Connect with us

News

JD Vance and Tim Walz clash over Israel and immigration in VP debate

Published

on

JD Vance and Tim Walz clash over Israel and immigration in VP debate

Unlock the US Election Countdown newsletter for free

Vice-presidential candidates JD Vance and Tim Walz sparred over US foreign policy in a debate in New York on Tuesday night, laying out sharply contrasting visions of America’s role in the world at a pivotal moment in the final stretch of the 2024 White House race.

The first, and probably only, debate between Donald Trump’s and Kamala Harris’s running mates came hours after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to retaliate against Iran after the Islamic republic fired a barrage of ballistic missiles at Israel. Both vice-presidential candidates were asked whether they would support a pre-emptive strike by Israel on Iran.

Advertisement

Walz echoed Harris’s comments earlier on Tuesday, when the vice-president said she “unequivocally” condemned Iran’s attack and said she would “always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself”.

But Walz also quickly turned his focus to Trump, accusing the Republican former president of being a “fickle” leader who had abandoned multilateral coalitions, including pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal.

Vance defended Trump, saying the former president had projected “peace through strength” during his four years in the White House, adding it was “up to Israel to do what they think they need to do to keep their country safe”.

“When was the last time that an American president didn’t have a major conflict break out?” asked Vance. “The only answer was during the four years of Donald Trump’s presidency.”

Tuesday’s debate was seen as a chance for Vance, in particular, to improve his tepid approval ratings.

Advertisement

An Associated Press poll last week showed more than half — 57 per cent — of registered voters had an unfavourable view of Vance, a Republican senator from Ohio, compared with just under a third who disliked Walz, Minnesota’s Democratic governor.

Tuesday’s showdown, hosted by CBS News, is also probably the last televised debate of the 2024 presidential election cycle. While Harris has accepted an invitation from CNN for another presidential debate in late October, Trump has said he has no intention of taking the stage again.

The Financial Times poll tracker shows that while Harris enjoys a 3.6 percentage point lead over Trump in national polls, the two candidates remain in a virtual tie in all seven swing states that are likely to decide who wins the White House.

The first presidential debate between Harris and Trump last month on ABC News was viewed by more than 60mn people, according to Nielsen estimates, and was widely seen as a “win” for Harris, who repeatedly put Trump on the defensive.

Yet the showdown has failed to have a significant impact on either candidate’s polling numbers, and few political operatives — including insiders from both campaigns — believe Tuesday’s debate will move the needle.

Advertisement

Still, the stakes remain high for Vance and Walz, as the debate offers both men arguably their biggest platform to pitch themselves — and more importantly their bosses — to the American electorate.

Vance, 40, had been seen as a rising star in the Republican party since he was elected to the US Senate in 2022. But his time on the campaign trail has been controversial, with the one-time Trump critic-turned-Maga loyalist’s approval ratings falling, particularly among women.

Even so, allies and critics say Vance — a Yale Law School graduate, Marine veteran and former venture capitalist — is likely to deliver a strong performance on Tuesday night. The Ohio senator prepared for the debate with help from top Trump campaign advisers; his wife, former US Supreme Court clerk Usha Vance; and Minnesota congressman Tom Emmer, who has played the role of Walz in mock debates.

Walz, a 60-year-old former teacher and high school football coach who served several terms in Congress before running for governor of Minnesota, is generally seen as a less enthusiastic debater. He also dedicated significant time to preparing for the event, with US transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg — arguably one of the Democratic party’s most effective communicators — playing the part of Vance.

Video: America divided: the women who vote for Trump | FT Film
Advertisement

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

Published

on

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.

“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.

“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.

In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.

“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.

Advertisement

Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.

This story has been updated.

Continue Reading

Trending