Victor Davis Hanson says Harris' ‘heart' is not in it to run anymore
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's approval rating dips in new poll: What recent surveys show across nation, in PA
A new poll puts President Donald Trump's approval rating near record lows, noting an "erosion of support" among one of the president's most reliable groups of supporters: men. The University of Massachusetts Amherst survey released this past week, found public support for the Republican leader has dropped six percentage points since its April poll, giving Trump a meager 38% approval rating. With a corresponding 58% of poll respondents disapproving of his job performance, the figures mark one of the lowest ratings seen in recent months − and follow a string of major national polls with similarly low approval ratings. A historical analysis by Gallup shows Trump's approval ratings in the first July of both of his terms are lower than those of any other modern president. ICE arrests in Bucks County: ICE arrested 2 men in the Bucks County Courthouse. Why this worries civil rights advocates 'Trump's approval ratings, already historically low for a newly elected president, continue to sink with close to 6-in-10 Americans (58%) expressing disapproval of the job that Trump is doing in office," the UMass Amherst poll's director, Tatishe Nteta, said in an Aug. 4 press release. "While Trump remains a popular figure among Republicans and conservatives, Trump's time in office is viewed more negatively across genders, generations, classes and races, with majorities of each of these groups disapproving of Trump's performance." The poll, conducted in partnership with YouGov July 25-30, interviewed 1,000 respondents nationally. The margin of error is 3.5%. What is President Trump's approval rating? Aggregations of recent approval polling from The New York Times and RealClearPolitics place Trump's approval between 44% and 45.8%, respectively, with a 53% and 51.4% disapproval as of Aug. 6. The UMass Amherst poll shows a significantly lower approval mark compared to these averages. The survey found Trump's net approval rating dropped to -20 as he surpasses the six-month mark of his second term in office, with discontent focused especially on his handling of immigration, tariffs, inflation and the Jeffrey Epstein crisis. More Trump news: Poll shows most Americans disapprove of Epstein approach. Here's how many. Opinions on Trump's approach to inflation and tariffs jockeyed for the lowest ratings, both collecting a 31% approval, followed by 32% approving his stance on civil rights. Approval of his stance on immigration fell nine points among respondents compared to the April survey. The Epstein controversy continues to stay top of mind for many Americans, a topic that has weighed Trump down in recent polls. Among the participants in the UMass Amherst poll, more than three-fourths said they have "read, seen or heard about Jeffrey Epstein" either some or a lot, and 70% said they believe the president is handling the issue either "not too well" or "not well at all." Nearly two-thirds (63%) believe his administration is hiding information about Epstein. New Trump poll shows drop in support among men In April, men were a significant source of support for the president's then-44% approval rating, with 48% of men telling pollsters they approved of Trump's performance. Three months later, that number has dropped by nearly 10 points, with 39% of men expressing approval of the president in July − only one point higher than his overall approval rating. Among women, support is even lower at 35%, and has also seen a drop since April, by four percentage points. Joe Rogan: Trump admin is 'trying to gaslight you' over Epstein scandal 'In addition to losing support among men, Trump has seen approval for his presidency crumble among political independents, a critical swing constituency,' said Jesse Rhodes, professor of political science at UMass Amherst and a co-director of the poll, in a news release. 'While 31% of independents approved of his presidency in April, that number is now down 10 percentage points to 21%." The UMass Amherst poll results echo similarly low approval polling by Gallup, which marked the lowest approval rating yet of his second term, at 37% as of July 25, and a Reuters/Ipsos poll released July 30 that gave him a 40% approval. Trump's approval rating in PA According to Civiqs polls, last updated July 31, Trump's net approval stands at -8% in 52% of Pennsylvanians polled currently disapprove of the president's performance. About 44% approve of Trump's job performance and another 4% didn't feel one way or the other. These polling numbers were also broken down by age, education, gender, race and party. Age: Those between 18–34 were most unfavorable of Trump (63%), while those 50 to 64 were the most favorable (52%).Education: Respondents across all education levels disapprove of Trump's job performance, with postgraduates at 66% disapproval as well as 54% of college graduates and 49% of non-college Men and women are split on Trump, more than half of females (59%) holding an unfavorable view and about half of males (51%) having a favorable view of the Members of the Republican party were 90% favorable of Trump, compared to the Democratic party, who felt just 2% favorable of the president's performance. About half of Independent voters were unfavorable (50%).Race: Black voters had the highest unfavorable opinion of Trump (90%), followed by Hispanic/Latino and Other at 62%, and white at 50% unfavorable. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: President Trump approval rating dips in new UMass Amherst an PA polls
CNN
18 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump says Qatari jet could be ready for use as Air Force One in 6 months. Experts are deeply skeptical
President Donald Trump told reporters last month the donated Qatari jet could be ready for his use as Air Force One in February 2026, well ahead of the long-delayed delivery of two presidential planes from Boeing through a more traditional acquisition process. 'They say February,' Trump said in late July, when asked by a reporter when he expected to be flying on the new plane. 'Much sooner than the others. The others are being built.' But former Defense officials and aviation analysts express deep skepticism about how realistic that timeline is, citing the immense task of upgrading a foreign government's plane to meet Air Force One's distinct requirements and ensuring it is safe and secure for a president to fly on, especially internationally. Andrew Hunter is a former assistant secretary of the Air Force under the Biden administration. He oversaw an annual budget of more than $54 billion for hundreds of acquisition programs, including Air Force One. He thinks it would be 'challenging, if not impossible,' to complete the jet in that timeframe without Trump waiving some of the requirements that typically need to occur before a president can fly on a new plane. 'It would not be possible to replicate all the capabilities of an Air Force One on (the donated jet), on any time frame shorter than what they're doing with (the Boeing program),' he said. Beyond the timeline concerns from an aviation perspective, the plan to use a donated Boeing 747-8 from Qatar poses a lot of questions and has drawn bipartisan scrutiny. Many are skeptical of the legality and ethics of accepting such a gift. Others are worried about the threat to security, based on how much goes into a jet fit for the leader of the United States. But Trump remains undaunted and continues to project optimism about the timeline. 'We'll get this one a year-and-a-half, two years earlier (than the Boeing planes),' the president told reporters in late July. The contracted jets continue to undergo renovations in San Antonio. The Qatari plane was previously parked in the city as well while awaiting upgrades, but open source aircraft tracker ADS-B Exchange shows the jet flew to Fort Worth Alliance Airport on June 29. The plane has rarely popped up on the open source tracker since then, with it last being recorded in late July at the Texas airport. Refurbishments on commercial jets that don't have the strict and complicated requirements of Air Force One can take weeks or months depending on how much work needs to be done and the age of the aircraft. For example, according to aviation website Simply Flying, certain maintenance checks involving the complete disassembly of a plane are done every six to 12 years. That comprehensive inspection typically takes between three to six weeks. But security concerns mean what the Qatari plane needs to undergo is even more arduous than that disassembly, experts say, and is very likely to take longer. The plane can be ready by February, said Richard Aboulafia, a managing director at boutique aerospace and defense management consultancy AeroDynamic Advisory, but not with the capability or security that an Air Force One needs, raising the possibility that the administration may plan to cut corners in order to deliver it in that timeframe. 'It is absolutely going to be ready to start flying in February,' Aboulafia said, 'and instantly transmitting every onboard conversation to anybody around the world who has a connection to it.' 'It's very different from stripping a plane down and inspecting it,' Aboulafia said. 'Very different – overhauling systems, overhauling engines, doing what you need to do to get the plane operationally ready. That's an extremely different job than scanning it for security risks, very different.' Retrofitting and installing the required security and communications equipment on a second-hand plane from another government, even a friendly one, is a monumental task, CNN has reported. US spy and security agencies tasked with the overhaul will need to essentially strip the aircraft down to its frame and rebuild it with the necessary equipment. The more changes made to the plane itself, said Frank Kendall, the Air Force secretary under the Biden administration, the more that will need to occur to ensure that it meets air-worthiness requirements, taking longer. 'There's a chance Trump will never get this airplane no matter what,' Kendall, who now does consulting work, said. However, Kendall, echoing other experts, said the donated jet could be ready in February, 'if the president waives almost all Air Force One unique requirements and minimizes modifications to the airplane.' 'It would probably result in a plane that would only be used inside the US,' he said. The White House and the Air Force did not respond to a request for comment. It's not clear where the upgrade process currently stands, and the experts CNN spoke to have not seen the jet in person. In early July, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and his Qatari counterpart signed an agreement outlining the terms of the jet's 'unconditional donation,' CNN previously reported, although the terms have not been formally announced. An addendum to the agreement reviewed by CNN last month said the Air Force 'is in the process of finalizing the transfer of registration and will immediately begin execution of the required modifications.' Conversations about replacing the decades-old planes currently used by the president began years ago under former President Barack Obama. Momentum began picking up under the first Trump administration when he struck a deal to purchase two existing aircraft from Boeing, but the addition of a plane donated by the Qatari royal family has added a strange and some say concerning twist to the saga. In 2018, Boeing confirmed it received a $3.9 billion contract for two new presidential planes. By 2022, the president of the United States was supposed to be in a new plane. But that timeline also didn't pan out, leading Trump to find an alternative. When the president announced he planned to accept a jet from Qatar, it raised a lot of eyebrows. Several Republican senators expressed misgivings about the idea, noting the potential for security and legal risks. Trump's plan for the plane to go to his presidential library upon leaving office raised additional ethical concerns. And while Trump has said it would be stupid to turn down a 'free, very expensive airplane,' officials say renovating the jet could cost hundreds of millions of dollars. When asked how much it would cost to retrofit the new plane, Trump deflected. Officially, the price tag to retrofit the Qatari plane for use by the president is classified, but Air Force Secretary Troy Meink told lawmakers in June that it will 'probably' cost less than $400 million. 'That's up to the military. I really don't know. I haven't been involved,' Trump said last month. 'It's their plane, it's, you know, the Air Force,' he said. 'They'll be spending that amount of money.' The Air Force is looking to fund the upgrades by transferring hundreds of millions of dollars from the vastly overbudget Sentinel program to an unspecified classified project, sources familiar with a congressional notification about the transfer previously told CNN. Sentinel is a land-based intercontinental ballistic missile system that is being developed to replace the US' aging Minuteman III missiles. Boeing's contract to replace two Air Force One jets had an original delivery date of 2022 – but now the planes are potentially expected by 2027, a timeline that would deliver them while Trump is still in office. It's one to two years earlier than Boeing had most recently predicted, after a global pandemic, supply chain issues and other problems stalled production and the company incurred losses totaling $2.5 billion on the program. Hunter, the former Air Force assistant secretary, argues one of the biggest design challenges of the program is finishing interior design work on the aircraft. In 2021, Boeing fired GDC Technics, which was hired as a subcontractor to design and build the interiors of the new planes, and later sued the company, citing delays. GDC Technics countersued and later filed for bankruptcy. Boeing declined to comment on where the interior work stands. While the Qatari jet will require a major overhaul to ensure its safety, security and operability as it carries the president, the new Boeing jets are following the more traditional route, made in the United States by a well-known manufacturer. And Aboulafia sees promise in the troubled company, which is trying to turn a corner. 'Everything is kind of turning around,' Aboulafia said. 'They just had the second clean quarter for their defense unit, which was amazing … I have a much higher level of confidence in all of their programs, really, as a consequence of the management changes.' Delivering the planes in the next two years – which Darlene Costello, the Air Force's acting acquisition chief, suggested was possible during her testimony before House lawmakers in May – would mark a significant acceleration for the project. 'I would not necessarily guarantee that date, but they are proposing to bring it in '27, if we can come to agreement on the requirement changes,' Costello said, referring to contract requirements that are being loosened to get to that earlier date – such as the Air Force 'relieving' Boeing of some of the top-clearance security requirements for workers performing work on the aircraft, which has also been blamed for some of the delays. Kendall, the former Air Force secretary, said at the forefront of the minds of those working on a new plane, should be safety and security, rather than cost or speed. 'As Defense Department acquisition executive, I was responsible for both Marine One and Air Force One,' Kendall said. 'Over the years, the people that set the requirements for these aircraft and that work at the White House are not constrained by time or money unless directed otherwise by the president. They're constrained by their imaginations about which scenarios might occur in which they might need something to support or protect the president. Those 'requirements' dictate both cost and schedule.' CNN's Alejandra Jaramillo, Natasha Bertrand, and Chris Isidore contributed to this report.
New York Times
19 minutes ago
- New York Times
In Election Cases, Supreme Court Keeps Removing Guardrails
If Republicans succeed in pulling off an aggressively partisan gerrymander of congressional districts in Texas, they will owe the Supreme Court a debt of gratitude. In the two decades Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has led the Supreme Court, the justices have reshaped American elections not just by letting state lawmakers like those in Texas draw voting maps warped by politics, but also by gutting the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and amplifying the role of money in politics. Developments in recent weeks signaled that some members of the court think there is more work to be done in removing legal guardrails governing elections. There are now signs that court is considering striking down or severely constraining the remaining pillar of the Voting Rights Act, a towering achievement of the civil rights movement that has protected the rights of minority voters since it was enacted 60 years ago last week. Taken together, the court's actions in election cases in recent years have shown great tolerance for partisan gamesmanship and great skepticism about federal laws on campaign spending and minority rights. The court's rulings have been of a piece with its conservative wing's jurisprudential commitments: giving states leeway in many realms, insisting on an expansive interpretation of the First Amendment and casting a skeptical eye on government racial classifications. At bottom, the court's election-law decisions seem aimed at dismantling decisions of the famously liberal court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren from 1953 to 1969. In his memoirs, Chief Justice Warren described decisions establishing the equality of each citizen's vote as his court's most important achievements. That made them more important in his view even than Brown v. Board of Education, which ordered the desegregation of public schools. Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the Roberts court may be moving in the opposite direction. 'At least some of the conservative justices on the court seem ready to turn the clock back to the early 1960s,' he said, 'when courts imposed very little constraints on the most blatant power grabs, and before Congress exercised its constitutional powers to protect voting rights.' President Trump's effort to create five additional Republican House seats in Texas, for instance, is possible in part thanks to a 2019 Supreme Court decision that said federal courts have no role to play in assessing the constitutionality of voting maps distorted by politics. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority in that 5-to-4 decision, Rucho v. Common Cause, acknowledged that 'excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust.' Indeed, quoting an earlier decision, he said that drawing voting districts to give the party in power lopsided advantages was 'incompatible with democratic principles.' But in a telling statement reflecting his view of the judicial role in protecting voters, the chief justice wrote that federal courts were powerless to address this grave problem. 'Partisan gerrymandering claims,' he wrote, 'present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.' In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the court had betrayed its most fundamental commitment — to protect democracy. 'These gerrymanders enabled politicians to entrench themselves in office as against voters' preferences,' she wrote. 'They promoted partisanship above respect for the popular will. They encouraged a politics of polarization and dysfunction. If left unchecked, gerrymanders like the ones here may irreparably damage our system of government.' The Rucho decision was part of a larger trend, said Derek T. Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame. 'These developments reflect a federal judiciary increasingly unwilling to engage in judicial review of the political process,' he said. 'And political actors in response are flexing the new power they have.' The drama in Texas, spurred by Mr. Trump's desire to bolster Republican chances of retaining control of the House in next year's midterm elections, caused Democratic lawmakers to leave the state in a bid to stall the plan. The controversy also shows signs of growing into a national fight, with Republican- and Democratic-led state legislatures hatching plans to redraw House maps for partisan advantage. 'We tell ourselves this story that every two years, voters go into the voting booth and pick their member of the House of Representatives,' Pamela Karlan, a law professor at Stanford and a former Justice Department official in Democratic administrations, said on a podcast last week. 'And right now it's the other way around. The politicians are going into a room and picking their voters.' Writing for the majority in the Rucho case, Chief Justice Roberts said that state courts and independent redistricting commissions still have a role to play in addressing partisan gerrymandering. At the federal level, though, what remained after Rucho was mostly a part of the Voting Rights Act. It was concerned with discrimination against minority voters and not with partisanship, though race and political affiliations are often hard to untangle. For nearly 50 years, the central provision of the law imposed federal supervision on states with a history of discrimination, requiring advance approval from the Justice Department or a federal court for all sorts of changes to voting procedures. The court effectively eliminated that part of the law — its Section 5 — in 2013 in Shelby County v. Holder, by a 5 to 4 vote. That led to a wave of measures making it harder to vote. But Chief Justice Roberts, again writing for the majority, said the main remaining tool in the Voting Rights Act, its Section 2, remained available. That part of the law allowed for after-the-fact challenges to voting maps that unlawfully diluted minority voting power. 'Section 2 is permanent, applies nationwide and is not at issue in this case,' the chief justice wrote. Now Section 2 may be in peril, in two ways. On the last day of the Supreme Court term in June, the justices announced that they would not immediately decide a case from Louisiana testing voting maps that included two majority Black districts to satisfy the Voting Rights Act. A lower courts said race had played too large a role in the process, while the state said lawmakers had been motivated by permissible partisan politics. In an unsigned order in June, the court said it would hear a second argument in the case in the term starting in October. Such re-arguments are rare, and they can signal that the court is about to convert a routine case into a blockbuster. In 2009, for instance, the court called for a second argument in the Citizens United campaign finance case, turning a minor and quirky case about a movie few had seen into a judicial landmark. That decision, which allowed unlimited campaign spending by corporations and unions, overturned two precedents and struck down part of a bipartisan 2002 law that sought to limit the role of money in politics. In their order in June in the new case from Louisiana, the justices said they would pose additional questions 'in due course.' They chose the evening of Friday, Aug. 1 to do so. The question was a doozy, asking the parties to file supplemental briefs on whether Louisiana's 'intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.' The question can be read in several ways. But it certainly suggested that the court may consider holding Section 2 unconstitutional. Section 2 bars any voting procedure that 'results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race.' That happens, the provision goes on, when racial minorities have less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice than other voters. Conservative justices have long argued that there is a tension between the statute's goal of protecting minority voting rights and a colorblind conception of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. Holding Section 2 unconstitutional could be a boon for Republicans, said Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a law professor at Harvard, as it would allow states to eliminate minority-opportunity districts altogether. That would make it easy, he said, to draw completely Republican maps in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and if the court stops short of holding Section 2 unconstitutional, it could do great damage to it in another case the court may consider in the term that starts in October. A theory recently adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit says that only the government, not voters and other private parties, can sue to enforce the provision. The Supreme Court paused the Eight Circuit's ruling last month, but it may well agree to hear a promised appeal in the coming months, particularly as three members of the court — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch — noted dissents. Accepting the Eight Circuit's theory, Professor Karlan said, would cripple the law calling the private right of action 'critical to having a V.R.A. at all.' The controversies over voting rights point to a larger issue about the nature of democracy, said Samuel Issacharoff, a law professor at New York University. 'The majority of today should always fear that it may find itself in the minority tomorrow and that its rules can be used against it,' he said. 'What happens when this breaks down? What happens if the majority of today sees this as the last chance to take it all?'
