#she's like 'this has been our policy since november 2022' and i was like 'i had material reimbursed for multiple projects after that date'

[practically-an-x-man]

oh my god i am SO pissed off with this lead stage manager at my theatre. short story is that she's refusing to reimburse my materials for the puppet and is trying to claim it's my fault

[madamspeaker]

In an interview for a forthcoming book, Mrs. Clinton also suggested that if Donald Trump won in November “we may never have another actual election.”

Hillary Clinton criticized her fellow Democrats over what she described as a decades-in-the-making failure to protect abortion rights, saying in her first extended interview about the fall of Roe v. Wade that her party underestimated the growing strength of anti-abortion forces until many Democrats were improbably “taken by surprise” by the landmark Dobbs decision in 2022.

In wide-ranging and unusually frank comments, Mrs. Clinton said Democrats had spent decades in a state of denial that a right enshrined in American life for generations could fall — that faith in the courts and legal precedent had made politicians, voters and officials unable to see clearly how the anti-abortion movement was chipping away at abortion rights, restricting access to the procedure and transforming the Supreme Court, until it was too late.

“We didn’t take it seriously, and we didn’t understand the threat,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Most Democrats, most Americans, did not realize we are in an existential struggle for the future of this country.”

She said: “We could have done more to fight.”

Mrs. Clinton’s comments came in an interview conducted in late February for a forthcoming book, “The Fall of Roe: The Rise of a New America.”

The interview represented Mrs. Clinton’s most detailed comments on abortion rights since the Supreme Court decision that led to the procedure becoming criminalized or restricted in 21 states. She said not only that her party was complacent but also that if she had been in the Senate at the time she would have worked harder to block confirmation of Trump-appointed justices.

And in a blunt reflection about the role sexism played in her 2016 presidential campaign, she said women were the voters who abandoned her in the final days because she was not “perfect.” Overhanging the interview was the understanding that had she won the White House, Roe most likely would have remained a bedrock feature of American life. She assigned blame for the fall of Roe broadly but pointedly, and notably spared herself from the critique.

Some Democrats will most likely agree with Mrs. Clinton’s assessment. But as the party turns its focus to wielding abortion as an electoral weapon, there has been little public reckoning among Democrats over their role in failing to protect abortion rights.

Even when they held control of Congress, Democrats were unwilling to pass legislation codifying abortion rights into federal law. While frequently mentioned in passing to rally their base during election season, the issue rarely rose to the top of their legislative or policy agenda. Many Democrats, including President Biden, often refused even to utter the word.

Until Roe fell, many in the party believed the federal right to an abortion was all but inviolable, unlikely to be reversed even by a conservative Supreme Court. The sense of denial extended to the highest ranks of the party — but not, Mrs. Clinton argued, to her.

“One thing I give the right credit for is they never give up,” she said. “They are relentless. You know, they take a loss, they get back up, they regroup, they raise more money.” She added: “It’s tremendously impressive the way that they operate. And we have nothing like it on our side.”

Mrs. Clinton did not express regret for any inaction herself. Rather, she said her efforts to raise alarms during her 2016 campaign went unheeded and were dismissed as “alarmist” by voters, politicians and members of her own party. In that race, she had talked about the threats to abortion rights on the campaign trail and most memorably in the third presidential debate, vowing to protect Roe when Mr. Trump promised to appoint judges who would overturn it.

But even then, internal campaign polling and focus groups showed that the issue did not resonate strongly with key groups of voters, because they did not believe Roe was truly at risk.

Now, as the country prepares to face its third referendum on Mr. Trump, she offered a stark warning about the 2024 election. A second Trump administration would go far beyond abortion rights to target women’s health care, gay rights, civil rights — and even the core tenets of American democracy itself, she said.

“This election is existential. I mean, if we don’t make the right decision in this election in our country, we may never have another actual election. I will put that out there because I believe it,” she said. “And if we no longer have another actual election, we will be governed by a small minority of right-wing forces that are well organized and well funded and are getting exactly what they want in terms of turning the clock back on women.”

Mrs. Clinton described those forces and her former opponent as part of a “global phenomena” restricting women’s rights, pointing to a push by Xi Jinping, the Chinese leader, pressing women to focus on raising children; the violent policing of women who violate Iran’s conservative dress code; and what she described as the misogyny of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

“Authoritarians, whether they be political or religious based, always go after women. It’s just written in the history. And that’s what will happen in this country,” Mrs. Clinton said.

Mrs. Clinton viewed her remarks as another attempt to ring an alarm before the 2024 election.

“More people have got to wake up, because this is the beginning,” she said. “They really want us to just shut up and go home. That’s their goal. And nobody should be in any way deluded. That’s what they will force upon us if they are given the chance.”

But she also seemed to expect that many would dismiss her concerns once again. “Oh, my God, there she goes again,” she said, describing what she anticipated would be the reaction to her interview. “I mean, she’s just so, you know, so out there.”

But she added: “I know history will prove me right. And I don’t take any comfort in that because that’s not the kind of country or world I want for my grandchildren.”

Nearly eight years after her final campaign, Mrs. Clinton remains one of the most prominent women in American politics, and the only woman in the country’s history to capture the presidential nomination of a major party.

Her life encapsulates what could be seen as the Roe era in American life. She embodies the professional and personal changes that swept the lives of American women over the past half-century. Roe was decided in 1973, the same year Mrs. Clinton graduated from law school. Its fall was accelerated in 2016 by her loss to Donald J. Trump, which set in motion a transformation of the Supreme Court.

Had Mrs. Clinton won the White House in 2016, history would have turned out very differently. She would most likely have appointed two or even three justices to the Supreme Court, securing an abortion-rights legal majority that probably would have not only upheld Roe but also delivered rulings that expanded access to the procedure.

Instead, Mrs. Clinton said Democrats neglected abortion rights from the ballot box to Congress to the Supreme Court.

Along with her prediction for the future, Mrs. Clinton offered a detailed assessment of the past. For her, the meaning of the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was clear — and devastating.

“It says that we are not equal citizens,” she said, referring to women. “It says that we don’t have autonomy, agency and privacy to make the most personal of decisions. It says that we should be rethinking our lives and our roles in the world.”

She blasted Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in the case, saying his decision was “terrible,” “poorly reasoned” and “historically inaccurate.”

Mrs. Clinton accused four justices — John G. Roberts Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — of being “teed up to do the bidding” of conservative political and religious organizations and leaders — though she believed many Democrats had not realized that during those justices’ confirmation hearings.

“It is really hard to believe that people are going to lie to you under oath, that even so-called conservative justices would upend precedents to arrive at ridiculous decisions on gun rights and campaign finance and abortion,” she said. “It’s really hard to accept that.”

Yet, she also had tough words for her former colleagues. In the Senate, she said, Democratic lawmakers did not push hard enough to block the confirmation of the justices who would go on to overturn federal abortion rights. When asked in confirmation hearings if they believed Roe was settled law, the nominees noted that Roe was precedent and largely avoided stating their opinion on the decision.

Those justices “all lied in their confirmation hearings,” she said, referring to Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett, all of whom were appointed by Mr. Trump. “They just flat-out lied. And Democrats did nothing in the Senate.”

She added: “If I’d still been in the Senate, and on the Judiciary Committee, I think, you know, I hope I would have tried to do more about what were just outright prevarications.”

It is unclear how Democrats could have stopped those justices from reaching the bench given that they did not control the Senate during their confirmation hearings. When Mr. Trump took office, Republicans also had unified control of 24 state legislatures, making it all but impossible for Democrats to stop conservatives from pushing through increasingly restrictive laws.

For years, she said, Democrats failed to “invest in the kind of parallel institutions” to the conservative legal establishment. Efforts to start the American Constitution Society, she said, never quite grew as large as the better established Federalist Society, a network of conservative lawyers, officials and justices that includes members of the Supreme Court.

“I just think that most of us who support the rights of women and privacy and the right to make these difficult decisions yourself, you know, we just couldn’t believe what was happening. And as a result, they slowly, surely and very effectively got what they wanted,” she said. “Our side was complacent and kind of taking it for granted and thinking it would never go away.”

Mrs. Clinton was born in 1947, when abortion was criminalized and contraception was banned or restricted in more than two dozen states. In Arkansas, where she practiced law while her husband served as governor, she watched the rise of the religious right and the anti-abortion movement.

From the time she arrived in Washington as first lady, Mrs. Clinton fought openly for abortion rights. She famously declared that “human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights” in a 1995 speech at the World Conference on Women in Beijing. When she became a senator, Mrs. Clinton voted against the partial-birth abortion ban, unlike more than a dozen of her fellow Democrats. As Barack Obama’s secretary of state, she made a mission of expanding women’s reproductive health across the globe.

In 2016, Planned Parenthood endorsed her candidacy, the first time the organization waded into a presidential primary. In her campaign, Mrs. Clinton promised to appoint judges who would preserve Roe, opposed efforts in Congress to pass a 20-week abortion ban and pushed for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which banned the federal funding of abortions.

Even her language was updated. For years, when it came to abortion, she championed her belief in a phrase popularized by her husband during his 1992 presidential campaign: “safe, legal and rare.”

In a private, previously unreported meeting recounted in the book, campaign aides told Mrs. Clinton to drop the phrase during her 2016 run. Her staff explained that increasingly progressive abortion-rights activists thought calling for the procedure to be “rare” would offer a political concession to the anti-abortion movement. And with so many new restrictions being passed in conservative-controlled states, abortion was increasingly difficult to obtain, particularly for poorer women, making “rare” the wrong focus for their message. Abortion should be “safe, legal, accessible and affordable,” they told her.

“Well, that doesn’t make any sense,” she said in response at the time. “That’s stupid.”

In the interview, Mrs. Clinton said she quickly came to embrace the shift in language. What she and other Democrats had tried to do in 1992 with “safe, legal and rare” was “send a signal that we understand Roe v. Wade has a certain theory of the case about trimesters,” she explained. But by 2016, the world had changed.

“Too many women, particularly too many young women did not understand the effort that went into creating the underlying theory of Roe v. Wade. And the young women on my campaign made a very compelling argument that making it safe and legal was really the goal,” she said. “I kind of just pocketed the framework of Roe.”

Still, Mrs. Clinton felt like many of her warnings over the issue were ignored by much of the country.

When she delivered a speech in Wisconsin in March 2016, arguing that Supreme Court justices selected by Mr. Trump could “demolish pillars of the progressive movement,” Mrs. Clinton said that “people kind of rolled their eyes at me.”

Mrs. Clinton said she saw her defeat in that election as inextricable from her gender. As she has in the past, she blamed the former F.B.I. director James Comey’s last-minute reopening of the investigation of her private email server for her immediate defeat. Mr. Comey had raised questions about her judgment and called her “extremely careless” but recommended no criminal charges.Other political strategists have faulted her message, strategy and various missteps by her campaign for her loss in 2016.

“But once he did that to me, the people, the voters who left me, were women,” she said. “They left me because they just couldn’t take a risk on me, because as a woman, I’m supposed to be perfect. They were willing to take a risk on Trump — who had a long list of, let’s call them flaws, to illustrate his imperfection — because he was a man, and they could envision a man as president and commander in chief.”

Mrs. Clinton said she was shocked by how little the reports of Mr. Trump’s sexual misconduct and assault seemed to affect the race. They did not disqualify him from the presidency, at least not among most Republicans and conservative Christians. But his promises to appoint justices that would reverse Roe helped him win, she said.

“Politically, he threw his lot in with the right on abortion and was richly rewarded,” she said.

[protoindoeuropean]

ok so the slovenian government announced today it will participate in the ICJ proceedings against israeli occupation of gaza and the west bank, which is based on a december 2022 UN resolution and is thus separate from the SA genocide case {wiki page}

there have been calls for slovenia to intervene in the genocide case too, to which the minister of foreign affairs has said that "Slovenia supports the proceedings regarding the violations of the Genocide Convention both in the case of Ukraine and Palestine ...", but that it is not yet possible to intervene as the court has to first decide whether it has jurisdiction over the case or not (her statement of support is also not an official position of the country afaict) {x}. she said that the decision will be made at the governnent level {x} (i.e. she evaded the question, but the fact the she hasn't dismissed it is positive, and both the pm and the president as a rule follow her lead, not the other way around; not to mention that the left party, a coalition member, has been very vocal about how slovenia is not doing enough, how we should recognize the state of palestine, apply the bds measures etc., so that's a force pushing in that direction as well). the ambassador to the UN security council said that slovenia regards the case "with great interest" {x}

considering the fairly consistent discourse of slovenian foreign policy on the israel-palestine conflict and especially the expressed need for principled and consistent political positioning during the slovenian mandate in the UN security council, i am moderatly optimistic that it might actually intervene in the case

fajon can be quite frustrating, because you really have to comb through what she's saying to find anything of substance, but i have been surprised at times by her discourse in the past few months, for example when she said that if not the EU as a whole, then a smaller group of like-minded countries within the EU could jointly recognize the state of palestine "when the time is right" (– slovenian politicians have been waiting for the right time to recognize palestine for literally a decade, but in this context specifically fajon has said that the condition for that to happen is permanent ceasefire) {x}, or when she explitictly designated the attacks on schools and hospitals and critical infrastructure as severe violations of international humanitarian law – apparently she appeared on CNN a few days ago where she said that Israel was "definitely" in the breach of international humanitarian law {fb link to the video} {x}, which reportedly made israel angry, but she'd already said the same thing in the UN security council chambers a month ago {x}, so that wasn't new for them and she'd been saying that since november at least {x}. i was also really positively surprised when in the context of the exchange of hostages she designated the palestinian prisoners as political prisoners {x} (only in a podcast, but still)

ofc this is still far from ideal, much more decisive measures would be needed (cf. what the left party wants above) and they'd be more effective too, imho, but this is honestly more than i expected from a politician who, idk – i suspect! – wants to present our country as a potential mediator in the conflict and thus doesn't want to step on israel's toes too much, or at least wants to keep the image of a "reliable partner" with regards to the us, still, while going as far as possible in (what she thinks might be) toeing the line

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

It's clear at this point that the single most mobilizing issue in the 2024 election in the US is anger over the Opus Dei Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v Wade, and a demand that this decision be overturned and Roe v Wade, which enjoys 70% support among Americans, be reinstated. Whitney Fox is a political newcomer, but the Democratic candidate for Florida’s 13th congressional district is optimistic that anger over the rollback of abortion rights will nudge her to victory.

Fox is challenging Republican incumbent Anna Paulina Luna, a firebrand ally of Donald Trump and a self-described “pro-life extremist”, with a promise to defend women’s autonomy. In a campaign video, Fox makes her pitch: “Our way of life is under attack by extremist politicians, attacking our reproductive freedoms, our democracy and doing nothing to lower the costs we are all struggling with,” she adds. “That’s why I am running for Congress: to end these attacks and protect our way of life, for my family and yours.”

But Fox faces an uphill battle if she is going to win on November 5. Pinellas county, where she is standing, has leaned conservative in recent years, and the non-partisan Cook Political Report rates the Fox-Luna race as “competitive” but “likely Republican”. Over a lunch of Cuban sandwiches in the city of St Petersburg, Fox is confident. Luna is wrong on this issue, she says, “And we know that with the right candidate, the right message, and our well-run campaign, we will be able to beat her.”

Democrats across the country are making the same bet. With just under two weeks until election day, when Americans will choose not only a new president but also a new Congress, they believe the hardline positions on abortion being pushed by many Republicans will work in their favour. Florida is one of nearly a dozen states where voters will be given a direct say on abortion laws through ballot referendums in November, including presidential battlegrounds such as Arizona and Nevada that are likely to determine who wins the White House.

Ever since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade in 2022, striking down the national right to an abortion, Republican officials have been pushing for increasingly prohibitive abortion restrictions at the state level. More than 20 states have laws to limit abortion earlier in pregnancy than the viability standard set by Roe, including 13 states where abortion is now banned in almost all circumstances, including for victims of rape and incest.

Some conservative lawmakers and judges are going further, calling for restrictions on access to contraception and fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilisation. All of this is at odds with the clear majority of Americans who identify as pro-choice, according to multiple polls. Opposition to the hardline policies was credited with supercharging Democratic victories in the 2022 midterms and several other special elections and off-year contests since. Democrats are now bullish that voter discontent with Republicans on the issue will once again motivate voters — especially women and young people — to turn out in large numbers for their candidates, from vice-president Kamala Harris to congressional hopefuls like Fox.

At the same time, many high-profile Republicans — including Trump — have scrambled to distance themselves from the religious right, to avoid alienating moderate and swing voters whose support will be critical in an election that is on a knife-edge.

The latest polling suggests while Harris and Trump are in effect tied in the crucial swing states, the former president has a problem with female voters in particular: a recent NBC News survey showed women across the country supporting his rival by a 14-point margin.

At a campaign stop in the battleground state of Pennsylvania on Monday, Liz Cheney, the former Republican congresswoman who broke with her party over Trump and is now campaigning for Harris, called on women of all political stripes to “reject cruelty” and “misogyny” at the ballot box.

“[Abortion] is not an issue that we’re seeing break down across party lines,” Cheney added. “There are many of us around the country who have been pro-life but who have watched . . . state legislatures put in place laws that are resulting in women not getting the care they need.”

Jessica Mackler, president of Emily’s List, a national group that works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights, says the issue is already shaping how Americans will vote.

“The question is not: Will abortion drive votes in this election?” she says. “It is: How far, how wide and how deep does that impact go?” Florida — a racially and economically diverse state that is America’s third-largest by population — was for decades considered a bellwether of who would take the White House. Pinellas county, where Fox and Luna are competing, has picked the winner of every presidential election since 1980, with the exception of George W Bush in 2000.

But the state, which Trump adopted as his own after making Mar-a-Lago his primary residence in 2019, has become increasingly Republican. Trump won Florida by 3.4 points in 2020 and, in the 2022 midterms, Republican governor Ron DeSantis was re-elected by a nearly 20-point margin.

“Trump has carried Florida twice. I don’t know why he won’t carry it a third time,” says Brad Coker, a veteran non-partisan pollster and chief executive of Mason-Dixon Polling in Jacksonville, Florida’s biggest city. For now, Florida is leaning Republican, the Financial Times poll tracker shows, with Trump holding a 5.9-point lead over Harris. Yet there are signs of brewing discontent; political analysts expect the results in November will be much closer than they were in 2022. Other polls show Florida’s US Senate race — with incumbent Republican Rick Scott facing Democratic challenger Debbie Mucarsel-Powell — within striking distance for Democrats.

DeSantis’s approval rating has also fallen sharply in the past two years, a trend some analysts attribute to his increasingly conservative policy positions. In May, he signed a law banning access to abortion in the state after the sixth week of pregnancy — when many women do not yet realise they are pregnant — with some exceptions for victims of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.

In this election, voters have a chance to overturn that law thanks to a ballot question known as Amendment 4, a referendum on enshrining abortion rights in Florida’s constitution. If 60 per cent of the electorate votes yes, the amendment would broadly guarantee access to abortion until a foetus can survive outside the womb, usually defined as around 24 weeks of pregnancy.

The referendum, which was added to the ballot following a petition campaign by pro-choice groups, is nevertheless seen as an opening for Democrats, who are confident it will draw out voters on their side even though the campaign is not technically affiliated with any political party. “In every district that we are in, in every state that we are in, this is the issue that is driving the Democratic coalition in a really remarkable way,” says Mackler of Emily’s List. “Where abortion is on the ballot in any form, it is a driver of wins for Democrats.”

There is growing evidence that ballot measures to codify abortion rights can pass even in states that skew conservative, especially when only a simple majority is required. The most recent example was last year in Ohio, where an amendment enshrining reproductive rights in the state’s constitution passed with nearly 57 per cent of the vote. A year earlier, a similar measure passed in Kansas with 59 per cent support.

Both those states are reliably Republican: the Financial Times poll tracker shows Trump on course to win Ohio by more than 8 points and Kansas by 16. That has prompted GOP leaders to shrug off suggestions that support for abortion rights will fuel a so-called “blue wave” next month, insisting that issues like the economy carry more weight with voters. A recent nationwide Pew poll found the economy was the number-one issue for all voters in the election, while abortion ranked eighth. However, for those who identify as Harris supporters, abortion ranked as the third most important issue.

“You hear a lot of noise in the media, but the reality on the ground is that we are in a better place than we ever have been in Florida,” says Evan Power, chair of the state’s Republican party. “If you talk to Floridians, they care about immigration, inflation and the economy.”

Republicans already have an advantage over the Democrats when it comes to registered voters in the state, according to the latest official figures. Roughly 5.4mn people in Florida are registered Republicans, compared with 4.4mn registered Democrats. Another 3.5mn are registered to vote but unaffiliated with either major party.

That makes non-partisan experts like Coker doubtful Democrats can pull off an upset. “[Abortion] might move the needle a little in Florida when you start talking about the margins, but I don’t think it is going to change the overall outcome,” he says. “It is not going to be enough to flip a state like Florida.”

[douxlen]

For Tim Walz, the IVF Political Battles Are Personal

New Post has been published on https://douxle.com/2024/08/10/for-tim-walz-the-ivf-political-battles-are-personal/

For Tim Walz, the IVF Political Battles Are Personal

For Tim Walz, Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, the fight over in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures is not only about politics—it’s about his own family.

The Minnesota governor is open about how he and his wife, Gwen Walz, conceived their children Hope, 23, and Gus, 17, through a challenging IVF journey. Now he’s sharing his personal experience with voters on the biggest political stage in the country while the future of the procedure is in jeopardy.

The Harris-Walz campaign has made it clear that protecting abortion rights, IVF, and fertility treatment are all policy priorities if they win the White House in November. The issues have taken on new urgency after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 and the Alabama supreme court ruled in February that frozen embryos have the legal rights of children.

After bipartisan pushback, Alabama lawmakers passed laws protecting IVF providers so the services could resume in the state. But with IVF’s future uncertain in states that have fetal personhood laws, Democrats and reproductive rights advocates believe Walz’s ability to speak from personal experience will be a powerful asset to the ticket.

Read More: IVF Changed America. But Its Future Is Under Threat

“Voters respond when politicians are able to demonstrate not just that they understand how much it matters that we restore these rights and these freedoms, but they also understand what voters are going through, and it speaks to their own personal values,” says Jessica Mackler, president of EMILYs List, an influential political organization that aims to elect pro-choice women. “And so if voters are hearing these stories, they are looking at somebody and saying, ‘This is somebody I can trust to lead on this issue.’”

Walz talked about IVF in his first appearance with Harris since she chose him as her running mate, at a rally in Philadelphia on Tuesday. He said IVF is “personal” to him and chronicled the many emotions he felt when going through the fertility treatments. “I remember praying every night for a call for good news, the pit in my stomach when the phone rang, and the agony when we heard that the treatments had not worked,” Walz told the crowd. “So, it wasn’t by chance that when we welcomed our daughter into the world, we named her Hope.”

Walz then tied his personal experience back to the campaign’s commitments to reproductive rights as a whole, saying that when he and Harris talk about freedom, they “mean the freedom to make your own health care decisions.”

Walz’s remarks are already resonating with voters. Brittany Stuart, a Virginia resident whose 5-year-old was conceived through IVF in Alabama, says she sees in Walz not just a politician, but someone who understands “how hard it is to make a child.” Stuart says she did three years of fertility treatment and still has a frozen embryo in Alabama. 

“Infertility is hard enough on families, so to have it further demonized is just like, why are we doing this?” Stuart says. “So to hear Walz talk about his daughter openly… it speaks volumes.” Stuart says that her job in the news has prevented her from publicly supporting or donating to a candidate previously, but she plans to donate to the Harris-Walz ticket.

Read More: Where Tim Walz Stands on the Issues

Walz’s experience with IVF is also clearly top of mind for the Harris campaign; his biography on the campaign website says that his personal connection “further cement[s] his commitment to ensuring all Americans have access to this care.”

While Walz is being introduced to a wider swath of Americans this week, this isn’t the first time he has publicly discussed his family’s IVF journey. 

After the Alabama supreme court ruling in February, Walz took to Facebook to express his disappointment, pointing again to his children as examples to IVF’s success. “Don’t let these guys get away with this by telling you they support IVF when their handpicked judges oppose it,” Walz said in the post. “Actions speak louder than words, and their actions are clear. They’re bringing anti-science government into your exam room, bedroom, and classroom.”

Former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee in 2024, nominated a raft of conservative judges to the judiciary during his first term, including three of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices who decided to overturn the constitutional right to abortion. This year, Trump criticized the Alabama ruling and expressed support for IVF. Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, previously voted against the Right to IVF Act, which would have expanded nationwide access to fertility treatment, though he supported a separate Republican-led bill that would have stripped Medicaid funding from states that prohibit IVF. Vance recently has come under fire for his resurfaced comments about the Democratic Party as a party of “childless cat ladies.” 

According to a Pew Research Center survey done in April, seven-in-ten adults believe that IVF access is “a good thing,” while only 8% say that it’s a “bad thing.”

With that political backdrop, there’s even more pressure on Walz—he’s in “the hot seat” now that he’s chosen to be a champion for IVF, says Barbara Collura, president of RESOLVE: The National Fertility Association. “We love public awareness about this, but I can tell you that it’s not enough to say you support IVF,” Collura says. “Just talking about it doesn’t actually get people insurance coverage.”

Collura is no stranger to Walz’s story. RESOLVE is a non profit patient advocacy organization, which provides support groups, public awareness campaigns, and public policy around insurance coverage for IVF. They also have an annual “Advocacy Day” in which members of their community come together to speak to members of Congress—an event which Walz spoke at back in 2017. “Anytime somebody is brave enough to get up and talk about their infertility story, it’s going to make a big difference on those of us who’ve gone through this,” Collura says.

Marilyn Gomez, who was seeking fertility treatment in North Carolina, hopes that Walz’s openness will bring reproductive rights to the forefront not just nationally, but in the 13 gubernatorial races and the many state elections in 2024. She says it’s hard to feel excited, but she’s “cautiously optimistic.”

“There are a lot of people that don’t know that IVF is on the line,” Gomez says. “Last night when I watched [the rally] live, it was very moving, but also I just couldn’t believe that in 2024 we’re still talking about it.”

[sa7abnews]

For Tim Walz, the IVF Political Battles Are Personal

New Post has been published on https://sa7ab.info/2024/08/09/for-tim-walz-the-ivf-political-battles-are-personal/

For Tim Walz, the IVF Political Battles Are Personal

For Tim Walz, Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, the fight over in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures is not only about politics—it’s about his own family.

The Minnesota governor is open about how he and his wife, Gwen Walz, conceived their children Hope, 23, and Gus, 17, through a challenging IVF journey. Now he’s sharing his personal experience with voters on the biggest political stage in the country while the future of the procedure is in jeopardy.

The Harris-Walz campaign has made it clear that protecting abortion rights, IVF, and fertility treatment are all policy priorities if they win the White House in November. The issues have taken on new urgency after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 and the Alabama supreme court ruled in February that frozen embryos have the legal rights of children.

After bipartisan pushback, Alabama lawmakers passed laws protecting IVF providers so the services could resume in the state. But with IVF’s future uncertain in states that have fetal personhood laws, Democrats and reproductive rights advocates believe Walz’s ability to speak from personal experience will be a powerful asset to the ticket.

Read More: IVF Changed America. But Its Future Is Under Threat

“Voters respond when politicians are able to demonstrate not just that they understand how much it matters that we restore these rights and these freedoms, but they also understand what voters are going through, and it speaks to their own personal values,” says Jessica Mackler, president of EMILYs List, an influential political organization that aims to elect pro-choice women. “And so if voters are hearing these stories, they are looking at somebody and saying, ‘This is somebody I can trust to lead on this issue.’”

Walz talked about IVF in his first appearance with Harris since she chose him as her running mate, at a rally in Philadelphia on Tuesday. He said IVF is “personal” to him and chronicled the many emotions he felt when going through the fertility treatments. “I remember praying every night for a call for good news, the pit in my stomach when the phone rang, and the agony when we heard that the treatments had not worked,” Walz told the crowd. “So, it wasn’t by chance that when we welcomed our daughter into the world, we named her Hope.”

Walz then tied his personal experience back to the campaign’s commitments to reproductive rights as a whole, saying that when he and Harris talk about freedom, they “mean the freedom to make your own health care decisions.”

Walz’s remarks are already resonating with voters. Brittany Stuart, a Virginia resident whose 5-year-old was conceived through IVF in Alabama, says she sees in Walz not just a politician, but someone who understands “how hard it is to make a child.” Stuart says she did three years of fertility treatment and still has a frozen embryo in Alabama. 

“Infertility is hard enough on families, so to have it further demonized is just like, why are we doing this?” Stuart says. “So to hear Walz talk about his daughter openly… it speaks volumes.” Stuart says that her job in the news has prevented her from publicly supporting or donating to a candidate previously, but she plans to donate to the Harris-Walz ticket.

Read More: Where Tim Walz Stands on the Issues

Walz’s experience with IVF is also clearly top of mind for the Harris campaign; his biography on the campaign website says that his personal connection “further cement[s] his commitment to ensuring all Americans have access to this care.”

While Walz is being introduced to a wider swath of Americans this week, this isn’t the first time he has publicly discussed his family’s IVF journey. 

After the Alabama supreme court ruling in February, Walz took to Facebook to express his disappointment, pointing again to his children as examples to IVF’s success. “Don’t let these guys get away with this by telling you they support IVF when their handpicked judges oppose it,” Walz said in the post. “Actions speak louder than words, and their actions are clear. They’re bringing anti-science government into your exam room, bedroom, and classroom.”

Former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee in 2024, nominated a raft of conservative judges to the judiciary during his first term, including three of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices who decided to overturn the constitutional right to abortion. This year, Trump criticized the Alabama ruling and expressed support for IVF. Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, previously voted against the Right to IVF Act, which would have expanded nationwide access to fertility treatment, though he supported a separate Republican-led bill that would have stripped Medicaid funding from states that prohibit IVF. Vance recently has come under fire for his resurfaced comments about the Democratic Party as a party of “childless cat ladies.” 

According to a Pew Research Center survey done in April, seven-in-ten adults believe that IVF access is “a good thing,” while only 8% say that it’s a “bad thing.”

With that political backdrop, there’s even more pressure on Walz—he’s in “the hot seat” now that he’s chosen to be a champion for IVF, says Barbara Collura, president of RESOLVE: The National Fertility Association. “We love public awareness about this, but I can tell you that it’s not enough to say you support IVF,” Collura says. “Just talking about it doesn’t actually get people insurance coverage.”

Collura is no stranger to Walz’s story. RESOLVE is a non profit patient advocacy organization, which provides support groups, public awareness campaigns, and public policy around insurance coverage for IVF. They also have an annual “Advocacy Day” in which members of their community come together to speak to members of Congress—an event which Walz spoke at back in 2017. “Anytime somebody is brave enough to get up and talk about their infertility story, it’s going to make a big difference on those of us who’ve gone through this,” Collura says.

Marilyn Gomez, who was seeking fertility treatment in North Carolina, hopes that Walz’s openness will bring reproductive rights to the forefront not just nationally, but in the 13 gubernatorial races and the many state elections in 2024. She says it’s hard to feel excited, but she’s “cautiously optimistic.”

“There are a lot of people that don’t know that IVF is on the line,” Gomez says. “Last night when I watched [the rally] live, it was very moving, but also I just couldn’t believe that in 2024 we’re still talking about it.”

[qqueenofhades]

Okay, y'all. Time to do this one more time. Let the fact that there are so many of these posts right now reinforce the point. Many of you already know this, and I see and love you, but for anyone still ~undecided about their choice, should they be an American citizen of voting age on November 3, 2020:

Time to not be. It was time a long, long while ago, but I am going to have to say it again.

Primary season is over. The endless fine-tooth combing of candidates' policies and positions is over. We are all deeply well aware that the candidates on the Democratic ticket, being human beings and establishment politicians, are flawed. "BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS POSITION FROM 19/ 20-WHENEVER AS JUSTIFICATION FOR WHY IT'S TERRIBLE TO VOTE FOR -- "

No. Stop. Just stop. Stop threatening to hold the rest of us hostage, in the middle of a pandemic, the Great Depression, and racial inequality and protests on a scale not seen from the 1960s, because you did not get Barbie Dream Candidate. That is the behavior of terrorists and toddlers. If your supposedly enlightened morally pure ideology does not involve any action to mitigate the harm that is directly in front of you, it isn't worth a shit as an ideology actually devoted to helping people. If your approach to politics is to shout about how Pure your ideas are on twitter and tear down anyone working within a system of flawed choices to do the good that they can: you're not helping, and frankly, your constant threats to withhold your suffrage as a punishment to us aren't convincing the rest of us that we really need to listen to you or that you have anyone's best interests at heart. The Online Left TM is as much a vacuous, self-reinforcing noise chamber as the Online Right TM, and can sometimes tend to be even more dangerous.

I was saying this in 2016. A lot of us were saying this in 2016. I am just about to turn 32 years old and have been voting in federal elections for almost 15 years. For what it's worth.

This is not an ordinary election. This is not a contest between two flawed candidates who respect the system and want to work to enact their policies in the ordinary way. One is a flawed 90s era Democrat who nonetheless has already been pushed CONSIDERABLY left in his policies and platforms since the end of the primaries (and his existing platform would already make him the most left president elected, even more than Obama). The other is a fascist dictator who has openly spoken about refusing to accept the election results, his desire to abolish term limits and serve for life, and complete the pillaging of any remaining fragile American public funds for him and his cult of cronies. He does not respect the system. He does not want to do anything for anyone that is not himself. 160,000 and counting needless deaths of American citizens have already happened. Will keep happening.

This is the last time Trump has to face voters. This is the last chance the country has to repudiate his entire poisonous ideology and its marching Nazi minions. IF he steps aside, which is already far from guaranteed, he can ride off into the sunset as a vindicated two term president and probably be rehabilitated like George W. Bush was within a few years of leaving office. American political memory is very short. It will happen. Again, if he even leaves.

RBG is 87 and has cancer again. She will NOT survive another four years. Stephen Breyer is 81. Their seats could both come up in the next four years. The Supreme Court could be a right wing rubber stamp for whatever time we all have left before climate change and coronavirus kill us all.

"But if people just thought for themselves and did their homework and didn't vote the party line like sheep, we could support a third party/write in -- " Stop. Just stop. Attend a ninth grade civics class and learn about how politics work in America. Yes, the two-party system sucks. Yes, the Electoral College is a hot steaming pile of absolute bullshit. Magical unicorn fairy dust fantasies WILL NOT change that.

Do not vote for Kanye (who has pretty much openly admitted he is trying to play spoiler to Biden on behalf of his buddy Trump). Do not vote for godforsaken fucking Gary Johnson or Jill Stein who appear on ballots just to give sanctimonious leftists the illusion of virtue-signaling. If you want any chance of fixing the mess that 2020 has left America and the world in, you need to vote for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The end.

Biden is a flawed old man who was our last choice, sure. He is also a distinguished public servant who has already been in the White House for eight years under Obama and thus we KNOW what to expect. He is an empathetic man who connects with people's personal tragedy and picked as his running mate a younger Black/biracial woman who directly confronted and called him out on past behavior. While the pundit class was simpering and whining about how it was Disrespectful and how could he consider her, Biden did so, and that speaks well to me of the fact that he is willing to learn, to take criticism, and not just accept it from a former Black female rival, but make her his second in command and the potential first female president of the United States.

Can you EVER picture Trump doing that? Not in eight thousand million years.

As for Kamala, we are all aware of her previous checkered history as a prosecutor (and even then, she did plenty of good things as well!). Since joining the Senate, however, she has consistently become one of its most progressive members. She is the co-sponsor of an economic aid package designed to give every American $2,000/month, backdated to March (the start of the coronavirus pandemic) and continuing at least a few months after its end. A Biden-Harris White House could make that happen. Especially if they are put into office with a Democratic House and Senate (for the love of God, Kentucky, kill Mitch McConnell with fire). That is just one example.

Harris's nomination is obviously historic. And Biden didn't choose another Biden (or another Tim Kaine, the blandest white man imaginable). He chose another Obama: a younger rising star of an immigrant background, a person of color, a former lawyer and someone who represents the diversity of the country that the white supremacists and the Cheeto in Chief have tried to paint as its worst and most degenerate evil.

A vote for Biden and Harris means getting rid not just of Trump, but Mike Pence, Vladimir Putin, Jared Kushner, Betsy Devos, the Trump crony destroying the Postal Service, the rampant coronavirus misinformation and bullshit, the destruction of Social Security and Medicare, the spread of Nazi propaganda from the President's twitter account, the likely two Supreme Court picks that would be as bad as Brett Kavanaugh or worse... on and on. Biden and Harris would be elected by progressive voters and thus answerable to them in 2022 midterms and 2024 general. They can both be, and already have been, pushed further left. They are reasonable and competent adults who have demonstrated experience and compassion. I KNOW about their flaws and past actions I don't agree with. But I'm frankly done with any more counterproductive straw man bitching about This One Bad Thing They Did and how it makes it a terribad awful choice to vote for them. Open your eyes. Look at the alternative. LOOK AT WHAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED AND THE FACT THAT THIS IS NOT EVEN AS BAD AS IT COULD STILL GET.

Check your registration or register at vote.gov.

DO NOT LOOK AT POLLS AND DECIDE "EH BIDEN IS CLEARLY GOING TO WIN, I DON'T NEED TO VOTE." THAT IS HOW WE LOST LAST TIME.

Unseating incumbents is HARD. It is even harder when the other side has openly laid out their plan to cheat in great detail, and there is nothing really stopping them from doing it. The only thing, in fact, is massive, unfalsifiable results on an undeniable scale.

So:

Vote.

Vote for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Thanks a lot.

[creepingsharia]

Tennessee’s Worst Pro-Illegal Immigration GOP State Legislators

If you care about this issue, then this information can be used for the 2022 Tennessee state House member primaries.

If you care about getting rid of “Tennesseeans Last” legislators, then this information is for you.

The Biden-Harris administration is working overtime to make sure that the idea of illegal immigration becomes a thing of the past.  The flurry of executive orders is a mere taste of what is to come. Consider that on his first day in office, Biden signed 6 executive orders undoing some of President Trump’s best policies to protect Americans and preserve jobs for Americans.

Tonight, Biden issued three more executive orders designed to massively expand legal and illegal immigration. His directive to the Census Bureau that the report to Congress for apportionment must include all illegal aliens is clearly intended to keep radical Democrats controlling Congress for decades to come.

Abetted by DC RINOs, don’t be surprised when the DC elite legislate a pathway to citizenship for the otherwise illegal immigrants known as DACA. Watch at how easily the parents who entered the U.S. by violating our laws and created the pool known as DACA, are granted amnesty. This is precisely the long game which groups like the TN Immigrant & Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC) and all their affiliated groups, have been playing.

Opening the borders to anyone and everyone who is a potential Democrat cheating voter, will be welcome. But make no mistake, the establishment-elite – GOPee, wants this cheap labor as well and is willing to sell out the deplorables who supported President Trump’s immigration agenda and policies.

The Tennessee General Assembly has its own Republican illegal immigration protectionist legislators.

The two most reprehensible GOP state House members on the issue of illegal immigration are Rep. Bob Ramsey (R- Maryville) and Rep. Patsy Hazlewood (R- Signal Mountain). These two stand in a virtual tie for having the worst voting record on key legislation addressing illegal immigration.

In 2007, when Tennessee Democrats held the majority and still opposed illegal immigration, laws against illegal immigration were passed with strong bipartisan support. In fact, many of the bills were passed with unanimous votes in the House and only one or two Democrat “no” votes in the Senate.

However, when the Republicans became the majority party in both the Senate and House of the Tennessee General Assembly, all that bipartisanship opposition to illegal immigration went out the window.

No different than in DC, Tennessee Democrats have turned to fiercely protecting, rewarding and endorsing illegal immigration – and they are joined by some Tennessee “R”s.

In 2018, the General Assembly passed a strong anti-sanctuary city bill. To no great surprise, then Governor Haslam who campaigned as a hawk on illegal immigration, let it go into law without his signature.

That year, Hazlewood served on both the subcommittee and full committee of the House Finance, Ways & Means committee. She consistently sided with Democrats opposing the sanctuary city bill and actually tried to sideline the bill during the committee process.

But before the bill got to Hazlewood’s committee, it had to pass through the State Government committee chaired by Bob Ramsey where he chose to not vote for or against the bill. On the House  floor, Ramsey, who was definitely there, having voted to stop debate and got a final vote on the bill, again passed on voting to address the problem of criminal illegal aliens in Tennessee.

Biden has halted the deportation of criminal aliens, the same result of Hazlewood and Ramsey’s failure to vote in support of the anti-sanctuary city bill.

Ramsey repeated the same pattern – voted on the motion for the previous question but failed to vote for SJR467, the joint Senate-House resolution authorizing the Tenth Amendment challenge to the federal refugee resettlement program.

The bills to award in-state college tuition to illegal immigrant students

The next two worst GOP legislators on issues related to illegal immigration, are Rep. Mark White (R-Memphis) and Sen. Todd Gardenhire (R- Chattanooga). These two legislators are responsible for the multiple bills filed between 2015 and 2018, trying to award in-state college tuition to illegal immigrant students residing in Tennessee.

The first White-Gardenhire bill filed in 2015, HB675/SB612, failed to pass the House by a single vote since a 50-vote minimum is required by the state Constitution.

Hazlewood and Ramsey both voted for this bill, along with a bunch of other R’s, some of whom were re-elected this past November.

Rep. Pat Marsh (R-Shelbyville) also voted for this in-state tuition bill. In fact, he spoke passionately in support of it by openly insulting every U.S. citizen and legal immigrant student in his district. While glorifying the achievements of the students who would benefit from the White-Gardenhire bill, he conveniently ignored the fact that these students were living in Tennessee in violation of U.S. immigration law. Marsh said  – “I live in Bedford County and our schools are probably 25 percent immigrants there. We’re already paying for these students. I go into the local schools and see these immigrants in leadership roles in our schools. They’re the star athletes. They’re the star students. They deserve a chance to move forward in their lives …”

Marsh should have to answer to his county GOP for this vote and another more recent vote addressed below.

The three subsequent White-Gardenhire bills (HB660/SB635, HB863/SB104 and HB2429/SB2263), failed in their respective committees. On the last one, even with White abusing his sub-committee chairmanship, he could not strong-arm enough votes to get the bill all the way through the committee process.

In 2019, Hazlewood, Marsh and White (of the in-state tuition bills), voted with Democrats against HB1239/SB1165, a bill which modestly improved the Tennessee Lawful Employment Act (commonly referred to as “E-verify”). The Senate didn’t even bother to take up the bill in committee.

E-verify is a tool which helps stop illegal immigration by cutting off access to employment for illegal aliens. The other direct benefit of E-verify is that it “protects American workers by ensuring employers only hire individuals authorized to work in the United States.”

During the committee discussion, Rep. Mike Sparks (R- Smyrna) complained about the fines levied on employers who failed to follow the law.

There are plenty of Republicans in Congress who readily turn their backs on law-abiding Americans and all too willingly seek to cut deals that put their political interests before the interests of those they were elected to serve. Washington, DC appears to be beyond repair. The Tennessee General Assembly may still be salvaged – 2022 is not that far away.

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

Don’t forget the refugee importer Marsha Blackburn...a total fraud.

[ayanacam]

Stand Still

:05

Two Months Ago

November 24th, 2022

Thanksgiving Day

Christen slowly rubbed her belly as the car started slowing down to stop in front of her parent's house. It was a maternal habit she had immediately picked up around her fifth month of pregnancy. She was now eight months, due sometime in mid-December. She was huge, something she had been struggling with for a time but Dallas had always reassured she was beautiful each and every time. Christen was ready for her little one to come out, anticipation of having a mini-me around seemed so exciting. She could hardly wait.

Dallas had parked, turning to Christen.

"Are you sure you're okay?" Dallas looked concerned, scared that his wife was hiding something from him.

"Yes, I'm sure. Just feeling a little big today." She sighed.

"You're beautiful baby, and even more so that you're carrying our angel. It'll never change." Dallas reassured, pulling her head down to meet his lips. His hand smoothly rubbed over Christen's belly as Christen sighed in contentment. Sometimes she needed to be reassured.

Dallas smiled at her before exiting the car to come to her side, helping her out. Christen heaved herself up against Dallas's weight before straightening her black sweater dress. She had taken a waddle up once she hit her third trimester, her back consistently making her ache, but she didn't mind.

"Ready?" Dallas questioned, making sure all of the food packed and Christen were okay.

She nodded, beginning her penguin walk while Dallas quietly chuckled in the background. He loved her walk. The fact that it was caused by their own creation made it special to him. He wouldn't trade it for anything in the world. Christen stepped up the stairs slowly, huffing breaths from exhaustion. It seemed like every time she did anything, she was short of breath.

Christen immediately opened the door as she stepped in front, seeing no reason to wait as this was her own home.

Everyone had cheered as they walked through door, swarming around Christen and her big belly. Her mood had immediately shifted from calm to annoyed. She hadn't been big on touching lately, besides from Dallas. The feel of having multiple people around since she had revealed she was pregnant had been challenging. She normally would want tons of hugs and warm touches, but lately she hadn't wanted any of it. Being uncomfortable pregnant was enough without all the maneuvering she had to do to even hug someone. She'd rather avoid it.

"Did you guys make it safely?" Christen's mother asked once they got settled.

"Yes mom." Christen rolled her eyes, her mother the epitome of worrisome.

"We did Maria, thank you." Dallas replied, his hand smoothing over Christen's bangs as she leaned into him appreciating the warmth he'd given her.

"I know baby, you're ready for this to be over." Maria sat down next to her daughter, patting her knee. "She'll be here before you know it."

Christen groaned, "I want her out now. I'm ready to sleep normally again."

Dallas chuckled lowly into Christen's head, rubbing her shoulder.

"Alright guys, time to eat." Christen's dad called from the kitchen.

Dallas removed himself swiftly, his hands held out to pull Christen up. She stumbled slightly as he pulled a little too hard, but quickly balanced herself again. They all led themselves into the kitchen, cousins and grandparents crowded around the table.

"So, how long are you going to be off work after the pregnancy Dallas?" Christen's grandpa, Jack Collins, asked.

"About three months, longer if we don't find a nanny within that time frame."

"A nanny?" Christen's grandmother, Lucille Collins, exasperated. "In my day, the wife was a stay at home mother. You don't want to do that Chrissy?"

Christen screamed internally, her grandmother always a "do-it-my-way" figure. She didn't like when someone stepped out of those boundaries, and being a full time wife and mother was one of those boundaries.

"I figured we'd both go back to work, me in the gallery and him at the office. Life doesn't stop even when children come into the picture Gam." Christen forced a smile, her voice short.

Lucille scoffed, "You should always be in your children's life. You miss all the important milestones when you hire someone to take care of your child."

"Well it's 2022, not 1963." Christen snapped, her patience wearing thin. She wanted the discussion dropped and she wasn't in the mood to argue. Everyone around the table had gone quiet, their utensils clanking awkwardly against the expensive china Christen's parents always pulled out for the holidays.

"I think it's time to play White Elephant, don't you guys?" Her father announced, the tension relieved once the family tradition had been suggested.

Everyone piled their dishes into the kitchen and immediately moved into the family room.

Present Day

January 19th 2023

"Can we come in?" Andrew asked softly, not wanting to set the woman off.

Caroline debated silently, her mind reeling as she looked over the two people in Dallas's life she knew about very well. Christen especially. Dallas and Caroline had met three years ago at a bar in Times Square. Unfortunately she had learned the next morning that Dallas was married when he had lost his mind over the drunken mistake. Caroline had felt terrible, both of them highly intoxicated without anyone to stop what had been done.

Dallas had apologized profusely, leaving shortly thereafter. Unfortunately a month later, Caroline had found she was pregnant and a few more weeks later, with twins. A boy and a girl. She knew she had to contact Dallas, he had deserved the right to know.

Dallas had been less than happy to hear the news the day she had called the office. He went ballistic, cursing to the Gods. He calmed over the next few days eventually giving Caroline a sensible situation, her to be a secret.

They had gone no further than a friendly hug and a doctor's appointment but after the third trimester, they had quickly become more. Lingering touches and stolen kisses had become a thing and before they knew it, sex had been involved along with feelings. The twins had been born and Dallas promised to leave Christen. In the mean time, however, she would stay up here and wait.

"Sure." Caroline swallowed.

"I'm sure you know who this is?" Andrew pestered, seeing if the woman would lie.

Caroline nodded her head, ashamed and guilty. "Yes, it's nice to meet you Christen."

Christen found herself to be strangely quiet, not quite feeling the moment to be real. She was looking her husband's mistress in her face on her own porch and Christen couldn't help but feel her blood boil.

All three of them walked through the home, a hallway dividing the rooms in between. Overall the house was lovely, hints of Dallas everywhere Christen looked. Pictures of him had been posted everywhere with their family. Christen's heart tugged in hurt as she eventually looked down at her feet.

Andrew was disgusted, silent murderous rage filling his body as he thought about bringing Dallas back to life just to kill him again. He was utterly appalled, he never knew his best friend since college could do such a thing. His fingers interlaced with Christen's as he noticed her state. She wouldn't look anywhere, her curls covering most of her face as she kept eye contact with the floor.

"Would you guys like anything to drink?" Caroline offered.

"A water would be nice." Andrew suggested.

Caroline nodded and pulled herself to the fridge, producing two bottles of water.

"May I ask why you two came to visit me?" Caroline finally sliced the room full of tension.

"The insurance policy needs to be handled." Andrew curtly stated, infuriated by the fact that this woman was bold and daring. In a moment like this, she didn't have the right to ask any questions.

Caroline nodded, "What did you guys need to know?"

"Did you even feel guilty sleeping with a married man or is that the whore in you?" Christen asked, her courage had finally found a voice.

Caroline was taken aback, not surprised by the accusation but nevertheless shocked that Christen had asked it in this certain way. She cleared her throat and swallowed," Listen, what happened between Dallas and I will stay between us, even if he no longer is here."

"Well it's Christen's business now since she now has to file for you to be taken care of, so make this trip worth our while and she may consider giving you a part of her trust." Andrew worded slowly, driving each word home.

Caroline felt intimidated, Dallas had said Andrew was a gentle giant. It was nothing like the steel gentleman before her. "Ask away then."

"When did the affair start?" Christen murmured.

"May 2020." Caroline offered. "We met at a bar in Times Square and we had sex."

"That's the night you conceived the twins?" Andrew questioned.

Caroline nodded and Christen became sick. That was the month she had had the third miscarriage. Each one hurt more than the last, she would make it tiny bits farther but it would always end up with her in a hospital bed for 24 hours and bed rest immediately after. Caroline had conceived just fine. Christen knew it had been her. The reason conceiving had been impossible was on her end.

"Did you ever feel any remorse?" Christen swallowed, her mind unraveling.

Caroline sighed deeply, "In moments I did, but I won't lie, for the most part no."

Christen nodded, taking in her words.

"And what were Dallas' thoughts?" Andrew pressed.

"H- He felt guilty, every night and day. He would always talk about you and how much it hurt to cheat. He said that his fear of hurting you overrode his guilty conscience." Caroline admitted.

Christen finally had gotten a good look at Caroline. She was wearing a ratty old tee, no doubt Dallas' and a pair of leggings and white fuzzy socks. Her blonde hair was in a sloppy bun and her face was swollen as if she had been crying all night.

Christen was mindful of her next question. She wanted to stir the pot.

"Why didn't either one of you stop if you both felt guilty?"

Caroline took a deep breath, "We loved each other."

Christen froze, as did Andrew. Andrew wanted to strangle her from across the coffee table that was placed strategically in front of them. She had the audacity to claim such a thing but in Andrew's mind, Dallas had loved neither one of them. He loved the game of forbidden treats. He knew Dallas too well, that Dallas wanted his cake and to eat it too. Andrew thought he had changed when he met Christen but he had been dead wrong.

Andrew flicked his eyes over to Christen, her reaction being gauged. He didn't know what Christen was feeling, she wasn't even looking up from the coffee table. She simply had her arms folded under her chin with her fingers splayed across her mouth.

Christen didn't want to ask any more questions, it seemed like all the ones she had before had disappeared into thin air. She didn't want to learn any new secrets about Dallas. Everything she had learned already had been enough. Although, there were a couple questions she needed answered.

"Did you know Dallas was part of illegal activity?" Christen voiced.

Caroline nodded sheepishly.

Another thing Christen didn't know.

"It wasn't by him telling me. I had just caught a couple of transactions going through his bank when he asked me to check his bank account. A lawyer only makes so much. He confessed when I started asking too many questions." Caroline admitted.

So she had known everything, from the imminent danger that always lurked around to his relationship with Christen. She had known his finances and every back door about Dallas. So exactly why had Dallas kept Christen around? It seemed that he had everything and more up here with Caroline.

"He loved you...Christen," Caroline started. "He loved you so much that he wouldn't leave. He talked about you all the time, and I know you've got so many things coming through you right now but do not ever doubt what he felt for you." She sounded broken, as if this was hard for her to admit.

Christen shook, in hurt and anger. "Do not tell me what you think. It doesn't justify what I know."

Caroline nodded, preceding to back off. She didn't want to cause any more harm to anyone. She had the damage in front of her. Christen looked, in literal terms, broken. She had bruises on her face, her tight brown curls layered around her forehead and cheeks. She looked to be breathing hard and from what Caroline had heard, she had been beaten with a bat before she was knocked out.

"I think it's time to go. The lawyers will be in contact." Andrew softly spoke, standing up from the teal colored couch.

Caroline stood along with him, Andrew reaching out to pull Christen from the couch. Christen winced, the sharp pain of her ribs catching her.

"Are you okay?" Andrew worriedly questioned.

"Are the meds in the car?"

"Yes, should be in the glove compartment." Andrew answered to Christen.

Caroline stayed quiet, her heart hurting for Christen. She had no right, that she knew. But she couldn't help but place herself at the scene, imagining herself in Christen's shoes. Caroline watched Christen cautiously, ready to jump to her aid. She may have done heinous acts but that didn't take away from her caring nature.

Christen made it to the front door slowly but surely, Andrew's aid helping immensely. Caroline held the door open so no further obstruction could hinder Christen's progress.

"I know this really isn't my place. I just want to say I'm sorry. Things between Dallas and I...they should have never happened. There's nothing I could say or do, that would make this better." Caroline ejected.

Christen's blood boiled but she held her tongue. She had nothing further to say to Dallas's mistress. Andrew nodded to her apology before escorting Christen to the car. Andrew slid Christen in the car softly, aware to not stir her abruptly before he grabbed the pills and put them in her hand.

Christen gulped the pills down quickly, begging internally for the pain to stop. Nothing could make the pain in her heart go away. Dallas had ripped her to shreds and seeing Caroline today had done the final tinge on her heart. She had kids with the love of her life. She had gotten everything in life that Christen had wanted.

Christen hadn't realized that tears were now streaming down her face until Andrew gripped her hand from her face and shushed her. Christen wailed, her body racked with sobs. Andrew didn't know what to do, however streams of tears followed his face as well. After a few minutes, Christen finally calmed. Her body shook from time to time but Andrew could tell the worst was over, for now.

Christen stayed silent as Andrew gripped her hand and started the car. His thumb pressed against the push to start and off they were.

Christen for the most part had slept throughout the car ride. The darkness enveloping them as the trip to the motel back in town was almost over. Andrew quietly looked over at Christen's sleeping frame, detailing her. Her curls draped across her face as she breathed quietly. Her pink lips were parted slightly due to the positioning of her hand against her right cheek. Her lashes fluttered against her cheeks as she moved slightly to make herself comfortable. Andrew was entranced. He saw Christen for what she was, not for what she put on. 

Andrew pulled into an empty parking lot, the motel lights lit up the dark scenery. Trees lined the property, slightly moving in the wind. There were a couple of other cars, but for the most part the motel was vacant.

He triple checked Christen's sleeping state before moving out of the car to grab a room for Christen and him. The steps to the reception office had him on edge, but his feelings were kept in check. He couldn't be a weakling now.

The receptionist, the same from the night before was here again.

"Another night?" the clerk asked. 

Andrew breathed out a snort, "Unfortunately." 

The clerk rolled his eyes and took the card that was held between Andrew's slim hand. Andrew looked around the place briefly. The lights were dingy, the floors were dirty, and the furniture in the lobby was tore in multiple places. Andrew wondered how this place was even still open, what with the lack of customers and upkeep. 

Andrew quickly gripped his card back and stumbled out of the office area to help Christen upstairs. As he grasped his thoughts, he opened Christen's door to find her awake. Her curls were pulled towards the back of her head in a messy bun. Strands of small curls framed her face, blocking some of the damage done by her attackers. He still thought she was the most beautiful woman in the world, despite everything she'd been through in the last week. 

Christen clung to his arm as she pulled herself out of the sedan. She hated feeling this way, helpless. It only made her thoughts worse. She still had so many unanswered questions for Caroline and Dallas. But one was someone she hated, the other is dead. She couldn't bare sitting another minute with the woman who got her life way before she had actually started hers. 

As Christen started to move, her ribs began to throb heavily. With a sharp intake of breath, she doubled over, causing Andrew to catch her immediately. 

"What's wrong? What hurts?" his frantic voice and hands moving around her. 

"Meds, please." Christen gritted out. 

He immediately moved Christen to the side of the car to hold her weight before going to grab her medication. The rattle of the pills in the bottle calmed Christen down, at least she wouldn't be in any physical pain for awhile. The emotional pain was something she hadn't quite grasped yet. After swallowing her two white pills, she stretched up slowly to ease her pain. Andrew caught her as she stumbled and pulled her arm around his neck so she could have some balance. 

The walk to the room was silent, no words spoken between Andrew and Christen. Neither one of them knew what to say. What exactly was there to say? 'I'm sorry your husband cheated on you and got himself killed by doing illegal business?' or 'I'm sorry that your best friend wasn't who you thought he was?'. Neither option sounded like one the other wanted to hear. 

As soon as they had stepped into the room, Andrew had placed Christen on the couch and went to the kitchen. 

"Coffee?" Andrew's voice sounded. 

Christen nodded, even though it was late, she couldn't help but want coffee to soothe whatever she was feeling. The Keurig coffee machine began to whir, keeping Christen occupied with her thoughts. 

Christen stared out of the window to the empty parking lot, "What am I supposed to do Drew?" 

Her voice was soft, tears laden in the thickness. 

"I don't know." He answered quietly.

[feelingbluepolitics]

Part Three of a glance through Midwestern politics, the epicenter of many Blue voters' contortions over "electibility" given our very large field of candidates, and our grim need to eject trump.

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,  Kansas,  Michigan, Minnesota,  Missouri,  Nebraska, North Dakota,  Ohio,  South Dakota, and Wisconsin

Picking up here with:

Ohio. Buh-bye, Ohio. The Buckeye state is a black eyed state, beaten into a stranglehold red miasma.

Forced motherhood has been much in the news during May, but Ohio was already there by November of 2018.

The 2018 Midterm Blue Wave crashed and died in Ohio. Only Sherrod Brown hung in there as the only state-wide elected Democrat in the state.

Ohio harbors Gym Jordan, who is too disgusting and hateful to talk about.

The following article groups Texas in with "swing states like Ohio."

https://theweek.com/speedreads/826395/texas-now-2020-swing-state

At this point, any article discussing swing states has more credibility leaving Ohio off the swing state list.

The surprise blue spotlight in Ohio is Sherrod Brown deciding not to join the presidential hopefuls because he has more than enough to do right there at home and in the Senate.

"Even though he won’t be on the ballot, Brown could still be a major figure in the 2020 race. Ohio’s politics are tricky, and there are few in the Democratic Party who have so successfully navigated its intricacies. Only once since 1974 has Brown lost a race in Ohio. The failure of the blue firewall in Ohio in 2016 was a warning sign more broadly."

When it was a perennial swing state, Ohio was the infallible "bellwether" state, but now that it's rammed full into Republiconism, it's predictive powers are castrated.

Can we go now?...No?...Because somewhere along the way in Part One or Part Two, I said that Democrats shouldn't cede any state? (Except for Fracking North Dakota.)

Nan Whaley does not believe Ohio is lost to Democrats, and she's Dayton's progressive mayor.

"Those who see 2018 as a blood bath for Ohio Democrats are forgetting that Senator Sherrod Brown won by 6.4 percentage points. This was a larger margin of victory than he had in 2012 — when he shared the top of the ticket with President Barack Obama, who also carried the state.

..."In statehouse races, Democrats nearly matched Republicans in total votes statewide, but they saw limited gains because of Republican gerrymandering. Our current legislative maps border on the absurd — despite winning just over 50 percent of the vote, Republicans will control more than three-fifths of the state legislative seats. Thankfully, voters in May enacted redistricting reforms that will make our next maps much fairer, allowing Democrats to compete on a more level playing field beginning in 2022.

..."While Republicans will control the governor’s mansion for another four years, Democrats continue to dominate in Ohio’s largest cities and counties. In places where Republicans can’t gerrymander the lines — including the 12 largest cities — local Democrats have been pursuing bold, progressive policies that strengthen communities."

So the final call for Ohio is actually, get in there and work very hard.

South Dakota. Reliably Republicon since 1968. (It's like they're twins, or something; see North.)

But. South Dakota voters are mad. They are mad because SD ranks as the "4th most corrupt state."

They are mad because "[i]n 2016 South Dakotans made history as the first state in America to pass a statewide Anti-Corruption Act. This landmark Act closed lobbying loopholes, enhanced political transparency, and created an independent ethics commission. A clear majority approved the measure." Their Republicon state legislature actually declared an "emergency" to give itself the power to kill it, because they decided the voters didn't understand what they were trying to do.

If it keeps going, voters will shoot to make it a constitutional amendment, and therefore Republicon "lawmaker" proof. An additional option is to elect Democrats to listen to them, with the bonus of teaching a lesson.

Democrats need to be running on anti-corruption at every level anyway.

Billie Sutton ran an unusually competitive race to get a Democrat (technically) into the governor's mansion. Although he ultimately lost to Kristi Noem, Sutton scared both SD and D.C. Republicons, which is remarkable in itself.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/19/politics/sutton-noem-south-dakota/index.html

Recently, Noem supported an outrageous anti-protest, pro- Keystone XL pipeline bill, and now isn't allowed to step onto tribal lands.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/441921-american-indian-tribe-bans-gop-governor-from-reservation-over-her

Even though trump won over Hillary here almost by double, voters are really mad at corrupt, power-grabbing Republicons in South Dakota, and that could open some state elections.

[newstfionline]

Wednesday, October 6, 2021

UNICEF: Battered by pandemic, kids need mental health help (AP) Governments must pour more money and resources into preserving the mental well-being of children and adolescents, the U.N.’s child protection agency urged in a report Tuesday that sounded alarms about blows to mental health from the COVID-19 pandemic that hit poor and vulnerable children particularly hard. The United Nations Children’s Fund said its “State of the World’s Children” study is its most comprehensive look so far this century at the mental health of children and adolescents globally. The coronavirus crisis, forcing school closures that upended the lives of children and adolescents, has thrust the issue of their mental well-being to the fore. UNICEF said it may take years to fully measure the extent of the pandemic’s impact on young people’s mental health. Psychiatrists quickly saw signs of distress, with children and adolescents seeking help for suicidal thoughts, anxiety, eating disorders and other difficulties as lockdowns and switching to remote learning severed them from friends and routines and as COVID-19 killed parents and grandparents. “With nationwide lockdowns and pandemic-related movement restrictions, children have spent indelible years of their lives away from family, friends, classrooms, play—key elements of childhood itself,” said UNICEF’s executive director, Henrietta Fore. “The impact is significant, and it is just the tip of the iceberg.”

COVID vaccine mandate takes effect for NYC teachers, staff (AP) A COVID-19 vaccination requirement for teachers and other staff members took effect in New York City’s sprawling public school system Monday in a key test of the employee vaccination mandates now being rolled out across the country. Mayor Bill de Blasio said 95% of the city’s roughly 148,000 public school staffers had received at least one vaccine dose as of Monday morning, including 96% of teachers and 99% of principals. The mayor had warned that unvaccinated school employees would be placed on unpaid leave and not be allowed to work this week. The city planned to bring in substitutes where needed. Schools Chancellor Meisha Ross Porter said she did not know exactly how many employees had declined the shots and been put on leave.

California pipeline may have been hooked by ship’s anchor (AP) The pipeline that leaked tens of thousands of gallons of oil into the water off Southern California was split open and apparently dragged more than 100 feet along the ocean floor, possibly by a ship’s anchor, officials said Tuesday. The segment of the pipe that was dragged was three-quarters of a mile (1.2 kilometers) long, and the gash was over a foot (30 centimeters) wide, the Coast Guard said. Preliminary reports suggest the failure may have been “caused by an anchor that hooked the pipeline, causing a partial tear,” federal transportation investigators said. The break in the line occurred about 5 miles offshore at a depth of about 98 feet (30 meters) beneath the surface.

Just gone (NYT) They lie in clandestine graves strewn across the desert, mingled in communal pits, or hacked to pieces and scattered on desiccated hillsides. Buried without a name, often all that’s left once their bodies are gone are the empty casings of a person: a bloodied sweatshirt, a frilly top, a tattered dress. All over Mexico, mothers wander under the scorching sun, poking at the earth and hoping for a scrap that points toward their missing son or daughter. For most, the answers never come. Mexico is nearing a grim milestone: 100,000 disappeared people, according to Mexico’s National Search Commission, which keeps a record that goes back to 1964. In a country wracked by a drug war without end, death can feel pervasive. Murder rates climb inexorably, now topping 30,000 a year. But disappearance can be the cruelest blow. It deprives families of a body to mourn, of answers—even of the simple certainty, and the consolation, of death.

Afghanistan unraveling (Washington Post) Amman Nasir, 18, used to make steel safes in a workshop on contract with the U.S. Army. Now the American forces are gone, the workshop is locked and Nasir, along with all 15 other employees, is jobless. “Every family is facing the same crisis,” said Nasir, who had piled some blankets from home on a sidewalk, hoping someone would buy them. “People are not as afraid as they were when the Taliban first came. The problem now is our empty stomachs.” Across the Afghan capital, evidence of the country’s fast-unraveling economy is everywhere—from the angry crowds of unpaid government workers waiting outside banks that have run out of cash, to the tent camp of war-displaced families that has taken over the main city park, to the jumbled piles of household goods that have sprouted on corners and vacant lots. In a matter of weeks, several cascading events—the final withdrawal of U.S. troops, the mass surrender of Afghan forces, the collapse of the national government and takeover by Taliban militants, and a chaotic mass evacuation punctuated by a deadly airport bombing—have brought the Afghan economy to an abrupt and perilous standstill.

‘Everyone here hated the Americans’: Rural Afghans live with the Taliban and a painful U.S. legacy (Washington Post) The white flags flutter in the apple orchards of this serene hamlet ringed by oatmeal-colored mountains. They mark the precise spots where U.S. airstrikes killed Afghans. In the village center lies the destroyed shell of a building that once housed shops; down the road is a mangled, rusted car. There are white flags there, too. Together, they’re reminders of the legacy the United States has left in many rural areas across Afghanistan. “Everyone here hated the Americans,” said Zabiullah Haideri, 30. His shop was shattered by an airstrike in 2019 that killed 12 villagers. “They murdered civilians and committed atrocities.” In Kabul and other Afghan cities, the United States will be remembered for enabling two decades of progress in women’s rights, an independent media and other freedoms. But in the nation’s hinterlands, the main battlegrounds of America’s longest war, Afghans view the United States primarily through the prism of conflict, brutality and death. Here in Wardak province, the U.S. military, the CIA and the ruthless Afghan militias they armed and trained fought the Taliban for years. Trapped in the crossfire were villagers and farmers. Many became casualties of U.S. counterterrorism operations, drone strikes and gun battles.

China’s Taiwan Flights Stoke Tensions (Foreign Policy) China’s military planes have been busy over the last few days flying sorties into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone in a seemingly escalating pattern. On Friday, 38 planes flew into the area—a new record. On Saturday, 39 planes. And on Monday another record: 56 planes in a 24-hour period. Responding to a U.S. statement that the moves were both “provocative” and “destabilizing,” China’s foreign ministry accused the United States of creating its own tensions through its arms sales to Taiwan and by sending U.S. navy ships through the Taiwan strait. So what is China up to? To understand the scale what is going on the waters near Taiwan, the first thing to understand is that an air defense identification zone, or ADIZ, is not the same as national airspace. An ADIZ is like a buffer zone that extends beyond the 12 nautical mile extension from national borders that are considered sovereign air space under international law. Flying into an ADIZ isn’t provocative in and of itself, but the frequency with which China has been doing it has raised fears that the flights could be a prelude to an invasion of the island Beijing claims as its own territory.      “All that they’re doing is ratcheting up numbers. They’re not, in my view, doing anything that is fundamentally different from what they have been doing in the recent past,” Bonnie Glaser, a cross-strait relations expert at the German Marshall Fund told Foreign Policy. Glaser noted that outside of military training, the flights serve three purposes: they tire out Taiwan’s air force pilots who must constantly scramble to intercept, they demoralize the Taiwanese population while stoking nationalism at home, and they send a message of deterrence to the United States. “All of this diplomatic, military and economic coercion is really aimed at inducing this sense of psychological despair, among the [Taiwanese] people that China is just so powerful that they just give up,” Glaser said. “I think over time that is a goal that they seek to achieve—they would prefer to win without fighting.”

Australia won’t welcome international tourists until 2022 (AP) International tourists won’t be welcomed back to Australia until next year, with the return of skilled migrants and students given higher priority, the prime minister said on Tuesday. Last week Prime Minister Scott Morrison outlined plans to allow vaccinated citizens and permanent residents to fly overseas from November for the first time since an extraordinarily tough travel ban took effect in March last year. But Morrison on Tuesday said that after Australians, the next priority would be skilled migrants and international students entering Australia before tourists. Australian immigration has been at its lowest since World War II because of pandemic restrictions. The pandemic has also had a disastrous effect on Australian universities that rely heavily on fees paid by international students. The education sector fears that students will enroll in other countries unless Australia opens its border to them soon.

War crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Libya, U.N. finds (Washington Post) U.N. investigators say they have found evidence of crimes against humanity and war crimes perpetrated in Libya in recent years, including violence against civilians on the part of foreign mercenaries and human rights violations in prisons. “Our investigations have established that all parties to the conflicts, including third States, foreign fighters and mercenaries, have violated international humanitarian law, in particular the principles of proportionality and distinction, and some have also committed war crimes,” Mohamed Auajjar, chair of the fact-finding mission, said in a statement. The report found that the violence, including attacks on hospitals and schools, has dramatically affected economic, social and cultural rights in Libya. It also documented the recruitment and participation of children in hostilities, as well as the disappearance and extrajudicial killings of prominent women.      The report also said airstrikes have killed dozens of families, civilians have been maimed and killed by anti-personnel mines left by mercenaries in residential areas, and health-related facilities have been destroyed. In Libyan prisons, the mission said, detainees were tortured on a daily basis and deprived of family visits. Militias and the state used arbitrary detention in secret prisons and unbearable detention conditions against “anyone perceived to be a threat to their interests or views,” Tracy Robinson, another mission member, said in a statement. The violence is committed “on such a scale and with such a level of organization” that it may also amount to crimes against humanity, she said.

Facebook Outage (1440/AP) Facebook and its associated platforms, including Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger, suffered a widespread outage yesterday, affecting users worldwide and lasting six hours. The issues also extended to the company’s internal systems, with employees unable to access emails or open office doors with keycards. The outage was a headache for many casual users but far more serious for the millions of people worldwide who rely on the social media sites to run their businesses or communicate with relatives, fellow parents, teachers or neighbors. Around the world, the breakdown at WhatsApp left many at a loss. In Brazil, the messaging service is by far the most widely used app in the country, installed on 99% of smartphones, according to tech pollster Mobile Time. Hundreds of thousands of Haitians in their homeland and abroad fretted over the WhatsApp outage. Many of the country’s more than 11 million people depend it to alert one another about gang violence in particular neighborhoods or to talk to relatives in the U.S. about money transfers and other important matters. Haitian migrants traveling to the U.S. rely on it to find each other or share key information such as safe places to sleep. In rebel-held Syria, where the telecommunication infrastructure has been disrupted by war, residents and emergency workers rely mostly on internet communication. Naser AlMuhawish, a Turkey-based Syrian doctor who monitors coronavirus cases in rebel-held territory in Syria, said WhatsApp is the main communication method used with over 500 workers in the field.

Going Gray (E&E News) A new study from Arizona State University and the city of Phoenix found that painting their streets gray over the black asphalt has had a remarkable cooling effect, with sunrise temperatures dropping an average of 2.4 degrees and on average, overall road surface temperatures dropping 10.5- to 12-degree-Fahrenheit. Phoenix can see its road temperatures hit 180 degrees on a particularly hot day.

[patriotsnet]

How Many Republicans Have Left The Party Since Trump

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-many-republicans-have-left-the-party-since-trump/

How Many Republicans Have Left The Party Since Trump

Republicans Abandoning Gop Under Trump: Justin Amash Joins Growing List Of High

Donald Trump poses as the biggest threat to Republican Party

Representative Justin Amash announced on Thursday that he was “declaring my independence and leaving the Republican Party,” joining a growing list of lawmakers and pundits who have abandoned the GOP in the era of Donald Trump.

In an op-ed published by The Washington Post, Amash wrote that “modern politics is trapped in a partisan death spiral.” He encouraged Americans to join him in rejecting the country’s two-party system in order to “preserve liberty.”

“No matter your circumstance, I’m asking you to join me in rejecting the partisan loyalties and rhetoric that divide and dehumanize us. I’m asking you to believe that we can do better than this two-party system and to work toward it. If we continue to take America for granted, we will lose it,” he concluded.

Amash was the first Republican in Congress to call for impeachment proceedings against President Trump. He argued that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report showed Trump engaged in impeachable offenses while in office and that Attorney General William Barr knowingly misled the public about the key findings of the investigation.

In June, Amash stepped down from the House Freedom Caucus, a group of hardline Republicans who have become some of Trump’s biggest supporters. Amash was a founding member of the caucus.

President Trump reacted to Amash’s departure on Twitter, calling the Michigan lawmaker “one of the dumbest & most disloyal men in Congress.”

George Conway

Andy McKean

Independent Or Other Party To Republican

1941 Henrik Shipstead, while U.S. Senator from Minnesota, switched from the Farmer-Labor Party to the Republican Party.

2011 Joel Robideaux, while a Louisiana State Representative. He was initially elected as an independent.

2016 Blake Filippi, Rhode Island State Representative, switched from Independent to Republican; he had also been Republican previously until 2012.

Louisiana Voters Have Left The Republican Party Since Us Capitol Insurrection

BATON ROUGE, La. Party registration data from the secretary of states office reveals that roughly 7,800 Louisiana voters have left the Republican Party since the attack on the Capitol on January 6.

Dips in registrants for the party have been seen around the country. A report from The New York Times found more than 100,000 Republicans left the party in a number of states in the weeks after the U.S. Capitol riots, and Louisianas voter registration numbers mirror that trend.

Tanner Magee, the second-ranking Republican in the Louisiana House as its speaker pro tempore, cited the challenges national politics creates for public officials at home.

;Im not sure theres anything that I can do on a state level other than try to be the best legislator I can and do the best for the state of Louisiana, and hopefully, if you have some people out there that are more state-focused in their thoughts, that might mean something to them, said Magee.

The Republican Party lost 5,503 registrants in January, 1,709 in February and 598 in March. The three months of losses came after more than 12 months of steady increases in Republican registrations.

Democrats lost over 8,000 voter registrations in Louisiana between January and April. But unlike the Republican Party, Democrats saw losses in most months in 2020 and 2021.

Many of the rioters have said they swarmed the Capitol to try to prevent Congress from certifying an election that former President Donald Trump had disputed.

Don’t Miss: When Did Republicans And Democrats Switch Platforms

Democratic To Republican To Democratic

1854 – Francis Preston Blair, a supporter of presidents Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln who became disillusioned with radical Reconstruction policies.

1854 – Francis Preston Blair Jr., Democratic nominee for Vice President of the United States in 1868. His family had been unwavering supporters of Republican Abraham Lincoln, but he opposed the post-war Reconstruction policy. He had earlier been a friend of Democrat Thomas Hart Benton, and like his father he had also been a member of the Free Soil Party.

1854 – Montgomery Blair, Postmaster General for President Lincoln. His family left the Democratic Party to join the Republican Party, but he re-joined the Democratic Party after the war.

1965 Arlen Specter, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania . He was a Republican from 1965 to 2009 and a Democrat from 1951 to 1965 and 2009 to 2012.

2003 Johnny Ford, Alabama State Representative.

2008 Jim Bradford, South Dakota State Representative.

2009 Parker Griffith, former U.S. Representative from Alabama . Joined the Republican Party in 2009, but returned to the Democratic Party in 2014.

2012 Artur Davis, former U.S. Representative from Alabama . Joined the Republican Party in 2012, but returned to the Democratic Party in 2015.

2015 Joe Baca, former U.S. Representative from California . Joined the Republican Party in 2015, but returned to the Democratic Party in 2018.

Democratic To Other Party

1878 Hendrick Bradley Wright, U.S Representative from Pennsylvania , ran for reelection on the Greenback Party

1884 Absolom M. West, member of the Mississippi State Senate. He joined the Greenback Party and was their Vice Presidential candidate in 1884.

1996 Daniel Hamburg, former U.S. Representative to Green Party

1999 Audie Bock, California State Assemblywoman to Green Party

2000 Matt Gonzalez, Supervisor of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to Green Party.

2002 Tim Penny, former U.S Representative from Minnesota to Independence Party of Minnesota

2005 Jim Lendall, Arkansas State Representative joined the Green Party.

2006 Bill Paparian, Mayor of Pasadena to Green Party.

2007 Cynthia McKinney, former U.S. Representative from Georgia to Green Party

2018 Shane Robinson, Maryland House Representative to .

You May Like: Congress Denies Funding For Benghazi

Gop Registration Drop After Capitol Attack Is Part Of Larger Trend

WASHINGTON In the weeks since the January riot at the Capitol, there has been a raft of stories about voters across the country leaving the Republican Party. Some of the numbers are eye-catching and suggest that the GOP may be shrinking before our eyes, but a closer look at the numbers over time shows that a larger change has been working its way through the party for some time.

In fact, when one takes into account shifts in the composition of the Democratic Party, the real story seems to be more about a deeper remaking of the nations two major political parties.

To be sure, the headlines from the last few weeks have been striking, with multiple states reporting large declines in Republican voter registrations.

In Pennsylvania, more than 12,000 Republicans dropped the “R” from their registrations in January. In North Carolina, the figure was close to 8,000. In Arizona the figure was about 9,200 through late-January. And in one county in California, San Diego, more than 4,700 Republicans left the party last month.

Those are sizable changes and they are much larger than the moves away from the Democrats in those places, but they come with some caveats. There are always some losses and gains in registrations for the Democrats and Republicans. Partisan identity can be fluid for a large chunk of the voters, and remember: just because a voter is registered with one party doesnt mean he or she always votes for its candidates.

Analysis: Exodus Of Republican Voters Tired Of Trump Could Push Party Further Right

By Jason Lange, Andy Sullivan

6 Min Read

WASHINGTON – A surge of Republicans quitting the party to renounce Donald Trump after the deadly Capitol riot could hurt moderates in next years primaries, adding a capstone to Trumps legacy as president: A potentially lasting rightward push on the party.

More than 68,000 Republicans have left the party in recent weeks in Florida, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, crucial states for Democrats hopes of keeping control of Congress in the mid-term elections in 2022, state voter data shows.

Thats about three times the roughly 23,000 Democrats who left their party in the same states over the same time period.

Compared to the Republicans who stayed put, those who fled were more concentrated in the left-leaning counties around big cities, which political analysts said suggested moderate Republicans could be leading the defections.

If the exodus is sustained, it will be to the advantage of candidates in the Republican Partys nomination contests who espouse views that play well with its Trump-supporting base but not with a broader electorate.

That could make it harder for Republican candidates to beat Democrats in November, said Morris Fiorina, a political scientist at Stanford University.

If these voters are leaving the party permanently, its really bad news for Republicans, Fiorina said.

U.S. elections are administered by state governments rather than by Washington.

Also Check: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

The Three Types Of Republicans Donald Trump Created

Never Trumpers, the unlikeliest group of RINOs and Trump loyalists are fighting for the future of the party.

Donald J. Trump departed the White House on Wednesday and left a Republican Party turned upside down.

Many Republicans tried not to let Mr. Trump change things, vowing never to vote for him or work in his administration and to publicly shame those who did. Others bit their tongues and looked past his erratic behavior and racial grievances, justifying their indifference by pointing to the conservative policies he championed.

And there were others comprising the most vocal segment of elected Republicans and a considerable portion of the voters who helped Mr. Trump win 10 million more votes than he did in 2016 who are still with him, defying every last-straw prediction about the end of the iron grip Trump has on the G.O.P.

Here is a taxonomy of the types of Republicans Mr. Trump leaves in his wake.

Insurrection As A Turning Point

How much sway does Trump still have over the Republican party? | The Bottom Line

Roughly 4,000 of those who left the Republican Party did so after the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol in Washington An additional 69 Republicans left the party briefly, only to return during the same time period; they are not counted among the 6,670.

Since then, Republican leaders at the national level have chosen not to rebuke U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has suggested that the shootings at Sandy Hook and Parkland, Florida, were staged. Last month, only 10 out of 211 House Republicans voted to impeach Trump for incitement of insurrection.

These new Connecticut laws take effect on Oct. 1, from growing your own marijuana to new rules for employers »

Wharton, a former New Haven GOP chairman, said we probably wont know how many Connecticut Republicans make a permanent jump until things play out on the national level over the next few months.

We need to see national party first in terms of whos going to be taking charge and leading the effort to either a rebuild the party or continue with the message of the former president, he said. Im certain theres been multiple people in the U.S. Senate who will take note of this, and a couple of people in the U.S. House are developing a plan and an idea about rebuilding the Party.

The current numbers represent a quantum leap in terms of voters fleeing the GOP compared to the same period of time after the 2016 election, when Trump beat Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

You May Like: Who Is Right Republicans Or Democrats

Polling Data Shows Republican Party Affiliation Is Down As Independents Leaning Toward The Democratic Party Surge

Democrats have a nine-percentage-point affiliation advantage over Republicans at the moment.

Resize icon

The GOP is losing its grip, according to the latest Gallup poll.;

The number of Americans identifying as Republicans or as independents who lean toward the GOP dropped to 40% in the first quarter of 2021, compared with the number of Democrats or independents leaning toward the Democratic party hitting 49%. And that nine-percentage-point lead is the greatest Democratic advantage that Gallup has measured since the fourth quarter of 2012, when former President Barack Obama was re-elected.;

Gallup routinely measures U.S. adults party identification and the political leanings of independents. The latest poll surveyed a random sample of 3,960 U.S. adults by phone between January and March of 2021. And while Democratic Party affiliation actually dropped by one point from the fourth quarter of 2020, to 30% where it has hovered for most of the past eight years the number of Americans identifying as independent rose to 44% from 38% last quarter. And this growing number of independents came at the expense of the Republican party, as 19% of independents said they lean Democrat, compared with 15% leaning Republican. Most of the remaining 11% of independents didnt swing either way.;

And several events have happened during those three months that could position the Democratic Party more favorably in voters eyes, the Gallup report noted.;

The Message Hyperpolarization Doesn’t Work

Theres a message in the voter numbers. Republicans still lead the state, with nearly 35% of the vote. But independents aren’t far behind with more than 32% … and growing.

What it shows is the hyperpolarization seen in politics between the two major parties has been pushing folks to the independent column, pollster Mike Noble, of OH Predictive Insights, told me.;The only issue is, more are leaving the Republican Party than the Democratic Party and thats because they have a brand issue.

Noble chalks the declining Republican ranks up to their Looney Tunes audit.

We know a majority of independent or moderate voters dont believe the election was stolen, he said. Yet there is this audit going on that is not very transparent or professionally run.;The GOP as a brand, I believe it is impacting them and the registration numbers reflect that.

I hear from those voters all the time, principled Republicans who wonder when the party of conservative values became the cult of Trump.

Count Gary, of Scottsdale, among the 23,559 Republicans who have fled the party during the first three months of the;year. He’s been a Republican since 1972.;In February, he re-registered as an independent. He emailed me in a few weeks ago, right after Fann hired a member of the Stop the Steal movement;to conduct her independent audit of Maricopa Countys election.

Reach Roberts at . Follow her on Twitter at .

Recommended Reading: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

Republican To Other Party

1891 James Weaver, Republican turned Greenbacker, later was a founder of the Populist Party and ran for president on that party’s ticket in 1892.

1893 William M. Stewart, U.S. Senator from Nevada switched to the Silver Party

1895 John P. Jones, U.S. Senator from Nevada switched to Silver Party

1896 Wharton Barker switched to the Populist Party.

1934 Robert M. La Follette Jr., U.S. Senator from Wisconsin switched to the Progressive Party.

1937 Vito Marcantonio, U.S. Representative from New York switched to the Labor Party

2017 Brandon Phinney, New Hampshire State Representative switched to the Libertarian Party

2018 Sam McCann, Illinois State Senator switched to the Conservative Party.

2019-20 Justin Amash, US Congressman from Michigan, became Independent in July 2019, then affiliated with the Libertarian Party in April 2020

What Is Happening To The Republicans

In becoming the party of Trump, the G.O.P. confronts the kind of existential crisis that has destroyed American parties in;the past.

Save this story for later.

Save this story for later.

Content

But, for all the anxiety among Republican leaders, Goldwater prevailed, securing the nomination at the Partys convention, in San Francisco. In his speech to the delegates, he made no pretense of his ideological intent. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, he said. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. Goldwaters crusade failed in November of 1964, when the incumbent, Lyndon Johnson, who had become President a year earlier, after Kennedys assassination, won in a landslide: four hundred and eighty-six to fifty-two votes in the Electoral College. Nevertheless, Goldwaters ascent was a harbinger of the future shape of the Republican Party. He represented an emerging nexus between white conservatives in the West and in the South, where five states voted for him over Johnson.

Shopping

agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.

Also Check: Are Republicans Or Democrats More Educated

Here Are 4 Prominent Right

Nicolle Wallace, former White House communications director under President George W. Bush and now one of the right-wing voices at the Democratic-leaning MSNBC, has not only been vehemently critical of President Donald Trumpshe has also voiced her displeasure with the Republican Party establishment for obediently rallying around the president, including House Speaker Paul Ryan . And there are other right-wingers as well who have been consistently critical of Trump, from journalist SE Cupp to GOP strategist Rick Wilson to Weekly Standard Publisher Bill Kristol. Although Cupp, Wilson and Kristol have all made it clear how much they dislike Trumps presidency, none of them have defected to the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Partyseemingly, they would rather fight to save the GOP from Trumpism than abandon it. But other long-time conservatives have expressed their disdain for Trump by leaving the Republican Party.;

Here are four prominent right-wing voices who have officially left the GOP in response to Trumps toxic effect on it.

1. George F. Will;

2. Max Boot;

3. Steve Schmidt

4. Joe Scarborough

[statetalks]

Which Republicans Voted To Impeach Trump Today

Rep Tim Ryan: Probe Underway On Whether Members Gave Capitol Tours To Rioters

7. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, Washington’s 3rd: Herrera Beutler was swept in with the Tea Party wave in 2010, but her district is a moderate one. Trump won it 51% to 47%. Herrera Beutler gained prominence several years ago for giving birth to a child three months early, born without kidneys and a rare syndrome. Her daughter, Abigail, became the first to survive the often-fatal condition. The now-mother of three and congresswoman from southwest Washington state declared on the House floor her vote in favor of impeachment: “I’m not choosing sides, I’m choosing truth.”

8. Rep. Peter Meijer, Michigan’s 3rd: Meijer is a freshman, who won his seat with 53% of the vote. He represents a district that was previously held by Justin Amash, the former Republican-turned-independent who voted in favor of Trump’s impeachment in 2019. Meijer, a Columbia University grad who served in Afghanistan, is a social conservative in favor of restrictions on abortion rights and against restrictions on gun rights and religious freedoms. But he Trump showed no “courage” and “betrayed millions with claims of a ‘stolen election.’ ” He added, “The one man who could have restored order, prevented the deaths of five Americans including a Capitol police officer, and avoided the desecration of our Capitol, shrank from leadership when our country needed it most.”

Here Are The 10 Republican Representatives That Voted To Impeach Trump

Unbelievable, we now have 10 more RINOS.

The House just voted 232-197 to impeach President Trump, the vote to impeach Trump isnt too surprising being Democrat lawmakers are followers of Pelosi and not true leaders.

What is shocking though is that 10 Republicans joined the Democrats to impeach Trump.

IMPEACHMENT LATEST

President Trump impeached for inciting deadly riot at U.S. Capitol

First president to be impeached twice

232-197 vote, with 10 House Republicans joining Democrats

McConnell: No Senate trial before Jan. 19

Here is the Full list of those 10 Republicans:

Jamie Herrera Beutler

House impeaches Donald Trump 232-197, with all Democrats and 10 Republicans supporting impeachment:

The 10 Republicans:

PRAYER CHAIN FOR TRUMP: Please add your name and a prayer to support our President!

Fox News had more on the story:

Ten House Republicans joined Democrats to impeach President Trump on charges of incitement of an insurrection, making him the first president in U.S. history to be impeached twice.

With 10 Republican votes, Trumps second impeachment was the most bipartisan one in history. By comparison, five Democrats voted to impeach Bill Clinton in 1998.

10 RINOs just exposed themselves in this vote for impeachment. Say goodbye to the Republican Party

Who Are The 10

Here they are in order of the most pro-Trump districts:

1. Rep. Liz Cheney, Wyoming’s at-large district: Trump won Wyoming 70% to 27%, and she’s the third-ranking leader in the House. So for her not just to vote in favor of impeachment but also issue a stinging rebuke is quite the step. Cheney was unequivocal in her statement, saying Trump “summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.” She called what Trump did the “greatest betrayal” of a U.S. president ever.

2. Rep. Tom Rice, South Carolina’s 7th Congressional District: This is one no one saw coming. The congressman, who has served since 2013, comes from a pretty pro-Trump district , and there was no indication he would do so beforehand. Even during his vote, Twitter was alight with speculation that Rice had cast the wrong vote. Turns out, he cast it exactly as he wanted to. Later Wednesday, Rice : “I have backed this President through thick and thin for four years. I campaigned for him and voted for him twice. But, this utter failure is inexcusable.”

I have backed this President through thick and thin for four years. I campaigned for him and voted for him twice. But, this utter failure is inexcusable.

Congressman Tom Rice January 13, 2021

Adam Kinzinger January 14, 2021

Rep Adam Kinzinger Illinois

Trump used his office to attack the legislative branch of government, Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois 16th Congressional District said in a statement Tuesday, causing violence and destruction to our nations symbol of democracy.

There is no doubt in my mind that the President of the United States broke his oath of office and incited this insurrection, Kinzinger wrote. If these actions are not worthy of impeachment, then what is an impeachable offense?

FILE PHOTO: Members of the National Guard gather at the U.S. Capitol as the House of Representatives prepares to begin the voting process on a resolution demanding U.S. Vice President Pence and the cabinet remove President Trump from office, in Washington, U.S., January 12, 2021. REUTERS/Erin Scott TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY/File Photo

The 7 Republican Senators Who Voted To Convict Former President Donald Trump Explain Their Rationale

Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial came to an end Saturday with 57 senators voting to , falling short of the two-thirds margin required to find him guilty of the charge of incitement of insurrection in connection with the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol that resulted in five deaths. Seven GOP senators broke with their party voting along with all 48 Democrats and both independents in the body.

After the 57-43 vote, the Republicans who defied Trump explained their decision.

Richard Burr, North Carolina

The facts are clear, Burr said in a after the vote. The President promoted unfounded conspiracy theories to cast doubt on the integrity of a free and fair election because he did not like the results. As Congress met to certify the election results, the President directed his supporters to go to the Capitol to disrupt the lawful proceedings required by the Constitution. When the crowd became violent, the President used his office to first inflame the situation instead of immediately calling for an end to the assault.

Burr originally voted that the trial was unconstitutional, but said in his statement that the Senate is an institution based on precedent, and given that the majority of the Senate voted to proceed with this trial, the question of constitutionality is now established precedent.”

He has already announced he will not be running for reelection in 2022.

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana

Susan Collins, Maine

Lisa Murkowski, Alaska

Mitt Romney, Utah

____

Washington Rep Dan Newhouse

Newhouse was first elected during a Republican wave in 2014. He beat a Democratic challenger by 33 points in November, solidly overperforming Trumps 18-point win in Washingtons agricultural 4th District. He serves on the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee with Herrera Beutler.

A vote against this impeachment is a vote to validate the unacceptable violence we witnessed in our nations capital, he said in a statement. It is also a vote to condone the presidents inaction.

Newhouses views have not always aligned with Trumps on key issues, but he has modified positions in response to the Trump administrations actions. He was a strong supporter of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program but said after the Trump administration ended the program that it was never the long-term answer. He is concerned about the national debt but voted for the 2017 GOP tax overhaul that contributed to its increase. He has had a 90 percent presidential unity score during the Trump administration. But on Wednesday, he said Trump failed when the country needed a leader. 

Trumps Ready To Fight

Fox News reports that the only Republican who voted to impeach Trump that isnt facing a primary challenger is Rep. John Katko .

They write that Katko appeared to get back into good graces with GOP leadership quickly after his impeachment vote and noted he was one of the faces of a border trip with House Republicans earlier this year. 

He did, however, join Cheney, Kinzinger, and the other Republicans who voted to impeach Trump, in also voting to establish a 9/11-style commission to investigate the Capitol protests.

Supporters of a Jan. 6 commission are settling on a backup plan to fully probe the Capitol attack: a select House committee

But theyre worried that even in a best-case scenario, itll become a total circus. New from me:

Sam Brodey June 7, 2021

In April, CNBC  that Trumps leadership PAC Save America has $85 million on hand heading into the midterms, something one person with knowledge of the matter describes as a gargantuan sum of cash.

Another report Trump is teaming up with Newt Gingrich on a new MAGA doctrine for the Republican Party, using the famed Contract with America as a framework.

With an eye toward winning back the House and Senate in the 2022 midterm elections, Donald Trump has begun crafting a policy agenda outlining a MAGA doctrine.

And hes teaming up with Newt Gingrich to do it.

POLITICO May 26, 2021

In 2022, the GOP needs five House seats and one Senate seat in 2022 to regain control of each respective chamber.

    Rep Liz Cheney Wyoming

READ MORE: How was a violent mob able to breach the U.S. Capitol? Activists see double standard in police response

The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack, Cheney wrote. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not.

Cheney is the highest-ranking House member to vote for Trumps impeachment.

Republicans Voted To Impeach Trump The Backlash Has Been Swift

Reid J. Epstein

Its been less than two weeks since Reps. Peter Meijer, Tom Rice and Liz Cheney broke with nearly all of their Republican colleagues in the House and voted to impeach President Donald Trump, but in their home states, the backlash is already growing.

In Michigan, a challenger to Meijer received a boost when Steve Bannon promoted him on his podcast.

In South Carolina, a local Republican is getting so many calls urging him to run against Rice that he cant keep his phone charged.

And in Wyoming, a state senator called Cheney, the No. 3 Republican in the House, out of touch with her home state as he announced his primary campaign against her.

The 10 House Republicans who voted for impeachment are already facing a fleet of primary challengers, censures and other rebukes from their hometown Republican Party organizations, an indication that the battle over Trump will play a defining role in shaping the direction of the party during the next two years.

Trump might be gone, but Trumpism is virtually guaranteed to be a part of the 2022 elections, said Ken Spain, a former senior official at the National Republican Congressional Committee. The tectonic plates have shifted within the GOP, and now members are trying to figure out how to straddle the fault lines.

I dont know what he was thinking. Im sure hes got his reasons for why he voted the way he voted, Richardson added. If theres ever been a Trump country, we live in Trump country.

Voted To Impeach Two Presidents

Mr. Upton is quick to pull out his cell phone and show pictures of his grandson. But scrolling a little bit farther back, he finds photos of a crowd approaching the Capitol steps on Jan. 6 an overhead view from the balcony of his office.

He was in his office when he saw the news on the TV, and then out his window. Mr. Upton heard the flash grenades and locked the doors of his office. He turned off the lights so it would look like the room was empty.

It was real, says Mr. Upton. And it was pretty scary.

But it was Mr. Trumps comments afterward, when he said that his speech before the riot was totally appropriate Mr. Upton does air quotes here that made the congressman vote in favor of impeachment.

People know that Im not afraid to oppose or support any president, says Mr. Upton. Ive served with what eight presidents now? The congressman looks at Ms. Hillebrands and begins to count on his fingers: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden. He corrects himself: seven presidents.

My successor at OMB he goes, Well Fred, youre going to be with The Gipper on this, right? and I said, Well, no, recalls Mr. Upton, chuckling. Its who Ive always been. I havent changed.

And with his vote to impeach President Bill Clinton in 1998 and then Mr. Trump in 2021, Mr. Upton holds another superlative: the only U.S. Representative in the countrys history to have voted to impeach two presidents.

Then he signed it, as he does with all his mail: Fred.

Lisa Murkowski Of Alaska

Ms. Murkowski, 63, a senator since 2002, is up for re-election in 2022. She has appeal for both Democrats and independents and won a write-in campaign in 2010 after losing the Republican primary. She has harshly criticized Mr. Trumps actions before and during the Capitol rampage, calling his conduct unlawful.

Its not about me and my life and my job, Ms. Murkowski told a Politico reporter who asked about the political risk she took with her vote. This is really about what we stand for. If I cant say what I believe that our president should stand for, then why should I ask Alaskans to stand with me?

One Voted Last Week Against Certifying Electoral College Results

Bridget BowmanStephanie AkinKate Ackley

Ten Republicans voted Wednesday to impeach President Donald Trump, exactly one week after a violent attack on the Capitol by the presidents supporters. 

The Democrat-led House voted 232-197 to approve one article of impeachment against Trump, charging the president with incitement of insurrection. 

The GOP lawmakers who voted to impeach the president from their own party included Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, the third-highest-ranking Republican in the House. Cheneys vote has prompted House Republicans to call on her to step down as conference chairwoman.

While many in the group have a history of breaking with their party, the yes votes included several with a strong record of supporting Trump and one, South Carolina Rep. Tom Rice, who voted last week against certifying President-elect Joe Bidens Electoral College victory in two states. 

Most Republicans in the House opposed impeachment, with many arguing the hurried process would further divide the country. But for these 10 Republicans who supported impeachment, the fact that Trump incited the riot at the Capitol was indisputable. 

Four Republicans did not vote on impeachment, including Texas Rep. Kay Granger, who recently tested positive for COVID-19. The others were Reps. Andy Harris of Maryland, Greg Murphy of North Carolina and Daniel Webster of Florida.

Here are the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump: 

Who Are The 7 Republican Senators That Voted To Convict Trump In Second Impeachment Trial

WASHINGTON Seven Republicans voted Saturday to convict former President Donald Trump in his Senate impeachment trial, easily the largest number of lawmakers to ever vote to find a president of their own party guilty at impeachment proceedings.

While lawmakers voted 57-43 to find Trump guilty, the evenly divided Senate fell well short of the two-thirds majority required to convict an impeached president, acquitting Trump of inciting an insurrection for riling up a crowd of his supporters before they attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

Senate acquits former President Donald Trump in second impeachment trial

Voting to find Trump guilty were GOP Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Susan Collins

The Maine centrist was the only Republican senator re-elected in 2020 in a state also won by Biden. She said Trump had incited the Jan. 6 riot.

President Trump subordinating the interests of the country to his own selfish interests bears significant responsibility for the invasion of the Capitol, Collins said on the Senate floor shortly after Former President Donald Trumps acquittal.

LISA MURKOWSKI

BILL CASSIDY

Sen. Tuberville stands by account of Fmr. President Trump phone call

The Trump legal team responded to Cassidys question by saying, Directly no, but I dispute the premise of your facts.

RICHARD BURR

BEN SASSE

Trump Wants 10 Gop Lawmakers Gone This One May Prove Tricky Yahoo News

Even Fred Uptons former opponents like Fred Upton.

For more than three decades, Congressman Upton has represented Michigans 6th District, the southwest corner of the state, stretching from Lake Michigan to Kalamazoo to the Indiana border. And every two years, Mr. Upton has sailed through reelection with a coalition of supporters across the political spectrum.

Dale Shugars, a Kalamazoo County Commissioner who lost a primary challenge to Mr. Upton in 2002, calls him a person that has integrity. He works hard and represents most of the views of the area, Mr. Shugars says, adding that he votes, for the most part, very well for Southwest Michigan.

After mobs of angry Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 10 Republicans joined House Democrats to impeach President Donald Trump for his role in inciting the violence. Mr. Upton was one. Rep. Peter Meijer, from Michigans neighboring 3rd district, was another.

Since then, many of those Republicans have been censured by their state parties or county groups, amid calls for their resignation. Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney lost her leadership position in the House. Nine of the 10 already have Trump-backed primary opponents, who are framing the 2022 midterm election as a referendum on support for Mr. Trump.

But in Mr. Uptons district in southwest Michigan, its not that simple. The region has long been a stronghold of Dutch Americans, who settled in the area beginning in the mid-1800s, and the Dutch Reformed Church.

Report: 9 Of The 10 Republicans Who Voted To Impeach Trump Facing Primary Challengers

Nine out of the 10 Republican lawmakers who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump are facing primary challenges for their congressional seats.

Fox News reports that a majority of those who joined Democrats and the media circus during the second impeachment trial are facing a barrage of pro-Trump primary challengers.

Some of them, like Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger , according to Fox, may have a very hard time holding on to their seats.

The former President has vowed to back challengers to any Republicans who voted in favor of impeachment as they gear up for a fight in 2022.

Republicans who voted for impeachment face barrage of pro-Trump primary challengers

Trump Calls For ‘no Violence’ As Congress Moves To Impeach Him For Role In Riot

This time, there will be more. Some Republican senators have called on Trump to resign, and even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he is undecided at this point.

Trump’s impeachment won’t lead to his removal even if he is convicted because of the timeline. The Senate is adjourned until Tuesday. The next day, Biden will be sworn in as the 46th president. But there’s another penalty the Constitution allows for as a result of a Senate conviction that could be appealing to some Republican senators banning Trump from holding “office” again.

While there is some debate as to the definition of “office” in the Constitution and whether that would apply to running for president or even Congress, that kind of public rebuke would send a strong message that Republicans are ready to move on from Trumpism.

Trump’s Acquittal Is Virtually Guaranteed

The former president sparked widespread outrage in the immediate aftermath of the deadly Capitol insurrection. He was criticized for spending months spreading baseless claims of election malfeasance and headlining a rally before the insurrection in which he called on his supporters to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell.”

But in the weeks since the riot, the majority of Republican lawmakers have rallied to Trump��s defense, saying that his Senate impeachment trial runs afoul of the Constitution.

Last month, 45 Senate Republicans voted to declare the trial unconstitutional, making it virtually impossible that enough of them would break ranks to reach the two-thirds majority required in the upper chamber to convict Trump and allow for a subsequent vote to bar him from ever holding public office again.

Wyoming Rep Liz Cheney

Cheney has had a changeable relationship with Trump throughout her rapid ascension through the ranks of House leadership. But in recent months she has been among his chief critics within the party, and she led the GOP call to impeach him after the riots. In a statement Tuesday night, she said Trump summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.

First elected to Wyomings sole House seat in 2016, Cheney became the Republican conference chairwoman three years later, calling for a fundamental overhaul of the partys messaging operation. For the former Fox News pundit and daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, that meant amped-up attacks on Democrats as socialists whose ideas she sees as an assault to American freedoms, rhetoric that has been adopted by Trumps most ardent supporters.

During Trumps four years in office, Cheney has voted with the president 93 percent of the time, according to CQ Vote Watch, above the GOP average score of 92 percent. But she has broadsided him on core policy issues in recent months, unmoved by her states 70 percent vote for Trump in November. 

The 10 House Republicans Who Voted To Impeach President Trump

Yahoo! News

The House of Representatives voted Wednesday afternoon to impeach President Trump for his role in last weeks assault on the Capitol as Congress started to formally count the electoral votes showing that President-elect Joe Biden was victorious in last Novembers election.

The article of impeachment charged that Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government by promoting false election fraud claims, seeking to illegally manufacture a different election outcome and inviting his supporters to attend the Jan. 6 rally in Washington that turned violent.

He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government, read the impeachment article. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Trump became the first president to ever be impeached twice, following his December 2019 impeachment for soliciting foreign election interference before he was acquitted in the Senate. Those articles had no support among House Republicans, who unanimously opposed them, but this time 10 members of Trumps party voted to impeach.

Rep Jaime Herrera Beutler

While Beutler admitted that she did not vote for Trump in 2016, she did back the president for a second term in 2020.

On Tuesday, the congresswoman she would vote to impeach, saying: The Presidents offenses, in my reading of the Constitution, were impeachable based on the indisputable evidence we already have.

I understand the argument that the best course is not to further inflame the country or alienate Republican voters, she added. But I am a Republican voter I see that my own party will be best served when those among us choose truth.

Fate Of 10 Gop Impeachers Since Capitol Riot Shows ‘going Against Trump Is The Death Knell’

Steve Friess Donald TrumpLiz CheneyAdam KinzingerCapitol Riots

The 10 Republican members of who voted to impeach President Donald Trump for his role in instigating the mob that marauded through the Capitol on January 6 knew the riot would be a historic turning point for the country. What they didn’t realize: The events of that day might also mark the beginning of the end of their own political careers, and that their actions would give Trump and politicians loyal to him a rallying cry to help them retain control of the Republican Party.

Six months after the riot, the impeachers are the GOP’s most endangered incumbents. Nine of the 10 already face credible primary challengers ahead of next year’s midterm elections, and all have been the targets of relentless attacks from Trump and his supporters, as well as on social media from once-supportive constituents livid about their impeachment vote. Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney, stripped of her leadership role in the House for her persistent criticism of the former president, has absorbed the most venom. But Trump seems bent on exacting revenge on the entire group, calling out the names of each of the GOP representatives who voted to impeach him one by one in a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February, then telling the audience: “Get rid of them all.”

The 20 Biggest MAGA Influencers Since Donald Trump’s Capitol Riot Bans

Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s ‘Mr. Corman’ Explores the Nuances of Adulthood

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/which-republicans-voted-to-impeach-trump-today/

[douxlen]

For Tim Walz, the IVF Political Battles Are Personal

New Post has been published on https://douxle.com/2024/08/10/for-tim-walz-the-ivf-political-battles-are-personal/

For Tim Walz, the IVF Political Battles Are Personal

For Tim Walz, Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, the fight over in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures is not only about politics—it’s about his own family.

The Minnesota governor is open about how he and his wife, Gwen Walz, conceived their children Hope, 23, and Gus, 17, through a challenging IVF journey. Now he’s sharing his personal experience with voters on the biggest political stage in the country while the future of the procedure is in jeopardy.

The Harris-Walz campaign has made it clear that protecting abortion rights, IVF, and fertility treatment are all policy priorities if they win the White House in November. The issues have taken on new urgency after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 and the Alabama supreme court ruled in February that frozen embryos have the legal rights of children.

After bipartisan pushback, Alabama lawmakers passed laws protecting IVF providers so the services could resume in the state. But with IVF’s future uncertain in states that have fetal personhood laws, Democrats and reproductive rights advocates believe Walz’s ability to speak from personal experience will be a powerful asset to the ticket.

Read More: IVF Changed America. But Its Future Is Under Threat

“Voters respond when politicians are able to demonstrate not just that they understand how much it matters that we restore these rights and these freedoms, but they also understand what voters are going through, and it speaks to their own personal values,” says Jessica Mackler, president of EMILYs List, an influential political organization that aims to elect pro-choice women. “And so if voters are hearing these stories, they are looking at somebody and saying, ‘This is somebody I can trust to lead on this issue.’”

Walz talked about IVF in his first appearance with Harris since she chose him as her running mate, at a rally in Philadelphia on Tuesday. He said IVF is “personal” to him and chronicled the many emotions he felt when going through the fertility treatments. “I remember praying every night for a call for good news, the pit in my stomach when the phone rang, and the agony when we heard that the treatments had not worked,” Walz told the crowd. “So, it wasn’t by chance that when we welcomed our daughter into the world, we named her Hope.”

Walz then tied his personal experience back to the campaign’s commitments to reproductive rights as a whole, saying that when he and Harris talk about freedom, they “mean the freedom to make your own health care decisions.”

Walz’s remarks are already resonating with voters. Brittany Stuart, a Virginia resident whose 5-year-old was conceived through IVF in Alabama, says she sees in Walz not just a politician, but someone who understands “how hard it is to make a child.” Stuart says she did three years of fertility treatment and still has a frozen embryo in Alabama. 

“Infertility is hard enough on families, so to have it further demonized is just like, why are we doing this?” Stuart says. “So to hear Walz talk about his daughter openly… it speaks volumes.” Stuart says that her job in the news has prevented her from publicly supporting or donating to a candidate previously, but she plans to donate to the Harris-Walz ticket.

Read More: Where Tim Walz Stands on the Issues

Walz’s experience with IVF is also clearly top of mind for the Harris campaign; his biography on the campaign website says that his personal connection “further cement[s] his commitment to ensuring all Americans have access to this care.”

While Walz is being introduced to a wider swath of Americans this week, this isn’t the first time he has publicly discussed his family’s IVF journey. 

After the Alabama supreme court ruling in February, Walz took to Facebook to express his disappointment, pointing again to his children as examples to IVF’s success. “Don’t let these guys get away with this by telling you they support IVF when their handpicked judges oppose it,” Walz said in the post. “Actions speak louder than words, and their actions are clear. They’re bringing anti-science government into your exam room, bedroom, and classroom.”

Former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee in 2024, nominated a raft of conservative judges to the judiciary during his first term, including three of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices who decided to overturn the constitutional right to abortion. This year, Trump criticized the Alabama ruling and expressed support for IVF. Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, previously voted against the Right to IVF Act, which would have expanded nationwide access to fertility treatment, though he supported a separate Republican-led bill that would have stripped Medicaid funding from states that prohibit IVF. Vance recently has come under fire for his resurfaced comments about the Democratic Party as a party of “childless cat ladies.” 

According to a Pew Research Center survey done in April, seven-in-ten adults believe that IVF access is “a good thing,” while only 8% say that it’s a “bad thing.”

With that political backdrop, there’s even more pressure on Walz—he’s in “the hot seat” now that he’s chosen to be a champion for IVF, says Barbara Collura, president of RESOLVE: The National Fertility Association. “We love public awareness about this, but I can tell you that it’s not enough to say you support IVF,” Collura says. “Just talking about it doesn’t actually get people insurance coverage.”

Collura is no stranger to Walz’s story. RESOLVE is a non profit patient advocacy organization, which provides support groups, public awareness campaigns, and public policy around insurance coverage for IVF. They also have an annual “Advocacy Day” in which members of their community come together to speak to members of Congress—an event which Walz spoke at back in 2017. “Anytime somebody is brave enough to get up and talk about their infertility story, it’s going to make a big difference on those of us who’ve gone through this,” Collura says.

Marilyn Gomez, who was seeking fertility treatment in North Carolina, hopes that Walz’s openness will bring reproductive rights to the forefront not just nationally, but in the 13 gubernatorial races and the many state elections in 2024. She says it’s hard to feel excited, but she’s “cautiously optimistic.”

“There are a lot of people that don’t know that IVF is on the line,” Gomez says. “Last night when I watched [the rally] live, it was very moving, but also I just couldn’t believe that in 2024 we’re still talking about it.”

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

micah (Micah Cohen, politics editor): Hey, everybody! It’s Slack chat time!

We’re in the middle of another media cycle involving questions about the positioning of congressional Republicans vis-a-vis Trump. Basically, after his press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, people are asking why the GOP doesn’t do more to restrain Trump. So … here’s the question for today:

If you’re an elected Republican serving in Congress, is the Trump presidency worth it to you? You get wins on policy right now but you’re staring down likely losses in 2018 and maybe beyond. OR would you rather we have a President Hillary Clinton right now? You’re presumably not getting the policy outcomes you want but would likely be looking forward to gains in 2018 and perhaps 2020.

(We’re also asking this from the Democrats’ POV, but let’s start with Republicans.)

FWIW, I’ve gone back and forth on this in my head since we decided on this topic yesterday. At first I thought the answer was obvious. Now …

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, elections analyst): I would rather have a President Hillary Clinton.

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): #actually

clare.malone (Clare Malone, senior political writer): I’d rather have Trump.

natesilver: I don’t have enough information to answer the question.

micah: OMG

natesilver: Am I in a swing district?

micah: You’re the collective congressional GOP.

clare.malone: Hmm.

Now I’m waffling.

micah: So, my first thought was that the answer was OBVIOUSLY Trump.

natesilver: Just to complicate things … for me, the answer to this question is narrower if you’re asking me as a member of Congress as opposed to, say, a Democratic or Republican voter.

clare.malone: It depends on what you think the ultimate goal of Congress is.

To get elected again, to live another day?

Or, to accomplish something ideological?

natesilver: If you’re a member of Congress, you’re probably very concerned about re-election. And clearly you have much safer chances of re-election as a swing-seat Republican under Clinton than under Trump.

clare.malone: So. What’s the ultimate goal of a party’s caucus in Congress?

micah: OK, if it’s ideological/policy, it’s 100 percent Trump, right? The Supreme Court alone suggests that. Or, look at Trump’s effect on the judiciary more generally:

clare.malone: Right.

But if it’s about getting re-elected, then they want Clinton.

So I guess I don’t know the answer because I don’t know the goal of the Republican congressional caucus.

nrakich: You guys aren’t looking at the big picture! It’s not just Congress. State governments are important too — maybe even more important than the federal government, since it’s where much of the policy that affects people’s lives is made.

As you’ve written, Clare, the Obama years really weren’t too shabby for Republicans. They earned a stranglehold on 26 state-government trifectas (full control of the governorship and state legislature) and have used them to pass stricter laws on abortion, labor, etc. than they would have in Congress.

And if we’re focusing on Congress, that state government control is going to let the GOP continue to draw congressional district lines in 2021 unless something changes.

The Trump presidency threatens to effect that change.

natesilver: Can I ask for a redirect, Micah? Maybe we should be saying, “Are Republicans better off with Trump than with Clinton?”

And obviously there are a lot of subheadings under “Republican.”

micah: Yeah, but I don’t want to pick one subheading because then the answer is obvious.

Let’s disentangle all the subheadings!

natesilver: Ezra Klein argued recently that it was obvious that Republicans had made a good bet to stand behind Trump in 2016, because it had paid off with the SCOTUS picks. But I think it’s way too early to conclude that.

nrakich: I agree.

micah: This is actually kinda making my brain hurt …

I think Ezra is right …

natesilver: CONTRARIAN NATE SAYS RAWWWWWR

micah: In the short term, it’s paid off huge. And likely in the long term with the Supreme Court.

But if Trump sparks a wave of progressive activism — that’s obviously bad for the GOP.

But but politics always goes in cycles — back and forth, back and forth. From Clare’s piece:

So if your argument is that a backlash makes winning not worth it, then winning would never be worth it.

clare.malone: Why is it too early to conclude that, Nate? Because he might fuck up the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation?

natesilver: Because what if Republicans lose elections for the next 20 years as a result of a backlash to Trump? And, also, the public turns against every policy Trump once liked? ICE is abolished and single-payer medicine is established.

nrakich: That ^^

I also think Supreme Court picks are overrated. In the long run, they balance out — the next Democratic president will probably get a couple too. And it’s unpredictable what a justice does once he or she joins the court. Plenty of Republican-appointed justices have turned more liberal over the years.

micah: If there’s a backlash to Trump, eventually there will be a backlash to that backlash, no?

nrakich: If I were congressional Republicans/Republican voters/Republican squirrels/whatever, I would also be worried about Trump’s long-term effect on Hispanic voters.

clare.malone: I don’t know if I agree on that Supreme Court point, Nathaniel. This conservative majority could be a pretty powerful influence on judicial policy for decades. But yes, I do think it’s right to look at how growing demographic groups react to a political party.

But what are our parameters now?

micah: Republican squirrels.

clare.malone: jek;atw’ljrt

micah: Inequality these days is nuts.

nrakich:

(Yes, I know that’s a chipmunk)

natesilver: Here’s how I’d put it: There is almost always a backlash, which the party pays in the form of (1) tending to lose seats in Congress, and (1b) in state government and (2) some degree of thermostatic movement of public opinion against them, e.g. the public actually becomes more liberal when conservatives have been in power for a while and vice versa.

Those are BIG consequences so the question is — how much do you get out of it?

micah: A lot. I hate to keep going back to the Supreme Court, but …

nrakich: Probably not as much as they’d be able to with a different Republican president.

Marco Rubio could still win the primary, guys.

micah: #2020

natesilver: Hmm. So far, the GOP has gotten (i) a tax bill; (ii) 2 Supreme Court picks; (iii) lots of aggressive enforcement actions on immigration; (iv) lots of actions to sabotage Obamacare; (v) lots of … eccentric foreign policy behavior that they might not like; (vi) a trade war that they probably don’t want.

clare.malone: So they got three things they wanted, on average (if you say they wanted half measures on a couple things Trump went full throttle on).

That’s not so bad.

nrakich: But they also got some not-so-great stuff, even on policy.

micah: If you think Trump has been a mixed bag in terms of delivering on policy and ideological goals, then the answer is clearly President Clinton?

nrakich: Right.

micah: IDK, I can’t get past SCOTUS.

natesilver: I’m not saying it’s nothing. It’s quite a bit! But part of it is that they aren’t necessarily likely to get a whole lot more — or at least not a lot more of the stuff they like.

Democrats may or may not win a chamber of Congress — but even if they don’t, the GOP majorities are likely to be reduced down to a bare minimum.

micah: Republicans control all three branches of government, most states, etc. — I’m just very resistant to any argument that they’d rather the world look any other way than it currently does.

nrakich: I do think this question is incomplete without knowing how 2018 turns out.

natesilver: And 2020.

micah: Guys.

natesilver: And 2022.

micah: You are all basically saying, “We can’t answer this question until it’s answered for us.”

natesilver: I’M NOT THE ONE WHO ASKED THE QUESTION, MICAH!

micah: You agreed to the topic!

clare.malone: I’m stressssssed.

nrakich: I’m so sorry, guys. (I was the one who had the idea for this Slack chat topic, dear reader.)

clare.malone: lol, it’s fine. But now I know Rakich is a chaos monkey.

nrakich: Chaos squirrel.

clare.malone: I mean muppet.

natesilver: Let’s take what’s maybe an easier case. Let’s say Republicans lose in a wave election in November — they lose, say, 45 House seats, plus lose the Senate. Then Trump also loses in 2020 and they lose another 5 Senate seats or so.

Is it worth it then?

micah: I think the answer to that question is … yes.

natesilver: Yeah, I think that’s wrong, Micah.

clare.malone: Yeah, that would be bad.

The Senate loss is a little far out, though.

natesilver: Democrats will just undo the GOP’s tax policy.

nrakich: Micah, you think Republicans would take a teensy list of policy priorities in exchange for undoing all the electoral progress they’ve made for the last eight years?

micah: First, I don’t think it’s a given that the Democrats reverse that tax bill.

Second, I think that GOP progress was always fleeting, Nathaniel. See thermostatic point above.

You’re basically telling me that we return to a 2009ish-type government, but that the Supreme Court is conservative for at least a generation or so.

If I’m subscribing to the false idea that these elected officials and their voters want to win elections to achieve policy/ideological outcomes — which I am for this convo even though it’s not really right — then that last conservative majority on the Supreme Court is incredibly valuable because it’s really the only branch of government that doesn’t sorta inherently swing back and forth.

Control of the White House and Congress is always temporary, so I’m not super fussed about losing the gains I’ve made.

nrakich: But the alternative under President Clinton is that you lock in Republican control of the House for probably 10 more years and the Senate for perhaps a generation.

micah: I don’t think we know that.

natesilver: Are you reading too many liberal hot takes about the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court has already been conservative for many years. What would give the Democrats the best chance to make it not conservative is to have a majority of senators *and* the presidency.

micah: I haven’t been reading any takes — I just got back from vacation.

Now it’ll be MORE conservative!

natesilver: Would Clinton have gotten her justice appointed in a 52-48 Republican Senate?

micah: Probably not?

clare.malone: A more moderate one, yes.

micah: Wouldn’t she have nominated Merrick Garland?

clare.malone: Maybe, but maybe not.

micah: I have a hard time imagining Republicans confirming any Clinton nominee.

clare.malone: Clinton was never going to be able to nominate a Ginsburg type from the start.

natesilver: In FiveThirtyEight canon, she would have gotten Garland appointed on Earth 2, but in exchange for a bunch of Republicans being appointed to the cabinet.

But here’s the thing. With Trump in power, Democrats are probably going to end up with somewhere between 47-52 Senate seats after this year. Obviously a reasonably wide range there and I think they’re underdogs to take the Senate, although it’s competitive.

By comparison, though, if Clinton were president, where would Democrats end up? I haven’t done the math in detail, but I’d guess somewhere in the range of like 39-45 senators. They’d be in a lot of trouble, as Nathaniel said.

And they wouldn’t have had Doug Jones win that race in Alabama (in part because there would have been nothing to appoint Jeff Sessions to.)

nrakich: Yeah, in the Senate, Democrats are way overexposed in 2018 — a bad cycle for them could lead to the loss of 8+ Senate seats. There are 31 red states and 19 blue states in the U.S. — that means that the GOP “should” have 62 senators. If that scenario comes to pass, partisan gravity is going to make it very hard for Democrats to get back to a majority until party coalitions change, which can take decades.

natesilver: If you’re down to, say, 42 senators, you’re going to have a lot of trouble getting a liberal Supreme Court nominee for the foreseeable future, no matter who is president.

micah: OK, so yeah, let’s take this full on from the Democrats’ perspective: Would you rather have a President Clinton?

clare.malone: I think yes, you’d rather have Clinton. micah: Couldn’t Clinton have locked in a moderate court, though?

clare.malone: Not necessarily, Micah.

nrakich: I’ve been an electoral hipster on this topic for a while. Back in 2015, I wrote a semi-tongue-in-cheek article arguing that Democrats should cede the 2016 election to Republicans because Democrats need to rebuild their bench on the state level.

I mean, this is all hypothetical. But under a President Clinton, Republicans would win most of the governorships and state legislatures this year and in 2020. That would allow them to draw Republican-friendly House maps for all of the 2020s.

clare.malone: What if she wins two terms and Ginsburg retires when Democrats are in a better place in the Senate?

nrakich: It’s very hard for a party to hold the White House for four consecutive terms.

natesilver: There’s probably no universe in which Democrats would ever have had both a Senate majority and a President Hillary Clinton.

She’d have started out at 48, lost a bunch this year.

Then maybe you gain a couple back in 2020, which isn’t a bad map for Democrats.

But then you’re back in 2022 and midterms don’t usually go well for the president’s party.

nrakich: What do we think Clinton’s approval numbers would look like if she had won? My guess is they’d be pretty close to Trump’s right now. She’d have no policy wins to show off (since Republicans would control Congress), and those Republicans in Congress would be stirring the pot over her emails and other stuff, presumably.

micah: My first thought on this was … If you’re a progressive, and you care about an equitable society, the environment, health outcomes, etc. — I’m not sure there’s any argument that you’d prefer President Trump to President Clinton.

The only counter to that is if Trump sparks a generational counterswing — in which the next 5-8 years are bad for you, but the next 30 are good as a result.

natesilver: But presidencies always spark a backlash. That’s a given, or at least pretty close to it. The questions are (i) how soon the backlash comes, (ii) how big it is, and (iii) what Republicans accomplish before the backlash.

micah: That’s my point, Nate. I think it’s only “worth it” for Democrats if the backlash is historically huge.

natesilver: See, I disagree, because I think Trump’s accomplishments have been on the modest side.

clare.malone: One good thing for Democrats under Trump is the new bench that they seem to be developing.

natesilver: I mean, the party was sort of running on fumes.

clare.malone: In the long run, improving their prospects on the state level might serve them well. I’m not sure that would have happened under Clinton. They might have continued to paper over the state losses under Obama.

nrakich: Exactly, Clare. After a President Clinton, what would have come next? They’d be out of gas, and then you’d have a President Trump (or similar) in 2020/2024 anyway, plus you’d have missed your window to affect redistricting.

natesilver: Although — one thing we’re neglecting to mention here is that there’s a lot of damage Trump could do, e.g. to America’s international image, that isn’t really a *partisan* concern per se.

micah: That’s what I was typing!

It’s not just “accomplishments.”

It’s the whole Trump effect.

The illiberal stuff.

natesilver: But again, that, too, could spark a long-term backlash.

clare.malone: Yeah, the Trump reflection on the country in the eyes of the world is sort of a known unknown.

How much is it going to screw the country long term?

natesilver: And also, having a President Clinton (as Rakich was getting at) may have led to a Trump-type Republican getting elected in 2020, only with much bigger majorities in Congress.

clare.malone: Other countries might not trust our word on international treaties we want to make, etc., etc.

nrakich: America’s image bounced back pretty well from the Bush years, right? Although I think this is another level than that.

clare.malone: I dunno re Bush.

micah: Yeah, opinion of the U.S. (and the American president) shot up after Bush — and has dropped back down under Trump:

natesilver: Yeah, I don’t think this is comparable to Bush.

micah: OK, what if Trump leaves America 20 percent less democratic (small d)?

natesilver: Although, I also wonder if our allies sort of recognize that Trump’s an outlier instead of the permanent state of affairs.

nrakich: True, but I also wonder if he confirms what they secretly thought about the U.S.

clare.malone: Why would they not assume that another Republican president would now take policy positions more like Trump’s because that’s what Republican voters want?

nrakich: But then again, European allies are also dealing with their own Trump-like, anti-immigrant, populist figures.

micah: Yeah, it would be a mistake to think of Trump as an outlier.

natesilver: What if Trump sparks a backlash to populism in Western Europe because people associate populism with Trump?

micah: I sorta buy that.

Well, no … I don’t.

natesilver: There’s already a little bit of evidence of that. Populist candidates generally underperformed their polls in Western Europe in 2017. Eastern/Central Europe is a different story, it’s very important to say.

micah: To start to wrap this up … clearly most congressional Republicans are still happy with the tradeoff, no? (To shift the convo from what we think to what they think.)

nrakich: … are they?

Not to be a broken record, but you keep hearing about how, off the record, lots of Republicans say they’re fed up with Trump.

natesilver: Given how many congressional Republicans retired, the prima-facie evidence might be “no.”

nrakich: I bet plenty of them would take a President Clinton right now so they could try over again in 2020 with Mike Pence or someone more palatable to them. Plus, congressional Republicans were good at being the opposition party under Obama. They could have kept going with that. It was once they started needing to govern (i.e., with health care) that they sorta fell apart.

micah: If that were true, wouldn’t they be more forcefully rebuking/restraining Trump?

clare.malone: Maybe they’re waiting for the midterms to be over.

nrakich: I don’t think they would be, because they’re afraid of getting Sanforded.

If they’re ever going to break with Trump publicly (barring a major Mueller development), it would be in the time between this year’s primaries and this year’s general election. So I guess it’s too early to tell.

natesilver: Micah, I don’t think that necessarily follows. One thing about being a Republican in Congress is that it’s politically hard to oppose Trump, even if you think he’s terrible for your party and the country in the long term. Maybe that’s why so many of them are retiring.

micah: That’s partly true, but I also think much of the media is projecting when they imagine all congressional Republicans hate Trump.

They didn’t all retire, after all.

natesilver: And you know what really wouldn’t be fun? Having the same dilemma if you’d lost control of Congress anyway, which is probably more likely than not this fall.

(Of course, this is a bit self-fulfilling; one reason the GOP is favored to lose the House is because of all the retirements.)

micah: OK, final thoughts?

nrakich: This is how I see it:

Under President Trump, Democrats have a good chance to win back the House in the short term and be competitive in it throughout the 2020s (because of redistricting). In the Senate, they will probably maintain their small deficit in the short term but remain competitive in the long term. State governments are likewise competitive again for a decade or so. In the Supreme Court, a conservative majority is achieved and lasts an indeterminate amount of time.

Under President Clinton, Republicans would have kept/augmented their House majorities this year and drawn district lines to make it very hard for Democrats to win the House again until 2032. In the Senate, they would blow Democrats into oblivion with the bad Senate map in 2018, and the Senate wouldn’t be competitive again for several years either. In the states, Republicans likewise lock in control for another 10 years. And in the Supreme Court, Democrats get a liberal-to-moderate court for an indeterminate amount of time.

Your mileage may vary, quite a bit, for how to weight those. But I personally think the Clinton presidency one is the better scenario for Republicans, and the Trump presidency is the better scenario for Democrats.

I will now go collect my contrarian card at the front desk.

natesilver: I wouldn’t go that far. I mean — the default, certainly, is that you’d rather win the presidency than lose it. I do think, though, that it’s far from obvious that Republicans are better off with Trump and that people who think it’s obvious don’t have enough of a long-term view.

micah: I think it’s obvious.