Connect with us

News

JD Vance breaks polling records in the worst way

Published

5 months ago

on

.,..Has a net-negative approval rating following the Republican National Convention, CNN found.

Vice-presidential nominees typically receive a ratings bump after their party’s convention, but Sen. JD Vance is bucking the tradition.

On the heels of last week’s Republican National Convention, the Ohio senator is the least-liked vice-presidential candidate since 1980, CNN found in a polling analysis. It noted the data applied to nonincumbents.

Since 2000, vice-presidential nominees typically have had a net-positive rating immediately following the convention, at plus 19 points. Vance, however, is polling at minus 6 points just one week after accepting the vice-presidential nomination and officially embarking on the campaign trail , the network found.

The freshman lawmaker’s lower-than-normal approval ratings are not an anomaly, as Vance has long polled behind other Republicans.

Vance heavily underperformed in his 2022 Ohio Senate race, at least compared with how other Republicans performed in the state that year. Vance defeated his opponent, then-Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan, by only 6 percentage points. In comparison, Republican Gov. Mike DeWine crushed his Democratic opponent, former Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley, by 25 percentage points in that same cycle.

“The JD Vance pick makes no sense from a statistical polling perspective,” Harry Enten, a CNN political-data reporter, said.

Vice President Kamala Harris’ team sent out a press release gloating about the numbers.

“We’d like to be the first to congratulate JD Vance on making history as the least popular VP pick, well…ever,” it said.

The press release went on to list some of Vance’s policies, with the first one being his previous support for a nationwide abortion ban.

The Atlantic’s Tim Alberta tweeted Monday that e ver since President Joe Biden ended his reelection campaign and endorsed Harris to become the Democratic presidential nominee, some members of Trumpworld have questioned whether Vance remains a wise running mate . President Donald Trump faltered with suburban voters in 2020, and Vance’s selection was widely seen as an appeal to base voters instead of one geared toward attracting more swing voters.

Trump’s campaign spent months perfecting its attacks against Biden and has now had to shift its messaging, as Harris poses a different electoral threat from her predecessor. While Biden was struggling to rally young voters and minority voters around his reelection campaign, Harris is more popular with those groups and presents a major upside for Democrats, as they need a high Gen Z and millennial turnout to remain competitive in the key battleground states .

There’s also evidence that Republicans will closely monitor polling over the next two weeks beyond Vance’s low likability ratings, as a Trump pollster said Harris could get a numbers bump following her expected ascent to the top of the Democratic ticket.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

News

Trump demands Republicans ‘kill’ bill that would protect journalists from government spying

Published

2 weeks ago

on

November 22, 2024

By

New York CNN — In between his posts on Truth Social announcing nominees for his incoming administration, President-elect Donald Trump urged Republicans Wednesday to nix a bipartisan bill that would give journalists greater protections under federal law.

Trump wrote on his favorite social network that “REPUBLICANS MUST KILL THIS BILL!”

He linked to a PBS “NewsHour” interview with Jodie Ginsberg, the CEO of the Committee to Protect Journalists, who urged the Senate to pass the legislation.

Known as the PRESS Act, the Protect Reporters From Exploitative State Spying Act would prevent the government from forcing journalists to reveal their sources and limit the seizure of their data without their knowledge.

According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, one of the many groups advocating for the bill, “The PRESS Act would bar the federal government from using subpoenas, search warrants, or other compulsory actions against journalists to force the disclosure of information identifying confidential sources as well as other newsgathering records, except in very limited circumstances. It would also broadly limit the government’s ability to use the same actions against third parties, including email providers and search engines, to seize journalists’ data, with narrow exceptions.”

The bill has been passed by the House of Representatives twice with bipartisan support, and it has Republican sponsors in the Senate, but it has been stalled for months in the Senate Judiciary Committee, with Sen. Tom Cotton is said to be holding up the measure.

Cotton’s office did not respond to a request for comment about his position on the bill.

After Trump’s reelection earlier this month, press advocacy groups redoubled their efforts to get the legislation signed into law before the end of President Joe Biden’s term.

After Trump’s reelection earlier this month, press advocacy groups redoubled their efforts to get the legislation signed into law before the end of President Joe Biden’s term.

“It’s really important that we have that federal shield law to protect journalists at the federal level,” Ginsberg said on PBS. “We know that Trump is interested in going after whistleblowers, people who leak. And it’s absolutely essential that they are protected… and that journalists are allowed to do their job.”

Several media outlets and newspaper editorial boards have urged readers to contact their senators and lobby for the passage of the bill.

“Hostility toward the news media in the polarized politics of the day makes it more urgent than ever to ensure that reporters can continue to pursue their essential role as watchdogs,” The New York Times editorial board opined last month.

But “Senate Democrats are running out of time” to pass the law, WIRED reporter Dell Cameron wrote last week. Democratic lawmakers have focused on confirming Biden’s judicial nominees during the lame-duck session.

Trump’s edict on Wednesday may have sealed the bill’s fate while also raising public awareness of the issue.

Trevor Timm, executive director of Freedom of the Press Foundation, told CNN that Trump should reconsider his position because “the PRESS Act protects conservative and independent journalists just as much as it does anyone in the mainstream press.”

“Democratic administrations abused their powers to spy on journalists many times, too,” he said. “The bipartisan PRESS Act will stop government overreach and protect the First Amendment once and for all.”

“Much of the reporting Trump likes, from the Twitter files to stories poking holes in the Russiagate conspiracy, came from confidential sources,” Timm observed. “Many Trump supporters from Rep. Jim Jordan to Sen. Mike Lee are champions of the PRESS Act because it would protect all journalists, including many who reach primarily conservative audiences. That’s good for the public, whether they voted Republican or Democrat.”

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

News

USCIS Simplifies the Path to U.S. Citizenship for Long-Term Permanent Residents

Published

2 weeks ago

on

November 22, 2024

By

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced a significant update to its policy regarding the lawful admission requirement for naturalization applicants.

Effective November 14, 2024, this change clarifies the burden of proof for lawful permanent residents (LPRs) seeking to become U.S. citizens.

The new guidance specifies that naturalization applicants need only demonstrate lawful admission for permanent residence at the time of their initial entry or adjustment of status. This marks a departure from the previous interpretation, which considered subsequent reentries into the United States.

This policy update aligns with a recent decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Azumah v. USCIS. The court determined that USCIS’s earlier interpretation imposed an additional requirement not found in the statute. The court ruled that applicants should only need to prove their lawful admission at the time of their initial admission or adjustment to LPR status, rather than at any subsequent reentry.

This change is expected to simplify the naturalization process for many applicants, as it removes a layer of complexity related to their travel history. Under the new policy, USCIS will focus on an applicant’s initial admission or adjustment to LPR status, meaning that subsequent reentries will not be considered in determining lawful admission. This shift could significantly benefit long-term LPRs who have maintained their status but may have faced complications during later travels.

By narrowing the scope of what is required for naturalization, USCIS aims to provide a clearer and more consistent process for applicants.

The updated guidance is effective immediately and applies to pending requests as well as new applications filed on or after November 14, 2024. It has been incorporated into Volume 12 of the USCIS Policy Manual.

This change is part of USCIS’s ongoing efforts to streamline immigration processes and align them with recent legal interpretations, ultimately reducing barriers for eligible LPRs seeking to become U.S. citizens.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

African American

‘Malcolm X Daughters’ sue CIA, FBI, NYPD over their Dad’s Assassination

Published

2 weeks ago

on

November 22, 2024

By

(AP) — Three daughters of Malcolm X have accused the CIA, FBI, the New York Police Department and others in a $100 million lawsuit Friday of playing roles in the 1965 assassination of the civil rights leader.

In the lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court, the daughters — along with the Malcolm X estate — claimed that the agencies were aware of and were involved in the assassination plot and failed to stop the killing.

At a morning news conference, attorney Ben Crump stood with family members as he described the lawsuit, saying he hoped federal and city officials would read it “and learn all the dastardly deeds that were done by their predecessors and try to right these historic wrongs.”

The NYPD and CIA did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Nicholas Biase, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice, which was also sued, declined comment. The FBI said in an email that it was its “standard practice” not to comment on litigation.

For decades, more questions than answers have arisen over who was to blame for the death of Malcolm X, who was 39 years old when he was slain on Feb. 21, 1965, at the Audubon Ballroom on West 165th Street in Manhattan as he spoke to several hundred people. Born Malcolm Little in Omaha, Nebraska, Malcolm X later changed his name to El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz.

Three men were convicted of crimes in the death but two of them were exonerated in 2021 after investigators took a fresh look at the case and concluded some evidence was shaky and authorities had held back some information.

In the lawsuit, the family said the prosecution team suppressed the government’s role in the assassination.

The lawsuit alleges that there was a “corrupt, unlawful, and unconstitutional” relationship between law enforcement and “ruthless killers that went unchecked for many years and was actively concealed, condoned, protected, and facilitated by government agents,” leading up to the murder of Malcolm X.

According to the lawsuit, the NYPD, coordinating with federal law enforcement agencies, arrested the activist’s security detail days before the assassination and intentionally removed their officers from inside the ballroom where Malcolm X was killed. Meanwhile, it adds, federal agencies had personnel, including undercover agents, in the ballroom but failed to protect him.

The lawsuit was not brought sooner because the defendants withheld information from the family, including the identities of undercover “informants, agents and provocateurs” and what they knew about the planning that preceded the attack.

Malcolm X’s wife, Betty Shabazz, the plaintiffs, “and their entire family have suffered the pain of the unknown” for decades, the lawsuit states.

“They did not know who murdered Malcolm X, why he was murdered, the level of NYPD, FBI and CIA orchestration, the identity of the governmental agents who conspired to ensure his demise, or who fraudulently covered-up their role,” it states. “The damage caused to the Shabazz family is unimaginable, immense, and irreparable.”

The family announced its intention to sue the law enforcement agencies early last year.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Trending