#2016 Democratic Vice Presidential nomination

[deadpresidents]

Who do you think Hillary Clinton should have chosen as her running mate in 2016?

Of the people reportedly on her shortlist, I thought she should have chosen Cory Booker or Tom Perez. Tim Kaine seemed safe and he was certainly qualified, but I never thought he was a good choice and definitely wasn't excited by his nomination. Senator Booker would have been a great pick and a spirited campaigner. Perez wouldn't have been as good on the campaign trail, but he would have been an interesting balance to the ticket.

Outside of her shortlist, I thought she should have picked Admiral William McRaven. At the time I think I was already mentioning my hope that Admiral McRaven actually run for President. I still think he should run for President.

[mariacallous]

The list of Wisconsin Republicans endorsing the Democratic presidential ticket in November has added three high-profile names: Longtime conservative commentator Charlie Sykes, former lawmaker and judge David Deininger and onetime state Senate Majority Leader Dale Schultz.

The three went public just before the weekend in a Zoom call with reporters to declare their support for Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for president, and their opposition to the Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump.

“It is a uniquely dangerous moment, and it’s a moment for us to set aside our differences,” said Sykes, explaining why supporting Harris was “not a difficult choice for me” even though he said he’s likely to disagree with many of the policies on her agenda.

“That’s not the point,” he said of those policy differences. “The point is this choice that America has to make — what kind of country we want to be.”

In backing Harris, the three added to the Democratic campaign’s concerted appeal across party and ideological lines to people who view Trump as a distinct, existential threat. All three declared that under Trump the Republican party has evolved far from the party with which they historically have aligned themselves.

“Unless or until the Trump era ends, that party will not regain its footing, and I think defeating him this year is a way to make sure the Republican Party can rebuild and get back to what has always been the party of Lincoln,” Deininger said.

Sykes has opposed Trump since before he first won the Republican nomination for president in 2016. He’s one of the founders of The Bulwark, a digital publication established in 2019 by anti-Trump conservatives.

Schultz left the state Senate midway through Scott Walker’s tenure as Wisconsin governor after voting against two of Walker’s signature pieces of legislation — a bill that stripped public employees of most of their union rights and another loosening mining regulations.

Deininger was among the former judges who served on the Government Accountability Board — a nonpartisan agency that for a few years served as Wisconsin’s elections and ethics watchdog.

After the board investigated Walker’s campaign for coordinating spending with outside groups in the 2012 recall election — at the time a violation of Wisconsin law — Republicans in the Legislature abolished the independent board in 2015 and changed the state’s campaign finance laws to permit coordination.

“When I was on the Government Accountability Board, our primary function was to protect and preserve the integrity of Wisconsin government and our elections,” Deininger said. “That’s the kind of leadership we need at the federal level, and sadly, it’s the opposite of what we saw from Donald Trump.”

Deininger didn’t equivocate in his criticism of the former president.

“Trump has lied repeatedly to the American public about just about everything, but probably the worst of all is his lies about the outcome and integrity of our elections,” he said, recalling that on Jan. 6, 2021, “Trump encouraged a violent mob to attack the Capitol to overturn the 2020 election.”

“The reality is a second Trump term would be far worse and far more dangerous,” he added.

A U.S. Navy veteran, Deininger also asserted that the president has unique responsibility for overseeing national security — and that he was “dismayed at some of the public comments, publicly reported comments, that former President Trump has made about veterans and military service.”

Schultz emphasized his belief in a bipartisan approach to governing and his faith that Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, would govern in a bipartisan manner. In contrast, he pointed to the destruction brought by Hurricane Helene to the American Southeast and lies spread by the GOP standard bearers in the storm’s aftermath.

Schultz also drew a contrast between Trump’s evocation of “a dystopian future” and “a candidate seeking the highest office in the land talking about the need to come together, joyfully, working on the problems that all of us face” — Harris.

“I myself want to cast my lot with those folks who are [optimistic about] our future, not who are hung up on some sort of Mad Max scene that they see as a future for our country,” Schultz said.

While echoing some of the same criticisms of Trump, Sykes focused on the party that once served as the political homeland for all three Wisconsin Republicans on the press call.

“I have been surprised and disillusioned by watching how many conservatives have gone along with Donald Trump — his lies, his insults, his kowtowing to dictators, his willingness to violate the law,” Sykes said. “One after another, Republicans have decided that winning or staying in power is more important than standing up for these values that used to be, I think, fundamental.”

He also noted the number of staff and appointees  from Trump’s four years in the White House “who are now saying that he is not fit to be returned to office,” including his former vice president, his former defense secretary and his former national security advisor. “There’s no historical parallel for this,” Sykes said.

Trump’s vice president, Mike Pence, and former U.S. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, the Janesville Republican who served in Congress for two decades, have both publicly stated Trump should not be reelected but have declined to endorse  Harris.

Sykes professed his respect for them, but also said leaving the presidential line on the ballot empty or writing in a name — George Washington, Edmund Burke or Ronald Reagan — wasn’t a sufficient response, since it won’t prevent Trump from being reelected.

“The only two candidates who have a chance to win this election are Kamala Harris and Donald Trump,” Sykes said. “And by voting for Kamala Harris, I think that we draw the line and say that Donald Trump should never be allowed anywhere near power again.”

[mikeysbride]

We Are Not Going Back

The 2024 U.S. presidential election has been anything but typical or boring, especially in the last month. Once President Joe Biden made the decision to remove himself from the race against Donald Trump in favor of endorsing VP Kamala Harris, everything changed. And it changed for the better if you're a Democrat. I was upset when he first withdrew, feeling that he was basically pushed into it by the media's insistence he is too old to run despite the record he's had as President the last 4 years. But then, within minutes, it seemed, my attitude changed to one of a sense of hope I hadn't felt in a while where the election is concerned. In reality, he made the ultimate selfless decision to put the country's interests above his own, and that is a remarkable quality, especially in a politician. It shows he's the real deal.

It appears I am not alone. The surge of excitement in the Democratic Party surrounding Kamala's nomination, which she'll officially accept this week, has been nothing short of amazing to watch. I have not seen anything like this since President Obama, and that says a lot. Her rallies are breaking attendance records, and even longtime Republicans are pledging to vote for her.

Of course, Kamala has already received the predictable criticism from the Trump cult about everything from her heritage to her laugh. Trump also still refuses to pronounce her name correctly, which is blatantly disrespectful but also typical behavior for him. If Kamala ("comma-la") is too hard for him to pronounce, Madame President will do just fine, I'm sure. But none if this should come as news to anyone. They have nothing else to go on, so of course they resort to the lowest rungs on the ladder when in reality, she has a stellar resume and record having served as a prosecuting attorney, District Attorney, Attorney General, Senator, and now Vice President of the United States. She is an actual prosecutor going up against Trump and his 34 felony convictions, and he's allowed to do that for the highest job in the country even though many jobs won't consider you if you have even 1 felony conviction. It's laughable really; it would be hilarious if it weren't also so sad and ridiculous. You can bet anyone of color would not be allowed the same leniency.

A few days before Kamala became the presumptive nominee, my 16-year-old daughter told me she felt apprehensive about her future if there were to be another Trump presidency. I told her that I feel the same way for myself. I actually feel that way about anyone who isn't a rich, straight white male because those are the only people Donald Trump cares about - those who look and think exactly like he does. But then, Joe passed the torch to Kamala, and it seemed the country awakened to a clearly better alternative and someone even the independents could get behind. Suddenly, there was hope that maybe, just maybe, things would be OK after all. That same daughter then came to me, just a few days after our previous conversation, and told me she is no longer fearful the way she was before. My 14-year-old daughter echoes her feelings, and the both of them have taken a greater interest in the election as a result. My teenage daughters are inspired and can see themselves in Kamala, and that is huge for them and for me.

I don't care who you are; this is historic and a big deal. It takes an incredible amount of privilege to see all this unfolding and not appreciate how significant this is in our history. Not only are we on the verge of having our first female U.S. President, but she's also Black. Not only that, but she's smart, successful, personable, and damn qualified. I can't help but think of my grandparents and how thrilled they would have been to live to see Barack Obama become President and now Kamala Harris. We came so close to a female President with Hillary Clinton in 2016, and I pray the election deniers and complacent people don't mess it up for us this time. I honestly don't think we can survive another Trump presidency and come out the same way ever again. He's already promised to be a dictator on his first day back in office and has alluded to doing away with elections...neither of which we need. And we certainly don't need him. He only wants to be President to avoid jail time, point blank. We can't let that happen.

We have a chance this November to save our democracy and keep moving forward - to make a hopeful future available to everyone and not just the rich, straight white males of the country. We can do this, and I have to believe we will. This is a test we absolutely cannot stand to fail. I understand the assignment. Do you?

[geeky-politics-46]

Hope

Pairing: Doctor Stephen Strange x Reader, America Chavez

Summary: You & America watch Kamala's DNC acceptance speech.

Warnings: Not much it’s mostly fluff. Story is political in nature. A little inspiration from Rogue One.

I'm back, baby! This is just a short little blurb, but there will be more & longer new stuff soon.

You knew you were staring at the future in more ways than one. Your heart was feeling lighter, and the dark storm clouds of what could be receding in your mind. The sunshine warmth of hope once again present as you watched the awe struck look on America's face as she watched Kamala Harris accept the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

A woman, and not just any woman, but a woman of color, standing poised and ready to lead the country. You remember watching Hillary accept the nomination in 2016 with a sense of solidarity and the thought of “it's about damn time” planning in your head, but even then, it didn't feel like this. Why was it different this time? Why was the thought of a female president so energizing?

Maybe it's because now you and Stephen essentially had a teenage daughter to raise. Or by New York's phrasing, that you were legal guardians of. Maybe it's because of the fall of Roe and having to once again fight for rights that had been legally protected for nearly half a century. Maybe it's because of all the other rights and freedoms that were now openly under attack from the right and the Supreme Court. Maybe it's because you were technically a childless cat lady, at least by the other parties own wording, and you wanted to make damn certain Vance knew you did in fact have a direct stake in where your country was going. You just wouldn't be going back to the past.

You were both unaware of the sorcerer standing in the doorway, carefully studying both of you. His movements towards the loveseat you were sat in eventually making you turn your attention to him. A soft, sweet smile on his face as his lowered himself to sit next to you. Immediately putting an arm up for you to settle in under. Your body instinctively curling into his as your attention drifted back to the television. 

The sound of applause and cheers erupted from the convention crowd, and balloons came toppling down on both the stage and the crowd. Kamala Harris now stood with her family, her husband, and two step-children on one side of her. On the other side was her vice presidential pick, Tim Walz, and his family. Smiles and laughter filling the screen.

Their joy was palpable, and their smiles were contagious. America wore a matching one, and now so did you. Even Stephen was smirking as he watched you both. 

He leaned in and placed a kiss on the side of your head, brushing your hair back to see your face clearly. Seeing the wheels turning in your mind, he couldn't help but posit a question. A serene smile on your face as you moved to snuggle into Stephen's side.

“What's going on in there?”

Without looking away from your adopted daughter and her elation, you answered. 

“Hope.”

--------------------------------

Back to Main Masterlist

Stephen Strange Taglist: @starkiller-queen @glitterylokislut @verycollectivecreator @chatampr @maskmare931 @lovecleastrange @wheredafandomat @mkixx @evelynrosestuff @katefullerrr @littlepinknightmare @foofarny @stygianoir @saturnsbabe69 @blaxdet @blackrose-92 @ironstrange1991 @rindulacre @nancy-thompsons @wolfatheartandsoul @dangerouslittlefairy @n0obmaster-69 @oliveoilthoughts @onebatch--twobatch @yourmajesty13 @blondekel77 @lil-sweater-slut @gwephen @taramaria @sinceimetyou @slashersrus @coeurgrenaty @cc13723things @just--a-magpie @supervengerslock @strangelock @dont-feel-so-good-peter @kingsmanperfecthartwin @ghost-lantern @inlovewithloki16 @thefalconandthewinterwidowshield @itssmaugtheterrible @katherinemaximoff @veryfancydoilies @cute-angi @mochacake2016 @prix19 @alexfanficnook @anotheroddfish @namor-is-the-way @xourownsidee @baes-x @dreamingsmile @negar77rd @imaginesfreetotake @ppatricia34me @rougepetale @tis-vereon @divinearchangel @sherlux @hiddlechive @ginnykate @thatesqcrush @friendofplenti @yuugenmomo @holdmyowos @the-royal-petals @lokislov3 @captaincarmel164 @lucimorningst4r @mydearalmira @petalcranberry @singhfae @emotionsareforuglypeople @trappedinlimbo15 @veryladyqueen @icytrickster17 @kentucky-criedfricken @briefhandsstudenttoad @calamityismyspecialty @sinisterstrange616 @patbrdac @trojanaurora @azu21 @massivehahaao3tree @strangesgirl @rmoonstoner @aphroditesdilemma @asgards-princess-of-mischief @aphroditesdilemma

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 23, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUL 24, 2024

Vice President Kamala Harris continues her momentum toward the 2024 presidential election since President Joe Biden’s surprise announcement on Sunday that he would not accept the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination. 

Today more than 350 national security leaders endorsed Harris for president, noting that if elected president, “she would enter that office with more significant national security experience than the four Presidents prior to President Biden.” As vice president, she “has met with more than 150 world leaders and traveled to 21 countries,” the authors wrote, and they called out her work across the globe from her work strengthening partnerships in the Indo-Pacific region to her historic trip to Africa and her efforts to expand U.S. relationships with nations in the Caribbean and North Central America. In contrast to Harris, the letter said, “Trump is a threat to America’s national security.” 

Those signing the letter included former Central Intelligence Agency director Michael Hayden, former director of national intelligence James Clapper, national security advisors Susan Rice and Thomas Donilon, former secretaries of defense Chuck Hagel and Leon Panetta, and former secretaries of state Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. 

In a New York Times op-ed today, former secretary of state Clinton praised Biden for his “decision to end his campaign,” which she called “as pure an act of patriotism as I have seen in my lifetime.” She went on to say that Vice President Harris “represents a fresh start for American politics,” offering a vision of an America with its best days ahead of it and, rather than “old grievances,” “new solutions.”

Clinton noted that her own political campaigns had seen her burned in effigy, but said, “It is a trap to believe that progress is impossible” and that Americans cannot overcome sexism and racism. After all, she pointed out, voters elected Black American Barack Obama in 2008, and she herself won the popular vote in 2016. “[A]bortion bans and attacks on democracy are galvanizing women voters like never before,” Clinton wrote, and “[w]ith Ms. Harris at the top of the ticket leading the way, this movement may become an unstoppable wave.”

Today, Harris held her first campaign rally, speaking to supporters in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where the Republicans held their national convention just last week. The energy from the 3000 people packed into the gym where she walked out to Beyoncé’s song “Freedom” was palpable. 

She began by thanking Biden and touting his record, then turned to noting that in her past as a prosecutor, California attorney general, U.S. senator from California, and vice president, she “took on perpetrators of all kinds—predators who abused women, fraudsters who ripped off consumers, cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain. So,” she said, “hear me when I say: I know Donald Trump’s type.” She went on to remind the audience that Trump ran a for-profit college that scammed students, was found liable for committing sexual abuse, and “was just found guilty of fraud on 34 counts.” 

While Trump is relying on “billionaires and big corporations,” she said, “we are running a people-powered campaign” and “will be a people-first presidency.” The Democrats, she said, “believe in a future where every person has the opportunity not just to get by but to get ahead; a future where no child has to grow up in poverty; where every worker has the freedom to join a union; where every person has affordable health care, affordable childcare, and paid family leave. We believe in a future where every senior can retire with dignity.”

“[A]ll of this is to say,” she continued, “Building up the middle class will be a defining goal of my presidency. Because…when our middle class is strong, America is strong.”

In contrast, she said, Trump wants to take the country backward. She warned that he and his Project 2025 will “weaken the middle class,” cutting Social Security and Medicare and giving “tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations,” while “working families foot the bill.” “They intend to end the Affordable Care Act,” she said, “and take us back…to a time when insurance companies had the power to deny people with preexisting conditions…. Remember what that was like? Children with asthma, women who survived breast cancer, grandparents with diabetes. America has tried these failed economic policies before, but we are not going back. We’re not going back.”  

“[O]urs is a fight for the future,” she said “And it is a fight for freedom…. Generations of Americans before us led the fight for freedom.  And now…the baton is in our hands.”   

Meanwhile, MAGA Republicans are still scrambling for a plan of attack against Harris. One of their first angles has been the sexism and racism Clinton predicted, calling her “a DEI hire.” House Republican leaders have told fellow lawmakers to dial back the sexist and racist attacks. 

MAGA Republican representative Andy Ogles (R-TN) has taken a different angle: he introduced an impeachment resolution against Harris, while others are demanding that the House should investigate Harris and demand the Cabinet remove President Biden under the 25th Amendment. The Republican National Committee has decided to make fun of Harris’s laugh.

But concern in the Trump camp showed today when Trump pollster Tony Fabrizio shared with reporters a “confidential memorandum” trying to get ahead of polls he says will show Harris leading Trump. He said he expects to see a “Harris Honeymoon” that will end quickly. 

Trump has continued to post angrily on his social media feed but is otherwise sticking close to home. His lack of visibility highlights that the Republicans are now on the receiving end of the same age and coherence concerns they had used against Biden, and there might be more attention paid to Trump’s lapses now that Biden has stepped aside. CNN’s Kate Sullivan noted today, for example, that “Trump said he’d consider Jamie Dimon for Treasury secretary, but now says he doesn’t know who said that.” 

As Tim Alberta noted Sunday in The Atlantic, the Trump campaign tapped J.D. Vance in an attempt to harden the Republican base, only to find now that he cannot bring to the ticket any of the new supporters they suddenly need. 

According to Harry Enten of CNN, Vance is the first vice presidential pick since 1980 who has entered the race with a negative favorability rating: in his case, –6 points. Since 2000, the usual average is +19 points. Vance won his Senate seat in 2022 by +6 points in an election Republican governor Mike DeWine won by +25 points. Vance “was the worst performing Republican candidate in 2022 up and down the ballot in the state of Ohio,” Enten said. “The J.D. Vance pick makes no sense from a statistical polling perspective.”

Sarah Longwell of The Bulwark, who specializes in focus groups, noted that swing voters groups “simply do not like” Vance. “Both his flip flopping on Trump and his extreme abortion position are what breaks through,” she wrote. 

The 2024 election is not consuming all of the political oxygen, even in this astonishing week. Today, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that eight large companies must turn over information about the data they collect about consumers, product sales, and how the surveillance the companies used affected consumer prices. 

“Firms that harvest Americans’ personal data can put people’s privacy at risk. Now firms could be exploiting this vast trove of personal information to charge people higher prices,” FTC chair Lina M. Khan said. “Americans deserve to know whether businesses are using detailed consumer data to deploy surveillance pricing, and the FTC’s inquiry will shed light on this shadowy ecosystem of pricing middlemen.”

The eight companies are: Mastercard, Revionics, Bloomreach, JPMorgan Chase, Task Software, PROS, Accenture, and McKinsey & Co.

In the House, Republicans have been unable to pass the appropriations bills necessary to fund the 2025 U.S. budget, laced as they are with culture-wars poison pills the extremists demand. Today House members debated the appropriations bill for the Interior Department and the Environment which, among other things, bans the use of funds “to promote or advance critical race theory” or to require Covid-19 masks or vaccine mandates. 

According to the European climate service Copernicus, last Sunday was the hottest day in recorded history. The MAGA Republicans’ appropriations bill for Interior and the Environment calls for more oil drilling, fewer regulations on pollutants, no new regulations on vehicles, rejecting Biden’s climate change executive orders, and reducing the funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by 20%.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[beardedmrbean]

Senator Bernie Sanders, progressive independent from Vermont, said he will "absolutely" be willing to work with President-elect Donald Trump, especially if the Republican "follows through" with a proposed credit card interest rate limit.

Sanders joined The New York Times' Michael Barbaro on "The Daily" podcast Friday. Barbaro asked Sanders if there are "any areas where you are prepared to work with the President-elect." Trump had suggested during his campaigning in September that he would put a cap on credit card interest rates at 10 percent.

"If Trump, for example, follows through on his proposal to limit interest rates on credit cards to 10 percent, which is what he campaigned on, absolutely I will be there," Sanders said.

"I think it's a very good idea. I think it's time we told the people on Wall Street they cannot charge the desperate working-class people who have a hard time paying their bills' 25, 30, 40 percent interest rates."

The current average for credit card interest rates is 21.5 percent, according to Federal Reserve data. This is six percentage points higher than the rates were prior to the Covid-19 pandemic. Sanders called these rates "immoral."

Additionally, Americans are currently tackling $1.28 trillion in credit card debit, a $36 billion increase during the second quarter of 2024 alone.

"We're going to cap it at around 10 percent. We can't let them make 25 and 30 percent," Trump said at a Long Island, New York event in September. "While working Americans catch up, we're going to put a temporary cap on credit card interest rates."

Karoline Leavitt, a Trump campaign spokesperson, told CNN in September that Trump's proposal would "provide temporary and immediate relief for hardworking Americans who are struggling to make ends meet and cannot afford hefty interest payments on top of the skyrocketing costs of mortgages, rent, groceries and gas."

Sanders and progressive Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York have previously proposed similar ideas in Congress, but they were stalled. In 2019, the two proposed a Loan Shark Prevention Act to limit the annual percentage rate for an extension of consumer credit to 15 percent. This would create a ceiling, similar to what Trump suggested, for consumer credit products, which includes both loans and credit cards.

"The reality is that today's modern-day loan sharks are no longer lurking on street corners breaking kneecaps to collect their payments," Sanders said at the time. "They wear three-piece suits and work on Wall Street, where they make hundreds of millions in total compensation and head financial institutions like JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America and American Express."

Sanders, who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic party's presidential nomination in 2016 and 2020, has said since Trump's election win that Vice President Kamala Harris' defeat "should come as no great surprise" because Democrats had "abandoned working-class people."

While Sanders praised Harris for her messages on abortion rights, democracy and Trump's perceived unfitness for office, he—and other progressive critics—said the campaign fell short on bold, economic policy plans that they believe would have appealed to more working-class voters.

In August, Sanders told Newsweek that "many working-class people feel that the Democratic Party has kind of abandoned them." He had hoped at the time that Harris and her campaign would reprioritize the working-class voters.

"This is a pivotal moment in American history, and the next year or two will determine what happens in this country for decades in my view," Sanders said Friday on "The Daily."

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Eric Bradner, Alayna Treene, and Kristen Holmes at CNN:

A 17-day stretch with few parallels in American history has upended what looked to Donald Trump’s campaign like a clear path to victory when the former president stepped on the Republican convention stage in Milwaukee. In that moment, a unified Republican Party had rallied around Trump after he survived an assassination attempt. His opponent, President Joe Biden, faced sagging poll numbers, sluggish fundraising and intraparty concerns over his own viability that were reaching a fever pitch.

And then the 2024 presidential race was turned on its head. Trump went off-script and into attack mode in his Thursday night speech to close the GOP convention, delivering sharply partisan remarks that undercut the calls for unity that had preceded him. Three days later, Biden exited the race. By that Monday evening, Democrats had so quickly coalesced around Vice President Kamala Harris that she had effectively cemented the nomination – and was well on her way to shattering fundraising records. Amid the newfound enthusiasm among Democrats, Trump’s campaign found itself grappling with unwelcome scrutiny over past comments his running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, had made disparaging “childless cat ladies.” At the same time, Trump’s campaign was struggling to find a consistent line of attack against Harris – a challenge that culminated with Trump’s appearance at the National Association of Black Journalists’ convention in Chicago on Wednesday.

The former president seemed to abandon any pretense of a disciplined message and ignited controversy by spouting falsehoods about Harris’ racial heritage, claiming that the vice president – the daughter of immigrants from India and Jamaica – now “wants to be known as Black” after years of “only promoting Indian heritage.” His campaign then dug in and repeated those false attacks. Now, the 2024 race is in flux. Harris has erased Trump’s polling and fundraising advantage over Biden. The former president’s hopes of narrowing the Democratic advantage among Black and Latino voters are in question. And how voters will react to the Trump attacks reminiscent of 2016 is uncertain. [...] The campaign whirlwind of the past two weeks has left Democrats who had been dejected suddenly feeling a fresh sense of optimism, while Republicans wonder whether the unity from weeks ago will return in the closing chapter of the race – and hope that Trump and his allies can refocus on what’s now a much different challenge.

Going into the RNC in the immediate aftermath of the assassination attempt against Donald Trump, Trump’s campaign was riding high and appearing nigh unstoppable, as the Democrats had a dilemma of whether to keep or replace Joe Biden as the nominee.

But in that week, and ever since, Trump pissed away all the momentum and advantage he had by picking J.D. Vance as his ticketmate, made an unhinged stinker of an RNC speech after starting off on a unifying note, and his campaign flailing to respond to the replacement of Biden as the Democratic nominee in favor of Kamala Harris that has fired up Democrats.

[partisan-by-default]

Still, Sanders added that Harris has a path to victory by campaigning on other progressive positions, like raising the minimum wage, raising taxes on the wealthy and increasing Social Security benefits.

"I think if you campaign on those issues — raising taxes on billionaires — you know what, she's going to win, and I think she could win big," said Sanders, who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 and 2020.

In recent weeks, Harris has changed her stance on certain issues, like supporting a ban on fracking, the ecologically controversial method of extracting oil and gas, and supporting proposals for "Medicare for All."

In an interview with CNN last month, Harris defended her shifting positions, saying, "The most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values have not changed."

Sanders has stopped short of endorsing her since she replaced President Joe Biden at the top of the ticket.

[griseldagimpel]

The Supreme Court & Elections

I've seen some posts about the Supreme Court and the upcoming U.S. presidential election, so I wanted to do an informative post. Note that while this information is something you should keep in mind when voting (if it applies to you), the November election isn't until November. For now, the focus should be to keep pressure on President Biden. This is just to help those who need it contextualize some of the posts going around.

Let's start by establishing some things. You may know some or all of this, but I want to make sure we'll on the same page for this post.

The actual identity of the president matters less than their party when it comes to Supreme Court nominations. The president could be an otter in a waistcoat and top hat, and my first question is still going to be, "Well, is the otter a Republican or a Democrat?" Just, the pool of candidates who are likely to be nominated for the Supreme Court is small.

Democrats tend to prioritize the Integrity of Government, while Republicans tend to prioritize Winning. This is going to be frustratingly relevant.

The president nominates justices for the Supreme Court, but the Senate confirms them.

Control of the Senates can change during the midterms.

If the Senate is tied 50-50, the Vice President is the tie-breaking vote. That means that if there's a Democratic presidency, 50-50 is a Democratic majority, but if there's a Republican presidency, 50-50 is a Republican majority.

Supreme Court appointments have a long lasting impact. You know how people were worried that if Trump was elected in 2016, it would be bad for the Supreme Court and our rights? Well, those fears were valid and realized. Trump appointed three members of the Supreme Court, and those three members were among the ones who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. That overturning happened after Trump left office, but it happened because of Trump's actions. Biden's victory in 2020 doesn't erase the damage of Trump's victory in 2016.

But ALSO, one of the right-wing justices on the Supreme Court is Clarence Thomas, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush, who won the presidency in 1988. Which, y'all, I was not even two years old when that happened. Some of y'all weren't even alive at the time. Supreme Court nominations have serious long-term consequences.

Supreme Court justices can choose when they retire, but they can't choose when they die. (In the sense that they can't chose not to die of old age when it's their time.)

When Supreme Court justices are getting older, they'll start to look for favorable circumstances to retire under. That means they want their party to have both the presidency AND control of the Senate.

Okay, so Supreme Court justices are supposed to be politically-neutral, but the reality is that they aren't.

Older Supreme Court justices can be replaced by younger Supreme Court justices, who are at less risk of dying.

If a Supreme Court justice doesn't want to retire, there's not a whole lot the president or party can do to make them retire.

Clarence Thomas is 75 years old.

Samuel Alito is 74 years old.

So what scenarios could happen in the next presidential term? (And remember again: Control of the Senate can change during the midterms.)

Democratic Presidency, Democratic-controlled Senate

Thomas and Alito are NOT retiring. They could die of old age, but it's not a guarantee by any means. If one or both did die, Biden would be able to appoint left-leaning justices to replace them. Thus, there's a chance the Supreme Court could go from 6-3 right-leaning to 5-4 right-leaning. There's a small chance it could go to 4-5 left-leaning. This isn't improbable by any means, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.

Still, it'd be easier down the line to turn a 5-4 right-leaning Supreme Court into a 4-5 left-leaning Supreme Court than it is to turn a 6-3 right-leaning Supreme Court into a 4-5 left-leaning Supreme Court. Also, a 6-3 right-leaning Supreme Court is worse than a 5-4 right-leaning Supreme Court because even though both are right-leaning Supreme Courts, with a 5-4 right-leaning Supreme Court, sometimes one of the right-leaning justices will split with their party on a matter.

Democratic Presidency, Republican-controlled Senate

Thomas and Alito are NOT retiring. If one or both died, Republicans would simply refuse to confirm any nominee Biden put forth. (They've done this before. In the lead up to the 2016 election.) The Supreme Court would have 8 justices either until the Democrats gained control of the Senate or the Republicans gained control of the presidency.

Republican Presidency, Democratic-controlled Senate

Thomas and Alito are probably not retiring. If one or both died, Democrats might only approve a Supreme Court justice who was a little right-leaning rather than a lot right-leaning, and they'd at least have basic qualifications for the job.

Republican Presidency, Republican-controlled Senate

There's a good chance (although not a guarantee) that Thomas and/or Alito would retire. Trump would replace them with younger far-right justices. In the immediate sense, the consequence wouldn't be felt (because the Supreme Court would continue to be 6-3 right-leaning) but the impact would be felt down the line with the 6-3 right-leaning Supreme Court persisting longer.

Summary

Where the Supreme Court is concerned, Democratic victories in November mean a good chance of the status quo (which is not great) continuing, with the possibility of things getting better, but with the qualifies that the status quo would move from Bad to Less Bad, with the chance of it moving to Good being pretty small.

If there are Republican victories in November, there's a good chance of the right-wing-ness of the Supreme Court becoming entrenched for longer, but honestly, given that the Republican nominee is going to be Donald "already tried to overthrow the government once" Trump, there's more immediate damage I'd be concerned about him doing.

Other Things That Can Be Done

If you're thinking about this point "Wow, everything's kinda fucked, isn't it?" that's because it is. (Every election is important, but 2016 was really important, and we'll be feeling the consequences of Trump's victory for a long time to come.) In addition to using elections to shape the Supreme Court, other not-mutually-exclusive actions that could be pushed for are:

Adding more Supreme Court justices to the Supreme Court

Putting term limits on the justices

Ethics reforms for the Supreme Court

Impeach certain Supreme Court justices

These all have their challenges with implementing them, but they're all worth pursuing.

[artisanalgoats]

By Yair Rosenberg

A politician designed in a lab to help Democrats win pivotal Rust Belt swing states would probably look a lot like Josh Shapiro. In 2016, when Donald Trump won Pennsylvania by less than 1 percent of the vote, Shapiro was elected attorney general by nearly 3 percent. In 2020, when Joe Biden won the state by one point, Shapiro won reelection by more than four points. And in 2022, the Democrat took the governorship by a whopping 15 percent.

Today, Shapiro’s favorability in Pennsylvania stands at a commanding 61 percent, far outstripping Kamala Harris’s 49 percent in the state. Leaks from the Republican camp suggest that party strategists see the governor as one of their most formidable potential adversaries in a presidential campaign. There’s just one problem.

"He’s Jewish," CNN’s John King noted last week, so "there could be some risk in putting him on the ticket." In fact, Shapiro might be the most visibly Jewish elected official in America: He keeps kosher, has weekly Shabbat dinner with his family, and even quotes Jewish scripture in his political speeches. The sole race he ever lost was for student-body president at his Jewish day school.

Events have borne out King’s concern. Today, Shapiro is the only veep contender subject to an organized campaign to capsize his prospective nomination. Put together by hard-left congressional staffers and members of Democratic Socialists of America, among others, the push is ostensibly about Shapiro’s support for Israel. "Tell Kamala and the Democrats now," reads the site NoGenocideJosh.com, "say no to Genocide Josh Shapiro for Vice President."

"I personally believe Benjamin Netanyahu is one of the worst leaders of all time," Shapiro told reporters in January, months before Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called for the Israeli leader to resign. At the time, Shapiro also pressed for an "immediate two-state solution," something Netanyahu and his hard-right government stridently oppose. The anti-Shapiro campaign ignores these remarks but makes much of the governor’s comparison of campus Gaza protesters to "people dressed up in KKK outfits." When he said that in an interview, however, Shapiro was distinguishing between bigoted extremists—such as the Columbia campus-protest leader who called for killing "Zionists"—and peaceful demonstrators, about whom the governor has said, "It’s right for young people to righteously protest and question."

Now consider the other vice-presidential contenders. Arizona’s Senator Mark Kelly leads the Democratic-nominee prediction markets along with Shapiro. Like the Pennsylvania governor, Kelly also supported using police to break up campus encampments. "Everybody has the right to protest peacefully,” he said, “but when it turns into unlawful acts—we’ve seen this in a number of colleges and universities, including here in Arizona—it’s appropriate for the police to step in.” In the same interview, Kelly said that the Israelis “have to do a better job” reducing civilian casualties in Gaza, but drew on his military experience to explain the difficulty of that task, and emphasized that “Hamas, without question, is the biggest impediment to peace in the Middle East.” Last week, Kelly attended Netanyahu’s address to Congress and applauded.

Unlike Shapiro, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper didn’t simply enforce preexisting state laws against boycotts of Israel while in office—he signed one himself in 2017. This month, Cooper codified into state law a definition of anti-Semitism that has been adopted by many countries around the world, but that left-wing critics argue penalizes speech critical of Israel. Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota, flew state flags at half-mast after October 7 and did not respond to activists who called on the state to divest from Israel. Some were arrested after protesting outside his residence.

That all of these politicians support Israel should not come as a surprise. After all, Harris is searching for a moderate to help her win swing voters in states that are currently polling in the Trump column. Although some Democrats have grown more critical of Israel, Americans back the country by a two-to-one margin and oppose the recent campus protests, which means that any VP nominee considered by Harris would likely share such views.

And yet, activists have not organized in force to discredit any of the non-Jewish contenders for vice president on these grounds. There are no viral memes against “Killer Kelly” or “War-Crimes Walz.” Either the activists involved are extraordinarily lazy and never thought to investigate the other VP possibilities, or they think that Jews are uniquely untrustworthy. Seen in context, the “Genocide Josh” campaign and its tendentious reading of Shapiro’s record look less like a legitimate political critique than a rigged litmus test imposed on the Jewish lawmaker alone.

Sadly, this selective stigmatization isn’t new to progressive politics. In 2021, the Washington, D.C., branch of the climate-action group Sunrise Movement pulled out of a voting-rights rally because of the participation of three American Jewish groups. All three were known for their progressive domestic-policy advocacy and supported a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But the D.C. chapter of Sunrise nonetheless argued for their exclusion because the groups were “Zionist.”

The large majority of supporters of Israel and Zionism throughout history have been—like President Biden—not Jewish. Yet the Sunrise branch made no demands of the many non-Jewish groups at the rally; they effectively carded only Jews at the door. The organization later apologized and called the incident “an opportunity to grow.” That growth seems to have been stunted. Today, the national Sunrise Movement is echoing the rhetoric of the “Genocide Josh” campaign, while it has remained mum on the Israel stances of all other VP contenders.

It has become hard to escape the conclusion that some of the activists imposing this inquisition have a problem not just with Israel or Zionism but with Jews, who they assume are serving a foreign power, no matter what they’ve actually said or done. Historically, this is nothing new. The white-nationalist right has long sought to stigmatize American Jews as subversive and exclude them from political life, arguing that Jews are loyal only to their own kind. In this case, however, some on the progressive left are the ones treating Jewish identity as inherently suspect and holding Jewish political actors to a different standard than their non-Jewish counterparts.

The irony of this whole affair is that Shapiro has actually been more outspoken against Israel’s leadership than Biden or Harris. Few Rust Belt governors would publicly rebuke the prime minister of a foreign country, let alone that of an ally like Israel. But Shapiro knows a thing or two about the subject, which is why he feels comfortable assailing both Netanyahu for thwarting peace and extremist campus protesters for engaging in anti-Semitism. The two positions are not contradictory except to binary thinkers who treat the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a partisan sport, and whose understanding of the issue derives from social-media slogans. Marooned in their moralism, the “Genocide Josh” brigade misses what makes Shapiro so interesting.

The truth is that whatever Shapiro’s views, a Jewish vice president would function in precisely the opposite manner from what these critics fear. Far from a sinister Semitic Svengali suborning the president to an Israeli agenda, a Jewish veep would be trotted out to defend Harris in her inevitable conflicts with Israel’s right-wing government, and to insulate the boss from charges of anti-Semitism. As one Republican Senate staffer put it to Jewish Insider last week, if Shapiro is picked, “forget about claiming we’re the only party standing against anti-Semitism.”

The perverse politics of Jewish identity are one reason I’ve never been enthusiastic about the prospect of a Jewish president or vice president. Anti-Semitism conceives of Jews as clandestine puppeteers who control the world’s governments and economies, fueling political and social problems. A Jewish vice president would provide the perfect canvas for these fevered fantasies—a largely ceremonial figure onto whom bigots could nonetheless project all of their conspiracies, casting him as the real power behind the Resolute Desk.

Harris would be foolish to discard any compelling VP option over their views on an intractable foreign-policy conflict thousands of miles away, while Americans stare down the prospect of another Trump presidency here at home. With the polls as tight as they are, and her campaign starting from behind, she is unlikely to choose her running mate based on unrepresentative online outrage rather than cold electoral calculus. If she picks a Jewish vice president, it will be for his impact on the Electoral College—not the Middle East.

After publication, a spokesperson for Sunrise clarified that the group does not support the "Genocide Josh" campaign, and that its tweet on the subject of Harris's pick--which was shared by the "Genocide Josh" X account--was "intended to be talking about issues, not individuals."

Yair Rosenberg is a staff writer at The Atlantic and the author of its newsletter Deep Shtetl, about the intersection of politics, culture, and religion.

I've tried to include the links and all text exactly as it appears in the article. Any errors or discrepancies there are mine.

[deadpresidents]

As quite a few Presidents were Secretaries of State and so many politicians vied for the position, when and why did that stop being the "gateway" to the Presidency?

That is a really good question.

You're correct that being Secretary of State was seemingly a stepping-stone to the Presidency at one point early in American history. Five of the first eight Presidents were Secretary of State prior to being elected President (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, and Van Buren). Madison, Monroe, and John Quincy Adams were elected President directly from the State Department. But James Buchanan was the last President who had served as Secretary of State.

I think that one of the reasons that being Secretary of State was, as you said, a "gateway" to the Presidency in the early years of the republic was because it was one of the few positions in government that built obvious foreign policy experience for the holders of that job at a time when the country was still a pretty isolated, insular nation. The Secretary of State is basically the American version of a foreign minister, of course, but because it was the premiere Cabinet post (and still is), the Secretary of State often had higher name recognition nationally than anyone in government other than the President at a time when the Vice Presidency was an afterthought with very little influence. From the beginning of the federal government, the State Department was a very important part of the Executive Branch, so the early Secretaries of State also gained valuable administrative experience which only helped their cause when it came to running for President.

I think the reason that Secretaries of State stopped being viable candidates for President is because the the growth of the country meant that their were more-and-more qualified candidates who had gained the foreign policy or administrative experience through other means. The country started turning to military leaders and Governors, as well as candidates with more significant Congressional experience than was possible at the early stage of American history when Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and J.Q. Adams were going from the State Department to the White House. After Buchanan's election, not only were there no other Secretaries of State elected President, but very few were even nominated. James G. Blaine briefly served as Secretary of State in 1881 until a few months after President Garfield died in office and was the Republican Presidential nominee in 1884 (he served as Secretary of State again from 1889-1892), but since then, the only major party Presidential nominee who had previously served as Secretary of State was Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State from 2009-2013) in 2016.

In fact, the reverse has been true more frequently in recent history. Since 1884, four major party nominees for President have served as Secretary of State AFTER losing Presidential elections. Blaine lost the 1884 election and served as President Harrison's Secretary of State from 1889-1892 (again, that was his second stint at the State Department after his brief 1881 service). William Jennings Bryan was the unsuccessful Democratic nominee for President in 1896, 1900, and 1908, and went on to serve as President Wilson's first Secretary of State (1913-1915). Charles Evans Hughes was the Democratic nominee in 1916 and lost to Wilson, but went on to serve as Secretary of State under Presidents Harding and Coolidge (1921-1925). And John Kerry was the Democratic nominee in 2004 and later served as President Obama's second Secretary of State (2013-2017).

It's really difficult today for any Cabinet member to be elected directly to the Presidency (or even get close to the nomination -- just ask Julián Castro about his 2020 campaign). While there is no job that can truly prepare someone for the modern Presidency, Governors tend to be in a better position than Cabinet secretaries or members of Congress. Only four incumbent members of Congress have been elected directly to the Presidency -- James Garfield (1880), Warren G. Harding (1920), John F. Kennedy (1960), and Barack Obama (2008). And Garfield is the only sitting member of the House of Representatives to have been elected President. While the position of Secretary of State remains the prime Cabinet post in the United States, the days of the Cabinet being the gateway to the Presidency seem to have gone away with powdered wigs and shoe buckles.

[mariacallous]

Immigration and economics loom large on the campaign trail and in the minds of voters, but America’s foreign entanglements could well decide the election.

The Democratic Party is desperately trying to keep debate about the conduct of Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon contained to an intramural row over policy, with marginal electoral impact. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s supporters are engaged in a concerted effort to exploit divisions within the Republican Party to defeat former President Donald Trump.

It’s unclear if either will succeed. But as a result, the wars in Ukraine and Gaza are having outsize impact on key blocs of voters in several swing states, according to voters and analysts interviewed by Rolling Stone.

While both the left and the right are divided over various aspects of foreign policy, the most notable gap between majority public opinion and a candidate’s position is with Trump and his antipathy toward Ukraine.

Despite the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine, Trump inexplicably said in a podcast released last week that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “should never have let that war start. That war is a loser.”

Such views may cost him the election against Vice President Kamala Harris.

“This is the most defining and potentially divisive political issue in the most consequential election in modern times,” says Paul Rieckhoff, a political activist who served in Iraq as a U.S. Army infantry officer, who describes himself as an independent. “I don’t know if there is a single issue where [Trump and Harris] are more clearly different than Ukraine.”

While statistical models that attempt to predict voter behavior have, perhaps, proven as close to pure science as ornithomancy or astrology, it is clear that this election — like all others for decades — will be decided in a handful of swing states, likely by the narrowest of margins.

In some of those states, voters who in the pre-Trump era formed the moderate Republican center are now abandoning their party’s candidate — and they are doing so over Ukraine.

“Ninety percent of it is because of his ridiculous foreign policy,” says John Feltz, a 58-year-old software engineer in Michigan. Feltz says he is a Republican who refuses to vote for Trump. “He has no discernible principle that I can see, and that’s what the Republican party used to have: principles.”

The vice president’s campaign is pouring resources into attracting voters like Feltz, particularly in Pennsylvania. Last week, Harris began a tour of the battleground state aimed at disaffected Republican voters. She’s particularly hoping to attract backers of former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, whose long-shot bid to secure the GOP nomination showcased her hawkish foreign policy views.

During the only presidential debate between Harris and Trump, held in Philadelphia in September, the vice president took aim at a bellwether group particularly motivated by the war in Ukraine: Polish-Americans.

“[Russian President Vladimir] Putin would be sitting in Kyiv with his eyes on the rest of Europe, starting with Poland,” Harris told Trump. “And why don’t you tell the 800,000 Polish-Americans right here in Pennsylvania how quickly you would give up, for the sake of favor and what you think is a friendship — with what is known to be a dictator who would eat you for lunch?”

Democrats view Ukraine as an effective lever to move swing-state voters as the issue hits a nerve with many moderate Republicans. Trump’s stance on the war finds resistance even in the deep red South.

Alan Nummy, a 57-year-old EMT from Elmore County, Alabama, says he voted Republican all his life, including for Trump in 2016 and 2020 “with reservations.” This year, Nummy says he “can’t hold his nose any longer,” and will write in “Nikki Haley” in November because of Trump’s lack of commitment on helping Ukraine and “kicking Russia’s butt.”

“I’m probably 90 percent in line with the policies of his administration, maybe even higher than that,” the Biloxi native assures Rolling Stone. “But I can’t vote for him now because he will not commit to assisting a nation in destroying one of the two largest political enemies of the U.S. — China’s number one, Russia’s number two.”

Ukraine is an obvious vector of attack, because it is an issue where Trump is at odds with the general electorate.

More than 62 percent of Americans say their sympathies lie with Ukraine — including 76 percent of Democrats, but also 58 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of independents, according to research by the University of Maryland.

According to the same study, the number of Americans comfortable supporting Ukraine for “as long as it takes” has been increasing — from 38 percent in March 2023 to 48 percent in August. A separate study by the University of Chicago and The Associated Press conducted in mid-September shows that people who think the U.S. is providing “too much” support to Ukraine has dropped from 52 percent last year, to 34 percent this year — 60 percent think the aid is “too little” or “the right amount.”

Contrast this with Israel’s response to the Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas and subsequent war in Gaza, where Americans are far more divided. According to the University of Chicago poll, when asked which party they most sympathized with, 25 percent said Israel and 15 percent said the Palestinians — 31 percent are sympathetic to “both equally,” while 26 percent to “neither.”

Further data from the Institute for Global Affairs, a research nonprofit attached to the risk consultancy firm Eurasia Group, indicates regardless of political affiliation, 22 percent of Americans believe the U.S. should end military support for Israel, while 23 percent think it should support Israel unconditionally. The rest of Americans want to see continued military support, but with conditions attached: 34 percent with a cease-fire, and 21 percent dependent on humanitarian aid access.

This lack of consensus on Israel-Palestine is why it has been easy for Harris to simply dodge tough questions about U.S. policy toward the conflict. Her opponent’s other faults — specifically his racism and anti-Muslim bigotry — help explain why it is difficult for motivated Democrats who support Palestine to categorically reject their party’s nominee: They want a shift in policy, not a Trump victory.

“We’re asking for her to commit to enforcing our laws, our international laws on friend and foe alike, which is what we do to Ukraine, which is what we do to everybody else,” Ruwa Romman, a Palestinian-American who serves on Georgia’s state legislature, told NPR on the outskirts of the DNC in Chicago in August. “And that continues to be, and has been, the ask all the time.”

Still, rifts are growing over the Biden administration’s handling of Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon. Arab-Americans, who make up an influential voting bloc in the swing state of Michigan that has traditionally supported Democrats, are now evenly divided on their preferred candidate, according to data from the Arab American Institute.

“In our thirty years of polling Arab-American voters, we have not witnessed anything like the role that the war on Gaza is having on voter behavior,” James Zogby, president of the organization, wrote. “The year-long unfolding genocide in Gaza has impacted every component sub-group within the community.”

History suggests voters motivated by Gaza may find little daylight between the two candidates after the election. Trump — who in 2017 recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel — is fond of claiming, “I did more for Israel than anybody,” and has shown little sympathy toward the Palestinian cause. But while the Biden administration — and by extension the Harris campaign  — has at times quietly leaked criticism of Israel’s actions, it has displayed little interest in going to the mat with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over humanitarian aid access or withholding military assistance.

Unlike Gaza, where the two parties differ mostly in how they talk about supporting Israel, there is a deep divergence on Ukraine policy — and that extends to within the Republican Party between MAGA loyalists and GOP hawks.

While most Republicans supported Ukraine at the beginning of the war, as the presidential campaign accelerated so too did discontent with U.S. policy. That’s evident in research showing half of Republicans now think Washington is supplying “too much” aid to Ukraine.

That split has forced GOP politicians to voice mealy-mouthed reservations about aid, primarily focusing on the monetary cost. 

“I don’t have an appetite for further Ukraine funding, and I hope it’s not necessary,” Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) said recently. “If President Trump wins, I believe that he actually can bring that conflict to a close … I think he’ll call Putin and tell him that this is enough.”

Trump running mate J.D. Vance, who in 2022 declared “I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another,” has embraced a skeptical role in line with Trump when it comes to Kyiv.

“The problem here vis-à-vis Ukraine is, America doesn’t make enough weapons, Europe doesn’t make enough weapons, and that reality is far more important than American political will or how much money we print and then send to Europe,” Vance said in a visit to the Munich Security Conference in February, where he skipped a meeting with Zelensky, the Ukrainian president.

After becoming Trump’s vice presidential candidate, Vance clarified his stance, describing to an interviewer in September his vision for an end to the war: “What it probably looks like is the current line of demarcation between Russia and Ukraine, that becomes like a demilitarized zone.”

Trump, meanwhile, has promised to end the war “in 24 hours” if he is elected — although he hasn’t provided specific details. But such musings throw into sharp focus his history of undermining Ukraine’s security for personal political advantage.

In 2019, Trump tried to pressure newly inaugurated Zelensky to investigate a number of conspiracies and tie them to Joe Biden, threatening to withhold military aid if he did not. A phone call in which Trump made the demands was reported by a whistleblower on the National Security Council, and it formed the core of his first impeachment effort — an attempt to overturn his 2020 election loss resulted in the second.

While the House approved two articles of impeachment, Trump was acquitted by the Senate over the Ukraine affair in a February 2020 vote that split along party lines — with Sen. Mitt Romney being the sole Republican to break with his colleagues. Four-and-a-half years later, and the sordid episode continues to lurk in the background, adding to an uncomfortable atmosphere when Trump met Zelensky last month in New York City. 

“We have a very good relationship, and I also have a very good relationship, as you know, with President Putin. And I think if we win, we’re going to get it resolved very quickly,” Trump said in a press conference ahead of the meeting.

“I hope we have more good relations between us,” was Zelensky’s tepid response.

The stench of the Ukraine affair permeates Trump’s legacy on foreign affairs — especially given his repeated and consistent praise of Putin, such as calling the dictator “savvy” and a “genius” on the eve of the 2022 invasion.

Such statements, and Trump’s affinity for a dictator responsible for starting a war that may have already killed more than half a million people, embarrass many Republicans. They also provide fodder for his opponents within the GOP.

“Trump is siding with a dictator who kills his political opponents,” Haley said in South Carolina while still running for the Republican nomination. “Trump sided with an evil man, over our allies who stood with us on 9/11.”

Haley has, of course, ultimately kissed the ring and closed ranks behind Trump. But not every Republican is ready to cast aside principles for their party’s candidate.

Republican Voters Against Trump, a Super PAC started by a group of GOP dissidents and funded by the billionaire venture capitalist Reid Hoffman, has churned out ads and social media posts featuring Republicans talking about Ukraine.

“Why I am extremely against Trump now is his position in Ukraine,” says one ad featuring a voter in Georgia identified as Nikita, a Ukrainian American. “I’m doing everything in my power to make sure he doesn’t get elected.”

The Super PAC’s founder, Republican strategist Sarah Longwell, says it is spending as much as $45 million to persuade “center-right voters, right-leaning, independent, soft GOP voters, to vote against Trump.”

While such groups are focused on siphoning votes away from the former president, some of Ukraine’s supporters are hedging their bets. They hope to bring the Republican Party back into line with majority opinion, and to do so they are taking aim at two traditionally conservative demographics: veterans and evangelical Christians.

“Republicans by and large support Ukraine. The question you really have to ask is: ‘Who does not support Ukraine?’” says Rieckhoff, who hosts a podcast called Independent Americans and has a long history of political activism. In 2012, Rolling Stone included him in a list of “Leaders Who Get Things Done.”

“People need to understand that J.D. Vance and Donald Trump are in a very radical minority that undermines American national security,” he adds.

The nonprofit Rieckhoff founded in 2004 — Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, more commonly known as IAVA — was essential to the passage of the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, which paid for Vance’s undergraduate studies at Ohio State University. Earlier this year Rieckhoff helped start a new group: American Veterans for Ukraine, or AVU. The goal is to shape American policy toward Ukraine.

“This is the same crew who tried to get people out of Iraq, and out of Afghanistan. It’s a veteran’s Underground Railroad … We want to use our skills and our networks to support and defend democracy,” he says. Although the U.S. has provided billions of dollars in aid to Kyiv and “there is significant philanthropy helping people in Ukraine,” he says, “there is comparatively very little advocacy and lobbying.”

He thinks the lack of behind-the-scenes politicking created the crisis earlier this year, when for nearly six months Republicans in Congress blocked the provision of military aid to Ukraine, taking a cue from Trump.

The former president and his acolytes in Congress were vocal in opposing more money for Kyiv. Despite the dire warnings of the national security and foreign policy establishment, the aid was blocked — with disastrous effects for Ukraine’s defense.

It wasn’t until Johnson met a Ukrainian evangelical named Serhiy Haidarzhy in April that the newly minted speaker of the House experienced a Damascene conversion over aid. With Johnson’s backing, Republicans swept away the opposition of MAGA militants, approving a $61 billion Ukraine funding package in a bipartisan show of force.

That meeting with Johnson wasn’t accidental. Ukraine is actively courting America’s conservative Christian right in the hope of strengthening its bulwark of Republican support should Trump regain power in November.

“Speaker Johnson is a great example. He voted nine out of nine times against Ukraine as a rank-and-file member of Congress. The intelligence briefings gave him the intellectual information to support Ukraine. When he met the Ukrainian evangelicals we brought over, it gave him an emotional and spiritual connection to Ukraine,” says Steven Moore, a 55-year-old GOP operative and Tulsa native, who worked on Capitol Hill for seven years as a Congressional aide — including as chief of staff for former Rep. Pete Roskam, an Illinois Republican.

Moore has a perspective unlike that of most Beltway insiders: After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, he moved to Kyiv and started a nonprofit — one of hundreds of foreigners conducting such grassroots efforts, of varying quality and accountability, that contribute aid to Ukraine’s war effort.

Although he is not a registered lobbyist, he now spends his time networking and connecting Republicans with counterparts in Kyiv. He also works to raise funds for his Ukraine Freedom Project, shooting videos featuring military equipment and sending them to Rotary Clubs across America.

Such outreach is important, Moore says, because “what we find is that for the most part, when you give conservatives accurate information about Ukraine, they come to support Ukraine’s fight for its freedom. Unfortunately, it is difficult to compete with the massive Russian propaganda effort.”

Despite Trump’s claims he can end the war by calling up Putin, any peace deal is outside the power of an American president to accomplish without the cooperation of Ukraine. Ensuring that Kyiv’s calls are picked up in Washington regardless of which candidate sits in the White House is why Ukraine has been trying to build bridges to the GOP.

“I do not see anything surprising if Ukraine is looking for support in all directions,” says Oleksiy Goncharenko, a member of the Verkhovna Rada — Ukraine’s parliament — who is outspoken on foreign affairs.

“Maybe we could have done more, maybe there were mistakes, both with the Republicans and with the Democrats,” concedes Goncharenko. “Our country does not have much experience in promoting itself at such a level. But we welcome the support of the U.S., especially when it comes from both [parties].”

Connecting with American evangelicals has been central to Ukraine’s outreach, as they make up an influential segment of Republicans.

To this end, Zelensky’s government has sought to highlight Russia’s persecution of evangelicals and other religious minorities in the occupied territories under its control. Putin’s regime has kidnapped, tortured, jailed, and even murdered non-Orthodox Christians, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses — regarded as “religious extremists” by Moscow — solely because of their faith, according to findings by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a bipartisan agency that monitors religious freedom worldwide.

In newly conquered territories in Ukraine, Protestants have paid a terrible price, Moore says, especially evangelical Baptists, who have been singled out for persecution by the Russian military as “American spies.”

“More than half of Republicans identify as evangelical Christians, and 70 percent of evangelical Christians who vote Republican are more likely to support Ukraine when you tell them that Russia is torturing and oppressing Ukrainians like them for their faith,” Moore asserts.

The Zelensky administration has even gone so far as to hold a “National Prayer Breakfast,” similar to the one established in the U.S. in 1953.

The American original is a fixture for Beltway insiders, where global movers and shakers rub shoulders in an informal milieu with U.S. lawmakers, who themselves are keen to be seen by evangelicals as visibly straddling the line between church and state. With as many as 3,500 attendees each year, the event is a clearinghouse for influence-peddling.

When the Zelensky administration decided to begin a similar tradition in Ukraine, GOP activists like Moore hoped it would succeed in attracting the conservative Christian right — and it did.

Rolling Stone attended Ukraine’s first National Prayer Breakfast in June, joined by Zelensky and hundreds of people from multiple religious denominations.

The opening speeches were followed by a prerecorded video address from Speaker Johnson and — much to the surprise of the audience — former Vice President Mike Pence.

Pence’s face suddenly materialized on an array of screens set up around the breakfast hall, his snow-white hair and cold, resolute glare staring out from his pale features. Trump’s former VP delivered a speech praising Ukrainians for their “courage,” reminding the audience of the sacrifices made so that “the blue-and-gold flag still waves over the skies of Ukraine,” as attendees tucked in to their breakfasts and chatted amongst themselves.

“Thank you all for standing with Ukraine … May God bless the people of Ukraine, and freedom-loving people everywhere,” Pence concluded.

Trump’s supporters, of course, erected a gallows and noose while chanting “Hang Mike Pence” during a riot on Jan. 6, 2021, forcing the then-vice president to flee the Capitol.

So while it is unlikely that Pence’s presence at Ukraine’s National Prayer Breakfast persuaded any Trump die-hards to change their vote, the hope was his presence might help convert less extreme conservative skeptics to Kyiv��s cause. And the effort poured into the event shows that when it comes to a new administration’s policy toward Ukraine — whomever is in the White House — its supporters know victory counts on a lot more than November ballots, or even thoughts and prayers.

[originalleftist]

The Democratic Convention opens tomorrow (August 19th)- here's what we know about who's speaking and when:

From the article:

Convention organizers released night-by-night themes and speaker details on Sunday morning. One speaker who's not on the official agenda but Axios has confirmed will take the stage on Tuesday: former First Lady Michelle Obama.

Monday, "For the People": Biden and Dr. Jill Biden speak, along with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a welcome from Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson.

Tuesday, "A Bold Vision for America's Future": Former President Obama plus second gentleman Doug Emhoff, with a welcome from Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.

Wednesday, "A Fight for Our Freedoms": Vice presidential nominee Tim Walz delivers his acceptance speech, preceded by former President Clinton, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg (per CNN).

Thursday, "For Our Future": Harris accepts the convention's nomination for president.

Other speakers include Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

Former President Carter's grandson, Jason Carter, is expected to speak on behalf of his grandfather, who has said he hopes to stay alive long enough to vote for Harris.

I wish there were more leading progressives on here, but Harris/Walz is already a quite progressive ticket. Jason Carter is a wonderful choice. I imagine Hillary Clinton's speech will be deeply emotional to many who's hopes of electing the first woman President were crushed in 2016.

The only name I strongly object to is Bill Clinton. Yes, he's a former President, but he's also a sexual predator who represents the party's past, not its future, and including him needlessly gives Republicans an opening for Whataboutism re Trump's r*pes and Epstein ties. He should have stayed out.

Ah well, its a 90% good lineup, and that's probably the best we can ever hope for, in politics or in life.

Edit: Note that this is also likely not a complete list- others may speak who haven't been named yet.

[news365timesindia]

[ad_1] President-elect Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he was nominating former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee as the next U.S. ambassador to Israel, tapping a staunchly pro-Israel conservative whose choice could signal future U.S. policy toward conflicts in the Middle East. It’s been incredible day as @realDonaldTrump asked me to serve as Ambassador to @Israel a land I have been visiting since 1973 when I was a teenager. It will be a privilege to serve my country and my President in this role. https://t.co/yCRfw20kOh — Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) November 12, 2024 “I am pleased to announce that the Highly Respected former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, has been nominated to be The United States Ambassador to Israel,” Trump said in a statement. “Mike has been a great public servant, Governor, and Leader in Faith for many years. He loves Israel, and the people of Israel, and likewise, the people of Israel love him. Mike will work tirelessly to bring about Peace in the Middle East!” he added. Following his victory over Democratic candidate and US Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump is moving to fill out his foreign policy and national security team ahead of his formal inauguration in January 2025. On Tuesday, Trump also appointed Congressman Mike Waltz as his National Security Advisor. Trump is expected to name 53-year-old Republican Senator from Florida Marco Rubio as his Secretary of State, The New York Times and other US news outlets reported, citing sources. Earlier on Monday, Trump nominated Republican Representative Elise Stefanik as the next US Ambassador to the United Nations, as reported by CNN. Trump praised Stefanik as “an incredibly strong, tough, and smart America First fighter.” “I am honoured to nominate Chairwoman Elise Stefanik to serve in my Cabinet as US Ambassador to the United Nations. Elise is an incredibly strong, tough, and smart America First fighter,” Trump said in a statement, as reported by CNN. Stefanik serves as the House Republican Conference Chair and is the most senior Republican in New York, according to her official website. She was the youngest woman ever elected to Congress when she first took office in 2014. Trump also has named Tom Homan, the former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in his last administration will be in charge of the nation’s borders. In a historic political comeback, Trump won a second term as President of the United States after securing 295 electoral votes in the 2024 presidential election, defeating Democratic rival, Kamala Harris, who garnered 226 votes. This makes Trump the first US president since 1892 to return to office after losing a previous election. Trump’s return to the White House marks only the second time in US history that a president has served two non-consecutive terms. The first such instance was Grover Cleveland, who served as president in 1884 and 1892. Trump had earlier served as US President from 2016 to 2020. [ad_2] Source link

[justinspoliticalcorner]

David Smith at The Guardian:

It will be a study in contrasts around age, gender, race, temperament and policy. It will also be the first time in US presidential history that a former courtroom prosecutor will take the debate stage alongside a convicted criminal with the White House at stake. Vice-President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, has served as a trial lawyer, district attorney and state attorney general in California. Former US president Donald Trump, her Republican rival, has been convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a sex scandal.

The pair will go head to head in Philadelphia on Tuesday night in their first – and perhaps only – debate, just 75 days after Joe Biden’s dire performance against Trump triggered a political earthquake that ultimately forced him from the race for the White House. Few expect such a transformative result this time. But Trump has his last best chance to end Harris’s extended “honeymoon” while the Democrat is aiming to prosecute her opponent’s glaring liabilities before tens of millions of voters watching on live television. “It’s the first time Donald Trump is actually going to be cross-examined in front of the American people,” said Tara Setmayer, a former Republican communications director on Capitol Hill. “Kamala Harris’s career and experience as a prosecutor, attorney general and a senator is something that Trump should not underestimate in this debate.”

This will be Trump’s seventh appearance in a national general election debate, making him the most experienced debater in US presidential history. Against Biden in June he repeated familiar falsehoods that mostly went unchallenged. Harris is expected to be a more formidable opponent and could put Trump on the defensive over facts, policy and his conduct following the 2020 election. The 59-year-old has not been shy about embracing her career in law enforcement so far in the campaign. A video at the recent Democratic national convention in Chicago declared: “That’s our choice. A prosecutor or a felon.” In a speech accepting the party’s nomination, Harris told cheering delegates: “Every day, in the courtroom, I stood proudly before a judge and I said five words: Kamala Harris, for the people.” She has also been touting her record taking on predators and fraudsters, telling crowds across the country: “I know Donald Trump’s type!” Harris brought that experience to bear in her memorable 2018 cross-examination of Brett Kavanaugh during Senate confirmation hearings after Trump, then president, nominated him as a justice on the supreme court.

But she is unlikely to go after Trump directly over his convictions – or three other criminal cases still looming over him. When, at a rally in New Hampshire this week, an audience member shouted, “Lock him up!” Harris replied: “Well, you know what? The courts are going to handle that, and we will handle November. How about that?” In May Trump became the first former US president to be convicted of felony crimes when a New York jury found him guilty of all 34 charges in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through a hush-money payment to an adult film performer. On Friday the judge, Justice Juan Merchan, delayed Trump’s sentencing until 26 November – after the election date of 5 November. For any other candidate on a debate stage, the convictions would be a huge liability. But Trump has repeatedly rallied his base by falsely claiming that the case, and others relating to election interference and mishandling classified information, are bogus and politically motivated. Should the topic arise on Tuesday, he is likely to cast himself as a martyr and also remind viewers that he was nearly assassinated in July. The 90-minute duel, held at Philadelphia’s National Constitutional Center, will be moderated by the ABC News anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. In accordance with rules negotiated by both campaigns, there will be no live audience and candidates’ microphones will be muted when it is not their turn to speak.

The same rules seemed to work in Trump’s favour when he took on Biden in Atlanta in June. Aaron Kall, director of debate at the University of Michigan, said: “Trump adjusted well to no audience and the cutting of the microphones in Atlanta. Biden clearly didn’t. “He had never debated when there’s no audience; same thing with Harris. Not getting any feedback and not knowing how things are going, you have to trust your judgment and who’s got better media instincts than a reality television host?” The muting of the microphones may not only save Trump from himself – he interrupted Biden 71 times during their first presidential debate in 2020 – but prevent Harris offering sharp rejoinders such as “I’m speaking”, a line she delivered against Mike Pence in the vice-presidential debate four years ago. Harris and Trump have never met before in person and, in the city of Rocky Balboa, are likely to take on the roles of boxer and fighter respectively. Trump, 78, is not known for his discipline, preparation or fidelity to the truth. His debate performances, like his governing style, are typically based on gut instinct rather than considered analysis.

The first (and possibly only) debate between Kamala Harris (D) and Donald Trump (R) will take place on Tuesday with ABC as the host outlet that will air on numerous cable, streaming, and broadcast outlets.

Tuesday night is the prosecutor v. felon debate, and it’ll be an epic one in which hopefully Harris wins.

Will Harris emerge as the victor in her path to become the first woman to become President? Or will Trump win the debate to set him on a path to a return to 1600? Stay tuned.

[partisan-by-default]

The West campaign gave little explanation for the move, which appeared counterproductive to his goal of getting his name on ballots nationwide, but noted his desire not to be constrained by a party platform and the complexities of the Green Party’s nominating process.

“The best way to challenge the entrenched system is by focusing 100 percent on the people, not on the intricacies of internal party dynamics,” his campaign said in a statement.

In a text message, Mr. West added: “I am a jazz man in politics and the life of the mind who refuses to play only in a party band!”

The decision is likely to be a welcome one for Democrats, who have in the past fought to keep Green Party candidates off state ballots. The Democratic Party is facing the prospect of a 2024 election in which multiple high-profile third-party candidates are on the ballot, and are likelier to sway voters away from Joseph R. Biden than from a Republican challenger.

Although Mr. West remains a candidate, he will now have to navigate the complex and time-consuming project of qualifying for the ballot in individual states, without the support of the Green Party.

Prominent Democrats such as David Axelrod, the former Obama strategist, and Jaime Harrison, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, have criticized Mr. West for running, warning that he risks enabling a Republican victory. Even some longtime allies on the left outside of the Democratic Party, like Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, have said that the stakes of the 2024 election have led them to support Mr. Biden.

Mr. West, a best-selling author, would have been the highest-profile candidate the Green Party had fielded in a presidential election since Ralph Nader, whose candidacy many Democrats still blame for Vice President Al Gore’s loss to George W. Bush in 2000.

The number of votes received by the party’s 2016 nominee, Jill Stein, in three battleground states would have been enough for Hillary Clinton to defeat Donald Trump in the election — although exit polls in one of the states, Michigan, found that only a quarter of Ms. Stein’s voters said they would otherwise have voted for Ms. Clinton.