Mediaboss Marketing

The explanation we heard most often from strategists on the left, right, and center: Biden is unpopular in ways that are largely unique to him, regularly hitting sub-40 marks in approval ratings. And while Trump is still viewed unfavorably, polling also shows voters increasingly rating his presidency better by comparison.

I think this just speaks to the degree that Biden is a weak general election candidate when relatively uninspiring Democratic candidates are outperforming him so consistently across the board, Patrick Ruffini, a Republican pollster and founding partner of Echelon Insights, told Semafor. All former presidents get better retrospective evaluations when they leave office. We just havent had a chance to test how this would play out when one was a current candidate until now.

One of Bidens biggest weaknesses, according to polling, is the economy. Alyssa Cass, a partner at Slingshot Strategies working on Democratic messaging, told Semafor that voters across the spectrum say their No. 1 issue is costs cost of living, food, housing, and more. The disparity between Trumps polling and Senate Republican candidates, she believes, is because voters associate this key issue with Biden.

Theyre holding Joe Biden responsible for the price pressure they feel every time they go to the grocery store, but arent assigning that same responsibility to their Senate candidate, Cass said. That further makes sense when you have these Senate candidates who are, for the most part, riding on a MAGA platform and putting culture issues front and center. I dont think this is a culture war election. I think this is a how expensive are my groceries election.

Recent polling from Blueprint, overseen by Cass, backs up that theory: Data released on May 16 found young voters are prioritizing kitchen table issues and 52% of those polled trust Trump more than Biden when it comes to lowering prices.

Cook Political Reports recent swing state polling found that not only is Biden seen as inferior to Trump on fighting inflation, but 59% of voters think the president has at least some ability to control prices an expectation that could separate him from down-ballot Democrats who survived a worse economy in the midterms.

Then there are other Biden-specific problems, namely his age 66% of voters said they did not think Biden would finish another term in the same Cook Political Report survey. By a 53%-47% margin, voters also reported being more concerned about Bidens age than Trumps temperament and legal issues, two weaknesses that are more unique to him.

In conversations with Republicans, some also say the race between the two candidates looks different than other partisan contests. Trump has largely focused on playing up his record as president and denigrating Bidens in broad terms, rather than trying to make the race a referendum on policy specifics or ideological purity.

As has been the case for many years, President Trump leads the party and the ticket, and has expanded the Republican coalition to include voters that dont typically vote Republican or vote at all, Danielle Alvarez, an RNC spokeswoman, said.

And finally, some of it may just be simple name recognition. Republican Senate candidates are largely going up against incumbent Democrats this cycle, meaning they may need more time to consolidate right-leaning voters who are still not familiar with their campaign, and may face more resistance from voters who dislike Biden but have voted for their opponents before.

One generalization is that Trump is a much better known entity theres going to be a lot more certainty that people are voting for Trump right now, Natalie Jackson, vice president of GQR Insights & Action and a pollster for Democrats, told Semafor.

See the rest here:
Donald Trump is outrunning other Republicans. What does it mean for November? - Semafor

Anti-abortion activists who describe themselves as "abolitionists" protest outside a fertility clinic in North Carolina in April 2024. Sarah McCammon/NPR hide caption

Anti-abortion activists who describe themselves as "abolitionists" protest outside a fertility clinic in North Carolina in April 2024.

Two years ago next month, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision guaranteeing a federal right to an abortion.

It was an outcome decades in the making but to abortion opponents, the fight is unfinished. Now they're setting their sights on banning mifepristone, a drug commonly used in medical abortions. Abortion rights opponents have filed several lawsuits, including one awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court.

Abortion medication has made the procedure more accessible. Since June 2022, the number of abortions performed in the U.S. has actually gone up: On average, there were about 4,000 more abortions per month in 2023 compared to 2022, according to the Society of Family Planning's WeCount project.

One factor driving that increase has been the rise in telehealth abortion where patients receive abortion medication in the mail after consulting with a clinician. Telehealth abortions now make up 19% of all abortions in the U.S., according to Wecount.

"It's affordable. It's convenient, and it feels more private," says Jillian Barovic, a midwife and one of the cofounders of Juniper Midwifery, which offers medication abortion via telehealth in six states where abortion is legal.

You're reading the Consider This newsletter, which unpacks one major news story each day. Subscribe here to get it delivered to your inbox, and listen to more from the Consider This podcast.

As abortions continue despite state bans, activists are pushing for further restrictions, including the criminalization of patients who pursue abortions, and banning procedures like IVF.

T. Russell Hunter leads a group opposing all abortions, with no exceptions they call themselves "abortion abolitionists." He accuses mainstream anti-abortion groups of being too willing to accept incremental restrictions inconsistent with their messaging.

"You can't say, 'Life begins at conception ... but we're going to allow abortion in the first five weeks,'" Hunter says. "If life begins at conception, and you believe that human life must be protected, well, you're stuck logically."

Hunter, who is based in Oklahoma, opposes IVF and believes that embryos should have legal rights. He argues that patients who seek abortions and anyone who helps them should be charged with murder.

Kristine Harhoef lives in Texas and has been involved in anti-abortion activism for over a decade. She's frustrated that even where abortion is banned, patients are still accessing abortion medication. She's been talking with lawmakers in Texas and neighboring states, trying to promote legislation that would treat abortion identical to homicide.

"And the penalty could be anything from nothing at all, if she was truly innocent, truly forced into that abortion," she says, "to a fine or community service, to, yes, some jail time and possibly even the death penalty."

The issue of abortion rights could be a difficult needle to thread for Republicans.

Several recent polls by Pew and the Public Religion Research Institute confirm that a clear majority of voters say abortion should be legal in many or all cases.

And while abortion abolitionists take aim at IVF, Republicans, including former President Donald Trump, are voicing support for the procedure. After an Alabama Supreme Court decision ruled that embryos should be legally considered children, Republicans there rushed to pass a law designed to protect IVF providers.

Activists like Harhoef, who support the death penalty for abortion patients, are still in the minority of abortion opponents. But they've made strides in state legislatures, including a bill that made it to the Louisiana House floor in 2022.

Rachel Bitecofer, a Democratic political strategist, says the line between the mainstream anti-abortion rights movement and the abortion abolitionists is quite thin.

"[Republicans] have been targeting those folks for 25, 30 years now with ever-increasing hyperbolic rhetoric about abortion and defining any kind of abortion as an act of murder," Bitecofer said.

"So if you accept that abortion is murder, then it makes sense that you have pretty rigid requirements to stop it at all costs," she added.

In today's episode of Consider This, NPR national political correspondent Sarah McCammon dives into the abortion abolitionist movement. Click the play button at the top of the page to hear the full story.

This episode was produced by Karen Zamora and Brianna Scott. It was edited by Megan Pratz and Courtney Dorning. Elissa Nadworny contributed reporting. Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun.

View original post here:
'Abortion abolitionists' push for more restrictions : Consider This from NPR - NPR

Republicans are pushing legislation to crack down on voting by noncitizens, which happens rarely and is already illegal in federal elections, in a move that reinforces former President Donald J. Trumps efforts to delegitimize the 2024 results if he loses.

On Thursday, House Republicans plan to vote on a bill that would roll back a District of Columbia law allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections, which they contend is needed to prevent Democrats from expanding the practice to other jurisdictions. And they are advancing another measure that would require states to obtain proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport, when registering a person to vote.

The legislation has virtually no chance of becoming law, but it serves to amplify one of Mr. Trumps favorite pre-emptive claims of election fraud. It also underscores Republicans embrace of a groundless narrative one that echoes the racist great replacement conspiracy theory that Democrats are intentionally allowing migrants to stream into the United States illegally in order to dilute the voting power of American citizens and lock in electoral victories for themselves.

Speaker Mike Johnson recently appeared alongside Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago, the former presidents Florida resort and residence, to announce a pledge to get tough on migrants flowing across the border, suggesting with no evidence that they were coming in unchecked as part of a plot to vote for President Biden.

There is currently an unprecedented and a clear and present danger to the integrity of our election system and that is the threat of noncitizens and illegal aliens voting in our elections, Mr. Johnson warned during a news conference on the steps of the Capitol this month.

But he conceded that he had no evidence to support that assertion.

We all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections, but its not been something that is easily provable, Mr. Johnson said. We dont have that number.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

See the article here:
House G.O.P. Moves to Crack Down on Noncitizen Voting, Sowing False Narrative - The New York Times

WASHINGTON, D.C. Eleven prominent Republicans were arraigned in an Arizona courtroom on Tuesday for a number of felonies related to their involvement to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the Grand Canyon State. All 11 people pleaded not guilty to their myriad criminal charges.

In late April, 18 people were indicted on a number of alleged crimes surrounding a plot to overturn the states presidential election results and falsely declare former President Donald Trump the winner of the key battleground state. The scheme involved 11 state Republicans falsely declaring themselves electors and cast their electoral votes for Trump.

All 11 of the fake electors were indicted along with a number of top Trump officials, including former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, campaign staffer Michael Roman and former campaign lawyers Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Jenna Ellis, Boris Ephystein and Christina Bobb.

Among the people to be formally charged on Tuesday include nine of the 11 Republicans who falsely claimed to be electors and submitted documentation to Congress declaring Trump the winner of the presidential election in Arizona. They include former Arizona GOP Chairwoman Kelli Ward, state Sens. Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern and RNC Committeeman Tyler Bower.Giuliani and Bobb were also arraigned on Tuesday.

All the people indicted for their involvement in the scheme were charged with a myriad of alleged crimes, including nine felony counts for conspiracy, fraud and forgery. Trump himself was not charged, but he was referred to as a unindicted co-conspirator in the 58-page indictment.

Eastman, one of Trumps former attorneys who was the author of two notorious memos outlining how Trump could refute the election results and stay in office, was the first of the indicted Arizona Republicans to be arraigned. On Friday, Eastman was formally charged on Friday and pleaded not guilty to the crimes.

Giuliani, another one of Trumps former lawyers, was one of several people unnamed in the original indictment because he had not yet been served a notice of indictment. After nearly a month, authorities were finally able to locate Giuliani who was in Palm Beach, Florida celebrating his 80th birthday and serve him his notice of indictment.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D) announced on Monday that Giuliani had been served indictment papers after the former New York City mayor posted a since-deleted picture to X of himself at his birthday party, writing If authorities cant find me by tomorrow morning they must dismiss the indictment.

Read the indictment here.

Learn more about the indictment here.

This post was updated on Tuesday, May 21 at 4:50 p.m. EDT to reflect that all 11 defendants, not 12 as was originally reported, were arraigned and pleaded not guilty.

Read the original post:
Prominent Republicans To Be Arraigned in Arizona for Election Subversion Plot - Democracy Docket

Mother Jones; Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/ZUMA; Tim Mossholder/Unsplash

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutionality of a South Carolina congressional map that a lower court had previously found diluted the power of Black voters. In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the Courts conservative supermajority wrote that the Challengers provided no direct evidence of a racial gerrymander, and their circumstantial evidence is very weak.

The courts ruling protects the seat of GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, a onetime relative moderate who has veered sharply to the right after Republicans redrew her district following the 2020 census to make it more GOP-friendly. She was one of eight House Republicans who voted to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy, and she subsequently endorsed Donald Trump despite once saying that she held him responsible for the January 6 insurrection. Mace defeated Democrat Joe Cunningham by one point in 2020, but she won reelection in her redrawn Charleston-based district by 14 points in 2022.

A GOP state senator from the area said he wanted to give the district astronger Republican lean. Republicans accomplished that goal by moving nearly 30,000 Black voters in Charleston County (62 percent of the countys total Black population) from the swing 1st district to the safely Democratic seat of longtime Rep. James Clyburn, one of the most powerful House Democrats.

A federal court ruled in January 2023 that the map was a stark racial gerrymander. But the Supreme Court disagreed, finding that South Carolina Republicans were motivated by politics, not race, and acted in good faith. The conservative justices rejected the factual findings of the lower court, which the high court is only supposed to do if the findings are clearly wrong. The courts delay in issuing a ruling (civil rights groups had asked the justices to rule by the beginning of the year) already forced the lower court to allow the disputed map to stay in place for this election, handing Republicans another House seat for 2024.

In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said that the decision would make it much harder to strike down racially gerrymandered maps. The majoritys new evidentiary rule is meant to scuttle gerrymandering cases, she wrote. Going forward, plaintiffs now need to show extremely clear evidence of racial gerrymandering because courts are now supposed to give legislators the benefit of the doubt. This will make it easier for white Republicans to dilute the votes of communities of color. As Kagans dissent points out, Alitos majority opinion places uncommon burdens on gerrymandered plaintiffs that will make it very difficult to bring successful racial gerrymandering cases in the future. This Court is not supposed to be so fearful of telling discriminators, including States, to stop discriminating, Kagan wrote.

The Roberts Court has already made it very difficult to strike down gerrymandered maps, ruling that partisan gerrymandering cannot be challenged in federal court. The court has routinely sided with Republicans in other voting rights disputes, as well, gutting the Voting Rights Act on multiple occasions. The courts opposition to voting rights has become a key part of the GOP strategy to enshrine conservative minority rule. In a concurring opinion in the South Carolina case, Justice Clarence Thomas went so far as to suggest that racial gerrymandering and vote dilution claims could never be struck down in court. The Constitution, Thomas asserted, contemplates no role for the federal courts in the redistricting process. The Supreme Court, however, has frequently intervened in the redistricting process throughout US history, most notably in the one person, one vote cases from the 1960s.

One exception to the courts hostility to the right to vote came last June, when it invalidated Alabamas congressional mapbecause it did not include a second majority-Black district in a state that is 27 percent Black. That led to the drawing of a new majority-Black district that is expected to send a Democrat to the House in November. A similar result followed in Louisiana, where that state also drew a second majority-Black district.

But the courts sympathy to Black voting rights did not extend to South Carolina, and the outcomeis a significant win for Republicans hoping to retain their narrow House majority. Given the GOPs tiny edge in the lower house, a swing of just a few seats in November could be enough to decide who controls the chamber this year.

See the article here:
The Supreme Court Just Made It Easier for Republicans to Get Away With Racial Gerrymandering Mother Jones - Mother Jones