ReportWire

Tag: us elections

  • Ex-Arkansas governor says ‘more voices’ in 2024 GOP race are ‘good for our party’ | CNN Politics

    Ex-Arkansas governor says ‘more voices’ in 2024 GOP race are ‘good for our party’ | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who’s weighing a run for the Republican presidential nomination, said Sunday that “more voices” in the 2024 race are “good for our party.”

    Hutchinson made his remarks on CNN’s “State of the Union” after a fellow former GOP governor, Maryland’s Larry Hogan, announced that he would not run for president because he didn’t want his candidacy to help Donald Trump nab the Republican nomination.

    “Larry Hogan is a star. He’s governed well in Maryland, elected in a blue state. I think the fact that he indicates that he’s going to continue to fight in the Republican Party for alternatives to Donald Trump and a new direction is a good sign,” Hutchinson told CNN’s Dana Bash.

    “I actually think more voices right now in opposition or providing an alternative to Donald Trump is the best thing in the right direction. So, hats off to Larry for what he’s done, what he’s contributed. And I’m glad that he will continue to do so,” he added.

    Hogan said in a statement Sunday that he wanted to avoid a “pileup” in the GOP primary that could result in Trump clearing the field and securing the nomination.

    Hutchinson disagreed with that stance, telling CNN that “this is not 2016” and that 2024 will be “different” because Trump is a “known quantity” He also said that evangelical Christian voters “are convinced that we need to have a different type of leadership in the future.”

    “In the early stages, multiple candidates that have an alternative vision to what the president has is good for our party, good for the debate, good for the upcoming debate that will be in August,” Hutchinson said.

    “So, sure, that will narrow, and it will probably narrow fairly quickly. We need to have a lot of self-evaluation as you go along, but I think more voices now that provide alternative messages and problem-solving and ideas is good for our party,” he added.

    Hutchinson told Bash he was troubled by Trump’s comments at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday that he can deliver conservatives “retribution” against Democrats and establishment Republicans.

    “It’s troubling. First of all, if you want to heal our land, unite our country together, you don’t do it by appealing to the angry mob. And that’s true whether you’re talking about an angry mob from the left or the right,” Hutchinson said. “And when he talks about vengeance, he’s talking about his personal vendettas, and that’s not healthy for America; it’s certainly not healthy for our party.”

    Hutchinson was also asked about the Republican National Committee’s proposal for 2024 contenders to sign a pledge to back the party’s ultimate nominee in order to participate in primary debates. The former governor said the pledge should instead be a promise not to run as a third-party candidate if the candidate doesn’t win the nomination. He did not directly say whether he’d sign the loyalty pledge but said he anticipates participating in the RNC debates if he’s a candidate.

    Hutchinson, who has traveled to the early-voting states of Iowa and South Carolina, said April is when he’ll make his decision about whether he’d run for president.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Larry Hogan says he’s not running for president in 2024 | CNN Politics

    Larry Hogan says he’s not running for president in 2024 | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan said Sunday that he will not seek the Republican nomination for president in 2024.

    “I have long said that I care more about ensuring a future for the Republican Party than securing my own future in the Republican Party. That is why I will not be seeking the Republican nomination for president,” he said in a statement.

    After leaving office in January, Hogan said that he was seriously considering running for president.

    But on Sunday, the longtime critic of former President Donald Trump said that “the stakes are too high for me to risk being part of another multicar pileup that could potentially help Mr. Trump recapture the nomination.”

    Trump is making his third bid for the Republican nomination in a race that has been slow to take shape. Former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy entered the primary last month. Other potential contenders for the GOP nomination include Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former Vice President MIke Pence and New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu.

    In his statement Sunday, Hogan, who served two terms as Maryland governor, argued that his party needs to “move on” from Trump. A relatively moderate Republican, Hogan has long been critical of Trump’s influence on the party and was even seen as a potential challenger to him in the 2020 GOP primary. He has said that had he been in the US Senate, he would have voted to convict the former president at his 2021 impeachment trial.

    “Our nation faces great challenges; we can’t afford to be consumed by the pettiest grievances. We can push back and defeat the excesses of elitist policies on the left without resorting to angry, divisive and performative politics,” he said in his statement Sunday.

    Hogan was first elected governor in 2014 and comfortably won reelection in 2018. In recent decades, the state has been dominated by the Democratic Party at the state and federal levels. George H.W. Bush was the last Republican presidential nominee to win the Old Line State, in 1988.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden to visit Selma as he makes his own case for voting rights | CNN Politics

    Biden to visit Selma as he makes his own case for voting rights | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden will visit Alabama on Sunday to commemorate the 58th anniversary of the landmark Bloody Sunday march that galvanized the Civil Rights movement and helped lead to an expansion of voting rights.

    Biden’s stop in Selma comes as he and fellow Democrats struggle to pass their own sweeping voting rights measures, with dim prospects of passage in a Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

    Still, Biden plans to make fresh calls for new voting protections when he speaks from the Edmund Pettus Bridge, where in 1965 a group of civil rights marchers were beaten by White state troopers as they attempted to cross.

    The president will participate in the yearly walk across the bridge to commemorate the events, which sparked outrage and helped rally support behind the Voting Rights Act. Among the protesters beaten was the late US Rep. John Lewis.

    Aside from its place in history, Selma is also still recovering from devastating tornadoes that struck two months ago.

    It’s not Biden’s first time attending the anniversary events in Selma; in 2020, during his run for the presidency, he spoke at historic Brown Chapel AME Church as he worked to court Black voters ahead of Super Tuesday.

    “We’ve been dragged backward and we’ve lost ground. We’ve seen all too clearly that if you give hate any breathing room it comes back,” he said in his speech then.

    Biden would go on to win the Democratic nomination and the presidency, due in large part to his support from Black voters.

    Vice President Kamala Harris, who represented the administration at the anniversary event last year, said in a statement Sunday that “America has seen a new assault on the freedom to vote.”

    “Extremists have worked to dismantle the voting protections that generations of civil rights leaders and advocates fought tirelessly to win. They have purged voters from the rolls. They have closed polling places. They have made it a crime to give water to people standing in line,” she said.

    During last year’s event, Harris had vowed that she and Biden would “put the full power of the executive branch behind our shared effort” while criticizing Republican lawmakers for voting to block passage of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act. She called on those gathered at the foot of the Edmund Pettus Bridge “to continue to push the Senate to not allow an arcane rule to deny us the sacred right.”

    On Sunday, Biden plans to “talk about the importance of commemorating Bloody Sunday so that history cannot be erased,” according to White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.

    “He will highlight how the continued fight for voting rights is integral to delivering economic justice and civil rights for black Americans,” she said.

    Bloody Sunday commemorates when, in 1965, 600 people began a march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, demanding an end to discrimination in voter registration. At the Edmund Pettus Bridge, state and local lawmen attacked the marchers with billy clubs and tear gas, driving them back to Selma. Seventeen people were hospitalized and dozens more were injured by police.

    This story has been updated with additional information Sunday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact check: Republicans at CPAC make false claims about Biden, Zelensky, the FBI and children | CNN Politics

    Fact check: Republicans at CPAC make false claims about Biden, Zelensky, the FBI and children | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The Conservative Political Action Conference is underway in Maryland. And the members of Congress, former government officials and conservative personalities who spoke at the conference on Thursday and Friday made false claims about a variety of topics.

    Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio uttered two false claims about President Joe Biden. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia repeated a debunked claim about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama used two inaccurate statistics as he lamented the state of the country. Former Trump White House official Steve Bannon repeated his regular lie about the 2020 election having been stolen from Trump, this time baselesly blaming Fox for Trump’s defeat.

    Rep. Kat Cammack of Florida incorrectly said a former Obama administration official had encouraged people to harass Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina inaccurately claimed Biden had laughed at a grieving mother and inaccurately insinuated that the FBI tipped off the media to its search of former President Donald Trump’s Florida residence. Two other speakers, Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and former Trump administration official Sebastian Gorka, inflated the number of deaths from fentanyl.

    And that’s not all. Here is a fact check of 13 false claims from the conference, which continues on Saturday.

    Marjorie Taylor Greene said the Republican Party has a duty to protect children. Listing supposed threats to children, she said, “Now whether it’s like Zelensky saying he wants our sons and daughters to go die in Ukraine…” Later in her speech, she said, “I will look at a camera and directly tell Zelensky: you’d better leave your hands off of our sons and daughters, because they’re not dying over there.”

    Facts First: Greene’s claim is false. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky didn’t say he wants American sons and daughters to fight or die for Ukraine. The false claim, which was debunked by CNN and others earlier in the week, is based on a viral video that clipped Zelensky’s comments out of context.

    19-second video of Zelensky goes viral. See what was edited out

    In reality, Zelensky predicted at a press conference in late February that if Ukraine loses the war against Russia because it does not receive sufficient support from elsewhere, Russia will proceed to enter North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries in the Baltics (a region made up of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) that the US will be obligated to send troops to defend. Under the treaty that governs NATO, an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. Ukraine is not a NATO member, and Zelensky didn’t say Americans should fight there.

    Greene is one of the people who shared the out-of-context video on Twitter this week. You can read a full fact-check, with Zelensky’s complete quote, here.

    Right-wing commentator and former Trump White House chief strategist Steve Bannon criticized right-wing cable channel Fox at length for, he argued, being insufficiently supportive of Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. Among other things, Bannon claimed that, on the night of the election in November 2020, “Fox News illegitimately called it for the opposition and not Donald J. Trump, of which our nation has never recovered.” Later, he said Trump is running again after “having it stolen, in broad daylight, of which they [Fox] participate in.”

    Facts First: This is nonsense. On election night in 2020, Fox accurately projected that Biden had won the state of Arizona. This projection did not change the outcome of the election; all of the votes are counted regardless of what media outlets have projected, and the counting showed that Biden won Arizona, and the election, fair and square. The 2020 election was not “stolen” from Trump.

    NATIONAL HARBOR, MARYLAND - MARCH 03: Former White House chief strategist for the Trump Administration Steve Bannon speaks during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort Hotel And Convention Center on March 03, 2023 in National Harbor, Maryland. The annual conservative conference entered its second day of speakers including congressional members, media personalities and members of former President Donald Trump's administration. President Donald Trump will address the event on Saturday.  (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

    Bannon has a harsh message for Fox News at CPAC

    Fox, like other major media outlets, did not project that Biden had won the presidency until four days later. Fox personalities went on to repeatedly promote lies that the election was stolen from Trump – even as they privately dismissed and mocked these false claims, according to court filings from a voting technology company that is suing Fox for defamation.

    Rep. Jim Jordan claimed that Biden, “on day one,” made “three key changes” to immigration policy. Jordan said one of those changes was this: “We’re not going to deport anyone who come.” He proceeded to argue that people knowing “we’re not going to get deported” was a reason they decided to migrate to the US under Biden.

    Facts First: Jordan inaccurately described the 100-day deportation pause that Biden attempted to impose immediately after he took office on January 20, 2021. The policy did not say the US wouldn’t deport “anyone who comes.” It explicitly did not apply to anyone who arrived in the country after the end of October 2020, meaning people who arrived under the Biden administration or in the last months of the Trump administration could still be deported.

    Biden did say during the 2020 Democratic primary that “no one, no one will be deported at all” in his first 100 days as president. But Jordan claimed that this was the policy Biden actually implemented on his first day in office; Biden’s actual first-day policy was considerably narrower.

    Biden’s attempted 100-day pause also did not apply to people who engaged in or were suspected of terrorism or espionage, were seen to pose a national security risk, had waived their right to remain in the US, or whom the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement determined the law required to be removed.

    The pause was supposed to be in effect while the Department of Homeland Security conducted a review of immigration enforcement practices, but it was blocked by a federal judge shortly after it was announced.

    Rep. Ralph Norman strongly suggested the FBI had tipped off the media to its August search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and resort in Florida for government documents in the former president’s possession – while concealing its subsequent document searches of properties connected to Biden.

    Norman said: “When I saw the raid at Mar-a-Lago – you know, the cameras, the FBI – and compare that to when they found Biden’s, all of the documents he had, where was the media, where was the FBI? They kept it quiet early on, didn’t let it out. The job of the next president is going to be getting rid of the insiders that are undermining this government, and you’ve gotta clean house.”

    Facts First: Norman’s narrative is false. The FBI did not tip off the media to its search of Mar-a-Lago; CNN reported the next day that the search “happened so quietly, so secretly, that it wasn’t caught on camera at all.” Rather, media outlets belatedly sent cameras to Mar-a-Lago because Peter Schorsch, publisher of the website Florida Politics, learned of the search from non-FBI sources and tweeted about it either after it was over or as it was just concluding, and because Trump himself made a public statement less than 20 minutes later confirming that a search had occurred. Schorsch told CNN on Thursday: “I can, unequivocally, state that the FBI was not one of my two sources which alerted me to the raid.”

    Brian Stelter, then CNN’s chief media correspondent, wrote in his article the day after the search: “By the time local TV news cameras showed up outside the club, there was almost nothing to see. Websites used file photos of the Florida resort since there were no dramatic shots of the search.”

    It’s true that the public didn’t find out until late January about the FBI’s November search of Biden’s former think tank office in Washington, which was conducted with the consent of Biden’s legal team. But the belated presence of journalists at Mar-a-Lago on the day of the Trump search in August is not evidence of a double standard.

    And it’s worth noting that media cameras were on the scene when Biden’s beach home in Delaware was searched by the FBI in February. News outlets had set up a media “pool” to make sure any search there was recorded.

    Sen. Tommy Tuberville, a former college and high school football coach, said, “Going into thousands of kids’ homes and talking to parents every year recruiting, half the kids in this country – I’m not talking about race, I’m just talking about – half the kids in this country have one or no parent. And it’s because of the attack on faith. People are losing faith because, for some reason, because the attack [on] God.”

    Facts First: Tuberville’s claim that half of American children don’t have two parents is incorrect. Official figures from the Census Bureau show that, in 2021, about 70% of US children under the age of 18 lived with two parents and about 65% lived with two married parents.

    About 22% of children lived with only a mother, about 5% with only a father, and about 3% with no parent. But the Census Bureau has explained that even children who are listed as living with only one parent may have a second parent; children are listed as living with only one parent if, for example, one parent is deployed overseas with the military or if their divorced parents share custody of them.

    It is true that the percentage of US children living in households with two parents has been declining for decades. Still, Tuberville’s statistic significantly exaggerated the current situation. His spokesperson told CNN on Thursday that the senator was speaking “anecdotally” from his personal experience meeting with families as a football coach.

    Tuberville claimed that today’s children are being “indoctrinated” in schools by “woke” ideology and critical race theory. He then said, “We don’t teach reading, writing and arithmetic anymore. You know, half the kids in this country, when they graduate – think about this: half the kids in this country, when they graduate, can’t read their diploma.”

    Facts First: This is false. While many Americans do struggle with reading, there is no basis for the claim that “half” of high school graduates can’t read a basic document like a diploma. “Mr. Tuberville does not know what he’s talking about at all,” said Patricia Edwards, a Michigan State University professor of language and literacy who is a past president of the International Literacy Association and the Literacy Research Association. Edwards said there is “no evidence” to support Tuberville’s claim. She also said that people who can’t read at all are highly unlikely to finish high school and that “sometimes politicians embellish information.”

    Tuberville could have accurately said that a significant number of American teenagers and adults have reading trouble, though there is no apparent basis for connecting these struggles with supposed “woke” indoctrination. The organization ProLiteracy pointed CNN to 2017 data that found 23% of Americans age 16 to 65 have “low” literacy skills in English. That’s not “half,” as ProLiteracy pointed out, and it includes people who didn’t graduate from high school and people who are able to read basic text but struggle with more complex literacy tasks.

    The Tuberville spokesperson said the senator was speaking informally after having been briefed on other statistics about Americans’ struggles with reading, like a report that half of adults can’t read a book written at an eighth-grade level.

    Rep. Jim Jordan claimed of Biden: “The president of the United States stood in front of Independence Hall, called half the country fascists.”

    Facts First: This is not true. Biden did not denounce even close to “half the country” in this 2022 speech at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. He made clear that he was speaking about a minority of Republicans.

    In the speech, in which he never used the word “fascists,” Biden warned that “MAGA Republicans” like Trump are “extreme,” “do not respect the Constitution” and “do not believe in the rule of law.” But he also emphasized that “not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans.” In other words, he made clear that he was talking about far less than half of Americans.

    Trump earned fewer than 75 million votes in 2020 in a country of more than 258 million adults, so even a hypothetical criticism of every single Trump voter would not amount to criticism of “half the country.”

    Rep. Scott Perry claimed that “average citizens need to just at some point be willing to acknowledge and accept that every single facet of the federal government is weaponized against every single one of us.” Perry said moments later, “The government doesn’t have the right to tell you that you can’t buy a gas stove but that you must buy an electric vehicle.”

    Facts First: This is nonsense. The federal government has not told people that they can’t buy a gas stove or must buy an electric vehicle.

    The Biden administration has tried to encourage and incentivize the adoption of electric vehicles, but it has not tried to forbid the manufacture or purchase of traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines. Biden has set a goal of electric vehicles making up half of all new vehicles sold in the US by 2030.

    There was a January controversy about a Biden appointee to the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, Richard Trumka Jr., saying that gas stoves pose a “hidden hazard,” as they emit air pollutants, and that “any option is on the table. Products that can’t be made safe can be banned.” But the commission as a whole has not shown support for a ban, and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said at a January press briefing: “The president does not support banning gas stoves. And the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is independent, is not banning gas stoves.”

    Rep. Ralph Norman claimed that Biden had just laughed at a mother who lost two sons to fentanyl.

    “I don’t know whether y’all saw, I just saw it this morning: Biden laughing at the mother who had two sons – to die, and he’s basically laughing and saying the fentanyl came from the previous administration. Who cares where it came from? The fact is it’s here,” Norman said.

    Facts First: Norman’s claim is false. Biden did not laugh at the mother who lost her sons to fentanyl, the anti-abortion activist Rebecca Kiessling; in a somber tone, he called her “a poor mother who lost two kids to fentanyl.” Rather, he proceeded to laugh about how Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene had baselessly blamed the Biden administration for the young men’s deaths even though the tragedy happened in mid-2020, during the Trump administration. You can watch the video of Biden’s remarks here.

    Kiessling has demanded an apology from Biden. She is entitled to her criticism of Biden’s remarks and his chuckle – but the video clearly shows Norman was wrong when he claimed Biden was “laughing at the mother.”

    Rep. Kat Cammack told a story about the first hearing of the new Republican-led House select subcommittee on the supposed “weaponization” of the federal government. Cammack claimed she had asked a Democratic witness at this February hearing about his “incredibly vitriolic” Twitter feed in which, she claimed, he not only repeatedly criticized Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh but even went “so far as to encourage people to harass this Supreme Court justice.”

    Facts First: This story is false. The witness Cammack questioned in this February exchange at the subcommittee, former Obama administration deputy assistant attorney general Elliot Williams, did not encourage people to harass Kavanaugh. In fact, it’s not even true that Cammack accused him at the February hearing of having encouraged people to harass Kavanaugh. Rather, at the hearing, she merely claimed that Williams had tweeted numerous critical tweets about Kavanaugh but had been “unusually quiet” on Twitter after an alleged assassination attempt against the justice. Clearly, not tweeting about the incident is not the same thing as encouraging harassment.

    Williams, now a CNN legal analyst (he appeared at the subcommittee hearing in his personal capacity), said in a Thursday email that he had “no idea” what Cammack was looking at on his innocuous Twitter feed. He said: “I used to prosecute violent crimes, and clerked for two federal judges. Any suggestion that I’ve ever encouraged harassment of anyone – and particularly any official of the United States – is insulting and not based in reality.”

    Cammack’s spokesperson responded helpfully on Thursday to CNN’s initial queries about the story Cammack told at CPAC, explaining that she was referring to her February exchange with Williams. But the spokesperson stopped responding after CNN asked if Cammack was accurately describing this exchange with Williams and if they had any evidence of Williams actually having encouraged the harassment of Kavanaugh.

    Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana boasted about the state of the country “when Republicans were in charge.” Among other claims about Trump’s tenure, he said that “in four years,” Republicans “delivered 3.5% unemployment” and “created 8 million new jobs.”

    Facts First: This is inaccurate in two ways. First, the economic numbers for the full “four years” of Trump’s tenure are much worse than these numbers Kennedy cited; Kennedy was actually referring to Trump’s first three years while ignoring the fourth, which was marred by the Covid-19 pandemic. Second, there weren’t “8 million new jobs” created even in Trump’s first three years.

    Kennedy could have correctly said there was a 3.5% unemployment rate after three years of the Trump administration, but not after four. The unemployment rate skyrocketed early in Trump’s fourth year, on account of the pandemic, before coming down again, and it was 6.3% when Trump left office in early 2021. (It fell to 3.4% this January under Biden, better than in any month under Trump.)

    And while the economy added about 6.7 million jobs under Trump before the pandemic-related crash of March and April 2020, that’s not the “8 million jobs” Kennedy claimed – and the economy ended up shedding millions of jobs in Trump’s fourth year. Over the full four years of Trump’s tenure, the economy netted a loss of about 2.7 million jobs.

    Lara Trump, Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law and an adviser to his 2020 campaign, claimed that the last time a CPAC crowd was gathered at this venue in Maryland, in February 2020, “We had the lowest unemployment in American history.” After making other boasts about Donald Trump’s presidency, she said, “But how quickly it all changed.” She added, “Under Joe Biden, America is crumbling.”

    Facts First: Lara Trump’s claim about February 2020 having “the lowest unemployment in American history” is false. The unemployment rate was 3.5% at the time – tied for the lowest since 1969, but not the all-time lowest on record, which was 2.5% in 1953. And while Lara Trump didn’t make an explicit claim about unemployment under Biden, it’s not true that things are worse today on this measure; again, the most recent unemployment rate, 3.4% for January 2023, is better than the rate at the time of CPAC’s 2020 conference or at any other time during Donald Trump’s presidency.

    Multiple speakers at CPAC decried the high number of fentanyl overdose deaths. But some of the speakers inflated that number while attacking Biden’s immigration policy.

    Sebastian Gorka, a former Trump administration official, claimed that “in the last 12 months in America, deaths by fentanyl poisoning totaled 110,000 Americans.” He blamed “Biden’s open border” for these deaths.

    Rep. Scott Perry claimed: “Meanwhile over on this side of the border, where there isn’t anybody, they’re running this fentanyl in; it’s killing 100,000 Americans – over 100,000 Americans – a year.”

    Facts First: It’s not true that there are more than 100,000 fentanyl deaths per year. That is the total number of deaths from all drug overdoses in the US; there were 106,699 such deaths in 2021. But the number of overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids other than methadone, primarily fentanyl, is smaller – 70,601 in 2021.

    Fentanyl-related overdoses are clearly a major problem for the country and by far the biggest single contributor to the broader overdose problem. Nonetheless, claims of “110,000” and “over 100,000” fentanyl deaths per year are significant exaggerations. And while the number of overdose deaths and fentanyl-related deaths increased under Biden in 2021, it was also troubling under Trump in 2020 – 91,799 total overdose deaths and 56,516 for synthetic opioids other than methadone.

    It’s also worth noting that fentanyl is largely smuggled in by US citizens through legal ports of entry rather than by migrants sneaking past other parts of the border. Contrary to frequent Republican claims, the border is not “open”; border officers have seized thousands of pounds of fentanyl under Biden.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Ethics Committee announces investigation into embattled Rep. George Santos | CNN Politics

    House Ethics Committee announces investigation into embattled Rep. George Santos | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The House Ethics Committee announced Thursday it is officially moving forward with a probe into embattled Rep. George Santos as the New York Republican faces mounting legal issues and calls to resign for extensively lying about his resume and biography.

    The Ethics Committee said in a news release that it voted to set up an investigative subcommittee with authority to look into a number issues, including whether Santos may have engaged in unlawful activity related to his 2022 congressional campaign.

    According to the release, the investigative panel will have jurisdiction to determine whether Santos “may have engaged in unlawful activity with respect to his 2022 congressional campaign; failed to properly disclose required information on statements filed with the House; violated federal conflict of interest laws in connection with his role in a firm providing fiduciary services; and/or engaged in sexual misconduct towards an individual seeking employment in his congressional office.”

    Santos responded to the announcement in a tweet.

    “The House Committee on Ethics has opened an investigation, and Congressman George Santos is fully cooperating,” his office’s Twitter account wrote. “There will be no further comment made at this time.”

    Santos told CNN in early February that he is “not concerned” about a House ethics probe or about New York constituents calling on him to resign.

    “You’re saying that the freedom of speech of my constituents is a distraction to my work?” Santos said. “Do you think people are a distraction to the work I’m doing here?”

    In a recent interview with Piers Morgan, Santos also suggested the local grassroots campaigns demanding his ouster were not representative of the district. But a poll released on Monday by Siena College found that 66% of New Yorkers wanted him out – including 58% of Republicans.

    “The ‘good’ news for Santos is that even in these hyper partisan times, he’s found a way to get Democrats, Republicans and independents to agree about a political figure,” pollster Steven Greenberg said in the survey’s release. “The bad news for Santos is that the political figure they agree on is him, and they overwhelmingly view him unfavorably.”

    Apart from outlandish lies about his personal life, academic and professional record, Santos has been implicated in a litany of shady business operations, including his work at Harbor City Capital Corp. in 2020 and 2021, a company the SEC called a “classic Ponzi scheme” in an April 2021 complaint against the firm. (Santos was not listed in the complaint.)

    More potentially damaging, though, might be increased scrutiny of his campaign finances. CNN reported late last year that federal prosecutors in New York were looking into issues surrounding his wealth and loans totaling more than $700,000 he made to his successful 2022 campaign. Santos has repeatedly said the cash he put into the campaign was legally obtained. But a complaint from a campaign watchdog group has questioned the source of that financial windfall. Just two years earlier, Santos had reported a salary of $55,000 and no assets.

    Additionally, the campaign’s bookkeeping has also come under a harsh spotlight, especially following the revelation that his former treasure listed dozens of expenses just a penny beneath the legal threshold for keeping receipts.

    That treasurer, Nancy Marks, has since been replaced. But the true identity of her successor remains a mystery.

    On the Hill, Santos will also now have to answer for an accusation by a prospective staffer who claims Santos made an unwanted sexual advance toward him during a private encounter in the congressman’s office. Shortly after he rebuffed Santos, the accuser says, he was denied a job. Santos has denied the claims.

    The individual, Derek Myers, said in a House Ethics complaint that Santos “touched” his groin before allegedly inviting him to his home and said his husband was out of town, according to a copy of the document provided to CNN last month.

    Santos has brushed off repeated calls for his resignation, including from fellow Republican House members and local Republican officials. He has played coy when asked if he plans to seek re-election, though filed required paperwork to keep the option open.

    GOP leaders in Washington have stopped short of demanding he leave, and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy allowed him to be seated to a pair of House committees. Santos, though, chose to withdraw from those assignments as the furor over his lies intensified in late January.

    The Ethics Committee also said in a statement Thursday that it is extending its inquiry into New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and whether she may have accepted unallowed gifts as a member of Congress. The committee released a report by the Office of Congressional Ethics, which said that Ocasio-Cortez “may have accepted impermissible gifts associated with her attendance at the Met Gala in 2021.”

    Counsel for Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement to the committee that “though no Ethics violation has been found, the Office of Congressional Ethics (‘OCE’) did identify that there were delays in paying vendors for costs associated with the Congresswoman’s attendance at the Met Gala. The Congresswoman finds these delays unacceptable, and she has taken several steps to ensure nothing of this nature will ever happen again.”

    “Even after OCE’s exhaustive review of the Congresswoman’s personal communications, there is no record of the Congresswoman refusing to pay for these expenses,” David Mitrani wrote in the letter. “To the contrary, there are several explicit, documented communications, from prior to OCE’s review, that show the Congresswoman understood that she had to pay for these expenses from her own personal funds – as she ultimately did. We are confident the Ethics Committee will dismiss this matter.”

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden’s FAA nominee to get long-awaited confirmation hearing this week | CNN Politics

    Biden’s FAA nominee to get long-awaited confirmation hearing this week | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden’s embattled pick to lead the Federal Aviation Administration is scheduled for his confirmation hearing before Congress on Wednesday morning amid a series of challenges for the agency.

    Phil Washington is expected to get grilled by senators on issues that have emerged since he was nominated last summer and explain why he’s qualified to lead an agency that urgently needs to address a slew of complex challenges.

    The hearing for Washington, whose lack of aviation experience and legal entanglements have raised concerns on Capitol Hill, comes after a year of the FAA operating without a permanent administrator. In that time, the agency has contended with several problems that have plagued travelers and the airline industry, such as recent near-collisions involving airliners, crucial staffing shortages and malfunctions of aging technology that have cause major air travel disruption.

    Washington, whose nomination was first announced by Biden nearly eight months ago, will appear before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Wednesday at 10 a.m. ET.

    Washington, the current CEO of the Denver International Airport, has held leadership roles at municipal transit organizations, including in Denver and Los Angeles, focused on bus and rail lines. He also led the Biden-Harris transition team for the Department of Transportation. Prior to his work in transportation, Washington served in the military for 24 years.

    While Washington has worked in transportation-related positions since 2000, he had no experience in the aviation industry prior to joining the Denver airport in 2021. Since his nomination last summer, Washington has faced questions about his limited experience and, in September, was named in a search warrant issued as part of a political corruption investigation in Los Angeles.

    According to a questionnaire given to the commerce committee ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, Washington wrote that though his name was mentioned in the search warrant along with several other names, no search was ever executed on him or his property, nor was he questioned about the matter.

    Washington’s name was also recently mentioned in a federal lawsuit filed earlier this month. Benjamin Juarez, a former parking director at the Denver Airport, alleges that the city permitted intolerable working conditions and that he faced ongoing threats to his job, Axios reported. Juarez’s attorney says he contacted Washington, who was leading the airport, at least twice for help and did not receive a response.

    Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, the ranking Republican on the committee, has asserted that Washington failed to disclose his naming in the lawsuit involving his work at the Denver airport. Republicans have also questioned whether Washington, an Army veteran who left the military in 2000 after more than 20 years of service, would be statutorily considered a civilian – a requirement in order to serve as the FAA chief.

    If he’s not considered a civilian, he would need a waiver from Congress permitting him to lead the agency. And Republicans do not support granting Washington a waiver.

    A GOP aide on the Senate commerce committee told CNN that Cruz and Senate Republicans expect to raise all these issues – including his legal entanglements, his lack of experience, his management and his possible ineligibility – during Wednesday’s hearing.

    They’ll also focus on Washington’s efforts to incorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion in the vendor and contractor process as well as leading efforts “to make it harder and more expensive to drive in Los Angeles to force people to use mass transit instead in order to save mankind from climate change,” according to the aide. Specifically, the aide referenced Washington’s work to pursue a policy which charges drivers for using congested roadways during peak hours.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in January that he would push to confirm Washington.

    “There is no doubt about it: it’s time to clear the runway for President Biden’s choice for FAA administrator, Phil Washington. With recent events, including airline troubles and last week’s tech problem, this agency needs a leader confirmed by the Senate immediately,” Schumer said in a statement following a computer system failure that triggered the delay of more than 12,000 flights. “I intend to break this logjam, work to hold a hearing for Mr. Washington, where he can detail his experience and answer questions and then work towards a speedy Senate confirmation.”

    The FAA is a sprawling and complex safety, regulatory and operational agency, tasked with regulatory oversight of all civilian aviation in the US.

    It’s been without a permanent administrator for about a year, when the Trump-nominated Stephen Dickson stepped down midway through his five-year term. Billy Nolen, the agency’s top safety official, was named acting director in April.

    The agency has a professed focus on safety, but agency leadership is ultimately responsible for steering its focus as its mission gets wider – with responsibilities expanding to include establishing the federal approach to private space launches and regulating drones – even as longstanding aspects of the aviation industry continue to grapple with major challenges.

    A failure of the 30-year-old NOTAM, or Notice to Air Missions, system led to the first nationwide airplane departure grounding since the 9/11 attacks, showcasing just one way aging industry technology is being stretched beyond its limits by increased volume. Now, the FAA is planning to dramatically accelerate replacing the safety system.

    Another FAA computer system failed earlier this year when it was overloaded, leading to delays in Florida. And the agency has struggled to modernize parts of air traffic control, with a 2021 Transportation Department Office of Inspection General report citing difficulties integrating the FAA’s multi-billion dollar Next Generation Air Transportation System project due to extended delays.

    There have been recent near-collisions on US runways, prompting federal safety investigators to open multiple inquiries. Air traffic control is staffed at the lowest level in decades, according to industry experts. And key roles at US airlines pared down amid the Covid-19 pandemic have not ramped up to meet current outsized travel demand.

    In February, Nolen, the acting chief, ordered a sweeping review of the agency in the wake of recent aviation safety incidents. That review is expected to include a major safety meeting this month.

    Another challenge is the FAA’s evolution in how it handles oversight following the Boeing 737 MAX crashes.

    Congress created reforms to the FAA’s oversight in a late 2020 law but critics say the agency has been slow to implement changes.

    A House Transportation committee investigation into 737 MAX certification found the model of oversight used then “creates inherent conflicts of interest that have jeopardized the safety of the flying public.” The report also concluded senior FAA officials overrode decisions of FAA experts.

    The agency is also still trying to resolve an 5G interference issue.

    The next generation of cell phone technology can interfere with devices on aircraft that determine how far above the ground the aircraft is – the radar or radio altimeter.

    FAA says it brought its concerns to the administration at the time when the Federal Communications Commission was developing plans to auction this portion of spectrum. But now the FAA is trying to play catch up while wireless carriers agreed to voluntarily pause rolling out their new tech around airports.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Bola Ahmed Tinubu elected Nigeria’s president as opposition calls for new polls | CNN

    Bola Ahmed Tinubu elected Nigeria’s president as opposition calls for new polls | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Lagos, Nigeria
    CNN
     — 

    Bola Ahmed Tinubu was on Wednesday declared the winner of Nigeria’s controversial presidential elections, as opposition leaders decried the polls as rigged and called for a fresh vote.

    Tinubu, 70, represents the ruling All Progressives Congress party, which received close to 8.8 million votes – about 36.6% of the total, according to Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) chairman Mahmood Yakubu.

    He defeated vice president Atiku Abubakar of the opposition People’s Democratic Party (PDP), and popular third force candidate Peter Obi, who has gained in popularity among young people in particular.

    In an acceptance speech, Tinubu thanked voters and said he was “profoundly humbled.”

    “This is a shining moment in the life of any man and an affirmation of our democratic existence,” he said. “I represent a promise and with your support, I know that promise will be fulfilled.”

    He also appealed to his “fellow contestants,” asking them to “team up together” to strengthen the country.

    Videos from the capital Abuja showed Tinubu’s supporters cheering and celebrating the win.

    This election is one of the most fiercely contested since the country returned to democratic rule in 1999, with more than 93 million people registered to vote, according to the INEC.

    But Yakubu said on Wednesday that 24 million valid votes were counted, representing a turnout of just 26%.

    Tinubu, the former governor of Lagos state, represents the same party as outgoing President Muhammadu Buhari, who Tinubu said he helped propel to the top seat in 2015.

    After decades spent behind the scenes, Tinubu launched his campaign for the presidency with the motto: “It’s my turn.”

    He will become Nigeria’s fifth elected president since 1999, winning the race for the country’s top job on his first attempt.

    Buhari congratulated his soon-to-be successor in a statement Wednesday, calling him “the best person for the job.”

    Vote counting since Saturday’s polls has been vehemently challenged by many who allege the process has been marred by corruption and technical failures. On Tuesday, the country’s main opposition parties described the results of the election as “heavily doctored and manipulated” in a joint news conference.

    They said they had lost confidence in Yakubu, the electoral body chairman, and that the results “do not reflect the wishes of Nigerians expressed at the polls on February 25, 2023.”

    The INEC has rejected the calls for a fresh vote , with one spokesperson insisting the election process had been “free, fair and credible.”

    In his speech, Tinubu also commended the INEC for “running a credible election no matter what anybody says.”

    But several observers, including the European Union, have also criticized the election for lacking transparency.

    “The election fell well short of Nigerian citizens’ reasonable expectations,” said a joint observer mission of the International Republican Institute (IRI) and National Democratic Institute (NDI).

    Samson Itodo, the head of Nigeria’s largest independent election monitoring body, said on Tuesday there was “serious cause for concern.” He cited multiple critical issues that had hampered public trust in the election process, including violence and technical impediments.

    Woman tells CNN she went to vote and ended up defaced

    Some logistical problems reported across the country include voters who could not locate their polling stations after last-minute changes, he said.

    His non-profit civic organization, Yiaga Africa, deployed more than 3,800 observers across Nigeria for the election – with one observer being kicked out of a voting center after “thugs invaded” it, Itodo said.

    Many voters in Lagos complained of intimidation and attempts to suppress their votes. In February, CNN visited one polling unit in Lekki, Lagos, which was attacked and the military was forced to intervene.

    In other instances, voting was delayed or people didn’t get to vote at all, as election officials failed to show up.

    On Tuesday, the United Nations urged “all stakeholders to remain calm through the conclusion of the electoral process,” and to avoid misinformation or inciting violence.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 2020 Presidential Candidates Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    2020 Presidential Candidates Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the 2020 presidential candidates and key dates in their campaigns.

    Donald Trump 45th President of the United States. Running for reelection.
    Primary Campaign Committee – Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.
    Website – https://www.donaldjtrump.com/
    January 20, 2017 – The day he is inaugurated, Trump submits paperwork to the Federal Election Commission to be eligible to run for reelection in 2020.
    February 27, 2018 – The Trump campaign announces Brad Parscale, the digital media director of his 2016 campaign, has been hired to run his reelection bid.
    March 17, 2020 – Earns enough delegates needed to win the Republican nomination for president.

    Bill WeldFormer Massachusetts Governor
    Primary Campaign Committee – 2020 Presidential Campaign Committee
    Website – https://www.weld2020.org/
    April 15, 2019 – Announces he is running for the Republican nomination for president on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper.
    March 18, 2020 – Weld announces he is suspending his presidential campaign.

    Joe WalshFormer US Representative from Illinois
    Primary Campaign Committee – Walsh 2020
    Website – https://www.joewalsh.org/
    August 25, 2019 Announces he is running for the Republican nomination for president on ABC’s “This Week.”
    February 7, 2020 – Walsh tells CNN’s John Berman on “New Day” that he is ending his candidacy for president.

    Mark Sanford Former Governor of South Carolina
    Primary Campaign Committee – Sanford 2020
    Website – https://www.marksanford.com/
    September 8, 2019 – Announces he will launch a primary challenge for the 2020 Republican nomination on “Fox News Sunday.”
    November 12, 2019 – Announces he is suspending his presidential campaign.

    John Delaney US Representative from Maryland’s 6th District
    Primary Campaign Committee – Friends of John Delaney
    Website – https://www.johnkdelaney.com
    July 28, 2017 – In a Washington Post op-ed, Delaney announces he is running for president.
    January 31, 2020 – Delaney announces that he is ending his 2020 presidential campaign.

    Andrew YangEntrepreneur, founder of Venture for America
    Primary Campaign Committee – Friends of Andrew Yang
    Website – https://www.yang2020.com/
    February 2, 2018 – Announces he is running for president via YouTube.
    February 11, 2020 – Announces he is suspending his presidential campaign.

    Richard Ojeda Former State Senator from Virginia
    Primary Campaign Committee – Ojeda for President
    November 12, 2018 – Announces he is running for president at the Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC.
    January 25, 2019 – Announces he is suspending his campaign for president.

    Julián CastroFormer Mayor of San Antonio, Texas, and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under US President Barack Obama.
    Primary Campaign Committee – Julián for the Future Presidential Exploratory Committee
    Website – https://www.julianforthefuture.com/
    January 12, 2019 – Officially announces he is running for president.
    January 2, 2020 – Announces he is suspending his presidential campaign.

    Tulsi GabbardUS Representative from Hawaii’s 2nd District
    Primary Campaign Committee – Tulsi Now
    Website – https://www.tulsi2020.com/
    January 11, 2019 – I have decided to run and will be making a formal announcement within the next week,” the Hawaii Democrat tells CNN’s Van Jones.
    February 2, 2019 – Gabbard officially launches her 2020 presidential campaign at an event in Hawaii.

    March 19, 2020 – Ends her campaign for president, and endorses former Vice President Joe Biden.

    Kamala HarrisUS Senator from California
    Primary Campaign Committee – Kamala Harris For The People
    Website – https://kamalaharris.org/
    January 21, 2019 – Announces she is running for president in a video posted to social media at the same time she appears on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
    December 3, 2019 – Harris ends her 2020 presidential campaign.

    Marianne Williamson Author and activist
    Primary Campaign Committee – Marianne Williamson for President
    Website – https://www.marianne2020.com/
    January 28, 2019 – Williamson formally launches her 2020 presidential campaign with a speech in Los Angeles.
    January 10, 2020 – Announces she is ending her presidential campaign.

    Cory Booker US Senator from New Jersey
    Primary Campaign Committee – Cory 2020
    Website – https://corybooker.com/
    February 1, 2019 – Releases a video announcing his candidacy, appears on the talk show, “The View,” participates in multiple radio interviews and holds a press conference in Newark, New Jersey.
    January 13, 2020 – Booker ends his presidential campaign.

    Elizabeth WarrenUS Senator from Massachusetts
    Primary Campaign Committee – Warren for President, Inc.
    Website – https://elizabethwarren.com/
    February 9, 2019 – Warren officially announces she is running for president at a rally in Lawrence, Massachusetts.
    March 5, 2020 – Warren ends her presidential campaign.

    Amy Klobuchar US Senator from Minnesota
    Primary Campaign Committee – Amy For America
    Website – https://www.amyklobuchar.com/
    February 10, 2019 – Announces her presidential bid at a snowy, freezing outdoor event in Minneapolis.
    March 2, 2020 – Klobuchar ends her presidential campaign.

    Bernie Sanders US Senator from Vermont
    Primary Campaign Committee – Bernie 2020
    Website – https://berniesanders.com
    February 19, 2019 – Announces that he is running for president, during an interview with Vermont Public Radio.
    April 8, 2020 – Announces he is suspending his presidential campaign.

    Jay InsleeGovernor of Washington
    Primary Campaign Committee – Inslee for America
    Website – https://jayinslee.com/
    March 1, 2019 – Announces his presidential bid in a video.
    August 21, 2019 – Announces he is suspending his presidential campaign.

    John Hickenlooper Former Governor of Colorado
    Primary Campaign Committee – Hickenlooper 2020
    Website – https://www.hickenlooper.com/
    March 4, 2019 – Hickenlooper launches his campaign with a biographical video entitled, “Standing Tall.”
    March 7, 2019 – Officially kicks off his campaign with a rally in Denver.
    August 15, 2019 – Hickenlooper ends his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

    Beto O’RourkeFormer US Representative from Texas
    Primary Campaign Committee – Beto for America
    Website – https://betoorourke.com
    March 14, 2019 – Announces his presidential bid in a video.
    November 1, 2019 – Announces he is ending his presidential campaign.

    Kirsten GillibrandUS Senator from New York
    Primary Campaign Committee – Gillibrand 2020
    Website – https://kirstengillibrand.com/
    March 17, 2019 – Officially declares her Democratic candidacy for president via YouTube.
    August 28, 2019 – Announces that she is ending her campaign.

    Wayne Messam Mayor of Miramar, Florida
    Primary Campaign Committee – Wayne Messam for America
    Website – https://wayneforamerica.com/
    March 28, 2019 – Officially declares his Democratic candidacy for president in a video released to CNN.
    November 20, 2019 – Messam announces that he is suspending his campaign.

    Tim Ryan US Representative from Ohio’s 13th District
    Primary Campaign Committee – Tim Ryan for America
    Website – https://timryanforamerica.com/
    April 4, 2019 – Announces his presidential bid during an appearance on ABC’s “The View.” The televised announcement came just minutes after Ryan’s campaign website went live.
    October 24, 2019 – Announces he is dropping out of the presidential race.

    Eric SwalwellUS Representative from California’s 15th District
    Primary Campaign Committee – Swalwell for America
    Website – https://ericswalwell.com/
    April 8, 2019 – Announces he is running for president during a taping of the “Late Show with Stephen Colbert.”
    July 8, 2019 – Announces he is dropping out of the presidential race.

    Pete ButtigiegMayor of South Bend, Indiana
    Primary Campaign Committee – Pete for America
    Website – https://peteforamerica.com/
    April 14, 2019 – Officially announces he is running for president during a rally in South Bend, Indiana.
    March 1, 2020 – Announces he is suspending his presidential campaign.

    Seth MoultonUS Representative from Massachusetts’ 6th District
    Primary Campaign Committee – Seth Moulton for America
    Website – https://sethmoulton.com/
    April 22, 2019 – Announces, via campaign video, he is running for president.
    August 23, 2019 – Announces that he is ending his presidential bid during a speech at the Democratic National Committee summer meeting in San Francisco.

    Joe Biden Former US Vice President
    Primary Campaign Committee – Biden for President
    Website – https://joebiden.com/
    April 25, 2019 – Announces he is running for president in a campaign video posted to social media.

    Michael BennetUS Senator from Colorado
    Primary Campaign Committee – Bennet for America
    Website – https://michaelbennet.com/
    May 2, 2019 – Announces his candidacy during an interview on CBS’ “This Morning.”
    February 11, 2020 – Announces he is ending his presidential campaign.

    Steve BullockGovernor of Montana
    Primary Campaign Committee – Bullock for President
    Website – https://stevebullock.com/
    May 14, 2019 – In a video posted online, announces that he is running for president.
    December 2, 2019 – Announces he is ending his presidential campaign.

    Bill de Blasio Mayor of New York City
    Primary Campaign Committee – de Blasio 2020
    Website – https://billdeblasio.com/
    May 16, 2019 – Announces he is running for president in a video posted to YouTube.
    September 20, 2019 – Announces that he is ending his campaign.

    Joe Sestak Former US Representative from Pennsylvania’s 7th District
    Primary Campaign Committee – Joe Sestak for President
    Website – https://www.joesestak.com/
    June 23, 2019 – Announces his candidacy in a video posted to his website.
    December 1, 2019 – Announces he is ending his presidential campaign.

    Tom SteyerFormer hedge fund manager and activist
    Primary Campaign Committee – Tom 2020
    Website – https://www.tomsteyer.com/
    July 9, 2019 – Announces his candidacy in a video posted online.
    February 29, 2020 – Announces he is ending his presidential campaign.

    Deval Patrick Former Governor of Massachusetts
    Primary Campaign Committee – Deval for All
    Website – https://devalpatrick2020.com/
    November 14, 2019 – Announces his candidacy in a video posted to his website.
    February 12, 2020 – Announces he is ending his presidential campaign.

    Michael BloombergFormer New York Mayor
    Primary Campaign Committee – Mike Bloomberg 2020
    Website – https://www.mikebloomberg.com/
    November 24, 2019 – Officially announces his bid in a letter on his campaign website.
    March 4, 2020 – Bloomberg ends his presidential campaign.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Rep. Elissa Slotkin entering race to succeed retiring Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow | CNN Politics

    Rep. Elissa Slotkin entering race to succeed retiring Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Michigan Rep. Elissa Slotkin is entering the race to replace retiring Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow, with a campaign launch video on her YouTube page and a US Senate campaign website up.

    The announcement makes Slotkin the first Democrat to officially declare a bid in what is likely to be among the most competitive and expensive Senate contests in 2024.

    In the three-minute-long video, Slotkin talks about growing up in Michigan, entering public service after 9/11 and going on to work for the CIA.

    “Look, we all know America is going through something right now. We seem to be living crisis to crisis. But there are certain things that should be really simple,” Slotkin says in the video. “This is why I’m running for the United States Senate. We need a new generation of leaders that thinks differently, works harder, and never forgets that we are public servants.”

    Slotkin won reelection to the US House in one of Michigan’s top battleground districts in 2022. According to her most recent FEC filing, Slotkin had about $130,000 in her campaign account at the end of 2022.

    Michigan’s Senate seat is crucial for Democrats. The party is defending 23 of the 34 Senate seats up for reelection next year, including three seats in states that backed former President Donald Trump by at least 8 points in 2020: West Virginia, Montana and Ohio. Besides Michigan, the party is also defending seats in other battleground states such as Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

    Other potential candidates for the seat include Republican Reps. Bill Huizenga and John James, Democratic Rep. Debbie Dingell, and Democratic state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, who drew national attention last year in a floor speech pushing back against anti-LGBTQ attacks from a Republican colleague. James lost a closer-than-expected race to Stabenow in 2018 and then narrowly lost a bid for the state’s other Senate seat in 2020, before winning election to the House in November from a swing seat north of Detroit.

    Several other Democrats who have been considered potential candidates, such as Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Rep. Dan Kildee, have said they are not running.

    This story has been updated with additional details and background information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GOP grapples with how to control Trump — again | CNN Politics

    GOP grapples with how to control Trump — again | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    GOP leaders are sending warnings that they want former President Donald Trump to play by the rules and put his party above his own interests as he embarks on a third campaign – that is, to behave in a way he rarely, if ever, has before.

    Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel gave the clearest sign yet on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday that 2024 GOP White House candidates will have to pledge to back the party’s presidential nominee if it isn’t them – or risk being banned from the debate stage.

    “I think it’s kind of a no-brainer, right?” McDaniel told Dana Bash, adding that formal criteria haven’t yet been established for the first debate in August. “If you’re going to be on the Republican National Committee debate stage asking voters to support you, you should say, ‘I’m going to support the voters and who they choose as the nominee,’” McDaniel added.

    The former president, who signed a loyalty pledge in 2015, responded with his typical hubris on Sunday, despite recent polling showing that enthusiasm for him among the GOP isn’t what it used to be. “President Trump will support the Republican nominee because it will be him,” a campaign spokesperson told CNN in response to McDaniel’s prediction there’d be a loyalty pledge required of candidates.

    Trump has already said that whether he would back someone other than himself as the 2024 Republican nominee would depend on who the candidate was. Given that he is attacking his potential primary rivals, especially high-flying Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, the potential for new party splits is growing.

    Ever since Trump took control of the GOP with his 2016 nomination and victory, the party has almost always capitulated to his unruly instincts and crushing of rules and conventions – most notoriously appeasing his extremism during two impeachments. Many GOP lawmakers amplified his false claims of electoral fraud in the 2020 presidential election and whitewashed his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection.

    Yet Trump’s intervention in last year’s midterm elections, when many of his election-denying acolytes lost in swing states and helped to quell a Republican red wave, highlighted how his own priorities may diverge from his party’s. Some Republican leaders blame Trump and the way he alienates more moderate, suburban voters for the party’s disappointing performances when they lost the House in 2018, the Senate and White House in 2020 and fell short of expectations in 2022, even though they flipped the House. As a result, some top GOP donors and opinion formers have argued that it’s time for the party to move on from a candidate who is radioactive with many voters and who could thwart their chances of defeating President Joe Biden in an expected reelection bid. It remains to be seen if this view is shared among Trump’s longtime base.

    Questions about whether Trump would support DeSantis as nominee – or anyone else who might beat him – stemmed from a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt earlier this month.

    “It would depend. I would give you the same answer I gave in 2016 during the debate. … It would have to depend on who the nominee was,” Trump said.

    It would be a nightmare scenario for the GOP if Trump were to lose the party’s nominating contest next year but spend the general election railing against the party’s presidential pick. Even small defections among Trump’s devoted grassroots political base could be critical in the kind of swing state races that decided the last two presidential elections.

    Trump acts as if he is entitled to his third consecutive spot at the top of the Republican Party’s presidential ticket. But that assumption will face a new test this week when DeSantis, whom Trump has already accused of disloyalty for considering a White House run, promotes and releases a new book in a rite of passage for potential presidential candidates.

    Trump has also lashed out at Nikki Haley, who served as his ambassador to the United Nations and has launched a 2024 bid rooted in calls for a new generation of American political leadership. Both Trump and Haley are scheduled to speak at this week’s Conservative Political Action Conference outside Washington, DC. DeSantis, meanwhile, is scheduled to attend events in Texas and California.

    While requiring debate candidates to sign a pledge to support the nominee would be a show of party unity and would, in effect, be an attempt to box Trump in, it would hardly be enforceable should the ex-president not win the nomination. Given that Trump already falsely claimed the 2020 general election, which he lost fair and square, was marred by voter fraud, it’s hardly far-fetched to believe he may trash any nomination process that he doesn’t win.

    But McDaniel said on CNN that she was sure that all the candidates would sign such a pledge, noting Trump had signed on in the 2016 race and raising the leverage that the party has in getting all of the candidates on board.

    “I think they all want to be on the debate stage. I think President Trump would like to be on the debate stage. That’s what he likes to do,” McDaniel told Bash.

    The RNC head, who just won her own contested reelection, also warned that the GOP has lost big races in the midterms “because of Republicans refusing to support other Republicans. And unless we fix this in our party, unless we start coming together, we will not win in 2024.”

    McDaniel may also have a problem beyond Trump, since some possible GOP 2024 contenders have warned that following his role in inciting a mob attack on Congress in one of the most damaging blows to US democracy in modern times, the ex-president is no longer fit to carry the party’s banner or for the presidency.

    Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said on CBS this month that Trump had “disqualified himself and should not serve our country again as a result of what happened” on January 6, 2021. But Hutchinson did not say whether he would decline to endorse Trump if he were the nominee. Another possible anti-Trump candidate, former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, suggested to Hewitt this month that he would support the ex-president if he was the party’s nominee but later said on Twitter, “Trump won’t commit to supporting the Republican nominee, and I won’t commit to supporting him.”

    One reason why the question of whether Trump would endorse a nominee other than himself in 2024 is so topical is because of some early signs that the former president might not have quite the hold on his party as he once did. His campaign hasn’t exactly caught fire since he launched it last fall. Some recent polls, while too far out from primary voting to be decisive, suggest that DeSantis is closely matched with Trump – even if other candidates like Haley and potential candidates like ex-Vice President Mike Pence trail in single figures.

    After his bumper reelection win in Florida in November, DeSantis is seen by some party figures as representative of Trump’s populist, cultural and “America First” principles without the indiscipline and scandal that follows the ex-president. The Florida governor has adopted Trump’s pugilistic partisan style, telling Fox News host Mark Levin on Sunday that he had made “the Democratic Party in our state, basically, a rotten carcass on the side of the street.”

    It remains a question, however, how DeSantis would stand up to Trump’s searing attacks on a debate stage. And many once vaunted candidates – like former Govs. Jeb Bush of Florida and Scott Walker of Wisconsin – have looked strong in theory, only to see their campaigns flame out when they hit the trail.

    Still, McDaniel’s message on Sunday shows the depth of party concern that an untamed Trump could again severely impair the Republican Party’s hopes of winning the White House and control of Congress.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Democrats have been doing well in special elections in 2023 | CNN Politics

    Democrats have been doing well in special elections in 2023 | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Democrat Jennifer McClellan easily won the special election for Virginia’s 4th Congressional District last week. The fact that a Democrat comfortably retained a Democratic seat in a district President Joe Biden would have won under its new lines by 36 points in 2020 is not surprising.

    What is notable is that McClellan didn’t just win, she outperformed Biden’s 2020 margin by 13 points. It’s part of a pattern in special elections this year that suggests that the national environment may be friendlier to Democrats than Biden’s sub-50% job approval rating would indicate.

    So far in 2023, besides McClellan’s race, there have been 12 special elections for state legislative seats in which at least one Democrat ran against at least one Republican. And in those 12 races, Democrats have been outperforming Biden’s 2020 margins by an average of 4 points.

    Now, 12 isn’t a particularly large sample size when examining special state legislative elections, so that 4-point average swing could shift somewhat as more special elections are held.

    Still, a sample size of 12 isn’t nothing, especially considering these elections have taken place in areas ranging from red to blue and across six states, from New Hampshire all the way down to Louisiana.

    And this 4-point swing to the Democrats is very much unlike what we saw in the state legislative special elections during the 2022 cycle before Roe v. Wade was overturned. In those elections, Democrats were underperforming Biden’s margin by an average of 4 points.

    The change in special elections reminds me of what happened in early 2019. Democrats were coming off a big 2018 midterm campaign in which the special elections leading up to it were the first indication that the party was in for a big night.

    In state special elections in the first half of 2019, Democrats continued to outperform the party baseline from the previous presidential election, but not by anywhere close to how well they had done in specials before the 2018 midterms. Sure enough, Biden would go on in 2020 to do better than Democrats had done in 2016, though not as well as Democratic House candidates had done in 2018.

    Also in the first half of 2019, House Republicans easily retained control of a very red district in Pennsylvania in the first special federal election of that cycle. The result was similar to how House Democrats did in Virginia last week – easily winning a very Democratic seat in the first congressional special election of 2023.

    That big Republican win in Pennsylvania in 2019 wasn’t surprising, but what was so out of character was how the result nearly matched the GOP baseline set in the previous presidential election. This was very unlike the vast majority of special federal elections in the 2018 cycle and presaged a tight 2020 presidential election.

    Let’s not forget, too, that Democrats did do better than the 2020 baseline in the special elections last year following the overturning of Roe v. Wade (though generally not by the same degree as the result in Virginia last week). This foreshadowed a stronger-than-expected midterm election for the party in control of the White House.

    Of course, it’s still very early in the current election cycle. There’s a lot of time for things to shift between now and the 2024 general election.

    But, for the moment at least, congressional and state legislative elections aren’t the only ones in which Democrats have been doing well.

    Indeed, if you want an idea of how the current political environment could make a difference in a swing state, look no further than one of the most important swing states: Wisconsin.

    The Badger State held a nonpartisan primary last week for a critical state Supreme Court seat. This race – to succeed a retiring conservative – will determine whether liberals or conservatives hold the majority on the bench and could affect rulings on abortion and gerrymandering, among other issues.

    Two liberals and two conservatives ran in the primary, which had an unusually high turnout. A liberal and a conservative have advanced to the April general election, but the two liberals combined beat the two conservatives combined by 8 points – in a state Biden won by less than a percentage point in 2020.

    Were that result to hold in April, it would mark one of the most important judicial election wins for liberals in the country this century.

    We’ll just have to wait to see if this blue tint we’re witnessing in a small cross-section of elections across the country continues to hold true as the year goes on.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This story has been updated with additional reaction.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “I felt it coming,” he said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This story has been updated with additional information Wednesday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This story has been updated with additional background information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    giuliani screengrab

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link