Archive by Author

Five questions for Fed Chair Jerome Powell

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has come under criticism for seriously underestimating and then failing to respond to the recent high levels of U.S. price inflation. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) may have finally shifted gears by raising interest rates 0.75 of a percentage point at its June meeting. But many questions remain about Fed policy and its plans to address inflation.

The FOMC typically meets eight times per year to determine the stance of monetary policy. After each meeting, Chair Powell holds a press conference where he takes questions from the media. Most reporters ask about the state of inflation or the Fed’s interest rate decisions, while important policy questions go unasked.

Here are five important questions that would help the public better understand the Fed’s monetary policy.

1. What is the Fed’s inflation target for 2022?

Prior to the pandemic, the FOMC had a stated goal of 2 percent annual inflation. In August 2020, the FOMC announced a new policy of average inflation targeting (AIT).

Powell explained that this new regime is intended to average 2 percent inflation over time. He gave the example that “when inflation has been running below 2 percent, appropriate monetary policy will likely aim to achieve inflation moderately above 2 percent for some time.”

That language seemed to imply that the opposite would also be true: that when inflation is running above 2 percent, the Fed would aim to achieve inflation moderately below two percent in the future in order to average 2 percent over time. However, Powell has since clarified that this is not the case. “There’s nothing in our framework about having inflation run below 2 percent,” he said. In other words, the AIT is not a symmetric policy.

Under an asymmetric AIT, the Fed promises to compensate for periods when inflation falls below the long-run target. It makes no such promises for periods when inflation rises above the long-run target, as it has over the last 15 months. Compared to a symmetric AIT, the future price level under an asymmetric AIT is much harder to predict.

Given this uncertainty, it seems fair to ask: What are the FOMC’s inflation targets for the short and medium terms, and does Powell expect to achieve those targets?

2. How can an asymmetric average inflation target anchor expectation?

When the Fed adopted its AIT, it said the new policy would help “anchor long-term inflation expectation.” But the policy – as clarified by Powell – does not seem to be consistent with that goal.

While a symmetric AIT might help anchor inflation expectations, an asymmetric AIT regime risks inflation expectations becoming unanchored. There is no clear expectation for the short to medium term when inflation is above target.

Powell recently acknowledged that “an extended period of high inflation could push longer-term expectations uncomfortably higher.” Does he still believe the AIT policy is helpful in anchoring inflation expectations? If so, how does he think it works?

3. Does money cause inflation?

Milton Friedman famously argued that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.”

Chair Powell seems to disagree. In his recent testimony, he said that “there was a time when monetary policy aggregates were important determinants of inflation and that has not been the case for a long time.” He further explained, “the correlation between […] M2 and inflation is just very, very low.”

It’s not totally clear what Powell meant by this. He mentions both M2 and “monetary policy aggregates.” The relationship between simple sum measures like M2 and inflation are tenuous. However, research by Joshua Hendrickson shows that more appropriate measures of money (i.e., Divisia monetary aggregates) are causally related to nominal spending and the price level.

Powell should be prompted to clarify his view. Does he deny that there is any causal relationship between money growth and inflation? Or does he merely think that money is not the only potential cause of inflation. Perhaps he thinks excessive money growth is not the cause of inflation in this particular case, attributing the rise in prices to supply disturbances instead. Whatever the case, he should be clear.

4. What role does IOR play in monetary policy?

In 2008, when the Fed started quantitative easing (QE) and began paying interest on reserves (IOR) that banks hold at the Fed, it converted its monetary framework from a corridor system to a floor system. Given this change, some economists at the Fed say the rate of IOR, in conjunction with the rate on overnight reverse repurchase agreements (ONRRPs), is the “key tool” of monetary policy.

But Chair Powell seems to disagree. He discusses the rates of IOR and ONRRPs only as an afterthought or when specifically asked about them. Even then, he refers to them only as a “technical adjustment” to the Fed’s administered interest rates.

Given the extreme divergence between his statements and those made by Fed economists, it seems worth asking what role Powell believes the rate of IOR and ONRRPs play in the Fed’s monetary policy.

5. Will the Fed withdraw from the Network for Greening the Financial System?

The Fed has recently taken on a new role in climate policy. Powell says the Fed’s role is limited to assessing climate-related risk to the financial system and that it should not be setting broader economic policy related to climate change.

Since 2020, however, the Fed has been a member of the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS). The stated purpose of this organization is to “mobilize mainstream finance to support the transition toward a sustainable economy.” More specifically, it aims “to mobilize capital for green and low-carbon investments.”

Powell says that the Fed is not interested in allocating credit, but the purpose of the NGFS is to direct credit to green and low-carbon investments. Will Powell commit to withdrawing the Fed’s membership in the NGFS?

These are important questions that Chair Powell should answer. But, first, the questions must be asked.

Thomas L. Hogan is senior research faculty at the American Institute for Economic Research. He was formerly the chief economist for the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump mulling waiver of executive privilege claim for Bannon: report

Former President Trump is considering waiving his claims of executive privilege to allow his former top adviser, Steve Bannon, to testify before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection, The Washington Post reported Friday. 

Citing three sources familiar with the matter, the paper reported that Trump may send Bannon a letter stating the former president is willing to give up his claim if Bannon reaches an agreement with the committee to testify.

Bannon first received a subpoena from the House Jan. 6 committee in September, but was charged with contempt for refusing to appear. 

The Justice Department filed two charges against Bannon in November: one for refusing to testify and another for refusing to turn over related documents for the panel to review.

His trial is set to begin later this month, but he requested a delay on the grounds that too much publicity would deny him a fair trial. 

The Post reported that some advisers are urging Trump not to send the letter.

Trump has repeatedly asserted executive privilege to prevent current and former staff members from testifying.

A spokesperson for Trump and an attorney for Bannon did not immediately return requests for comment from The Hill. 

The report comes following bombshell testimony from former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson who provided comment on Trump’s temperament and knowledge about what was happening at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Hutchinson, who served as top aide to former chief of staff Mark Meadows, asserted during public testimony in front of the Jan. 6 panel, that Trump lunged at the wheel of his SUV and was told by Secret Service that he could not go to the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Some involved in the situation have disputed Hutchinson’s remarks, though they have not testified publicly.

The committee’s next hearing is scheduled for Tuesday.

Source: TEST FEED1

Abe brought stability and optimism to Japan, but his legacy remains unfinished

Shortly after Shinzo Abe began his second term as Prime Minister of Japan, he visited the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington to give a speech. At the beginning of the speech, which Abe delivered in English, the Prime Minister said his “core message” was “I am back, and so shall Japan be.” Tragically, that confidently optimistic voice, which inspired both Japan and the world, was forever silenced by an assassin’s bullet on Friday morning.

Looking back on Abe’s CSIS speech and his address about two years later to a joint session of Congress, what is striking is both how much he accomplished and how much is still left undone. When Mr. Abe began his second term as Prime Minister in December of 2012, Japan had witnessed a revolving door of leaders. Abe was himself one six different prime ministers to lead Japan after the charismatic Junichiro Koizumi left office in 2006. Few would have predicted back in 2012, when Mr. Abe was again elected as Japan’s leader, that he would become Japan’s longest serving prime minister.

While Abe was able to bring needed stability to Japan’s government, particularly after the devastating earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster that had devastated Japan in March of 2011, his desire to reinvigorate the Japanese economy through “Abenomics” — a mix of fiscal stimulus measures and structural reforms — failed to fully achieve its goals. Nevertheless, Abe’s vision of Japan as a major player on the world stage was significantly advanced during his years in office. He was a consistent voice for a “free and open Indo-Pacific region,” (FOIP) a concept that he is credited with formulating back in 2015. This led Abe to work closely with the U.S., India, and Australia, in a grouping that has become known as “the Quad.”

In addition to strengthening alliances, Abe understood that concepts such as the FOIP could only be achieved if the world’s nations agreed to a “rules-based international order.” Abe was a tireless advocate for international agreements. This was never more evident than when the U.S. withdrew from the trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). While many expected the deal to fall apart without the U.S., Abe played a key role in bringing the remaining 11 nations together to form what is now called the Comprehensive and Progressive Tran-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

It is not surprising that Abe was a successful political leader. Like many Japanese prime ministers, he was raised in a political family. His father, Shintaro Abe, served in various high positions in the Japanese government, including as foreign minister, and was often mentioned as possible candidate for prime minister. Abe’s maternal grandfather, Nobusuke Kishi, did serve as prime minister from 1957 until forced from office in 1960. Kishi was a source of both inspiration for Abe, and consternation to those who had been the victims of Japanese aggression during World War II. Kishi had served in the Japanese cabinet during World War II, and before returning to politics had been detained by the U.S. for three years as a possible war criminal. These links to Japan’s past wrongs were highlighted when, for example, Abe in 2013 visited the controversial Yasukuni Shrine, where Japan’s war dead are enshrined. This visit predictably provoked rebukes from China, South Korea, and to a lesser degree, the United States. It is worth noting that Abe never returned to Yasukuni during the remainder of his term in office.

What Abe never abandoned, however, was his desire to have Japan throw off its wartime past to the degree necessary to become a “normal country.” Significantly, this meant for Abe revising Japan’s pacifist constitution. Under Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, put in place by the U.S. after World War II, Japan agreed to “forever renounce war as a sovereign right,” and consequently to not maintain, “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential.”

Despite these prohibitions, Japan maintains a self-defense force (JSDF) that ranks among the top five most powerful militaries in the world. Given the rising military strength of China, and the increasing nuclear threats from North Korea, Abe felt strongly that Japan’s military capabilities needed to increase beyond the limits imposed by the Japanese Constitution, despite the willingness of the Japanese government to interpret these restrictions very liberally.

Abe was shot while campaigning for one of his Liberal Democratic Party’s (LDP) candidates in the Japanese House of Councillors election scheduled to take place on Sunday.

One of the issues in the election is constitutional revision. Proposals to amend the Constitution must receive the support of two-thirds of both houses of the Japanese Diet to be sent on to the Japanese people for approval.

It is possible that Abe’s shocking death may cause voters to support LDP candidates, who were already expected to do well on Sunday. If the LDP, along with other pro-revision parties, is able to secure enough seats to hold a two-thirds majority after Sunday’s election, there might be renewed support to honor the late prime minister’s legacy by pushing forward the constitutional reforms that he desired.

Paul Sracic is a professor of politics & international relations and director of the Rigelhaupt Pre-Law Center at Youngstown State University. He was twice named a Fulbright Scholar to Japan and was part of the Prime Minister’s Office Visiting Experts Program in 2012. Follow him on Twitter @pasracic

Source: TEST FEED1

Tap water tasting 'off' this summer? This may be why

(NEXSTAR) – Amid recent reports of so-called “forever chemicals” found in drinking water, it’s not hard to imagine that some Americans might be hypersensitive when it comes to the taste of their tap water this summer.

If you do notice an odd taste, however, the reason might be more benign than you think.

Complaints of an “earthy” or “musty” taste or smell might just be the result of a regular summer phenomenon for many water systems, the accelerated growth of some algae compounds thanks to warmer weather.

“Specifically, it is metabolites from the algae that are producing the slightly off-putting smell and taste,” Wilmington, Delaware, officials said in a news release at the end of June. “The City said the water is safe to drink and there is no need to boil the water.”

Cyanobacteria, formerly referred to as blue-green algae, can create two compounds – geosmin and methylisoborneol (MIB) – that are responsible for the unpleasant odor and taste. City utilities treat drinking water to kill the bacteria that causes the compounds, but the harmless compounds may remain.

“While the taste and odor can be unpleasant, geosmin and MIB are not toxic or harmful,” the City of Sacramento’s website advises. “Chilling your water or adding lemon is known to help diminish the musty or earthy taste.”

Health officials warn, however, that cyanobacteria in the rivers, lakes and reservoirs that feed drinking water systems can be dangerous while untreated. Tampa, Florida officials warned residents Friday that the algae had been found locally and could potentially kill pets within minutes of exposure.

Conventional water treatment can generally remove cyanotoxins from the bacteria in the source waters, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, but such systems can “face challenges” during a severe bloom event.

If you have further questions about the quality of your tap water, the EPA has provided contact information for local health officials in all U.S. states and territories.

Source: TEST FEED1

What the loss of Shinzo Abe means for the world

The news of the assassination of Shinzo Abe, former prime minister of Japan, while at a campaign event Friday for upcoming national elections shocked political leaders around the world, who offered their condolences, and stunned the island nation where gun violence is a rare occurrence, especially toward a political figure.

Abe was very much a leader and asset to Japan. Well-known around the world, he was not only an ally to the United States but a believer in upholding our shared values. His quick departure will leave a hole in Japanese politics — but his legacy as a bold reformer won’t be forgotten.

Abe stepped down as prime minister a couple of years ago for medical reasons but was still very much involved in Japan’s policymaking, holding influence within the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). His faction of the LDP often butts heads with that of the current prime minister, Fumio Kishida. And it was never ruled out that Abe one day might try another run for LDP president and prime minister. He was a tactful politician with a desire to lead Japan.

Abe had been in Japanese politics for nearly 30 years, joining the National Diet in 1993. But he really made a name for himself over the past 15 years, becoming the kind of leader rarely seen in Japanese or international politics. Even though he wasn’t without controversies, Abe managed to gain the title of Japan’s longest-serving prime minister. His tenures in the Prime Minister’s Office, from 2006-2007 and 2012-2020, overlapped with U.S. Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump.

In 2013, he launched a series of economic and security reforms that have laid the foundation for Japan’s national and foreign policies we see today. His economic reforms, commonly referred to as “Abe-nomics,” included fiscal policy and regulatory reform in an effort to jump-start Japan’s economy. It also included monetary policy that’s still a large part of the Bank of Japan’s toolbox. Abe oversaw Japan’s completion of a number of trade agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership and U.S.-Japan trade agreement. And he campaigned to have more women leaders  in Japan’s often male-dominated workforce.

Abe often was criticized for his defense reforms and his desire for constitutional reform, though. While his critics labeled him a hawk for his aggressive defense and foreign policies, his foresight was correct: The world is now challenged by a more belligerent China. Criticism didn’t stop him, though. He eventually created Japan’s National Security Council (NSC), similar to that of the United States, and put in place other meaningful defense reforms. Abe’s efforts formed the Quadrilateral Strategic Dialogue — or Quad — between Japan, the U.S., Australia and India. And it was his campaign for a Free and Open Indo-Pacific that has been adopted into the Biden administration’s foreign policy.

These efforts laid the foundation for future leadership in Japan to build on. His legacy is putting Japan on a path toward a more globalized economy while investing in stronger defense. And even though he would engage in some political jockeying with his fellow LDP members, at the end of the day they still would put Japan’s national interests first. In an interview this year, when asked what he thinks about Prime Minister Kishida, Abe said he respected Kishida’s realist approach to foreign policy. Specifically, he was confident that Kishida would make the right decisions when it comes to such issues as the future of Japan-Taiwan relations. In other words, he believed Japan’s future is in good hands.  

Even after leaving the Prime Minister’s Office, Abe remained a public and international figure, engaging on issues such as peace and security in the Taiwan Strait. Stepping out of the spotlight allowed him to focus on such issues, which can be hard for a sitting prime minister to touch on. And so, Abe’s continued engagement with global leaders was an asset for Japan. It will be something Japanese and foreign leaders will find hard to replace.

Abe was a friend to America. Over the past decade, he oversaw an improvement to the U.S.-Japan alliance like none before. He engaged with America’s thought leaders with the hope of strengthening the alliance, and it paid off. Abe may be gone, but his legacy will live on.

Riley Walters is deputy director of the Japan Chair at Hudson Institute.

Source: TEST FEED1

Questions swirl about White House messaging after Bedingfield’s departure

Questions about a change in the White House’s messaging strategy and who will replace communications director Kate Bedingfield are swirling following the announcement of her departure on Wednesday.  

The White House said in a statement this week that Bedingfield — a longtime, trusted advisor of President Biden — would be leaving to spend more time with her family.  

But Bedingfield’s resignation comes amid Democrats’ increasing frustration with Biden’s communication issues ahead of the crucial midterm elections in November.  

“Kate’s departure comes about because the president’s approval ratings are upside down, the White House messaging machine needs new material, and she’s burned out,” one source close to the White House said. 

Names floated by sources familiar with discussions to replace Bedingfield are Liz Allen, undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs at the State Department, and Elizabeth Alexander, communications director to first lady Jill Biden. One source familiar suggested that Anita Dunn, a senior adviser who returned to the white House recently, could also take the role. 

Biden’s messaging on domestic issues has been criticized as too slow or ineffective. Democrats have complained about messaging problems as he has been dealt a series of setbacks, including the Supreme Court striking down Roe v. Wade, gun violence and record-high inflation. 

And, in recent months, Biden’s approval ratings have plummeted, hovering at record lows. 

“There are inevitably frustrations with any White House amidst all that’s happening right now and the inevitable – campaign dreams meeting narrow congressional margins and a regressive Supreme Court majority,” another source close to the White House said. 

“If bringing in additional reenforced staff to help bolster the team is one way to convey that the White House feels a sense of urgency, good for them for doing it,” the source added. 

The jockeying for the communications director job also comes as John Kirby, former Pentagon spokesman, took a top communications role at the White House. He has notably been holding or participating in briefings with White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who replaced Jen Psaki when she left in May. 

A source close to the White House said that Psaki’s departure came with a power shift that revealed some of the White House’s internal politics between the old guard, who have been in Biden’s orbit for years, and the newer faces of the Democratic party.  

Psaki and Bedingfield are considered an old guard in Bidenworld, alongside chief of staff Ron Klain. 

“As comms director, Kate was sort of caught between the two camps. On the one hand, she’s a long-time Biden advisor who essentially crafted the winning ‘national unity’ message during the 2020 campaign,” the source said. “But winning an election is not the same as governing, and Kate’s unity theme wore thin in the face of Republican attacks on Biden’s agenda as Democrats [want] a more robust and consistent message from the White House.” 

The most recent scrutiny has been directed at Biden’s actions in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade. Democrats have criticized the White House for being flat-footed on a response.  

Biden announced executive actions on Friday to protect access to abortion medication, moves that were, in part, overshadowed by the fact that the announcement came two weeks after the ruling from the high court. 

Dunn’s return to the White House could be seen as a response to criticism that messaging on top issues isn’t moving fast enough, a source close to the White House said. 

Dunn could “bring a more forceful, consistent message that will at least resonate with Democrats and many independents,” the source continued. 

Jean-Pierre on Thursday pushed back when asked if Bedingfield is leaving her role because the administration’s plans to lower prices and deal with other domestic issues are not being communicated properly to the American people. 

“I don’t think her leaving will have effect on what we’re trying to do. Because, look, she leaves behind a talented team and communications department, and the president will name a new communications director. There’s nothing new here. These things happen,” Jean-Pierre said. 

When Psaki departed, Bedingfield’s name was floated for the press secretary role and she conducted her own briefing that appeared to be a trial run. Jean-Pierre was then officially named for the job. 

Another source familiar with talks said Psaki and Bedingfield mulled the timing of their departures together and made sure there was sufficient time between. 

“I understood there was sort of a discussion in the spring about who would go first as Jen and Kate were both at the ready to leave. I understand the desire to read tea leaves into this, but I also know this is a moment for a lot of folks, who have been there throughout the beginning to assess the road ahead and take action as a result,” the source said. 

Jean-Pierre announced on Friday that Angela Perez, a press assistant, is leaving the White House for a role at the Commerce Department. She follows other press shop departures last month, including Biden’s rapid response director Mike Gwin, who left for a role at the Treasury Department and press wrangler Michael Kikukawa, who also left for a role at Treasury. 

Multiple sources pointed to the timing as natural for staffers to leave and that it offers enough time to get new faces in place ahead of the midterm elections. 

Some also downplayed Bedingfield’s departure as a signal that there will be some major shift in communications strategy, noting that she had worked on the campaign and in the White House for more than three years. 

Antjuan Seawright, a Democratic strategist, argued that the next White House communications director has to be prepared to “block out the noise.”  

“I do think whomever they bring in they have to be someone who’s able to block and tackle,” he said. “Block out the noise of what perhaps—in the eyes of some—has not been done or done in the way they want it to.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Six potential bright spots for Democrats in a gloomy election year

2022 is shaping up to be a tough year for Democrats: President Biden’s approval rating is underwater, inflation is at its highest level in decades and the party in power almost always tends to lose ground in Congress in the midterm elections.

But there are some potential bright spots for the party, even in an otherwise unfavorable political environment. Democrats have notched a series of recruiting successes and stand to gain at least a few advantages from the decennial redistricting process. At the same time, chaotic Republican primaries in some states have helped fuel Democratic hopes.

Here are six potential bright spots for Democrats in 2022. 

Georgia Senate race

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) eked out a narrow, 2-point win over former Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) in a January 2021 runoff election. That victory immediately put him on the GOP’s target list and earned him a spot as one of the most vulnerable Senate incumbents to face voters in 2022. 

But despite Republicans’ efforts to weaken Warnock, he appears to be faring particularly well, even in the face of brutal political headwinds. 

Recent polling shows him leading his Republican opponent, former NFL player Herschel Walker. What’s more, a recent survey from Quinnipiac University found that roughly half of Georgia voters — 49 percent — have a favorable opinion of Warnock, while 37 percent said the same about Walker.

Of course, Election Day is still four months away — an eternity in politics — and the campaign is still ramping up. But for now, the Georgia Senate race is a relative bright spot for Democrats in an otherwise tough election year.

Pennsylvania Senate race

In the lead-up to Pennsylvania’s May primaries, some Democrats expressed concern that Lt. Gov. John Fetterman may be too progressive to win over the kind of moderate and independent voters he would need to flip the state’s Senate seat in November.

Making matters worse, Fetterman suffered a stroke just days before the primary, raising questions about his health. 

But virtually every public poll conducted since he won the Democratic nomination shows Fetterman besting celebrity physician Mehmet Oz, the GOP nominee, in a head-to-head matchup. 

Oz, whom former President Donald Trump endorsed ahead of the primary, has also faced criticism from Democrats and even some Republicans over his relatively loose ties to Pennsylvania; he was a longtime New Jersey resident and moved to the Keystone State not long before launching his Senate campaign.

Michigan governor’s race

Republicans have been gunning for the chance to oust Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer since losing the governor’s mansion in 2018. Her handling of the COVID-19 pandemic only added more urgency to their efforts. 

But at least for now, Whitmer appears to be in a solid position ahead of the November general election. Her approval rating is above water and the field of Republicans challenging her has been mired in chaos and controversy. 

Five GOP hopefuls were removed from the ballot after election officials discovered fraudulent petition signatures. That included former Detroit Police Chief James Craig, the frontrunner at the time. Last month, another GOP frontrunner, Ryan Kelley, was arrested on charges related to his presence at the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot. 

While Republicans say they’re confident that their voters will coalesce after the Aug. 2 primary, the governor’s race in Michigan isn’t looking like the kind of nightmare scenario that Democrats once feared.

Pennsylvania governor’s race

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro got a break this year by not facing any opposition in his primary to succeed outgoing Gov. Tom Wolf (D). Democrats believe they got even luckier when Republicans nominated state Sen. Doug Mastriano for the job.

Despite carrying Trump’s endorsement, Mastriano’s general election campaign has some Republicans worried that he won’t be able to broaden his support beyond the GOP’s conservative base. 

He has repeatedly promoted Trump’s false claim that the 2020 election was stolen, was subpoenaed by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol and hasn’t yet attracted the support of his main primary challengers.

Shapiro, meanwhile, has maintained a steady — though relatively narrow — lead over Mastriano in early general election polling. And unlike many other battleground state contests, The Cook Political Report currently rates the governor’s race as “lean” Democratic.

California’s 27th District race

Rep. Mike Garcia (R-Calif.) defeated Democratic former state Assemblywoman Christie Smith in 2020 by a scant 333 votes. Now, the two are set to face off once again this November. 

This time, however, the picture is a little brighter for Smith. 

The race is still seen as a toss-up, with both Garcia and Smith having an equal shot at winning California’s new 27th District. But thanks to the redistricting process, the district no longer contains Simi Valley, the home of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and a bastion of conservatism, giving Democrats a bit more of an edge.

Of course, Garcia still bested Smith in the primary, taking 47.1 percent of the vote to Smith’s 37.4 percent. Nevertheless, Smith could still feasibly pick up the support of two other Democrats who failed to advance beyond the primary, pushing her closer to Garcia.

Flipping the district won’t be easy for Democrats. Still, Smith has name recognition from her previous campaign, as well as the advantage of a somewhat more favorable electorate.

California’s 41st District race

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) has spent nearly 30 years in the House and has won reelection easily for more than a decade. But if the results from his June 7 primary say anything, it’s that he may be at least somewhat more vulnerable this time around.

Calvert won just 48.2 percent of the vote in his primary, coming in well below the 59 percent he took in the 2020 primary. He’s now set to face Democrat Will Rollins in November. And while Rollins finished nearly 18 points behind Calvert, there are signs that Democrats just might be able to pull off a win. 

To be sure, California’s newly drawn 41st District still leans Republican. But the redistricting process moves it closer to competitive territory. 

Rollins will have to have a good showing if he hopes to oust Calvert in November, but the race isn’t a foregone conclusion. And given Democrats’ tough prospects in the House overall, it offers at least a glimmer of hope.

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump lauds Nevada candidates Laxalt, Lombardo in Las Vegas

Former President Trump campaigned for his endorsees, Nevada Republican Joe Lombardo and Adam Laxalt, on Friday less than one month after they won their respective Republican primaries.

Lombardo, who serves as the Clark County Sheriff, won the Republican gubernatorial primary in the Silver State in mid-June while Laxalt, a former Nevada attorney general, won his Republican Senate primary. 

“Adam was an exceptional attorney general. He really was a great attorney general of your state of Nevada,” Trump said of the Senate hopeful at the Treasure Island Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas.

He lauded Laxalt for battling Big Pharma and for opposing executive action taken by former President Obama on immigration. 

While Laxalt was still attorney general of Nevada, the state was part of a lawsuit that sued the Obama administration after former President Obama took executive action to shield five million people in the United States who were undocumented from deportation, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Trump painted Laxalt’s opponent, incumbent Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D) as an “open borders fanatic” and criticized her for her opposition to his border wall.

Masto has previously been critical Title 42, a Trump-era policy that allowed migrants to be turned away at the border during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, she was also among a handful of senators who criticized President Biden’s announcement to rescind the program.

The Nevada Senate race will likely be tight. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report has rated the race as a “toss up,” and will test the impact of the former president’s endorsement on election victories in November.

During the former president’s speech, he also called Lombardo “a patriot,” adding later that he would be “very strong on crime, strong on the borders and very strong on election integrity.”

Trump is anticipated to hold an event stumping for several other candidates in Anchorage, Alaska, on Saturday, including Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R), Senate candidate Kelly Tshibaka (R) and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who is running for a House seat.

Source: TEST FEED1

WATCH Live: Trump stumps in Nevada for Laxalt, Lombardo

Former President Trump is holding an event on Friday evening in Las Vegas to stump for two candidates he endorsed after they clinched their spot as Republican nominees.

Trump, who is delivering remarks from the Treasure Island Hotel & Casino, will appear alongside gubernatorial candidate Joe Lombardo (R) and Senate hopeful Adam Laxalt (R).

Lombardo is facing off against incumbent Gov. Steve Sisolak (D) while Laxalt is challenging incumbent Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D), a race anticipated to be one of the most watched in the Senate midterms.

The former president will then be heading to Anchorage, Alaska, on Saturday to stump for Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R), Senate candidate Kelly Tshibaka (R) and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, running for a seat in the House.

Source: TEST FEED1