#The Gallup Independent

[webfactor]

Wikipedia editors push offensive language to delegitimize some Native American Tribes

Article Text As Follows:

Wikipedia editors push offensive language to delegitimize some Native American Tribes

By Sherry Robinson

Special to The Independent

ALBUQUERQUE — When Lily Gladstone won a Golden Globe and Oscar nomination for her role in “Killers of the Flower Moon,” the public recognized a Native American actress. But to Wikipedia readers, she is an American actress whose father was Blackfeet and Nez Perce and whose mother was white.

Three long-time editors at the online encyclopedia argued that even though Gladstone grew up on the Blackfeet reservation, she couldn’t be called Native American unless she was an enrolled member of the tribe. When Gladstone’s uncle weighed in to say she was enrolled, they dismissed his comments. She is still, in Wikipedia’s view, “an American actress.”

In recent years, outside of a national debate in Indian Country over fake tribes, a handful of Wikipedia editors have been deciding who is Native American and who isn’t.

Look behind the curtain of the sprawling site and you will find a network of 265,000 volunteer editors writing and editing within a Wiki universe that has its own rules, language, police and courts but no traditional hierarchy.

Wikipedia’s structure allows likeminded editors to work together, but it also permits editors with a bias to advance their agenda. The site has drawn criticism from media and academics for slanted articles on Blacks and Jews. Wikipedia documents its own systemic bias in an article by that name and attributes the problem to too few minority editors. The typical editor, it says, is a white male.

By Wikipedia's definition, the only real tribes are federally recognized; editors of Native American material denigrate state-recognized and unrecognized tribes and seem preoccupied with revealing fake Indians.

The fakes are out there, and they’re a problem. But there’s a big difference between people who invented a Native ancestry and people who have a long, documented heritage.

For this story, aggrieved tribal members didn’t identify themselves because they fear the site’s size and power – it reaches 1.8 billion devices a month – and some editors’ vindictiveness.

Behind the curtain

Wikipedia is transparent about its process. Click on “talk” at the top of each article and you find the (sometimes endless) debates among editors about an article and see the site’s rules in action.

Editors are anonymous because the Wikipedia Foundation has a strong commitment to privacy, says a spokesperson. However, readers don’t know what expertise editors have or whether they’re Native American.

Editors select their subject matter. With experience they can rise in the pecking order until they gain authority to reverse or eliminate the edits of others. They quote the site’s often arcane rules in Wiki-Speak to anyone who disagrees. While Wikipedia espouses objectivity, neutrality and civility, discussions can take the low road.

On Lily Gladstone’s talk page, a newish editor, user name Tsideh (Apache for bird), asked, “What are your sources supporting the idea that Native Americans are only those who are enrolled in a US recognized tribe?”

A Wiki editor, user name ARoseWolf, answered: “A notable subject can make a claim… but you must have that respective tribal nation’s acceptance as verification through enrollment."

Gladstone’s uncle wrote: “I’m a primary source for Ms. Gladstone’s tribal heritage. Her father is my brother. Through our father, we are both enrolled in the Blackfeet Tribe in the USA,” he wrote. “Our mother is enrolled Nez Perce. So Ms. Gladstone is a direct descendant of both Blackfeet and Nez Perce.”

ARoseWolf shot him down. “We can not use primary sources to verify such information and, you, as a claimed family member have a WP:COI which means we need an independent source.”

WP:COI is the Wikipedia rule on confl ict of interest. Wikipedia forbids primary sources, and yet they’re the gold standard for journalists and academics.

Tsideh challenged the position that only enrollment in a recognized tribe “entitles somebody to claim to be a Native American” as an unfounded, minority point of view that Wiki editors didn’t support with a citation or explanation.

ARoseWolf and others chastised Tsideh for violating Wiki rules on bullying, false accusations and arguing Wiki policy. Tsideh countered that Leonardo DiCaprio didn’t have to prove he was an Italian American, but Lily Gladstone had to prove she was a Native American.

As the back and forth continued, ARoseWolf slammed a new editor who "just happened to find this discussion,” a dig that implies one party enlisted another to join the debate. That too is a Wiki violation.

Bohemian Baltimore, another regular, insisted, “If she’s not enrolled, she may be a descendant, but she’s not a Native American.”

Who is Native American?

Terry Campbell, a Navajo born in Tuba City, Arizona, who lives out of state, has been studying Wikipedia for five months, after friends complained about poor treatment in trying to edit Wiki pages.

One friend wanted to add some facts to an article about a tribe. “These changes were rejected by a handful of editors who cited other Wikipedia pages as sources,” he said, “and I thought that was very, very odd.”

A friend citing sources that prove her tribe survived the Indian wars and received state recognition ran up against Wikipedia guidelines on determining Native American identities that were largely crafted by two editors, user names CorbieVreccan and Yuchitown. Wiki editors used the guidelines to reclassify dozens of state-recognized tribes as “heritage organizations” and removed “Native American” from biographies of prominent tribal members or, worse, called them a "self-identified Native American.”

The implication, Campbell explained, is that the tribe no longer exists and that its members are suspect or even “Pretendians.” Wikipedia has a page for that too.

The same group has shaped many articles on Native subjects. Campbell said he combed through references and found they were misrepresented, taken out of context, sourced from far-right academics, or unreliable.

“The scope of this issue is huge,” Campbell said. “It permeates all the Native articles I checked.”

Campbell recognized talking points from what he called a far-right movement in Indian Country intent on erasing state-recognized and unrecognized tribes. (New Mexico has no state-recognized tribes and six unrecognized groups or tribes.)

Some Native Americans and Anglos, he said, believe that Indigenous people outside the circle of federal recognition should be considered non-Native. They also want to prevent members of the disenfranchised groups from selling their art, receiving ancestral remains, accessing disaster relief or re-establishing their homeland.

Outside Indian Country, it’s not generally known that U.S. Indigenous groups live within a caste system based on government recognition, with 574 federally recognized tribes on top, dozens of state-recognized tribes second, and several hundred unrecognized tribes last.

In 2021, Yuchitown wrote, “The overwhelming majority of ‘List of unrecognized tribes in the United States’ are completely illegitimate.”

There are many reasons why groups aren’t recognized. Some avoided the reservation. Some lost their recognition during the termination era. Some were broken up and scattered during the Indian Wars. Some went underground, practicing their culture secretly while passing as Hispanic. Many simply stayed put.

When Wikipedia editors claim that “Native American” is a political status conferred by the U.S. government, that an individual can only be called a “descendent” until their tribe is recognized, they push this narrative, Campbell said. It’s a contradiction of federal Indian law and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, “As a general principle, an Indian is a person who is of some degree Indian blood and is recognized as an Indian by a Tribe and/or the United States. No single federal or tribal criterion establishes a person’s identity as an Indian. Government agencies use differing criteria to determine eligibility for programs and services. Tribes also have varying eligibility criteria for membership.”

Extreme points of view

Campbell has contributed to a lengthy report, as yet unpublished, that identifies biased editors. They include Yuchitown, CorbieVreccan, ARoseWolf, Indigenous girl and Bohemian Baltimore.

“It was like a tree with many interconnecting branches that had been created over time by the same small group of people pushing extreme points of view,” Campbell said.

Initially the group made changes slowly, he said, “but they started pursuing their agenda aggressively after November, when state-recognized tribes retained their voting rights in the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). Essentially, after the movement to delegitimize state-recognized tribes failed officially, the key players doubled down on altering and controlling the flow of information about Native Americans through Wikipedia.”

Campbell observed widespread violations of Wikipedia standards: “I found evidence that they blatantly misquoted and misrepresented sources to push extremist political beliefs; teamed up to manipulate the consensus system by voting in blocks; exploited Wikipedia rules, such as conflict of interest, to block outside editors from making changes to Native-related pages; excessively cited opinion pieces from fringe political figures, including those accused of racism and anti-semitism; blocked the use of legitimate primary and secondary sources that contradict their extremists beliefs, which violates Wikipedia’s rule against information suppression; posted originally researched, politically motivated essays instead of well-sourced articles; and harassed and defamed Native American tribes and living Native American people.”

Reacting in February to an early draft of the report posted on Google, the editors were incensed that anybody would voice complaints “off-Wiki.” ARoseWolf wrote that “we have been attacked, threatened with legal action and had misinformation/ false claims spread against us.” She and Yuchitown denied being part of a conspiracy against tribes or organizations and said they were just following Wiki rules. Yuchitown accused critics of being “meat puppets” of a person who objected to some Native content and enlisted others to back them up. In WikiSpeak this is meat puppetry.

“Volunteers on Wikipedia vigilantly defend against information that does not meet the site’s requirements,” the Wikipedia spokeswoman wrote. “These volunteers regularly review a feed of real-time edits to quickly address problematic changes; bots spot and revert many common forms of negative behavior on the site; and volunteer administrators (trusted Wikipedia volunteers with advanced permissions to protect Wikipedia) further investigate and address negative behavior. When a user repeatedly violates Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia administrators can take disciplinary action and block them from further editing.”

Inaccurate and insulting

In 2006, Wikipedia established the WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of North America to improve its Native-related content of 14,000 articles and more than 37,000 pages.

Recently, a hot topic on the project’s talk page was a proposal to change a category name from “unrecognized tribes” to “organizations that self-identify.”

On April 15 Melissa Harding Ferretti, chairwoman of the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe in Massachusetts, wrote, “The proposed renaming of the category on Wikipedia is not only inaccurate… but also insulting.”

Ferretti is one of the few Natives to take on Wiki editors openly.

Herring Pond was originally listed with other Wampanoag tribes. In 2022 Yuchitown stripped “state-recognized” from the page, even though the state Commission of Indian Affairs regularly engages with them. Last year Yuchitown created a separate page for Herring Pond. Wiki editors resisted attempts to make changes or corrections.

After Wikipedia called Herring Pond a “cultural heritage group" and a nonprofi t that "claims" to descend from Wampanoags, Ferretti wrote in a Wiki discussion, “There is no claim, it’s a fact! Might I add, nonprofit status was imposed upon Tribal nations in the ‘90s because we didn’t have our federal recognition yet.”

Her tribe has a well-documented history. “We still have care and custody of our sacred places, burial grounds and our 1838 Meetinghouse, one of three built for the Tribe after the arrival of the colonizers. Our continuous presence and stewardship of these lands are recognized by historical records, deeds and treaties.”

Ferretti wrote that tribes without federal recognition already face significant hurdles to gain recognition, "and being labeled as 'self-identified' can add to these challenges by casting doubt on our legitimacy.” Mislabeling unrecognized tribes “can lead to the spread of hate, misinformation and further marginalization.”

Some Wiki editors agreed. One wrote that “there are strong negative connotations to saying someone who is Native 'self identifies,' because the inference is that they are Native in name only or falsely claiming to be Native. A change like this will impact countless articles…” Bohemian Baltimore, ARoseWolf and Yuchitown insisted there were no negative connotations. They opposed calling an unrecognized group a tribe because it legitimized groups with unverified claims. ARoseWolf said, “If they had proof of their connection to the original people they would have gotten federal recognition.”

This is a frequent refrain among the insiders, who apparently think the application process is a slam dunk instead of the long, difficult, expensive journey it is.

Yuchitown noted that “all of the editors who actively contribute to and improve Native American topics on Wikipedia have voted to support the renaming.” It’s a remarkable declaration that he and his allies act in concert.

The insiders took even stronger action against Lipan Apaches in Texas.

Late in 2022, Yuchitown changed the entry of the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas to say that NCAI recognizes the tribe as state-recognized but the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) does not. In fact, NCSL took down its web page listing federal and state-recognized tribes because it couldn’t verify the accuracy.

In boilerplate that appears on all the Texas unrecognized tribes’ websites, Yuchitown said Texas has no legal mechanism to recognize tribes, citing an online article that in turn cites the discredited NCSL web page.

In 2022, a tribal member and Yuchitown fought back and forth, reversing each other’s edits. In WikiSpeak, it was edit warring. The tribal member informed Yuchitown that the NCSL page he quoted no longer existed. CorbieVreccan told the member she was up against “two experienced editors,” and Yuchitown accused her of conflict of interest and edit warring. His fellow travelers demanded to know if she had an official position with the tribe. She didn’t.

ARoseWolf wrote, “As Wikipedia is not a state or government-controlled entity it can make up its own rules for what content is allowed on its platform.”

The Wikimedia spokeswoman says that in some extreme cases the foundation relies on a trust and safety team that will investigate and may also take action.

Campbell wrote in the report that many Native American communities and people “have been targeted by the small group of propagandists in this complaint… And the thousands of people who make these communities have been slandered and assaulted on Wikipedia through the actions of these propagandists.”

Link to the original article:

[ridenwithbiden]

A group of Democratic senators introduced a bill Thursday that would radically change the makeup of the Supreme Court, amid ongoing concerns over court ethics and its increasingly conservative makeup.

The legislation would appoint a new Supreme Court justice every two years, with that justice hearing every case for 18 years before stepping back from the bench and only hearing a “small number of constitutionally required cases.”

“The Supreme Court is facing a crisis of legitimacy that is exacerbated by radical decisions at odds with established legal precedent, ethical lapses of sitting justices, and politicization of the confirmation process,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said in a statement.

“This crisis has eroded faith and confidence in our nation’s highest court. Fundamental reform is necessary to address this crisis and restore trust in the institution.”

Only the nine most recently appointed justices would hear appellate cases, which make up a bulk of the court’s work. All living justices would participate in a smaller subset of cases under the court’s “original jurisdiction,” such as disputes between states or with foreign officials.

The bill was introduced by Sens. Booker, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and it was co-sponsored by Sens. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii).

Calls for Supreme Court reform grew louder this year after ProPublica revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas received hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of perks from conservative political donors. Further investigations have uncovered multiple significant and undisclosed gifts from politically connected friends over his time as a federal judge.

Justice Samuel Alito also took a luxury vacation paid for by an influential conservative donor while in the judiciary, another investigation found earlier this year.

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a bill earlier this year along party lines that would require the Supreme Court to create and abide by a code of ethics. Unlike lower courts, Supreme Court judges are not beholden to an official ethics code.

“An organized scheme by right-wing special interests to capture and control the Supreme Court, aided by gobs of billionaire dark money flowing through the confirmation process and judicial lobbying, has resulted in an unaccountable Court out of step with the American people,” Whitehouse said in a statement.

“Term limits and biennial appointments would make the Court more representative of the public and lower the stakes of each justice’s appointment, while preserving constitutional protections for judicial independence.

“As Congress considers multiple options to restore the integrity of this scandal-plagued Court, our term limits bill should be front and center as a potential solution,” he added.

Attempts to reform the Supreme Court have been denounced by both Republicans in Congress and by some members of the court, namely Thomas and Alito.

Alito argued earlier this year that Congress does not have the authority to force any reform on the court without a constitutional amendment.

“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” Alito told The Wall Street Journal. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”

But Whitehouse’s office argued in Wednesday’s statement that the Constitution allows Congress to regulate how the court handles appellate cases from lower courts. That’s why all justices would still weigh in on “original jurisdiction” cases, avoiding the constitutional hang-up.

Trust in the Supreme Court remains near all-time lows, according to national opinion polling. A Gallup poll last month found that just 41 percent of Americans approve of how the Supreme Court is doing its job, with 58 percent disapproving.

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

Half of Americans in a recent survey indicated they believe national news organizations intend to mislead, misinform or persuade the public to adopt a particular point of view through their reporting.

The survey, released Wednesday by Gallup and the Knight Foundation, goes beyond others that have shown a low level of trust in the media to the startling point where many believe there is an intent to deceive.

Asked whether they agreed with the statement that national news organizations do not intend to mislead, 50% said they disagreed. Only 25% agreed, the study found.

Similarly, 52% disagreed with a statement that disseminators of national news “care about the best interests of their readers, viewers and listeners,” the study found. It said 23% of respondents believed the journalists were acting in the public’s best interests.

“That was pretty striking for us,” said Sarah Fioroni, a consultant for Gallup. The findings showed a depth of distrust and bad feeling that go beyond the foundations and processes of journalism, she said.

In one small consolation, in both cases Americans had more trust in local news.

Like with many other studies, Knight and Gallup found Democrats trust news more than Republicans. Over the past five years, the level of distrust has particularly spiked among independents. Overall, 55% of respondents said there was a great deal of political bias in coverage, compared to 45% in 2017.

The results are based on a Gallup study of 5,593 Americans aged 18 and older conducted between May 31 and July 21, 2022.

[darkmaga-returns]

Believe it or not, Americans want a fair election. One side is using never-before-seen tactics to secure the vote, such as installing a new nominee without securing a single nomination in the primaries and permitting illegal aliens to vote. A recent poll shows that both Republicans and Democrats want a fair election that includes requiring voter ID.

The latest Gallup poll found that an overwhelming 84% of all Americans believe photo identification should be required to vote. Then, 83% of all Americans believe first-time voters must provide proof of citizenship. Americans want to determine the outcome of their own election, but the government continues to ignore the will of the people.

Democrats were less likely to demand proof of citizenship, but still, the majority (66%) believe it should be required. The majority of the left (67%) also believe photo identification cannot be overlooked. Republicans naturally see that illegal migrants will vote against their party. Why would anyone vote against the party that has provided them a taxpayer-subsidized life in a new nation where they are not required to assimilate nor are they held to the same legal code as citizens. Of no surprise, 98% of Republicans are demanding proof of citizenship, and 96% want to see a photo ID. About 84% of Independents support both measures.

[mariacallous]

In a cozy café in Amsterdam, with plush sofas and warm lighting, a group of people sit around talking, laughing, and playing board games. But something noticeable is missing. There is not a single phone in sight. It's one of a regular series of community events held by the burgeoning Offline Club, where members pay around $8.00 to leave their phone in a lock box at the door and spend the next few hours unplugged. Demand is growing rapidly. What started as a local initiative is quickly turning into a global movement with regular events hosted in cafés, churches, and town halls selling out fast across the UK, Denmark, and the Netherlands.

2025 marks the turning point when people will try to spend less time on screens and to reclaim meaningful in-person connections.

Yondr, founded in the US, partners with comedy clubs, arenas, clubs, and schools to organize phone-free events. Jack White, Bob Dylan, Garth Brooks, John Mayer, Madonna, and Adele have all implemented cell phone bans at their concerts so they could stop looking out at a sea of blinking smartphones, and to help the audience to connect by disconnecting.

Meetup, the global platform that enables over 60 million people to use the internet to get off the internet and meet up in the real world, had a 19 percent rise in registrations in 2023. The latest Meetup Measurement Report showed that the number one reason people use the platform is to find meaningful connections in person, a 50 percent rise over previous years. “Friends” is the most popular search term for events, and “Book Club” is back in the top 10.

We are reaching toward things that knit us back into the social fabric of local life. According to new research in the UK from the National Lottery Community Fund, half of UK adults intend to participate in local volunteering activities, both formally and informally in 2024. Over 70 percent say it's important to them to feel part of their local community.

The growing demand for real-world interactions is emerging from a confluence of societal challenges, namely the increasing awareness of the adverse effects of spending way too much time on screens, and the loneliness epidemic. Recent research by Gallup showed that 80 percent of young people under the age of 18 report feeling lonely, with 22 percent saying they have no real friends. Zero. Twelve percent of adults admitted to having no close friends in 2021, compared to just 3 percent 30 years ago. In these stats is a collective cry of loneliness. People don't just want followers anymore; they want real friendships.

But 2025 could mark the turning point of this deep friendship recession. It is the year when a rising number of people swap screen time for real-world interactions.

Today, there is a deep sense of loss or longing, across generations, for a time before constant connectivity, apps, and algorithms. That sentiment is called anemoia, the nostalgia for a time or a place one has never known.

Take the recent rise in popularity of vinyl records, Polaroid cameras, board games, and even mixtapes. According to the Recording Industry Association of American, 43.2 million EPs/LPs were sold last year, up from less than a million in 2006. From classic card games to board sets such as Monopoly and Cluedo, the compound annual growth for the board gaming market is over 9 percent. The Polaroid market is expected to double over the next seven years from $2.93 billion in 2024 to over $5.72 billion in 2031. Or the surprising resurgence of independent booksellers enjoying their sixth consecutive year of growth—a revival meeting the demand for real recommendations from real people. As of 2023, there are 2,185 independent bookstores in the United States and 1,072 in the UK.

There is a clear pining for a pre-dating-app era, with younger generations moving away from the endless swiping and “ghosting.” According to the 2023 Statista survey, millennials make up 61 percent of dating app users, whereas Gen-Z comes in at only 26 percent. Dating apps like Bumble have introduced local IRL events, including tennis tournaments, cooking or spin classes, and cocktail nights, marketed on the promise to “meet up, chat, and make moves in person.”

2025 is when people start to reclaim the communal experiences and deeper connections that have been lost in our lives. It marks a critical societal turning point where people prioritize real-world connections over the deluge we face on our digital devices. To reconnect by disconnecting.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Markos Moulitsas (kos) at Daily Kos:

Last week, a friend called me with concerns about the presidential race, something that repeats often during a typical week. We all have legitimate reasons to be terrified of a second Donald Trump presidency. In response, I sketched out the reasons why I think President Joe Biden currently has a narrow but real advantage. Now, I’m sharing it with you all. 

1) TRUMP IS TIED IN POLLING, EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE AREN’T PAYING ATTENTION

It’s an old political adage that voters do not start paying attention to campaign season until after Labor Day. A Gallup poll fielded this past April found that 71% of Americans have given “quite a lot” of thought to the race, which means that a third haven’t. And the numbers were most pronounced among independents, with just 61% giving it a lot of attention. This is noteworthy because, for one, a significant number of potential voters haven’t seen Trump’s latest erratic, grievance-addled performances. Also, a Siena College poll for The New York Times found that 17% of voters blamed Biden for the loss of federal abortion rights. As more people begin to tune in, those misconceptions will be corrected.  And yet, despite those challenges, the polling is still essentially tied. In fact, take a look at the numbers in some of the polling, and the share of undecided voters is ludicrously high. An Ipsos poll for Reuters has it at 41 to 39 in Trump’s favor. YouGov is at 42 to 40 for Trump. A Civiqs poll for Daily Kos puts it even, at 45 to 45. And Morning Consult shows 44 to 43 for Biden. Given that Trump has never hit 47% in his two elections and that there’s no evidence he’s expanded his base of support, the biggest challenge is getting reluctant Biden voters to show up. That will happen when the race begins in earnest. 

[...]

3) AS PEOPLE LEARN THAT TRUMP’S RESPONSIBLE FOR DOBBS, IT’LL BLEED SUPPORT

Already mentioned above, but worth underscoring. Abortion and democracy were the two issues that propelled Democrats to an atypical, ahistorical victory in the 2022 midterm elections, despite Biden’s enduring unpopularity. Abortion was so powerful and dominant an issue that it overcame voter frustrations about inflation at a time when inflation was significantly worse than current rates.  Nothing in the two years since has lessened the impact of losing federal abortion rights. To the contrary, more people have learned that abortion is, indeed, health care thanks to stories like this one in People magazine, which is read by tens of millions of people. This is no longer a niche issue in the political press. It’s gone mainstream, which explains why the pro-abortion-rights side has won every ballot initiative—even in deep-red states, like Kansas and Kentucky—since Roe v. Wade was overturned.   And instead of laying low, Republicans are gunning hard to restrict or eliminate in vitro fertilization and birth control, and GOP lawmakers are helpless to stand in the way. Rather than defang the issue, Republicans are digging deeper. 

4) TRUMP’S CONVICTION WILL TAKE ITS TOLL OVER TIME. POLLING WAS BRUTAL FOR HIM ON THAT

I wrote up the numbers here. In short, Trump can’t afford to bleed any of his support in a tied race. What does his conviction do? Bleed support.  And three weeks after I wrote that story, polling is still showing how Trump’s convictions are causing lasting damage to his campaign. A recent Ipsos poll for Politico found that 9% of Republicans and 32% of independents are “less likely to support Trump” because of his conviction. Additionally, 23% of independents said the conviction was “very important” to their vote, and another 7% said it was “somewhat important.”  Remember, Trump needs to expand his support. Right now, this is costing him. 

5) DEMS ARE OVERPERFORMING IN SPECIAL ELECTIONS, WHICH ARE ACTUAL ELECTIONS—NOT POLLS

POLLS POLLS POLLS DID YOU SEE THE LATEST POLL? I’m on record saying that pre-Labor Day polls are interesting but not determinative. But you know what is better than polls? Actual election results. Last year, Daily Kos’ own Daniel Donner did the research and found that “special elections have indeed proven to be useful in analyzing the election environment. There is still a good long-term correlation between the results of special elections and November elections.”  And what do this cycle’s special elections tell us? The same thing they were telling us in 2022 when they presaged that year’s unlikely Democratic victories: Democrats are outperforming Biden’s 2020 benchmark numbers.  Some corners of the political punditry are heavily invested in discrediting this theory, mostly by arguing that a presidential electorate doesn’t look like a special election electorate. But it does demonstrate which party is more energized, activated, and likely to turn out—all critically important factors in any general election. Of course, as far as the media is concerned, Democrats always lose. Are Republicans more energized? That’s bad for Democrats. Are Democrats more energized? Bad for Democrats.  But I’ll be consistent, and Donner’s data backs it up: The more energized party has the better chance to win. This isn’t rocket science. It’s (data-supported) common sense. 

6) TRUMP UNDERPERFORMED HIS POLLING NUMBERS IN PRIMARIES

I love this Daily Kos headline: “Polls still love Trump more than voters do.” And it’s true. During the early part of the Republican primary campaign, Trump consistently underperformed his poll numbers. In February, The New York Times’ Nate Cohn has some theories on why that’s the case. My guess? It’s something we’ll see further down the line: People who support Trump are less scared of the alternative than those who are terrified of him.  But if nothing else, the notion that polls are missing some kind of hidden Trump vote isn’t borne out by the facts. 

Markos Moulitsas (kos) underlines the 11 reasons why Joe Biden is going to win come November.

Some of those include: Trump’s role in getting Roe overturned, 34 (and counting) felony convictions, underperformance in much of the GOP primaries even after Nikki Haley dropped out, and is currently tied, slightly trailing, or slightly leading in polling with the race not yet in full swing.

[beardedmrbean]

Americans' confidence in the economy has improved considerably since before the 2024 election, according to a new survey.

Gallup recorded a 9-point improvement in Americans' confidence in the economy in its first poll since the Republican election sweep, with President-elect Donald Trump winning back the White House and the GOP securing control of both chambers of Congress.

The poll, conducted between November 6 and 20, found Americans now rank their confidence in the economy at -17, up from -26 in October. The survey was conducted among a sample of 1,001 adults living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The economy was the top issue for voters in November's election, with polling consistently finding that voters were pessimistic about its state. A survey conducted on behalf of Newsweek in October found that more than half of Americans believed the economy was heading in the wrong direction.

According to Gallup, about 36 percent of Americans now believe the economy is improving, up from 32 percent in October. Fifty-five percent think it's getting worse, down from 62 percent in October.

Gallup found that 26 percent now rate the economy as excellent or good, up just 1 percent from October. Thirty-two percent say it's fair, up 3 points since October, while 40 percent say it's poor—down 6 points since October.

The higher confidence in the economy is being driven by Republicans, according to Gallup. Their confidence in the economy has gone up 29 points since October, from -72 to -43. Independents' confidence in the economy went up nine points to -25, but Democrats' confidence 10 points since October to +27.

Gallup noted that it measured similar party shifts when President Joe Biden won the 2020 election.

"Republicans' views about national conditions are likely to become increasingly positive in the coming months, while Democrats' opinions will likely sour," Gallup wrote. "Once Trump and the Republican Congress are installed in their offices in early 2025, Republicans' assessments of the economy, state of the nation and federal leaders are expected to surpass those of Democrats."

Costas Panagopoulos, a political science professor at Northeastern University, said the shifts are likely reflecting the outcome of the election than any meaningful change in the economy.

"These shifts are likely fueled mainly by renewed optimism among Trump supporters in the aftermath of his victory," Panagopoulos told Newsweek.

"They likely reflect views about the election outcome more so than any meaningful economic assessments. The economy doesn't change that quickly, and there have been no major changes in key economic indicators to justify big changes in perceptions of the economy. These opinion shifts reveal just how deeply economic views are intertwined with political preferences and attitudes."

[tomorrowusa]

Democratss haven't been this enthusiastic since February of 2008.

Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are largely driving the surge in enthusiasm nationally. In March, 55% of Democrats and Democratic leaners said they were more enthusiastic than usual about voting; now, 78% are. Republicans and Republican leaners, who held a slight edge in enthusiasm in March, now trail Democrats by a significant margin, with their current 64% enthusiasm score up slightly from 59% in the spring. [ ... ] Democrats’ current level of enthusiasm is one percentage point shy of the group’s high in Gallup’s trend since 2000. That was the 79% measured in February 2008, when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were engaged in a spirited battle for the party’s presidential nomination. Enthusiasm subsided later that year, but by the end of the campaign, consistently more than seven in 10 said they were more enthusiastic than usual about voting. Democratic enthusiasm was also elevated during the 2004 and 2020 presidential campaigns.

Republican enthusiasm has increased too, but much less than that of Democrats.

Enthusiasm is bound to spike when you have somebody to be enthusiastic about. With Republicans, they are just pushing a stale rerun which was bad the first time it was aired.

Enthusiasm is nice, but it's votes which win elections. Ask people you know if they're registered to vote. If they aren't, guide them through the process. Remind them that if they have moved since the last election that they need to register at their new address.

[warsofasoiaf]

How much do you think a Kamala presidency would differ from Biden's, if any? Would there be a difference with the foreign policy (Israel)?

From a foreign policy perspective, while I do think Harris would be rhetorically harsher on Israel, ultimately I don't see a large change in US foreign policy toward Israel. Public polling in the US favors Israel over Palestine by a significant degree, according to Gallup and Pew at least. Her likely electoral strategy will be to pivot toward centrists, independents, and swing voters (she's going to probably pick Josh Shapiro for her running mate if she believes she needs to secure PA's electoral votes, or Mark Kelly if she thinks she has them already), so I don't predict a substantive change for something that would be so unpopular.

She has said that top foreign policy officials are not likely to return, so no Blinken, Austen, or Jake Sullivan, and she's likely to tap Gordon as her NSA. Whether this means ending the Jake Sullivan school of thought - the absolute fear of Russian escalation that allows Russia to largely commit acts against the West with the tepidest of finger wags is unknown. Russia tried to target US personnel in France according to Le Monde and no one has done much of anything. She's likely to be at least a mild hawk on China and Russia, but that means little.

In the coming days, you'd probably expect her to release policy papers and vision statements to get a grasp of her 2024 policy ideas, which would include foreign policy.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[fandomtrumpshate]

2024 Supported Org: Bellingcat

Over the past two decades, the American public's faith in mainstream news organizations has dropped precipitously -- in a Gallup survey last year, more than half of respondents indicated that they believe news organizations actively mislead the public. The major organs of mainstream media have made many choices that have cost them the public's trust, often relying on the "both sides" model of reporting at the expense of a full and truthful picture and treating politics as a horse race.

But these organizations are also under significant pressure as they struggle to adapt to the radical technological shifts in our media environment. These shifts have cut into traditional revenue streams, driving news organizations toward the sort of reporting that will generate revenue. They have also created both the possibility of and the need for new approaches to reporting, and many legacy news outlets have struggled to adapt.

Bellingcat is an independent investigative collective of researchers, investigators and citizen journalists that uses cutting-edge technology to engage in fact-checking and open-source intelligence investigation outside the apparatus of major journalistic publications. In addition to doing their own reporting, Bellingcat designs and shares verifiable methods of ethical digital investigation. By publishing walkthroughs to open source research methods and holding tailored training sessions on their use for journalists, human rights activists, and members of the public, they’re broadening the scope and application of open source research. Their research is regularly referenced by international media and has been cited by several courts and investigative missions.

Operating in a unique field where advanced technology, forensic research, journalism, transparency and accountability come together, Bellingcat believes in the need for collaboration and has partnered with news organisations across the globe. Likewise, Bellingcat’s Global Authentication Project (GAP) seeks to harness the power of the open source community by nurturing and encouraging a network of volunteer investigators. Their Justice & Accountability unit, meanwhile, seeks to demonstrate the viability of online open source information in judicial processes.

You can support Bellingcat as a creator in the 2024 FTH auction (or as a bidder, when the time comes to donate for the auctions you’ve won.)

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Jeff Arnold

Published: Apr 4, 2024

Before U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman “came out” as a secular humanist, those closest to the California congressman warned separating himself from the rest of Capitol Hill could produce disastrous results.

Yet, Huffman, D-C.A., remains part of a super minority of U.S. politicians who remain uncommitted to a specific faith group.

Among the 118th Congress, 88% of Congress identifies as Christian at a time when almost 30% of Americans are characterized as “religious nones,” according to a 2023 Pew Research poll. Only Huffman and Arizona independent Kyrsten Sinema check the box of religiously unattached or unbelieving — making up 0.2% of the 535-member lawmaking body.

Many candidates and lawmakers alike are leery to identify as anything but Christian, Huffman says, fearing political backlash. He says it makes him the only legislator “the only one dumb enough” to become what he refers to as a “religious oddity.”

“That really puts me in a league of my own,” Huffman told NewsNation.

To believe or not to believe

Huffman was once devoutly Mormon and even a member of the denomination’s priesthood.

But after checking the Humanist box, the Democrat says he is among a quietly growing number of politicians who are uncomfortable with being forced into a religious box, which he finds limiting while the majority of his congressional colleagues represent a Christian category that has several denominational sectors.

New Jersey state Sen. Andrew Zwicker has stepped out even further.

Zwicker considers himself a “multi-generational atheist” who jokes he has been in more churches, temples, synagogues, and other houses of worship since he was elected than ever before.

Yet, his standing as a non-believer and blue state representative has not cost him in ways it might in more conservative parts of the country.

“It’s not about what I believe or don’t believe in,” Zwicker told NewsNation. “It’s more about, we are a country of … all faiths and the freedom to have any faith or no faith at all.”

Huffman initially had concerns about how voters would react to what he jokingly refers to as his “leap of faith.”

A 2020 Gallup poll of voters showed that 40% said they would not vote for an atheist for president, which ranked as one of the largest percentages among several categories. It only trailed “socialists” — of which 55% of voters indicated they would not support.

But in a progressive district, Huffman captured 72% of the vote in the California primary election this March. He faces Republican Chris Coulombe in November.

Does being a believer equate to trust?

Azhar Majeed, the director of government affairs for the Center For Inquiry, told NewsNation that politicians who identify as persons of faith have become co-mingled with being a decent person who will do the right thing and choosing to classify as an unbeliever can often be met with negativity.

“The question, I think in many voters’ minds is, ‘Is this a trustworthy person? Is this somebody who will do the right thing and have my interests in mind as a voter?'” Majeed said.

In the 1970s, Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority carried a significant Washington influence. In the 1980s, one of President Ronald Reagan’s most important speeches came before religious broadcasters.

NewsNation political contributor George Will says in 2024, however, the political tide has turned in matters of faith.

Will, a self-identified atheist who “doesn’t make a deal of it,” says that among the most important questions to be asked is whether a political candidate cares about potential constituents.

“Very few people, it seems to me, say (a candidate) is unchurched, therefore, he’s ungodly, and therefore, he’s untrustworthy, unworthy, and disagreeable,” Will said. “I don’t think many people reason like that anymore.”

Yet, for many politicians, identifying as Christian means that “you’re not offending very many people and you’re pleasing a lot more people.”

Sinema, Congress’ other 0.2 percenter, was raised Mormon. But since leaving that faith group, she has stopped short of considering herself an atheist. When she was sworn into office, she did so by holding a bound copy of the U.S. Constitution rather than the Bible.

A spokesman told CBS News that Sinema’s choice had more to do with her fondness for the Constitution rather than a defiant act of non-belief.  Sinema’s office did not respond to NewsNation’s interview request.

Huffman, the card-carrying Humanist, technically considers himself an atheist.

Humanists believe in “good without God” and base their beliefs on science and rationality, Huffman said. They also are committed to a moral obligation to those around them as human beings and do not subscribe to incentives for an afterlife or a penalty toward hell.

Atheism, meanwhile, is not an affirmative belief there is no god, but instead, a rejection of the assertion that there are gods, according to the website for American Atheists.

Huffman agrees that there is still a clear stigma linked to the word which he calls an “incomplete label” that prioritizes atheists don’t believe rather than what they’re for.”

While Zwicker isn’t shy about his atheism, he says he doesn’t lead with it either, avoiding a trap that some conventional wisdom suggests may exist, experts say.

“It kind of becomes low-hanging fruit,” Majeed said. “I just think it becomes a line of attack that you are opening yourself up to.”

A growing population

In 2007, only 16% of Americans did not identify with religion while 78% considered themselves Christian, Pew reported.

By 2023, 28% identified as religiously unaffiliated. Among that group, 17% were atheists, 20% were agnostics, and 63% said they believed in “nothing in particular.”

Shortly after coming out, Huffman co-founded the Congressional Free Thought Caucus along with Maryland Democrat Jamie Raskin in 2017. The group started with just four members but has since grown to 23, Huffman said.

Despite the group’s growth, Huffman says that politicians tend to lag behind what is “happening in the real world.”

With more Americans choosing to lose their religion, Will and Majeed insist lawmakers will eventually do the same as they are a governmental institution that is representative and broadly reflects the contours of the country.

“Progress has been slow and it’s not necessarily going to be a 1-for-1 change,” Majeed said. “But with each succeeding generation, you’re going to have a higher percentage of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated. I don’t think that’s going to go in the other direction any time soon.”

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Mike Luckovich

* * * *

In Donald J Trump's CPAC speech, the United States is a dark and menacing place: violent crime is rampant, the economy is in free fall, people are starving in the street, and our military has collapsed in corruption and mismanagement. We are ripe for conquest by Vladimir Putin, who does everything right. But every factual claim Trump made isn't a fact; indeed, the situation is the diametric opposite of the one that Trump claims.

Here are the facts on crime. Starting in the early 1990s, crime dropped rapidly in the United States. The causes were complex — owing much to improving economic conditions and innovations in policing strategy. Following a decades-long decline, violent crime rose during the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2020, President Trump’s last year in office, murder rates climbed by nearly 30 percent and assault rates by more than 10 percent.

Here, too, the reasons are complex, but may have much to do with the pandemic. Covid-19 proved to be a generational disruptor in America, instigating social and economic hardships at all levels of society. For example, the country saw an economic decline and increases in unemployment due to businesses that were negatively impacted by shutdowns. We saw a surge in firearm ownership and shooting incidents, at least in the cities that track this data. It was also a period of tremendous isolation. After-school programs and other critical services and interventions that cities relied on to confront violence were shut down.

But since 2021, violent crime has started to fall. According to the FBI, as of 2022 violent crime rates had fallen by 4 percent and murder rates by roughly 7 percent since 2020. Preliminary data suggests those declines accelerated in 2023. In his Saturday speech to conservatives, Trump also spoke a good deal about an immigration crisis in America, making misleading statements about what he referred to as migrant crime and noting it will be “far more deadly than anyone thought.” Here, again, the former president was not truthful. There is no evidence of a migrant crime wave, including in New York City, which the former president referred to in his remarks today. To the contrary, statistics indicate that there has been no surge in crime since April 2022, when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott began bussing migrants to New York. Additionally, research reveals that undocumented immigration is associated with a decrease in property crime and additional research finds that Fentanyl is primarily trafficked by U.S. citizens.

Although violent crime appears to be receding across the nation, the American public is not fully aware of this trend. Most Americans believe that crime is rising, including 78 percent of independent voters. This gap between crime and perceptions of crime is not new — it’s a decades-long trend. Gallup routinely asks voters whether they believe crime is higher or lower than the previous year. Even in the midst of the decades-long decline in crime, between 1990 and the mid-2010s, Gallup records only two years when a majority of voters did not believe crime had risen. Although the reasons why crime increases and decreases are complicated, we know that various social, economic, and environmental factors, such as growth in income and an aging population, are significant drivers of crime rates. We also know that investing in our communities through funding after school programming, anti-violence initiatives, and safe “third places” — like parks and community centers — helps build long-term safety.

Creating thriving and safe communities are goals we can all embrace. But misleading the American public about the truth and distorting reality is not the way to deliver public safety.

[Brennan Center For Justice]

[thankyouforthefunny]

it’s funny when leftists say “Harris is not demanding a ceasefire” when that’s in fact what she’s been working towards and has said she stands with Gaza without cutting ties with a nation we have a treaty with. And for people to say “vote 3rd party!” or “dont vote!”

Just shows how simple minded people can be. Peoples rights and lives are at stake, but for one election you can’t suck it up for the betterment of America? In NY I voted early and Jill Stein, RFK, Jasmine Sherman- none of them were on the ballot.

The third party promotion when they’re not even on every state’s ballot is so enraging to me. And even if they won, who in congress would support any of their leftist measures?

This all comes back to a fundamental misrepresentation of the powers of the president’s office. A president who has a congress with majorities that don’t match their party is extremely restricted in how much of their promised legislation they can pass.

This is yet another reason it’s absolutely essential to vote down ballot. Arguably, those elections will have the most direct impact on your life.

As for the current state of third parties in the US:

There are currently 4 independent senators out of 100 (4%). Bernie Sanders is the only one significantly left of center, and there have been no independent representatives in the House since 2021.

Stein’s Green Party has not won any elections beyond state senate, mayor, or city council positions.

RFK Jr is far right rapist, and dropped out and endorsed Trump. I’m also required to mention the whale and the bear and the dog and the lambs and the-

Sherman didn’t even win the Green Party election, and seems to be spending their time harassing people on social media who dare to question them on their policies.

de la Cruz is running under the Party for Socialism and Liberation, a Marxist-Leninist party. Literally just the name of the party is enough to keep her from getting elected. Around 60% of the population doesn’t view socialism in general positively. Centrists are the ones who make or break the election, and no way they’re voting for the scary party that they associate with the Evils of Communism™️. The Cold War, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War are all within living memory, let’s please be realistic here

According to this Gallup Poll, only 58% of people even support the formation of a third party. Again, 42% of adults don’t even support a third party existing.

To be clear, I very much support the formation of third parties. I would personally vote for further left positions in smaller elections such as my town council if I wouldn’t be splitting the vote and letting a further right position to win.

Also, Democrats are nearly always the ones advocating for ranked choice voting, so electing them now (and actually showing up for elections more than every 4 years) will lead to the best chance of putting more third party candidates into office.

A lot of people want us to jump forward several steps at a time, and I just want to remind everyone that we’re less than 4 years away from Trump’s last time in office (and January 6th), so I’m begging you to please measure your expectations to match that reality.

[darkmaga-returns]

By Jay Davidson

Looks as though the bias in mass media has caught up with them.  They overplayed their hand.  According to a recent Gallup poll, only 52% of Democrats, 27% of independents and 12% of Republicans trust mass media.  Younger people trust mass media less than older.

Don’t allow yourself to become upset with the talking heads in mass media.  Feel sorry for them.  They are truly lost.  And the vast majority don’t believe their biases masked as news.

There is an innate defense mechanism in all humans that warns them of danger.  Lies denote danger to a person, and that triggers a response.  Human nature registers a lie as manipulation, the liar is trying to gain an advantage unethically and thereby seeks control over the individual.  Lies, deceit, and propaganda last for only so long.

Great religions and ancient philosophy last for eons because they seek only to enlighten, not manipulate.  Yes, certain religions (including the religion of politics) have been usurped by mankind, but their lifetime is measured in days, months, or years, not millennia. 

Enlightenment is revealing the truth of a matter through honest discourse.

Our innate ability to discern truth is indicative of the sacred, profound nature of the individual.  Our nation is great because its founding principle is based on the sanctity of the individual.  Rejoice in your G-d-given, inalienable freedom.

[mariacallous]

Last weekend’s negotiations in Cairo for a cease-fire in Gaza collapsed as both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas’s leadership refused to budge on key differences. An Arab official aware of the ongoing negotiations told Foreign Policy that the technical teams are meeting in Doha this week but that he didn’t expect a cease-fire “anytime soon.”

Both sides have been unrelenting. Despite coming under immense pressure from the families of hostages held in Gaza, Netanyahu insists on maintaining the Israeli military presence in Gaza and continuing the military operation against Hamas on the ground. Hamas, on the other hand, is refusing to hand over the hostages even as Palestinians, whose rights it claims to represent and fight for, are struggling to survive the deprivations inflicted by Israel’s incessant bombings. More than 40,000 Palestinians have been killed.

Yet while both Netanyahu and Hamas have made it a habit to walk away from the talks, the United States seems more desperate for a cease-fire and hostage release than either party to the conflict.

Experts say the political imperatives driving Netanyahu and Hamas and the Democratic leadership in the United States are vastly different and partly explain the conundrum.

While Washington wants an end to the killings in Gaza to assuage the concerns of voters at home, Netanyahu is likely waiting for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to win in November’s election to have a freer hand in how he handles the conflict. And Hamas wants to make sure that any deal ensures it isn’t exterminated and continues to rule the Gaza Strip.

Joost Hiltermann, the Middle East and North Africa program director for the International Crisis Group, said it is not that Netanyahu or Hamas don’t want a deal but that they want it “only on their terms, which are incompatible.” While Israel doesn’t want any deal that prevents it from continuing the war, Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar wants a complete Israeli withdrawal, returning to the status quo ante prior to the group’s Oct. 7, 2023, assault on Israel.

In contrast, the Biden administration “very much wants a cease-fire based on compromise, given the heightened political sensitivities before the U.S. elections,” Hiltermann said.

According to the latest Gallup poll, conducted in June, more Americans disapprove of Israel’s military action in Gaza than approve, even though public backing for Israel’s military operation has increased slightly since March, and a majority of Democrats and independents still disapprove of it.

The Democrats want—and want to appear to be making an effort—to save Israeli hostages and Palestinian lives, especially as it has a bearing on the vote counts in the five swing states where large communities of Arab Americans reside.

In May, U.S. President Joe Biden announced what he called an “Israeli proposal” split into three phases. In the first, six-week phase, hundreds of Palestinian prisoners would be exchanged for all women, older, and wounded hostages and in the second phase all remaining hostages. If all went to plan, the temporary cease-fire would become the “cessation of hostilities permanently.” In the third phase, reconstruction of Gaza would begin. But Netanyahu was never on board with this plan and never agreed.

Hiltermann said part of the Israeli establishment was willing to countenance the deal on the table—but Netanyahu was not. “This was a gambit to override Netanyahu through Biden’s imprimatur” and the U.N. Security Council endorsement of the “Israeli deal.” But “Netanyahu did not fall for it and successfully called Biden’s bluff.”

Hiltermann is probably right. Foreign Policy has learned that, over the last few months, the defense establishment in Israel has been calling for more flexibility to obtain a deal but there is a growing sense that Netanyahu is blocking it to appease his far-right allies.

A former high-ranking army officer who was until recently engaged in the military operations in Gaza told Foreign Policy that Netanyahu was beholden to far-right leaders Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir and was prioritizing Hamas’s defeat over the release of hostages on their behest.

“Netanyahu is speaking in three different languages: one to the Americans, one to families of the hostages, and one to his coalition allies,” the army officer said. “I think he is the truest to his allies.”

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken was shipped off to the Middle East once again this month with a “bridging proposal,” to find a resolution to key sticking points including Netanyahu’s demand to keep Israeli soldiers in the Philadelphi Corridor, a narrow 9-mile stretch of land along Gaza’s southern border with Egypt, and the Netzarim Corridor, which splits the strip into northern and southern zones.

While the details of the bridging proposal have not been revealed, the New York Times reported that a reduced number of soldiers could placate both sides.

Eran Lerman, a former Israeli deputy national security advisor, told Foreign Policy that there was more room for flexibility. “There are two questions: prevent the Philadelphi Corridor from becoming a web of smuggling tunnels once again and prevent armed men in the south of Gaza from going to the north with arms and rockets,” he said. “The defense establishment believes that we can install technical monitoring systems on both corridors, that means no humans, and reserve our right to go back in if we see or sense danger.”

“Earlier, it took much longer, but now with paved roads, the soldiers can be there in 20 minutes,” Lerman added. “Defense authorities say they can handle it.”

The former high-ranking army officer who is aware of the thinking in the defense establishment suggested that Netanyahu was pinning the responsibility of eliminating Hamas on the defense forces while ignoring his own political duty to find or create an alternative to Hamas in Gaza.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have “been telling the government for a while that any military action is only to serve a political plan, but if that’s not developed, then what’s the point? Let’s agree to a cease-fire now and get the hostages back, as long as we can go inside Gaza to carry out raids, if and when needed,” said the army officer.

“Like we do in the West Bank now,” Lerman added.

Jonathan Conricus, a former IDF spokesperson now at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Foreign Policy that wars are not won only by killing the enemy “but by killing the enemy and breaking his will to fight and forging a diplomatic deal to create conditions you want on the ground.”

The differences between Netanyahu and the defense establishment are slowly coming to the fore, while Hamas, too, hasn’t received the kind of backing it hoped for from its allies.

Iran and its militias have struck Israel but not with the ferocity Hamas expected. Hezbollah in Lebanon has regularly carried out strikes in Israel, including an attack last week, yet not strong enough to rattle the Israeli forces. There hasn’t been a regional war, at least not yet, and many of Hamas’s own key leaders have been assassinated. But it is holding out against a deal and hasn’t surrendered as some in Israel expected.

“Hamas is unlikely to agree to Israel’s demand of continuing its presence in Gaza, especially not on the Philadelphi border,” the Arab official aware of the negotiations said. But they will also not leave.

At the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago last week, one of the most anticipated moments was nominee Kamala Harris’s statements on the Israel-Hamas conflict.

She said she will “always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself” and always ensure it has the ability to defend itself, implying that she would not cut off weapon supplies. But she also called for an immediate cease-fire. Now is the time, she said, and backed Palestinians’ right to “dignity, security, freedom, and self-determination.”

That is incomparably more than what Palestinians can expect from Trump. In fact, he has threatened to cut off all U.S. aid to Palestinians, expel immigrants who sympathize with Hamas—which activists believe could be misused and used against anyone who supports the Palestinian cause—and extend his Muslim ban to refugees from Gaza. In his last term in office, his solution to the intractable conflict was not support for a two-state solution but Israeli rapprochement with Saudis.

Even though he has warned Israel to “finish up” and “get the job done” as it loses the battle of global perception, or the “PR war,” as he described it, his call for peace appears to be more a reflection of growing opposition in the United States to the Israeli military campaign in Gaza—that goes against the incumbent Democratic Party—and less a marker of genuine empathy for Palestinians’ strife.

Harris may be better than Trump when it comes to offering U.S. support for a two-state solution and protection of the rights of Muslim Americans at large in the United States. Yet her balancing act on Gaza is too reminiscent of Biden’s policy and hasn’t fully succeeded in assuaging the concerns of uncommitted voters.

Michigan is a key swing state and the birthplace of the Uncommitted National Movement—a kind of a mutiny among Democrats to coalesce the protest vote to compel their party to not only achieve a cease-fire but also cut off weapon supplies to Israel.

Abbas Alawieh, a Michigan delegate and one of the leaders of the movement, was quick to express disappointment when a Palestinian was not allowed to address the convention. An Israeli American couple whose son is being held hostage in Gaza spoke at the gathering.

“We didn’t go to the DNC only to request a speaker. We went to push for lifesaving policy change: stop sending the weapons the Israeli govt is using to kill precious Palestinian babies + loved ones,” Alawieh wrote on X on Aug. 23. “DNC chose to discriminate. Their loss. Our movement is growing #NotAnotherBomb.”

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Erin Reed at Erin In The Morning:

In the past month, nearly $100 million has been spent on anti-trans ads across the United States. Conservative super PACs have launched these campaigns in swing states, targeting vulnerable senators. Meanwhile, the Trump campaign is running a national anti-trans ad during football games. However, recent polls and past election results cast doubt on the effectiveness of this strategy. Today, a Gallup poll confirmed that, similar to 2022 and 2023, voters rank transgender issues as the least important concern; Democrats should not be afraid of anti-transgender ads in swinging the election in 2024. The poll asked voters to gauge the importance 22 issues to their vote. These included the economy, Supreme Court justices, taxes, education, Israel and Palestine, China, race relations, and more. Among the options was “transgender rights.” When asked about the importance of each issue, voters ranked transgender rights dead last, falling below concerns like climate change, race relations, the federal budget deficit, and China. You can see the Gallup Poll chart of issues here: Gallup Poll issues importance The relative ranking of transgender rights compared to other issues voters care about stands in stark contrast to Republican spending targeting transgender people. Over the past month, Republican PACs have launched significant ad campaigns aimed at swing-state senators. The Senate Leadership Fund, a major conservative PAC, announced plans to spend $80 million in Ohio alone. The first ads released by the PAC targeted Senator Sherrod Brown for supporting gender-affirming care for trans youth. Similar ad campaigns followed in several other states, targeting Senator Jon Tester in Montana, Senator Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, and Senator Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, among others. It is not just Senators who are being targeted by anti-trans advertisements. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign has launched its own massive ad buy across the United States targeting transgender people. Ads saying “Trump is for us, Kamala Harris is for they/them” are running alongside football games nationwide, including in safe Democratic states. The latest Gallup poll confirms that these ads are not effective. While people may hold differing views on transgender rights—covering issues like driver's licenses, bathrooms, sports, health care, and more—the issue is not salient for the vast majority of Americans. Transgender people make up a small percentage of the general population, and issues relating to them are overshadowed by bread-and-butter concerns like the economy, democracy, education, and Supreme Court justices. To make matters worse for Republicans running ads on this issue, voters who rank transgender rights as very important to their vote are not Republicans but primarily Democrats. In fact, twice as many Democratic voters consider transgender issues important to their vote. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, transgender rights rank higher than immigration, crime, taxes, and energy. For Republicans, however, transgender rights rank below nearly every other issue. The only issue ranked lower is climate change, something many Republican candidates don’t even believe in.

These results are supported by years of polling and election data showing consistent trends. While responses on individual transgender issues can vary greatly depending on how the question is framed—such as "banning" gender-affirming care for youth (Americans oppose bans) versus "do you support or oppose" gender-affirming care for transgender youth—several constants have emerged across nearly every poll. Voters view the issue as unimportant, prefer the government to stay out of it, and politicians who focus negatively on it face backlash.

A recent Gallup poll reveals that transgender rights issues rank very low in voter salience, and among those that do view it as a high-salience issue, Democrats lead there. This is despite Republicans putting millions of dollars into ads featuring anti-trans content.

See Also:

The Guardian: Trump and Republicans push ‘hate and chaos’ with anti-trans ads, advocates say

HuffPost: Republicans Are Pouring Millions Into Anti-Trans Advertisements In Election’s Final Stretch