Feb 20

Our Team in Action!

Donate to CVD

Rally pro women’s rights

Calling all voters!

Congratulations Michelle Rodriguez Assembly Member AD53!

Congratulations to the State ADEM AD59 delegation!

Josh Newman SD29 RE-ELECTED 2020-2024

Assemblyman Freddie Rodriguez re-elected to AD52 2021-2025

 

Governor Newsom with New State Party Chair Rusty Hicks!

Our Dream Team!

Encounter at Governor’s annual party.

Former President Barack Obama, center, waves to the crowd after speaking at a campaign rally to support Democratic California congressional candidates, Josh Harder, T.J. Cox, Gil Cisneros, Katie Porter, Harley Rouda, Mike Levin, from left, at the Anaheim Convention Center in Anaheim on Saturday, Sept. 8, 2018. (Photo by Kevin Sullivan, Orange County Register/SCNG)

 

 

The reason our School Board is so dysfunctional.

Welcome

Progressives, Independents, and Democrats!

Congratulations Governor Newsom!

Come to our monthly meetings.

 

We support Chino, Chino Hills, and South Ontario in Assembly Districts 53 and 59, State Senate Districts 22 and 32, and Congressional Districts 35 and 40
Our Facebook for Chino Valley Democrats LINK

Don and Jan Bridge and ACT Union Pres and VP

Registering voters at the Summer Concerts in the Park

Congratulations Christina Gagnier, Chino Valley Unified School Dist. Board!

President of our Club, Marian Arguello receives a special CHINO Woman of the Year award from Assembly representative Freddie Rodriguez (AD52) !

https://sd22.senate.ca.gov/sites/sd22.senate.ca.gov/files/SusanRubio-300x300.jpg

CA State Senator Susan Rubio SD22

Our club in action!

The Arguellos posing for their fans!

 

American Cancer Society Relay for Life Volunteers in the Community- 2019

Rally demanding CD39 Republican Ed Royce address Healthcare!

 

We regfister voters and recruit club members at the Summer Concerts in the Park!

 

Apr 08

5 things to know about tariffs and how they work

FROM PBS NEWS AT https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/5-things-to-know-about-tariffs-and-how-they-work

Economy Updated on Apr 3, 2025 6:51 PM EDT — Published on Mar 4, 2025 4:49 PM EDT

By —

Paul Wiseman, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Tariffs are in the news at the moment. Here’s what they are and what you need to know about them.

Tariffs are a tax on imports

Tariffs are typically charged as a percentage of the price a buyer pays a foreign seller. In the United States, tariffs are collected by Customs and Border Protection agents at 328 ports of entry across the country.

READ MORE: A timeline of Trump’s tariff actions so far

U.S. tariff rates vary: They are generally 2.5 percent on passenger cars, for instance, and 6 percent on golf shoes. Tariffs can be lower for countries with which the United States has trade agreements. Before the U.S. began imposing 25 percent tariffs on good from Canada and Mexico as of Tuesday, most goods moved between the United States and those countries tariff-free because of President Donald Trump’s U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.

Mainstream economists are generally skeptical about tariffs, considering them an inefficient way for governments to raise revenue.

There’s much misinformation about who actually pays tariffs

Trump is a proponent of tariffs, insisting that they are paid for by foreign countries. In fact, it is importers — American companies — that pay tariffs, and the money goes to the U.S. Treasury. Those companies typically pass their higher costs on to their customers in the form of higher prices. That’s why economists say consumers usually end up footing the bill for tariffs.

READ MORE: How soon will prices rise? 4 questions about Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, answered

Still, tariffs can hurt foreign countries by making their products pricier and harder to sell abroad. Foreign companies might have to cut prices — and sacrifice profits — to offset the tariffs and try to maintain their market share in the United States. Yang Zhou, an economist at Shanghai’s Fudan University, concluded in a study that Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods inflicted more than three times as much damage to the Chinese economy as they did to the U.S. economy.

What has Trump said about tariffs?

Trump has said tariffs will create more factory jobs, shrink the federal deficit, lower food prices and allow the government to subsidize childcare.

“Tariffs are the greatest thing ever invented,’’ Trump said at a rally in Flint, Michigan, during his presidential campaign.

During his first term, Trump imposed tariffs with a flourish — targeting imported solar panels, steel, aluminum and pretty much everything from China.

WATCH: Trump announces broad tariffs at ‘Liberation Day’ White House event

“Tariff Man,” he called himself.

Trump is moving ahead with higher tariffs in his second term.

The United States in recent years has gradually retreated from its post-World War II role of promoting global free trade and lower tariffs. That’s generally a response to the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs, widely attributed to unfettered tree trade and and China’s ascent as a manufacturing power.

Tariffs are intended mainly to protect domestic industries

By raising the price of imports, tariffs can protect home-grown manufacturers. They may also serve to punish foreign countries for unfair trade practices such as subsidizing their exporters or dumping products at unfairly low prices.

Before the federal income tax was established in 1913, tariffs were a major revenue source for the government. From 1790 to 1860, tariffs accounted for 90 percent of federal revenue, according to Douglas Irwin, a Dartmouth College economist who has studied the history of trade policy.

WATCH: Senate passes resolution to undo Trump’s Canada tariffs in rare Republican rebuke

Tariffs fell out of favor as global trade grew after World War II. The government needed vastly bigger revenue streams to finance its operations.

In the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the government collected around $80 billion in tariffs and fees, a trifle next to the $2.5 trillion that comes from individual income taxes and the $1.7 trillion from Social Security and Medicare taxes.

Still, Trump favors a budget policy that resembles what was in place in the 19th century.

Tariffs can also be used to pressure other countries on issues that may or may not be related to trade. In 2019, for example, Trump used the threat of tariffs as leverage to persuade Mexico to crack down on waves of Central American migrants crossing Mexican territory on their way to the United States.

Trump even sees tariffs as a way to prevent wars.

WATCH: A look inside Canada’s last-minute efforts to avert Trump’s steep tariffs

“I can do it with a phone call,” he said at an August rally in North Carolina.

If another country tries to start a war, he said he’d issue a threat:

“We’re going to charge you 100 percent tariffs. And all of a sudden, the president or prime minister or dictator or whoever the hell is running the country says to me, ‘Sir, we won’t go to war.’ ”

Economists generally consider tariffs self-defeating

Tariffs raise costs for companies and consumers that rely on imports. They’re also likely to provoke retaliation.

The European Union, for example, punched back against Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum by taxing U.S. products, from bourbon to Harley-Davidson motorcycles. Likewise, China has responded to Trump’s trade war by slapping tariffs on American goods, including soybeans and pork in a calculated drive to hurt his supporters in farm country.

A study by economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Zurich, Harvard and the World Bank concluded that Trump’s tariffs failed to restore jobs to the American heartland. The tariffs “neither raised nor lowered U.S. employment’’ where they were supposed to protect jobs, the study found.

READ MORE: Dow tumbles more than 1,600 the day after Trump’s major tariff announcement

Despite Trump’s 2018 taxes on imported steel, for example, the number of jobs at U.S. steel plants barely budged: They remained right around 140,000. By comparison, Walmart alone employs 1.6 million people in the United States.

Worse, the retaliatory taxes imposed by China and other nations on U.S. goods had “negative employment impacts,’’ especially for farmers, the study found. These retaliatory tariffs were only partly offset by billions in government aid that Trump doled out to farmers. The Trump tariffs also damaged companies that relied on targeted imports.

If Trump’s trade war fizzled as policy, though, it succeeded as politics. The study found that support for Trump and Republican congressional candidates rose in areas most exposed to the import tariffs — the industrial Midwest and manufacturing-heavy Southern states like North Carolina and Tennessee.

Mar 05

Fact Checking Trump’s Address to Joint Congress- Mar. 4, 2025

 

By PolitiFact Staff March 5, 2025

President Donald Trump recapped six weeks of aggressive efforts to cut the federal workforce, reorganize the economy and reorient foreign policy in his first address to a joint session of Congress.

The March 4 speech was long by historical standards — about an hour and 40 minutes — and it inspired more opposition party pushback than any in recent memory.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., ejected Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, a longtime Trump critic, after Green disrupted Trump a few minutes into his speech; Republicans cheered Green’s removal. As Trump mentioned law enforcement, some Democratic lawmakers shouted “January 6,” referring to the 2021 Capitol riot that led to numerous injuries and deaths among the Capitol Police force. Johnson banged his gavel and called for decorum.

Trump emphasized his commitment to following through on tariffs, including those that went into effect earlier in the day against Canada, Mexico and China.

“Tariffs — they’re about protecting the soul of our country,” Trump said. “There will be a little disturbance, but we’re OK with that. It won’t be much.” To farmers, who have worried about retaliatory tariffs against the crops they export, Trump said, “It may be a little bit of an adjustment,” but he urged them to “have a lot of fun — I love you, too.”

Social Security databases show “3.5 million people from ages 140 to 149 and money is being paid to many of them.”

False.

Trump recited numbers from a chart Elon Musk shared on X that showed millions of people in a Social Security database over the age of 100, including about 3.5 million in the 140 to 149 age bracket and one in the 360-369 age bracket.

The acting Social Security commissioner said that people older than 100 who do not have a date of death associated with their Social Security record “are not necessarily receiving benefits.” Recent Social Security Administration data shows that about 89,000 people ages 99 and older receive Social Security payments.

Government databases may classify someone as 150 years old for reasons peculiar to the complex Social Security database or because of missing data, but that doesn’t mean that millions of payments are delivered fraudulently to people with implausible ages.

Government Spending

“We found hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud.”

False.

Trump created the Department of Government Efficiency by executive order on his first day in office.

As of March 4, the DOGE website showed $105 billion in savings. But its “wall of receipts,” where it claims to track savings generated from DOGE’s cuts, showed less than $20 billion. That “wall of receipts” has been riddled with errors.

The White House has singled out federally funded projects it disagrees with ideologically, such as those about diversity, equity and inclusion or climate change. But that doesn’t prove fraud, which is determined by courts and requires a crime and intent to deceive.

The hunt for fraud is not new. For decades, inspectors general have searched for fraud in government agencies with some investigations leading to prosecutions. The Government Accountability Office last year estimated that fraud might cost the federal government $233 billion to $521 billion a year, citing 2018 to 2022 data.

“$1.9 billion (went) to recently created decarbonization of homes committee,” which was “headed up” by Stacey Abrams. 

False.

Trump listed several federal spending items he characterized as examples of “appalling waste.” His list included a mention of “$1.9 billion to recently created decarbonization of homes committee, headed up — and we know she’s involved, just at the last minute the money was passed over — by a woman named Stacey Abrams. Have you ever heard of her?”

There’s no evidence Abrams, the two-time Democratic candidate for Georgia governor, directly received any grant money or engaged in illegal behavior.

Trump’s claim appears to refer to a $2 billion Environmental Protection Agency grant awarded to a coalition of five clean energy groups called Power Forward Communities. That coalition included Rewiring America, where Abrams, an attorney, was senior legal counsel from March 2023 until 2024. The grant, which the EPA awarded under then-President Joe Biden, will fund energy efficient housing projects around the country.

Immigration

“Over the past four years, 21 million people poured into the United States, many of them were murderers, human traffickers, gang members and other criminals from the streets of dangerous cities, all throughout the world.”

False. 

Immigration officials encountered immigrants illegally crossing the U.S. border around 10.4 million times from February 2021, Biden’s first full month in office to January 2025, his last.

When accounting for Congressional Republicans’ September 2024 “got aways” estimate  — people who border officials don’t stop — the number rises to about 12.4 million.

But encounters aren’t the same as admissions. Encounters represent events, so one person who tries to cross the border twice counts as two encounters. Also, not everyone encountered is let into the country. The Department of Homeland Security estimated that about 4.5 million encounters led to expulsions or removals from February 2021 through November 2024.

“Illegal border crossings last month were by far the lowest ever recorded, ever.” 

Half True.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has not published official February data. Trump said March 1 that in February, “there were only 8,326 apprehensions” by Border Patrol agents.

Monthly data has been collected only since 2000. The number Trump cited is the lowest number of monthly illegal crossings between ports of entry since Border Patrol began reporting monthly data. Officials recorded 11,000 encounters in April 2020, the previous low, amid the COVID-19 pandemic in Trump’s first term.

Before 2000, data was annual. We took that annual data and divided it by 12 to find an average monthly figure. Based on those calculations, average monthly apprehensions were below 8,000 from 1960 to 1968, according to federal data.

It’s likely that Trump’s hard-on-immigration approach has played a role in decreasing illegal immigration, but it has been dropping since March 2024, during Biden’s administration.

Economy

Through tariffs, “we will take in trillions and trillions of dollars that create jobs like we have never seen before. I did it with China, and I did it with others.”

Part of Trump’s claim is predictive, but the effects of his first-term round of tariffs were not as positive as he said.

In 2018, Trump levied 25% tariffs on steel and 10% tariffs on aluminum, although some countries, including major trading partners Canada and Mexico, were fully or partially exempted. Under Biden, the U.S. negotiated with Europe and Japan to lift those tariffs, but tariffs on other countries, notably China, remained.

Trump also authorized tariffs on billions of dollars of Chinese products, prompting China to retaliate with tariffs of up to 25% on U.S. exports to China. Also, Trump imposed up to 30% tariffs on solar panels and a 20% tariff on washing machines.

We examined more than a dozen academic and think-tank studies on the effect of Trump’s first-term tariffs. Some found gains for domestic industries that had foreign competitors hit with tariffs, but numerous analyses found that, on balance, tariffs’ negative affect the economy and consumer costs were bigger. Even when certain companies or industries benefited, studies concluded that tariffs are an inefficient way to deliver gains to domestic producers.

Independent estimates of prospective tariff revenue are modest. The center-right Tax Foundation estimated that the first year of tariffs on China, Canada, Mexico and other countries would bring in $140 billion, which would not make much of a dent in the $1 trillion deficit.

“Joe Biden, especially, let the price of eggs get out of control.”

Half True.

The price of eggs has risen dramatically, but this omits that the price hikes occurred during an outbreak of bird flu.

During the Biden administration, more than 100 million egg-laying chickens died from bird flu or were killed to stop the virus’ spread. This led to an egg shortage and higher prices.

Depopulation is a long-standing practice to prevent bird flu from spreading, agriculture experts said. This was also true during Trump’s first term; government documents show depopulation was the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s bird flu strategy then and during a 2015 outbreak under Obama.

Meanwhile, the price of eggs is higher now than it was during the peak under Biden. It has gone up by about $2 since Trump was sworn in.

Under the Biden administration, “we suffered the worst inflation in 48 years, but perhaps even in the history of our country, they’re not sure.”

Mostly False.

The highest year-over-year inflation rate on Biden’s watch was around 9% in summer 2022. It’s been about four decades since inflation ran that high. Trump exaggerated that there is room for doubt about that.

The highest year-over-year U.S. inflation rates were recorded in the 1970s and early 1980s, when the price increase sometimes ranged from 12% to 15%.

But Trump is incorrect that it’s the highest in U.S. history. In addition to the higher rates in the 1970s and early 1980s, the overall year-over-year inflation rate in 1946, after the U.S. won World War II, exceeded 18%.

International relations and foreign policy

“We’ve spent perhaps $350 billion, like taking candy from a baby” on Ukraine.

False.

The amount the U.S. has spent on Ukraine’s war with Russia varies depending on what’s being counted, but most estimates are in the $175 billion to $185 billion range, Mark Cancian, a senior defense and security adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, previously told PolitiFact.

Ukraine Oversight, the website of the special inspector general for Operation Atlantic Resolve, which the U.S. government created in 2014 to coordinate its military aid to Ukraine, said that as of Sept. 30, 2024, the U.S. had spent $183 billion to help Ukraine.

The European Union has given roughly $145 billion in financial, military, humanitarian and refugee assistance.

Trump cites Panama and Greenland, two issues he didn’t raise on the campaign trail

Raising an expansionist theme he’s articulated in recent weeks, Trump said, “My administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal” and said he had “a message tonight for the incredible people of Greenland: We strongly support your right to determine your own future, and if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America.”

These riffs, combined with repeated suggestions that he’d like Canada to become the 51st state and his vision for a “Trump Gaza,” may or may not happen. But unlike many other things he’s done so far in office, a “Manifest Destiny” policy was not something he telegraphed to voters.

Trump had very little to say about foreign policy in the 75 campaign promises we’re tracking on the MAGA-Meter. Nor did the Trump-aligned Project 2025 dwell on these, beyond a more limited call to “enhance economic ties between the U.S. and Greenland, including through the establishment of a diplomatic presence.”

To the contrary, Trump has often bragged (not always accurately) about how, during his first term, he presided over peace and didn’t start any wars.

Mexico and Canada have “allowed fentanyl to come into our country at levels never seen before, killing hundreds of thousands of our citizens.”

Mostly False.

There’s a kernel of truth because most illicit fentanyl in the U.S. comes from Mexico and is made with chemicals from Chinese labs. It enters the U.S. mainly through the southern border at official ports of entry, and it’s smuggled in mostly by U.S. citizens.

But Trump wrongly characterizes what is happening at the U.S. border with Canada.

In fiscal year 2024, border officials seized nearly 22,000 pounds of fentanyl across U.S. borders. Less than 1% of that fentanyl, 43 pounds, was seized at the U.S.-Canadian border. In January 2025, border officials seized 1,000 pounds, and less than half a pound was seized at the northern border.

And he exaggerates the number of fentanyl overdose deaths, which have been dropping since 2023, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

More than 53,000 people died of a synthetic opioid overdose in the 12-month period starting in October 2023 and ending September 2024, the latest available data. That’s a drop from more than 77,000 from October 2022 to September 2023.

The Paris accord was “costing us trillions of dollars.” 

False.

The climate agreement wasn’t costing the U.S. trillions of dollars. It hypothetically could.

The Trump administration defended the decision to withdraw from the Obama-era climate agreement, in part, based on a consultant’s projections about the economic effects of restricting fossil fuel emissions.

NERA Economic Consulting said these changes would result in higher production cost, and a higher production cost would translate into the closure of uncompetitive manufacturing businesses. Those closures, in turn, would mean fewer manufacturing jobs. The job loss would result in a corresponding decline in gross domestic product, with a loss of $250 billion by 2025 that would accelerate to $3 trillion by 2040.

However, the study said that the long-term projections did not factor in all of the offsetting job gains and GDP growth associated with a clean tech transition.

Polling

“Now, for the first time in modern history, more Americans believe that our country is headed in the right direction than the wrong direction.”

Mostly False.

That’s cherry-picking the results of two polls conducted since Trump took office Jan. 20. Another 17 polls during that period describe Americans having strong “wrong track” sentiments.

According to an archive of “right-track/wrong-track” polling maintained by RealClearPolitics, two recent polls found more respondents saying the country is on the right track than saying it’s on the wrong track. A Rasmussen poll found a 1 percentage point edge for “right track,” while an Emerson College poll found a 4-point edge. Among pollsters, Rasmussen has consistently published higher approval ratings for Trump than its peers that track presidential job approval among Americans

However, all 17 other polls since Trump took office show “wrong track” leading “right track,” some by double-digit margins. RealClearPolitics’ average of all the polls shows “wrong track” sentiment leading “right track” sentiment by just under 10 points.

PolitiFact Chief Correspondent Louis Jacobson, Senior Correspondent Amy Sherman, Staff Writers Grace Abels, Maria Briceño, Madison Czopek, Loreben Tuquero, Maria Ramirez Uribe, Researcher Caryn Baird, Executive Director Aaron Sharockmanand KFF Health News Senior Correspondent Stephanie Armour contributed to this story. 

Our live-event fact-checks rely on both new and previously reported work. We link to past work whenever possible. In some cases, a fact-check rating may be different tonight than in past versions. In those cases, either details of what the politician said, or how the politician said it, led us to reevaluate it on our Truth-O-Meter. Read more about our process.

Feb 05

37 ways Project 2025 has shown up in Trump’s executive orders

Politico  By Liset Cruz, Ali Bianco, Megan Messerly, Abhinanda Bhattacharyya and Anna Wiederkehr
02/05/2025 02:00 AM PST

President Donald Trump on the campaign trail last summer disavowed Project 2025, saying he knew nothing about the effort.

But many of the conservative blueprint’s ideas have made their way into his early executive orders, signaling the sweeping impact the Heritage Foundation document has already had on the Trump administration’s policy making. A side-by-side review by POLITICO found dozens of cases where the president’s early executive actions have aligned with portions of the 922-page policy document, including some instances with nearly verbatim language lifted from the report to the White House.

Several of the ideas, such as energy policies expanding U.S. oil and critical minerals production, are longtime conservative policy priorities that did not originate with Project 2025. But some of the more unconventional strategies outlined in the document, such as reclassifying federal employees to make them easier to fire and installing loyalists in senior government positions, have also shown up in Trump’s executive orders.

There have also been other Trump administration moves outside of his executive orders that appear to come directly from Project 2025, such as directing the Federal Communications Commission to investigate NPR and PBS for alleged violations of sponsorship advertising rules.

We’ve broken down the executive order similarities in social issues, immigration, government staffing and other categories below. See https://www.politico.com/interactives/2025/trump-executive-orders-project-2025/

Jan 02

The Women’s March Rebranded and Reorganized. Now They’re Ready for 2025

 

from Time magazine

5 minute read
One day after Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration, hundreds of thousands of anti-Trump protestors fill the streets during the Women’s March on January 21, 2017 held in the area surrounding the Washington Mall.Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis —Getty Images
By Rebecca Schneid
December 18, 2024 3:13 PM EST

When activist and organizer Raquel Willis spoke at the inaugural Women’s March on the day of Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2017, the organization was very different.

At that time, Willis was a burgeoning leader in social justice and activism, and she says the conversation around trans experiences was limited. “It was a time where there was more visibility than ever before, more trans folks engaged in social justice movement than ever before,” Willis says. “And yet there was a tension between, particularly cis women and trans women, but also women of other experiences too.”

The first Women’s March was enormous, bringing an estimated 500,000 marchers to Washington, DC and over 4 million throughout the United States. At the time, the protest was the largest single-day protest in the country’s history, and it created indelible protest images of women in pink hats that would define a certain type of opposition to Trump’s presidency. But during the following years, the Women’s March fractured.  There were multiple arguments among those within the organization, the group faced allegations of racism and antisemitism, and sponsors fled. There were also strategic questions: Willis says she was skeptical about centering Trump as a singular, isolated political event, and instead wishes there was discussion of him as “reflective of these long standing systems of oppression, white supremacy, cis heteropatriarchy, classism, and capitalism.”

Now nearly eight years later, Willis and the Women’s March organizers say the group has evolved, absorbed past criticism, and is dedicated to including more voices as they prepare for Trump’s second term.

To wit, the protest planned for the weekend of Trump’s second inauguration isn’t being called another “Women’s March,” but rather the “People’s March.”  The march, scheduled for January 18th, is an attempt to bring all people who are fearful of a second Trump Administration, including some women, LGBTQ+ people, and immigrants, under the same umbrella.

Tamika Middleton, Managing Director of Women’s March, oversees the organization’s programmatic strategy and coalition building. She says that calling this march the “People’s March” is an attempt to respond to what they see as a “call to community” within their base.

“We want to push against this notion of hopelessness, this sort of fear that we see people leaning into demobilization and demoralization,” she says. “We’re also trying to make visible a resistance… Looking at the election results, there is this narrative around a broad mandate within the electorate in favor of Trump’s policies. We want to demonstrate that there are people who will continue to stand up and fight against that.”

To that end, Middleton says that the fight is no longer just about women, though the Women’s March will be leading the charge—and thus a coalition of organizations focused on communities across a number of interests are being folded into the People’s March. Willis confounded the Gender Liberation Movement, which organized the Gender Liberation March in Washington D.C., this year, and her organization is among those working with the Women’s March.

“We know that we’re going to have to have all of them, poor folks, middle class folks. We’re going to need women. We’re going to need queer, trans folks and non binary folks. We’re going to need men,” Middleton says. “We’re going to need all of us really in this struggle together in order to fight back against what we see coming.”

In a further sign that the People’s March is creating some distance with the iconography of the 2017 Women’s March, in the the Frequently Asked Questions section of its website, the site says marchers should not bring weapons, drugs, or Handmaid’s Tale costumes. “The use of Handmaid’s Tale imagery to characterize the controlling of women’s reproduction has proliferated, primarily by white women across the country, since the show has gained popularity,” the site reads. “This message continues to create more fragmentation, often around race and class, because it erases the fact that Black women, undocumented women, incarcerated women, poor women and disabled women have always had their reproduction freedom controlled in this country.”

Exit polls from the November election showed Vice President Kamala Harris beating Trump among women overall, but by a narrower margin than President Joe Biden against Trump in 2020. Though Harris outperformed Trump with women of color, Trump won white women 53% to 46% over Harris.

Middleton says that the movement is moving beyond just discussing Trump.  “What happened in this election is that people, broadly across the country, are looking for systemic change,” she says. “They are recognizing that the system does not work for them, and they are looking for something different. What we are trying to do is offer a vision of a different world, to offer something, a vision of change that speaks to all of us, and that includes all of us.”

Organizers are planning to continue their work after the inauguration, hoping to move people into more permanent political homes where they can continue to take action and build power over the next four years. Middleton says it’s not just about organizing one protest, but building a “protest muscle” among their base.

Willis agrees, arguing this is not a moment to look away from the movement’s fraught history, but rather to learn from it. “I think this is a time for those of us who believe in collective liberation to address long standing fissures within our various communities and movements,” she says, “and figure out how to actually tackle them and feel and build something new.”

 

Dec 08

5 Takeaways From The Elections Now That They Are Finally Over

With the resolution of an incredibly close House race in California (Democrat Adam Gray unseated incumbent Republican John Duarte), we now know the major results of the 2024 balloting a month after Election Day. It’s a good time to set aside Republican spin claiming a massive landslide victory and Democratic rationalizations about this or that mistake changing everything, and just look at the numbers and the story they tell. As we will discuss, total GOP control of the federal government probably won’t last more than two years, and there are no particular signs of an electoral realignment down ballot. Republican triumphalism and Democratic despair are equally unmerited from the perspective of the election itself.

Trump’s win looks pretty normal

Looking just at the presidential results, the more you look at the numbers the clearer it is that Trump made solid but unspectacular gains compared to his showing in 2020. There is no way his victory over Kamala Harris can be credibly called a “landslide.” He did not win a national popular-vote majority (though he came close with 49.79 percent, according to the most complete results we have). His margin over Harris was 1.5 percent, which is smaller than the margin by which the victor won in every presidential election since 1968 (setting aside the two elections, in 2000 and 2016, when the popular vote loser won the Electoral College).

The popular vote win did, of course, show a marked improvement by Trump from his 4.5 percent deficit against Joe Biden in 2020, and from his 2.1 percent deficit against Hillary Clinton in 2016. The 2024 “swing” to Trump was not, the most recent election analyses confirm, principally a matter of odd turnout patterns afflicting Democrats who were unhappy with their party over this or that issue but disliked Trump as much or more; Democrats lost vote share to Trump, not to “none of the above.”

Trump won the Electoral College by a more decisive 312 to 226 margin, but that’s basically the same margin he won in 2016 and that Biden won in 2020. More to the point, a two-point swing to Harris in just three states, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, would have given her an Electoral College majority and the presidency.

Every bit of information we have reinforces the impression that recent inflation and pessimistic assessments of the economy were the killer issues for Harris. They were overwhelmingly the top concerns of swing voters, who also exhibited extraordinarily positive retroactive impressions of Trump’s performance on the economy during his first term. You can argue that her campaign failed to galvanize negative swing-voter feelings about Trump’s character and extremist associations, or that the vice-president might have somehow more sharply distinguished herself from the deeply unpopular president to whom she was lashed.

Republican Senate gains were mostly a reflection of a favorable landscape

Throughout the 2024 election cycle, no matter what was going on in the presidential race, the odds of Democrats hanging on to control of the Senate were consistently low, thanks to an unforgiving landscape. Democrats were defending eight vulnerable seats, three of them in states (Montana, Ohio, and West Virginia) sure to be carried handily by Trump. There were only three theoretically vulnerable Republicans; all of them were in safely red states (Florida, Nebraska, and Texas) and had big money advantages over their challengers.

In the end, Democrats predictably lost Senate races in deep-red Montana, Ohio, and West Virginia, and went 4-1 (winning in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin while losing in Pennsylvania) in the other five competitive races, all in states carried by Trump at the presidential level. Upsets did not materialize in Florida, Nebraska, or Texas. While the national Republican trend helped, it’s safe to say the landscape mattered most in producing the 53-47 majority Senate Republicans now enjoy.

House Democrats did well, and will be able to cause real problems for Mike Johnson

Despite the adverse presidential and Senate results, House Democrats gained one net seat (two if the 2022 elections are the baseline) in 2024 balloting. Democrats won 40 of the 69 districts rated “most competitive” by the New York Times, and split the 22 races rated as toss-ups by the Cook Political Report right down the middle. They flipped three seats each in California and New York, mitigating to some extent the story line of Democratic crisis in deep-blue states.

The results means the narrow margin of control that caused a lot of problems for House Republicans during the last two years will be continued if not intensified, with Speaker Mike Johnson being able to lose just two votes on any pure party-line balloting in the House. There’s an even more perilous short-term situation as House members resign to accept positions in the Trump administration (two special elections for open GOP seats have already been scheduled for April 1 in Florida). Assuming Democrats stay united, there will be a powerful temptation among various House Republican factions to shake down Johnson prior to crucial votes, or even to break ranks entirely in anticipation of difficult midterm elections.

State results showed no major gains for either party

Whatever national wave Republicans could boast based on their presidential performance didn’t really extend to the state level. Neither party made a net gain in governorships, though Democrats did decisively win the most-discussed contest, in North Carolina. Among state legislatures, Republicans achieved no net gain in chambers controlled (though they did bust up Democratic trifectas in Michigan and Minnesota) and wound up with the same percentage of legislators overall that they had going into the election.

The most fiercely competitive state ballot measures involved abortion policy, with abortion-rights supporters winning seven (in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and New York), and their opponents winning three (in Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota, though the Florida abortion-rights measure did win a majority but failed to reach a super-majority threshold). Though the Florida outcome was a bitter disappointment for the largely Democratic pro-choice forces, their overall record in 2024 remained positive.

Looking ahead, neither party is a clear favorite

Though a lot of currently unknown factors will determine the shape and intensity of the 2026 midterm elections, the odds are very good that Democrats will have at least one trophy in plain view: control of the House. In 20 of the last 22 midterm elections, the president’s party has lost a minimum of four net House seats, and an average of 32. Last time he was in office, Trump’s party lost 40 net House seats. From what we know of the new Republican regime’s plans for the next two years, it seems very likely that it will cash in a lot of political capital to achieve highly controversial policy goals, which almost always means a short-term loss of popularity. A lot of House Republicans are going to be walking planks on high-profile votes in 2025 that could be fatal in 2026.

On the other hand, Republicans would have to really screw up to lose control of the Senate in 2026; they will again benefit from a favorable landscape. While they must defend 22 seats, 21 are in states Trump carried on November 5; the other is held by Maine veteran Susan Collins, who regularly overperforms her national party. Fully 20 of the seats at risk are in states Trump carried by at least 11 percent in 2024. It will be a really hard nut to crack, particularly since Democrats will have to defend vulnerable senators of their own in Georgia (Jon Ossoff) and Michigan (Gary Peters). Since Republicans control the White House and the vice-president’s tie-breaking vote, Democrats would have to flip four seats to regain control. The 2028 landscape is significantly less slanted toward Republicans, but if they enter it with their current three-seat cushion (or more, depending on what happens in 2026), a flip will still be a tall order.

How about the big prize, the presidency, which presumably Donald Trump will be giving up in 2028? The good news for Democrats going forward is that in 2028 the Biden administration will be an increasingly distant memory, and Republicans will without question be held accountable for economic discontent, which is very likely to continue or even intensify. The GOP gains among Democratic “base” constituencies (especially Latinos and young voters) that received so much attention this year are most easily explained by short-term reaction to deeply negative economic perceptions rather than some fundamental alienation from the Democratic Party that we can take for granted going forward.

Even without factoring in the possibility that the new Republican regime in Washington will overreach and become quickly unpopular (which will almost definitely be the case if the massive cuts in non-defense federal spending the GOP is contemplating are enacted), there’s no particular reason to assume that J.D. Vance or some other MAGA inheritor will begin the 2028 presidential cycle as a favorite against a Democratic nominee who (this time!) will be chosen by an open primary process.

There’s no clear evidence of a Republican realignment

Every time either party wins a high-stakes election, particularly if it results in a governing trifecta, there’s talk in the air of realignment, of a shifting of tectonic plates that changes the position of the major parties for a generation. We heard it from Republicans in 2004, just before a precipitous decline in George W. Bush’s popularity that cost the GOP control of Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. We heard it from Democrats in 2008, just before they lost the House in a calamitous 2010 midterm with the Senate following suit in 2014. In 2020 Democrats told themselves the defeat of Trump (followed by his much-condemned refusal to accept it) meant the MAGA infection of the GOP was at a definitive end.

These realignment dreams were all illusions, and there’s no clear evidence today’s are any different. Do Trump’s gains among the fast-growing Latino population mean Democrats are doomed in future presidential elections? Bush’s very similar gains in the same demographic group (and also, lest we forget, among Black voters) sure didn’t stick. Does the GOP’s 2024 progress among young voters guarantee a glorious future? Probably not, since they’re still losing among the under-30 voters, aside from the fact that a slightly new cohort arrives every year, now featuring first-time voters whose crucial experience will be with the reign of overwhelmingly Christian conservative Republicans who may disappoint their economic aspirations and foreign-policy views just as much as Biden did.

There’s also virtually no chance that future elections will feature an octogenarian Democratic incumbent who takes his sweet time giving way to a vice-presidential successor who struggles to come up with a “change” message, even as her opponent survived two assassination attempts. The weird stuff about 2024, including its weird presidential winner, will probably be more noteworthy to historians than any long-term trend it signaled. So the smart expectation going forward is continued partisan polarization and highly contested elections, not some red apocalypse.

 

 

 

found in New Yorker Intelligencer Mag by Ed Kilgore Dec 5, 24- https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/2024-election-5-takeaways.html

Nov 06

Bernie Sanders remark on Instagram re: 2024 election

It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them.

While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change.

And they’re right.

Link: https://www.instagram.com/p/DCC3TFUBbkO/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

“While I concede this election, I will not concede the fight…”  VP Harris,  Nov. 6, 2024

Sep 29

A new way forward…

Vice President Harris and Governor Walz are fighting for a New Way Forward that protects our fundamental freedoms, strengthens our democracy, and ensures every person has the opportunity to not just get by, but to get ahead. As a prosecutor, Attorney General, Senator, and now Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris always stood up for the people against predators, scammers, and powerful interests. She promises to be a president for all Americans, a president who unites us around our highest aspirations, and a president who always fights for the American people. From the courthouse to the White House, that has been her life’s work.

Issues

 

Sep 03

NPR: What to watch for in the post-Labor Day campaign sprint

2024 Election

NPR

What to watch for in the post-Labor Day campaign sprint

September 3, 20245:00 AM ET
Heard on Morning Edition

For the first time in two months, the presidential election is actually set.

There are sure to be lots more surprises — and nail biting — to come, though.

Here are five themes and questions to think about for this fall:

1. Don’t stress about the polls

This is the time of year when people who already know who they are going to vote for begin to get nervous and start becoming amateur horse-race poll watchers.

Stop it.

Survey research exists, and it’s largely pretty good. NPR keeps an eye on it and even conducts our own to get a better sense of how people are feeling about the candidates, policy, politics and society. But what all the polls show are two things:

  1. Vice President Harris is performing better than President Biden was just before he dropped out of the race. She’s gained on average anywhere from 4 to 6 points in swing-state polls, boosting her in the big seven swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (in the so-called Blue Wall), and has drawn support even in the Sun Belt states of North Carolina and Georgia in the East and Arizona and Nevada out West.
  2. The race is very close, and that’s not likely going to change.

That’s all, for now, that anyone needs to know about the candidates’ standing in the polls. No one knows exactly who is going to show up, the polls you see aren’t meant to be predictive, and they all have margins of error of about 3 to 4 points, meaning results could actually be about 3 or more points lower or higher.

That’s a 7-to-8-point potential swing in good surveys, so if things are this close, realize that the game isn’t played on your computer screen looking at polling aggregator sites or reading data geeks’ interpretations of the crosstabs. It’s about activism, mobilization, and, frankly, how Harris performs — because views of former President Donald Trump are pretty locked in.

2. Does Harris continue her momentum and hold steady, or does something change the dynamic?

Supporters react to Vice President Harris at a campaign rally in Savannah, Ga., on Aug. 29.

Supporters react to Vice President Harris at a campaign rally in Savannah, Ga., on Aug. 29.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Democratic convention is over and, with it, Harris’ acceptance speech. That address is a pillar moment in any presidential campaign.

Harris then passed a key, basic test last Thursday with her first interview since getting into the race five weeks ago. So far, she’s had about as good a rollout as she could have hoped for. Until the interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, though, almost everything she had done was highly scripted

Now that the introductory period is over, there is going to likely be increased scrutiny on Harris’ record and policy proposals. The next big test will be the Sept. 10 debate with Trump. Part of her task in the next two months is to keep her base intact and fired up — and to target the middle. So far, she’s done that.

Republicans have been critical of positions Harris has taken in this campaign that are at odds with her presidential campaign in 2019, when she was trying to win over progressives on things like fracking, immigration and more. She has to figure out the best ways to explain her change, which she started to do in her interview Thursday. We’ll see how crisp she is in talking about them at the debate.

Will any of those attacks stick? That will be clearer a couple of weeks after the debate when views settle again. But they’d have a better chance of landing with voters if she weren’t running against Trump, who has been all over the map on multiple issues.

3. Who does best in the debate(s)?

The first debate will likely be a pretty big audience, likely one of the largest of the campaign, and perhaps very consequential. Consider that the debate between Trump and Biden effectively ended Biden’s candidacy for reelection.

While the debate brings increased scrutiny on Harris’ policy positions and her proposals, it also presents considerable risk to Trump.

Trump, in that first debate against Biden, meandered and told a raft of lies. But Biden’s poor performance overshadowed all that, and Trump largely escaped scrutiny.

At Trump’s press conference in early August, NPR found 162 lies or distortions in 64 minutes, more than two a minute. Harris, on the other hand, made a dozen statements during her 40-minute Democratic convention acceptance speech that were either misleading or lacking in context.

If Harris has a solid debate, the focus could be on Trump in a way he doesn’t want.

4. Who has the better turnout operation?

The campaigns have spent more than $1 billion on ads already and have knocked on millions of doors to talk with people about who they might prefer and trying to convince them to vote for their candidate.

Cartogram showing squares for each of the U.S. states, sized according to the number of electoral votes that the state has, and colored by the forecasted winner of the presidential election in that state. Harris is forecasted to win 226 votes, Trump is forecasted to win 219 votes, and 93 votes are toss ups.

 

Democrats feel like they have an advantage over the Trump team because some of the GOP turnout effort is being outsourced to Turning Point USA, a group with very limited experience or success in doing this. Turning Point’s tactics have had some professional Republicans operatives irritated and nervous.

5. What issues motivate voters — or do they, at the end of the day?

Will views of the economy improve? Do abortion rights drive Democrats to the polls? Will immigration and crime break through for Republicans in the suburbs?

These are all valid and important questions, but some wonder how much policy will actually matter, considering this is a race involving Trump, who is such a polarizing figure.

As Biden likes to say, “Don’t compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternative.” That’s certainly true in U.S. politics, which largely presents binary choices.

For as much as Trump ran as an outsider in the 2016 campaign, he’s now been on the political scene for almost a decade, and he’s 78 years old.

This election will likely come down to this:

Whether Republicans are able to home in on their advantages on the economy and immigration, or whether Harris can fire up voters angry with Trump over abortion and democracy and truly grab the mantle of change, despite being a sitting vice president.

“What we don’t know about this election is whether any of these issues really matter,” said Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist who worked in the White House for Harris for a year. “What might be true is that this is really an election about change versus more of the same. And if it’s a change election, Harris is the candidate of change, and it’s going to be hard to get people to move off of that.”

Aug 06

Harris Picks Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as Running Mate

IN WSJ By John McCormick, Tarini Parti and Catherine Lucey

Updated Aug. 6, 2024 5:44 pm ET


Vice President Kamala Harris has named Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate. WSJ’s Ken Thomas explains what Walz brings to the Democrats’ election showdown with Donald Trump and JD Vance. Photo: Photo: Jim Vondruska/Getty Images

The vice president talked to President Biden on the phone before announcing Walz as her pick, said Emilie Simons, a White House spokeswoman. Biden also spoke to Walz and congratulated him, later praising him as a “powerful voice for working people.”

Walz wasn’t widely known outside of Minnesota before his name appeared on Harris shortlists. But he gained some Democratic fans outside his state in recent weeks for television interviews that hit at former President Donald Trump and his running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, without being overly nasty. He called the pair “weird,” a word that went viral among Democrats.

Harris bypassed Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, another finalist for the job who was viewed as a more conventional pick because he had the potential to help deliver a key battleground state. Shapiro was expected to attend the Philadelphia rally alongside Harris and Walz.

Advertisement

Shapiro’s selection might have also angered some progressives because he has supported private-school vouchers and is a vocal supporter of Israel at a time when some activists on the left have condemned the Biden administration’s handling of the war in Gaza. One person close to the process also said the public lobbying conducted by many of Shapiro’s allies was a frustration to Harris’s team.

Shapiro said in a statement Tuesday he was grateful for having been considered and that Walz was an “exceptionally strong addition to the ticket.”

Pat Haney, 72, a school superintendent from Philadelphia, said she is excited about Walz’s selection in part because it allows for Shapiro to remain her home state’s governor. Pointing to Walz’s military and education background, she said she thinks he “can be helpful in swing states and the Midwest.”

Sheike Ward, 33, a Philadelphia resident who works in healthcare and is a member of SEIU, said she looked into the records of all of the finalists and saw Walz as the most pro-union. She also liked his background in teaching. “Anybody that’s been a teacher is most likely going to be a caring person,” she said.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz speaking in July with a man whose family business was destroyed as a result of a damaged dam and related flooding. Photo: Casey Ek/The Free Press/Associated Press

A person close to the process said Walz was picked for his executive experience and record on issues that Democrats want to work on nationally, such as the child tax credit, paid leave, abortion and gun control. The person also said his background as a veteran, hunter and onetime coach would be appealing in Midwestern states, and that he is viewed as a strong messenger to counter Trump and Vance. He also has a good personal rapport with Harris.

Trump’s campaign in a statement suggested the selection represented a doubling down on progressivism. Aides to his campaign said they think Walz will be easier to define as a liberal and attach to the broader theme of Harris being out of step with many Americans, while not making it harder for Trump to win a battleground state.

“It’s no surprise that San Francisco Liberal Kamala Harris wants West Coast wannabe Tim Walz as her running-mate,” the statement said. “Walz has spent his governorship trying to reshape Minnesota in the image of the Golden State.”

Advertisement

Vance, who is scheduled this week to make stops in many of the places Harris and Walz plan to go, told reporters traveling on his campaign plane that he left Walz a message after the announcement.

What’s News

The Wall Street Journal Whats NewsWho Is Tim Walz, Kamala Harris’ Pick for Vice President?

“I just said, look, ‘Congratulations, look forward to a robust conversation. And enjoy the ride,’” he said. “Maybe he’ll call me back, maybe he won’t.”

Democrats on Capitol Hill hailed the choice. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) said Walz was “a great asset” for Harris. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said: “To characterize him as left is so unreal.…He’s right down the middle.”

Republicans attacked Walz, with Rep. Tom Emmer (R., Minn.) saying his state’s governor is an “empty suit who has worked to turn Minnesota into Harris’ home state of California.”

At 60 years old, Walz is slightly older than Harris (she turns 60 in October). He was viewed by some Minnesotans as a moderate Democrat when first elected governor in 2018. He had grown up in small-town Nebraska and enlisted in the Army National Guard at 17. He was elected to Congress from one of the state’s more conservative districts and once earned the National Rifle Association’s endorsement.

Advertisement

But he has governed more to the left than some initially expected. Walz supported universal free school meals for students, voting rights for the formerly incarcerated, driver’s licenses for migrants who crossed the border illegally and recreational marijuana. He signed a law that made abortion a “fundamental right.”

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz signed a bill in 2023 to allow driver’s licenses for state residents regardless of their immigration status. Photo: Elizabeth Flores/Star Tribune/Associated Press

To win in November, Harris likely needs to do the reverse of what Walz did. She is distancing herself from some of the more progressive parts of her record—some dating from her 2020 Democratic presidential primary campaign—in a gradual move to the middle, even as Trump works to brand her a “San Francisco liberal.”

Minnesota Republicans have suggested Walz was slow to call out the National Guard to address rioting that started after the Minneapolis police murder of George Floyd in 2020.

The rioting resulted in significant damage, including a police precinct being set on fire. Walz deployed hundreds of National Guard troops three days after Floyd’s murder as looting and arson spread. City and state officials have blamed each other for the response. After-action assessments found a breakdown in communication between government officials, the Minneapolis-based Star Tribune newspaper has reported.

Advertisement

Walz appears as comfortable in front of voters wearing a flannel shirt and baseball cap as he is in a suit and tie, giving him a naturalness that has served him well on the campaign trail.

After graduating in 1989 with a social-science degree from Chadron State College in Nebraska, Walz spent a year teaching in China before returning to full-time status at the National Guard and then a teaching career. He eventually landed about 80 miles southwest of Minneapolis in Mankato, Minn., where he taught social studies and raised two children with his wife, Gwen Walz.

He also continued in the National Guard, where he specialized in field artillery and did a tour overseas, although he never saw combat. After 24 years in the National Guard, he rose to the rank of command sergeant major before running for Congress in 2006.

House Speaker John Boehner administering the House oath to Rep. Tim Walz during a mock swearing-in ceremony in 2011. Photo: Jacquelyn Martin/AP

In his early 40s, Walz entered politics and managed to unseat a six-term Republican congressman in a mostly rural southern Minnesota district. His humor, polished by years of trying to keep high-schoolers’ attention, has been a strength throughout his political career.

After 12 years in Congress, Walz ran for governor as someone willing to compromise with Republicans. He won by 11.4 percentage points in 2018, almost four points higher than his 2022 re-election victory.

Minnesota became something of a laboratory in 2023 for many of the Democratic Party’s policy goals, once Walz had a legislature fully controlled by Democrats. Besides establishing the goal of a carbon-free electrical grid by 2040, the state also passed paid family and medical leave, sick leave, transgender-rights protections, a tax credit aimed at low-income parents, and a $1 billion investment in affordable housing.

Advertisement

“If you need a reminder that elections have consequences, check out what’s happening in Minnesota,” former President Barack Obama wrote on social media last year.

Walz might have some historical trends going his way. Minnesota has already been home to two vice presidents, Hubert H. Humphrey and Walter Mondale, enough to rank in the top 10 states. Also, roughly a third of all past vice presidents have been governors, according to the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University.

Vivian Salama, Alex Leary and Lindsay Wise contributed to this article.

Write to John McCormick at mccormick.john@wsj.com, Tarini Parti at tarini.parti@wsj.com and Catherine Lucey at catherine.lucey@wsj.com

Jul 03

Letters: If Joe Biden steps down, so should Donald Trump

from Chicago Tribune Editorial Page  July 3rd, 2024

I, like millions of other Americans and people from around the world, watched the cringe-worthy presidential debate. Neither candidate inspires confidence in the United States as a world leader. What I find most interesting is Sunday’s editorial (“As America sank into the couch, Biden and Trump combined for a depressing farce. Enough,.” June 30) presenting valid reasons for President Joe Biden to step aside for another candidate. This was reinforced by Clarence Page’s column (who almost always sides with the Democratic Party) making the same endorsement (“The sad reality? Biden needs to make way for another Democratic nominee”).

During the debate, former President Donald Trump said that Biden was the only reason he was running and that he would rather be doing anything else, but he was compelled for the sake of the nation to run again. Biden said he is running to protect democracy and protect the nation from the influence of Trump and his MAGA followers. I agree with the editorial board; Biden should step aside. I will go further and say that the Republican Party should hold Trump to his word and have him step down as well, should Biden choose not to run.

The question on everyone’s mind is: Who should run? I would like to see a matchup between either former Gov. Nikki Haley, R-S.C., or Gov. Kim Reynolds, R-Iowa, and either Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, D-Michigan, or U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Illinois. In my opinion, a presidential race between either of these Republicans and either of these Democrats would be beneficial for the country, as well as our standing in the world.

— Scott P. Lauder, Webster, Wisconsin

It’s a win-win for media

Regarding the editorial: I understand what the Tribune Editorial Board says about the “debate,” but it’s what the board isn’t saying that leads me to write.

The only reason we have to suffer presidential debating this early is because the nominations are already a foregone conclusion. If the editorial board can declare Joe Biden unfit for office on the basis of a head cold, then how can it completely elide the far more salient evidence of unfitness on the part of Donald Trump, namely that he is a convicted criminal? But Trump will drop dead before he drops out. Considering what’s at stake in this election — the continuation of our democracy — Biden would hardly be inclined to quit the race also.

For the Tribune Editorial Board and the rest of the mainstream media, it’s a win-win. If Biden does follow the editorial board’s advice and quit, the board can unfurl its hardy “Democrats in disarray” boilerplate once more. If Biden denies the board that pleasure, then it can go back to hammering the age question all the way up to November, even afterward, if Biden wins.

But if worse comes to worst and Trump wins, I guess the board could tell us what democracy looks like in the rearview mirror.

— Jeffrey Hobbs, Springfield

Nullifying voters’ choice

The Tribune Editorial Board seems to be in favor of Joe Biden stepping aside and not continuing his campaign. My question to this assumption is: How is this not considered voter suppression? Millions of voters have cast their votes for Biden to be the Democratic nominee for president. Now, it’s being suggested that Biden should step aside and allow the party to come up with a better nominee — someone the American voter did not choose to represent their vital interests in democracy.

Is this the new game we are having shoved down our throats? Put a candidate up, see if he has no chance, then replace him with a hand-picked candidate?

Sounds like “democracy” to me.

— John Caponi, Darien

More suited as a ringmaster

Much has been said about President Joe Biden’s so-called weak performance during the debate, but the key word here is “performance.” He is not a performer, but an elder statesman who knows how to lead our country, work with allies, make hard decisions, listen to advisers, respond to citizens’ needs, put forth an agenda, work with those across the aisle, etc.

Biden’s opponent is a performer, a man concerned about himself, a person full of bluster with no regard for the country at all. If one were truly listening to Donald Trump’s claims, one would notice that facts were missing from his remarks. Instead, he relied on hyperbole and untruths. Yes, he has a strong voice, unlike Biden, who is soft-spoken, but this hardly makes Biden weak. Unfortunately, Trump seems to equate a loud mouth with intelligence.

I hope the voters will eventually realize that Trump is more suited as a ringmaster than a president, for he will lead us into a three-ring circus, just as he did during his first presidency. If that happens, “Send in the clowns”!

— Carol Van Durme, Chicago