Latest news with #2024election
Yahoo
4 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
I'm a journalist. Democrats made my job harder by hiding Biden's health decline.
The newest Biden-focused book to hit the market pulls no punches on its central premise. It's right there in the title: 'Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again.' Two other books examining Biden's awkward, ill-timed handoff to Kamala Harris and Trump's subsequent re-election were also published this spring. Though less forward in their focus, the narratives of 'Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House' and 'Uncharted: How Trump Beat Biden, Harris, and the Odds in the Wildest Campaign in History' also — inevitably — take a close look at Biden's flagging mental fitness. 'I have fresh reporting on an hour-by-hour, day-by-day basis of Biden's final days, and obviously his decline is a major part of the story,' Chris Whipple, author of 'Uncharted,' told Politico. Meanwhile, 'Fight' reveals that Harris aides 'strategized around the possibility that Biden might die in office' while, at an event two days after the debate that sealed Biden's campaign fate, fluorescent tape was affixed to the venue's carpet, serving as 'colorful bread crumbs [that] showed the leader of the free world where to walk.' The literary flurry around Biden's health is a testament to the nature of the book industry and the arms race among the Big 5 publishers. No one wants to be scooped or outsold. But the flood of Biden books ('2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America' is set to release in July), also speaks to the gravity of the subject at hand. 'I happen to think that to call it a 'cover-up' is simplistic,' said Whipple. 'I think it was stranger and way more troubling than that.' He's right, but for reasons beyond the obvious sabotage of the 2024 election. Because let's be clear: There wasn't a single person who saw Biden or heard him speak during the last year or so of his term who honestly believed he was 100% fit to be president. So instead of an honest conversation about Biden's health and mental facilities, Americans got a constant stream of gaslighting and false assurances. Instead of an opportunity to choose, via primary, the candidate who would represent the party in the November presidential election, Democratic voters were force-fed Harris in the 11th hour. She was a welcome pick for some, to be sure, but a tragic miscalculation for others. And all of it, of course, was fueled by a White House eager to pump the media with statements and stories to counter the legitimate speculation about the president's faculties. Republican voters — near- and far-right alike — have been complaining about 'fake news' since Trump's first term, and here Democrats were, piling it on thick. As a journalist, it's infuriating. Not because I was somehow duped into believing Biden was healthy, but because I am on the front lines, writing about what's going in our world — explaining, educating, providing necessary historical context — and constantly battling readers who think I'm making it all up. Opinion: Jackie Robinson is a Civil Rights hero. DEI helped him make history Anything that makes them uncomfortable? Fake news. Anything related to ongoing racial injustice? Definitely fake news. Anything that runs counter to the narrative they've already crafted in their minds? More. Fake. News. I've written plenty of columns that anger folks on the left as well, like when I questioned the focus on appealing to a wider audience during last summer's Democratic National Convention, instead of shoring up votes among the core base. Or when I then pointed to their too-late, surface-level overtures to Black men that ultimately resulted in 21% sliding to the right in November. But the difference between Democrat and Republican pushback to my columns is that, while the former group will disagree with my take on the facts, the latter disputes the facts altogether. Indeed, disbelief in journalism on the whole is a typically Republican phenomenon. And it's one that has been undoubtedly fueled by Democrats' unwillingness to tell the truth about their former leader. Opinion: Trump voluntarily left office. Biden had to be shoved aside. That's the real sin. There are plenty who would argue that the media was equally complicit in the Biden 'cover-up,' that journalists were all too willing to abdicate their reporting responsibilities, take whatever the Biden administration served them, and run it. Maybe they don't remember that journalists were saying something. Maybe they don't remember that those protestations were drowned out by the barrage of voices who wanted — needed — to keep the White House blue. I also hear Democrats speak often about this critical moment in American history, with our very democracy on the line. They're right. But they must not remember how important journalism is in upholding any democracy. Perhaps if they did, they'd understand that the same danger that arises when a billionaire newspaper owner dictates the paper's opinion coverage is present when a group of political insiders lie to the public, and the media, about the president's health. And they'd understand that now, all of us — journalists included — have to pay for their decisions. Andrea Williams is an opinion columnist for The Tennessean and curator of the Black Tennessee Voices initiative. She has an extensive background covering country music, sports, race and society. Email her at adwilliams@ or follow her on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @AndreaWillWrite and BlueSky at @ This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Biden's health coverup by Democrats made more 'fake news' | Opinion
Fox News
27-05-2025
- Business
- Fox News
Dems drop $20M on bizarre 'American men' strategy plan study in effort to dig out of 2024 political hole
Democrats are spending $20 million on a study examining how to speak to "American men" after losing ground with the demographic during the 2024 election cycle, The New York Times revealed. "Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan" is a $20 million project crafted by Democrats to "study the syntax, language and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces" of male voters, the Times reported Sunday. Known as "SAM," the study will specifically examine young male voters and how the party can connect with the demographic. Additionally, the study advised rolling out pro-Democrat ads in video games. The study's revelation was made in an overarching article detailing the uphill battle Democrats face after the 2024 election, which included Democrats scrambling to replace former President Joe Biden as the nominee with just more than 100 days left in the election cycle and ultimately delivering all seven battleground states to President Donald Trump. "The Democratic Party's tarnished image could not come at a more inopportune moment," the article detailed. "In this era of political polarization, the national party's brand is more important and influential than ever, often driving the outcomes of even the most local of races." In response, Democrat operatives and donors have gathered at swank hotels to craft plans on how to draw back the working class and male voters, the Times reported. Trump made big in-roads with the male vote during the 2024 election cycle. A Fox News Voter Survey published in November 2024 found that men aged 18–44 supported Trump at 53%, compared to former Vice President Kamala Harris' 45%. While The Associated Press found that more than half of male voters under the age of 30 voted for Trump instead of Harris — including roughly six-in-10 White male voters supporting Trump — about one-third of Black male voters supported Trump, as did about 50% of young Latino male voters. Trump's support among young Black and Latino male voters jumped by about 20% compared to his 2020 support, the AP reported. Democratic strategist Michael Ceraso told Fox News Digital on Tuesday that he does not take issue with Democrats investing in voter engagement strategies but added that he found it "hilarious" that "people in suits are hanging out at luxury hotels asking how they can talk to day-to-day Americans." "We're having an issue with the messenger more than the message," Ceraso said, arguing that voters support longstanding Democratic policies such as affordable housing, but that "Democrats just need to take a reality check" on how they convey their messaging to voters. "I just don't understand how, after all these years and all these Democrats who've been in the game, how we continue to make those same choices," he added. "Like Rahm Emmanuel, or all these sort of big names, they're just like, 'Yeah, we're going to figure out how to win in, you know, rural North Carolina by hanging out in a New York hotel.' That makes no sense to me. And strategically, I don't care how much money you spend on focus groups, if you're doing that, you're just negating any type of investment you're putting into how to have a conversation with voters." Democrats spending millions studying American male "syntax" sparked condemnation from conservatives and Democrats alike on social media, Fox News Digital found. "Democratic donors treating men like an endangered species on a remote island they need to study probably won't rebuild trust," MSNBC contributor Rotimi Adeoy posted to X in response to the Times' report. "This kind of top-down, anthropological approach misses the point: people don't want to be decoded, they want to be understood and met where they are." "The idea that you can "fix" the male voter problem that exists with Black, Latino, and white men by spending $20 million to study their syntax like they're a foreign culture is exactly why there's a disconnect," Adeoy continued. "These voters aren't a research subject. They're citizens." Chief political analyst at the Liberal Patriot, Michael Baharaeen, posted to X, "This really says it all," in response to a tweet quoting the article regarding how "Democratic donors and strategists have been gathering at luxury hotels to discuss how to win back working-class voters, commissioning new projects that can read like anthropological studies of people from faraway places." "The fact that Democrats need to drop $20 million just to figure out how to speak to American men tells you everything you need to know. This is the same move they pull on black people. They don't care about you they only care about your vote!" conservative podcaster DeVory Darkins posted to X. "Democratic donors are planning to spend $20 million to figure out how to talk to dudes," polster Frank Luntz posted to X. A handful of critics reposted a video from the 2024 campaign cycle that featured men declaring they were "man enough" to support Harris for president. The grassroots ad went viral in October 2024 as social media commenters panned it as "the cringiest political ad ever created" and pointed out it was created by a former producer for Jimmy Kimmel and featured actors vowing support for Harris. The video featured six self-described manly men who claimed they were so masculine that they ate "carburetors for breakfast" and were not "afraid of bears," while adding they also do not fear women and would support Harris for the Oval Office. "Remember the month before the election and Democrats tried to relate to men?. Now they're trying again spending $20 million," one social media commenter posted this week, accompanied by the October 2024 video.
Fox News
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Democrats abandon tradition as 2028 presidential hopefuls openly declare White House ambitions
Are there any Democrats out there who aren't running for president? Sure doesn't seem that way. Back in the day, potential candidates would deny even thinking about it. I remember interviewing Marco Rubio in a Senate hallway about whether he might run in 2016. He denied even contemplating it. I knew it was bull. He knew it was bull. And, of course, he ran–and lost to Donald Trump. It's like when candidates or officeholders say they never look at polls, or offer some bromide on how the only poll that counts is Election Day. Hogwash. They all look at polls, erratic as they may be, or talk to consultants who look at the surveys for them. But now a new dynamic is taking hold, one that might be summarized as: Hell yeah, I'm running! I mean, there are obligatory nods to focusing on next year's midterms. But there is no longer the Kabuki dance of pretending a lack of interest. The New York Times has a nice piece on this. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear is telling reporters he "would consider" a White House run. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz says if he's "asked to serve" – by whom? – he will do "whatever it takes" to run. Excuse me, how does Walz's big flop as Kamala's running mate qualify him for the top spot? Arizona's Ruben Gallego, who's been a senator for about 12 minutes, said he's awaiting the birth of his third child but added: "Babies get older." Many of these White House wannabes have little name recognition, which means they have nothing to lose by running, which can at least lead to a cable news contract. Pete Buttigieg, having been bitten once by the bug, is obviously running again, but the former Transportation secretary is playing coy–"Right now I'm not running for anything" – right – but it's nice to hear from people who backed him. My favorite quote is from Gallego, who told NBC: "Has it ever crossed my mind? Of course," adding an expletive. "I'm an elected official. It crosses my mind." The prognosticators have counted at least 19 potential contenders. Many of them won't make it to Iowa. Or won't make it to the debate stage because their polls are too low. Or are forced out of the race when their fundraising dries up. The Great Mentioner was openly replaced by the media, which in turn yielded to social media and podcasters. But the good old legacy media – now deemed a grievous insult – still have the chance to do the most original reporting. It's expensive to cover campaigns. Media organizations are charged for riding on Air Force One or private charters. Their bosses must pay for their food and lodging for days on end. Some expense account dinners are legendary. But it's fun, largely a young person's game. They're not sitting in some air-conditioned studio. Which is why you're reading about this now, over 3½ years before the next presidential election.
BBC News
21-05-2025
- Business
- BBC News
w172zrs2bwfw59b (GIF Image, 1 × 1 pixels)
Business Matters Business Matters May 21, 2025 50 minutes Available for 29 days Elon Musk, the US's largest political donor, plans to cut back on political spending after giving more than $250m on Trump's 2024 presidential campaign. What will that mean for his businesses like Tesla, X and SpaceX? In the EU, there are plans for a €2 fee on cheap parcels from China, hitting companies like Temu and Shein. Over in Canada, the recently re-elected Liberal government says it won't release a federal budget this year.
CNN
20-05-2025
- Business
- CNN
Elon Musk says he'll spend ‘a lot less' money on politics
Elon Musk spent a record amount of money on the 2024 election to help get President Donald Trump elected. Now he says he'll be pulling back. 'In terms of political spending, I'm going to do a lot less in the future,' Musk told Bloomberg's Mishal Husain at the Qatar Economic Forum. When asked why that was, Musk said he sees no immediate need to spend. 'I think I've done enough,' Musk said. 'Well, if I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it. I don't currently see a reason.' After spending more than $290 million to help get Trump elected, Musk turned his political attention on a Wisconsin Supreme Court race, shelling out more than $20 million on a judge's race that his preferred candidate ultimately lost. He previously committed to putting $100 million into political groups controlled by Trump, CNN and other outlets have reported. It's not clear whether the Tesla CEO's remarks signal any change in that financial pledge. A Musk political aide on Tuesday declined to comment. But after several months as a top White House adviser and leading the Department of Government Efficiency, Musk is now taking a step back from full-time government work refocusing his time on his companies, including Tesla, which has struggled in part as a result of Musk's alliance with the Trump administration. But Musk is still in touch with Washington. He told reporters earlier this month he'd spend one to two days a week on DOGE matters and would dip in and out of Washington. Indeed, Musk told Husain on Tuesday that this week he's having dinner with Trump and then will have meetings with Cabinet secretaries. Musk rejected the notion that there's an obvious conflict of interest between his work in government while also leading companies that have billions of dollars in business with that very same government. 'I don't have formal power, and that's it. A president can choose to accept my advice or not, and that's how it goes. If there's a single contract that any of my companies have received that people think is somehow awarded improperly. It would immediately be front page news, to say at least,' Musk said. Reports of Musk's companies being considered – and in some cases receiving massive government contracts – have been covered extensively. Musk's companies are poised to benefit greatly from Trump's proposed budget, for example. Husain on Tuesday brought up that several countries have sought to allow Musk's Starlink internet satellites to operate more in their countries as a way 'to be close to the Trump administration and send the right signal.' For example, Husain brought up reports that the government of South Africa is seeking to allow Starlink ahead of President Cyril Ramaphosa's visit to the White House on Wednesday. 'Do you recognize that as a conflict of interest,' Husain asked on Tuesday in relation to the reports about South Africa allowing Starlink to operate. Musk said he did not see the conflict. Musk, who was born and raised in the country and has railed against what he says are racist and discriminatory policies against White South Africans, has claimed Starlink is blocked from business in the country because he is White, an allegation South African officials refuted. (There are minority ownership rules in South Africa, although according to Reuters, South Africa's telecoms regulator said in March that Starlink had not applied for a license.) Musk shifted to ask Husain why South Africa has 'racist laws.' 'I just asked you a question, please answer, does that seem right to you,' Musk said, sounding increasingly frustrated. 'Those rules were designed to bring about an era of more economic equality in South Africa, and it looks like the government has found a way around those rules for you,' Husain said. Musk continued pressing Husain to answer his question, as she tried to keep the interview on track. At one point, Musk asked, 'Why do you like racist laws?' Husain's interview was one of the first times in months that Musk has faced tough questioning from a journalist in a live, on-air format. Since joining forces with Trump, Musk has mostly stuck to the comfortable embrace of friendly Fox News or podcast interviews. But Husain, a former top anchor for the BBC, clearly rankled Musk who clashed with her several times during the interview. When Husain asked Musk how DOGE will reach his stated goal of $2 trillion in savings by next July, Musk said Husain was asking the question like a video game character who could only say certain phrases. 'It's difficult when I'm conversing with someone who's trafficking in the dialogue tree of a conventional journalist, because it's like talking to a computer,' Musk said, before noting that DOGE is an 'advisory group' that 'doesn't make the laws.' During a conversation about SpaceX and whether it would ever move into making weaponized drones, Musk replied 'You certainly ask interesting questions that are impossible to answer.' CNN's Fredreka Schouten and David Wright contributed to this report.
