#Congress candidate speculation

[townpostin]

Former SP Ajoy Kumar Hints at Political Comeback in Jamshedpur

Ex-MP’s potential candidacy for Jamshedpur East seat sparks speculation among party workers Congress seeks new face for constituency as former candidate Gaurav Vallabh joins BJP ranks. JAMSHEDPUR – Dr. Ajoy Kumar, former Superintendent of Police and ex-MP, has fueled speculation about his potential candidacy for the Jamshedpur East constituency in the upcoming elections. Local Congress leaders…

[collapsedsquid]

One​ possible outcome of the next presidential election is that a Democratic candidate wins a dispute-proof victory and is straightforwardly inaugurated. Another – perfectly likely – is that Trump runs again and is unambiguously re-elected in line with the law, even if most Americans don’t vote for him. But what if he, or a candidate like him, were to cheat, and he and his party threaded the needle to a victory endorsed by the key national institutions? Instead of today’s situation, in which there is a Democratic president and – to use Walter’s terminology – a downgraded superfaction of Trump supporters convinced by the lie that he was defrauded and should have won, you would have a Trump base accepting their champion’s fraudulent victory, and a liberal superfaction aware that the Republican head of state had stolen the presidency, that politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers had seized the apparatus of the American state, and that democracy had been killed. One of the strange things about the reaction to the invasion of the Capitol was how few of those dismayed by it speculated that they might one day long for just such an assault to succeed. Might a different mob storm into Congress to save democracy, rather than attack it? If an autocrat who has stolen an election is about to have his trashing of American democracy hallowed by Congress, all other recourse having failed, shouldn’t Democrats – or democrats, at least – take direct action? Liberal opinion in North America and Western Europe has tended to be gung-ho about pro-democracy protesters storming ruling institutions in other countries, notably Ukraine in 2014. But it’s one thing to imagine, as Walter encourages her readers to do, the gradual spread of white supremacist, anti-government terrorism across America against a democratic framework, until one day the progressive left, and the people of colour she suggests are likely to be targets of violence, arm and organise for self-protection. It’s another to wake up one morning and find that without any bloodshed or violence, without any seeming change in the smooth running of traffic signals and ATMs and supermarkets, without, even, an immediate wave of arrests or a clampdown on free speech, your country is run by somebody who took power illegally. Something must be done! But what, apart from venting on social media? And by whom? Me? In Ukraine, students and the liberal middle class found fighting allies among football ultras, small farmers and extreme nationalists. Such an alliance would be hard to pull together in the Euro-American world. Describing liberal protests against government corruption and malfeasance in Bulgaria in 2013, Ivan Krastev spoke of ‘the frustration of the empowered’ and an urban middle class that ‘risks remaining politically isolated, incapable of reaching out to other social groups’.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Emily Singer at Daily Kos:

Fresh off his resignation from Congress after his nomination for attorney general went up in flames due to his penchant for allegedly paying minors for sex at drug-fueled parties, former Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida now says he is thinking about running for governor of the Sunshine State.

“I have a compelling vision for the state,” Gaetz told the Tampa Bay Times, confirming speculation that Gaetz was not yet done with elected office and could be plotting a comeback. “I understand how to fix the insurance problem, and it’s not to hand the keys to the state over to the insurance industry. If I run, I would be the most pro-consumer candidate on the Republican side.” It's unclear if Gaetz could make it through a Republican primary, given the hefty load of baggage he carries. The House Ethics Committee released a report in December that found, among other things, that Gaetz paid for sex with a 17-year-old high school student. “The Committee determined there is substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz violated House Rules and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, impermissible gifts, special favors or privileges, and obstruction of Congress,” House Ethics Committee investigators wrote in the report.

[...] What Gaetz has going for him in a potential gubernatorial bid is that he is popular among the MAGA faithful—which constitutes a big chunk of the Republican electorate that will choose the GOP nominee. Florida’s governor’s race will be open, as current Gov. Ron DeSantis is term limited. Also a wildcard is whether Donald Trump, who likes Gaetz and nominated him to be his attorney general, would throw his support behind Gaetz's possible gubernatorial bid. If he did, Gaetz would immediately be the GOP front-runner. However, given his baggage, Gaetz is likely one of the few Republican candidates who could make Florida's governor race competitive for Democrats in a general election. “*anyone* other than Matt Gaetz would be clearly favored to win Florida in any environment at this point. Gaetz is the only person who would make it a tossup, and I'd take the under on him if I had to, even at those odds,” Lakshya Jain, an election handicapper, wrote in a post on X. While he mulls over a bid, Gaetz is currently hosting a show on the little-watched right-wing propaganda network One America News, which has terrible production value and a makeup staff that makes Gaetz look like an airbrushed pumpkin.

Could Matt Gaetz be making a comeback, this time for Florida Governor?

[mariacallous]

In the weeks leading up to the 2024 presidential election, speculation was rampant that if Harris won it would be because of a historic gender gap in favor of women, a gap that ran through all the age cohorts in the electorate and that would be magnified by the gap in voter turnout between men and women. Three factors supported this belief: 1) Harris is a woman; 2) the issue of abortion rights being taken away which had played a big role in the 2022 midterms and the 2023 off-year elections; and 3) Trump’s often misogynistic attitudes toward women. Many expected that a gender gap in favor of Harris would counterbalance weaknesses in other parts of the electorate and help Harris win, but it didn’t happen.

What did happen? Of the three possibilities, the most likely one is that abortion ceased to be an issue that would impact the vote beyond matters such as the economy, immigration, and crime. That was not the case in the immediate aftermath of the 2021 Dobbs decision that sent abortion regulation back to the states. In the 2022 midterm elections and in the 2023 off-year elections in Virginia, there was clear evidence that abortion directly affected voting for Congress and voting for the state legislature. But by 2024, two things happened to blunt the impact of abortion on the presidential race.

First, in the two plus years since the Dobbs decision, the pro-choice movement has concentrated on winning state ballot initiatives to protect the right to an abortion. Beginning in 2022, there were state referenda in six states and in every one—even very conservative states like Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana—they passed by comfortable margins. Seeing a way to increase the number of women able to get an abortion and avoid unfriendly courts and state legislatures, the pro-choice movement went into action and placed a referendum on the ballot in Ohio in 2023 (which won easily) and then placed referenda on 10 more states for 2024. Some of these states—Colorado, Maryland, and New York—were blue states where Harris was expected to win. The referenda were expected to pass easily and did. They also passed easily where Trump was expected to win—in the deep red states of Montana (57.6%), Missouri (51,6%,) and Nebraska (55.3%.) In Florida, it did not pass, but that’s because although it got 57.1% of the vote, the legislature raised the bar for winning to 60%. South Dakota was the only state where the pro-choice referenda lost.

In the two swing states with abortion on the ballot, Arizona and Nevada, the referenda won easily, with 61.4% of the vote in Arizona and 63.8% of the vote in Nevada. What is clear from the outcomes in those states is that many people figured they could have their cake and eat it too—so to speak. They could vote to keep abortion legal but then vote for Trump for president. In Arizona, Harris so far only has 46.8% of the vote, meaning that 14.6% of the voters voted for the pro-choice position on abortion and for Donald Trump. In Nevada, Harris has so far received 47.2% of the vote—meaning that 16.6% of the voters voted pro-choice and for Trump. In many states voters have had a way to protect abortion rights while voting for Republican candidates.

The second thing that happened was that midway through his general election campaign, on October 1 to be precise, Trump—after a serious meeting with his staff where he was shown just how costly his support for abortion bans could be—issued a statement saying: “Everyone knows I would not support a federal abortion ban, under any circumstances, and would, in fact, veto it, because it is up to the states to decide based on the will of their voters (the will of the people!).”

By the time of the actual election, the gender gap had been cut in half and Harris’ lead among women had plummeted. A method for protecting abortion (the referenda) had reduced the need for voters to elect pro-choice candidates since they could still vote to keep abortion legal. And Trump, seeing the writing on the wall, clarified that he would take no federal action, clearing the way for large numbers of pro-choice voters to vote for him on the economy, immigration, or many other issues. Although Harris fared much better among women than men, according to election exit polls, she ended up doing no better than Biden with women. That torpedoed her strategy of emphasizing reproductive rights—and in the end helped to elect Donald Trump.

[beardedmrbean]

Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah, from the governing South West Africa People's Organisation (Swapo), looks set to become Namibia's first female president with more than 90% of the votes from last week's disputed election now counted.

The electoral commission said she had won more than 58%, with her closest rival Panduleni Itula getting just over 25% of the vote share.

But following logistical problems and a three-day extension to polling in some parts of the country, Itula said on Saturday that his party would not recognise the results alleging electoral malpractice.

Swapo has been power in the large but sparsely populated southern African country since independence in 1990.

A party stalwart, Nandi-Ndaitwah, who is currently the vice-president, is a trusted leader having served in high government office for a quarter of a century.

Is Namibia going to elect its first female leader?

Tanzania's Samia Suluhu Hassan is Africa's only female president, so Nandi-Ndaitwah would be joining an exclusive club if she is victorious.

To avoid a second-round run-off, a candidate needs more than 50% of the vote to be declared the winner.

A trained dentist, Itula, of the Independent Patriots for Change (IPC), is seen as more charismatic than Nandi-Ndaitwah and managed to dent Swapo's popularity in the last presidential election in 2019, reducing its vote share to 56% from 87% five years earlier.

The IPC has said it will “pursue justice through the courts” and has encouraged people who felt that they had been unable to vote because of mismanagement by the electoral commission to go to the police to make a statement.

Swapo led the struggle for nationhood against apartheid South Africa. Ahead of last Wednesday's general election there had been some speculation that it would suffer the fate of other liberation parties in the region.

South Africa’s African National Congress lost its outright parliamentary majority in May and the Botswana Democratic Party was kicked out of power after nearly six decades following October's election.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

An original document signed by President Abraham Lincoln four days before his assassination on 15 April 1865. Photograph: Raab Collection

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

February 18, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

On the third Monday in February, the U.S. celebrates Presidents Day, a somewhat vague holiday placed in 1968 near the date of George Washington’s birthday on February 22, 1732, but also traditionally including Abraham Lincoln, who was born on February 12, 1809. This year, that holiday falls on February 19.

That the American people in the twenty-first century celebrate Abraham Lincoln as a great president would likely have surprised Lincoln in summer 1864, when every sign suggested he would not be reelected and would go down in history as the man who had permitted a rebellion to dismember the United States.

The news from the battlefields in 1864 was grim. In May, General U. S. Grant had taken control of the Army of the Potomac and had launched a war of attrition to destroy the Confederacy. In May and June, more than 17,500 Union soldiers were killed or wounded at the Battle of the Wilderness, 18,000 at Spotsylvania, and another 12,500 at Cold Harbor. As the casualties mounted, so did criticism of Lincoln. 

Those Republican leaders who thought Lincoln was far too conservative both in his prosecution of the war and in his moves toward abolishing enslavement had plotted with the humorless Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase, who perennially hankered to run the country, to replace Lincoln with Chase on the 1864 ticket. 

In February they went so far as to circulate a document signed by Senator Samuel Pomeroy of Kansas, a key party leader, saying that “even were the re-election of Lincoln desirable, it is practically impossible against the union of influences which will oppose him.” Even if he could manage to pull off a reelection, the Pomeroy circular said, he was unfit for office: “his manifest tendency towards compromises and temporary expedients of policy” would make the “dignity and honor of the nation…suffer.” 

This was no small challenge: Chase had been in charge of remaking the finances of the United States, and he had both connections and Treasury employees all over the country who owed their jobs to him. In an era in which political patronage meant political victories, he had a formidable machine.

Lincoln managed to quell the rebellion from the radicals. In June 1864, soon after the party—temporarily renamed the National Union Party to make it easier for former Democrats to feel comfortable voting for Republicans—met to choose a presidential candidate, Chase threatened to resign from the Cabinet, as he had done repeatedly. In the past, Lincoln had appeased him. This time, Lincoln accepted his resignation.

But conservatives, too, were in revolt against Lincoln.

Crucially, Thurlow Weed, New York’s kingmaker, thought Lincoln was far too radical. Weed cared deeply about putting his own people into the well-paying customs positions available in New York City, and he was frequently angry that Lincoln appointed nominees favored by the more radical faction.

That frustration went hand in hand with anger about policy. Weed was upset that the Republicans were remaking the government for ordinary Americans. The 1862 Homestead Act, which provided western land for a nominal fee to any American willing to settle it, was a thorn in his side. Until Congress passed that law, such land, taken from Indigenous tribes, would be sold to speculators for cash that went directly to the Treasury. Republicans believed that putting farmers on the land would enable them to pay the new national taxes Congress imposed, thus bringing in far more money to the Treasury for far longer than would selling to speculators, but Weed foresaw national bankruptcy. 

Even more than financial policy, though, Weed was unhappy with Lincoln’s 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, which moved toward an end of human enslavement far too quickly for Weed.

On August 22, Weed wrote to his protégé Secretary of State William Henry Seward that he had recently “told Mr. Lincoln that his re-election was an impossibility…. [N]obody here doubts it; nor do I see anybody from other states who authorises the slightest hope of success.” 

“The People are wild for Peace,” he wrote, and suggested they were unhappy that “the President will only listen to terms of Peace on condition Slavery be ‘abandoned.’” Weed wrote that Henry Raymond, another protégé who both chaired the Republican National Committee and edited the New York Times, “thinks Commissioners should be immediately sent to Richmond, offering to treat for Peace on the basis of Union.” 

On August 23, 1864, Lincoln asked the members of his Cabinet to sign a memorandum that was pasted closed so they could not read it. Inside were the words:

“This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he can not possibly save it afterwards.  — A. Lincoln”

But then his fortunes turned. 

Just a week after Weed foretold his electoral doom, the Democrats chose as a presidential candidate General George McClellan, formerly commander of the Army of the Potomac, in a transparent attempt to appeal to soldiers. But to appease the anti-war wing of the party, they also called for an immediate end to the war. They also rejected the new, popular measures the national government had undertaken since 1861—the establishment of state colleges, the transcontinental railroad, the new national money, and the Homestead Act—insisting on “State rights.”

Americans who had poured their lives and fortunes into the war and liked the new government were not willing to abandon both to return to the conditions of three years before.

Then news spread that Rear Admiral David Farragut had taken control of Mobile Bay, the last port the Confederates held in the Gulf of Mexico east of the Mississippi River. On September 2, General William T. Sherman took Atlanta, a city of symbolic as well as real value to the Confederacy, and set off on his March to the Sea, smashing his way through the countryside and carving the eastern half of Confederacy in half again.

Reelecting Lincoln meant committing to fight on until victory, and voters threw in their lot. In November’s election, Lincoln won about 55% of the popular vote compared to McClellan’s 45%, and 212 electoral votes to McClellan’s 12. Lincoln won 78 percent of the soldiers’ vote.

After his reelection, Lincoln explained to a crowd come to serenade him why it had been important to hold an election, even though he had expected to lose it:

“We can not have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us.”

Happy Presidents Day. 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[ingek73]

Guns and lies

US elections 2024

How Tim Walz went from NRA favorite to ‘straight Fs’ on gun rights

In Congress, Walz was endorsed by gun rights advocates. But after the Parkland shooting, he changed his tone

Cecilia Nowell

Fri 9 Aug 2024 14.00 BST

Supported by

Cal Wellness for Guns

At his first rally as Kamala Harris’s running mate Tuesday, Minnesota’s governor, Tim Walz, invoked an issue at the forefront of many Americans’ minds: the right “for our children to be free to go to school without worrying they’ll be shot dead in their classrooms”.

But Walz wasn’t always a fierce advocate against gun violence. The evolution of the vice-presidential candidate, who once boasted an A rating from the NRA, shows the growing relevance of gen Z voters, who’ve grown up amid a surge in mass shootings in the US and are enthusiastically backing Harris.

“Gun violence is the number one killer of our generation, meaning we can’t afford anything less than leaders who will prioritize basic gun safety,” Timberlyn Mazeikis, a gun violence survivor and volunteer leader with Students Demand Action from Minnesota, said in a joint statement issued by Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action supporting Walz yesterday.

Kamala Harris And Running Mate Tim Walz Make First Appearance Together In Philadelphia<br>PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA - AUGUST 6: Democratic presidential candidate, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris and Democratic vice presidential candidate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz appear on stage together during a campaign event at Girard College on August 6, 2024 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Harris ended weeks of speculation about who her running mate would be, selecting the 60-year-old midwestern governor over other candidates. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

The Tim Walz cheat sheet: 10 things to know about Harris’s VP pick

Read more

Elected to the US House of Representatives in 2007, Walz was long beloved by gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association endorsed and donated to his campaigns, giving him an A rating. In 2016 Guns & Ammo magazine included him on its list of top 20 politicians for gun owners.

That wasn’t terribly surprising. Walz was representing a rural red Minnesota district and had grown up at a time and place where guns were popular for hunting – not mass shootings.

“I grew up in a small town, [so] I’d put my shotgun in my car, or at school or in the football locker, to go pheasant hunting afterwards,” he told Pod Save America last month. “But we weren’t getting shot in school.”

That all changed after the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Parkland, Florida, he has said.

In a 2018 video March for Our Lives co-founder and Parkland survivor David Hogg reshared on X last month, Walz recounts his then teenage daughter Hope approaching him in the days after the shooting: “Dad, you’re the only person I know who’s in elected office, you need to stop what’s happening with this.”

“For me, it was both a reckoning and an embarrassment,” he told Pod Save America, recalling that the children killed at Sandy Hook elementary school would have been his son’s age.

Two weeks later, while campaigning for governor, Walz authored an op-ed in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, where he called the NRA “the biggest single obstacle to passing the most basic measures to prevent gun violence in America”. He went on to say that he’d donated the $18,000 the organization had donated to his past campaigns and wouldn’t accept NRA contributions in the future. He noted that he was currently co-sponsoring a “bump stocks” ban and came out in support of an assault weapons ban.

As Minnesota governor, Walz has signed wide-ranging gun safety measures into law, most notably a 2023 law including universal background checks and a “red flag law” (which allows state officials to temporarily seize the firearms of someone a court has ruled may be dangerous to themselves or others).

This year, Walz called for Minnesota lawmakers to go even further, asking them to support measures that would require safe firearm storage, better reporting of lost and stolen guns, and harsher penalties for “straw buyers” (those who purchase firearms for others who cannot legally have them). Since then, he’s signed legislation that prohibits automatic weapon modification devices and collects data on gun crime.

Walz remains an enthusiastic hunter – something he’s emphasized in previous campaigns and makes him something of an everyman.

“There’s a vision to reduce gun violence with absolutely no infringement on those who lawfully own guns, to use them for things that many of us cherish,” he told reporters in Bloomington, Minnesota, last week.

Gun safety advocates have already come out in support of his candidacy, including the gun violence prevention organization founded by former congresswoman and gun violence survivor Gabby Giffords (who joined Walz in Minnesota in 2023 when he signed the state’s universal background checks into law).

“As governor, Tim did what others called impossible, passing background checks and extreme risk protection laws in Minnesota with a slim gun safety majority,” Giffords said. “It wasn’t easy, but he got it done with hard work and effective leadership. His work as governor has saved lives, and I know that will continue when he is vice-president.”

Harris’s campaign, which has already drawn great support from gen Z voters and gun violence prevention advocates, has called for an assault weapons ban, universal background checks and red flag laws. Last month, the NRA called her “an existential threat to the second amendment”.

That doesn’t seem to bother Walz. “I had an A rating from the NRA. Now I get straight F’s,” he tweeted last month. “And I sleep just fine.”

[theworstfoundingfathers]

Who is the worst founding father? Round 3: Button Gwinnett vs Alexander Hamilton

Button Gwinnett (March 3, 1735 – May 19, 1777) was a British-born American Founding Father who, as a representative of Georgia to the Continental Congress, was one of the signers (first signature on the left) of the United States Declaration of Independence. Gwinnett was killed in a duel by rival Lachlan McIntosh following a dispute after a failed invasion of East Florida.

Gwinnett’s business activities took him from Newfoundland to  Jamaica. Never very successful, he moved to Savannah, Georgia in 1765, and opened a store. When that venture failed, he bought (on credit) St. Catherine’s Island, as well as a large number of enslaved people, in order to attempt to become a planter. Though his planting activities were also unsuccessful, he did make a name for himself in local politics and was elected to the Provincial Assembly.

During his service in the Continental Congress, Gwinnett was a candidate for a brigadier general position to lead the 1st Regiment in the Continental Army but lost out to McIntosh. The loss of the position to his rival embittered Gwinnett greatly.

He became Speaker of the Georgia Assembly, a position he held until the death of the President (Governor) of Georgia Archibald Bulloch. Gwinnett was elevated to the vacated position by the Assembly’s Executive Council. In this position, he sought to undermine the leadership of McIntosh. Tensions between Gwinnett and McIntosh reached a boiling point when the General Assembly voted to approve Gwinnett’s attack on British Florida in April 1777.

Gwinnett had McIntosh’s brother arrested and charged with treason. He also ordered McIntosh to lead an invasion of British-controlled East Florida, which failed. Gwinnett and McIntosh blamed each other for the defeat, and McIntosh publicly called Gwinnett “a scoundrel and lying rascal”. Gwinnett then challenged McIntosh to a duel, which they fought on May 16, 1777. The two men exchanged pistol shots at twelve paces, and both were wounded. Gwinnett died of his wounds on May 19, 1777. McIntosh, although wounded, recovered and went on to live until 1806.

Alexander Hamilton (January 11, 1755 or 1757 – July 12, 1804) was a Nevisian-born American military officer, statesman, and Founding Father who served as the first United States secretary of the treasury from 1789 to 1795.

On February 15, 1781, while working as Washington’s chief of staff, Hamilton was reprimanded by Washington after a minor misunderstanding. Although Washington quickly tried to mend their relationship, Hamilton insisted on leaving his staff. He officially left in March, and settled with his new wife Elizabeth Schuyler close to Washington’s headquarters. He continued to repeatedly ask Washington and others for a field command. Washington continued to demur, citing the need to appoint men of higher rank. This continued until early July 1781, when Hamilton submitted a letter to Washington with his commission enclosed, “thus tacitly threatening to resign if he didn’t get his desired command.”

In 1784, Hamilton founded the Bank of New York.

Early during the Constitutional Convention Hamilton made a speech proposing a President-for-Life; it had no effect upon the deliberations of the convention. He proposed to have an elected president and elected senators who would serve for life, contingent upon “good behavior” and subject to removal for corruption or abuse; this idea contributed later to the hostile view of Hamilton as a monarchist sympathizer, held by James Madison.

During the Revolutionary War, affluent citizens had invested in bonds, and war veterans had been paid with promissory notes and IOUs that plummeted in price during the Confederation. In response, the war veterans sold the securities to speculators for as little as fifteen to twenty cents on the dollar. Hamilton felt the money from the bonds should not go to the soldiers who had shown little faith in the country’s future, but the speculators that had bought the bonds from the soldiers.

Strong opposition to Hamilton’s whiskey tax by cottage producers in remote, rural regions erupted into the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794; in Western Pennsylvania and western Virginia, whiskey was the basic export product and was fundamental to the local economy. In response to the rebellion, believing compliance with the laws was vital to the establishment of federal authority, Hamilton accompanied to the rebellion’s site President Washington, General Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee, and more federal troops than were ever assembled in one place during the Revolution. This overwhelming display of force intimidated the leaders of the insurrection, ending the rebellion virtually without bloodshed.

During the election of 1796, Hamilton urged all the northern electors to vote for Adams and Pinckney, lest Jefferson get in; but he cooperated with Edward Rutledge to have South Carolina’s electors vote for Jefferson and Pinckney. If all this worked, Pinckney would have more votes than Adams, Pinckney would become president, and Adams would remain vice president, but it did not work. The Federalists found out about it and northern Federalists voted for Adams but not for Pinckney, in sufficient numbers that Pinckney came in third and Jefferson became vice president.

In the summer of 1797, Hamilton became the first major American politician publicly involved in a sex scandal. After engaging in an affair with 23-year-old Maria Reynolds, Hamilton was blackmailed by Reynolds’s husband and ended up paying over $1300 in payments to him. After being arrested for counterfeiting and speculating, James Reynolds implied he had evidence of illegal activity by Hamilton during his time as Treasury Secretary. Threatened by attacks against his integrity as a public servant that claimed his business with James Reynolds had to with improper speculation, Hamilton published a 100-page booklet, later usually referred to as the Reynolds Pamphlet, and discussed the affair in indelicate detail for the time.

Hamilton served as inspector general of the United States Army from July 18, 1798, to June 15, 1800. If full-scale war broke out with France, Hamilton argued that the army should conquer the North American colonies of France’s ally, Spain, bordering the United States.

To fund this army, Hamilton urged passage of a direct tax. The eventual program included taxes on land, houses, and slaves, calculated at different rates in different states and requiring assessment of houses, and a stamp act like that of the British before the Revolution, though this time Americans were taxing themselves through their own representatives.

Hamilton is not known to have ever owned slaves, although members of his family were slave owners. At the time of her death, Hamilton’s mother owned two slaves and wrote a will leaving them to her sons. However, due to their illegitimacy, Hamilton and his brother were held ineligible to inherit her property and never took ownership of the slaves. He occasionally handled slave transactions as the legal representative of his own family members.

[alto-tenure]

So this post crossed my path again, and it makes me wonder what it might look like to toss a Presidential Candidate Lex Luthor into a later election.

I think there's theoretical merit into having COVID be the equivalent of The Clench in the DCU, and then the Cataclysm, and then No Man's Land, just in time for 2024 -- but the 2024 election hasn't even happened yet. We don't even know who the candidates are. Maybe in about a year and a half after the 2024 election I'll go back and update this, but...not sure!

Anyways: Lex Luthor in a later election! I think for the sake of everything I'm going to go with 2016 instead of 2020.

For the record: Lex Luthor running as a third-party candidate and getting a lot of votes isn't entirely unprecedented! For those of you who aren't aware of post-Vietnam US history, in the election of 1992 there was a rich third-party candidate by the name of Ross Perot. He was fairly moderate by US standards.

I don't know much about Lex's campaign beyond the little bit I saw in NML, but Lex strikes me as someone who cares less about policy and more about image. Lex Luthor is not a wonk.

Donald Trump vs Hilary Clinton vs Lex Luthor: FIGHT!

I think the thing is that Donald Trump and Lex Luthor probably come across as similar to the public; they're both very very rich people that are "political outsiders" trying to build a crowd. If I had to guess, Lex would get a lot of the moderate Republican vote from people who dislike Trump, but also didn't like Clinton enough to vote for her. He would also probably sweep Gotham, seeing as he pretty much saved their asses. Generally home states tend to go for "their" candidate, too. Beyond that, I changed some of the swing states to Democrat because I think that Lex acts as more of a spoiler candidate to make the Republicans lose.

There are a lot of different ways to get to the required amount of electoral votes. I don't know how Lex was elected in canon, but I think this is how it goes in my vision -- disclaimer that I didn't look up how much certain states were won by either candidate:*

See that? No one got to 270. Skill issue, am I right?

This means the House of Representatives would get to pick the president, and the Senate would pick the VP. I think Lex would win over Congress by playing on their guilt about what happened to Gotham, and making sure they were all painfully aware of the suffering while NML existed. So I think even with just a couple states' worth of electoral votes Lex could still end up President. It would be very unconventional and everyone would hate how it went down! But that's how I could conceivably see it going.

The altered political landscape of a Trump loss in 2016 to someone who is a lot like a less policy-extreme version of Trump is really interesting, though. There's some speculation that Trump wasn't running because he was actually interested in politics and was never truly interested in the presidency in favor of 1) upholding his reputation and 2) avoiding punishment for his many crimes. A Trump that loses 2016 is permanently laughed out of the political sphere. He will never have that back.

The US is also probably less authoritarian as a result of Trump not becoming president. Apparently Lex didn't go full dictator, so there's something.

The ramifications this has for the 2020 election are pretty high. I feel like so many politicians wouldn't be able to come back from having endorsed Trump and backing the Trump train. And Biden only ever ran for president because of Trump's election!

So you have a 2020 election that looks very, very different. I suppose there's a possibility of Ted Cruz for President 2020? Not sure who runs on the Democrat end of things.

I don't think this is the most interesting "toss Lex Luthor into an election that isn't 2000 and figure out how he wins" version of events. Like I said earlier, I think I would prefer a version where COVID replaces the Clench for the Contagion arc, and then NML happens around the time of the 2024 election instead, but that is still in the future, so alas we won't know how that election goes for a while.

*the source also didn't say whether Maine and Nebraska's votes were split or not but I doubt it based on the map I saw? the amount of votes stays the same even if the districts didn't all vote the same way

[digiitallife]

A common question many Americans ask is, "Does the speaker of the House have to be a member of Congress?" Surprisingly, the answer is no. The Constitution does not specify that the speaker of the House of Representatives has to be a member of Congress. This lack of restriction allows any person, even somebody outside the legislative branch, to be assigned and potentially elected as speaker. However, in its 234-year history, the House has continuously chosen one of its own members to serve as speaker. The absence of such a necessity is rooted in the Constitution's minimal guidelines for selecting the speaker. According to the Congressional Research Service, the House must choose its speaker by a majority vote, but it doesn't constrain nominations to sitting members of Congress. This flexibility guarantees that the role can adapt to unique political scenarios. However, the reality of a non-member speaker remains impossible, as tradition and practical concerns intensely favor members of Congress. The address of "does the speaker of the House of Representatives have to be a member of Congress" has gained traction recently due to the abnormal dynamics within the Republican Party. Internal debates have highlighted this constitutional quirk as factions struggle to agree on leadership. While many wonder if prominent non-members like Donald Trump seem become speaker, the practicality of such an occurrence remains slim. Despite the theoretical plausibility, the role of the speaker is deeply intertwined with congressional procedures and relationships. The speaker serves as the authoritative head of the House, oversees legislative business, and is second in line to the presidency. These responsibilities demand an intimate understanding of the legislative process, further cementing why individuals of Congress traditionally involve this powerful role. Historical Precedents and Current Dynamics Within the history of the United States, the House of Representatives has never elected a non-member as speaker. This precedent, while not legally binding, has become a cornerstone of House operations. The question of whether "the speaker of the House has to be a member of Congress" often arises amid periods of political upheaval, such as the recent removal of Kevin McCarthy. Kevin McCarthy's removing marked the first time in U.S. history that a sitting speaker was removed through a no-confidence vote. This unprecedented event has left the House without a permanent leader, with Rep. Patrick McHenry temporarily filling the role of speaker pro tempore. As Republicans debate who should lead, the possibility of electing a non-member is being discussed more transparently than ever before. Naturally, the process of electing a speaker is straightforward. A member of the House must nominate a candidate, and that person must secure a majority vote of the entire chamber. However, the Constitution is quiet on whether the candidate must be a member, fueling discussions about outsiders assuming the part. The question of "does the speaker of the House of Representatives have to be a member of Congress" has never been more significant. While some speculate that figures like Donald Trump could be nominated, political experts stay skeptical. The logistical and procedural challenges of bringing in an outsider, combined with the complexities of the role, make it an improbable scenario. Nonetheless, the current political climate ensures that these debates will continue to shape the discourse around House leadership. The Constitutional Basis and Implications The U.S. Structure establishes the framework for electing the speaker of the House but leaves significant room for interpretation. Article I, Section 2, states, "The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers," without specifying whether the individual must be a sitting member. This ambiguity allows the address, "Does the speaker of the House have to be a member of Congress?", to surface, especially amid politically charged moments. While there is no legal requirement for the speaker of the House of Representatives to be a member of Congress, tradition unequivocally dictates otherwise. The position's demands—managing the legislative agenda, overseeing debates, and representing the House in its dealings with the Senate and the president—require deep nature with congressional procedures. These factors make it almost impossible for a non-member to effectively assume the role. Despite this, recent developments have reignited the debate. For instance, Kevin McCarthy's removal as speaker left the House in disarray, prompting some Republicans to consider unconventional candidates. The notion of electing a non-member, such as former President Donald Trump, gained footing among some factions. However, even if naturally permissible, such a move would be unprecedented and highly controversial. The question of "does the speaker of the House of Representatives have to be a member of Congress" moreover raises broader suggestions about governance and leadership. Electing an outsider may disrupt the traditional balance of power within the legislative branch and complicate the functioning of the House. As the political landscape evolves, this constitutional flexibility could become a point of contention, reshaping how Americans view congressional leadership. The Case for a Non-Member Speaker The possibility of a non-member speaker, while unlikely, is not entirely improbable. The Constitution's silence on the matter means that anyone could theoretically be nominated, driving to questions like, "Does the speaker of the House have to be a member of Congress?" The current political climate, marked by factionalism inside the Republican Party, has brought this theoretical scenario into sharper focus. Proponents of electing a non-member argue that the role of the speaker is primarily administrative and strategic, meaning a skilled outsider could bring new perspectives and solutions to the House. For example, some far-right Republicans have suggested nominating Donald Trump. Whereas unconventional, they see his leadership and influence as assets that could unify their caucus and advance their legislative goals. However, the idea of a non-member speaker also faces significant challenges. Critics point out that the speaker's responsibilities—such as overseeing the legislative calendar, directing bills through the House, and representing the chamber in negotiations—require extensive knowledge of congressional rules and procedures. These complexities make it exceedingly impractical for an outsider to succeed. The debate over whether the speaker of the House of Representatives has to be a member of Congress moreover underscores deeper divisions within the GOP. As factions vie for control, the idea of electing an outsider becomes more symbolic than practical, reflecting frustration with the status quo. Still, the Constitution's flexibility ensures that this question will remain pertinent, especially during times of political uncertainty. Kevin McCarthy's Removal and Its Impact The unprecedented removal of Kevin McCarthy as speaker of the House has intensified discussions around House authority, especially the question, "Does the speaker of the House have to be a member of Congress?" McCarthy's ousting through a no-confidence vote highlights the instability inside the Republican Party and has left the House without a permanent leader. This situation has further fueled speculation around the possibility of electing a non-member as speaker. Rep. Patrick McHenry was named speaker pro tempore to maintain order temporarily, but his limited authority has paralyzed administrative activity. As the House seeks a new speaker, Republicans are divided between established figures like Steve Scalise and Jim Jordan and more unconventional candidates. This division underscores why some have revisited the idea of a non-member speaker, such as Donald Trump, indeed though the prospect remains controversial. While the Constitution permits the election of a non-member, the logistical and typical implications make it highly unlikely. The tradition of electing sitting individuals ensures that the speaker has the experience and relationships necessary to oversee the chamber effectively. Still, the ongoing crisis keeps the question, "Does the speaker of the House of Representatives have to be a member of Congress?", at the forefront of political discourse. Ultimately, McCarthy's removal has uncovered the challenges of governing a fractured House majority. It has also prompted lawmakers and observers to reconsider what qualities are essential in a speaker. Whether the following speaker will adhere to tradition or challenge norms remains to be seen, but the debate over this issue reflects the broader struggles within Congress. The Role of Internal Party Rules Internal party rules play a significant role in determining the qualifications of House leadership, counting the speaker. While the Constitution is silent on whether "the speaker of the House has to be a member of Congress," the Republican Party's rules complicate the scenario. For instance, Rule 26 of the Republican conference bars any pioneer indicted for a felony with a potential prison sentence of two or more years. This rule viably disqualifies candidates like Donald Trump, who faces different felony charges. However, party rules are not legally binding and can be modified or ignored. The Republican conference could theoretically change its rules to accommodate a non-member nominee. This adaptability keeps the question of "does the speaker of the House of Representatives have to be a member of Congress" relevant, especially as some factions push for unconventional candidates. Despite the theoretical possibility, experts argue that internal rules and viable considerations make it unlikely for a non-member to serve as speaker. The role requires a deep understanding of House procedures and the ability to navigate complex authoritative negotiations—skills that non-members typically need. Furthermore, selecting an outsider could alienate sitting members and disrupt the chamber's operations. As the Republican Party grapples with inside divisions, the debate over authority reflects broader tensions about governance and accountability. While the Constitution provides flexibility, party dynamics and practical challenges ensure that the role of speaker remains firmly rooted in congressional tradition. The Debate Around Donald Trump Donald Trump's potential nomination as speaker of the House has reignited the question, "Does the speaker of the House of Representatives have to be a member of Congress?" Although Trump has not ruled out the idea, his candidacy would confront significant hurdles. Aside from Republican Party rules that disqualify leaders facing felony indictments, Trump's need of legislative experience makes him an unconventional choice. Supporters argue that Trump's leadership skills and influence could energize the Republican base and unify the party. However, critics contend that the speaker's part requires detailed information of legislative procedures, which Trump does not possess. The responsibilities of the speaker—managing debates, guiding bills, and representing the House—demand expertise that traditionally comes from years of congressional experience. The Constitution's flexibility on this issue has sparked heated debates within the GOP. While some view the question, "Does the speaker of the House have to be a member of Congress?" as an opportunity to challenge standards, others see it as a distraction from pressing legislative priorities. Ultimately, Trump's potential assignment reflects the broader struggles within the Republican Party to discover unity and direction. While the idea of Trump as speaker generates headlines, it remains a long shot. The House's tradition of electing members guarantees that the role is filled by someone with the necessary expertise and credibility to lead effectively. For now, the debate serves as a reminder of the unique challenges facing the GOP in this violent period. Looking Ahead to New Leadership The ongoing debate about House administration raises important questions about tradition, governance, and constitutional flexibility. As the House works to elect a new speaker, the question, "Does the speaker of the House have to be a member of Congress?" remains central to the conversation. While the Constitution allows for the possibility of a non-member speaker, tradition and practicality strongly favor sitting members. Candidates like Steve Scalise and Jim Jordan represent the customary choices, with extensive experience in legislative affairs. However, the suggestion of nominating an pariah, such as Donald Trump, reflects the growing frustration within the Republican Party. This frustration stems from internal divisions and the failure to rally around a unifying leader. The question of whether the speaker of the House of Representatives has to be a member of Congress highlights the tension between tradition and constitutional adaptability. While electing a non-member is legally permissible, the complexities of the role and the House's reliance on established procedures make it unlikely. Nonetheless, the ongoing debate reveals the broader challenges facing Congress as it seeks to balance innovation with stability. As the House prepares to vote on its following speaker, the outcome will have significant implications for governance and party dynamics. Whether the next speaker adheres to tradition or represents a break from standards, the decision will shape the legislative agenda and reflect the evolving nature of congressional leadership. Read the full article

[politicalprism]

Who is George Soros, the Center of Political Debate in India?

On Monday, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju called on all political parties, including the Congress, to unite against external forces undermining India’s interests. His comments followed allegations by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) that former Congress president Sonia Gandhi had ties to an organization funded by the George Soros Foundation, which reportedly supports Kashmir’s independence.

The BJP claimed that Sonia Gandhi’s role as co-president of the Forum of Democratic Leaders in Asia Pacific (FDL-AP) Foundation, which allegedly advocates for Kashmir's separation from India, signifies a collaboration aimed at undermining the nation’s growth. BJP officials also accused Rahul Gandhi of using Soros-funded groups to criticize the Indian government, especially in relation to economic issues surrounding the Adani Group.

Who is George Soros?

George Soros, born in 1930 in Budapest, Hungary, is a prominent investor, philanthropist, and political activist. Having survived the Nazi occupation during World War II, Soros emigrated to the United States in 1956. He is best known for founding Soros Fund Management and his extensive philanthropic work through the Open Society Foundations (OSF), which he established to promote democracy and human rights globally.

In 1970, Soros founded Soros Fund Management, one of the most successful hedge funds in history. He became famous for his bold currency speculations, most notably during the 1992 Black Wednesday crisis when he made a profit of $1 billion by short-selling the British pound, earning the nickname “the man who broke the Bank of England.”

Philanthropic Efforts

Soros is one of the world’s leading philanthropists, having donated over $32 billion through OSF since its inception in 1979. His philanthropic efforts have included scholarships for black South Africans during apartheid, supporting democratic movements in Eastern Europe, and funding social justice initiatives worldwide. His foundations have also supported educational programs, including the Central European University in Budapest, and advocated for drug policy reform and LGBTQ+ rights in the U.S.

Political Influence

Soros has been a key supporter of progressive political causes, particularly in the United States, where he has funded candidates like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. His financial contributions have made him a target of criticism, particularly from conservative circles, who accuse him of using his wealth to influence political outcomes.

In the U.S., Soros is often viewed as a major backer of liberal causes, but his political donations have also drawn sharp criticism from Republicans and supporters of Donald Trump, who claim that Soros’s funding of progressive organizations undermines U.S. politics.

Soros’ Legacy and His Son’s Role

In 2022, Soros transferred control of his $25 billion financial and charitable empire to his son, Alex Soros. Alex, 37, is now the chairman of the Open Society Foundations and manages his father's political action committee, which channels funds to progressive political campaigns. He is also the sole family representative on Soros Fund Management’s investment committee.

As George Soros steps back, his son Alex is continuing the family’s legacy of political activism and philanthropy, with a focus on maintaining the principles of open societies and social justice worldwide.

[xtruss]

How Presidential Running Mates Can Make or Break a Campaign! Four Times Candidates’ Second-in-Command Picks Surprised Everyone

— September 18, 2024 | American Experience

Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin on the big screen at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, September 3, 2008. Photo by Carol M. Highsmith, Library of Congress.

Every four years, the news media engage in endless speculation about the identities of presidential candidates’ running mates. The process is so enshrined, in fact, that it even has a name: Veepstakes.

Often the choice is predictable. Sometimes, though, there are VP shockers—running mate picks that no one, even the most astute political analysts, saw coming. Those surprise picks can be a huge boon to a campaign, building notoriety and momentum—or they can backfire, sending a candidate’s run into a tailspin. Here are a few of modern history’s most dramatic Veepstakes outcomes.

Sarah Palin (Sarah Louise Palin)

John McCain and Sarah Palin at the Republican National Convention, September 4, 2008. Photo credit Tom LeGro, PBS NewsHour.

John McCain was behind in the polls against fellow Senator Barack Obama in 2008 when he made his surprising VP pick: small town mayor-turned-Alaska governor Sarah Palin, a choice no one predicted.

At first, public perception suggested McCain had made a bold choice with a political outsider whose gender, youth, and more conservative ideology helped balance the Republican ticket. McCain’s campaign raised record amounts and his poll numbers skyrocketed. However, it wasn’t long before Palin’s inexperience and lack of preparation came through in interviews and debates.

As the election season progressed, public opinion of Palin turned increasingly negative, and later analysis showed that she potentially cost the McCain campaign millions of votes—a significant margin in a close race like 2008.

Thomas Eagleton (Thomas Francis Eagleton)

An official portrait of Thomas Eagleton as Missouri’s Lieutenant Governor, 1967. Photo courtesy of Missouri State Archives.

In July 1972, Democratic candidate George McGovern announced his running mate: Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton, a rising young political star whose anti-abortion views balanced McGovern’s ticket—or so the campaign hoped. Only 18 days later, things looked very different.

Right after the Democratic National Convention ended, news emerged about Eagleton’s medical history: three times during the 1960s he had been hospitalized for depression, and received electroshock treatment. McGovern stood by his choice at first, but political pressure mounted.

Ultimately, McGovern replaced Eagleton with former Peace Corps director Sargeant Shriver. (The only other time in American history that a VP candidate had been removed from the ticket was in 1912, when President William Howard Taft replaced acting vice president James Sherman—and only because Sherman had died six days before the election. Spoiler: that presidential bid lost.)

McGovern’s campaign also never recovered from the last-minute switch, ultimately losing the election by the largest landslide in U.S. history. The scandal also forever changed the way potential VPs were vetted going forward, typically leading campaigns to do far more comprehensive research.

Spiro Agnew (Spiro Theodore Agnew)

Vice President Spiro Agnew and President Richard Nixon at the Republican National Convention, August 23, 1972. Photo courtesy National Archives and Records Administration.

In August 1968, presidential hopeful Richard Nixon made a 1 a.m. announcement about his vice presidential choice. Spiro Agnew was an unknown on no one’s list, a former county elected official in Maryland who had only been governor for two years.

At first, Agnew’s name became a campaign punchline. But Nixon’s choice proved smart. Positioned together on the Republican ticket as law-and-order candidates, Nixon and Agnew won the popular vote by a small margin but took the electoral college by 110 votes.

Once in office, Agnew did such a good job of reinforcing the president’s rhetoric that he became known as “Nixon’s Nixon.” But ultimately, the copycat routine went too far: just before the Watergate scandal ended Nixon’s presidency, Agnew himself stepped down to avoid his own separate charges of bribery, extortion, and tax fraud, becoming only the second U.S. vice president in history to resign.

Al Gore (Albert Arnold Gore Jr.)

President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore disembark from Air Force One, October 20, 1995. Photo by Sharon Farmer, National Archives and Records Administration.

Conventional wisdom says presidential candidates should balance the ticket by choosing VPs who compliment them around various demographics, like age, identity, geography, and ideology. But in 1992, Bill Clinton threw decades of political strategy out the window and chose a running mate who was practically his mirror image.

Senator Al Gore was almost the exact same age as Clinton, also southern, and a centrist Democrat. In fact, Gore was so similar to the presidential candidate that Republicans dubbed him “Clinton’s tax-and-spend brother.” Gore was reportedly selected from a list of 40 potential candidates, with Clinton’s key considerations being that his running mate share his values, be prepared to serve as president immediately, and have the stamina required for a long, hard campaign.

It paid off. Together Clinton and Gore’s youthful energy carried the first all-baby-boomer presidential ticket to a big electoral college win, proving that sometimes doubling down is a savvy strategy.

President Richard Nixon meeting with Rep. Gerald Ford in the Oval Office the day before announcing Ford as his pick for Vice President in 1973. Credit: The Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. National Archives and Records Administration

[anonymousaccount1015]

Understanding Republican Governance on the State Level and What It Can Tell Us About a Possible Republican Presidency

One of the best ways to understand how a party plans to govern on a principle and policy level is via analyzing how their party-controlled states are governed.

Under the current compositions of states and state legislatures, Republicans have unrestricted party control (trifectas) in twenty-three states. These states are kind of the proving ground for policy that might one day become part of the party's platform.

So let's talk about how the issues of our time are being handled on the state level.

Abortion Access

The issue of abortion is undoubtedly important in the upcoming Presidential election, where Republican candidate for President Donald Trump has indicated that the extent of his position has been accomplished, he thinks the issue should be left up to the states (which was the verdict reached by the conservative Supreme Court), however, there has been speculation that he's privately indicated he supports a unilateral federal ban (potentially with or without the support of Congress), and additionally that he will implement provisions of Project 2025, which on this issue calls for sweeping abortion access restrictions across the nation, to prohibit funding for Planned Parenthood (which Trump previously indicated he was against, stating he thinks it's a "good organization" in the primary debates of 2016).

Undoubtedly women's health is impacted even if "the states" are allowed to make their own choices, women living under the poverty line lose access when they're unable to travel across state lines to nearby "sanctuary" states, which can have a significant impact on their health outcomes. This is all pretty widely accepted.

Using the map created by the Center for Reproductive Rights, the states where abortion is outright illegal (https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/) (pending referendums) include the Republican states of Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia. It's worth noting that in these states, which again, comprise a vast number of those where Republicans have unrestricted control, "illegal" means there are few if any exceptions, including for pregnancies from rape, incest, or which pose a threat to the mother's life. When people cite that the most popular stance on abortion access is actually one that supports "(x amount of weeks) restriction," thereby excusing some post-Roe laws passed in red states, it's actually the case that many red states have passed total bans, which are themselves wildly unpopular. And in spite of how the populace feels, there's little reason to think the political establishment shares their beliefs (in fact, in these states, there's every reason to think the opposite).

Using the aforementioned map, the states that are hostile (https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/) (pending referendums) towards abortion include the Republican states of Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Nebraska, South Carolina, Utah (sometimes only "restricted," not "severely restricted"), and Wyoming, as well as Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, which each have state legislatures wholly (AZ, WI) or in part (PA) controlled by Republicans.

The issue of IVF treatments ("in vitro fertilization") is another issue that is intricately related, the procedure of IVF treatments typically involves the pregnant person having their eggs removed, then inseminated externally, then implanted at will, this is often used by women who are infertile or otherwise struggle to get pregnant. It's often advised to implant several fertilized eggs, since the success rate is not sufficient for just one to guarantee a pregnancy, which is one of the primary sticking points for anti-abortion activists, citing "wrongful death" of the embryo. The widely publicized Alabama court ruling that "ended" access to IVF was a rallying cry for many abortion advocates who recognized the importance of this for public health.

It's worth noting that in response to the ruling, Governor Ivey (R-AL), with the support of the state legislature, signed a bill to protect IVF providers and patients, which was similarly replicated in nine other states (https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/05/first-quarter-2024-state-policy-trends). She happens to be one of the most conservative Governors in the country, which indicates that while a vocal contingent of anti-abortion activists oppose IVF access, it will struggle legislatively. It's still the case that many IVF providers are terminating their services, anticipating further litigation and further legal confusion (same source).

Gun Violence

The issue of answering for gun violence is another one that permeates the public discourse, there has been an uptick in gun violence over the years, particularly school shootings, which has led to some activists calling for stricter gun legislation, an issue where Republican candidate for President Donald Trump has indicated his intent to "protect the second amendment."

Under the current legislation in the vast majority of states, regardless of partisan leaning, owning a gun is widely accessible, with "assault weapon" bans and other stringent policies only being implemented in very liberal states.

In states where there are few if any restrictions on guns (no recording of sales by law enforcement, no permits and/or background checks required to purchase handguns, no firearm trainings required for buyers, and where open carry is legal, oftentimes without a permit), there seems to be higher rates of homicides, suicides, and overall violence with guns, and states like Alabama, Alaska (which is governed by coalition in the state legislature), Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, South Carolina, Tennessee, all red states, as well as New Mexico, typically have the highest per capita rate of gun deaths, at least according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm), with their most recent map published in 2022.

It's true that the vast majority of gun deaths result from either suicide or homicide, with a relatively small proportion as a result of mass shootings (i.e., according to the FBI definition, events in which a shooter kills four or more innocents), though these mass shooting events have quickly become more common year over year as well, which is an important consideration (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/). One explanatory factor (though there are many and this is not intended to mislead) is places where shooters have ease of access to firearms.

It's possible if there were sweeping reforms passed (such as "common sense" reforms popular across the establishment left, things like universal background checks, "red flag" laws, etc.) on the federal level, specific states would oppose their implementation under their jurisdictions, and this would become another avenue of the "states' rights" argument.

If we presume that under another Trump Presidency, we will not see comprehensive gun reform passed (e.g. passing things like universal background checks, "red flag" laws), on the whole, that will contribute to a less safe country (see previously mentioned statistics for why this is my conclusion).

State Education

The issue of state education is one that has become pretty widespread in the public discourse as well, particularly when it comes to what is actually being taught in schools, in terms of teaching about identity, whether there's "indoctrination" taking place or not, and on this issue, the Republican candidate for President Donald Trump has voiced his support for cutting funding for the federal Department of Education, which would eliminate federal oversight for education systems across the country. This also happens to be one of the proposals from Project 2025, though it's been something talked about at various points prior, for example, cutting the Department of Education was a proposal of former Texas Governor Rick Perry. Of course, this aligns with their wishes for a smaller federal government, so it's unsurprising.

Under the current governances of these states where Republicans have unrestricted control, we've seen their vision for what education looks like, they've tied in a lot of what kids are being taught with their "culture war" talking points, cutting support snd funding at an unprecedented level in opposition to schools which teach about identity, and there's almost nowhere in the country where this vision is clearer than in Florida, where their Governor has been feuding with schools all throughout his state.

To give just one example, his vision for how schools should teach about slavery, in the interest of trying to shift the paradigm about how we understand slavery, it's the case that their new educational standard suggests that slaves learned valuable skills from enslavement, and that slavery served as a net positive for slaves. While this was an issue that received widespread attention a while back and isn't central to the election, it underscores the point well of to what extent Republicans want to use schools for their political narratives too.

It's widely said that critical race theory in particular is being taught on the public school level (which is broadly untrue, by the way, though there's some nuance, see this article (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/so-much-buzz-but-what-is-critical-race-theory) around the time of the Virginia Governor's race, which brought it into the national spotlight, some of the central ideas are taught, such as the long-lasting impacts of slavery, but as a whole it's largely reserved for collegiate academia). It's practically become a proper noun. It's vernacular. But it also serves as a convenient boogeyman for the Republicans. Not unlike "the beast" in Lord of the Flies, it's meant to instill intangible, uninformed fear which is used as a vehicle to motivate their base.

This part will probably read somewhat partisan, but it's worth noting that absolutely nothing has been accomplished in regards to pushing the culture war into schools. It's certainly not helping students learn, but of course, the intent was keeping kids uninformed and trying to demonize the outgroups.

The issue of state education was often an issue where, with occasional oversight from the federal government, state governments were given primary responsibility (with the exception of federal funding/civil rights enforcement), under President Bush, who introduced No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the federal government intervened to an unprecedented level, particularly with trying to measure education attainment through standardized test scores.

So to what extent have these states been successful when it comes to student learning outcomes? When you consider public school graduation attainment, the vast majority of states post pretty high percentages, out of all fifty states, California happens to have the worst statistic, though it's followed by Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Nevada (which really struggles), New Mexico (which posts low ratings pretty frequently in various facets of quality of life), Alabama, Kentucky, New York, Arkansas, Oklahoma. When you look at post-secondary attainment, you see a much starker contrast, the worst statistic this time is West Virginia, then Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama, Nevada again, Oklahoma, Indiana, Wyoming, New Mexico again. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_educational_attainment#cite_note-CensusData-1). You can see a trend (with some notable exceptions, for example, California struggling with high school attainment) of some of the poorest states in the country, and some of the reddest states, for that matter, struggling with attainment.

So those are just three issues viewed at some level of depth as it pertains to what state-level Republican governance can show us for how they might try to run our country.

Thank you for reading.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Richard Luscombe at The Guardian:

The telephone line was a little fuzzy, and the voice on the end gravelly from several days of Covid isolation. Yet the poignancy of the message, and the moment itself, could not have been clearer: “I’m watching you, kid. I love you,” the speaker said. Joe Biden’s warmhearted call to his vice-president, Kamala Harris, at the Democratic party’s campaign headquarters in Delaware on Monday marked a generational shift in US politics, a symbolic passing of the torch from parent to progeny.

In terms of the 2024 presidential election race it was also a defining moment. Harris, a former prosecutor, state attorney general, California senator, and for three and a half years the 81-year-old Biden’s White House understudy, was appearing for the first time as her party’s preferred new candidate, less than 24 hours after her boss’s stunning announcement that he would not seek a second term of office sent a seismic shock across the country. There followed what by any metric could be called a whirlwind week on the campaign trail in an extraordinary month in American history already notable for the attempted assassination of former president Donald Trump, the Republican party’s candidate for the 5 November election.

By Wednesday, Harris was addressing an historically Black sorority in Indianapolis as the Democratic presumptive nominee, having secured the support of enough delegates at the party’s national convention in Chicago next month to clinch the nomination. It was the same day as Biden gave an emotional, nationally televised address from the White House explaining his decision to step aside “in defense of democracy”. “I revere this office, but I love my country more,” he said, urging the country to stand behind Harris. One by one, other heavyweight Democratic figures had stepped up to endorse her, culminating on Friday with the outsized backing of Barack Obama. The former speaker Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, all 23 of the party’s state governors, and elected officials from the most junior Congress members to Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, respectively the House minority leader and Senate majority leader, also gave their approval. “We are not playing around,” Harris told supporters at the sorority gathering in Indiana on Wednesday.

“There is so much at stake in this moment. Our nation, as it always has, is counting on you to energize, to organize, and to mobilize; to register folks to vote, to get them to the polls; and to continue to fight for the future our nation and her people deserve. “We know when we organize, mountains move. When we mobilize, nations change. And when we vote, we make history.” It was a rousing speech from a politician who only three days previously was still in a supporting role, despite weeks of swirling speculation about Biden’s future following his disastrous debate performance against Trump in June. But things moved swiftly once the president’s decision to step aside was announced on Sunday afternoon. The Biden campaign apparatus, and election war chest of almost $100m (£77.6m), became the property of a new entity called Harris for President (Republicans have vowed to challenge the funds transfer in court).

[...] Fundraising operations cranked up, pulling in an all-time record $81m for any 24-hour period in presidential campaign history, a windfall for the newly branded Harris Victory Fund that surpassed $130m, mostly from small or first-time donors, by Thursday night. Seizing on enthusiasm from younger voters that polling found was conspicuously absent for Biden, or the 78-year-old Trump, Harris’s team also released to social media its first campaign video. Beyoncé’s 2016 hit Freedom, the unofficial anthem of Harris for President, provided the soundtrack for a message countering what it says was Trump’s “chaos, fear and hate” vision for the country. [...]

Harris has enormous appeal with generation Z, noted by backing from numerous youth organizations, including March for Our Lives, the student activist group formed in the aftermath of the 2018 mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida. There could have been no better illustration than the declaration on X/Twitter by the British singer Charli xcx that “kamala IS brat”. Viewed by more than 53 million people, the simple message encapsulating a pop culture lifestyle delighted the younger generation and confounded their elders in equal measure. “You just got to go listen to that Charli xcx album and then you’ll understand it,” Florida’s Maxwell Frost, the first gen Z member of Congress, told CNN.

“Whether it’s coconut trees or talking about brat or whatever, the message is getting across to tens of millions of young people across the entire country, and across the entire world, and that’s really inspiring.” Wrongfooted by Biden’s abrupt exit, and alarmed by polls showing Harris gaining ground or even surpassing Trump in popularity, the former president’s campaign scrambled to find attack lines for their new opponent. At a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Wednesday, Trump tested insults including calling Harris a “radical left lunatic” and “the most incompetent and far-left vice-president in American history”. Republican party acolytes have also been busy with racist attacks, accusing Harris, who has Black and Asian heritage, of being “a DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] hire” or “unqualified” for the presidency.

Last Sunday afternoon at 1:46PM EDT/12:46PM CDT, President Joe Biden revealed the decision to step aside from running again on X (formerly Twitter). Nearly a half-hour later, he announced that Kamala Harris would be his preferred successor as the Democratic nominee.

Over the last week, Harris has broken fundraising records left and right, and energized a demoralized Democratic Party to levels not seen since the day Trump lost in 2020 or even the Obama era to volunteer.

#Harris2024 #Harris47 #YesWeKam #Momala #DefeatTrump

[aveline-shepard]

That’s…not what happened, even a little bit. His debate performance was so alarmingly bad that major donors and political figures (including current members of Congress and most importantly, long-time allies like Nancy Pelosi) launched both public and private pressure campaigns urging him to step down that have been active for weeks and gaining increasing support. He has since endorsed Harris, but it’s technically an open field and the pledged delegates at the DNC will vote on who gets the party nomination. If no candidate wins a majority of delegate votes in the first round, then a second round of voting is held and the superdelegates are allowed to vote. They continue to hold rounds of voting with the full body of delegates and super delegates (a bit more than 4,600 people total) until someone wins a majority and becomes the party nominee. So voters actually get even less say regarding who the Democratic nominee is.

The current situation means that there will be at least one person on the ticket nobody voted for, or even had the opportunity to vote for (assuming Harris wins the presidential nom, her VP would have never been on a primary ballot; if Harris doesn’t win the presidential nom, then both the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates are people who were never on a primary ballot and frankly, we also risk irrevocably splitting the party). If the party doesn’t come together behind Harris and whomever her VP pick is (my guess at this point is Shapiro) it’s going to be an even bigger mess. There’s enormous uncertainty and risk, even more so than with Biden because we literally do will not have a candidate and will not until August 5th at the absolute earliest (an early roll call was scheduled to be performed ahead of the DNC in mid-August because of Ohio’s candidate certification law. Ohio did pass a bill moving the deadline back from Aug. 7th to Sept. 1st so the DNC vote would be completed before their deadline, but Dems wanted to do an early roll call out of an abundance of caution because the law doesn’t take effect until Sept. 1st, so they’re rightfully concerned about litigation) or if they don’t do the early roll-call, until mid-August. That’s a HUGE amount of time and an enormous loss of important and valuable campaigning. Now, if the party solidifies behind Kamala and her VP and no one else attempts to run, that’s the best chance we have at party unity and scraping through. The other option is last-minute infighting when we most need to unite against the authoritarian candidate who is more powerful, more organized, and more ruthlessly bloodthirsty than he’s ever been before.

Let’s be clear here: I am not a fan of Biden and I didn’t vote for him in the primary, in the hopes of sending a message that was never received. This is not a defense of Biden or his politics, this is simply an educated explanation of how the system works and the causes and effects of what you’re seeing unfold (as well as some speculation informed by national political coverage and my experience working in campaign politics). The reason he’s no longer running isn’t because he’s listening to progressive voices, it’s because he’s listening to people who actually have his ear, and were specifically reacting to his debate performance. None of this information is secret; it’s been openly discussed for weeks, there have been interviews and public statements available on elected officials’ social media, and it’s been covered by all major news outlets. If you’re looking for reputable news sources to follow, I recommend the Associated Press (usually abbreviated to “AP”), their Headline News is a very short daily podcast of headliners, or NPR; Up First and The NPR Politics Podcast are two great short-form resources which will keep you up-to-date and produce content 5-7x a week and cover the top three news stories of the day, and latest US political news respectively.

that's so funny. we were like . im not voting for this genocidal, decrepit man. and you were like. well we HAVE to. but .. saying you won't vote has actually very little to do with what you'd do down the line. but it's a powerful reminder to the powers that be that they are still, in some ways, beholden to you. i think the sentiment literally just fucking worked. when massive amounts of progressives are saying they will not be voting for another biden presidency, even in the face of trump... that's scary . and now we don't have to vote for him. It literally worked LMFAO

[bllsbailey]

BREAKING: After a Week of Speculation, Kamala Harris Selects Her Running Mate

Vice President Kamala Harris has selected who she thinks would best serve as her Vice President should she win in 2024.

After more than a week of speculation and drama surrounding multiple candidates, the Harris campaign has announced that Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota will be on the 2024 ticket alongside her.

The news comes after several black suburbans were spotted leaving his residence in St. Paul, Minnesota, on Monday. 

Walz has been governor of Minnesota since 2019, having won election in 2018 and re-election in 2022.

He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2008, where he served until he ran for governor. Prior to that, he served in the National Guard after enlisting in 1981 at age 17. He eventually achieved the rank of command sergeant major and became the highest-ranking retired enlisted soldier to be elected to Congress.

Harris and her running mate are set to make their first public appearance together in Philadelphia on Tuesday. The campaign is hoping that the running mate choice will keep key swing areas in play and bring them back toward the Democrats after months of them trending toward former president Donald Trump, Harris's opponent in November.

There are less than 100 days until the election, and current polling has the race in a dead heat. Both candidates are preparing their ground operations to key swing states in order to secure the electoral votes they need in order to win the White House in November.