Four non-nuclear ways Putin could escalate the Ukraine war

Russian President Vladimir Putin set off nuclear alarms last month with his bellicose rhetoric while announcing a series of moves to ramp up his war on Ukraine.  

However, military experts say there are also a number of non-nuclear ways that Putin could escalate the war in an attempt to curb battlefield losses.  

Putin and his generals have already been accused of carrying out war crimes and even genocide against Ukrainians, but have so far refrained from using weapons of mass destruction.  

Here are some of the non-nuclear ways Russia could inflict mass casualties on Ukraine.  

Biological weapons 

Russia has repeatedly accused the United States of manufacturing biological weapons in Ukraine, though it has offered no proof.  

The U.S. has countered with warnings that Russia could be preparing its own chemical or biological attack.  

“They are also suggesting that Ukraine has biological and chemical weapons in Ukraine. That’s a clear sign he’s considering using both of those,” Biden said of Putin in March. 

Biological weapons are microorganisms such as anthrax, ricin and botulism that are released deliberately to cause disease and death. They are prohibited under various international laws and treaties.  

Russia inherited parts of the Soviet biological weapons program, and the State Department assessed this year that it still operates such a program.  

Robert Petersen, an analyst at the Center for Biosecurity and Biopreparedness, wrote earlier this month that though there is “no definitive proof of an extant bioweapons program,” public information strongly suggests that Russia has maintained and modernized the Soviet program.  

And he said Russia’s war in Ukraine could push the military to address issues like corruption that have stalled advancements in areas such as genetic engineering of biological weapons.  

“Most likely, the Russian military is right now searching for weapons that can turn the tide of war on the battlefield in Ukraine and that might also prove useful in a wider war against NATO,” he wrote.   

Chemical attacks 

If Russia were to launch a chemical or biological attack, it would be relatively easy to confirm, so experts believe they would attempt a “false flag” operation, attempting to make it look like Ukraine attacked its own people in a bid to discredit Russia.  

Ben Connable, an adjunct professor of security studies at Georgetown University, wrote for the Atlantic Council that those efforts would likely fail.  

“This could still be an effective tactic for the Russian domestic audience, but the days of gaslighting Western leaders and reporters are over. Advanced Western surveillance, detection, and forensics will not allow Russia’s armed forces to secretly deploy chem-bio weapons,” he wrote.  

Such an attack would likely harden Ukrainian resolve and further increase Western support for its military, while also posing a risk to any Russian troops attempting a follow-on attack in the area, Connable wrote.  

The main forms of chemical weapons are nerve agents, blister agents, choking agents and blood agents — all meant to kill or maim targets.  

Putin has been accused of being behind a string of chemical attacks against dissidents and former Russian spies using Novichok, a nerve agent.  

Russia has also been involved in chemical attacks in previous conflicts in Chechnya and Syria.  

As with biological weapons, Russia has signed — and ignored — international conventions promising to get rid of its chemical arsenal.  

Matthew Bunn, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School and investigator for the Belfer Center’s Project on Managing the Atom, said Russia might see a chemical attack as a less risky step than a nuclear attack.  

“I imagine that NATO and the Biden administration are actively, but privately, messaging various parties to try to deter this from happening,” he said in a Q&A earlier this year.  

Destroying dams 

Among the options Russia is considering to thwart Ukraine’s offensive in the south is destroying dams on the Dnieper River, according to Branislav Slantchev, a political science professor at the University of California, San Diego, who has written extensively on the war.  

The plan would be to destroy two dams upstream from the Dneprostroi Dam, the largest on the major river, which within a day would cause it to collapse.  

“This would drown the entire left bank of the Dnipro downstream, and force the Ukrainians to evacuate hundreds of thousands of people instead of advancing on Kherson, not to mention the massive casualties,” Slantchev wrote last month.  

“Separately, the uber-hawks are calling for attacks on the dams north of Kyiv. The effects of a collapse along the Dnipro reservoir cascade would be catastrophic since the low-lying neighborhoods in the path of the resulting flood are very densely populated.” 

Russia has already hit dams in its strikes on critical infrastructure across the country.  

Last month, Russian missiles damaged a major dam in the central Ukrainian city of Kryvyi Rih — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s home town — flooding the embankments of a Dnieper tributary and forcing more than a hundred homes to be evacuated.  

“All the occupiers can do is to sow panic, create an emergency situation, try to leave people without light, heat, water and food,” Zelensky said after the attack. “Can it break us? Not at all. Will they face a fair response and retribution? Definitely yes.” 

Conventional warfare 

Russia’s barrage of missile strikes this month — on civilian targets, military outposts and energy infrastructure — have shown its ability to escalate the war through conventional means as well.  

The war has already killed 6,306 civilians, including 397 children, according to the latest count from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 

Putin’s ongoing mobilization of hundreds of thousands of new troops also shows his willingness to increase manpower at the risk of political blowback at home.  

The air strikes have had little success in stemming Ukraine’s military gains, showing the limitations of Russia’s air power as the West races to bolster Ukraine’s air defenses.  

Still, the missiles are taking their toll, the World Health Organization (WHO) noted in a statement last week.  

“The destruction of houses and lack of access to fuel or electricity due to damaged infrastructure could become a matter of life or death if people are unable to heat their homes,” said WHO Regional Director for Europe Hans Henri Kluge.  

Putin could also declare a general mobilization that would allow the military to expand its pool of potential conscripts, but that would require declaring the “special military operation” as a war, which he has been loath to do.  

Ukrainian military intelligence spokesman Vadym Skibitsky has said such a move could also help Ukraine by further inflaming resistance to the war in Russia.  

“Young people in their twenties and thirties are needed on the front. Because of that, this announcement of general mobilization would be an indicator that will show the readiness of the Russian people to continue this bloody war,” he told the Kyiv Post. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden seeks to rally Democrats on abortion with call to codify Roe v. Wade

President Biden on Tuesday sought to refocus the upcoming midterm elections on the debate over abortion rights, pledging to push for a bill to codify abortion access if Democrats add to their majorities in Congress.

Biden, in remarks at Washington, D.C.’s Howard Theatre, warned of dire consequences for access to reproductive health if Republicans win majorities in the House and Senate.

“The final say does not rest in the court now. It does not rest with extreme Republicans in Congress,” he said. “It rests with you.”

The speech at a Democratic National Committee event came three weeks before the midterms as some polls indicate voters are more concerned about the economy.

The president said he wants to sign a bill to codify Roe v. Wade on the 50-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision on Jan. 22, 1973, when, he noted, he was a 30-year-old first-term senator. The 50th anniversary would be just days after a new Congress is sworn in. 

“Together, we’ll restore the right to choose for every woman in every state in America. So vote. You gotta get out the vote. We can do this if we vote,” Biden said.

Passing a bill through Congress to codify Roe v. Wade is dependent on Democrats retaining the House, which has always looked like an uphill climb, and increasing their Senate majority, which could allow Democrats to change the rules surrounding the filibuster.

New polls have suggested that Democrats are losing momentum in their effort to gain seats in the Senate.

The president, in his remarks, also voiced his support for other hot-button issues for young voters, including his plan for widespread student loan forgiveness, and said that “he’s keeping his promise” that people shouldn’t be in jail for using and possessing marijuana. He added that, with another Democratic majority in Congress, he wants to ban assault weapons.

Democrats have tried to make abortion access and reproductive rights a central part of the midterm campaign in the wake of the Supreme Court’s June decision striking down the decades-long precedent set by Roe v. Wade protecting a woman’s right to choose.

The party has repeatedly highlighted state laws that dramatically restrict abortion access, and the president and others have pointed to GOP congressional proposals to enact a nationwide ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy to underscore what’s at stake in November.

“If Republicans get their way with a national ban, it won’t matter where you live in America,” Biden said.

Biden sought to remind voters on Tuesday of the anger that convulsed swaths of the country after the Supreme Court decision was first announced in June. But he highlighted a portion of the majority opinion in which Justice Samuel Alito noted women are not without electoral power to enact changes.

“Let me tell you something the court and the extreme Republicans who have spent decades trying to overturn Roe are about to find out,” Biden said to cheers from the crowd.

“Come this November, we’re going to see what happens all over America, God willing,” he added.

While Democrats have tried to push abortion to the center of the national discussion heading into November’s election, polls have shown most voters are more concerned about the economy, and rising prices in particular.

Democrats are facing headwinds with independent women, in particular, who they worry could now be more focused on gas prices and inflation than abortion.

A New York Times-Siena College poll released Monday showed 44 percent of voters cited the economy as the most pressing issue facing the country.

Vice President Harris has made abortion access a key focus in recent months and has been traveling around the country to meet with local leaders and reproductive rights advocates. And first lady Jill Biden has spoken about abortion access at fundraisers lately as well, adding personal stories about living through the pre-Roe era.

Biden himself consistently notes in speeches to donors the risk of a Republican majority passing a nationwide abortion ban, saying that he would use the power of the veto to ensure it does not become law. 

But Tuesday’s speech marked the first time in weeks Biden had delivered a political address specifically focused on the issue of abortion.

“I don’t read this as @potus realizing he should have come out earlier, the absolute outrage about Dobbs was at a peak all summer,” former White House press secretary Jen Psaki tweeted. “He is trying to re-insert women’s rights back into debate on campaign trail given energy around it has waned because of concerns about the economy.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Russia’s use of Iranian drones in Ukraine raises stakes for U.S., Europe

Russia’s escalation of its attacks on Ukraine using Iranian kamikaze drones and targeting critical infrastructure ahead of winter is raising the stakes for the U.S. and its allies to quickly send air defense systems to the country.

The use of Iranian drones is also putting pressure on the U.S. and Europe to punish Tehran, even as they hold out hope to revive the comatose nuclear deal.

“It is clear that in the emerging cold war between the U.S., on the one hand, and Russia and China on the other, the Iranians have clearly chosen their camp,” said Ali Vaez, Iran Project Director with the International Crisis Group.

Russia’s escalating attacks on cities across Ukraine with the Iranian drones have killed over a dozen civilians since last week, including a six-months-pregnant woman and her husband.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that 30 percent of Ukraine’s power stations had been destroyed, causing massive blackouts across the country, with officials telling residents to conserve their electricity as much as possible and stock up on water. 

“The world can and must stop this terror,” Zelensky said in his evening address Monday. 

“In order to guarantee the protection of our skies, we need significantly more modern air defense systems. And this is not only Ukrainian interest. The fewer terrorist opportunities Russia has, the sooner this war will end.” 

German air-defense systems arrived in the country last week and Spain has committed to sending its own “Hawk” air defense systems. Counter-drone equipment from NATO and more U.S. air defense support is said to be on the way. 

The escalation in drone attacks follows Russian President Vladimir Putin’s appointment of Gen. Sergei Surovikin — dubbed “General Armageddon” in Russian media for exercising brutality in Syria’s civil war — to lead the Ukraine war effort. 

Samuel Ramani, associate fellow at Royal United Services Institute, said that “the drone use from the Iranians would have happened anyways” and that “Surovikin is being appointed and being tasked to do this.”

The U.S. and allies have issued statements of condemnation against the use of Iranian drones, and are reportedly readying targeted sanctions against military sales from Iran.

Vaez, of the International Crisis Group, said these measures will fall short if they’re not followed up with concrete military defense.

“Statements are not going to make any difference, what will make a difference is boosting Ukrainian ability to shoot down these drones and exhaust Iran’s ability to affect the dynamics of the conflict.”

How the White House and European allies respond to Iran’s rising role in Ukraine will also weigh on efforts to preserve a pathway to diplomacy with Tehran to revive the 2015 nuclear deal.

“The door for diplomacy will always remain open. But, as of now, we don’t see a deal coming together anytime soon,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters on Monday.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani denied selling any weapons being used in Ukraine and said accusations to the contrary had “political ambitions and it’s circulated by Western sources.”

The White House has said Iran is lying about not sending drones and missiles to Russia and the European Union has said it is “gathering evidence” of “alleged” Iranian-drone use.

Ramani said Europe’s response pointed to efforts to preserve the JCPOA negotiations, the formal name for the nuclear deal, even as talks remain largely frozen.

“It feels as if, in my view, the European reluctance to sanction Iran over this is due to the fact that they do not want to provoke things too much while the JCPOA negotiations are going on, is less about trying to be on a fact-finding mission,” he said. 

The Biden administration is intent on reviving the deal that former President Trump withdrew from in 2018. Iran began breaching the terms of the agreement in 2019, increasing its stockpile of uranium fuel that can be used for a nuclear weapon.

Vaez said that the totality of Iran’s bad behavior reinforces the argument that its nuclear activity needs to be constrained by the deal, but that U.S. and European politicians are under public pressure to isolate Tehran — including in response to Iran’s brutal crackdown on women-led, anti-government protests. 

“The deal-makers are politicians and they take into account the political costs of their action, which has gone through the roof because of what has happened in repression of the protesters in Iran and also Iran’s support for Russia in Ukraine.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Greene: If McCarthy wants to make base happy, he’ll ‘give me a lot of power’

Firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) warned that the Republican base would be “very unhappy” if House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) does not give her more power if Republicans take control of the chamber next year.

In a New York Times Magazine profile on Monday examining Greene’s rise in influence and future, the Georgia congresswoman indicated that McCarthy would have to adopt her “a lot more aggressive” approach toward President Biden, whom she has introduced multiple articles of impeachment against.

“I think that to be the best Speaker of the House and to please the base, he’s going to give me a lot of power and a lot of leeway,” Greene said. “And if he doesn’t, they’re going to be very unhappy about it. I think that’s the best way to read that. And that’s not in any way a threat at all. I just think that’s reality.”

McCarthy, who is aiming to become Speaker in a House majority, has given the confrontational right flank of the House GOP a seat at the table as he aims to shore up support. Greene was in attendance at a House GOP “Commitment to America” midterm policy and platform rollout event in Pennsylvania last month.

Greene was stripped of her committee assignments soon after being sworn into office as punishment for her posts about conspiracy theories and liking a Facebook comment that called for the assassination of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). 

McCarthy has pledged to restore Greene’s committee assignments, suggesting at one point that she could have even “better committees” than the ones she was assigned to before – the Education and Labor and Budget committees.

“I would like to be on Oversight,” Greene told the New York Times Magazine. “I would also like to be on Judiciary. I think both of those I’d be good on.”

Republicans on both the House Oversight and Reform and House Judiciary committees have been preparing to bring a spotlight to the business activities of Biden’s son Hunter Biden’s business activities and social media suppression of an election-season 2020 New York Post story revealing the contents of his laptop.

The committees have helped to skyrocket Republican members to stardom in the past.

“I completely deserve it. I’ve been treated like [expletive]. I have been treated like garbage,” Greene said.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), ranking member on the House Oversight and Reform Committee who is in line for the chairmanship in a GOP majority, indicated that he would welcome Greene to his committee.

“If Americans entrust Republicans with the majority next Congress, we look forward to the Steering Committee adding new GOP members to the committee like Rep. Greene with energy and a strong interest in partnering with us in our efforts to rein in the unaccountable Swamp and to hold the Biden Administration accountable for its many self-inflicted crises that it has unleashed on the American people,” Comer told New York Times Magazine.

Source: TEST FEED1

Georgia smashes record for early voting

Georgia voters turned out for the first day of early voting in record numbers, with ballots cast already exceeding one-day early voting results in the 2018 midterms.

On Monday, 131,318 ballots were cast in-person. In the 2018 midterm elections, 70,849 ballots were cast in-person on the first day of early voting, according to a release from the Georgia secretary of state’s office.

Monday’s results inched close to the 136,739 ballots cast on the first day of early voting in 2020, a presidential election year.

Additionally, 11,759 absentee ballots have been submitted so far this year, bringing the total number of ballots to 143,077 through Monday.

Early voting in Georgia will continue through Nov. 4.

The turnout numbers may quiet some concerns regarding voter suppression after Republican-led Georgia passed a restrictive voting law last year, but it’s still unknown what the demographics of the voters are.

Georgia saw record turnout in the primary elections over the spring, but the Brennan Center for Justice reported there was a wide gap between white voter turnout and Black voter turnout.

On the ballot in Georgia this election cycle are some of the most closely watched races, including the gubernatorial contest between Gov. Brian Kemp (R) and Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams and the high-stakes Senate race between Sen. Raphael Warnock (D) and GOP nominee Herschel Walker.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden embraces Trump's Title 42 with expansion to Venezuela

In expanding Title 42 to include Venezuelans, advocates say the Biden administration has taken on a new level of ownership over the Trump-era policy that blocks migrants from seeking asylum. 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) last week announced it would use Title 42 to turn away Venezuelans that present at the border, nixing asylum for a nationality that has become one of the largest populations to seek refuge in the U.S. following years of instability in that country. 

“The Biden administration is embracing the Trump playbook,” Eleanor Acer, director of refugee protection at Human Rights First, told The Hill.  

“To the extent that this is some kind of effort to have political talking points that are useful over the next few months, compromising principle in an effort to appease anti-immigrant voices is politically detrimental. Sacrificing principle for perceived political reasons is a reflection of character at the end of the day. And it typically undermines the administration’s credibility.” 

The move is the latest chapter in the administration’s complex relationship with a policy crafted under its predecessor. The Biden administration has used Title 42 extensively, struggling with its messaging on the policy before rescinding it in April.

Now, as the administration battles GOP-led states who won an initial court battle blocking the rescission, they’ve used the policy anew, vowing to take in 24,000 Venezuelans through a separate program while immediately expelling any others that travel to the U.S. 

The use of Title 42 to carry out the expulsions comes just a month after the administration highlighted the number of Venezuelans, Cubans, and Nicaraguans coming to the border, noting that people from the trio of countries are fleeing “failing communist regimes… [and] driving a new wave of migration.” 

In August, arrivals from the three countries accounted for a third of border encounters. 

“We are weeks from an election and the numbers of Venezuelans arriving at the southern border is spiking. This is clearly an effort to try to drive those numbers down for the sake of creating some sort of political cover on issues relating to the border before the election,” said Jorge Loweree, managing director of programs and strategy at the American Immigration Council. 

Title 42 was capitalized on by Former President Trump early into the pandemic, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) used the COVID-19 outbreak to effectively shut the border to asylum seekers by using the public health law. 

But it’s been a steady feature of the Biden administration, who, while rolling back other Trump immigration policies, left Title 42 to be handled by the CDC, saying little else to condemn the policy until DHS Secretary Alejando Mayorkas reversed course in September of last year. 

“We are doing this out of a public health need. It is not an immigration policy. It is not an immigration policy that we would embrace,” he said that month at a White House press conference. 

Absent in DHS’s rollout of expansion of Title 42 was any reference to public health or the CDC. 

“The sort of health rationale that was and continues to be the basis for the program – it’s completely laughable now, right? There’s no reference to the health rationale in any of the materials that the administration has put out about the extension of Title 42 to Venezuelans, not to mention that the president just said the pandemic is over,” Loweree said. 

Many advocates fear the effect of the policy for those seeking to leave a country where roughly a quarter of the population has left over the last six years. 

Along with the expansion of Title 42, DHS said it would accept 24,000 Venezuelans through a short-term program that would allow them to come to the U.S. with a two-year work authorization. 

“The numbers are just incredibly small when you consider that there are about 1,000 Venezuelans arriving at the southern border every single day. It’s really a few week’s worth of arrivals,” Loweree said.  

“We’re in a situation where the administration has made a calculated decision to offer protections to about 24,000 Venezuelans in the near term at the expense of humanitarian protections for all others.” 

Those 24,000 will be let into the U.S. through a private sponsorship program, which allows temporary entry for those who can secure a financial sponsor. 

“This will undoubtedly and disproportionately impact Venezuelans who do not have close U.S. ties, but who are nonetheless deserving of due process and protection. That their expulsions will be cloaked in public health concerns just weeks after President Biden declared the pandemic ‘over’ is deeply disturbing,” Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, said in a release after the policy was announced. 

Mexican officials have privately said – but have not publicly confirmed – they will only receive as many Venezuelan Title 42 expellees as the United States takes in through the new program. 

That would mean the Biden administration’s plan to accept 24,000 Venezuelans would be mirrored by Mexico receiving another 24,000, a paltry figure compared to the more than 7 million Venezuelans who’ve left the country fleeing the Maduro regime. 

It’s unclear how many Venezuelans are currently in Mexico – only those who were in the country before the program was announced will be eligible to enter the United States – but it’s likely tens of thousands, with more in the pipeline through Central America. 

Around 340,000 Venezuelans who had previously arrived in the country were included by the Biden administration in Temporary Protected Status, a federal policy that allows nationals of countries undergoing man-made or natural disasters to work and live in the United States. 

That cutoff raised some eyebrows, as it benefits richer Venezuelans who were able to escape the Maduro regime earlier, often at the expense of poorer Venezuelans who either had to endure the regime or leave the country by foot. 

“It’s part of what experts call aporophobia, governments are afraid of poor people,” said Liliana Rodríguez, a Venezuelan lawyer and asylee in the United States who works with the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Dominic and Fe En Venezuela, both Catholic charities.  

“The most recent arrivals directly from Venezuela are the very, very poorest of Venezuela, the ones who dare to pass through the Darién Gap just to find a better quality of life,” she added. 

DHS did not respond to request for comment for this story.

Speaking to reporters Wednesday, however, the administration cited litigation as its reason for expanding Title 42, though the May court order leaving the policy in place during litigation does not require its expansion. 

“We are currently under a court ordered obligation to continue to implement the Title 42 public health order. And so that is what we are doing pursuant to the court’s requirement at this time. Once Title 42 is no longer in place, then we will work with Mexico to ensure that returns are done pursuant to other lawful processes,” a senior DHS official said. 

But advocates say the Biden administration’s widespread use of the policy has made it a part of their legacy. 

“We’re nearly two years in. So Title 42 has existed and been applied to a far greater number of people under Biden than under Trump,” Loweree said.“

Title 42 is and forever will be a Biden-era policy.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

The four sleeper races that may decide the Senate majority

High-profile election battles in states like Pennsylvania, Georgia and Nevada have dominated talk about which party wins the Senate majority but strategists on both sides are eyeing sleeper races in second and third tier states such as North Carolina, Colorado and Washington that could unexpectedly tip the balance of power.  

A couple of Senate races that were expected to be top-tier races have faded in the background, such as Arizona, where incumbent Sen. Mark Kelly (D) has pulled well ahead of his Republican rival in the polls and fundraising, and New Hampshire, where Republicans failed to recruit their best candidate, Gov. Chris Sununu (R). 

With three weeks before Election Day, however, Democratic and Republican strategists say there are several “sleeper races” that could surprise political handicappers and decide which party controls the Senate next year. 

Republicans need a net pickup of only one seat to win control of the Senate, which is now divided 50-50. 

North Carolina

The race between Rep. Ted Budd (R-N.C.), who is backed by former President Trump, and former North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Cheri Beasley, hasn’t been part of Washington’s daily chatter of most competitive Senate seats, even though some Democratic strategists insist it should be considered on par with the Pennsylvania Senate battle.  

The race has largely flown under the radar until late last month when Senate Majority PAC, a PAC aligned with Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), launched a new ad attacking Budd’s family seed company, which went bankrupt and repaid family members ahead of small farmers.  

“There’s no question North Carolina Senate race is the sleeper of the cycle,” said Morgan Jackson, a highly respected Democratic strategist based in North Carolina. 

Jackson said that’s a good thing for Beasley because the relative lack of attention has given her an opportunity to become known to voters without the same arial bombardment of attack ads that candidates have faced in other races.  

“This race was off the radar this summer and gave [Beasley] the ability to introduce herself to voters, establish a relationship on her own terms rather than through a super PAC. What’s happened because of that is the race hasn’t been nationalized and I think that has accrued greatly to her benefit,” he said. “Now super PACs are here.”  

What had been relatively quiet atmosphere in North Carolina’s Senate contest is heating up as outside groups start pouring in more money and tensions between the candidates rise.   

Senate Majority PAC announced last week that it would reserve another $4 million in television ads in North Carolina and strategists expect it to be on the air through Nov. 8.

The race is starting to get nasty with new ads approved by Budd hitting Beasley’s for what a narrator says was her ruling as a judge to strike down a law requiring GPS tracking of child predators.  

Beasley’s campaign, however, says the ad mischaracterizes her record. Three retired Florida judges and two sheriffs called on Budd to take down his ad, which they called “ugly” and “dishonest.”  

Budd leads Beasley by an average of 2.5 percentage points in recent public polls, according to Real Clear Politics, which compiled the data.  

Schumer recently transferred $1 million to Beasley’s victory fund and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee included North Carolina in its $46 million Defend the Majority Program, which funds organizing, voter protection and field programs in battleground states. 

Colorado

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) wasn’t viewed as a top Republican target at the start of the election cycle, but Senate Republicans are now making the race a higher priority as their prospects have dimmed in two other battlegrounds: Arizona and New Hampshire.  

The race started garnering more attention from the GOP when Senate Republicans invited Bennet’s challenger, Joe O’Dea, to their weekly conference lunch on Sept. 20.  

The previous evening, McConnell hosted a fundraiser for the underdog with a group of top-dollar lobbyists, including Kirk Blalock, Rob Chamberlin, Aaron Cohen and Rob Hobart, according to an invitation viewed by The Hill.  

Outside groups had $3 million in television spending arrayed against Bennet the last week of September, according to a source familiar with the race. The Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), announced this month it would put $1.25 million in the race.  

Majority Forward, a dark-money group affiliated with Schumer, has spent more than $3 million attacking O’Dea, according to the Colorado Sun.  

In a normal election cycle, Bennet would cruise to re-election without a problem but President Biden has a 42 percent approval rating among highly likely voters, according to a recent Marist poll, and that’s a troubling sign for the Democratic incumbent.  

Even so, Bennet still leads O’Dea by six points in the Marist poll and by an average of 7.7 points in recent public surveys, according to Real Clear Politics.  

“Michael Bennet is definitely vulnerable. We can and will beat him here at the end,” said Joe Jackson, the executive director of the Colorado Republican Party. “He’s sided with Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer 98 percent of the time. 

Jackson and other Republicans say the Hispanic vote could be decisive in Colorado and predict Latino voters to swing to O’Dea because of rising costs and concern over the economy.  

“Hispanic voters are looking for a different candidate who will actually fight for their issues and those issues are inflation and cost of living and making sure Colorado families across the state can afford to live,” Jackson said, citing Bennet’s vote for the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which Republicans say has made inflation worse.  

Florida

The two heavyweights in the battle for the Senate, the Senate Majority PAC and the Senate Leadership Fund — which are aligned with Schumer and McConnell, respectively — haven’t yet weighed in in a major way on the Florida Senate race.

But the Democratic challenger, Rep. Val Demings (Fla.), has reported raising $22.5 million during the third fundraising quarter, which ended Sept. 30, more than twice as much as the $9.8 million incumbent Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) reported raising.  

Strategists say the race may hinge on the candidates’ first and only Senate debate, which is scheduled to begin 7 p.m. Tuesday.  

Democrats think that Rubio is taking the race for granted and letting himself coast on the lead he holds in recent public polls.  

A Mason-Dixon poll of registered and likely voters conducted at the end of September showed Rubio ahead of Demings by 6 points, 47 percent to 41 percent with 10 percent undecided.  

Schumer recently transferred $1 million to Demings’s victory fund and the DSCC included Florida in its $46 million Defend the Majority Program, which funds organizing, voter protection and field programs in battleground states. 

Democrats believe that the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which struck down the constitutional right to an abortion, could have a significant impact in the Florida race.  

A Spectrum News/Siena College poll of 669 likely Florida voters conducted last month showed that 21 percent of all voters and 36 percent of Democratic voters said abortion is their most important issue.  

Democratic strategists hope that will drive more women to the polls to vote for Demings.  

“What we’re seeing in a lot of our polling in the suburbs is that abortion with college educated voters, women and men, still matters greatly, even though they’re still thinking about the economy,” said Jackson, the Democratic strategist. “There’s no question that the economy is the top issue but when you look inside the polls … when you look at the intensity, if abortion is one of your top two or three voters … your chances of voting moves up from 50 percent to 90 percent.”   

Washington

The Senate race in Washington state, which is reliably Democratic, is the mirror image of what’s happening in Florida, with the underdog Republican challenger raising substantially more money than the Democratic incumbent in the third quarter.  

Tiffany Smiley, the GOP nominee, reported raising $6 million in the third quarter and $2.5 million in cash on hand. Incumbent Sen. Patty Murray (D) reported raising $3.6 million in the third quarter and reported $3.8 million in cash on hand.  

Republican strategists are looking back to 2010, the last time there was a Republican midterm election wave, when Murray beat Republican challenger Dino Rossi by only five points. They say Murray could be more vulnerable than most political experts think.

An Emerson poll of 782 likely voters conducted from Sept. 30 to Oct. 1 showed Murray with a nine-point lead over Smiley but Republicans think the race is closer than that.  

Caleb Heimlich, the chairman of the Washington state Republican Party, said Murray has spent too much time and energy attacking Smiley on the issue of abortion rights and not enough talking about financial pressures facing working-class families.  

“Sen. Rick Scott [R-Fla.] has been talking about this as a sleeper race for over a year and that’s because Patty Murray is vulnerable and Tiffany Smiley is, I would argue, the strongest Republican candidate running as a challenger this year,” he said, referring to the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. 

Republicans are touting Smiley’s résumé as a major selling point. She is a former triage nurse who married her high school sweetheart who became an advocate for veterans after her husband, a former army major, was partially paralyzed and permanently blinded by a suicide car bombing in Iraq.  

Murray and Smiley have agreed to participate jointly in a candidate forum scheduled for Oct. 23.  

Like in other Senate battlegrounds, Republicans are attacking their Democratic counterparts on crime and inflation. 

“She’s probably most vulnerable on crime and inflation. She voted for the Inflation Reduction Act that did absolutely nothing to reduce inflation and increased taxes on people in the middle of a recession,” said Ben Gonzalez, the communications director for the Washington state GOP, who argued that two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth is the definition of a recession.  

David Bergstein, the DSCC’s communications director, however, downplayed the threats facing Murray and Bennet and argued that Republicans are being forced to play defense.  

“The GOP is on defense across the Senate map: our Democratic incumbents in these states have a firm advantage in their races, and these offensive opportunities are two of the multiple pickup seats that remain strongly in play,” he said.

Source: TEST FEED1

Marijuana use is becoming a new normal among young adults 

Cannabis users soon may be a majority among young adults in the District of Columbia and several pot-friendly states, a trend that points to a potential future of destigmatized marijuana across much of the nation.  

More than two-fifths of young men and women nationwide now use cannabis at least on occasion, according to federal data, a quotient that has risen steadily in a decade of relentless legalization. Much of the trend is driven by young women, who have all but closed a decades-long gender gap in marijuana use.   

Young cannabis users outnumber abstainers in Vermont, where recreational marijuana became fully legal only this month. Young marijuana patrons are nearing majorities in Colorado, where cannabis has been legal for a decade, and in D.C., where the drug trades on a nebulous gray market, and in Oregon, where recreational sales commenced five years ago. 

“It really helps with sleep,” said Allison, 24, of Silver Spring, Md., one of five states with recreational cannabis measures on the fall ballot. She withheld her last name because the votes are not yet cast.  

“It’s great for stress, anxiety,” she said. “And my generation has huge anxiety problems.” 

Across the full adult population, marijuana use may stand at an all-time high. It’s hard to tell because, prior to the legalization movement, federal cannabis research focused largely on the young.  

The share of all adults who said they had tried marijuana in their lifetimes reached 49 percent in 2021, the highest number measured in half a century of Gallup polling.  

“In the next few years, we should see that crossing 50 percent,” said Lydia Saad, director of U.S. social research for Gallup.  

When the polling organization first posed the question, in 1969, only 4 percent of adults said they had ever used cannabis.  

Cannabis advocates rejoiced this month when President Biden announced he would pardon all Americans convicted of simple marijuana possession under federal law.  

As many as five more states are poised to join the recreational marijuana movement after the midterms. Recreational marijuana could transform cannabis culture in North and South Dakota and Arkansas, states where only 10 to 15 percent of adults use the drug now.  

“Twenty-five years ago, people were telling me, ‘Kid, it’s not gonna happen in your lifetime,’” said Etienne Fontan, a cannabis activist and Gulf War veteran who runs the oldest dispensary in the nation, Berkeley Patients Group in Northern California.  

Already, 19 states and the District of Columbia have recreational marijuana laws on the books. Should all five measures pass, “legalization would be the law for an estimated 49 percent of the U.S. population,” said Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, in an email interview. 

Not everyone is celebrating. Health experts worry that rising cannabis use brings increased risk.  

Marijuana is “about as addictive as alcohol,” said Christian Hopfer, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado. “I’ve had numerous patients who have really had trouble getting off it.” 

With legalization, “we have seen more and more people consume high doses of marijuana,” said Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Most cannabis consumers will be fine, but for a small share of users, ultra-potent recreational strains can trigger psychotic episodes.

“They can end up in the emergency department,” Volkow said. 

For good or ill, the legalization movement has all but erased nearly a century of stigma against marijuana use. 

The very word, marijuana, has “a racist legacy behind it,” said Matt Reid, an assistant professor of sociology at Cabrini University in Pennsylvania. “When it was first made illegal in the 1930s, the stigma was geared toward other cultures, Mexican immigrants.”  

Early efforts to curb cannabis portrayed users as “violent and murderous,” Reid said. Cold War anti-drug messaging taught that marijuana “makes you lazy and a dropout,” hurting our campaign against communism. At the height of Drug Abuse Resistance Education in the Reagan ‘80s, public service announcements taught that marijuana fried the brain like an egg.  

Today, corporate America is sweeping in to open dispensaries and promote an expanding menu of cannabis to eat, drink, smoke and vape. The Colorado Symphony Orchestra has staged marijuana-friendly concerts. In Canada, where recreational marijuana was illegal just four years ago, UberEats launched a cannabis delivery service on Monday. 

“Pabst Beer has their own line of cannabis seltzers,” said Fontan, the cannabis advocate. “They’re in my dispensary right now.” 

The surge in cannabis use spans nearly every age group but in gradually dwindling numbers. Cannabis consumption falls off from roughly 40 percent of the population at age 30 to around 15 percent at age 55, according to federal data.  

Among the youngest adults, marijuana use has yet to approach its all-time peak in the late 1970s.  

The high-water mark of young adult marijuana use arrived in 1979, when 36 percent of Americans ages 18 to 25 said they had smoked pot in the prior month. Marijuana use declined dramatically in the 1980s, flattened out in the 1990s and rose fitfully through the 2000s and 2010s. By 2021, monthly cannabis consumption in the 18-to-25 age group had rebounded to roughly 30 percent. 

Gallup polling finds stark divides among contemporary cannabis users. Adults with graduate degrees are one-third as likely to consume cannabis as those with a college degree or less. Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to use marijuana. Liberals use cannabis at nearly four times the rate of conservatives.  

Texas, one of a dwindling number of states where marijuana has no legal use, reports the lowest cannabis consumption in the nation. In 2019 and 2020, only 13 percent of Texas adults and 26 percent of young adults said they had used marijuana in the prior year, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. 

Women are half as likely as men to use cannabis, according to Gallup polls. But the gender gap is narrowing. Among young adults, it has nearly closed. 

Women are driving the steady rise in cannabis consumption among young adults nationwide. The marijuana gender gap peaked in 2010, according to federal data, when 34 percent of young men reported cannabis use, compared to only 23 percent of young women.  

By 2020, monthly cannabis consumption in the 18-to-25 age group had rebounded to 23 percent. 

Cannabis retailers target female consumers with marketing that promotes the product as a plant, rather than a drug, with holistic appeal and scant caloric consequences.  

“Cannabis cooking — that has become its own thing,” said Stephanie Zellers, a postdoctoral researcher in psychology at the University of Helsinki who has studied cannabis in the United States. “I’ve seen cooking competitions that involve choosing a strain of cannabis with a flavor profile that works with the food.” 

Zellers and her collaborators published research this year that more or less proved adults are more likely to use cannabis in states with recreational sales, by a margin of about 20 percent.  Researchers controlled for other variables by studying pairs of twins. 

A separate study found a bump of roughly 25 percent in adult cannabis consumption when states legalize recreational use.  

“We see the biggest increase once the dispensaries open,” said Alex Hollingsworth, an associate professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University.  

“I look at my parents,” Hollingsworth said. “They’re not going to grow marijuana plants. But if it were in a store, where it was legal, they might do that.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Some Democrats think Pelosi stays if Democrats win

As questions swirl around the future of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Democrats on Capitol Hill say the Speaker’s fate might hinge directly on the party’s success in next month’s elections.

Pelosi, 82, had promised to bow out of her leadership spot at the end of this term, and many Democrats expect she’ll follow through, particularly if Republicans flip control of the lower chamber, as is widely expected.

But if Democrats defy the odds and keep their House majority — a feat that would be virtually impossible without Pelosi’s prodigious fundraising — then the calculus might change dramatically. Some lawmakers said Pelosi, at that point, could write her own ticket. 

“If she wins, she stays,” said Rep. Ron Kind (D), a retiring Wisconsin moderate who had opposed Pelosi’s Speakership in 2018. “If she doesn’t, I think there will be a serious discussion as far as what succession looks like then.”

A Pelosi bid to remain in power — whatever the election outcome — would surely spark an outcry from certain corners of the caucus, where there’s long been an appetite for newer members to climb into the top tiers of leadership. That sentiment is particularly pronounced among heartland Democrats, one of whom lamented Pelosi’s “toxic” reputation in some blue- collar districts, which Republicans have exploited for years in campaign ads. 

While most of those Democratic critics have remained silent this year, in order to keep the party unified heading into the midterms, a few have been open about their desire for an immediate changing of the guard.

“It’s time for generational diversity in our senior leadership ranks, both in the executive branch, and the legislative branch,” said Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), who has also urged President Biden not to seek a second term. “Plain and simple.”

It’s unclear how many Democrats would oppose Pelosi if she sought to remain in the top spot, but the number will be determining. If the party were to keep control of the House, it would likely be by the slimmest of margins, allowing Pelosi few defections in a Speaker race that requires support from a majority of the full House, not merely that of her caucus.

A New York Times/Siena College poll on Monday offered bad news for Democrats hoping to pull off a surprise in the House, showing Republicans with a 4-point advantage in terms of which party voters say they want to represent them in Congress.

Some of her critics are already warning that there’s enough opposition to ensure that Pelosi departs, whether voluntarily or otherwise. 

“I look at the senior leadership post, and I think it’s time,” said a moderate lawmaker who spoke anonymously to discuss a sensitive topic. 

But another group of Democrats isn’t so sure Pelosi’s exodus is sealed, particularly if she can somehow steer the party through the midterms with its fragile majority intact. Just this cycle, Pelosi has already hauled in more than $210 million for the party’s campaign arm alone — far and away the highest figure in the party — and she’s spreading it across scores of races in a long shot effort to keep the Democrats’ advantage.   

“If we win the House again, and she wanted to be Speaker again, I think the House would vote for her,” said Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), a former member of Pelosi’s leadership team. “So she’s gonna determine what she’s gonna do.” 

When and how Pelosi exits has become one of Washington’s most enduring parlor games — one in which Pelosi has steadfastly refused to participate. 

“I’m strictly focused on winning the next election,” she said just before the midterm recess, brushing off the reporter who’d asked the question, “Who’s next?”

First elected in 1987, Pelosi has led the Democrats for 19 of her 35 years in Congress, becoming the country’s first female Speaker in 2007 and returning to that spot for a second stint in 2019. In the process, she’s helped to enact some of the most significant legislation in generations, including ObamaCare and the massive climate bill adopted this year.

But Pelosi’s staying power has also frustrated the ambitions of younger Democrats eager to see fresh faces at the top of the party. Paving the way for generational change, she vowed in 2018 that this year would be her last at the helm — a promise to a group of roughly 20 Democratic detractors that helped land their support and win her the gavel for a second time.

Some of those critics are making clear their intent to hold Pelosi to her word. 

“I expect her to uphold the promise she made,” said one of those Democrats, who predicted the opposition to Pelosi’s continued leadership now far exceeds the number in 2018. “The expectation is much broader than that group. There are a lot of people who expect her to uphold the promise that she made well beyond the group.”

Yet, there are others among Pelosi’s previous detractors who said her performance with the gavel over the past four years, particularly when she played foil to former President Trump, means she can decide her own future — if Democrats are able keep control of the House. 

“The reality is that the Trump presidency gave her an opportunity to really strengthen her hand, and I think she’s done a pretty remarkable job since she took the Speaker’s gavel back. In retrospect, my position was probably a mistake,” said one of those 2018 opponents. 

“If we’re still in the majority and Nancy decides to stay?” the lawmaker added. “They’re not going to be able to replace her at that point.”

The same is not true, however, if the Republicans seize control of the House in November, as appears increasingly likely. Democrats can afford to lose only four seats, on net, and Republicans are on the offensive, boosted by rampant inflation, volatile gas prices and President Biden’s dismal approval rating, which has been underwater for more than a year. In the current environment, the nation’s top election handicappers are predicting Republicans will pick up between 15 and 20 seats. 

If that’s the case, numerous Democrats said, Pelosi’s leadership tenure would likely reach an end. 

“If the House flips, that really means change,” said a Pelosi ally. “If it doesn’t, it’s a totally different question.”

What happens to Pelosi’s longtime lieutenants — Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and James Clyburn (D-S.C.) — is another uncertainty heading into the midterms. Both have been clear that they were not a part of the leadership term-limit promise Pelosi made four years ago, but they’ve been silent about their intentions. 

Kind, of Wisconsin, acknowledged the “itch” for a younger crop of Democrats to climb into the leadership ranks. “And that’s not bad,” he said. But if Democrats pull an upset, it would be largely on Pelosi’s shoulders, he added, and she’d have earned the chance to stay in power. 

“It’s an incredible, tireless effort she’s putting in to hold onto the majority right now,” Kind said. “So I think it would be bad manners for the caucus to kick her out at that point.”

Source: TEST FEED1