Jasmine Crockett leading all Dems In hypothetical Senate primary race, shock poll finds
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
39 minutes ago
- The Hill
Tuberville says Trump health issues exacerbated by ‘fighting the radicals'
After President Trump was diagnosed with a chronic vein condition, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) suggested the president's health condition could be a result of his efforts in 'fighting the radicals.' 'The pressure on somebody like President Trump right now, not just from outside entities … all over the world but also fighting the radicals in this country,' Tuberville said during a Sunday interview with radio host John Catsimatidis on WABC 770 AM's 'The Cats Roundtable. 'Every day it's almost like a fistfight.' The White House announced Thursday that Trump had been diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency, a condition where leg veins have difficulty sending blood back to the heart. It often results in ankle swelling and is common in people over the age of 70. On the show, Tuberville repeated baseless claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump and claimed that illegal immigrants were voting in droves for Democrats. Tuberville also bashed Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor. 'He's a communist! No police? Are you kidding me?' the Alabama senator exclaimed. Mamdani called for defunding the police in 2020, but vowed not to do so during a June debate. He identifies as a Democratic socialist. Catsimatidis is leading a coalition of wealthy business leaders to back Mayor Eric Adams' bid for re-election as a way to oppose Mamdani, Politico reported in June.
San Francisco Chronicle
39 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
As Newsom ponders redistricting, California projected to lose as many as 4 congressional seats
California could lose as many as four congressional seats in the 2030 apportionment, researchers say. A recent report from the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC) echoes earlier forecasts of the state's declining political clout, including from the non-partisan American Redistricting Project and from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. All three reports found the state could lose at least three seats; the Brennan Center projected four. California isn't alone. Other Democratic-leaning states like New York, Illinois and Minnesota are also expected to lose one or two seats due to population declines. Meanwhile, Republican-leaning Florida and Texas could each gain as many as four new seats. Since districts in many of these states tend to be heavily gerrymandered, and because the Electoral College is winner-take-all, these changes would help Republicans in both presidential and congressional races if current partisan preferences hold. The zero-sum math behind apportionment has always been the same: Each state receives seats in proportion to its population at each Census. For decades, that math worked in California's favor. Between 1950 and 1990, the state added an average of 6 new seats every apportionment cycle as its population ballooned. But lately, the state's growth has stalled out. Sky-high housing prices have driven hundreds of thousands out of the Golden State — often to the same red states that are gaining seats at California's expense. That process accelerated during the pandemic, as many Californians left the state and worked remotely from places with lower living costs, said Michael Li, senior counsel for the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. A large number of Baby Boomers also moved out of the state after retirement, he said. What's more, the immigrants who have lately powered the state's growth are staying away. Their numbers declined during the pandemic and under subsequent Trump-era restrictions. The projected decline of California's clout matters as Gov. Gavin Newsom is considering a countermove to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's redistricting plan favoring Republicans. Abbott called a special legislative session to redraw the state's congressional maps, a move that breaks from the custom of a once-a-decade redistricting cycle. Typically, new maps wouldn't be drawn again until after the 2030 census, unless ordered by a court. But Trump allies are pressuring Texas to make changes early to give Republicans an edge before the midterms. 'They are clearly very, very scared that they're going to lose the House of Representatives in this coming midterm cycle, and they're tipping their hand that they're going to need to cheat,' said John Bisognano, the president of NDRC, which fights for redistricting favorable to Democrats. For his part, Newsom could have a hard time using redistricting as a tool of partisan power. Even if the governor wanted to redraw congressional maps to favor Democrats, which state law already makes difficult, the math might only work out until the next Census. Data shows that not only is California's population stagnant, it's shrinking fastest in Democratic parts of the state. On average, between 2020 and 2023, Republican-leaning congressional districts in California grew, while Democratic ones shrank. California has limited tools to hold onto its political clout. For one thing, the state could invest more in boosting census participation, said Howard Fienberg, co-director at The Census Project. 'People may not be willing to report their information especially if they have illegal identity statuses or they are not proficient in English,' said Fienberg. 'It's also hard to count people accurately in rural or clustered urban areas.' Of course, California could also combat its declining influence by doing what it used to: attracting lots of new residents. Some signs are positive. As more companies require in-person work, people are moving back to the state and the trend could shift in the near future, said Li. 'We are still only halfway through the decade,' said Li. 'The future could look very different.'
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump administration turns hostile on Aspen Security Forum
The Trump administration's last-minute snub of the Aspen Security Forum this week betrays a growing animosity between the U.S. government and wider national security community. The Pentagon on Monday pulled senior Defense Department officials from the annual event —only a day before the start of the four-day summit in Colorado — claiming the bipartisan gathering 'promotes the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country, and hatred for the President of the United States.' The strong wording has alarmed some experts and former government officials, who see a growing tendency for the administration to cut off anyone who criticizes or so much as offers an alternative view to that of the current U.S. government — putting up a barrier between them and the decision makers. 'The Trump administration doesn't like dissent, I think that's pretty clear. And they don't like dissenting views at conferences,' a Republican political strategist and frequent forum attendee told The Hill. 'Causing a stir about perceived criticism of the Trump administration makes people afraid to cross them and lose access to the administration. They might be cut off from people who are implementing policies.' But the shunning of events on the national security and foreign policy circuit does no favors for the administration's national security goals, experts say, as they lend a platform to potentially different viewpoints that could be useful for Washington. Case in point, those that gathered at the mountain retreat were described as 'bewildered' by the decision due to the forum's well-known bipartisan agenda, with several former Trump administration officials slated to speak, according to the political strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 'It was a surprise because most of us were traveling to the conference when the announcement occurred,' they said. 'I think most people who attend the event frequently never viewed it as being partisan or anti-Trump. So it was bewildering and I think a little bit concerning.' The Aspen Security Forum, described as the 'premier national security and foreign policy conference,' is among the most high-profile such events and for years has attracted Republican and Democratic administration officials, business leaders, and analysts. During Trump's first term, several top officials including then-CIA chief and later Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attended the forum. This year's lineup included Mark Esper, an acting defense secretary in Trump's first term, Condoleezza Rice, a former national security advisor and secretary of state under President George W. Bush, and David Petraeus, the short-lived CIA director under President Obama. Speakers covered a range of issues that included the U.S. strategy on Taiwan, Russia's war in Ukraine, NATO, and how Trump's tariffs will affect Washington's alliances. More than a dozen pulled administration officials were set to appear on several panels, including Navy Secretary John Phelan. But the Pentagon suddenly declared they would not attend and would not do so moving forward as 'their values do not align with the values of the DoD,' according to spokesperson Sean Parnell. Only one administration official ended up attending the conference and they were not associated with the Pentagon: Adam Boehler, Trump's special envoy for hostage release. Even without the defense officials in attendance, panelists praised a number of Trump's recent moves, including his decision to offer lethal aid for Ukraine, the U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and prompting NATO countries to foot more of the bill when it comes to defense spending. National security elites also appeared resigned that the norms and conventions that sprang up following World War II — which have dictated U.S. use of military force and how Washington addresses long-held partners and alliances — are now upended thanks to Trump. 'We have to recognize that we're probably not going back to exactly that system,' Rice, a co-chair of the Aspen Strategy Group, said at the closing panel of the summit. Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution think tank, said he wasn't doing any hand-wringing over Trump's 11th hour snub, and was viewing the official pullout as just the new norm for at least the next three years. 'If they want to have a little bit of a culture war over this particular forum, I'm just going to view it as a reminder of how they view the world, as opposed to a major problem,' O'Hanlon said, referring to the administration's isolationist tendencies. 'They'll be willing to just hold a grudge if they decide you've slighted them or you're not of their worldview. And that's just the way it's going to be,' he added. O'Hanlon noted that as long as administration officials appear at some similar forums and are willing to engage, he doesn't see an issue. But should they stop attending any such events moving forward, that's a cause for concern. 'If they just occasionally feel a slight from somebody and pull out of this or that, that's one thing. If they stop being willing to engage in any kind of forum, unless you somehow prove that you're a complete MAGA Republican, that would be much more concerning.' Aspen organizers, meanwhile, have made clear their invitation to the Trump officials remains open. The political strategists said the organizers were more concerned about ensuring that there's a presence of government officials going forward at the event. 'This is a major security forum, it's an open exchange of ideas, and they made it very clear throughout the event that the officials are invited back anytime in the future,' they said. 'I think there's a hope that that they will come back next year.'
