Tag: vote
GOP Legislator Torpedoes Trump's Nebraska Electoral Gambit

GOP Legislator Torpedoes Trump's Nebraska Electoral Gambit

Nebraska is among the few states in the U.S. that splits its electoral votes, and the area around Omaha — which has one electoral vote — has been leaning Democrat in recent years.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has been urging Nebraska to abandon that system and switch to a winner-take-all format.

But Nebraska State Sen. Mike McDonnell, a former Democrat turned Republican, is, according to the New York Times, pushing back against the proposal.

In an official statement on Monday, September 23, McDonnell said, "In recent weeks, a conversation around whether to change how we allocate our Electoral College votes has returned to the forefront. I respect the desire of some of my colleagues to have this discussion, and I have taken time to listen carefully to Nebraskans and national leaders on both sides of the issue. After deep consideration, it is clear to me that right now, 43 days from Election Day, is not the moment to make this change."

McDonnell, according to the Times, said he told Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, "I will not change my long-held position and will oppose any attempted changes to our Electoral College system before the 2024 election."

The Nebraska Examiner's Aaron Sanderford notes that "McDonnell's no on winner-take-all leaves Republicans in Nebraska's officially nonpartisan legislature with no path to overcoming a promised filibuster unless a Democrat or nonpartisan senator defects."

"Part of the GOP urgency is wrapped in national polling that shows a close race between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee," Sanderford reports. "Some political observers have argued the 2nd District could break a 269-269 Electoral College tie. Few Democrats were surprised that the fate of winner-take-all largely swung on McDonnell, a former Omaha fire union president who switched to the GOP this spring after facing political pushback from Democrats for backing abortion restrictions."

Sanderford adds, "Several said the abortion debate should have shown Republicans that McDonnell is largely immovable once he has made a controversial position clear. McDonnell said when he switched parties that he would not support winner-take-all. Others said he did what helped him most politically.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

'You Won't Need To Vote': Trump's Explanation Somehow Makes It Worse

'You Won't Need To Vote': Trump's Explanation Somehow Makes It Worse

Last Friday night, Donald Trump appeared at the Turning Point Action’s “Believers Summit” to tell a crowd of conservative Christians that this was the last time they’d have to bother with voting.

"You won’t have to do it anymore,” said Trump. “Four more years, you know what? It’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”

Since Trump made this statement, right-wing pundits and Republican politicians have pulled out their Trump translators and tried to find a way to pass Trump’s words off as something other than a confession that he intends to do away with democracy. That includes telling everyone that there’s nothing to see here because Trump’s statement was “clearly a joke” according to Sen. Tom Cotton.

Then on Monday night, Trump got the chance to sit down with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham and explain what he meant … and he made it so much worse.

In this interview, Trump made a lot of excuses. Once again he refused to debate Kamala Harris even though his previous excuse that Barack Obama had not yet endorsed her was no longer applicable. He once again demonstrated that he had no better line of attack on Harris than to complain about what he called her “crazy person” laugh.

Trump also tried to brush off JD Vance’s creepy focus on right-wing natalism in a way that doesn’t make it one bit less creepy.

Before giving Trump an opportunity to extract himself from the autocracy hole he dug at the “Believers Summit,” Ingraham primed Trump by saying that Democrats were attacking him for “ridiculous reasons.” Ridiculous reasons like repeating exactly what he said.

“They’re saying that you said to a crowd of Christians that they won’t have to vote in the future,” Ingraham said.

Trump first responded by claiming that Christians, and particularly Catholics were “persecuted” by the administration of Catholic Christian Joe Biden. Then he rambled into how any Jewish person voting for Harris—or “whoever is gonna run”—should “have their head examined.”

Finally, he got down to explaining his statement about Christians not voting.

“That statement is very simple,” Trump said. “I said vote for me, you’re not going to have to do it ever again. It’s true, because we have to get the vote out. Christians are not known as a big voting group.”

“This time vote. I’ll straighten out the country. You won’t have to vote anymore. I won’t need your vote. You can go back to not voting,” he added.

This does not make things better.

Ingraham was clearly frustrated by how she handed Trump a ladder and he only used it to dig the hole deeper. So she skipped right past allowing Trump to tell her what he meant and tried to get him to just repeat after her.

“You meant you won’t have to vote for you because you have four years in office,” Ingraham said. “Is that what you meant?”

Trump refused to pick up the lifeline and started talking about gun owners. So Ingraham broke out a full-sized life raft and paddled hard to rescue Trump from his babble.

“Just to be clear–” she began. But by this point, Ingraham was clearly struggling to find a way to get Trump back to safety. “It’s being interpreted, you’ll be surprised to hear, by the left as ‘well, they’re never going to have another election.’”

Ingraham put on her best mocking-the-left tone so that Trump would understand this is supposed to be a bad thing. But as she tried to bring it home, she was obviously concerned that Trump still may not understand what he was supposed to say. And she couldn’t think of how to say it any more clearly.

“He’s saying … he’s saying there’s a … he’s …” she tried before giving up. “So. So can you even just respond to that?”

“I said Christians,” Trump began. Then he gathered himself for another go. “I started off by saying ‘Just so you understand, you never vote.’ Christians do not vote well. They vote in very small percentages. Why, I don’t know. Maybe they’re disappointed in things that are happening, but for a long time—I’m saying, ‘You don’t vote. Go out. You must vote. November 5 is going to be the most important election in the history of our country. Whether you vote early or not …’”

At this point, Trump wandered into talking about restrictions on voting like voter ID and the need for paper ballots. He finally came back around to the neighborhood of the original question.

“I said to the Christians in the room, thousands of them, I said typically Christians don’t vote. Why it is, I don’t know. They’re rebellious. Something’s going on. Don’t worry about the future, vote, you have to vote on November 5. After that, you don’t have to worry about voting anymore. Because we’re going to fix it. The country will be fixed and we won’t even need your vote anymore. Because frankly, we will have such love if you don’t want to vote anymore, that’s okay,” Trump said.

Love. It was love all along. Love and an end to pesky voting.

Then Trump put a cherry on top of all this by finishing with, “And I think everyone understood it.”

Despite what Republicans tried to claim, Trump clearly wasn’t making a joke. And despite Ingraham’s best efforts, he could not be dragged into saying something other than embracing what sure sounds like the death knell of democracy. Also, Trump’s claim that Christians vote in “very small percentages” is simply not true.

None of this will stop the Trump whisperers from suggesting alternative interpretations. And honestly, one set of tea leaves makes sense: Trump could be telling voters not to bother voting again in four years because he won’t be on the ballot.

Republicans don’t want to provide that interpretation, because it implies that Trump is concerned about no one other than himself and doesn’t care if the party ever wins a race again once he’s not at the top of the ticket. In fact, Trump would probably find it hugely pleasing to see that the party he had shaped into a worshipful mob could not survive without him.

Selfishness uber alles is not exactly the kind of motto that wins elections.

But even that interpretation beats the obvious conclusion: Trump is telling people not to worry about voting in four years because if he gets back in the White House, voting will never again be an issue.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Trump's New Promise: If He's Elected, 'You Won't Have To Vote Anymore'

Trump's New Promise: If He's Elected, 'You Won't Have To Vote Anymore'

During a recent campaign rally, former President Donald Trump appeared to suggest that voting in elections will be a thing of the past if he gets a second term in office.

The 45th president of the United States made the remarks while addressing a crowd of evangelical supporters at the Turning Point Action summit in West Palm Beach, Florida. After former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson introduced Trump, he launched into a speech that culminated with him calling on evangelicals to vote for him. The former president insinuated that 2024 would be the last election they would have to participate in because society would be “fixed.”

“And again, Christians: Get out and vote! Just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore! Four more years, you know what? It’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore,” he said. “In four years you don’t have to vote again, we’ll have it fixed so good you’re not gonna have to vote.”

Trump did not elaborate on how things would be “fixed” if he won a second term, but the remark is yet another signal of a decidedly more authoritarian approach to governing than Trump had in his first term. During an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Trump said that he would be a “dictator,” but only on “day one” so he could “close the border” and “drill baby drill.” President Joe Biden, for his part, has overseen a 40% drop in illegal border crossings since passing an executive order cracking down on asylum applications and domestic oil production is at an all-time high under Biden. In May, the U.S. Energy Information Administration found that the United States is producing more oil than even Russia and Saudi Arabia.

The former president’s suggestion that things would be “fixed” so his supporters would no longer have to vote could be a reference to a Project 2025 partner organization’s call for the abolition of the 22nd Amendment, which established presidential term limits. In a March essay for the American Conservative, writer Paul Tonguette framed repealing the 22nd Amendment as expanding freedom for American voters.

“If, by 2028, voters feel Trump has done a poor job, they can pick another candidate; but if they feel he has delivered on his promises, why should they be denied the freedom to choose him once more?” He wrote. “As with Prohibition, it is simply a matter of finding the will to get rid of bad idea that needlessly limits Americans’ freedom.”

“Trump in 2028!” he added.

In recent weeks, Trump has sought to distance himself from the far-right Heritage Foundation’s authoritarian Project 2025 blueprint for the next Republican administration. Even though Trump has repeatedly denied knowledge of the group’s leaders or the details of Project 2025, Heritage has undercut those denials in its own fundraising materials.

Earlier this week, Media Matters for America reported that Heritage has consistently boasted about its close connections with Trump and his first administration, placing dozens of its alumni in his orbit and some in “key positions” in the Trump White House. The group also proclaimed that Trump implemented roughly two-thirds of its policy proposals in his first year in office.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

'New York Times' Ripped Over Conservative's Smug 'Why Vote?' Op-Ed

'New York Times' Ripped Over Conservative's Smug 'Why Vote?' Op-Ed

On the Fourth of July, the New York Times opinion section chose to publish an op-ed from a Michigan resident making his case to not vote in the 2024 election. One democracy expert slammed the national paper of record for its decision to run the essay.

The column, titled, "Why I Don't Vote. And Why Maybe You Shouldn't Either," is by Matthew Walther, who is a contributing editor to The American Conservative. With a noticeable tone of disgust, Walther describes the term "civic duty" — which voting rights advocates often use when making the case to participate in the electoral process — as "off-putting."

"If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, civic duty is surely the first. Some version of the civic-duty line is trotted out by the sort of do-gooder who hands out voter registration forms to strangers — an activity I find as off-putting as I would an invitation to sit down and fill out a handgun permit," he wrote.


Journalist Stephen Wolf posted an excerpt of the essay to his X/Twitter account with the text: "This is what the New York Times chose to publish on Independence Day just one week after the Supreme Court ruled that Republican presidents are above the law."

While quote-tweeting Wolf's post, history professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat — an expert on democracy and authoritarian governments around the world — admonished the national paper of record for its decision to publish Walther's column.

"This is just very sad and frankly just what the Autocracy Doctor ordered," she tweeted. "Not voting is a vote to let others decide your fate, and we know that many elections are decided by relatively few votes. The goal of many autocracies is 'demobilization': people detaching from politics so they don't resist."

The backlash the Times has received over Walther's op-ed comes after the paper was excoriated by supporters of President Joe Biden for its editorial calling on him to drop out — while notably remaining absent on the continued candidacy of former President Donald Trump despite his 34 felony convictions. Earlier this year, a Times journalist speaking anonymously to Politicoconfided to the publication that the paper's publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, had an axe to grind against Biden for so far declining to do an exclusive sit-down interview with the Times.

"All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,” the Times reporter said. “It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.”

The Philadelphia Inquirerrecently trolled the Times' editorial board by running an editorial of its own with a title almost exactly replicating the title of the Times' editorial, except switching out Biden's name for Trump's.

"[T]he debate about the debate is misplaced. The only person who should withdraw from the race is Trump," the paper argued. "Trump told more than 30 lies during the debate to go with the more than 30,000 mistruths told during his four years as president. He dodged the CNN moderators’ questions, took no responsibility for his actions, and blamed others, mainly Biden, for everything that is wrong in the world."

If 2016 and 2020 are proper indicators, it's likely the 2024 election will be decided by just tens of thousands of votes across five or six battleground states — including Walther's home state of Michigan. The combined Electoral College votes from Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin gave Trump the 270-vote majority to win the presidency in 2016. He won those three states by fewer than 80,000 total combined votes. Biden's 2020 electoral vote majority was decided by less than 45,000 total votes spread across Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World