ReportWire

Tag: swing states

  • Elon Musk’s Pennsylvania Playbook

    Elon Musk’s Pennsylvania Playbook

    [ad_1]

    Musk at his America PAC event in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, on October 26.
    Photo: Samuel Corum/Getty Images

    Marshall Miller has been canvassing in the crucial and vote-rich regions of eastern Pennsylvania for years. A leader in the local Democratic Party in his hometown of Lancaster, Miller is used to crossing paths with his Republican opponents while out knocking doors. Both sides keep it polite — maintaining a respectful distance if they both happen to arrive at the same house at the same time.

    This year, though, it has been lonelier on the sidewalks of the Keystone State. Miller says that there has been scarcely a Republican door knocker in sight lately and that remains true with just hours to go before the polls close.

    “Honestly, it feels kind of bizarre,” Miller said when he was on his way to Delaware County for another afternoon of canvassing. “Usually, I would see them and nod or say ‘hi’ or something, but I have knocked on a fair number of doors at this point and haven’t seen them around at all.”

    The lack of evidence of a Republican ground operation in Pennsylvania and in many of the swing states comes as the Trump campaign has attempted a novel approach to its get-out-the-vote strategy: relying almost entirely on America PAC, a super-PAC that is largely funded by Elon Musk, who has donated more than $120 million to elect Donald Trump this year.

    That effort has been plagued by a seemingly endless series of stories attesting to its mismanagement and lack of focus. Wired reported that canvassers in Michigan affiliated with America PAC were hired from out of state without being told their job was to knock on doors on behalf of Trump; once they arrived, they would be driven around in the back of a seatless U-Haul van, where they were told that unless they met their canvassing quotas, they would have to pay for their own lodgings and airfare without compensation for their work.

    Last month, The Guardian reported that a quarter of the door-knocks Musk’s canvassers said they had completed were flagged by an auditor as fraudulent, as the PAC’s foot soldiers were found to be not near the location of the homes they were supposed to have visited; one was even logging door-knocks while sitting at a nearby restaurant. America PAC has been run by a political-consulting firm managed by Phil Cox, a prominent Republican operative who was involved in a similar super-PAC-run canvassing effort on behalf of Florida governor Ron DeSantis in the Republican primaries before DeSantis flamed out in the Iowa caucuses. After Cox was brought in over the summer, the super-PAC terminated its relationship with the vendors who had been working with the PAC previously and brought in vendors that are affiliated with Cox.

    “I think it is just an absolute joke,” said one former DeSantis campaign official. “There is so much dysfunction to it. There are like three new articles every day on how awful it is, and it seems like just a cash cow for the people that are running it. If Trump wins, it won’t be because of anything these guys are doing.”

    In October, Musk hijacked the X handle @America from its previous owner in order to promote his latest project. Pinned to the top of @America’s profile, just below its mission statement (“PAC Founded by @ElonMusk to support candidates who champion Secure Borders, Sensible Spending, Safe Cities, Fair Justice System, Free Speech and Self-Protection”), are options to submit an application to be a paid canvasser at $29 to $30 an hour. Experienced canvassers, who are usually volunteers, say that is a much higher wage than usual for the work.

    Those are not the only ways that Musk has been willing to spend his money. In October, he announced he would give $47 to everyone who convinced even one registered swing-state voter to sign a petition saying they supported the First and Second Amendment to the Constitution. The project was a way both to get potential voters to register without violating the federal law that forbids paying people to register outright and to identify potential Trump voters. A few weeks later, Musk upped the giveaway to $100 for voters in Pennsylvania.

    Then Musk went even further, announcing that he would award $1 million every day to one random petition-signer. This caught the attention of Philadelphia district attorney Larry Krasner, who sued, arguing that it amounted to running an illegal lottery. Musk’s lawyers pushed to have the case moved to federal court, and on Thursday, a federal judge put the case on hold before remanding it back to state court a day later.

    While canvassing operations tend to be pretty open about their work, since they are often volunteer-driven and involve face-to-face communication out in the open, America PAC has been buttoned up about its approach. The group has no real physical presence in the communities in which it operates, and a spokesperson would only say that it’s pushing mail, text messages, digital outreach, and door-to-door canvassing in its effort to elect Trump. The spokesperson admitted that the secrecy was unusual but added, “You pointing that out is not going to change our approach.”

    Musk’s initial foray into electioneering may have been chaotic, but high-ranking Republican operatives and Trump campaign officials say that his utility to them has been significant nonetheless. It has been just over two years since Musk bought Twitter and renamed it X, and in that time, a social-media site known for being the meeting space for liberals and the media and a place where elite narratives could take hold has taken on a more right-wing character, while still remaining the digital campfire for beltway journalists and the people they cover.

    “He is definitely trying to have an impact on the election; there is no doubt about that,” said Joe Trippi, a longtime Democratic operative who is building his own social network, called Sez Us, to act as a counter to X. “He just said that CNN should be called ‘the Disinformation News Network’ and he has 200 million followers. How could that not have an effect?”

    Trippi pointed out not only that Musk has enormous personal reach, which he uses to amplify positive messages about Trump and spread negative ones (including some falsehoods) about Democrats — but also that the X platform itself now compounds those effects. Anyone who clicks on the algorithmically controlled “For You” tab on the site is likely to see multiple posts from Musk himself, accompanied by viral posts that skew Trumpian (for instance, clips depicting a country overrun by migrants and criminals).

    Trump-campaign officials have looked on with amazement as messages that they struggled to call attention to, such as J.D. Vance’s visit to the border, suddenly go megaviral online thanks to Musk’s boost. The help is even more appreciated, they say, since under the previous regime of the website, many conservatives felt that their voices were being censored or suppressed.

    “It’s amazing,” said one Republican operative close to Trump. “He’s engaging in politics in a way that no one in that kind of position has really done before, and he is hitting all of the pro-Trump and anti-Kamala notes you could ask for and making things go viral left and right. It’s not even that he is the owner of the site; it’s the fact that he is engaging in a way he never did. Twitter, or X, or whatever you call it, is still the place where media narratives are created on both sides of the aisle. Twelve percent of the U.S. population is on Twitter, and that includes top Republican and Democratic operatives.”

    Musk has been holding town halls across Pennsylvania that, if nothing else, earn the campaign publicity on local-news outlets, which campaign officials say counts for far more than coverage on cable TV and in the national press. When Musk appeared at a town hall in the central Pennsylvania city of Lancaster last week, the headline for the story on the local CBS News affiliate read, “’Harris Is a Puppet’: Elon Musk Returns to Pa. for Town Hall, Promotes Early Voting.” A few days earlier, a local TV affiliate in Harrisburg quoted Musk telling town-hall attendees that “safe cities, secure borders, sensible spending” were his reasons for supporting Trump. “To protect the Constitution, especially the right to free speech. These are all things that seem very obvious and frankly normal and they’re in severe danger if the ‘Kamala machine’ wins,” Musk continued, according to the story on ABC27News in Harrisburg.

    One Trump campaign official described Musk as being like Mike Lindell, the MyPillow magnate who was a relentless promotor of Trump in 2020 — except that Musk is someone “with real money.”

    “We just stand back and marvel. He is moving the needle for us with the young and unmotivated male vote that we need in a state like Pennsylvania.” said this official. “Politics is a game of inches. Elon brings a foot.”


    See All



    [ad_2]

    David Freedlander

    Source link

  • Presidential candidates make final push before Election Day

    Presidential candidates make final push before Election Day

    [ad_1]

    Presidential candidates make final push before Election Day

    Presidential candidates are trying to push their supporters to the polls and persuade remaining holdouts.

    Election Day is just two days away. Both presidential candidates are making their final push to rally voters and sway any remaining holdouts. On Saturday, the candidates stormed southern swing states that, polls suggest, are statistically tied. Vice President Kamala Harris campaigned in Georgia while both Harris and former President Donald Trump made stops in North Carolina. There are already some signs of voter enthusiasm. North Carolina’s State Board of Elections said in-person early voting this year broke the previous record set four years ago. Georgia officials previously reported record turnout on the first day of early voting. As of Sunday morning, more than 74 million people had cast their ballots either in person or by mail, according to The Associated Press. “This election is extremely important, not just for the next four years, but for the next several decades,” said Zack Miller, who voted in North Carolina on Saturday. Also on Saturday, Trump took a break from his battleground state tour for a stop in blue-leaning Virginia. He insisted the Commonwealth is in reach, even though Virginia voters backed President Joe Biden by 10 points last election cycle. In his closing message, Trump has continued to paint a dire picture of the economy and the southern border.“Are you better off than you were four years ago,” Trump asked the crowd at his rally in Salem, Virginia. “Kamala, a low IQ person, broke it and I will fix it, I promise.”Meanwhile, Harris made a surprise trip to New York City, where she played herself in a sketch for Saturday Night Live alongside actress Maya Rudolph, who depicts Harris for the show. In sync, the two said supporters need to “Keep Kamala and carry-on-ala.” Earlier Saturday, Harris made the case for a “new generation of leadership” and pledged to serve all Americans, even those who disagree with her. “We have an opportunity to turn the page on a decade of Donald Trump trying to keep us divided and afraid of each other. We’re done with that,” Harris said.On Sunday, Harris has multiple stops in Michigan while Trump is expected to visit three other swing states: North Carolina, Georgia and Pennsylvania.

    Election Day is just two days away. Both presidential candidates are making their final push to rally voters and sway any remaining holdouts.

    On Saturday, the candidates stormed southern swing states that, polls suggest, are statistically tied. Vice President Kamala Harris campaigned in Georgia while both Harris and former President Donald Trump made stops in North Carolina.

    There are already some signs of voter enthusiasm. North Carolina’s State Board of Elections said in-person early voting this year broke the previous record set four years ago. Georgia officials previously reported record turnout on the first day of early voting.

    As of Sunday morning, more than 74 million people had cast their ballots either in person or by mail, according to The Associated Press.

    “This election is extremely important, not just for the next four years, but for the next several decades,” said Zack Miller, who voted in North Carolina on Saturday.

    Also on Saturday, Trump took a break from his battleground state tour for a stop in blue-leaning Virginia. He insisted the Commonwealth is in reach, even though Virginia voters backed President Joe Biden by 10 points last election cycle.

    In his closing message, Trump has continued to paint a dire picture of the economy and the southern border.

    “Are you better off than you were four years ago,” Trump asked the crowd at his rally in Salem, Virginia. “Kamala, a low IQ person, broke it and I will fix it, I promise.”

    Meanwhile, Harris made a surprise trip to New York City, where she played herself in a sketch for Saturday Night Live alongside actress Maya Rudolph, who depicts Harris for the show. In sync, the two said supporters need to “Keep Kamala and carry-on-ala.”

    Earlier Saturday, Harris made the case for a “new generation of leadership” and pledged to serve all Americans, even those who disagree with her.

    “We have an opportunity to turn the page on a decade of Donald Trump trying to keep us divided and afraid of each other. We’re done with that,” Harris said.

    On Sunday, Harris has multiple stops in Michigan while Trump is expected to visit three other swing states: North Carolina, Georgia and Pennsylvania.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • In Ten States, Millions of Americans Are Directly Voting On Abortion Access

    In Ten States, Millions of Americans Are Directly Voting On Abortion Access

    [ad_1]

    Nebraska prohibits abortion at 12 weeks, with stated exceptions for rape, incest, or “to avert her death or to avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

    Nevada

    Nevada’s Question 6, titled the Right to Abortion Initiative, would establish a state constitutional right to an abortion, while allowing the government to regulate after the point of “fetal viability,” around 24 weeks. The initiative includes exceptions that “protect the life or health of the pregnant patient.”

    In Nevada, abortion is currently legal up until this point. The ballot initiative would further secure these protections.

    New York

    In New York, Proposal 1, or the Equal Protection of Law Amendment, would add a clause into the state’s Bill of Rights, ensuring “against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity and pregnancy.”

    The initiative would also add protections “against unequal treatment based on reproductive healthcare and autonomy.”

    In the Empire State, abortion is legal up to and including 24 weeks. After that point, there are exceptions for fetal viability or to protect the pregnant person’s life or health. Providers cannot be criminally prosecuted for performing abortions outside of this window, and minors do not need their parents’ permission to get birth control, abortion, prenatal care, or access to other reproductive healthcare.

    Across what is considered a deep-blue state, the ballot initiative has been turned into a referendum on parental rights by anti-trans activists who seek to thwart the amendment.

    As CBS reports, “The Coalition to Protect Kids is making an effort to dissuade people from voting yes on Prop 1, saying it opens the door for men to use women’s bathrooms, transgender adolescents to compete on sports teams that align with their gender identities, and minors to seek abortions without parental consent.”

    South Dakota

    South Dakota bans abortion in practically all cases, with no exceptions for rape or incest. (There is a “life of the mother” exception.) Those who perform abortions are “guilty of a Class 6 felony,” per state law.

    The state’s Constitutional Amendment G, or the Right to Abortion Initiative, “establishes a constitutional right to an abortion and provides a legal framework for the regulation of abortion,” per the ballot language.

    [ad_2]

    Katie Herchenroeder

    Source link

  • Harris and Trump are tested by the Mideast, Helene and the port strike in the campaign’s final weeks

    Harris and Trump are tested by the Mideast, Helene and the port strike in the campaign’s final weeks

    [ad_1]

    A trio of new trials — a devastating hurricane, expanding conflict in the Mideast and a dockworkers strike that threatens the U.S. economy — are looming over the final weeks of the presidential campaign and could help shape the public mood as voters decide between Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump.How events shake out — and how the candidates respond — could be decisive as they claw for votes in battleground states.Related video above: Election 2024: What are the key swing states to watch?The sitting president, Joe Biden, is still the steward of a U.S. economy and foreign policy at this tumultuous moment and may well bear ultimate responsibility for how they play out. But how Harris and Trump approach the three disparate issues could have rippling impact on how Americans perceive their two choices this November.”Unfortunately, there are going to be events like this, and this is where you see the leadership of a president show up,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters on Tuesday. “I think this should send a message to Americans: It matters. It matters who sits behind the Resolute Desk.”Harris, with Biden’s help, is trying to display steady calm as a flurry of difficult problems arise all at once. She and Biden on Tuesday toggled between directing Hurricane Helene recovery and rescue response work and huddling with aides in the White House Situation Room to watch as the U.S. helped Israel defend against a massive attack by Iran in retaliation for the killing of Tehran-backed leaders of Lebanese Hezbollah.All the while, they were keeping close contact with economic advisers as dockworkers took to the picket line Tuesday, a walkout stretching from ports in Maine to Texas that threatens to snarl supply chains and cause shortages and higher prices if it stretches on for more than a few weeks.Trump, for his part, lashed out at Harris as in over her head, while claiming that this sort of crush of problems never would have happened under his watch.”We have been talking about World War III, and I don’t want to make predictions,” Trump said at a campaign event in Wisconsin. “The whole world is laughing at us. That’s why Israel was under attack just a little while ago. Because they don’t respect our country anymore.”Yet voters cast Trump aside four years ago in large part because of how they viewed his handling of the swirling economic, social and public health challenges that emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic. Biden, in comments to reporters before meeting with aides Tuesday to discuss the ongoing hurricane response, seemed to acknowledge the growing frustration with the federal response to the massive storm.”I’ve been in frequent contact with the governors and other leaders in the impacted areas, and we have to jumpstart this recovery process,” Biden said. He will travel to the Carolinas on Wednesday to get a closer look at the hurricane devastation. He is also expected to visit hurricane-impacted areas in Georgia and Florida later this week. “People are scared to death. People wonder whether they’re going to make it.” Video below: Biden pledges federal aid after touring devastation from HeleneHarris, meanwhile, headed to Georgia on Wednesday and North Carolina in the coming days to do the same. Tuesday’s vice presidential debate offered a sampling of how the two campaigns were reacting to new developments to bolster their own messages and sharpen their attacks on their rivals. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz promised “steady leadership” under Harris while Ohio Sen. JD Vance pledged a return to “peace through strength” if Trump is returned to the White House.Biden has stayed off the campaign trail since announcing in July that he was ending his reelection effort amid sliding public approval ratings. His conspicuous absence underscores that Democrats see him as more of a liability than an asset in making the case for Harris, said Christopher Borick, director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion in Pennsylvania.But how well Biden deals with the three latest emergency situations could have a big impact in how undecided voters perceive Harris in these final days.”President Biden can’t help Kamala Harris on the stump,” Borick said. “But in a campaign where you are turning over every rock in a few states to get that undecided voter, how he manages these crises over the next several weeks could have an impact.” The Harris campaign understands the risks it faces with multiple crises converging all at once, especially given their varied and unpredictable nature. A prolonged strike, a bungled disaster response or a further expansion of Middle East conflict could raise doubts about Biden’s leadership, and by extension that of his second-in-command.At the same time, Harris campaign aides believe the perilous moment presents an opportunity to demonstrate to voters the stakes of who’s in the job and the seriousness with which they approach it, according to campaign officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal thinking.The former president, in a speech in Waunakee, Wisconsin, and in social media postings Tuesday, offered a mixture of prayer and concern for those impacted by Helene, jabs at Harris for the dockworkers strike, and an aside about the casting of Stanley Kubrick’s film “Full Metal Jacket.””The situation should have never come to this and, had I been president, it would not have,” Trump said in a statement about the strike.Harris aides made a point of having the vice president deliver brief remarks on the Iranian attack Tuesday in between taping interviews for her campaign, aiming to portray her as ready to take command.Late-term tumult has been fixture in American presidential politics, sometimes in the form of scandal and other times with an incumbent hoping to demonstrate that he or his preferred successor would be a steady head at an uncertain time. George W. Bush pushed a rescue package through Congress to stabilize a reeling financial system by creating the Troubled Asset Relief Program amid fears that the economy was on the verge of collapse. The broader economic conditions didn’t help Republican John McCain in the race he lost to Barack Obama. Jimmy Carter’s reelection campaign in 1980 was paralyzed by the Iran hostage crisis. Fifty-two hostages were released on January 20, 1981, soon after his successor, Ronald Reagan, was inaugurated.Lyndon Johnson announced a halting of bombings in North Vietnam days before the 1968 election, a step he hoped would bring the conflict toward a peace settlement. But the South Vietnamese indicated they would not negotiate and Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, lost narrowly to Republican Richard Nixon.”The efforts by incumbents to help themselves or their party’s nominee with ‘October surprises’ go back quite a ways,” said Edward Frantz, a University of Indianapolis historian. “In this current climate, I’m not sure how many voters can be persuaded by a candidate this late in the game trying to show competency.”___AP writer Josh Boak contributed to this report.

    A trio of new trials — a devastating hurricane, expanding conflict in the Mideast and a dockworkers strike that threatens the U.S. economy — are looming over the final weeks of the presidential campaign and could help shape the public mood as voters decide between Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump.

    How events shake out — and how the candidates respond — could be decisive as they claw for votes in battleground states.

    Related video above: Election 2024: What are the key swing states to watch?

    The sitting president, Joe Biden, is still the steward of a U.S. economy and foreign policy at this tumultuous moment and may well bear ultimate responsibility for how they play out. But how Harris and Trump approach the three disparate issues could have rippling impact on how Americans perceive their two choices this November.

    “Unfortunately, there are going to be events like this, and this is where you see the leadership of a president show up,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters on Tuesday. “I think this should send a message to Americans: It matters. It matters who sits behind the Resolute Desk.”

    Harris, with Biden’s help, is trying to display steady calm as a flurry of difficult problems arise all at once.

    She and Biden on Tuesday toggled between directing Hurricane Helene recovery and rescue response work and huddling with aides in the White House Situation Room to watch as the U.S. helped Israel defend against a massive attack by Iran in retaliation for the killing of Tehran-backed leaders of Lebanese Hezbollah.

    All the while, they were keeping close contact with economic advisers as dockworkers took to the picket line Tuesday, a walkout stretching from ports in Maine to Texas that threatens to snarl supply chains and cause shortages and higher prices if it stretches on for more than a few weeks.

    Trump, for his part, lashed out at Harris as in over her head, while claiming that this sort of crush of problems never would have happened under his watch.

    “We have been talking about World War III, and I don’t want to make predictions,” Trump said at a campaign event in Wisconsin. “The whole world is laughing at us. That’s why Israel was under attack just a little while ago. Because they don’t respect our country anymore.”

    Yet voters cast Trump aside four years ago in large part because of how they viewed his handling of the swirling economic, social and public health challenges that emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Biden, in comments to reporters before meeting with aides Tuesday to discuss the ongoing hurricane response, seemed to acknowledge the growing frustration with the federal response to the massive storm.

    “I’ve been in frequent contact with the governors and other leaders in the impacted areas, and we have to jumpstart this recovery process,” Biden said. He will travel to the Carolinas on Wednesday to get a closer look at the hurricane devastation. He is also expected to visit hurricane-impacted areas in Georgia and Florida later this week. “People are scared to death. People wonder whether they’re going to make it.”

    Video below: Biden pledges federal aid after touring devastation from Helene

    Harris, meanwhile, headed to Georgia on Wednesday and North Carolina in the coming days to do the same.

    Tuesday’s vice presidential debate offered a sampling of how the two campaigns were reacting to new developments to bolster their own messages and sharpen their attacks on their rivals. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz promised “steady leadership” under Harris while Ohio Sen. JD Vance pledged a return to “peace through strength” if Trump is returned to the White House.

    Biden has stayed off the campaign trail since announcing in July that he was ending his reelection effort amid sliding public approval ratings.

    His conspicuous absence underscores that Democrats see him as more of a liability than an asset in making the case for Harris, said Christopher Borick, director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion in Pennsylvania.

    But how well Biden deals with the three latest emergency situations could have a big impact in how undecided voters perceive Harris in these final days.

    “President Biden can’t help Kamala Harris on the stump,” Borick said. “But in a campaign where you are turning over every rock in a few states to get that undecided voter, how he manages these crises over the next several weeks could have an impact.”

    The Harris campaign understands the risks it faces with multiple crises converging all at once, especially given their varied and unpredictable nature. A prolonged strike, a bungled disaster response or a further expansion of Middle East conflict could raise doubts about Biden’s leadership, and by extension that of his second-in-command.

    At the same time, Harris campaign aides believe the perilous moment presents an opportunity to demonstrate to voters the stakes of who’s in the job and the seriousness with which they approach it, according to campaign officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal thinking.

    The former president, in a speech in Waunakee, Wisconsin, and in social media postings Tuesday, offered a mixture of prayer and concern for those impacted by Helene, jabs at Harris for the dockworkers strike, and an aside about the casting of Stanley Kubrick’s film “Full Metal Jacket.”

    “The situation should have never come to this and, had I been president, it would not have,” Trump said in a statement about the strike.

    Harris aides made a point of having the vice president deliver brief remarks on the Iranian attack Tuesday in between taping interviews for her campaign, aiming to portray her as ready to take command.

    Late-term tumult has been fixture in American presidential politics, sometimes in the form of scandal and other times with an incumbent hoping to demonstrate that he or his preferred successor would be a steady head at an uncertain time.

    George W. Bush pushed a rescue package through Congress to stabilize a reeling financial system by creating the Troubled Asset Relief Program amid fears that the economy was on the verge of collapse. The broader economic conditions didn’t help Republican John McCain in the race he lost to Barack Obama.

    Jimmy Carter’s reelection campaign in 1980 was paralyzed by the Iran hostage crisis. Fifty-two hostages were released on January 20, 1981, soon after his successor, Ronald Reagan, was inaugurated.

    Lyndon Johnson announced a halting of bombings in North Vietnam days before the 1968 election, a step he hoped would bring the conflict toward a peace settlement. But the South Vietnamese indicated they would not negotiate and Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, lost narrowly to Republican Richard Nixon.

    “The efforts by incumbents to help themselves or their party’s nominee with ‘October surprises’ go back quite a ways,” said Edward Frantz, a University of Indianapolis historian. “In this current climate, I’m not sure how many voters can be persuaded by a candidate this late in the game trying to show competency.”

    ___

    AP writer Josh Boak contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump Polling Better Than 2020 in Six of Seven Battleground States

    Trump Polling Better Than 2020 in Six of Seven Battleground States

    [ad_1]

    Credit: Shaleah Craighead, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    By Elyse Apel (The Center Square)

    In many battleground states, former President Donald Trump is in better position this election cycle compared to the same time in the 2020 election cycle when he lost to Joe Biden.

    In six of the seven consensus states, Trump’s polling average is better than the same point four years ago. Ninety-three electoral college votes ride on Pennsylvania (19), North Carolina (16), Georgia (16), Michigan (15), Arizona (11), Wisconsin (10) and Nevada (six).

    Biden won six of those states in 2020 – North Carolina was the exception – and the electoral college 306-232.

    Polling information from Project 538 is included in the following state by state summaries.

    Michigan

    Michigan is a perfect example of this trend.

    At this point in 2020, Biden led Trump by nearly 8%. This year, Vice President Kamala Harris leads Trump by only 1.8%, which is well within the margin of error.

    Harris polls better than Biden when he was in the race in June and July. Michigan has the trifecta of Democrats for governor and majorities in both chambers of the Legislature.

    Biden was leading Trump by 7.9% in polling heading into Election Day. He then won by just 2.8%.

    This year, Harris’ 5% behind Biden could be pivotal.

    Arizona

    Arizona is seeing a very similar trend to Michigan.

    In 2020, Biden led Trump by an average of 4.8%. Compared to Trump’s lead today in the state of nearly 1%, polling has Trump up nearly 6% compared to his 2020 average.

    Harris is still within the margin of error, usually about 3% to 4% on most polls.

    Biden led the polls by 2.6% going into Election Day and won by 11,000 votes, or just 0.3%.

    Georgia

    In Georgia, Trump is polling just 0.4% ahead of Harris – down from 1.4% over Biden four years ago.

    In 2020, Biden began leading Trump on Oct. 1. By Election Day, he was 1.2% ahead of Trump. The winning difference was about 11,000 votes, or just 0.2%.

    Since 1980, this was only one of two times that the Republican presidential candidate lost in Georgia.

    Nevada

    While Harris is ahead of Trump in Nevada by 0.5%, it is 5% less than Biden’s lead at the same time. Trump never led in polling in the final three months.

    This election season, Trump has led the polls numerous times since early August.

    In 2020, Biden was polling 5.3% ahead of Trump on Election Day. Yet, he won by only 2.4%.

    North Carolina

    North Carolina is particularly interesting. It has been the focus of both campaigns over the last few weeks, and Democrats believe they can win the state for the first time since Barack Obama won it in 2008.

    Trump outperformed the polls here both four and eight years ago, winning the state twice.

    In 2020, Biden was polling 1.8% ahead of Trump going into Election Day and lost by 1.3%. The Democrat never trailed in the final months, and was 1.2% ahead at this same time.

    Trump has led all four polls in the last week since his debate against Harris, and his consensus lead is a slim 0.3%.

    Pennsylvania

    In Pennsylvania, Harris is polling 3% behind where Biden was polling at this point in 2020. She is leading Trump by 1.4%, while Biden was leading him by 4.8%.

    On Election Day, Biden was nearly 5% ahead of Trump, and won by 1.2%.

    Wisconsin

    In Wisconsin, Trump has significantly narrowed Harris’ recent lead.

    At this point in 2020, Biden was leading by 6.7%, but he eventually finished on Election Day with polling a whopping 8.4% ahead of Trump. He won by just 0.8%.

    This time around, Harris is ahead only 1.6%, or within the margin of error. Since August, Trump has slowly been narrowing her lead over him.

    Syndicated with permission from The Center Square.

    Retired Border Chief Ordered to Not Report Border Crossers With Ties to Terrorism

    [ad_2]

    The Center Square

    Source link

  • It’s not hype that Pennsylvania could decide the 2024 presidential election. It’s math.

    It’s not hype that Pennsylvania could decide the 2024 presidential election. It’s math.

    [ad_1]

    The road to the White House goes straight through Pennsylvania. While there are a handful of other battleground states that could sway the upcoming presidential election, it will be very difficult for Kamala Harris or Donald Trump to find a path to victory without winning the Keystone State — and both candidates know it. 

    Simply put: “Pennsylvania will determine this election,” as Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-2nd) said said during the Democratic National Convention.


    MORE: Federal prosecutors in Philly say Russian government is behind online plot to meddle in U.S. politics


    Pennsylvania has a long history of picking winners. The state has been won for the eventual president in 10 of the last 12 elections, and it’s one of only five states that backed Trump, a Republican, in 2016 and Democrat Joe Biden in 2020.

    For this election, there are seven clear swing states according to polling, and Pennsylvania has more electoral votes (19) than any of the others — Nevada (6), Wisconsin (10), Arizona (11), Michigan (15), Georgia (16) and North Carolina (16). Assuming the other 43 states vote as expected, Trump and Harris would both sit around 220 electoral votes in the race to 270, and Pennsylvania’s 19 electoral votes represents about 40% of the difference. 

    And if that’s not enough to show this state’s grave importance in the upcoming election, just look at how much time and money both campaigns have spent here.

    Last month, Trump was in York County weeks after surviving an assassination attempt during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, his running mate, Sen. JD Vance (Ohio), was speaking in Philadelphia. 

    “Pennsylvania is an incredibly important state to me and President Trump,” Vance said during his visit. “It is a state with a proud energy tradition, a proud manufacturing tradition. We’re going to be here a lot.”

    Trump in PAHarrison Jones/USA TODAY NETWORK

    Former president Donald Trump speaks during a rally at the New Holland Arena on July 31 in Harrisburg, Pa. It was Trump’s first appearance in Pennsylvania since his attempted assassination in Butler, Pa.

    Earlier in August, Harris picked Philadelphia as the place to announce her vice presidential nominee, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. 

    “We know that Pennsylvania is core to our pathway to victory as we look at getting to 270 (electoral votes) which, of course, is our North Star,” Harris’ campaign manager Chávez Rodriguez told Pennsylvania delegates last month, according to the Inquirer. “We want to reach Democrats everywhere they are throughout the state.”

    Even the first Trump-Harris debate will be in the state, with the National Constitutional Center in Philly hosting the event on Tuesday, Sept. 10.

    Harris in PAHarris in PACHRIS LACHALL/USA TODAY NETWORK ATLANTIC GROUP

    Vice President Kamala Harris stands with her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, at a rally at Temple University in Philadelphia on Aug. 6.

    As far as spending, both campaigns have allocated more money on advertising in Pennsylvania than any other state, according to AdImpact data from late August.  

    And whether Pennsylvania goes red or blue in November — Harris is leading Trump by 3 percentage points, according to the latest Washington Post polling data — could ultimately come down to voting in the Philly suburbs, which proved to be a major reasons the state flipped parties from 2016 to 2020. 

    While Bucks, Delaware, Chester and Montgomery counties each backed the Democratic candidate in both elections, Biden in 2020 significantly outperformed 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in those suburbs. 

    In head-to-head totals from 2016, Clinton won 57.27% of the vote in those counties compared with Trump’s 42.73%. Four years later, Biden received 59.56% to Trump’s 40.44%.

    Eight years ago, the difference between Clinton and Trump in Pennsylvania was a narrow 44,292 votes, less than 1% of votes cast. If she had the same percentage of support among those four counties that Biden got four years later, she would have had 30,000 more votes, nearly making up the difference in the entire state. 

    Another factor will be voter turnout in these counties, which are some of the fastest-growing in the state. From July 1, 2022, to July 1, 2023, Montgomery (+3,698), Chester (+3,146), Delaware (+847) and Bucks (+427) each saw an increase in residents — a rarity in a state that had 57 of 67 counties experience population declines over that time. 

    And the growth in these counties from 2016 to 2020 translated to larger voter turnouts: While Clinton had 188,353 more votes than Trump in 2016, Biden had 293,094 more than the former president in 2020.

    But the increase in population in these Democratic-leaning Philly suburbs doesn’t necessarily equate to more votes for Harris. 

    Republicans see great potential to gain ground in Bucks County, which sided with Biden by more than 17,000 votes in 2020 when registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by about 10,000. In July, WHYY reported Republicans had flipped the county and held a registration advantage over Democrats by more than 200.

    All around Pennsylvania, canvassers from each party are battling to win over voters. While there are more than 160 million registered voters in the United States, it seems like the entire election could be decided by the nearly 9 million in this state.

    [ad_2]

    Jeff Tomik

    Source link

  • Kamala Harris’ candidacy shakes up presidential race 100 days from election

    Kamala Harris’ candidacy shakes up presidential race 100 days from election

    [ad_1]

    Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign is shaking up the presidential race in the final stretch as both sides race to redefine the likely Democratic nominee.With exactly 100 days to go until Election Day, Democrats say Harris is injecting new energy into the campaign while Republicans are ramping up attacks. Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump tested new talking points at a series of events this weekend. Just short of one week since President Joe Biden ended his re-election bid, the Harris campaign reported recruiting more than 170,000 new volunteers and raising $200 million.Harris added to the cash haul on Saturday with her first fundraiser since taking over the Democratic ticket. Her campaign announced the event in Pittsfield, Massachusetts was expected to bring in more than $1.4 million, exceeding the original goal set before President Biden’s departure by $1 million. Harris is also working to expand support with key parts of the Democratic base that appeared to be eroding under Biden, including people of color and young voters. “We know young voters will be key and we know your vote cannot be taken for granted, it must be earned and that is exactly what we will do,” the Vice President said in a video message Saturday at the Voters of Tomorrow Summit in Atlanta, Georgia. Social media is a growing part of that strategy, with Harris launching a new TikTok account in recent days. Her latest post features NSYNC’s Lance Bass asking Harris, “What are we going to say to Donald Trump in November?” as the boy band’s hit song “Bye, Bye, Bye” plays in the background. There are some early signs the Harris playbook may be working. A new Emerson College/The Hill poll suggests she’s closing the gap in five swing states, though Trump maintains a slight lead in most of them. “Harris has recovered a portion of the vote for the Democrats on the presidential ticket since the fallout after the June 27 debate,” wrote Spencer Kimball, executive director of Emerson College Polling. “Young voters have shifted toward Harris: her support compared to Biden increased by 16 points in Arizona, eight in Georgia, five in Michigan, 11 in Pennsylvania, and one in Wisconsin since earlier polling this month.”Another new survey from Fox News finds Harris and Trump are tied in the key swing states of Pennsylvania and Michigan. Trump leads by one point in battleground Wisconsin. “I think what she does is put all the states that Biden won last time back into play,” said Peter Loge, director of George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs. ‘As polls tighten, Trump spoke at a Bitcoin conference in Nashville, Tennessee on Saturday, followed by a campaign rally in St. Cloud, Minnesota. Trump’s attacks towards Harris ranged from personal to political. He said he is running against a “low IQ individual” and that she will be “the most extreme radical liberal president in American history.” Trump is also seeking to tie Harris to Biden’s record on inflation and immigration, both weaknesses for Democrats according to polling. “Under ‘Border Czar Harris’, millions of migrants are pouring across our border,” Trump told the crowd in Minnesota. It’s a message that’s flooding the airwaves. An analysis from The Associated Press published earlier this week found Trump and his allies are outspending Harris’ team 25-to-1 on television and radio advertising. In her first campaign ad, Harris positioned herself as a defender of freedom, from reproductive rights to the “freedom to be safe from gun violence.” “There are some people who think we should be a country of chaos, of fear, of hate. But us? We choose something different. We choose freedom,” Harris says in the ad. The national Democratic Party is expected to begin a virtual voting process to nominate its ticket this week. Harris could be approved as the nominee as early as Aug. 1st and she’s expected to choose a running mate by Aug. 7.

    Vice President Kamala Harris‘ campaign is shaking up the presidential race in the final stretch as both sides race to redefine the likely Democratic nominee.

    With exactly 100 days to go until Election Day, Democrats say Harris is injecting new energy into the campaign while Republicans are ramping up attacks. Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump tested new talking points at a series of events this weekend.

    Just short of one week since President Joe Biden ended his re-election bid, the Harris campaign reported recruiting more than 170,000 new volunteers and raising $200 million.

    Harris added to the cash haul on Saturday with her first fundraiser since taking over the Democratic ticket. Her campaign announced the event in Pittsfield, Massachusetts was expected to bring in more than $1.4 million, exceeding the original goal set before President Biden’s departure by $1 million.

    Harris is also working to expand support with key parts of the Democratic base that appeared to be eroding under Biden, including people of color and young voters.

    “We know young voters will be key and we know your vote cannot be taken for granted, it must be earned and that is exactly what we will do,” the Vice President said in a video message Saturday at the Voters of Tomorrow Summit in Atlanta, Georgia.

    Social media is a growing part of that strategy, with Harris launching a new TikTok account in recent days. Her latest post features NSYNC’s Lance Bass asking Harris, “What are we going to say to Donald Trump in November?” as the boy band’s hit song “Bye, Bye, Bye” plays in the background.

    There are some early signs the Harris playbook may be working.

    A new Emerson College/The Hill poll suggests she’s closing the gap in five swing states, though Trump maintains a slight lead in most of them.

    “Harris has recovered a portion of the vote for the Democrats on the presidential ticket since the fallout after the June 27 debate,” wrote Spencer Kimball, executive director of Emerson College Polling. “Young voters have shifted toward Harris: her support compared to Biden increased by 16 points in Arizona, eight in Georgia, five in Michigan, 11 in Pennsylvania, and one in Wisconsin since earlier polling this month.”

    Another new survey from Fox News finds Harris and Trump are tied in the key swing states of Pennsylvania and Michigan. Trump leads by one point in battleground Wisconsin.

    “I think what she does is put all the states that Biden won last time back into play,” said Peter Loge, director of George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs. ‘

    As polls tighten, Trump spoke at a Bitcoin conference in Nashville, Tennessee on Saturday, followed by a campaign rally in St. Cloud, Minnesota.

    Trump’s attacks towards Harris ranged from personal to political. He said he is running against a “low IQ individual” and that she will be “the most extreme radical liberal president in American history.”

    Trump is also seeking to tie Harris to Biden’s record on inflation and immigration, both weaknesses for Democrats according to polling.

    “Under ‘Border Czar Harris’, millions of migrants are pouring across our border,” Trump told the crowd in Minnesota.

    It’s a message that’s flooding the airwaves. An analysis from The Associated Press published earlier this week found Trump and his allies are outspending Harris’ team 25-to-1 on television and radio advertising.

    In her first campaign ad, Harris positioned herself as a defender of freedom, from reproductive rights to the “freedom to be safe from gun violence.”

    “There are some people who think we should be a country of chaos, of fear, of hate. But us? We choose something different. We choose freedom,” Harris says in the ad.

    The national Democratic Party is expected to begin a virtual voting process to nominate its ticket this week. Harris could be approved as the nominee as early as Aug. 1st and she’s expected to choose a running mate by Aug. 7.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Survey Data Reveals Latino Christian Voters in Swing States Consider Israel When Voting

    Survey Data Reveals Latino Christian Voters in Swing States Consider Israel When Voting

    [ad_1]

    The Philos Project, in collaboration with Grey Matter Research & Consulting, has released a groundbreaking report highlighting Latino Christian perspectives on Israel in swing states.

    The Philos Project, in collaboration with Grey Matter Research & Consulting, has released a groundbreaking report highlighting Latino Christian perspectives on Israel in swing states. This report provides an in-depth look at the political, social, and religious attitudes of Latino Christians in pivotal swing states, emphasizing their views on Israel and how these views influence their voting behavior.

    A key revelation from the report is the complex perspectives on the Israel-Palestine conflict and, in particular, the Israel-Hamas War. Six out of ten Latino Christians advocate for a ceasefire contingent on Hamas returning all hostages. Additionally, 63% of respondents blame Hamas for starting the conflict, while 19% blame Israel, and 14% blame Palestine. Views of Israel are generally more positive than views of Palestine, whether considering the nation/state, government, or people. The terror organization Hamas receives the least positive views among respondents.

    Nearly two-thirds believe that Israel is the fulfillment of God’s covenant with the Jewish people. Although only one in five believe the Jews are still the chosen people today, 38% sympathize with Israel mainly for religious reasons. A significant finding is that four in ten respondents believe that Jews have an outsized role in America’s public culture. However, this perception varies with nativity; U.S.-born Latinos tend to be more pro-Israel, while those born outside the U.S. are more sympathetic to Palestinians. Christian theology heavily shapes the views of those surveyed. Notably, the more spiritually engaged the respondents are—measured by regular church attendance, Bible reading, and study—the more likely they are to lean conservative.

    The survey, conducted across Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, highlights that Latino Christians in these crucial states exhibit significant political diversity. Among the respondents, 33% identify as conservative, 39% as moderate, and 28% as liberal.

    19% of respondents closely follow international news. Fox News emerges as the preferred news source for conservatives, while liberals lean towards CNN and ABC. Despite differing sources, six out of ten respondents believe their chosen news outlets are unbiased regarding Israel.

    Jesse Rojo, Director of Philos Latino, stated, “This survey could not have come at a more opportune time. With Israel constantly in the news and US elections around the corner, we hope this report empowers politicians in these swing states to hear what their constituents have to say about this issue.” 

    The Philos Project promotes positive Christian engagement in the Middle East. With the release of this survey, Philos continues to lead the charge educating the media regarding Christian support for Israel. During this fraught election cycle, this data could not be more important for politicians in swing states to consider. 

    For a summary of the survey, click here. To ask questions or to access the full report, contact josefa@philosproject.org.

    Source: The Philos Project

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Weekend at Bernie’s’ or ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’——Anthony Scaramucci breaks down Trump vs. Biden in 2024

    ‘Weekend at Bernie’s’ or ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’——Anthony Scaramucci breaks down Trump vs. Biden in 2024

    [ad_1]

    Ex-White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci and former presidential candidate Andrew Yang were guests at the Fortune Future of Finance conference on Thursday. The subject of the 2024 election came up. When asked about the impact that a return of former President Donald Trump would have on the business landscape if he were reelected, Scaramucci was blunt: “terrible.”

    “He would be terrible for the economy and terrible for business,” said the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge Capital. The economy has been predictable, and favorable for businesses, because of constitutional separation of powers, Scaramucci explained. Trump wants to obliterate those separations and embrace people and functions that would allow him to have total control. So-called “unitary executive power” would give the president totalitarian powers over the executive branch of government with exclusive rights to shape and enforce laws. It would make Trump “uber powerful,” said Scaramucci, and throughout history, he said, that has been catastrophic for the economy wherever it has happened.

    “It’s a disaster for the economy, a disaster for the world, and a disaster for your business,” he said, adding that Trump would be “an orange wrecking ball for this society.”

    Similarly, former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang said Trump would “be a catastrophe” for businesses if he were elected president a second time.

    “He’s learned from his mistakes last time, which was hiring responsible adults” who tamped down Trump’s policy instincts, said Yang, co-chair of the Forward Party, a centrist political party he founded in 2021. Yet, Yang warned that if the election were held today, Trump would certainly win. The only question in his mind is whether something changes in the next six months in swing states, where Yang said Biden is underperforming relative to Trump, despite spending Biden’s considerable war chest.

    Scaramucci noted that there are currently 40 Republicans who are publicly against Trump’s reelection bid, including former Vice President Mike Pence. If dozens of people who worked at a company came together and said a product or company was awful and could kill you, he said, people would listen. Yet in this case it’s a mystery that Trump has garnered such steadfast support, he said.

    Scaramucci only worked at the White House for 11 days, from July 21 to July 31 in 2017, but related one tale about his time in the Oval Office. Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Paul Ryan and Trump were arguing and Trump was pointing his finger at Ryan saying, “You work for me. You work for me,” Scaramucci recalled. Ryan told Trump, “I don’t work for you.” Trump then looked to Scaramucci to confirm as if asking, “Is that right? He doesn’t work for me?” Scaramucci remembered. “And Trump doesn’t like that,” Scaramucci added, making a point about Trump’s interest in autocratic control.

    Scaramucci joked about how his short tenure at the White House has evolved into its own indicator of time. For instance, the shortest-serving prime minister in British history, Liz Truss, lasted 45 days from Sept. 6, 2022 to Oct. 20, 2022. Or, she lasted the equivalent of “4.1 Scaramuccis,” he said. “People are very sensitive,” Scaramucci said; Truss “got very upset.” 

    Joking aside, Scaramucci warned that there will be two films playing at your local cinema on Election Day. Those films are: Weekend at Bernie’s or One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, he said.

    “You can either have an elderly guy that is somewhat forgetful, or a lunatic who needs a lobotomy.”

    [ad_2]

    Amanda Gerut

    Source link

  • Biden Is Still the Democrats’ Best Bet for November

    Biden Is Still the Democrats’ Best Bet for November

    [ad_1]

    Let’s start with the obvious. The concerns about Joe Biden are valid: He’s old. He talks slowly. He occasionally bumbles the basics in public appearances.

    Biden’s age is so concerning that many Biden supporters now believe he should step aside and let some other candidate become the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. The New York Times journalist Ezra Klein made the best-available case for this view recently in a 4,000-word piece that garnered intense attention by arguing that Biden is no longer up to the task of campaign life. “He is not the campaigner he was, even five years ago,” Klein writes. “The way he moves, the energy in his voice. The Democrats denying decline are only fooling themselves.”

    In one sense Klein is correct. As the political strategist Mike Murphy said many moons ago, Biden’s age is like a gigantic pair of antlers he wears on his head, all day every day. Even when he does something exceptional—like visit a war zone in Ukraine, or whip inflation—the people applauding him are thinking, Can’t. Stop. Staring. At. The antlers.

    Biden can’t shed these antlers. He’s going to wear them from now until November 5. If anything, they’ll probably grow.

    That said, there’s another point worth noting up front: Joe Biden is almost certainly the strongest possible candidate Democrats can field against Donald Trump in 2024.

    Biden’s strengths as a candidate are considerable. He has presided over an extraordinarily productive first term in which he’s passed multiple pieces of popular legislation with bipartisan majorities.

    Unemployment is at its lowest low, GDP growth is robust, real wage gains have been led by the bottom quartile, and the American economy has achieved a post-COVID soft landing that makes us the envy of the world. He has no major scandals. His handling of American foreign policy has been stronger and defter than any recent president’s.

    Moreover, he is a known quantity. The recent Michigan primary results underscored that Democratic voters don’t actually have an appetite for leaving Biden. In 2012, 11 percent of Michigan Democrats voted “uncommitted” against Barack Obama when he had no opposition. This week, with two challengers on the ballot and progressive activists whipping votes against Biden, the “uncommitted” vote share was just 13 percent. Biden is fully vetted, his liabilities priced in. Voters are not being asked to take a chance on him.

    This last part is crucial, because 2024 pits a current president against a former president, making both quasi-incumbents. If Biden was replaced, another Democrat would have her or his own strengths—but would be an insurgent. Asking voters to roll the dice on a fresh face against a functionally incumbent President Trump is a bigger ask than you might think.

    But the biggest problem plaguing arguments for Biden’s retirement is: Who then? Pretend you are a Democrat and have been handed a magical monkey’s paw. You believe that Biden is too old to defeat Trump and so you make a wish: I want a younger, more vigorous Democrat. There’s a puff of smoke and Kamala Harris is the nominee.

    Do you feel better about the odds of defeating Trump in nine months?

    You shouldn’t. Harris’s approval rating is slightly lower than Biden’s. People skeptical of her political abilities point to her time as vice president, but that’s not really fair: Very few vice presidents look like plausible successors during their time in office. (George H. W. Bush and Al Gore are the exceptions.)

    What should worry you about Harris is her 2020 campaign, which was somehow both disorganized and insular. She did not exhibit the kind of management skills or political instincts that inspire confidence in her ability to win a national campaign. Worse, she only rarely exhibited top-level-candidate skills.

    Harris had some great moments in 2020. Her announcement speech and first debate performance were riveting. But more often she was flat-footed and awkward. She fell apart at the Michigan debate in 2019 and never got polling traction. (My colleague Sarah Longwell likens Harris to a professional golfer who’s got the yips.)

    Some public polling on this question fills out the picture: Emerson finds Harris losing to Trump by three percentage points (Biden is down one point in the same poll). Fox has Harris losing by five points (it also has Biden down by one point). These are just two polls and the questions were hypothetical, but at best, you can say that Harris is not obviously superior to Biden in terms of electability. At worst, she might give Democrats longer odds.

    So you go back to the monkey’s paw with another wish: a younger, more vigorous Democrat who’s not Kamala Harris, please.

    I’m not sure how it would work logistically—would the Democratic Party turn its back on the sitting vice president?—but this is magic, so just roll with it. There’s a puff of smoke and Gavin Newsom walks onstage.

    Newsom is one of those people who, like Bill Clinton, has been running for president since he was 5 years old. Also like Clinton, Newsom is a good talker with some ideas in his head. But Clinton was a third-way Democrat from the Deep South at a time when the Democratic Party needed southern blue-collar voters. Today, the Democratic Party needs Rust Belt blue-collar voters—and Newsom is a liberal from San Francisco. Not a great starting position.

    Every non-Harris Democrat begins from a place of lower name recognition, meaning that there would be a rush to define them in the minds of voters. Republicans have convinced 45 percent of the country that Scrantonian Joe Biden is a Communist. What do you think they’d do with Newsom? In the Fox poll, he runs even with Vice President Harris at -4 to Trump. In the more recent Emerson poll, Newsom trails Trump by 10 points.

    Then there’s the eyeball test. Look at Newsom’s slicked-back hair, his gleaming smile, and tell me: Does he look like the guy to eat into Trump’s margins among working-class whites in Pennsylvania and Michigan?

    What about Pennsylvania and Michigan? You have only one wish left on the monkey’s paw, and Gretchen Whitmer and Josh Shapiro—popular governors who won big in swing states in 2022—are sitting right there. Maybe you should put one of them on the ticket in place of Biden?

    There’s some polling to back you up: Whitmer would probably beat Trump in Michigan and Shapiro would probably beat Trump in Pennsylvania.

    Nationally, it’s a much different question. I haven’t found anyone who’s polled Shapiro-Trump nationally, but Emerson and Fox both have Whitmer polling worse than Biden. (Emerson has Whitmer 12 points behind Trump.)

    Name recognition accounts for part of this gap, but not all of it. In 2022, Whitmer won her gubernatorial race by 11 points while Shapiro won by 15. But each ran against an underfunded MAGA extremist. In the Michigan poll pitting Whitmer against Trump, she leads by only six points; in the Pennsylvania poll with Shapiro, he leads Trump by 11. So even in states where everyone knows them, these potential saviors are softer against Trump than they were against their 2022 MAGA tomato cans.

    Sure, Whitmer and Shapiro seem like strong candidates at the midsize-state level. But you never know whether a candidate will pop until they hit the national stage. Scott Walker, Ron DeSantis, John Kerry, Mitt Romney, Kamala Harris—all of these politicians looked formidable too. Then the presidential-election MRI for the soul exposed their liabilities. Always remember that Barack Obama’s ascent from promising senator to generational political talent was the exception, not the rule.

    Let’s say that one of these not–Kamala Harris candidates is chosen at the Democratic National Convention in August. In the span of 10 weeks they would have to:

    1. Define themselves to the national audience while simultaneously resisting Trump’s attempts to define them.

    2. Build a national campaign structure and get-out-the-vote operation.

    3. Unify the Democratic Party.

    4. Fend off any surprises uncovered during their public (and at-scale) vetting.

    5. Earn credit in the minds of voters for the Biden economy.

    6. Distance themselves from unpopular Biden policies.

    7. Portray themselves as a credible commander in chief.

    8. Lay out a coherent governing vision.

    9. Persuade roughly 51 percent of the country to support them.

    Perhaps it’s possible. But that strikes me as a particularly tall order, even if one of them is a generational political talent. Which—again with the odds—they probably aren’t.

    We’ve got one final problem with the monkey’s paw: It doesn’t exist. If Biden withdrew from the race, the Democratic Party would confront a messy, time-consuming process to replace him. Perhaps a rigorous but amicable write-in campaign would produce a strong nominee and a unified party. But perhaps the party would experience a demolition derby that results in a suboptimal nominee and hard feelings.

    Or maybe party elites at a brokered convention would choose a good nominee. (This is the Ezra Klein scenario, and I’m sympathetic to it. Smoke-filled back rooms get a bad rap; historically they produced better candidates than the modern primary system.) But very few living people have participated in a brokered convention. It could easily devolve into chaos and fracture the moderate, liberal, and progressive wings of the party.

    The point is: Biden has a 50–50 shot. Maybe a little bit worse, maybe a little bit better—like playing blackjack. Every other option is a crapshoot in which the best outcome you can reasonably hope for is 50–50 odds and the worst outcome pushes the odds to something like one in three.

    Joe Biden is Joe Biden. He isn’t going to win a 10-point, realigning victory. But his path to reelection is clear: Focus like a laser on suburban and working-class white voters in a handful of swing states. Remind them that Trump is a chaos agent who wrecked the economy. Show them how good the economy is now. Make a couple of jokes about the antlers. And then bring these people home—because many of them already voted for him once.

    Having a sure thing would certainly be nice, given the ongoing authoritarian threat we face. But there isn’t one. Joe Biden is the best deal democracy is going to get.

    [ad_2]

    Jonathan V. Last

    Source link

  • Why a Blue-Leaning Swing State Is Getting Redder

    Why a Blue-Leaning Swing State Is Getting Redder

    [ad_1]

    Last week, when The New York Times and Siena College released a poll that showed President Joe Biden in trouble in battleground states, Democrats began to sound apocalyptic. The panic, turbocharged by social media, was disproportionate to what the surveys actually showed. Although the results in my home state, Nevada, were the worst for the president out of the six swing states that were polled, the findings are almost certainly not reflective of the reality here, at least as I’ve observed it and reported on it.

    Nevertheless, they bring to the surface trends that should worry Democrats—and not just in Nevada.

    The Times/Siena data show Donald Trump ahead of Biden in Nevada 52 percent to 41 percent, a much larger margin than the former president’s lead in the other battleground states. Could this be true? I’m skeptical, and I’m not alone. After the poll came out, I spoke with a handful of experts in both parties here, and none thinks Trump is truly ahead by double digits in the state, where he lost by about 2.5 points in the previous two presidential cycles. But Nevada is going to be competitive, perhaps more so than ever.

    Some of the Times/Siena poll’s internal numbers gave me pause. Among registered voters in Clark County, where Las Vegas is located and where 70 percent of the electorate resides, the poll found Trump ahead of Biden 50–45. But Democrats make up 34 percent of active voters in the county, compared with Republicans’ 25 percent, and Biden won Clark by nine percentage points in 2020.

    Other recent polls, not quite as highly rated as Times/Siena’s, have found the presidential race here to be much closer than the Times did. Last month, a CNN poll of registered Nevada voters found Biden and Trump virtually tied. Recent surveys from Emerson College, which has been unreliable in the state in the past, and Morning Consult/Bloomberg both had Trump up three points among likely voters. The Times/Siena polling outfit has a good reputation, but shortly before the 2020 election, it found Biden ahead of Trump in Nevada by six percentage points, more than double Biden’s eventual margin of victory.

    Nevada is difficult to poll for a variety of reasons. Here as much as anywhere else, pollsters tend to underestimate the number of people they need to survey by cellphone to get a representative sample, and they generally don’t do enough bilingual polling in Nevada, where nearly a third of the population is Hispanic. Nevada also has a transient population, lots of residents working 24/7 shifts, and an electorate that’s less educated than most other states’. (“I love the poorly educated,” Trump said after winning Nevada’s Republican caucuses in 2016.) The polling challenge has become only more acute, because nonpartisan voters now outnumber Democrats and Republicans in Nevada, making it harder for pollsters to accurately capture the Democratic or Republican vote. (Since 2020, a state law has allowed voters to register at the DMV, and if they fail to do so, their party affiliation is defaulted to independent.)

    Nevada matters in presidential elections, but we are also, let’s face it, a tad weird.

    Still, Democrats have reasons to worry. Nevada was clobbered by COVID disproportionately to the rest of the country, because our economy is so narrowly focused on the casino industry. The aftereffects—unemployment, inflation—are still very much being felt here. Nevada’s jobless rate is the highest in the country, at 5.4 percent. That’s down dramatically from an astonishing 28.2 percent in April 2020, when the governor closed casinos for a few months. Although the situation has clearly improved, many casino workers still haven’t been rehired.

    Democrat Steve Sisolak was the only incumbent governor in his party to lose in 2022, and his defeat was due at least partly to the fallout from COVID. Fairly or not, President Biden wears a lot of that too, as all presidents do when voters are unhappy with the economy. The Morning Consult/Bloomberg poll illuminated the bleak pessimism of Nevada voters, 76 percent of whom think the U.S. economy is going in the wrong direction.

    Here, as elsewhere, voters are also concerned about Biden’s age, and that informs their broader views of him. Sixty-two percent of Nevadans disapprove of Biden’s performance, according to the Times, and only 40 percent have a favorable impression of him. Trump’s numbers, although awful—44 percent see him favorably—are better than Biden’s here, as well as in some blue or bluish states.

    In Nevada, and in general, Biden is losing support among key groups—young and nonwhite voters. The Times/Siena poll found Biden and Trump tied among Hispanics in the state, despite the fact that Latinos have been a bedrock of the Democratic base here for a decade and a half. In the 2022 midterms, polls taken early in the race showed Catherine Cortez Masto, the first Latina elected to the U.S. Senate, losing Hispanic support, though her campaign managed to reverse that trend enough to win by a very slim margin.

    Democratic presidential nominees have won Nevada in every election since 2008. Democrats also hold the state’s two U.S. Senate seats and three of the four House seats, and the party dominates both houses of the legislature. But the state has been slowly shifting to the right—not just in polling but in Election Day results. In 2020, Nevada was the only battleground state that saw worse Democratic performance compared with 2016, unless you include the more solidly red Florida. Nevada’s new Republican governor, Joe Lombardo, is building a formidable political machine. Republicans have made inroads with working-class white voters here, leaving Democrats with an ever-diminishing margin of error.

    Abortion, an issue that was crucial to Cortez Masto’s narrow victory, could help Biden in Nevada. The Times/Siena poll showed that only a quarter of Nevadans think abortion should be always or mostly illegal. A 1990 referendum made abortion up to 24 weeks legal here, and the law can be changed only by another popular vote. Democrats in Nevada, though, want to take those protections a step further next year and are trying to qualify a ballot measure that would amend the state constitution to guarantee the right to abortion. As the off-year elections last week showed, that issue, more than the choice between Biden and Trump, could be what saves the president a year from now. Nevada also has a nationally watched Senate race in 2024, in which the incumbent Democrat, Jacky Rosen, has already signaled that she will mimic her colleague Cortez Masto and put abortion front and center in her campaign.

    So many events could intervene between now and next November, foreign and/or domestic, and we have yet to see how effective the Trump and Biden campaigns will be, assuming that each man is his party’s nominee. Democratic Senator Harry Reid was deeply unpopular here in 2009, then got reelected by almost six percentage points; Barack Obama was thought to be in trouble in 2011, then won Nevada and reelection.

    Democrats clearly hope that if Trump becomes the Republican nominee, many voters will see the election as a binary choice and will back Biden. But if the election instead becomes a referendum on Biden’s tenure, including the economy he has presided over, Trump could plausibly win Nevada—and the Electoral College.

    [ad_2]

    Jon Ralston

    Source link

  • Virginia Could Decide the Future of the GOP’s Abortion Policy

    Virginia Could Decide the Future of the GOP’s Abortion Policy

    [ad_1]

    A crucial new phase in the political struggle over abortion rights is unfolding in suburban neighborhoods across Virginia.

    An array of closely divided suburban and exurban districts around the state will decide which party controls the Virginia state legislature after next month’s election, and whether Republicans here succeed in an ambitious attempt to reframe the politics of abortion rights that could reverberate across the nation.

    After the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide right to abortion in 2022, the issue played a central role in blunting the widely anticipated Republican red wave in last November’s midterm elections. Republican governors and legislators who passed abortion restrictions in GOP-leaning states such as Florida, Texas, Ohio, and Iowa did not face any meaningful backlash from voters, as I’ve written. But plans to retrench abortion rights did prove a huge hurdle last year for Republican candidates who lost gubernatorial and Senate races in Democratic-leaning and swing states such as Colorado, Washington, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Arizona.

    Now Virginia Republicans, led by Governor Glenn Youngkin, are attempting to formulate a position that they believe will prove more palatable to voters outside the red heartland. In the current legislative session, Youngkin and the Republicans, who hold a narrow majority in the state House of Delegates, attempted to pass a 15-week limit on legal abortion, with exceptions thereafter for rape, incest, and threats to the life of the mother. But they were blocked by Democrats, who hold a slim majority in the state Senate.

    With every seat in both chambers on the ballot in November, Youngkin and the Republicans have made clear that if they win unified control of the legislature, they will move to impose that 15-week limit. Currently, abortion in Virginia is legal through the second trimester of pregnancy, which is about 26 weeks; it is the only southern state that has not rolled back abortion rights since last year’s Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.

    Virginia Republicans maintain that the 15-week limit, with exceptions, represents a “consensus” position that most voters will accept, even in a state that has steadily trended toward Democrats in federal races over the past two decades. (President Joe Biden carried the state over Donald Trump by about 450,000 votes.) “When you talk about 15 weeks with exceptions, it is seen as very reasonable,” Zack Roday, the director of the Republican coordinated campaign effort, told me.

    If Youngkin and the GOP win control of both legislative chambers next month behind that message, other Republicans outside the core red states are virtually certain to adopt their approach to abortion. Success for the Virginia GOP could also encourage the national Republican Party to coalesce behind a 15-week federal ban with exceptions.

    “Candidates across this country should take note of how Republicans in Virginia are leading on the issue of life by going on offense and exposing the left’s radical abortion agenda,” Kelsey Pritchard, the director of state public affairs at the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told me in an email.

    But if Republicans fail to win unified control in Virginia, it could signal that almost any proposal to retrench abortion rights faces intractable resistance in states beyond the red heartland. “I think what Youngkin is trying to sell is going to be rejected by voters,” Ryan Stitzlein, the vice president of political and government relations at the advocacy group Reproductive Freedom for All, told me. “There is no such thing as a ‘consensus’ ban. It’s a nonsensical phrase. The fact of the matter is, Virginians do not want an abortion ban.”

    These dynamics were all on display when the Democratic legislative candidates Joel Griffin and Joshua Cole spent one morning last weekend canvassing for votes. Griffin is the Democratic nominee for the Virginia state Senate and Cole is the nominee for the state House of Delegates, in overlapping districts centered on Fredericksburg, a small, picturesque city about an hour south of Washington, D.C. They devoted a few hours to knocking on doors together in the Clearview Heights neighborhood, just outside the city, walking up long driveways and chatting with homeowners out working in their yards.

    Their message focused on one issue above all: preserving legal access to abortion. Earlier that morning, Griffin had summarized their case to about two dozen volunteers who’d gathered at a local campaign office to join the canvassing effort. “Make no mistake,” he told them. “Your rights are on the ballot.”

    The districts where Griffin, a business owner and former Marine, and Cole, a pastor and former member of the state House of Delegates, are running have become highly contested political ground. Each district comfortably backed Biden in 2020 before flipping to support Youngkin in 2021 and then tilting back to favor Democratic U.S. Representative Abigail Spanberger in the 2022 congressional election.

    The zigzagging voting pattern in these districts is typical of the seats that will decide control of the legislature. The University of Virginia’s Center for Politics calculates that all 10 of the 100 House seats, and all six of the 40 Senate districts, that are considered most competitive voted for Biden in 2020, but that nearly two-thirds of them switched to Youngkin a year later.

    These districts are mostly in suburban and exurban areas, especially in Richmond and in Northern Virginia, near D.C., notes Kyle Kondik, the managing editor of the center’s political newsletter, Sabato’s Crystal Ball. In that way, they are typical of the mostly college-educated suburbs that have steadily trended blue in the Trump era.

    Such places have continued to break sharply toward Democrats in other elections this year that revolved around abortion, particularly the Wisconsin State Supreme Court election won by the liberal candidate in a landslide this spring, and an Ohio ballot initiative carried comfortably by abortion-rights forces in August. In special state legislative elections around the country this year, Democrats have also consistently run ahead of Biden’s 2020 performance in the same districts.

    There’s this idea that Democrats are maybe focusing too much on abortion, but we’ve got a lot of data and a lot of information” from this year’s elections signaling that the issue remains powerful, Heather Williams, the interim president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, told me.

    Virginia Republicans aren’t betting only on their reformulated abortion position in this campaign. They are also investing heavily in portraying Democrats as soft on crime, too prone to raise taxes, and hostile to “parents’ rights” in shaping their children’s education, the issue that Youngkin stressed most in his 2021 victory. When Tara Durant, Griffin’s Republican opponent, debated him last month, she also tried to link the Democrat to Biden’s policies on immigration and the “radical Green New Deal” while blaming the president for persistent inflation. “What we do not need are Biden Democrats in Virginia right now,” insisted Durant, who serves in the House of Delegates.

    Griffin has raised other issues too. In the debate, he underscored his support for increasing public-education funding and his opposition to book-banning efforts by a school board in a rural part of the district. Democrats also warn that with unified control of the governorship and state legislature, Republicans will try to roll back the expansions of voting rights and gun-control laws that Democrats passed when they last controlled all three institutions, from 2019 to 2021. A television ad from state Democrats shows images of the January 6 insurrection while a narrator warns, “With one more vote in Richmond, MAGA Republicans can take away your rights, your freedoms, your security.”

    Yet both sides recognize that abortion is most likely to tip the outcome next month. Each side can point to polling that offers encouragement for its abortion stance. A Washington Post/Schar School poll earlier this year found that a slim 49 to 46 percent plurality of Virginia voters said they would support a 15-week abortion limit with exceptions. But in that same survey, only 17 percent of state residents said they wanted abortion laws to become more restrictive.

    In effect, Republicans believe the key phrase for voters in their proposal will be 15 weeks, whereas Democrats believe that most voters won’t hear anything except ban or limit. Some GOP candidates have even run ads explicitly declaring that they don’t support an abortion “ban,” because they would permit the procedure during those first 15 weeks of pregnancy. But Democrats remain confident that voters will view any tightening of current law as a threat.

    “Part of what makes it so salient [for voters] is Republicans were so close to passing an abortion ban in the last legislative session and they came up just narrowly short,” Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic strategist with experience in Virginia elections, told me. “It’s not a situation like New York in 2022, where people sided with us on abortion but didn’t see it as under threat. In Virginia, it’s clear that that threat exists.”

    In many ways, the Virginia race will provide an unusually clear gauge of public attitudes about the parties’ competing abortion agendas. The result won’t be colored by gerrymanders that benefit either side: The candidates are running in new districts drawn by a court-appointed special master. And compared with 2021, the political environment in the state appears more level as well. Cole, who lost his state-House seat that year, told me that although voters tangibly “wanted something different and new” in 2021, “I would say we’re now at a plateau.”

    The one big imbalance in the playing field is that Youngkin has raised unprecedented sums of money to support the GOP legislative candidates. The governor has leveraged the interest in him potentially entering the presidential race as a late alternative to Trump into enormous contributions to his state political action committee from an array of national GOP donors. That torrent of money is providing Republican candidates with a late tactical advantage, especially because Virginia Democrats are not receiving anything like the national liberal money that flowed into the Wisconsin judicial election this spring.

    Beyond his financial help, Youngkin is also an asset for the GOP ticket because multiple polls show that a majority of Virginia voters approve of his job performance. Republicans are confident that under Youngkin, the party has established a lead over Democrats among state voters for handling the economy and crime, while largely neutralizing the traditional Democratic advantage on education. To GOP strategists, Democrats are emphasizing abortion rights so heavily because there is no other issue on which they can persuade voters. “That’s the only message the Democrats have,” Roday, the GOP strategist, said. “They really have run a campaign solely focused on one issue.”

    Yet all of these factors only underscore the stakes for Youngkin, and Republicans nationwide, in the Virginia results. If they can’t sell enough Virginia voters on their 15-week abortion limit to win unified control of the legislature, even amid all their other advantages in these races, it would send an ominous signal to the party. A Youngkin failure to capture the legislature would raise serious questions about the GOP’s ability to overcome the majority support for abortion rights in the states most likely to decide the 2024 presidential race.

    Next month’s elections will feature other contests around the country where abortion rights are playing a central role, including Democratic Governor Andy Beshear’s reelection campaign in Kentucky, a state-supreme-court election in Pennsylvania, and an Ohio ballot initiative to rescind the six-week abortion ban that Republicans passed in 2019. But none of those races may influence the parties’ future strategy on the issue more than the outcome in Virginia.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • The Courtroom Is a Very Unhappy Place for Donald Trump

    The Courtroom Is a Very Unhappy Place for Donald Trump

    [ad_1]

    No one wants to appear before a judge as a criminal defendant. But court is a particularly inhospitable place for Donald Trump, who conceptualizes the value of truth only in terms of whether it is convenient to him. His approach to the world is paradigmatic of what the late philosopher Harry Frankfurt defined as bullshit: Trump doesn’t merely obscure the truth through strategic lies, but rather speaks “without any regard for how things really are.” This is at odds with the nature of law, a system carefully designed to evaluate arguments on the basis of something other than because I say so. The bullshitter is fundamentally, as Frankfurt writes, “trying to get away with something”—while law establishes meaning and imposes consequence.

    Explore the October 2023 Issue

    Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

    View More

    The upcoming trials of Trump—in Manhattan; Atlanta; South Florida; and Washington, D.C.—will not be the first time he encounters this dynamic. His claims of 2020 election fraud floundered before judges, resulting in a series of almost unmitigated losses. In one ruling that censured and fined a team of Trump-aligned lawyers who had pursued spurious fraud allegations, a federal judge in Michigan made the point bluntly. “While there are many arenas—including print, television, and social media—where protestations, conjecture, and speculation may be advanced,” she wrote, “such expressions are neither permitted nor welcomed in a court of law.”

    But only now is Trump himself appearing as a criminal defendant, stripped of the authority and protections of the presidency, before judges with the power to impose a prison sentence. The very first paragraph of the Georgia indictment marks this shift in power. Contrary to everything that Trump has tried so desperately to prove, the indictment asserts that “Trump lost the United States presidential election held on November 3, 2020”—and then actively sought to subvert it.

    Although Trump loves to file lawsuits against those who have supposedly wronged him, the courtroom has never been his home turf. Records from depositions over the years show him to be sullen and impatient while under oath, like a middle schooler stuck in detention. Timothy L. O’Brien, a journalist whom Trump unsuccessfully sued for libel in 2006, recalled in Bloomberg that his lawyers forced Trump to acknowledge that he had lied over the years about a range of topics. Trump has seemed similarly ill at ease during his arraignments. When the magistrate judge presiding over his arraignment in the January 6 case asked whether he understood that the conditions of his release required that he commit no more crimes, he assented almost in a whisper.

    All of this has been a cause for celebration among Trump’s opponents—because the charges against him are warranted and arguably overdue, but also for a different reason. The next year of American politics will be a twin drama unlike anything the nation has seen before, played out in the courtroom and on the campaign trail, often at the same time. Among Democrats, the potential interplay of these storylines has produced a profound hope: Judicial power, they anticipate, may scuttle Trump’s chances of retaking the presidency, and finally solve the political problem of Donald Trump once and for all.

    It has become conventional wisdom that nothing can hurt Trump’s standing in the polls. But his legal jeopardy could, in fact, have political consequences. At least some proportion of Republicans and independents are already paying attention to Trump’s courtroom travails, and reassessing their prior beliefs. A recent report by the political-science collaborative Bright Line Watch found that, following the Mar-a-Lago classified-documents indictment in June, the number of voters in each group who believed that Trump had committed a crime in his handling of classified information jumped by 10 percentage points or more (to 25 and 46 percent, respectively).

    And despite Trump’s effort to frame January 6 as an expression of mass discontent by the American people, the insurrection has never been popular: Extremist candidates who ran on a platform of election denial in the 2022 midterms performed remarkably poorly in swing states. Ongoing criminal proceedings that remind Americans again and again of Trump’s culpability for the insurrection—among his other alleged crimes—seem unlikely to boost his popularity with persuadable voters. If he appears diminished or uncertain in court, even the enthusiasm of the MAGA faithful might conceivably wane.

    Above all of this looms the possibility of a conviction before Election Day, which has no doubt inspired many Democratic fantasies. If Trump is found guilty of any of the crimes of which he now stands accused, a recent poll shows, almost half of Republicans say they would not cast their vote for him.

    But that outcome is only one possibility, and it does not appear to be the most likely.

    Americans who oppose Trump—and, more to the point, who wish he would disappear as a political force—have repeatedly sought saviors in legal institutions. The early Trump years saw the lionization of Special Counsel Robert Mueller as a white knight and (bewilderingly) a sex symbol. Later, public affection turned toward the unassuming civil servants who testified against Trump during his first impeachment, projecting an old-school devotion to the truth that contrasted with Trump’s gleeful cynicism. Today, Mueller’s successors—particularly Special Counsel Jack Smith and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who is leading the Georgia prosecution—are the subjects of their own adoring memes and merchandise. One coffee mug available for purchase features Smith’s face and the text Somebody’s Gonna Get Jacked Up!

    Perhaps this time will be different. With Trump out of office, Smith hasn’t been limited, as Mueller was, by the Justice Department’s internal guidance prohibiting the indictment of a sitting chief executive. Willis, a state prosecutor, operates outside the federal government’s constraints. And neither Bill Barr nor Republican senators can stand between Trump and a jury.

    The indictments against Trump have unfolded in ascending order of moral and political importance. In April, the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, announced charges for Trump’s alleged involvement in a hush-money scheme that began in advance of the 2016 election. In June came Smith’s indictment of Trump in Florida, over the ex-president’s hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Two months later, the special counsel unveiled charges against Trump for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Willis’s indictment in Georgia quickly followed, employing the state’s racketeering statute to allege a widespread scheme to subvert the vote in favor of Trump. (He has pleaded not guilty in the first three cases and, as of this writing, was awaiting arraignment in Georgia. The Trump campaign released a statement calling the latest indictment “bogus.”)

    But each case has its own set of complexities. The New York one is weighed down by a puzzling backstory—of charges considered, not pursued, and finally taken up after all—that leaves Bragg’s office open to accusations of a politically motivated prosecution. The indictment in Florida seems relatively open-and-shut as a factual matter, but difficult to prosecute because it involves classified documents not meant to be widely shared, along with a jury pool that is relatively sympathetic to Trump and a judge who has already contorted the law in Trump’s favor. In the January 6 case, based in Washington, D.C., the sheer singularity of the insurrection means that the legal theories marshaled by the special counsel’s office are untested. The sweeping scope of the Georgia indictment—which involves 19 defendants and 41 criminal counts—may lead to practical headaches and delays as the case proceeds.

    Trump’s army of lawyers will be ready to kick up dust and frustrate each prosecution. As of July, a political-action committee affiliated with Trump had spent about $40 million on legal fees to defend him and his allies. The strategy is clear: delay. Trump has promised to file a motion to move the January 6 proceedings out of Washington, worked regularly to stretch out ordinary deadlines in that case, and tried (unsuccessfully) to move the New York case from state to federal court. The longer Trump can draw out the proceedings, the more likely he is to make it through the Republican primaries and the general election without being dragged down by a conviction. At that point, a victorious Trump could simply wait until his inauguration, then demand that the Justice Department scrap the federal cases against him. Even if a conviction happens before Americans go to the polls, Trump is almost certain to appeal, hoping to strand any verdict in purgatory as voters decide whom to support.

    Currently, the court schedule is set to coincide with the 2024 Republican primaries. The Manhattan trial, for now, is scheduled to begin in March. In the Mar-a-Lago case, Judge Aileen Cannon has set a May trial date—though the proceedings will likely be pushed back. In the January 6 case, Smith has asked for a lightning-fast trial date just after New Year’s; in Georgia, Willis has requested a trial date in early March. But still, what little time is left before next November is rapidly slipping away. In all likelihood, voters will have to decide how to cast their ballot before the trials conclude.

    The pileup of four trials in multiple jurisdictions would be chaotic even if the defendant were not a skillful demagogue running for president. There’s no formal process through which judges and prosecutors can coordinate parallel trials, and that confusion could lead to scheduling mishaps and dueling prosecutorial strategies that risk undercutting one another. For instance, if a witness is granted immunity to testify against Trump in one case, then charged by a different prosecutor in another, their testimony in the first case might be used against them in the second, and so they might be reluctant to talk.

    In each of the jurisdictions, defendants are generally required to sit in court during trial, though judges might make exceptions. This entirely ordinary restriction will, to some, look politically motivated if Trump is not allowed to skip out for campaign rallies, though conversely, Trump’s absence might not sit well with jurors who themselves may wish to be elsewhere. All in all, it may be hard to shake the appearance of a traveling legal circus.

    Attacking the people responsible for holding him to account is one of Trump’s specialties. Throughout the course of their respective investigations, Trump has smeared Bragg (who is Black) as an “animal,” Willis (who is also Black) as “racist,” and Smith as “deranged.” Just days after the January 6 case was assigned to Judge Tanya Chutkan, Trump was already complaining on his social-media site, Truth Social, that “THERE IS NO WAY I CAN GET A FAIR TRIAL” with Chutkan presiding (in the January 6 cases she has handled, she has evinced little sympathy for the rioters). Anything that goes wrong for Trump during the proceedings seems destined to be the subject of a late-night Truth Social post or a wrathful digression from the rally stage.

    However damning the cases against Trump, they will matter to voters only if they hear accurate accounts of them from a trusted news source. Following each of Trump’s indictments to date, Fox News has run segment after segment on his persecution. A New York Times /Siena College poll released in July, after the first two indictments, found that zero percent of Trump’s loyal MAGA base—about 37 percent of Republicans—believes he committed serious federal crimes.

    And beyond the MAGA core? A recent CBS News poll showed that 59 percent of Americans and 83 percent of self-described non-MAGA Republicans believe the investigations and indictments against Trump are, at least in part, attempts to stop him politically. Trump and his surrogates will take every opportunity to stoke that belief, and the effect of those efforts must be balanced against the hits Trump will take from being on trial. Recent poll numbers show Trump running very close to President Joe Biden even after multiple indictments—a fairly astonishing achievement for someone who is credibly accused of attempting a coup against the government that he’s now campaigning to lead.

    The law can do a great deal. But the justice system is only one institution of many, and it can’t be fully separated from the broader ecosystem of cultural and political pathologies that brought the country to this situation in the first place.

    After Robert Mueller chose not to press for an indictment of Trump on obstruction charges, because of Justice Department guidance on presidential immunity, the liberal and center-right commentariat soured on the special counsel, declaring him to have failed. If some Americans now expect Fani Willis or Jack Smith to disappear the problem of Donald Trump—and the authoritarian movement he leads—they will very likely be disappointed once again. Which wouldn’t matter so much if serial disappointment in legal institutions—he just keeps getting away with it—didn’t encourage despair, cynicism, and nihilism. These are exactly the sentiments that autocrats hope to engender. They would be particularly dangerous attitudes during a second Trump term, when public outrage will be needed to galvanize civil servants to resist abuses of power—and they must be resisted.

    Trump’s trials are perhaps best seen as one part of a much larger legal landscape. The Justice Department’s prosecutions of rioters who attacked the Capitol on January 6 seem to have held extremist groups back from attempting other riots or acts of mass intimidation, even though Trump has called for protests as his indictments have rained down. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel recently announced criminal charges alleging that more than a dozen Republicans acted as “fake electors” in an effort to steal the 2020 election for Trump—and as a result, would-be accomplices in Trump’s further plots may be less inclined to risk their own freedom to help the candidate out. Likewise, some of those lawyers who worked to overturn the 2020 vote have now been indicted in Georgia and face potential disbarment—which could cause other attorneys to hold back from future schemes.

    This is a vision of accountability as deterrence, achieved piece by piece. Even if Trump wins a second term, these efforts will complicate his drive for absolute authority. And no matter the political fallout, the criminal prosecutions of Trump are themselves inherently valuable. When Trump’s opponents declare that “no one is above the law,” they’re asserting a bedrock principle of American society, and the very act of doing so helps keep that principle alive.

    None of this settles what may happen on Election Day, of course, or in the days that follow. But nor would a conviction. If a majority of voters in a handful of swing states decide they want to elect a president convicted of serious state and federal crimes, the courts can’t prevent them from doing so.

    Such a result would lead to perhaps the most exaggerated disjunction yet between American law and politics: the matter of what to do with a felonious chief executive. If federal charges are the problem, Trump seems certain to try to grant himself a pardon—a move that would raise constitutional questions left unsettled since Watergate. In the case of state-level conviction, though, President Trump would have no such power. Could it be that he might end up serving his second term from a Georgia prison?

    The question isn’t absurd, and yet there’s no obvious answer to how that would work in practice. The best way of dealing with such a problem is as maddeningly, impossibly straightforward as it always has been: Don’t elect this man in the first place.


    This article appears in the October 2023 print edition with the headline “Trump on Trial.” When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

    [ad_2]

    Quinta Jurecic

    Source link

  • How Democrats Avoided a Red Wave

    How Democrats Avoided a Red Wave

    [ad_1]

    The coalition of voters who turned out to oppose Donald Trump in 2018 and 2020 largely reassembled yesterday, frustrating Republican expectations of a sweeping red wave.

    Under the pressure of high inflation and widespread disenchantment with President Joe Biden’s job performance, that coalition of young voters, people of color, college-educated white voters, and women eroded at its edges. And because Democrats began the night with so little margin for error in Congress, that erosion—combined with high Republican turnout—seemed likely to allow the GOP to seize control of the House, and possibly the Senate as well.

    But even if the GOP does squeeze out majorities in one or both chambers when the final votes are counted, its margins will be exceedingly narrow, with control of the Senate, once again, possibly turning on another Georgia runoff. Up and down the ballot, Democrats dominated among voters who believe that abortion should remain legal—despite predictions from Republicans and many media analysts that the issue had faded in importance. Democrats held House seats in states including Rhode Island, Virginia, Michigan, and Ohio that Republicans had confidently expected to capture. And with the exception of Georgia, which reelected Governor Brian Kemp, Democrats could win gubernatorial races in each of the five swing states that flipped from Trump to Biden in 2020—a development that would greatly ease Democratic fears of Trump allies trying to rig the vote (and potentially the presidency) in 2024.

    The results largely followed the outline of what I’ve called a “double negative” election. On balance, voter dissatisfaction with Biden’s performance meant that Democrats faced more losses, but the continuing unease about the Republican Party lowered the ceiling on GOP gains well below what the party might have expected.

    These relatively positive results for Democrats were so striking because the findings of the national exit poll conducted by Edison Research for a consortium of media organizations, like virtually all preelection polling, showed deeply pessimistic attitudes that typically spell doom for the sitting president’s party. More than three-fourths of voters, Edison found, described the economy as only “fair” or “poor.” Four-fifths of voters said inflation had caused them either severe or moderate hardship. Fifty-five percent of respondents said they disapproved of Biden’s job performance as president. His approval stood even lower in many of the key Senate battleground states: 43 percent in Nevada and Arizona, 42 percent in New Hampshire, just 41 percent in Georgia.

    Exit polls suggested that unhappiness over the economy could doom the most embattled Democratic Senate incumbent, Catherine Cortez Masto in Nevada, though that race remains on a knife’s edge awaiting the counting of the last mail ballots. Across a wide array of other battleground states, Republicans carried significant majorities of voters who expressed negative views on the economy.

    But Republicans did not win those economically pessimistic voters by quite as big a margin as midterm precedents had suggested. Usually, the party out of power has dominated voters with those views: Democrats, for instance, in 2018 won about 85 percent of those who described the economy as either not so good or poor. This year, Republicans slightly exceeded that result among those who called the economy “poor,” the most negative designation. But among those who gave the equivocal verdict of “not so good,” Republicans won only 62 percent, way down from the Democrats’ total four years ago.

    The relationship between presidential-approval ratings and the midterm vote was similar. Biden’s national job-approval rating in the exit poll (44 percent positive, 55 percent negative) resembled Trump’s in 2018 (45–54). But, compared with Republicans in 2018, Democrats this year carried slightly more of the voters who disapproved of Biden, as well as slightly more of those who approved of him. Particularly noteworthy: Democrats won almost exactly half of voters who said they “somewhat disapproved” of Biden, whereas about two-thirds of voters who “somewhat disapproved” of both Trump in 2018 and Barack Obama in 2010 voted against their party in House races.

    These effects were even more pronounced in several of the battleground states. In 2018, no Republican Senate candidate in a competitive race carried more than 8 percent of the voters who disapproved of Trump, the exit polls found. But Cortez Masto and Raphael Warnock in Georgia carried about 10 percent of them, while Senator Mark Kelly in Arizona and Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman in Pennsylvania reached about 15 percent of support with Biden disapprovers, the exit polls found. In New Hampshire, the exit poll found Senator Maggie Hassan winning a striking one-fifth of voters who disapproved of Biden. Similarly, Warnock won about one-third of voters who described the economy as only fair or poor, while Kelly and Fetterman approached 40 percent with them in the exit polls. All of this may sound like a small difference—but it proved to be the margin between defeat and victory for Democrats in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, and potentially in Arizona and Georgia.

    How did Democrats overperform recent historical trends with voters dissatisfied with the economy or the president? Attitudes about the former president, and the party he has reshaped in his image, may largely explain the difference. In the exit poll, nearly three-fifths of voters said they had an unfavorable view of Trump, and more than three-fourths of them voted Democratic this year. Many of the Republican Senate and gubernatorial candidates he helped propel to their nominations also faced negative assessments from voters. And despite predictions from both Republicans and media analysts that abortion had faded as a galvanizing issue, a clear three-fifths majority of all voters in the national exit poll said they believed that the procedure should remain legal in all or most circumstances—and about three-fourths of them voted Democratic. Democrats also won about three-fourths of the voters who said abortion should remain mostly legal in the key Senate states of Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, and two-thirds of them in New Hampshire. In Michigan, Governor Gretchen Whitmer won a stunning four-fifths of the voters who said abortion should remain legal.

    These concerns about Trump and abortion rights didn’t completely erase voter discontent over the economy and inflation. Inflation still ranked highest when the exit polls asked voters what issues most concerned them (with abortion a very close second). And Republicans still won most of the voters who expressed the purest “double negative” views—those with unfavorable opinions of both Biden and Trump. But it’s hardly a surprise that the party out of the White House might win most voters who express an unfavorable view of the sitting president, no matter what other attitudes they hold. The notable part was that the exit poll found Democrats holding 40 percent of those double-negative voters—a number that helped them apparently avoid a titanic red wave.

    In the past, when midterms have turned decisively against the sitting president’s party, one reason is a backlash among independent voters, who are the most likely to shift allegiance based on current conditions in the country. Each time the president’s party suffered especially large losses in a midterm since the mid-1980s (a list of electoral calamities that includes 1986, 2006, and 2018 for Republicans and 1994, 2010, and 2014 for Democrats), independents have voted by a double-digit margin for House candidates from the other party, according to exit polls. But yesterday’s exit polls showed the two parties splitting independent voters about evenly on a national basis and Democrats winning among them in the Arizona, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania Senate races.

    The other ingredient in decisive midterm losses has been what political strategists call “differential turnout.” Almost always in American history, the party out of the White House has shown more urgency about voting in midterms than the side in power, but when midterms get really bad, that disparity becomes especially pronounced.

    A complete picture of this midterm won’t be available for months. But the early indications are that this year’s electorate leaned more toward the GOP than the past few campaigns. In 2020 and 2018, the exit polls found that self-identified Democrats made up slightly more of the voters than Republicans. But the exit polls yesterday showed Republicans with a slight edge.

    Young people gave Democrats preponderant margins in most races, but likely made up slightly less of the electorate than they did in 2018. Among voters of color, the story was similar—some erosion in support for Democrats, but not a catastrophic decline. The exit polls showed Democrats winning about 60 percent of Latino voters and 85 percent of Black voters. That was down just slightly from their level in 2020, though it represented a bigger fall from the party’s support with those voters in 2018. Republicans in the coming days will likely trumpet the continuing gains—though Democrats can fairly rebut that they have a clear opportunity to rebound if and when the economy recovers.

    Before Election Day, conservative pundits speculated rampantly about a sweeping shift toward the GOP among nonwhite voters without a college degree—what Axios breathlessly declared “a political realignment in real time.” But Democrats nationally carried about two-thirds of those non-college-educated voters of color, almost exactly their share among minorities with degrees; the picture was similar in the heavily diverse states across the Sun Belt, the exit polls found. Among white voters, the familiar educational divides held: The national exit poll showed Democrats slightly underperforming expectations among college-educated whites (winning only about half of them) but still showing much better with them than among non-college-educated whites, who once again broke about two-to-one for the GOP. (College-educated white voters did provide more resounding margins for Kelly, Hassan, and Fetterman, the polls found.)

    The full results won’t be known for days, and control of the Senate may not be settled until another runoff election in Georgia. But the 2024 presidential contest will likely kick into motion almost immediately. Trump has repeatedly hinted that he may announce a 2024 candidacy as soon as next week—and the GOP’s gains, even if less than the party anticipated, will only encourage him.

    Throughout American history, midterm results have had little relationship to the results in the next presidential contest. Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush had relatively good first-term midterm results in 1978 and 1990, and then lost for reelection two years later. Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama were all shellacked in their first midterm and then won reelection.

    Could Biden follow those precedents and recover in time for 2024? Much will depend on the economy. Doug Sosnik, a senior White House adviser to President Clinton during his recovery after the 1994 midterm, pointed out that the period from fall of the third year to spring of the fourth year is when voters really lock in their judgment about a first-term president. That doesn’t leave Biden much runway to dispel the economic pessimism that weighed so heavily on Democrats yesterday. Many economists believe that the Federal Reserve Board’s actions will trigger at least a mild recession before squeezing out inflation, potentially by late next year.

    Given the doubts many voters have expressed about Biden’s age, it’s not clear that a rising economic tide would lift his prospects as much as it did for Reagan, Clinton, and Obama. Many Republicans (and even some Democrats) believe that the loss of the House, and possibly still the Senate, when all of this year’s votes are counted will increase pressure on Biden to step aside in 2024. In the exit polls, two-thirds of voters said they did not want to see Biden run again.

    Yet the GOP may be saddled with a 2024 nominee carrying even more baggage. Trump will inevitably interpret any GOP gains as a demand for his return. But even in a Republican-leaning electorate, the exit polls still registered enormous resistance to him.

    One of the night’s clearest winners was Trump’s most serious competitor for the next GOP nomination, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida, who won a convincing victory that included breakthrough results in heavily Latino Miami-Dade County. His success will likely embolden the Republicans urging the party to turn the page from Trump—though Trump has already signaled his willingness to bludgeon DeSantis to secure the nomination, the way he did Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz in 2016.

    For Biden, the situation will likely be more equivocal: The results for Democrats probably won’t prove good enough to completely quiet the chatter about replacing him, but nor will they likely prove so bad as to significantly amplify it. After this double-negative election produced something of a standoff between the parties in 2022, it remains entirely possible that the nation may find itself plunged into the same grueling trench warfare between Trump and Biden again two years from now.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • Why Politics Has Become So Stressful

    Why Politics Has Become So Stressful

    [ad_1]

    No matter which party wins control of the House and Senate next month, the results are virtually certain to reinforce the paradox powering the nation’s steadily mounting political tension.

    American politics today may be both more rigid and more unstable than at any other time since at least the Civil War. A politics that is rigid and unstable sounds like a contradiction in terms. But the system’s instability is a direct result of its rigidity. Because so many voters—and so many states—are reliably locked down for one side or the other, even the slightest shifts among the few voters and few states that are truly up for grabs can tilt the balance of power. The consequence is a politics in which neither party can sustain a durable advantage over the other, and political direction for a country of 330 million people is decided by a tiny sliver of voters in about half a dozen states—maybe a few hundred thousand people in all.

    These twin forces largely explain why so many Americans now find politics so stressful. People across the country nervously parse the choices of distant voters in a handful of states to see which party will control the federal government. The balance always remains so wobbly that a momentary mood swing in just a few subdivisions outside Atlanta, Phoenix, or Philadelphia can determine whether Democrats are empowered to pass a new law codifying a national right to abortion, or Republicans are positioned to impose a national ban. Everything is always at stake—and nothing seems to break the deadlock.

    Just how few states determine which side prevails? Probably no more than eight, and arguably as few as six. The list of genuine swing states extends no further than Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, with New Hampshire and North Carolina plausibly added to that roster, though at the federal level the former measurably leans toward Democrats and the latter toward Republicans. The parties still dream of occasional statewide wins in other places—say, Colorado or Minnesota for Republicans and Ohio or Florida for Democrats—but they know that such victories will require unusual circumstances and candidates.

    This small band of true swing states holds the balance of power between the massive red and blue blocks that are, as I’ve written, behaving as if they constitute different nations. Five states in this small group effectively decided the last presidential election by shifting from Donald Trump in 2016 to Joe Biden in 2020: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Almost all of the highly competitive Senate races that will determine control of the chamber this year are unfolding in one of those eight most competitive states, too. Partisans who obsessively checked the poll results from those few states in 2020 have found themselves in a political Groundhog Day, scanning the FiveThirtyEight election-outcome probabilities on pretty much the same places two years later. Two years from now, in the 2024 presidential contest, they are almost guaranteed to be fixated on the same states again.

    What’s more, the balance of power within those few swing states is also precarious; the outcome of elections teeters on microscopic shifts in turnout and/or voter preferences. Biden won the five states he flipped from 2016 by only a combined 279,265 votes, and more than half of that total came in Michigan alone. Few observers would be surprised if almost all of this year’s major Senate contests across the swing states come down to photo finishes.

    In a new book on the 2020 election, The Bitter End, three prominent political scientists describe modern American politics as “calcified,” meaning that the majority of voters are firmly locked into support for one party based primarily on their views about cultural and demographic change. But the UCLA political scientist Lynn Vavreck, one of the co-authors, says that equating “calcification” with “stability” is a mistake. “Being stuck, or calcified, doesn’t mean we are stuck with one outcome,” she told me. “It means that because of that rough partisan parity, we are stuck on the knife’s edge. Anything is tipping these outcomes.”

    The best evidence is that the modern Democratic electoral coalition is at least somewhat larger than the GOP’s. Democrats have won the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections, something no party has done since the formation of the modern party system in 1828. But the Democratic edge hasn’t been decisive enough to overcome the party’s inability to compete in large swaths of the country. Nor can Democrats overcome the structural advantages provided to the GOP by its dominance of smaller, preponderantly white and mostly Christian interior states, whose influence is magnified in the Electoral College and the Senate.

    Barring a major surprise, next month’s election seems guaranteed to extend the longest period in American history when neither party has been able to establish a lasting advantage over the other.

    If Democrats lose the House or Senate, or both, it will mark the fifth consecutive time that a president went into a midterm with unified control of Congress and the White House and then lost it. (That happened to Bill Clinton in 1994, George W. Bush in 2006, Barack Obama in 2010, and Trump in 2018.) No president since Jimmy Carter in 1978 has successfully defended unified control of government through a midterm election. Since 1968, in fact, either party has held unified control in Washington for just 16 of 54 years. In the 72 years before that (from 1896 to 1968), one party or the other held unified control for 58 years.

    This isn’t the first extended period of political instability for the U.S. One party or the other managed just eight years of unified control in the tumultuous two decades before the Civil War. The era from 1877 to 1896 may have been the period most like today: The two sides managed just six years of unified control over those two decades, and never for more than two years at a time. Divided government was also the rule through the 1950s. But none of these earlier periods of instability persisted remotely as long as today’s.

    All of the earlier periods without a dominant party were notable for the lack of clear differentiation between the sides. In the decades before the Civil War, for instance, the need to mollify northern and southern wings prevented either the Whigs or the Democrats from taking a clear position in opposition to the spread of slavery.

    Now it’s the gulf between the parties that largely explains their standoff. In their current ideological configurations, neither side can consistently win enough states to sustain an advantage. Democrats dominate the coastal states most integrated into the 21st-century Information Age economy; the heartland states centered on the 20th-century powerhouse industries of manufacturing, energy extraction, and agriculture are a sea of Republican red. Neither side has managed more than idiosyncratic incursions into the other’s terrain (like Republican Glenn Youngkin’s 2021 gubernatorial win in Virginia and Democrat Joe Manchin’s three Senate wins in West Virginia).

    Generational and demographic change may strengthen Democrats over time, but as long as attitudes about American identity remain the principal dividing line in our politics, Vavreck, like many others, doesn’t see either side breaking out of today’s trench warfare. And she expects that identity-centered division—what I’ve called the collision between the Republican “coalition of restoration” and the Democratic “coalition of transformation”—to remain the central focus of our politics for years. “This is the dimension of conflict we are fighting on for the foreseeable future,” she said. “COVID didn’t dislodge it; the murder of George Floyd didn’t dislodge it; the Capitol insurrection didn’t dislodge it.”

    One way to measure how dug in we’ve become is to look at the consistency of presidential-election results over time. Forty states, or four-fifths of the total, have voted the same way in each of the four presidential elections since 2008: 20 for the Democratic nominees, 20 for the Republicans. That’s a modern peak for consistency. Thirty-four states voted the same way in the four presidential elections from 1992 through 2004. In the four elections from 1976 through 1988, only 25 did. Even in the four consecutive elections won by Franklin D. Roosevelt from 1932 through 1944, only about two-thirds of the states voted the same way each time.

    What’s especially relevant for next month’s election is a corollary trend. Not only are more states reliably voting the same way for president; they are also, to a greater extent than earlier, aligning their votes in congressional elections with their preferences for the White House. Republicans hold just one of the 40 Senate seats in the 20 states that have voted Democratic in at least the past four presidential elections (Susan Collins in Maine), and Democrats hold just two of 40 in the four-time Republican states (Manchin in West Virginia and Jon Tester in Montana). Republicans this year might capture a Senate seat in Nevada—a state on the Democratic list—and solidly Republican Utah, of all places, looks reasonably competitive, but otherwise the November results are unlikely to change those numbers.

    With each side realistically contesting Senate seats in so few states, it’s no wonder, as I’ve written, that the parties are much less likely than in the past to accumulate comfortable Senate majorities—and thus much more likely to quickly lose control of the upper chamber after winning it. Neither side has held the Senate majority for more than eight consecutive years since 1980, a span unprecedented in American history.

    The fact that control of Congress appears within reach for both sides in virtually every election, as it does again this year, heightens the sense of urgency and intensity around each campaign. So does the awareness that, because the parties have become so polarized in their goals, each shift in control can produce enormous changes in policy, no matter how wispy the change in voter attitudes that precipitated it. “The difference in policy now between the group that has 51 percent and the group that has 49 percent is so enormous because of the polarization and divergence of the two parties,” the longtime GOP pollster Whit Ayres told me. Such big change resting on such small shifts, Ayres added, “is not healthy for democracy.”

    Trump’s emergence has further raised the stakes over control of Congress and the White House. Many independent students of democracy and authoritarianism believe that if restored to unified control over government, Trump—and the many Republicans embracing his discredited fraud claims—will seek to tilt the electoral rules in a way that makes it more difficult to again remove him from power. A similar dynamic is already evident in the 21 red states that responded to Trump’s 2020 defeat by passing laws making voting more difficult. “If the Republican Party manages to get control one way or another, including both legal and illegal things, and rig the system a little bit more, we could have a period of more continuity [in unified control of Washington] but it would be minority government,” the political scientist Thomas Mann, a co-author of a seminal 2012 book on congressional polarization, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks, told me.

    Which is to say that you can likely add the future of American democracy to the list of issues that will soon be decided by a relative handful of voters in the handful of states at the tipping point of our internal cold war.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • The Great Senate Stalemate

    The Great Senate Stalemate

    [ad_1]

    The map of competitive Senate elections is shrinking—and not just for November.

    Though Republicans began the year expecting sweeping Senate gains, the party’s top-grade opportunities to capture seats now held by Democrats have dwindled to just two—Nevada and Georgia—and both are, at best, toss-ups for the GOP. And while Democrats, somewhat astoundingly, have emerged from the primaries with at least as many plausible flipping chances as Republicans, Pennsylvania is the only GOP-held seat clearly favored to go blue, and even that isn’t guaranteed. It remains entirely possible that November’s results will leave the Senate divided again at 50–50, something that has not happened in consecutive elections since the Seventeenth Amendment established the direct election of senators more than a century ago.

    This standoff partly reflects the volatile dynamics of the 2022 election, in which Republican advantages on the economy have been largely neutralized by public unease over gun violence, the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling, the resurgent visibility of former President Donald Trump, and the GOP’s nomination of weak, Trump-aligned candidates. Yet the possibility of a virtual draw—after a campaign season in which the two sides have already poured more than $850 million into just the 10 most expensive Senate races—reflects larger changes in the electoral competition.

    One of the most powerful trends in modern politics has been for each party to consolidate control of the Senate seats in the states it usually captures in the presidential election. That’s lowered the ceiling on the number of Senate seats each party can win. And that lowered ceiling, in turn, has diminished each side’s ability to maintain control of the Senate majority for any extended period.

    The Senate is therefore frozen in the sense that neither side, in normal times, can seriously contest more than a handful of the seats held by the other party. Paradoxically, it’s unstable in the sense that the shrunken playing field leaves each side clinging to tiny majorities that are vulnerable to small shifts in voter attitudes in the very few states that remain consistently competitive.

    Throughout the 20th century, it was common for one side to build a comfortable majority in which it held at least 55 percent of the Senate’s seats. Republicans hit that level of dominance in 10 of the 15 Congresses from 1901 through 1930. Then, from 1932 to 1980, Democrats regularly reached the 55 percent threshold. (The big exception to this pattern came in the 1950s, when the ideological lines between the parties blurred and neither won more than a two-seat Senate majority through four consecutive Congresses.) Even from 1980 to 2000, one side or the other reached 55 seats seven times. Since 2000, though, the parties have controlled at least 55 seats only three times: Republicans immediately after George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004 and Democrats immediately after Barack Obama’s presidential victories in 2008 and 2012.

    Smaller margins have reduced both parties’ ability to defend their majorities for any extended period. Since 1980, neither party has controlled the Senate for more than eight consecutive years. That’s unprecedented: The U.S. has never gone four decades without a Senate majority that survived for more than eight years.

    Both the thin margins and frequent turnover are rooted in a third trend: the growing alignment between states’ votes for president and Senate.

    Especially through the second half of the 20th century, states routinely supported presidential candidates from one party and Senate candidates from the other. After the landslide reelections of Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1984, for instance, Democrats still controlled about half of the Senate seats in the states that voted for them both times.

    But as American politics has grown more partisan and parliamentary, those split-ticket senators have virtually gone extinct, which has reduced the number of states each side can realistically contest.

    After the 2020 election, the GOP held 94 percent of the Senate seats in the 25 states that voted for Trump both times while Democrats held 98 percent of the seats in the 20 states that twice voted against him. Democrats have squeezed out their current 50–50 Senate majority by winning eight of the 10 Senate seats in the remaining five swing states that switched from Trump to Joe Biden.

    Last spring, Republicans anticipated a midterm red wave that would break this stalemate, followed by a push toward a filibuster-proof 60-seat Senate majority in 2024.

    Both parties identified Catherine Cortez Masto in Nevada, Raphael Warnock in Georgia, Mark Kelly in Arizona, and Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire as the most vulnerable Democratic senators. Beyond that, Republicans hoped to seriously challenge Michael Bennet in Colorado and Patty Murray in Washington. The 2022 electoral environment remains unsettled, and it’s possible that continuing discontent over the economy could improve GOP prospects before election day. But for now, with Colorado, Washington, Arizona, and New Hampshire all moving toward the Democrats, it appears that the list of fully plausible GOP Senate targets has fallen to just two: Nevada and Georgia.

    All polls in Georgia show a tight race between Warnock and the Republican nominee, Herschel Walker, the former University of Georgia football star. And with Republican Governor Brian Kemp holding a steady lead over Democrat Stacey Abrams, it remains possible that a Georgia crimson tide (pun intended) might carry Walker to victory. But Walker may be the most obviously unqualified Senate nominee in recent memory, and he’s facing a seemingly endless procession of personal scandals. Walker’s vulnerabilities might allow Warnock to survive even a strong Republican current; indeed all but one of the five most recent public polls have shown Warnock in the lead.

    That leaves Nevada as the best chance for Republicans to capture a seat Democrats hold now. A state with legions of low-wage workers, Nevada has heavily felt the effects of coronavirus shutdowns and inflation. The state also lacks the large pool of college graduates and white-collar professionals heavily motivated by abortion and other social issues lifting Democrats elsewhere. But even with all that boosting them, Republicans can hardly be confident about Nevada: For longer than the past decade, Nevada Democrats, operating the political machine assembled by the late former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have shown a knack for turning out just enough of their voters to win very close races.

    Democrats, unexpectedly, have kept a larger roster of GOP Senate seats in play. The Senate race most likely to change hands between the parties remains Pennsylvania, where Republican Pat Toomey is retiring. Democratic Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman, although some polls show his margin narrowing, remains favored over Mehmet Oz, the Republican nominee. Oz is laboring under strong unfavorable ratings and will likely face an undertow from the governor’s race, where Doug Mastriano, among the most extreme GOP nominees anywhere this year, could face a crushing defeat.

    Polls also show Democrats Mandela Barnes and Tim Ryan locked in margin-of-error races in Wisconsin and Ohio. Barnes and Ryan have given themselves a realistic chance to win against GOP opponents who are also laboring under high unfavorable ratings, Senator Ron Johnson in Wisconsin and J. D. Vance in Ohio. But those are both states where Democrats often struggle to find the last few percentage points of support they need, and this will especially be the case while Biden’s approval rating is depressed among the white non-college voters so plentiful in each.

    In North Carolina, Democrat Cheri Beasley is likewise step for step in polls with Republican Ted Budd—though, since 2008, that state has functioned as a kind of heartbreak hill for Democrats, who have suffered a succession of narrow defeats there. Florida has become an even tougher state for Democrats, but polls have consistently shown Democratic Representative Val Demings remaining closer to Republican Senator Marco Rubio than most analysts initially expected.

    This playing field still leaves Republicans a path to a majority, but one much narrower than they anticipated. If the GOP loses Pennsylvania, which remains likely, its most plausible path to retake the Senate is to win both Nevada and Georgia, while simultaneously holding off the Democrats in both Wisconsin and Ohio, not to mention North Carolina and Florida. Republican upsets in Arizona or New Hampshire, or Oz surging past Fetterman during the final weeks in Pennsylvania, would ease that pressure. But today, none of those outcomes look probable.

    Yet even if Democrats hold the Senate, it will likely be with a very narrow majority, and perhaps with nothing more than another 50–50 tie that Vice President Kamala Harris will step in to break. Democrats would still remain at substantial risk of surrendering their majority in 2024, largely because they will be defending all three of the seats they hold in the states that twice voted for Trump—Joe Manchin in West Virginia, Jon Tester in Montana, and Sherrod Brown in Ohio. That won’t be easy in a presidential-election year.

    Early in Biden’s presidency, some Democratic strategists, such as the data analyst David Shor, ominously warned that the party could face an extended period of Republican dominance in the Senate, largely because of the GOP’s hardening advantage in heavily white interior states. The GOP probably does hold an edge in the long-term battle for Senate control because it is regularly winning slightly more states than Democrats in presidential contests. But the fizzling of the GOP’s Senate opportunities this year shows how difficult it may be for either side to secure a sizable, much less durable, majority.

    Political scientists and strategists alike usually find far more meaning in elections that deliver resounding change than those that reconfirm the status quo. Yet it will send a powerful message if neither party in November can break through the forces that have left the Senate so precariously balanced. It will show that the two sides remain locked in a grinding trench warfare where neither can overwhelm the other’s defenses and the handful of states in the no-man’s-land between them hold decisive power to tilt the national direction. That’s a recipe for more years of bitter but inconclusive conflict between two political coalitions that are now almost identical in size—but utterly antithetical in their vision for America’s future.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • Democrats Might Avoid a Midterm Wipeout

    Democrats Might Avoid a Midterm Wipeout

    [ad_1]

    If Democrats avoid the worst outcome in November’s midterm elections, the principal reason will likely be the GOP’s failure to reverse its decline in white-collar suburbs during the Donald Trump era.

    That’s a clear message from yesterday’s crowded primary calendar, which showed the GOP mostly continuing to nominate Trump-style culture-war candidates around the country. And yet, the resounding defeat of an anti-abortion ballot initiative in Kansas showed how many voters in larger population centers are recoiling from that Trumpist vision.

    Democrats still face enormous headwinds in November, including sweeping voter dissatisfaction over inflation, low approval ratings for President Joe Biden, and the near unbroken history since the Civil War of the party that holds the White House losing seats in the House of Representatives during a president’s first two years.

    Polls indicate that many college-educated center-right voters have soured on the performance of Biden and the Democrats controlling both congressional chambers. Yet in Tudor Dixon, the GOP gubernatorial nominee in Michigan, and Blake Masters, the party’s Senate selection in Arizona, Republicans have chosen nominees suited less to recapturing socially moderate white-collar voters than to energizing Trump’s working-class and nonurban base through culture-war appeals like support of near-total abortion bans. With Trump-backed Kari Lake moving into the lead as counting continues in the Arizona Republican gubernatorial primary, the top GOP nominees both there and in Michigan will likely be composed entirely of candidates who embrace Trump’s lie that he won their state in 2020.

    In the intermediate term, most Democratic strategists believe that the party must find ways to combat the GOP’s strong performance during the Trump era with working-class voters, particularly its improvement since 2016 among blue-collar Hispanic voters. But with inflation so badly squeezing the finances of many working- and middle-class families, recovering much ground with such voters before November may be tough for most Democratic candidates. Those working-class voters “know the shoe is pinching,” says Tom Davis, the former chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee, quoting the late political scientist V. O. Key Jr.

    The more realistic route for Democrats in key races may be to defend, as much as possible, the inroads they made into the white-collar suburbs of virtually every major metropolitan area during the past three elections. Although, compared with 2020, the party will likely lose ground with all groups, Democrats are positioned to hold much more of their previous support among college-educated than noncollege voters, according to Ethan Winter, a Democratic pollster.

    An array of recent public polls suggest he’s right. A Monmouth University poll released today showed that white voters without a college degree preferred Republicans for Congress by a 25-percentage-point margin, but white voters with at least a four-year degree backed Democrats by 18 points.

    A recent Fox News Poll in Pennsylvania showed the Democratic Senate nominee John Fetterman crushing Republican Mehmet Oz among college-educated white voters, while the two closely split those without degrees. Another recent Fox News poll in Georgia found Senator Raphael Warnock trailing his opponent Herschel Walker among noncollege white voters by more than 40 percentage points but running essentially even among those with degrees (which would likely be enough to win, given his preponderant support in the Black community). The most recent public surveys in New Hampshire and Wisconsin likewise found Republicans leading comfortably among voters without advanced education, but Democrats holding solid advantages among those with four-year or graduate degrees. A poll this week by Siena College, in New York, found Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul splitting noncollege voters evenly with Republican Lee Zeldin, but beating him by more than two-to-one among those with a degree.

    This strength among college-educated voters may be worth slightly more for Democrats in the midterms than in a general election. Voters without a degree cast a majority of ballots in both types of contests. But calculations by Catalist, a Democratic-voter-targeting firm, and Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political scientist who specializes in voter turnout, have found that voters with a college degree consistently make up about three to four percentage points more of the electorate in a midterm than in a presidential election. “When we see lower turnout elections,” like a midterm, “the gap between high-education and low-education voters increases,” McDonald told me. In close races, that gap could place a thumb on the scale for Democrats, partially offsetting the tendency of decreased turnout from younger and nonwhite voters in midterm elections.

    Republicans have mostly counted on voters’ dissatisfaction with inflation and Biden’s overall performance to recover lost ground in white-collar communities. But as the polls noted above suggest, many voters in those places are, at least for now, decoupling their disenchantment with Biden from their choices in House, Senate, and governor’s races. “Voters have concerns about the direction of the country,” the Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson told me, “but they’re terrified of the direction it would take if these MAGA Republicans took power.”

    One reason for this decoupling may be that, although all families are feeling the effects of inflation, for white-collar professionals, it generally represents something more like an inconvenience than the agonizing vise it constitutes for working-class families.

    That doesn’t mean white-collar voters are unconcerned about the economy, but with less worry about week-to-week financial survival, they are more likely to be influenced by the trifecta of issues that have exploded in visibility over the past several months: abortion rights,  gun control, and the threats to American democracy revealed by the House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection.

    As last night’s Kansas result showed, abortion rights may be an especially powerful weapon for Democrats in white-collar areas. Polls, such as a recent survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, have generally found that about two-thirds or more of voters with at least a four-year college degree believe abortion should remain legal in all or most circumstances. That support is evident even in states that generally lean toward the GOP: Recent public surveys found that strong majorities of voters with college degrees supported legal abortion in Georgia and Texas, and another survey showed majority backing among more affluent voters in Arizona.

    In deep-red Kansas, two-thirds or more of voters have just supported abortion rights in four of the state’s five largest counties. Particularly noteworthy was the huge turnout and massive margin (68 percent to 32 percent at latest count) for the pro-choice position in Johnson County, a well-educated suburb of Kansas City that demographically resembles many of the suburban areas that have moved toward Democrats around such cities as Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta, Austin, and Phoenix.

    Republican candidates this year have ceded virtually no ground to the pro-abortion-rights or pro-gun-control sentiments in those suburban areas. With the national protection for abortion revoked by the Supreme Court, almost all Republican-controlled states are on track to ban or restrict the practice. In swing states that have not yet done so, GOP gubernatorial candidates are promising to pursue tight limits. Dixon, the GOP’s Michigan nominee, said recently that she would push for an abortion ban with no exceptions for rape, incest, or the health of the mother (while she would allow them only in cases that threaten the mother’s life). Asked during a recent interview about a hypothetical case of a 14-year-old who had been impregnated by an uncle, Dixon explicitly said the teenager should carry the baby to term because “a life is a life for me.”

    Matt Mackowiak, a Texas-based Republican consultant, told me that the magnitude of the pro-abortion-rights vote in Kansas was “unexpected,” but it does not guarantee Democratic candidates’ suburban domination in November. “This was a rare up or down vote on this issue,” he told me in an email. “November will be different, as voters will have lots of reasons to vote and lots of issues to consider … Polls consistently show the economy trumping this issue in the minds of the voters.”

    But Democrats believe that the contrast on abortion will be highly consequential, especially in governor’s races, where Democrats such as the incumbent Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan and the nominee Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania are presenting themselves as a last line of defense against Republicans intent on banning the procedure. Suburban “voters might have been thinking about voting Republican because they are unhappy with the direction of country and inflation, and they might decide to back Whitmer because of abortion,” Winter, the Democratic pollster, told me.

    The choice may not carry such immediate implications in House and Senate races, but leading Democrats are running on promises to pass legislation restoring the national right to abortion, while Republicans are either opposing such a bill or signaling openness to imposing a national ban. The two top Democratic challengers for Republican-held Senate seats (John Fetterman in Pennsylvania and Mandela Barnes in Wisconsin) have both called for ending the filibuster to pass legislation codifying national abortion rights.

    Davis, the former NRCC chair who represented a suburban Northern Virginia district, believes that even in white-collar communities supportive of abortion rights and gun control, Democrats won’t escape discontent over inflation. If Republicans could frame the election simply as a referendum on Biden’s performance, Davis told me, “that’s their path to victory and a path to an electoral landslide.” But, he added, the choice by GOP voters in so many states to nominate “exotic candidates” mostly linked to Trump has provided Democrats with an opportunity, particularly in higher-profile Senate and governor contests, to make this “a choice election.” And that, he said, gives Democrats a shot at winning enough “white ticket-splitters” to at least hold down their losses.

    Given the headwinds, Democrats would take a November outcome in which they narrowly lose the House but hold their Senate majority and preserve control of the governorships in the key swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, while perhaps adding some others, such as Arizona. With Biden’s approval rating still scuffling, that outcome is hardly guaranteed. But it remains a possibility largely because, as yesterday’s primaries showed, Republicans have responded to their suburban erosion by betting even more heavily on the policies and rhetoric that triggered their decline in the first place. In November, white-collar suburbs may be the deciding factor between a Republican rout and a split decision that leaves Democrats still standing to fight another day.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link