Connect with us

News

Analysis: The Biden-Trump debate will lay bare a fateful national crossroads | CNN Politics

Published

on

Analysis: The Biden-Trump debate will lay bare a fateful national crossroads | CNN Politics



CNN
 — 

Presidential debates crystalize a quadrennial dilemma for a country contemplating a new political direction. But they’re usually defined more by trivial personality quirks, zeitgeist moments and gaffes than high-level ideological argument.

Al Gore’s melodramatic sighs, George H.W. Bush’s unwise glance at his watch, a day’s growth on Richard Nixon’s chin and Donald Trump’s bulk looming over Hillary Clinton remain iconic years after the policy clashes in those debates have been forgotten.

And while Thursday night’s debate hosted by CNN between President Joe Biden and ex-President Trump could also turn on a theatrical flurry between two men who openly despise one another, the policy meat of a presidential debate has rarely been so important as in this neck-and-neck White House race.

The country is confronting a perilous moment, internally estranged over politics and culture and as multiple foreign policy crises deepen. America faces a choice in November that will lead, like in Robert Frost’s poem, down one of two divergent roads from which there may be no coming back.

Advertisement

Trump’s attempt to regain the White House, less than four years after he attempted to steal the last election, poses a potentially existential question for the democratic system. The former president’s conservative backers are, meanwhile, proposing an evisceration of the bureaucracy and the politicization of judicial and intelligence leadership posts to reconcile the goals of a GOP candidate sporting one criminal conviction, three other indictments and a thirst for revenge.

At the same time, and despite a roaring jobs market, millions of Americans are worn down by high prices and the cost of borrowing. The legacy of a once-in-a-generation pandemic robbed the country of a sense of economic security that Biden promised to restore four years ago but that remains elusive for many. The Supreme Court’s overturning of the constitutional right to an abortion two years ago has opened an ideological and religious schism over reproductive rights that Biden plans to exploit to hurt Trump. But the president is equally vulnerable over an immigration crisis on the southern border that has swamped asylum laws unfit to handle a new generation of migrants fleeing gangs, economic blight and climate disasters.

Overseas, there’s a frightening sense of fracturing. The global system that has enshrined American power for 80 years is under extreme pressure from US foes seeking to destroy it, including Russia and the new superpower China. Biden has dedicated his term to expanding NATO to counter the Kremlin’s onslaught on Ukraine and threat to wider Europe. In one rare area of continuity with Trump, he’s intensified a military and diplomatic pivot to counter China, although the ex-president’s plan for a tariff war with Beijing would go far beyond Biden’s efforts to stop a new Cold War turning hot.

Israel’s war in Gaza, which incessantly threatens to boil over, is a painful vulnerability for a sitting president, as his rival warns that World War III may be about to spark. Trump’s main critique is that Biden is weak – a caricature that could resonate with some voters. But his own plans are as nebulous as his unlikely plan to end the Ukraine war in 24 hours and his unprovable claim that conflicts in Europe and the Middle East would “never have happened” if he’d been in office.

And Trump seems more at home with authoritarians like Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, who dream of crushing US power, than democratic allies America liberated in the last cataclysmic global conflict. Some of the ex-president’s former White House officials warn he might try to pull the United States out of NATO, the cornerstone of Western security, if he returns to the White House. Voters must therefore pick between Biden’s traditional internationalist foreign policies and a doubling down by Trump of the populist isolationism that turned the United States from the bulwark of global stability into one of its most volatile sources of instability.

Advertisement

For the first time in American history, two presidents will stand side-by-side on a debate stage with their legacies exposed for everyone to judge. (The only other time a former and current president competed for a second term was in 1892, when candidates didn’t actively campaign, let alone debate one another.) The meeting of incumbents is one most voters would have preferred to avoid. And so far, their fears seem to be realized. The tied race means two candidates either side of 80 are struggling to show they’ve got the policies to fix the nation’s problems. And neither so far has shown the vision to conjure a road map to the future that millions of Americans will inhabit long after both are gone.

Trump’s first term and sparse legislative record showed that he sees the presidency more as a channel for his wild personal whims rather than a policy laboratory. But his campaign, as well as allied conservative groups, have drawn up plans that, if implemented, would transform American governance. And a second-term administration stripped of restraining influences that frustrated the 45th president means he’d have far more latitude to do what he wants.

One irony of Trump’s first term — and second term proposals — is that while he’s shifted the Republican Party away from its corporate heritage toward a more working-class orientation, he pursues policies that disproportionately help richer Americans like himself. In his first term, he enacted tax cuts that favored the better off and he wants to extend them if he gets back the White House. Still, earlier this month, in an apparent bid to court support from hospitality workers in the key state of Nevada, he pledged to eliminate federal taxes on tips. And while he’s proposing a draconian immigration policy, including mass deportations of undocumented migrants, Trump also says he wants more green cards for foreign graduates of US colleges — a step that may win favor among increasingly influential South Asian voters.

The former president has also signaled he’d dismiss Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, in a move that would raise concerns of political interference in the central bank but that could please Americans who want interest rate cuts. And the former president is working hard to enhance nostalgia for the Trump economy that was thriving before the pandemic-induced economic crisis.

If he concentrates on economic messaging rather than histrionics on Thursday night, the former president may be able to renew a connection with viewers alienated by his extreme behavior but who pine for easier economic times. Still, Biden is likely to argue that some of Trump’s plans would be economically ruinous, including a proposed 10% tariff on foreign goods that some economists warn could reignite the inflation crisis and raise the cost of goods for US consumers.

Advertisement

Biden has a humming policy machine.

Several times a week, the president or Vice President Kamala Harris highlights a new aspect of the administration’s attempt to honor its vows to reshape the economy, to lift up working Americans, to cut health care costs, cap drugs prices, create jobs, fight climate change, preserve abortion rights, reduce student debt and lower energy costs.

But it is the curse of Biden’s term that his efforts rarely get much credit despite a legislative legacy that is as impressive as any Democrat since President Lyndon Johnson. Part of this may lie in the fact that measures like Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure plan may take years to fully come into force.

The president is still yet to figure out a way to claim credit for an economy that rebounded more strongly from the Covid-19 emergency than those of other developed countries while also acknowledging the pain many voters still feel. High grocery prices represent a literal and psychological barrier — even if the worst inflation crisis in 40 years has now moderated. It’s still hard for many Americans to afford a new car or a mortgage because of high interest rates introduced to lower the cost of living. This leaves Biden badly needing to use Thursday night’s debate to convince voters that he can make their lives better — and soon.

He’s tried it once already. During his State of the Union address in March, Biden praised citizens for authoring “the greatest comeback story.” But it didn’t do him any good politically.  In an ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted in late April, voters said they trusted Trump more than Biden on the economy and inflation, their top two issues, by margins of 46% to 32% and 44% to 30%.

Advertisement

Post-game coverage of Thursday’s debate is certain to zero in on the best verbal jabs, soundbites and the stamina and energy of the rival candidates. But the most meaningful impact of the clash between Trump and Biden will only begin to unfold after noon on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2025.

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