several Republican representatives newly elected in Biden districts have already urged their party to move slowly on the probes and instead to prioritize action on economic issues. Their problem is that McCarthy already has given every indication he’s likely to prioritize the demands for maximum confrontation from his caucus’s pro-Trump majority.

    “If past is prologue, Kevin McCarthy will fall much on the side of the ruby-red Republican base and the pro-investigation, pro-culture-war side,” Kelly says. “He’s never proven able to stand up to the fringe.” And that means the new members from Biden-leaning districts who have provided the GOP its narrow majority have reason to sweat almost as much as the Biden administration over the swarm of investigations that House Republicans are poised to unleash.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • House of Horrors: The Marjorie Taylor Greene Congress Is Upon Us

    House of Horrors: The Marjorie Taylor Greene Congress Is Upon Us

    [ad_1]

    Remember Paul Ryan? He was House Speaker in 2018, the last time Republicans were in control. He left Congress quietly in the middle of the night. Well, not really, but sort of. Blaming “identity politics” and “polarization,” Ryan abruptly announced in April 2018 that he’d be exiting at the end of his term the following January, just as Democrats assumed power. Ryan went on to join the board overseeing the place that helped cause so much of that polarization in the first place, Fox News. Ryan may have reaped the benefits of Donald Trump moving into the White House—tax cuts!—but he didn’t have the stomach for MAGA. The same cannot be said for “my Kevin,” the little nickname the former president has given to Kevin McCarthy.

    McCarthy helped rehabilitate Trump after the January 6 riots with a visit weeks later to Mar-a-Lago, where the two grinned side by side for a photo op. As fellow Republican Liz Cheney pointed out after McCarthy’s trip, “He’s not just a former president. He provoked an attack on the Capitol, an attack on our democracy. And so I can’t understand why you would want to go rehabilitate him.”

    Maybe because McCarthy was desperate for the Speakership?

    Now, with Republicans winning a slim majority in the midterms, that guy could be Speaker of the House—and honestly that’s the best-case scenario. McCarthy may be a cowardly sycophant, but he’s not full MAGA, something that MAGA-world is very much aware of. Though McCarthy won the Republican nomination for speaker on Tuesday, with 188 votes, dozens of members voted for Freedom Caucus member Rep. Andy Biggs—a signal that McCarthy might have to make major concessions to the party’s far-right flank in order to secure 218 votes before the full Congress in early January.

    Meanwhile, the queen of MAGA, Marjorie Taylor Greene, is more than ready for Republicans to be in charge and apparently expects the likely next Speaker to appease the base. Regarding McCarthy, she told The New York Times that “to be the best Speaker of the House and to please the base, he’s going to give me a lot of power and a lot of leeway.” She even predicted Monday that she’d be on committees investigating “traitors and criminals.” McCarthy has said he plans to put Greene back on committees, with some of her Trumpworld allies reportedly urging the likely Speaker to give her a plum seat on the House Oversight Committee. Imagine, from promoting QAnon conspiracies to possibly landing a key oversight post in Congress.

    “We have to have the gavel,” Greene said Tuesday in discussing her support for McCarthy. “That is extremely important, because the gavel means subpoena power. And Republicans need subpoena power going over the next two years.”

    For Democrats, the outlook of a GOP-led House is grim. As Democratic representative Eric Swalwell texted me, “The GOP has laid a historic egg. Democrats ran on competence and contrasted it with chaos. And if Kevin McCarthy somehow holds on to become Speaker, he’s no Nancy Pelosi who can lead a narrow majority. McCarthy would be the leader of the land of misfit toys, a place that will exist exclusively as a vessel state of MAGA nation. A MAGA House majority will also operate as the largest law firm in Washington, DC, but serving just one client and his endless grievances. Functionally, without a Democratic votes it will spectacularly fail to execute its core functions: keep the government open, pay America’s bills, and fund the fight for freedom in Ukraine.”

    What’s on the agenda? First a caveat, Republicans didn’t take the House by nearly as many seats as predicted. The anticipated “red wave,” or even “red tsunami,” never materialized, and Trump-backed Republicans were rebuked in several states. It took until Nov. 16—more than a week after results started coming on election day—for Republicans to reach 218 seats.

    So perhaps House Republicans won’t be as emboldened as they would be if they had taken twenty or thirty, or—as McCarthy fantasized last year—60 seats. Maybe there will be some kind of power struggle between MAGAworld and the few remaining normalish republicans. Representative Richie Torres predicted, ”The House Republican Conference will have the barest majority, rendered ungovernable by the lunatic likes of Matt Gaetz and Majorie Taylor Green. The self-sabotage of an ungovernable Republican majority will all but guarantee that Democrats take back the House in 2024.”

    Yet even without a MAGA mandate, it’s hard to imagine the Trumpiest Republicans not doing some crazy stuff when taking power. Expect a jacketless Jim Jordan yelling at everyone from Hunter Biden to Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. There will likely be investigations into everyone from Vice President Kamala Harris to Nancy Pelosi’s third cousin once removed. Expect Gaetz grandstanding and delivering terrifying soliloquies that sound like opening monologues from OAN. House Democrats are already worried Congress will be a circus that has little to do with, you know, governing. “My fear is that the Republicans will just be about investigating Biden and obstructing progress instead of working to rebuild our economy and provide every American with opportunity,” Representative Ro Khanna texted.

    There will surely be pressure on leadership to impeach Joe Biden—for something—and other administration officials, like Merrick Garland. Greene, who let Trump off the hook for inciting an insurrection at the Capitol, has already said Biden “is guilty of committing high crimes and misdemeanors.” Republican representative Claudia Tenney reportedly ran reelection advertisements over the summer on impeaching Biden: “Whether it is Joe Biden’s dereliction of duty at the southern border or his disastrous retreat in Afghanistan, I have called for Joe Biden to answer to the American people in impeachment hearings.” According to Rolling Stone, Trump has asked his allies in the House “how many” times they can impeach Biden. Connecticut senator Chris Murphy told CNN days before the midterms that it was “pretty apocalyptic about what the House will look like,” adding, “I think we’re headed for debt default, shutdown, constant impeachments, I think it’s a just absolute nightmare over there if Republicans win.”

    But ultimately the worry that all of us have is about democracy, you know the thing that the Republican party seems to be hardening against. I’m not the only one who is worried about it. As voters were going to the polls last Tuesday, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez texted me, “I think one of the biggest concerns is if a party that has already tried to overturn the presidential election once will validate the results of the 2024 election or any other that they do not win.” Now that is real nightmare fuel.

    [ad_2]

    Molly Jong-Fast

    Source link

  • “There’s No Red Wave in the Data”: The Pollster Who Got the Midterms Right

    “There’s No Red Wave in the Data”: The Pollster Who Got the Midterms Right

    [ad_1]

    Tuesday afternoon, the gloom kept rolling in from smart Democratic operatives. The party would lose its House majority, but also kiss the Democratic Senate majority goodbye. The most optimistic spin was that a red wave would be perversely good news for President Joe Biden. Just look at 1994, when Newt Gingrich rode the Contract With America to the House speakership; two years later President Bill Clinton was reelected. Or the 2010 midterms, when Tea Party Republicans shellacked their way to power; two years later President Barack Obama was reelected. And hey, Biden may be personally unpopular, but he’s passed a bunch of legislation that voters like. So a midterm wipeout was to be expected, but it wouldn’t be the end of the political world for Democrats.

    Get me rewrite, as they say in the old journalism movies.

    Amid all the well-founded pessimism on Tuesday, however, there was one contrary voice. It belonged to Cornell Belcher, a Democratic strategist who worked on both of Obama’s winning White House bids, among many other campaigns. Here is what Belcher said to me yesterday long before polls closed: “I know this is counter to the narrative that the Republicans have been really successfully driving, but the closer we get to a majority of voters turning out, the lower the probability of Republicans being able to garner a majority. There’s no red wave in the data. This is supposed to be a bloodbath. This is supposed to be their wave election. They’ve got all the structural and momentum advantages. If they can’t get to 60 net seats in the House, it’s a monumental failure.”

    Cornell Belcher appears on Meet the Press in Washington, D.C. Sunday, Oct. 23, 2022.

    By William B. Plowman/NBC / Getty Images.

    Plenty of counting remains to be done, but the 2022 midterm turnout numbers look likely to surpass the typical level, which has lately been around 37 to 40% of registered voters. And forget Republicans netting a gain of anything close to 60 House seats: The best they can do appears to be a pickup of about 30. Which would be enough for Republicans to grab a majority and make a lot of noise for the next two years. But it’s a long way short of a wave.

    So how did Democrats defy modern midterm history and 2022 conventional wisdom? It’s worth looking at a few individual contests and one prevailing trend. Pennsylvania’s crucial Senate race showed the value of having a uniquely authentic and compelling candidate who connected with middle-class voters on economic and cultural issues—especially when the Republican opponent is a confection. John Fetterman’s campaign team—led by Brendan McPhillips, Rebecca Katz, and Fetterman’s wife, Gisele—didn’t just endure Fetterman’s emergency three-month campaign-trail absence when he was knocked down by a near-fatal stroke. They filled the void with a sharp, clever social media campaign that defined Mehmet Oz as a fraud and a carpetbagger. Fetterman’s doctors, who got him back into credible fighting shape, deserve credit as well. Michigan’s governor, Gretchen Whitmer—who dealt with a life-threatening drama of her own two years ago—relied on a similar genuineness to easily defeat a conservative Republican challenger.

    In multiple races—Hillary Scholten’s for a House seat in Michigan, Wes Moore’s for governor in Maryland, JB Pritzker’s for governor in Illinois, and Josh Shapiro’s for governor in Pennsylvania, to name a few—Democrats placed a risky bet by funding extremist candidates in Republican primaries, the theory being that they would be easier to beat in a general election. Every single one paid off. Drawing stark distinctions was crucial, as California Democratic strategist Sean Clegg told me it would way back in July. “This isn’t the Democratic Party against the Republican Party. It’s the Democratic Party against the antidemocratic party,” Clegg said. “These candidates are the brownshirts of the Trump movement. We are confronting a choice as a country, and we may as well make that stark choice up front.”

    Roe. Dobbs. Abortion rights. Shorthand it however you want, but the Supreme Court’s ruling in June reverberated, consistently, from the defeat of an antiabortion referendum in Kansas in August through the rejection of a similar measure in Kentucky last night. The impact was less direct, but nonetheless clear, in the New York governor’s race as well. The incumbent, Democrat Kathy Hochul, waged a low-key campaign for months that relied on spending millions on TV ads; a major theme of those ads was Hochul’s pledge to protect the right to abortion in her state. She got a lot of help motivating Democratic voters on that front from her opponent, right-wing Republican congressman Lee Zeldin, who cosponsored a House bill to grant full personhood rights to embryos.

    Yet even with an effective last-minute Democratic freakout at the possibility Hochul could lose—Biden flew in to campaign with her, and from the left flank Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suddenly hit the streets with the governor—Hochul’s winning margin will probably end up in the mid-single-digits. Her weakness was reflected in five key New York House races, all of which went to Republicans, which may end up determining control of the House. The most painful loss was by Sean Patrick Maloney, running for a sixth term in a Hudson Valley district north of the city. That district, and many others, was a new one, configured by a special master appointed by a Republican state judge, in response to a proposed redistricting map that would have favored New York Democrats, a map pushed in part by…Maloney, in his role as chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Given the surprising results across the country, it appears Maloney did a great job of helping elect Democrats elsewhere and a lousy one of holding onto his own seat: The district where Maloney chose to run would have gone for Biden by 10 points in 2020.

    Speaking of the big picture: Belcher has earned the final word. The larger trend he points to from the midterms is generational. “There really are two electorates,” he says, “one older and one younger, fighting to take this country in very different directions.” For instance: The youngs helped save Fetterman in Pennsylvania, and the olds dominated for Ron DeSantis in Florida. Abortion rights have intense relevance to voters in their 20s and 30s, as does climate change and student loans and threats to democracy and racism. There will be a great deal of turmoil in the next two years that scrambles the dynamic. But in 2024 Joe Biden will be the oldest president to ever run for reelection—and to win, he’ll need to make sure younger Democratic voters keep showing up.

    [ad_2]

    Chris Smith

    Source link

  • “My Job in This Role Is to Not Guess”: Jen Psaki’s TV Career Is Getting Off the Ground

    “My Job in This Role Is to Not Guess”: Jen Psaki’s TV Career Is Getting Off the Ground

    [ad_1]

    Jen Psaki was in familiar territory last week, fielding questions from a room full of people on topics like whether President Joe Biden should run again and the recent attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband. She could’ve been behind the podium in the White House briefing room, but instead was at NBC News’ Washington bureau, being grilled not by the press corps but an eager group of desk assistants and interns—one of whom reminded Psaki how they’d gotten their badges together a few weeks earlier. At one point, the former White House press secretary was asked if working in the White House was similar to The West Wing. “On the best days, it can be very close,” she said, pointing to Ketanji Brown Jackson’s speech on the South Lawn. But more often it was like Veep, Psaki said. “There are a lot of Jonahs out there,” and “a lot of Dans,” she said. “Far too many.”

    Minutes earlier, Psaki, 43, had appeared on Steve Kornacki’s election special, breaking down the midterm races. Later she’d chat in the hallway about early voting in Pennsylvania with veteran journalist Andrea Mitchell, whose office is just down the hall from her own, where an assortment of framed photographs—of her with former president Barack Obama during his 2008 campaign; with John Kerry, whom she worked for during his 2004 presidential campaign and later as State Department spokesperson; of her kids; on her wedding day. An unopened box of nails and a hammer rested on a cabinet. “Obviously I have a lot of moving in to do,” said Psaki. “But I’ll get there—post-election, I’ll get there.” She’s still getting her bearings in the headquarters, located in the same building as C-SPAN and Fox News. “You meet all sorts of people in the elevator,” she said.

    This is Psaki’s new life as a budding TV news star. She made her on-air debut as an MSNBC and NBC political analyst in September and has dipped her toe into writing while getting ready to host a show launching next year on the streaming service Peacock. It’ll be new terrain for Psaki, who, while adept at answering questions—whether from reporters, anchors, or interns—has yet to host her own show. And it remains to be seen how she’ll structure the show and build her own audience on a streaming platform still finding its footing when it comes to news.

    In the meantime, she’ll be spending election night at MSNBC’s New York bureau, where her past life in politics is sure to play as the results roll in. “Sometimes people have asked me on set—and I assume if it makes sense on election night, they would too—what’s happening in the White House now. I think my job in this role is to not guess,” she said. “What do I bring to the table? I bring contacts from 20 years in Washington, including people in the current administration,” she said, many of whom, she noted, she can “call, text, see at dinner.” A few minutes later, her phone buzzed. Dana Remus, the White House counsel, was calling. Did she want to get that? “No, it’s fine,” she said. Remus is just “a good friend of mine,” said Psaki, clarifying the nature of the call. “Like, we don’t have any business.”

    MSNBC is quite literally playing up her insider status on election night, when, in addition to contributing to the anchor desk as results come in, she’ll be part of a panel of experts called The Insiders, along with some familiar faces, including fellow ex-Biden official Symone Sanders, who served as Vice President Kamala Harris’s chief spokesperson and a senior adviser and now hosts a weekend show on MSNBC, and political strategist David Plouffe, the architect behind Obama’s winning 2008 presidential campaign.

    By Shannon Finney/MSNBC.

    Most people know Psaki because, as White House press secretary, she was one of the most visible members of the Biden administration. But she cut her teeth at the White House during the Obama years, and has worked in private consulting and communications roles, along with serving as a CNN commentator. She didn’t work on Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign, but after he’d won in November, the transition team asked her to come on as press secretary for the first year or so. “I knew I was only going to stay for a period of time,” Psaki said, noting that “hiring and building a team of people…who you could kind of hand the baton to” was part of the transition team’s pitch to her. “I had always wanted to do that job”—she’d lost out on the role twice under Obama—but “had already done so much government and so much public service” that she was ready for a new chapter. “I knew that before I started,” Psaki said. “So this last experience was like icing.”

    After nearly 16 months in the Brady briefing room, where she sparred with reporters—notably, Fox News’ Peter Doocy—and dropped innumerable “Psaki bombs,” as her fans on social media would say, Psaki exited the White House in May and enjoyed a summer off. “It took me a while to not feel completely exhausted,” she said. She traveled with her family and read books and did Transcendental Meditation training at the recommendation of former Biden COVID czar Jeffrey Zients’s wife. “​​I ran into her at his going-away party and she was like, You have to think about doing this when you leave,” she said. Does Psaki see herself going back at any point? She shut down the question before I could even finish asking it. “If somebody wants to wheel me out to be the ambassador to a warm place when I’m 100, I’m not gonna turn them down,” she said. “But I feel like I’ve had my government experience and career many times over, and I’m very grateful for that, but I am not looking back.”

    That’s good news for MSNBC, which, like its competitors, has been navigating a post-Trump ratings drop and talent shake-ups. Psaki is one of the “clearest, yet most passionate, yet most knowledgeable communicators that I’ve seen in a long time,” said MSNBC president Rashida Jones. “We’ve seen her both on Meet the Press and on MSNBC talk about some areas where she thinks the current administration and the Democratic Party should be thinking differently, should be operating differently,” said Jones. “I think that’s what makes her so valuable to us. Because she’s an insider, she knows how those universes work”—what is “actually doable,” and “what should be thought about differently.”

    By Shannon Finney/MSNBC.

    [ad_2]

    Charlotte Klein

    Source link

  • Why Democrats Are Beginning to Panic About a Typically Safely Blue Pittsburgh House Race

    Why Democrats Are Beginning to Panic About a Typically Safely Blue Pittsburgh House Race

    [ad_1]

    The final stretch of Summer Lee’s congressional campaign is feeling familiar. With less than a week to go until the election, a super PAC tied to the pro-Israel lobby the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is planning on spending hundreds of thousands to defeat her—reportedly the group’s first investment in a general election race between a Republican and a Democrat. This isn’t Lee’s first time having to face off with the AIPAC-affiliated United Democracy Project; last spring the PAC poured millions into attacking her and boosting her main Democratic opponent, Steve Irwin, whom she defeated by less than 1%. Her primary victory was seen as an incredible rebuke of dark money. That was supposed to be the end of the drama in this traditionally safe Democratic district encompassing Pittsburgh and its surrounding suburbs. But Democrats are starting to panic that a red wave, aided by outside money and a confusing ballot (we’ll get to that later), could be coming to western Pennsylvania.

    According to a poll provided to Vanity Fair by Lee allies, the progressive is polling at 44% among likely voters. Republican candidate Michael Doyle is closely trailing at 40%. But what’s perhaps most interesting—and of biggest concern to Democrats—is that 16% of those polled said they were undecided. Over the weekend, UDP spent just shy of $80,000 on mailers targeting Lee’s campaign. Then on Monday, it was announced that the PAC would spend more than $999,000 on new television ads, according to AdImpact Politics.

    “This is scary,” Hannah Fertig, who manages independent expenditure for the progressive group Justice Democrats, said. “We can’t let conservative outside groups steal this election.”

    The shifting dynamics of the Pennsylvania congressional race have forced national Democrats to go on the defense. Per The Intercept, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee—the official campaign arm for House Democrats—hadn’t planned to invest in the Lee-Doyle race, but a spokesperson told the outlet that it now plans to invest six figures in support of Lee. It’s the kind of race Democrats can’t afford to lose, especially in a midterm cycle already favoring Republicans.

    UDP’s campaign against Lee isn’t the only thing making Democrats panic. In a twist almost too ridiculous to be true, the Republican candidate—who goes by Mike Doyle—bears the same name as the retiring Democrat currently in the seat…Rep. Mike Doyle (no relation). Lee’s campaign has sounded the alarm that this could create voter confusion. It has even cut an ad to clear things up:

    Twitter content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    Meanwhile, the UDP ads against Lee have painted her as “extreme,” anti-Israel, and, somewhat ironically given the group’s decision to back a Republican in the general, “not a real Democrat.” In an interview with Jewish Insider, Patrick Dorton, a spokesperson for UDP, said the decision to back the Republican Doyle was part of a broader effort “to build the broadest bipartisan pro-Israel coalition in Congress possible.” On Twitter, AIPAC recycled these previous attacks: “We oppose Summer Lee because of her dangerous views of the US-Israel alliance.” Lee has repeatedly pushed back on these attacks, saying she “absolutely” believes in Israel’s right to be an independent Jewish state. AIPAC’s tweet came in response to criticism from Senator Bernie Sanders, one of Lee’s prominent backers, who said that “Democrats must unite and condemn” the organization’s super PAC.

    Twitter content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    Other Lee allies have similarly come to her defense. “Pennsylvania has a representation problem,” Kadida Kenner, the chief executive of the New Pennsylvania Project—which works to expand the electorate—said, citing Pennsylvania’s overwhelmingly white, male state legislature. If elected, Lee, a state representative, would become the first Black woman to represent Pennsylvania in Congress. “It’s shameful what AIPAC is attempting to do to disrupt Lee’s ascension to the House in DC,” Kenner said. “AIPAC says Lee is too extreme, but it is AIPAC throwing their financial support behind a candidate who is anti-abortion rights, anti-gun safety, [and] anti-Social Security and Medicare.” 

    Nationally, Republicans need to net only five seats to take back control of the House—math that does not factor in a possible win in a historically liberal enclave of Pennsylvania.

    [ad_2]

    Abigail Tracy

    Source link

  • Kristi Noem, National MAGA Star, Is Facing a Pesky Reelection Fight at Home

    Kristi Noem, National MAGA Star, Is Facing a Pesky Reelection Fight at Home

    [ad_1]

    A few weeks back, Kristi Noem appeared with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, and in her best Dracula voice, said to the ManningCast camera, “I vant to take your abortion rights.” It wasn’t the real Noem, of course, but actor Heidi Gardner playing the South Dakota governor on the season premiere of Saturday Night Live. While the skit was all over the map, the writers did appropriately cast Noem as an emerging Republican star standing by the former president’s side.

    Noem made history four years ago by becoming South Dakota’s first female governor—and has since become perhaps the state’s most famous resident. She went national two years ago, when she spurned mask mandates and championed a hands-off policy to the pandemic. It made Noem into a folk hero of sorts within the extended MAGA universe, and she emerged as one of Trump’s more visible surrogates in 2020, hosting him at Mount Rushmore for Fourth of July fireworks and landing a prime-time speaking slot at the Republican National Convention. Last year, Noem talked up her political bona fides before Christian conservatives in Iowa, and speaking of her granddaughter, said, “I hate this America we are giving her.” She’s also wrapped her political persona around COVID-era policies, telling the CPAC crowd in Florida this past February, “We see fundamental freedoms evaporating because of the COVID lockdowns, but not in South Dakota. We drew a clear line.”

    Though Noem has said she would support Trump if he runs in 2024, she also hasn’t ruled out a White House bid for herself. (While running for reelection, she told the Associated Press her “plans are to stay here for four years.”) Noem has certainly carried herself like someone with presidential ambitions, wading into a crowded pool of non-Trump GOP contenders. She has become a fixture on Fox News and at right-wing conferences. In June, Noem released an autobiography, Not My First Rodeo: Lessons From the Heartland, and followed up with a digital ad buy in first-to-vote states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Republicans across the country have gladly accepted her endorsement and summoned her to campaign for them––most recently Arizona’s GOP gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake, a telegenic election denier in the MAGA mold with whom Noem appeared at an event in suburban Phoenix.

    But Noem’s political star turn also belies her electoral strength in South Dakota, where many voters have bristled at her apparent White House aspirations. In a year when Republicans are confidently predicting a red wave––and in a state that Trump won by more than 25 points and where “Let’s Go Brandon” flags wave across the rural landscape––Noem isn’t taking reelection for granted. Polls in the past month have fluctuated from showing Noem with a double-digit lead to running neck and neck.

    A Democrat hasn’t been elected governor there since 1974, but her challenger, Jamie Smith, sees an opportunity to shock the political establishment. “This is definitely a race within our grasp,” said Smith, the minority leader in the state House of Representatives. “All of the different data that we’ve gotten has shown that it’s very, very tight.”

    The surprisingly competitive campaign underscores a defining tension of Noem’s first term as governor: Her national ascent has coincided with both turbulence and divisiveness at home. She is currently working with her fifth chief of staff in four years, and has appeared to lean on a coterie of out-of-state advisers––namely, as reported by Politico, Trump loyalist Corey Lewandowski––who have brought a combative style of politics to an otherwise genial state government. In a significant escalation of intraparty conflict in the state capital, Noem supported primary challenges against a number of GOP legislators this summer. She has also been ensnared in scandal, with a state ethics board recently finding evidence of possible misconduct in Noem’s attempt to influence her daughter’s application for a real estate appraiser’s license. Noem has denied any wrongdoing.

    Noem remains the favorite in her race against Smith, but even if she avoids an upset for the ages, a narrow victory may expose cracks in the springboard that vaulted her to national prominence. “It seems to me that if she wants to help herself nationally,” said David Kochel, a veteran Republican strategist, “she needs to win that race comfortably.”

    Noem has been here before. It was four years ago at this time when Noem, then a little-known congresswoman, was fighting for her political life in what was South Dakota’s most competitive gubernatorial contest in a generation. Republicans have held the governor’s mansion since 1979, winning most of the races in that period by hefty margins.

    But in 2018, that four-decade run of GOP dominance was in jeopardy as Noem struggled to stave off Billie Sutton, a former saddle-bronc rider who was paralyzed from the waist down at a rodeo competition when he was 23. “Two weeks before the election, we had polling that showed I was ahead,” Sutton told me. Noem pulled it out in the end, but her three-point margin of victory made it the state’s closest governor’s race since 1986. “Maybe we primed the pump four years ago and showed that she is beatable here,” Sutton said.

    A real estate agent and former middle school wrestling coach, Smith has taken the baton from Sutton in mounting a challenge against Noem this year. Smith told me he had an inkling that Noem was feeling the pressure in August, when her campaign abruptly targeted him with a series of negative ads. “I tell you what, I love coaching from this position,” Smith said. “We’re running to win. We’re not running to just hold onto a lead.”

    [ad_2]

    Tom Kludt

    Source link