Categories Uncategorized

Here are 10 critical House races to watch in November

Republicans are favored to flip the House this November given the national mood, as well as the historic headwinds the president’s party normally faces in a midterm election.

Yet Democrats still have a fighting chance, thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which has energized voters and given the party of President Biden hope that they can stave off a red wave.

Democrats are going on offense in California’s 22nd Congressional District, represented by pro-impeachment Republican Rep. David Valadao, and Nebraska’s 2nd District, represented by Rep. Don Bacon (R). Meanwhile, Democratic retirements in districts like Wisconsin’s 3rd District and Rhode Island’s 2nd District have fueled possible pickup opportunities for the GOP.

Here’s a look at 10 races to watch for in November.

California’s 22nd Congressional District

The race for California’s 22nd Congressional District will determine if another House Republican who voted to impeach former President Trump for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection will be defeated or if he will continue on for another term.

Rep. David Valadao is one of two House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump who is running for reelection in November. The other eight either lost their primaries to Trump-backed challengers or chose to not run for reelection.

Valadao is running against Democrat Rudy Salas, a California state assemblyman. Trump did not endorse anyone in the open primary for the seat, and Valadao placed second in the primary and advanced to the general election.

FiveThirtyEight considers the race to be a “toss-up,” with Salas having a slight advantage in its election simulation.

Michigan’s 7th Congressional District

Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) represents one of the handful of districts that Trump and a Democratic House candidate both won in 2020. She was first elected in 2018 by a few points and won reelection in 2020 by about the same margin.

She is facing Republican Tom Barrett, a Michigan state senator and member of the state’s National Guard who has been a vocal opponent of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s (D) use of emergency powers throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Slotkin has campaigned on being a moderate who worked in the CIA under both Democratic and Republican administrations, while Barrett has criticized her for consistently voting in favor of Biden’s proposals.

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report rates the race as a toss-up.

Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District

Rep. Don Bacon (R) is fighting for reelection to represent Nebraska’s 2nd District against Democratic candidate Tony Vargas, a state senator. The three-term incumbent won his last election by over 4 percentage points despite the fact that it was the only district in the state to swing for Biden.

Vargas has leaned into issues like abortion in addition to lowering prescription drugs and affordable health care, among others. Bacon has focused on his record working with Nebraskans on issues and tackling issues like the infant baby formula shortage.

This race is expected to be no less competitive, given the district’s current Republican lean. The Nebraska Examiner reported last month that the top House leaders on both sides had visited the state, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District

A rematch of the 2020 contest will decide who will represent New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District for the next two years. Rep. Tom Malinowski (D) is running against Republican Thomas Kean Jr. for the second time.

The district has swung back and forth between voting for Democrats and Republicans in recent years and will likely be the closest House race this year in New Jersey, a state where most districts lean comfortably Democratic. For this reason, many see it as a bellwether for how Democrats will do across the country in November.

Malinowski defeated Kean in the 2020 race by only about 5,000 votes, or 1 percent. Malinowski served as an assistant secretary in the State Department during the Obama administration, while Kean, the son of a former governor, served as the minority leader of the state Senate for almost 15 years.

FiveThirtyEight’s election simulation states that Kean is slightly favored to win, but a poll from last month found the candidates tied.

New Hampshire’s 1st Congressional District

New Hampshire’s 1st Congressional District has been hotly contested in recent years, as no one has held the seat for more than two consecutive terms in almost two decades.

Rep. Chris Pappas (D) is running for his third term against Republican Karoline Leavitt, a 25-year-old former assistant in the Trump administration’s press office. Leavitt defeated Matt Mowers, the Republican nominee for the seat in 2020 who worked on Trump’s 2016 campaign and in the State Department, in the GOP primary last month.

Leavitt received endorsements in the primary race from far-right Republicans like Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Rep. Lauren Boebert (Colo.). Pappas is potentially one of the most vulnerable Democratic incumbents as Republicans seek to retake the House.

A poll from last week showed Pappas leading Leavitt by 8 points, but one released Wednesday placed his lead at just 1 point, within the margin of error.

Oregon’s 6th Congressional District

The newly drawn 6th Congressional District in Oregon features a matchup between Democratic candidate Andrea Salinas, a state representative, and Republican candidate Mike Erickson, the founder of a consulting firm focused on supply chain and logistics. 

On the surface, there are signs that the seat should be more favorable for Democrats given that the data website FiveThirtyEight gives the new district a partisan lean of 7 points for Democrats.

But the nonpartisan election handicapper Cook Political Report this week moved its rating from “lean Democrat” to a toss-up, noting that “both parties’ surveys continue to show Republican supply chain consultant Mike Erickson tied or leading Democratic state Rep. Andrea Salinas, an avowed progressive policy wonk who was endorsed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren in the primary and hasn’t lived in the 6th CD.”

The race is also likely complicated by the fact that Gov. Kate Brown (D) is seen as an unpopular governor within her state, which could add to headwinds for Democrats. 

Rhode Island’s 2nd Congressional District

Democrats have held the seat representing Rhode Island’s 2nd Congressional District for more than 20 years, but Republicans have a decent chance to win it this year.

Rep. Jim Langevin (D) announced earlier this year that he would not seek reelection after holding the seat for two decades, and Democrats nominated Seth Magaziner, the general treasurer of Rhode Island. Magaziner is running against Republican Allan Fung, the former mayor of the city of Cranston.

A Suffolk University-Boston Globe poll released Tuesday showed Fung leading Magaziner by 8 points, 45 percent to 37 percent, while 13 percent said they were undecided. Five percent said they would support an independent candidate. Cook Political Report rates the contest as a toss-up, indicating it could be a key pickup opportunity for Republicans in retaking control of the House.

“Magaziner’s opponent’s a quality opponent,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer admitted while speaking to reporters last month before the House recess. “I think Magaziner’s going to beat him. But, you know, he’s the mayor of a town, he’s pretty popular, and he’s not an extremist. Not every Republican is an extremist, don’t get me wrong. But in the Republican Party, it’s a dwindling number.”

Texas’s 34th Congressional District

Rep. Mayra Flores (R-Texas) made headlines earlier this year after she won a special election in the state’s 34th Congressional District over Democrat Dan Sanchez, filling the remainder of Rep. Filemon Vela’s (D) term.

But the district Flores currently represents and the 34th Congressional District she’s vying for in November are not the same, and she’s now gearing up for a competitive reelection against Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas), whose current House seat pertains to the 15th Congressional District.

The data website FiveThirtyEight gives the seat a partisan lean of plus 17 points Democrat and Politico notes that Biden handedly carried the area in 2020 under the redistricted lines by 16 points. 

Washington’s 8th Congressional District

Two-term incumbent Rep. Kim Schrier (D) is fighting for reelection in Washington’s 8th District against Republican candidate Matt Larkin, who once worked in the George W. Bush administration as a speechwriter, according to The Seattle Times. 

The district comprises parts of or all of the counties of Snohomish, Chelan, Kittitas, King and Pierce. Despite the fact that Biden won the district in 2020 by 7 percentage points, the data website FiveThirtyEight gives the seat an even partisan lean. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report also rates the seat as a toss-up.

Still, Schrier is not to be underestimated: Her first election in 2018 made headlines given that the district had been under Republican control for decades before she flipped the seat that year. 

Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District

Rep. Ron Kind (D) announced last year that he would not be seeking reelection, leaving the 3rd Congressional District seat in Wisconsin open after serving in the House for 25 years. He was among a group of Democrats who won their seat in a district that was also carried by former President Trump in 2020.

The open seat is now considered one of Republicans’ best pickup opportunities in the House, which features a head-to-head between state Sen. Brad Pfaff (D) and retired Navy SEAL Derrick Van Orden (R), who lost against Kind in 2020 as the GOP nominee. 

The data website FiveThirtyEight gives the district a partisan lean of plus nine points Republican and coupled with the fact that Van Orden has an endorsement from Trump, Van Orden has a competitive shot at taking the seat this cycle. 

The seat is rated as “lean Republican” by the Cook Political Report, and FiveThirtyEight says Van Orden is favored to win in the election.

Mike Lillis contributed.

Source: TEST FEED1

Oz, Pennsylvania become linchpin to GOP hopes

PHILADELPHIA — A victory by Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania is increasingly becoming the linchpin to GOP hopes for a Senate majority, as the party grows more confident about a win in Nevada but more nervous about its chances in Georgia.

Over the last week, the first batch of polls conducted in Georgia following allegations that GOP nominee Herschel Walker paid for a woman’s abortion in 2009 showed Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) opening up a slight lead. His performance improved in four separate polls, and he now holds an average of a 3 percentage point lead over Walker. 

At the same time, the race in Pennsylvania has tightened, with Oz cutting into Democratic nominee John Fetterman’s long-held lead and the nonpartisan Cook Political Report shifting the race back into its toss-up column.

Barring an upset in a state like Arizona or Colorado, a GOP loss in Georgia means Republicans would have to win Pennsylvania and Nevada in order to nab the 51 seats needed, putting increased pressure on Oz to topple Fetterman.

“Given the revelations around Walker in the last two weeks, Oz’s stock, in combination with the race closing, has risen,” one GOP strategist told The Hill.

The strategist added that recent internal polling showed that Oz has finally drawn even after trailing Fetterman for months, boosting the party’s hopes with just more than three weeks to go.

“The trajectory of the race is just so good,” the strategist added.

In an interview with The Hill on Thursday before a campaign event centered on crime and safety, Oz downplayed any pressure the recent shifts in the national landscape have put on his push to keep the seat of retiring Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) in GOP hands.

“I’ve always found a passion to win independent of whatever else was going on,” Oz said, adding that he believes Republicans will win 52 seats. “I think Pennsylvania is critical, and it’s an important state to have at least one Republican senator because you don’t want to have a situation where north of North Carolina you don’t have any Republican senators north of the Atlantic Seaboard before you get to Maine.” 

To be sure, Republicans are still putting resources into Georgia and have rushed to Walker’s defense after the report of his abortion payment was reported on Oct. 3. The former University of Georgia running back has denied the claims, which have not been independently verified by The Hill.

Last week, Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who chairs the Senate GOP campaign arm, and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) campaigned alongside Walker. 

The Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), a group run by allies of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), continues to plow funds into the Georgia contest. According to recent campaign finance reports, the SLF has spent $24 million in Georgia.

And while Republicans may be growing increasingly confident that Oz will defeat Fetterman next month, but it is by no means a fait accompli and the party is spending significant resources in Pennsylvania as well. 

The SLF has spent nearly $32 million to boost Oz against Fetterman, including a nearly $10 million ad buy in early August when the GOP nominee was struggling mightily. 

“Pennsylvania was always key. I don’t know that it’s more important than it was 4 months ago,” one Pennsylvania-based GOP operative said. “Everybody who knew what John Fetterman’s record was wasn’t running away from the race.”

However, Fetterman significantly outraised the former television doctor and retired cardiologist between July and September, $22 million to $10 million. Included in Oz’s total is a $7 million loan the candidate gave to his operation.

Oz conceded in the interview that Fetterman has a superior small-dollar operation that has given him the leg up on the financial side.

“What I’ve learned about the fundraising process is that you have to have a really big digital fundraising machine. If you’re a newbie to the game, you don’t have — as Fetterman has — six years to build up the database of hundreds of thousands of names who will give you $100 at a shot, $200 at a shot.”

“I raise my money the old fashioned way: I called people. I held events, potlucks. I did whatever I could to bring folks in, and once they understood me, they contributed more,” Oz said. “It’s hard to build those names in a short campaign.” 

Lately, the contest has turned personal. Oz and SLF are panning Fetterman over the airwaves for his tax history and economic stances, along with seizing on the issue of crime to criticize the lieutenant governor for his role as the chairman of the Board of Pardons. 

Republicans are also increasingly bringing up concerns about Fetterman’s health.

Fetterman and outside groups, on their parts, have put big bucks behind ads discussing his stroke and defending his ability to serve as a senator, and attacking Oz over treatments he promoted on his show.

The two will meet on Oct. 25 for the lone debate of the general election.

Source: TEST FEED1

Republicans ride crime wave worries in midterms home stretch

In the closing weeks of the midterm election season, Republicans up and down the ballot are working to make worries about a crime wave translate to a red wave.

As the GOP finds a boon in focusing on public safety and tying lawlessness to Democrats’ policies, Democrats are forced into playing defense.

“Crime is skyrocketing in Illinois. But Democrat Eric Sorensen stands with the anti-police movement,” charged an ad from Republican Esther Joy King in Illinois’s 17th Congressional District. Sorensen, the Democratic nominee, wrote an op-ed this week titled: “We need to properly fund the police.”

Mehmet Oz, the Republican nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania, has hammered Democratic Lt. Gov. John Fetterman over his record of making pardons and commutations more accessible. Fetterman has said that Republicans have misrepresented his positions, that added that while he agreed with a statement that a third of the state’s inmates could be released without a threat to public safety, he does not want to release them all.

And for New York Rep. Lee Zeldin, the Republican nominee for governor who was the victim of an attempted stabbing in July, a shooting last week outside his house on Long Island while his two teenage daughters were at home punctuated a main theme of this campaign.

“Like so many New Yorkers, crime has literally made its way to our front door,” Zeldin wrote in a statement.

While inflation and economic issues remain at the top of voter concerns, Republican operatives say that crime and a sense of unease about overall security are hitting home with voters in the midterm home stretch — and that Republicans have an edge on the issue. 

A Sept. 21-25 Monmouth University poll released last week found that 72 percent of adults surveyed said crime is extremely or very important for the federal government to address, second only to inflation, at 82 percent. 

Pew Research similarly found in an early August survey that 60 percent of registered voters said violent crime is very important to their vote in the 2022 congressional election, coming in third after the economy, with 77 percent, and gun policy, with 62 percent.

And an Oct. 7-9 Morning Consult poll displays why the issue is so potent for Republicans this year: While a 62 percent majority said that crime and policing is key to their decision in the midterms, coming in third behind the economy and national security, just 31 percent of voters thought the Biden administration is making crime a top priority. 

Another Sept. 23-Oct. 3 Reuters poll found that more voters think Republicans are better suited to deal with crime than Democrats, 39 percent to 30 percent.

Republicans have long run on law and order. But mass demonstrations over racial justice and policing that have spurred riots heightened awareness and helped make crime a significant issue in the 2020 election. And as crime rates have increased, it has stayed at the forefront of GOP messaging.

The murder rate spiked in 2020, according to federal crime statistics — spanning across both red and blue states and cities. National crime statistics estimates from AH Datalytics and the Council on Criminal Justice find that murder rates have slightly ticked down over the past two years, but are still far higher than they were before the COVID-19 pandemic. But the analyses find that other types of crime, such as thefts and robberies, are rising.

Local news stories about crime in communities have become a regular part of the Republican National Committee (RNC) rapid response effort, with the RNC Research Twitter account frequently sharing clips from evening newscasts about instances of crime. 

“From Philadelphia to Albuquerque to Atlanta, Americans are frightened by what they see on the nightly news,” said Nathan Brand, deputy communications director at the RNC. “Violent crime is on the rise in Democrat-run cities, and families know Democrat policies are to blame. Ultimately, Democrats can’t outrun their crime agenda, voters are worried about their security, and the midterms will be determined by who has the stronger public safety message.”

Democrats are working to correct for their missteps in the 2020 election. After Democrats lost seats in the House in 2020 even as they won the White House and Senate, House Democrats reeled about Republican ads using footage of Democrats calling to “defund the police.” 

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), House Democrats’ campaign arm, sent a memo to candidates in March with guidance to directly respond to Republican attacks on crime and police funding, state their own position and point to Democratic actions to boost law enforcement — while still giving room for candidates to say they support “common-sense reforms.”

Last month, before lawmakers departed for a campaign-season recess, the House passed a package of Democratic bills allocating federal grants to law enforcement agencies. Passage came after months of negotiations with progressive members of the party. The grants would support small forces, technology to help solve cold cases, training for mental health professionals to respond to some cases and coordinated community violence initiatives.

“House Democrats delivered billions of dollars in the American Rescue Plan and through COPS grants to keep families safe by funding local police departments. Republicans voted against funding police. Instead of working to keep families safe, they’re running deceptive ads about Democrats to scare Americans in a plot to gain power for themselves,” DCCC spokesperson Chris Taylor said in a statement.

In a debate last week, Democratic Ohio Senate nominee Rep. Tim Ryan aimed to flip attacks from Republican J.D. Vance on crime, referencing Vance sharing a link to raise money for those charged with crimes in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. 

“Can you imagine one guy saying out of one side of his mouth he is pro-cop and out of the other side of his mouth he is raising money for the insurrectionists who were beating up the Capitol Police?” Ryan asked in the debate.

Democratic candidates have also touted support from members of law enforcement in campaign ads.

In New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District, retired Luna County Sheriff Raymond Cobos appeared in an ad for Democratic nominee Gabe Vasquez and pointed to his city council votes to fund law enforcement.

But that hasn’t stopped GOP attacks.

The Congressional Leadership Fund, a PAC aligned with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), followed up with an ad this month accusing Vasquez of misrepresenting his position. It pointed to an anonymous local news interview in 2020 Vasquez gave, in which he said: “It’s not just about defunding the police, it’s about defunding a system.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Jan. 6 panel offers 'closing argument' to DOJ on possible Trump prosecution

The likely final hearing of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack had a secondary audience in mind when it laid out evidence of former President Trump’s state of mind leading up to the Capitol attack: the Department of Justice capable of charging him.  

Three phrases were echoed over and over again on Thursday by the panel’s nine members, who repeatedly mentioned Trump’s motivation, intent or state of mind — a callout to elements prosecutors would need to demonstrate if they choose to pursue charges against Trump. 

“I think they were trying to hand the Justice Department all the evidence on a silver platter,” said Ryan Goodman, co-director of the Reiss Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law. 

“I do think that it’s very significant information for a Justice Department with much more powerful tools to pursue a full-blown investigation. I do think that they did a very good job of handing that off, and, in a certain sense, showing what a closing argument can look like in a powerful way.”  

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) the committee’s vice chairwoman, noted that while it was up to the Department of Justice to make prosecutorial calls, the panel “may ultimately decide to make a series of criminal referrals” to them. 

“We have sufficient information to consider criminal referrals for multiple individuals and to recommend a range of legislative proposals to guard against another Jan. 6,” she said. 

While all prosecutions require demonstrating someone did something illegal, many of the crimes that would be the most likely fit for Trump’s behavior require an additional element of proving intent. 

“There was considerable information presented yet again yesterday, and some new information presented that is pertinent to ongoing Justice Department investigations,” said David Laufman, who worked in leadership roles in the National Security Division in the Department of Justice (DOJ) and also represented two Capitol Police officers who testified before the Jan. 6 panel.   

“Who in the White House or Trump world knew what and when — that may factor into investigative actions and possibly charging decisions on issues like seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud the United States, having to do with the presentation of false slates of electors, conspiracies to obstruct an official proceeding,” Laufman added. 

“Every piece of connective tissue that reaches Trump or people close to him with regard to those events is going to factor into investigative findings and recommendations by the line prosecutors on these cases.” 

Amid its recap of what it laid out in its prior eight hearings, the panel offered new evidence that Trump acknowledged to aides that he lost the election and further details about the extent to which Trump allies discussed that he should claim victory before all the votes were counted. 

During the hearing, the committee sought to show how much Trump was advised to claim he won the election, something he heard from confidants Roger Stone and Steve Bannon, and in a newly revealed email from conservative activist and Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton.  

In the Oct. 31 email – sent four days before the election – Fitton included language encouraging Trump to say, “We had an election today — and I won.” The email also fixates on a faulty deadline, suggesting that Trump say “according to the ballots counted by the Election Day deadline.”  

Election law requires counting all ballots, including absentee ballots, which are often counted after Election Day. Trump’s plan to claim victory came after he repeatedly urged his supporters to only vote in person. 

Former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale also told the committee Trump hatched plans to claim victory on election night as far back as July. 

“The evidence presented yesterday was very compelling to show that the false claims of a stolen election were planned even before Election Day. That pre-meditation is very important to proving a conspiracy. The committee has certainly shown some evidence of a conspiracy to defraud the United States,” Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. Attorney, told The Hill.  

Laufman said that evidence could also be used to pursue charges tied to financial crimes. 

“The considerable evidence presented yesterday that Trump was told multiple times and knew, in fact, that he had lost because he made statements to others indicating he knew he had lost could factor into judgments about whether to pursue wire fraud charges in connection with the tens of millions of dollars he has raised in political donations premised on an obvious, unmistakably large lie that he had in fact won and that the election had been stolen,” he said. 

Goodman said the knowledge that Trump lost the election and that then-Vice President Mike Pence did not have the power to overturn the election results could also lead prosecutors to charges for corruptly impeding a proceeding and conspiring to injure or impeded an officer, the latter of which has been used for charging members of the right-wing Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. 

Not all of the evidence presented Thursday was new, and in many cases the documents and testimony fleshed out details already known or shared by the committee. 

But Goodman said the additional material is all still helpful. 

“For prosecutors to bring a case, it’s not like they just want one witness. So the ability to layer many of these evidentiary claims with additional witness testimony or additional pieces of documentary evidence builds a stronger and stronger case and a very meaningful way for prosecutors,” he said. 

“That was another piece of the hearing that’s legally significant, but others might miss. Because they might say, ‘Well, we already know that.’ But the fact that prosecutors would have corroboration in so many different ways I think plays a very significant role in the criminal context.” 

The DOJ has assembled a grand jury to hear evidence related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. 

But McQuade said prosecutors still have a large task ahead of them, particularly as they weigh whether to delve into an unprecedented case against a former president.  

“It is not necessary to show that Trump planned the physical violence on the capital on January 6, only that he agreed with others to use fraud to interfere with the lawful transition of presidential power. DOJ’s task is larger, of course, than just showing some evidence,” she said. 

“They have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and anticipate any potential defenses. That means they need to talk with every witness who may have information about Trump’s knowledge, intent and statements, and review every document that might turn to show that he did, or did not have this intent.” 

The committee took a step in that direction Thursday, voting to subpoena Trump, a move Cheney said was because the panel is “obligated to seek answers directly from the man who set this all in motion.” 

The nod to the Department of Justice in the broader pitch for accountability for Trump comes from a panel whose members and staff are largely attorneys. 

“On a day-to-day level [this investigation has] been conducted by former Department of Justice prosecutors. That has a lot to do with the professionalism and accomplishments of this investigation,” Laufman said.  

“Among the best decisions that [Chairman] Bennie Thompson [D-Miss.] and Liz Cheney made was to facilitate the hiring of former prosecutors who, while dedicated to supporting the committee and its interests, surely, in the back of their minds, in the back of the Select Committee’s minds, are trying to ensure that everything they do could be a potential value to the Department of Justice, and from time to time to maybe gently put their finger in the department’s eyes to try to goad them into at least pursuing logical investigative steps to consider ultimately whether to bring charges against Trump.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

The Memo: Walker gives GOP hope with Georgia debate performance

SAVANNAH, Ga. — Republican Herschel Walker won a moral victory by avoiding disaster at his sole televised debate with Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) Friday. 

In the process, the former football star will have given his party hope that he can overcome a checkered campaign to prevail in the race, which could plausibly determine control of the Senate.

But Walker also climbed further out on a limb regarding the story that has dominated the race’s closing stages — the accusation from the mother of one of his children that he had previously paid for her to have an abortion.

Walker, who campaigns on an emphatically anti-abortion platform, again insisted without equivocation that the woman’s story was “a lie.” The tactic may be effective — but only so long as it is not disproven by any new evidence.

Warnock currently holds a small lead in polling averages, but Georgia retains an underlying Republican lean despite narrow Democratic victories during the 2020 election cycle.

This year, it is one of three states, along with Pennsylvania and Nevada, most likely to flip in the battle for the Senate.

Walker put in a much sharper performance than Democrats and many pundits expected. He was helped by having set a notably low bar for himself — and by the commonly-held belief among liberals that he would be hopelessly exposed on the debate stage.

“I’m not that smart,” the Republican candidate said last month. “He [Warnock] is going to show up and embarrass me at the debate.”

Walker more than avoided embarrassment. He jabbed back at Warnock — prompting occasional applause and cheers from his sometimes-raucous supporters in the audience — and appeared at times to rattle the incumbent senator, who won a narrow victory in a January 2021 run-off.

Walker attacked Warnock repeatedly for answers that the Republican contended were evasive. At times, Walker had a point — as when the incumbent senator skated away from questions on whether he believes there should be any restrictions on abortion or, even more conspicuously, whether he wants President Biden to run again in 2024.

“I have not spent a minute thinking about what politician should run for what in 2024,” Warnock claimed.

The answer was emblematic of a much broader theme in the debate — and one that animates a number of battleground races this year.

At issue is whether the midterms should be seen as a straight up-or-down referendum on the first two years of the Biden presidency.

Warnock was at pains to emphasize Georgia voters have a simple choice — himself or Walker as their senator. The Democrat argued that the former football star was not “ready” to fill that role.

But Walker clearly wants the election to be about a third person: Biden.

His most frequent refrain in the debate was asserting that Warnock’s voting record shows him backing Biden “96 percent” of the time. Later, he hit Warnock for allegedly failing to “stand up” to Biden.

Warnock, for his part, emphasized his willingness to work with Republicans, adding: “The people of Georgia hired me to represent them regardless of who is in the White House.”

As a matter of political necessity, Warnock’s approach can hardly be faulted. 

One recent poll, from Quinnipiac University, showed Biden’s job performance winning the approval of only 44 percent of likely voters in Georgia, whereas 53 percent disapproved.

But Warnock’s stance also requires him to thread a fine needle, keeping his distance from Biden and reaching out to independent voters while still revving up his party’s base voters.

Warnock did have strong moments in the debate, especially highlighting tangible achievements from his brief time in the Senate so far. He emphasized his push for capping the cost of insulin, for example, a quest that was reflected in the Inflation Reduction Act.

Referring to Walker’s declaration that he would have voted against that bill, which Biden signed into law in mid-August, Warnock insisted: “He should tell the people of Georgia why they should have expensive insulin.”

The same topic witnessed one of Walker’s shakier moments, when he seemed to suggest the price of insulin would not be an issue if people could afford to eat better — a point that landed as both diversionary and insensitive.

There was only one bizarre moment at the debate, which was hosted by Nexstar Media, The Hill’s parent company. 

Walker, who has been widely reported as exaggerating his involvement with law enforcement, responded to an attack on that topic from Warnock by pulling out a badge of some description.

The specifics of the badge were unclear, and the tactic earned Walker an admonishment from one of the debate’s co-moderators for the unauthorized use of a “prop.”

Still, Republicans will be fine that there was no more melodramatic moment.

Walker stayed in the game on Friday night. 

He, and the GOP, will settle for that.

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.

Source: TEST FEED1

Five takeaways from the Warnock-Walker debate in Georgia

SAVANNAH, Ga. – Sen. Raphael Warnock (D) and his Republican opponent, former football star Herschel Walker, faced off on Friday night for their first and likely only debate, using the face-to-face meeting to make their cases to voters just a few weeks before Election Day.

The debate came amid a hectic final push by the two candidates to win over the moderate and swing voters who could very well decide which party will control the Senate. While most polls show Warnock with a narrow lead over Walker, neither candidate is scoring the majority support needed to win the Senate seat outright.

Here are five takeaways from the debate between Warnock and Walker.

Walker holds his own

Weeks before the debate, Walker began lowering expectations for a standout performance, saying that he’s “not that smart” and predicting that Warnock would “show up and embarrass” him. 

But Walker largely avoided the kind of embarrassment he had teased. While Warnock landed several punches, Walker frequently went on offense, pummeling Warnock as a rubber stamp for President Biden’s agenda and an out-of-touch politician. 

Of course, Walker has been preparing for the debate for weeks, and his expectation-setting ahead of the face-off meant that he had to clear a lower bar. Still, he appeared intent on soothing the concerns of voters who may have been uneasy about electing to the Senate a former football player with an at-times questionable personal and business history.

“For those of you who are concerned about voting for me, I’m not a politician,” Walker said. “I want you to think about the damage politicians like Joe Biden and Raphael Warnock have done to this country.”

That’s not to say Walker didn’t make some blunders. At one point, when addressing the cost of insulin, Walker said that people “gotta eat right.” And in the most memorable and bizarre moment of the night, Walker was reprimanded by the debate’s moderator for brandishing a prop badge in response to remarks that he once claimed to have worked for law enforcement. 

Warnock keeps his cool

Even before the debate, Warnock had established a reputation as a cool and compelling speaker — a reputation earned through his years as a pastor. 

That sense of ease was on display on Friday as Warnock delivered a careful, yet firm, defense of his record in the Senate, never stumbling over his own words, even in the face of several interruptions by Walker.

That’s not to say that Warnock spent the entire night on offense. He was forced to fend off questions about his stance on abortion rights and how best to address towering inflation. Still, he managed to put Walker on defense as well, accusing his Republican rival of having a tenuous relationship with the truth. 

“We will see time and time again tonight what we’ve already seen: that my opponent has a problem with the truth,” Warnock said. “Just because he says something doesn’t mean it’s true.”

Biden dominates — for better or worse

If there was one consistent theme in Walker’s debate performance, it was his repeated effort to tie Warnock to Biden and turn the election into a referendum on the president. 

Time and again, Walker brought his remarks back to Biden, seeking to draw attention away from himself and the controversies that have roiled his campaign. He made clear in his opening remarks that the Senate contest shouldn’t be treated as a personality contest.

“This race ain’t about me,” he said. “It’s about what Raphael Warnock and Joe Biden have done to you and your family.”

Warnock, meanwhile, largely defended Biden and his party’s priorities, touting the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act — a massive tax and climate change bill signed into law earlier this year — and boasted that he pressed Biden to implement some sort of student loan forgiveness. 

That’s not to say Warnock embraced Biden entirely. Asked whether Biden should run for a second term in the White House in 2024, Warnock demurred.

“I’ve not spent a minute thinking about what politician should run for what in 2024,” Warnock said.

Walker allegations fade into the background

Walker’s campaign has found itself mired in controversy repeatedly over the past year. One of the most explosive instances came last week, when The Daily Beast reported that Walker had paid for his now-ex-girlfriend to have an abortion in 2009. 

That allegation — which Walker has vehemently denied — flew in the face of his ardently anti-abortion campaign stance. Walker has said that he would support a national ban on the procedure without any exceptions. 

But that allegation received little attention on Friday night, allowing Walker to go relatively unscathed on a matter that Democrats see as a potentially fatal weakness for him. 

Asked about the abortion allegation during the debate, Walker said that he has been transparent about his personal life, but once again denied the account. 

“I say that was a lie,” he said. “And I’m not backing down.”

And the debate didn’t linger on the topic. Instead, it gave way to a conversation about abortion rights that pivoted more on policy and ethics than on Walker’s own alleged behavior. Warnock, for his part, demurred in attacking his opponent over the allegations as well.

The debate’s not likely to change the race much

With Warnock and Walker running only a few points apart in polling ahead of the election, the debate offered the two candidates a chance to sway voters to their respective sides.

That likely didn’t happen.

While both Warnock and Walker sought to assuage any concerns about their candidacies, neither said much to reach out to voters still on the fence. Walker highlighted his anti-abortion stance, talked about his friendship with former President Trump and railed against the idea of student debt forgiveness. 

For his part, Warnock leaned into his party’s key talking points. He hammered Republican efforts to ban or severely curtail abortion access, touted Democrats’ legislative record and lamented a Georgia election law that critics say makes it harder for people to vote.

In short, if voters weren’t swayed by either Walker’s or Warnock’s message before Friday, the debate probably didn’t do much to change that.

Source: TEST FEED1

Warnock dodges debate question on Biden 2024 run

SAVANNAH, GA. – Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) declined to say on Friday whether President Biden should run for a second term, saying that he’s focused only on his own reelection efforts.

Asked during a debate sponsored by The Hill parent company Nexstar whether he would support Biden for reelection in 2024, Warnock demurred. 

“I’ve not spent a minute thinking about what politicians should run for what in 2024,” Warnock said. Pressed for a yes or no response, Warnock offered no ground.

“Maybe this is difficult for people to understand, because that’s how politicians think,” he said. “I think part of the problem with our politics right now is that it has become too much about the politicians. You’re asking me about who’s going to run in ’24? The people of Georgia get to decide who’s going to be their senator in three days — Monday.”

Asked whether he is concerned about Biden’s mental fitness to serve in the Oval Office, Warnock again brushed off the question, saying that voters didn’t elect him “to be a pundit.”

Warnock’s remarks highlight the fine line Democratic candidates are toeing ahead of the midterms. Biden’s approval ratings are stuck underwater and Republicans are eager to tie Democratic incumbents to the president in an effort to turn the 2022 elections into a referendum on the Biden administration. 

Warnock’s Republican rival Herschel Walker, meanwhile, embraced his party’s figurehead, former President Trump. 

Asked if he would support Trump should he mount another bid for the White House in 2024, Walker offered a clear response.

Yes, I would. Let me tell you, President Trump is my friend,” Walker said. “And he won’t stand up for Biden, when he voted for him 96 percent of the time? Let’s be real.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Walker scolded for flashing badge in middle of Georgia debate

SAVANNAH, GA. – Herschel Walker, the Georgia Republican Senate nominee and former football player, was chastised on Friday in the middle of a debate against Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) after he violated the debate rules by brandishing what appeared to be a prop badge.

During a response to a question about crime and policing, Warnock took a dig at Walker, who had claimed in speeches years ago that he had worked in law enforcement. 

“I’ve never pretended to be a police officer and I’ve never threatened a shootout with the police,” Warnock quipped, also referring to a 21-year-old police report involving Walker that said the former football star talked about having a shootout with officers.

Walker then appeared to pull some sort of badge out of his pocket before flashing it to the audience. That drew a rebuke from the debate’s moderator. 

“You’re very well aware of the rules aren’t you?” the moderator said, scolding Walker for violating debate rules by using a “prop.”

While Walker has claimed in public remarks before he launched his Senate that he worked in law enforcement, there’s no record that he ever actually did so. Walker’s campaign has said that he majored in criminal justice at the University of Georgia and was made an honorary deputy in Cobb County along with three other Georgia counties. 

The Friday night debate was hosted by WSAV, a Nexstar-owned TV station in Savannah, Ga. Nexstar is the parent company of The Hill.

Source: TEST FEED1

DOJ asks appeals court to throw out appointment of Trump special master

The Justice Department on Friday argued that an appeals court should overturn the ruling appointing a special master to review the more than 10,000 documents seized by the FBI during an August search of former President Trump’s home.

In a filing before the 11th Circuit, the Department of Justice (DOJ) picks apart a lower court’s ruling in favor of Trump as well as the former president’s argument that he should be afforded a third party to review the evidence collected at Mar-a-Lago.

“The uncontested record demonstrates that the search was conducted in full accordance with a judicially authorized warrant, and there has been no violation of Plaintiff’s rights — let alone a ‘callous disregard’ for them. Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden in establishing any need for the seized records — indeed, a substantial number of them are not even his—or in establishing any irreparable injury in their absence,” DOJ wrote in its brief.

The filing comes after the Justice Department won an initial battle before the 11th Circuit, which agreed to siphon off some 100 classified records from the special master review in an opinion that also suggested Florida-based federal district court Judge Aileen Cannon erred by appointing one in the first place.

The Justice Department said Trump failed to demonstrate and Cannon failed to weigh fully each aspect of the legal tests before a court can impose limits on a federal investigation. That includes whether officials displayed a “callous disregard” for someone’s rights, and whether they would be “irreparably injured” by failing to get the return of their property — neither of which Trump can justify, they said.

The brief rehashes many of the arguments it first relayed to the district court — that Trump cannot use executive privilege to block the functions of the current executive and that he has no claim to presidential records as his personal property.

But it also made more forceful claims about why it needs the records, both classified and unclassified, to aid the investigation.

DOJ detailed how unclassified records, and the way classified records were mixed in with them, is itself evidence.

“The dates on unclassified records may prove highly probative in the government’s investigation. For example, if any records comingled with the records bearing classification markings post-date Plaintiff’s term of office, that could establish that these materials continued to be accessed after Plaintiff left the White House,” DOJ wrote.

“In short, the unclassified records that were stored collectively with records bearing classification markings may identify who was responsible for the unauthorized retention of these records, the relevant time periods in which records were created or accessed, and who may have accessed or seen them.”

The Justice Department also pointed to Trump’s claims he may have declassified the records, which is not a central issue for any of the crimes weighed by DOJ, noting that “in his myriad filings, however, Plaintiff has never actually represented—much less offered evidence—that he declassified any of the seized records.”

The government also rehashed why it believes Trump has no claim to any of the records.

“Plaintiff cannot invoke executive privilege to bar the Executive Branch’s review and use of its own records,” DOJ wrote. 

“Any assertion of executive privilege would similarly be made against ‘the very Executive Branch in whose name the privilege is invoked.’”

The government also dismissed Trump’s claims that some of the records could be considered his personal property under the Presidential Records Act (PRA).

“That claim is dubious, not least because the entire purpose of the PRA would be defeated if a President could simply designate all of his official records as ‘personal’ ones,” DOJ wrote.

“Plaintiff plainly would not be entitled to the return of evidence solely on the ground that the evidence belonged to him when it was seized. If that were the case, evidence rooms nationwide would soon be emptied.”

—Updated at 6:08 p.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

Abrams seizes on voting rights issues in rematch with Kemp

Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams (D) is putting a heavy focus on voting rights concerns in the hopes of mobilizing voters of color in her bid to defeat Gov. Brian Kemp (R).

Abrams’s leadership committee, One Georgia, this week held multiple events in the Peach State aimed at Black voters that hit Kemp over allegations of racially targeted voter suppression. The Democrat also recently launched an ad attacking Kemp over his support of election changes.

The moves come as Abrams, who has trailed Kemp in recent polls, looks to turn out Black and other minority voters, seen as a voting bloc key to helping her unseat the Republican governor in November.

“Black and brown voters are the arteries needed for political life of the Abrams campaign,” said Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright, founder and CEO of political consulting firm Blueprint Strategy. “She has to be very intentional about reaching those voters right away and maximizing the turnout among those voters.”

Over the past few weeks, Abrams has attended events aimed at communities of color around the state. Her goal is to continue building a diverse coalition ahead of the midterms — something she also tried to do in 2018. Working in her favor this time, though, are more than a million new voters.

The campaign is banking on those new voters, the effects of COVID-19, the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and other issues to encourage voters to show up for early voting — something that could help fight voter suppression tactics, Seawright said.

“It’s going to put momentum in the bank before Election Day,” Seawright said. “We know that, historically, there’s been efforts to hoodwink Black and brown voters on Election Day, so that early voting process gives us a layer of security and also an opportunity to really focus on those who have not turned out at that point.”

Early voting also lets the Abrams campaign get ahead of voter fraud claims, said Adrienne Jones, a Morehouse College assistant professor of political science and director of the historically Black college’s pre-law program.

“Their goal is to say, let’s get these votes in so that they’re clearly marked or so that if you need to cure your absentee ballot, you’ve done that,” Jones said. “If you need to get into the polls, and you need to go twice — because the first day you had to leave [the line] and go to work — at least you got in on the second early voting day and your vote was cast.”

While many have claimed voting suppression to be underway around the country, Abrams’s emphasis on early voting is particularly important in Georgia, said Seawright. 

“There’s been an oversized effort to suffocate and suppress the votes of perhaps the most consequential and defining voting bloc in this generation of Black voters,” Seawright said. “These efforts to suppress and suffocate and silence our votes have all been birthed out of the turnout that Stacey Abrams produced in Georgia to give us two United States senators, and that’s why she wrapped her arms around mitigating and fixing this.”

Jones said part of the voter suppression tactics Abrams is fighting comes from S.B. 202, a bill Kemp signed into law in 2021. The law imposed ID requirements on mail-in ballots, eliminated paperless online ballot requests and limited drop box availability, among other things. 

To fight these voter suppression efforts, Abrams’s campaign partnered with the Georgia Votes Coordinated Campaign to create a voter protection program and with the Voter Protection Hotline. 

The program includes Election Day observers, early vote observers, count observers who monitor the processing or counting of absentee ballots or vote by mail and ballot cures, or volunteers who contact voters who have issues with their absentee ballot application or ballot.

Still, the discussion around voter suppression hasn’t been at the forefront of the election the same way it was in 2018, said Jones.

“In 2018, we had clear indicators that Gov. Kemp was suppressing votes, or at least making efforts to,” Jones said, referring to the 2017 actions by then-Secretary of State Kemp, whose office purged more than 340,000 voters from the state’s registration rolls.

But after Kemp refused to “find votes” for former President Trump in 2020, Jones said, it appeared Kemp wasn’t suppressing votes. Now, when concerns of voter suppression do come up, Kemp is able to push back.

This midterm cycle, Kemp has managed to maintain a solid lead over Abrams in most surveys. A poll from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Georgia News Collaborative released Wednesday shows Kemp leads Abrams 51 percent to 41 percent.

But some, like Seawright, say the polls don’t show the full story. 

“Polls are simply a snapshot of the time, and they do not take into account some historical past patterns of voting history when it comes to the African American vote and voters of color in particular,” Seawright said. “They are a factor in the determining factors, but the only polls that matter in my viewpoint in the election for [Abrams] are the souls that she gets to the polls, both before the election for early voting and on election day.”

As part of encouraging higher turnout, members of Abrams’s campaign are visiting spaces they say have been targeted previously by Kemp for voter suppression. 

One of those cities is Quitman, in Brooks County — a region the campaign believes to be critical to Abrams’s path to victory. 

In 2010, then-Secretary of State Kemp launched an investigation after 12 Black candidates successfully organized and flipped the majority-white school board. Armed investigators were sent door-to-door to arrest and charge the newly elected board members — who became known as the “Quitman 10+2” — despite having no evidence of voter fraud. After four years, the charges were dropped. 

But the investigation left a lasting impact, the campaign said, with some Black residents in Quitman never returning to the polls to vote. 

In Abrams’s latest ad against Kemp, Diane Thomas, one of the Quitman 10+2, speaks about being targeted.

“Brian Kemp did not want other counties to know what we were doing,” Thomas says in the ad. “So he did whatever it took in Brooks County. He didn’t mind using intimidation, he didn’t mind saying that we were doing voter fraud, he didn’t mind using disenfranchisement. Education is power. Brian Kemp knew that. Brian Kemp knew that we had the key to winning an election. Brian Kemp knew that we were going to be the ones that changed the makeup of what elections look like. Brian Kemp used his power, used his position to destroy us.”

The ad ends with a reminder for early voting — and a number for the Voter Protection Hotline. 

Kemp’s campaign denies any attempts at voter suppression. 

“Stacey Abrams and her desperate campaign have already lost in court on their false claims of voter suppression, but that won’t stop them continuing to lie and fear monger to try and earn votes. Thankfully, Georgia voters are seeing through this garbage and rejecting Stacey Abrams’ radical agenda for our state,” Kemp’s press secretary Tate Mitchell said in a statement to The Hill. 

Abrams has faced other hurdles recently in her public battle against the state’s alleged voter suppression.

Earlier this month, a federal judge ruled against the Abrams group Fair Fight, which had filed a lawsuit in 2018, shortly after her first loss to Kemp, alleging that Georgia had violated voters’ rights. Kemp and his allies applauded the judge’s decision.

Still, Abrams has signaled she’s not backing down. In an interview aired Thursday on journalist Kara Swisher’s podcast, the Democratic candidate argued the Georgia governor doesn’t deserve praise for refusing to bow to Trump’s pressure to help overturn the 2020 election results.

“What was the alternative?” Abrams said. “The alternative was committing treason. This was not an act of courage. He simply refused to commit treason.”

Source: TEST FEED1