September 27, 2024

Permission to republish original opeds and cartoons granted.

Democrats are Worrying That Kamala Harris is Nowhere Near Where Biden Was with Young Voters 

By Manzanita Miller

A new CNN poll reveals that while Kamala Harris has made incremental gains with young voters compared to where President Biden was when he made his exit, she is still well below Biden’s 2020 numbers, leaving Democrats troubled.

The Hill’s Amie Parnes and Rafael Bernal recently admitted Harris is struggling to secure the young Latino vote, a demographic that has been particularly critical of Democrats since Joe Biden became President.

Young Latino men, particularly working-class Latinos, are reluctant to support Harris according to Chuck Rocha, a Democratic strategist who worked with the Bernie Sanders campaign to target Latinos. Rocha told The Hill, “There is definitely a problem with young Latino men who haven’t gone to college. Trump doing better than he should be doing? Absolutely.”

Does this mean there has been a permanent youth shift away from Democrats? It appears that amidst crushing inflation, stagnant wages, an overrun border, and rising crime, young people may be reflecting on their lives under former President Donald Trump in comparison.

The CNN poll finds Harris holds a modest 12-point lead over Trump among voters under age 35, but that means she is polling nine points below Biden’s 2020 exit poll numbers with this age group. 

Harris currently leads Trump 52 percent to 40 percent in the CNN poll, giving her a slightly greater lead than Biden had this spring. However, it is a far slimmer margin than the decisive 21-point lead Biden took in 2020 among young voters.

Overall, while we saw a slight shift toward Harris when Biden announced he would not be seeking reelection after his debate debacle in late June, Harris is now doing no better than Biden was. She is also polling around ten points shy of Biden’s 2020 exit poll numbers.

Even before Biden’s disastrous debate performance and subsequent withdrawal from the race, young voters had been increasingly distancing themselves from Democrats. Right after Harris announced her candidacy, she appeared to be activating at least a portion of young voters, namely young women. However, her numbers have fallen back to where Biden’s were this spring, calling into question whether Democrats have done permanent damage with young people.

The latest New York Times-Siena College poll reveals young voters largely blame Harris for rising costs and the immigration crisis, the two most pressing issues this election. The Times found voters under age 30 say Harris should receive a lot of blame or some blame for the rising costs of basic goods by a 33-point margin. On Immigration, young people say by a 34-point margin Harris is at least partially to blame for the border crisis.

The reality is young voters have been shifting away from Democrats over the past four years due to the Biden Administration’s mishandling of key issues like inflation and immigration, and they do not appear to be sold on Kamala Harris. While Trump outright winning young people is unlikely, he may make sizeable inroads, particularly with young working-class men and voters of color. 

Manzanita Miller is the senior political analyst at Americans for Limited Government Foundation.

To view online: https://dailytorch.com/2024/09/democrats-are-worrying-that-kamala-harris-is-nowhere-near-where-biden-was-with-young-voters/

Poll: Harris Doing No Better Than Biden Was in April and May Prior To Debate

By Robert Romano

The latest Quinnipiac poll taken Sept. 19 through Sept. 22 shows that the national race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump is a dead heat, with the two tied at 48 percent in the two-way race and Trump with a 48 percent to 47 percent lead in the multi-candidate race when Jill Stein, Chase Oliver and Cornell West are included.

Interestingly, 2 percent in both surveys refused to answer. Who do we think they might be voting for?

Either way, that’s no better than President Joe Biden was faring against Trump this past spring before his disastrous June 27 debate.

For example, the April 18 to April 22 poll by Quinnipiac showed both tied at 46 precent in the two-way race, and both tied at 37 percent in the multi-candidate race (back then Robert Kennedy, Jr. was still running).

Similarly, the May 16 to May 20 poll showed Biden with a narrow lead, 48 percent to 47 percent, while the multi-candidate survey had him with a 3-point edge, 41 percent to 38 percent.

Now, fast forwarding past the June 27 debate, the summer party nominating conventions and the Sept. 10 debate between Harris and Trump, and the race is largely the same, with the national popular vote being very closely contested which no Republican has won since 2004.

That’s significant. No Republican has ever lost the Electoral College while winning the popular vote, but it’s happened to Democrats five times in U.S. history. Election forecaster Nate Silver gives Trump a 96.7 percent chance of winning the election if he’s ahead in the popular vote. If Harris leads by 1 point or less, Trump still has an 86.3 percent of winning. And less than 2 points, Trump still is 62.1 percent likely to win.

On the key issues of the economy and immigration, like many other polls, Trump is leading Harris, 52 percent to 45 percent and 53 percent to 45 percent, respectively. Whereas Harris leads on abortion and gun violence, 54 percent to 41 percent and 50 percent to 45 percent, respectively. On who would “handl[e]a crisis that put the country at great risk”, Trump leads 51 percent to 47 percent.

On that basis, a lot depends therefore on the composition of the electorate as it turns out. Quinnipiac look at “likely” voters, but what it might not be measuring is enthusiasm on issues or for the candidate themselves.

In 2022, Democrats running for Congress overperformed compared to polls because of unexpected Democratic turnout on the abortion issue in the wake of Roe v. Wade being overturned by the Supreme Court. In 2020 and 2016, Trump overperformed compared to national polls as a hidden “shy” Trump voter was identified only at the ballot box, by about 2 points.

It could be that economy as an issue voters overperform, which would be good news for Trump, or underperform, which would be good news for Harris. But as it is, so far, Harris is doing no better than Biden was before the debate this past spring, and back then, many already thought Biden was in trouble.

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government Foundation.

To view online: https://dailytorch.com/2024/09/poll-harris-doing-no-better-than-biden-was-in-april-and-may-prior-to-debate/

VIDEO: Wray's Shocking Revelation About Biden's Border Crisis

Watch Now: https://youtu.be/SCYAtSwTRFo

Carrie Campbell Severino: Justice Kagan Squeezes Chief Justice Roberts

By Carrie Campbell Severino

President Biden and Vice President Harris have proposed the greatest attack on the structure of the Supreme Court since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s notorious proposal in 1937 to pack the Court.

This time, the assault is being packaged as “ethics reform,” the true purpose of which is to undermine a Supreme Court they disagree with. Biden has proposed congressional passage of “enforceable conduct and ethics rules” for Supreme Court justices—we still have yet to hear much in the way of detail from him or Harris.  He has also expressed support for term limits, which happen to be unconstitutional absent constitutional amendment, as has long been understood even in liberal circles. This power play is just a dressed up version of court packing.

In eyebrow-raising fashion, Justice Elena Kagan has come out in support of the Biden/Harris ethics scheme. The code of conduct the Court published last November was insufficient, Kagan says, echoing the Left’s critiques of the Code. As we know, their dissatisfaction with the current Court has never truly been about ethics. We “should try to figure out some mechanism” for enforcing a Supreme Court code of conduct, Kagan says, and the best choice for enforcers would be “judges lower down the food chain.” A judicial investigation panel of lower court judges that would entertain arguments for recusal is the mechanism provided by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s bill. As I have noted before, such a scheme would bring chaos to the Court. Nearly every significant case would see a flood of motions to strategically disqualify certain justices.

It is clear, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Lindsey Graham have pointed out, that legislation premised on the “ethics reform” ruse is going nowhere. However much a Democratic president wants it, a Republican House does not, and it will never attain the supermajority support needed to overcome a Senate filibuster. (Assuming we still have a filibuster. Harris has made clear she wants to abolish the filibuster in order to codify Roe v. Wade, and if that were to happen for abortion, it would happen for other subjects of legislation.)

Biden and Harris must know the legislative reality, and of course FDR’s court-packing scheme went bust even with strong Democratic control of both houses. But they might be banking on the prospect that—as some historians believe was the case for FDR—making the effort could exert enough pressure on the Court to achieve their desired outcomes. Accordingly, a number of Senate Democrats seem to see no downside to calling for so-called “ethics reform.” It may reap not direct legislative success, but possibly similar results attained indirectly. (Justice Kagan recognizes this, too.)

Even in the absence of new legislation, it is worth emphasizing how easily the Court’s work can be seriously disrupted, if not upended, by scurrilous allegations. It is assumed that judicial panels will rid the system of frivolous charges. But they often do not—at least not soon enough. Especially in this hyper-politicized environment.

Recall what happened when the leftist dark-money group Demand Justice sent a letter complaining to Sri Srinivasan, chief judge of the D.C. Circuit and a Supreme Court shortlister during the Obama administration who could still be tapped for the high court. In an attempt to sabotage Justin Walker’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit, the group called for a “thorough inquiry” into the retirement decision of the outgoing judge, Thomas Griffith, speculating that then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s input had something to do with his retirement. Demand Justice’s behavior, as it turned out, was not only cynical and baseless, but also cruel. As much of the D.C. Bar knew and Srinivasan should have been well aware, Griffith’s wife had long suffered a serious illness. The judge had been doing a great deal of work from home to care for her, and his decision to retire was straightforwardly to deal with her illness. But Srinivasan could not help himself. He carried water for Demand Justice, calling for Chief Justice John Roberts to refer the matter to “another circuit for review and disposition” and making public his order doing so. Not surprisingly, The New York Times engaged in its own hack job, smearing Griffith with Demand Justice’s innuendo without doing the basic homework typically expected of journalists. Also not surprisingly, Chief Justice Roberts rejected Srinivasan’s request.

Other examples of scurrilous complaints include the Alliance for Justice and Common Cause complaining about Judge Diane Sykes’ appearance at a Federalist Society dinner and the recent suspension of Judge Pauline Newman of the Federal Circuit. Newman is an elderly judge pushed out by colleagues despite evidence that she is capable of performing her duties and that it was her dissents and not debility that ruffled the feathers of other members of the court.

Unjust attacks on judges threaten to undermine judicial independence and therefore the rule of law. It is unthinkable that a sitting justice could be in favor of such a blatantly political proposal.

Just imagine the level of disruption that would occur if there were a pipeline of complaints to lower court judges, plenty of whom would have an ax to grind with one faction or another of the Supreme Court. That the entire proposed scheme is about bitterness over the Court’s direction may explain why Justice Kagan has waded into the controversy.

It is convenient that Kagan did not address similar calls for reform earlier in her tenure. Recall the compelling reasons based on her prior work as solicitor general that she should have recused herself in the Obamacare case. Conservatives including me made that argument here in National Review Online, and so did liberal law professor Eric Segall. She did not recuse. Today Segall recognizes that the Supreme Court’s current code of ethics would have compelled Kagan’s recusal. It is also unlikely that Kagan would try to turn up the pressure on ethics if Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were still on the Court since, as I have previously explained, those ideologically friendly justices would have been the top targets of any ethics complaints.

Liberal bitterness over the Court’s recent decisions continues to be the basis of their pseudo-ethics outrage. And Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has at least partly joined Kagan by openly considering the imposition of an enforceable code “as a general matter.” It is a sorry sight to see justices feeding the latest attacks on the very Court where they sit.

To view online: https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/justice-kagan-squeezes-chief-justice-roberts/