SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " voted " 658 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Trump Votes by Mail Again in Florida
The president also voted by mail in 2020 and in a Florida special election in March, even as he has railed against the practice and equated it to cheating.
Colorado, like America, past due for generational change in politics
I was 27 before I ever voted for president. At 19, in 1964, the Constitution had not yet been amended establishing 18-year-old voting eligibility. In 1968, I was serving overseas with the U.S. Navy at a time when there was little effort to assist sailors or soldiers in obtaining an absentee ballot. Fortunately, that’s changed […]
Dorian TV Awards 2026 Winners Include ‘Heated Rivalry’, ‘Hacks’ Final Season & More
The Gay and Lesbian Entertainment Critics Association (GALECA) has voted on another year of the best in LGBTQ television. On Saturday, GALECA announced the winners of the LGBTQ journalist organization...
Summerville adopts long-debated outdoor entertainment district. Here's how it will work.
SUMMERVILLE — Summerville Town Council voted Aug. 13 to establish an outdoor entertainment district that will allow limited carrying of alcoholic beverages in the town's core, though concerns about th...
Summerville adopts long-debated outdoor entertainment district. Here's how it will work.
Summerville Town Council voted Aug. 13 to establish an outdoor entertainment district that will allow limited carrying of alcoholic beverages in the town's core, though concerns about the zone remain.
Ken Paxton tries to tamp down growing Republican concerns about his Senate campaign
After years of battling fellow Republicans and helping lead the culture wars in Texas, Ken Paxton is campaigning on tax deductions, appearing with state lawmakers who once voted to impeach him, and openly appealing to the Washington establishment for financial help.
$5 billion science research bond clears California Assembly committee
The California Assembly Appropriations Committee voted Thursday to advance a UC-sponsored bond measure that would fund scientific research across the state. The California Science and Health Research Bond Act – or Senate Bill 895 – would create the California Foundation for Science and Health Research to award $5 billion in grants and loans to public and private research institutions, including UC campuses.
At FAMU & Crawfordville, Gwen Graham, Byron Donalds preview campaigns
Gwen Graham voted at FAMU to honor FAMU's legacy of activism, while Byron Donalds campaigned in Crawfordville ahead of Florida's governor race.
Trump’s handpicked Kennedy Center board votes a second time to close performing arts center for renovations
President Donald Trump’s handpicked John F. Kennedy Center board has voted a second time to close the performing arts institution for renovations, according to a person who was briefed on the decision.
Sen. Carla Nelson Earns Perfect Score on Small Business Voting Record
State Senator Carla Nelson (Rochester) received a 100% rating from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), a national organization representing small business owners, according to a scorecard the group released this month. Sen. Nelson was one of 26 Minnesota senators who voted to support local business priorities on every bill NFIB tracked during the...
Sen. John Jasinski Earns Perfect Score on Small Business Voting Record
State Senator John Jasinski (Faribault) received a 100% rating from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), a national organization representing small business owners, according to a scorecard the group released this month. Sen. Jasinski was one of 26 Minnesota senators who voted to support local business priorities on every bill NFIB tracked during the...
Alex Rodriguez: The Dodgers are ‘great’ for baseball
While some fans and media believe the Los Angeles Dodgers are ruining Major League Baseball, Alex Rodriguez appears to be a fan of their spending. After admitting he voted in Awful Announcing’s 2026 MLB local TV announcer rankings during an appearance on The Michael Kay Show on ESPN New York, the discussion turned to the…
Voters in Wrightstown don’t want large data center developments
A total of 87% voted “No” to a referendum question asking if the village should authorize or participate in any public improvements related to them.
Lake Ozark aldermen approve teen curfew for Bagnell Dam Strip, easing business liability
the City of Lake Ozark Board of Alderment there this evening voted to establish a teen curfew on the bagnell dam strip.The vote count was unanimous.The modified
This was just voted the best sports venue in Metro Detroit
What is the best sports venue in Metro Detroit? The votes are in, and we have a winner!
Vulnerable battleground Dem embraces 'no tax on tips' after voting against Trump bill
Gabriel Vasquez voted against the big beautiful bill's no tax on tips provision, then called for a permanent version through his TIPS Act weeks later.
Square Enix Reportedly Halted a Nearly Finished Final Fantasy IX Remake and Has Now Pivoted Away from Mining Its Past
Square Enix reportedly halted a nearly finished Final Fantasy IX remake and has now pivoted away from mining the franchise's back catalog.
Here's why both of New Mexico's senators voted against Todd Blanche for Trump's Atty General
By a one vote margin, 50-49, the United States Senate voted early Saturday morning to approve President Donald Trump’s nomination of Todd Blanche, his former personal attorney and acting attorney general, to be the permanent Attorney General of the United States. Todd’s nomination was opposed by every Democrat and two Republicans, Susan Collins of Maine […]
Todd Blanche narrowly confirmed as Trump's attorney general in overnight vote
The Republican-led Senate voted 50-49 to make Blanche the second confirmed attorney general since Trump returned to the White House last year with a stated desire to use the law enforcement agency to investigate his political enemies.
See who voted ‘yes’ and who voted ‘no’ to confirm Blanche for attorney general
Here’s how each member of the Senate voted on the nomination of Todd Blanche to be attorney general.
Can Gluesenkamp Perez win over the Democrats who voted against her in Washington’s primary?
Unofficial results present a mixed picture heading toward the November general election.
Oregon universal health care board punts single-payer report over funding uncertainty
A state board in charge of developing a universal health plan for all Oregonians will delay the release of its final report to lawmakers, citing uncertainty over how to pay for it. The Universal Health Plan Governance Board voted unanimously Thursday morning to extend its deadline to Dec. 1 for its report that will describe […]
Republican-led Senate panel will ask Justice Department to charge Dr. Anthony Fauci with contempt of Congress
A Senate committee voted Thursday to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress, advancing an audacious effort by Republicans to prosecute the well-known scientist over his role in the US government response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
ADF urges Senate to clarify college sports bill won’t preempt state women’s sports laws
The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom CEO, President, and Chief Counsel Kristen Waggoner regarding the Protect College Sports Act (S. 4668), a bill currently in the U.S. Senate that could be voted on this week: “For nearly a decade, Alliance Defending Freedom has worked with courageous female athletes, state and national […]
The Latest: Senate committee votes to hold Fauci in contempt over refusal to answer questions
A Senate committee has voted to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress and refer him to the Justice Department for potential prosecution over his refusal to answer questions at a hearing last week on his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic
Dr. Erica Schwartz confirmed as CDC’s first official director in a year
The US Senate voted 51-44 on Wednesday to confirm Dr. Erica Schwartz as director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
SSM Health appealing certification of union vote at St. Mary's Hospital in Madison
National Labor Relations Board staff certified the union election late last month after nurses voted 511-63 to unionize with the Service Employees International Union of Wisconsin.
New CDC director is confirmed, with Senate backing Dr. Erica Shwartz
The Senate voted in favor of Dr. Erica Schwartz, who was deputy surgeon general during President Donald Trump’s first term.
Chartbook 464 The"China squeeze" - the politics of development counterfactuals.
There are three types of China shock discourse. Each has a distinct temporal register. China shock 1.0 was a phrase coined by US academics in the 2010s to retrospectively summarize the impact on particular US labour markets, which they identified through painstaking empirical investigation. China shock 2.0 on everyone’s lips in Europe in the mid 2020s is an alarm raised by trans-Atlantic policy thinkers warning of a coming disaster which they project onto Europe’s ailing car industry. The third type of China shock discourse - commonly known as the “China squeeze” launched most recently by Indian economists Shoumitro Chatterjee and Arvind Subramanian in the pages of Foreign Affairs - mobilizes a different, more speculative temporal register: the counterfactual realm of alternate history. The China squeeze argument asks not what has happened, or what is going to happen, but what might have been. Specifically, what options for economic development might have been open to Global South economies like India or the economies of sub-Saharan Africa, had it not been for China’s spectacular industrialization since the late 1990s and the persistent competitiveness of China’s manufacture in low-skilled segments. Chatterjee and Subramanian’s argument is that whilst China has built a powerful position in electrical machinery and other high-skill manufacturing, which is now delivering China Shock 2.0, it also continues to run a trade surplus in low-skill, labour-intensive manufacturing. This surplus is large and has remained largely unchanged in fifteen years. Indeed, in the 2010s, in trade with low-income countries, China’s surplus rapidly increased. On their reading, this squeezes low-income producers in low-skill sectors in which they “should” be able to compete. Source: “China’s Mercantilist Squeeze on Developing Countries” Shoumitro Chatterjee and Arvind Subramanian. Peterson Institute for International Economics 26-7 May 2026 Chatterjee and Subramanian’s wording is telling: (emphasis mine) The canonical trajectory of economic development in the post-World War II period is for countries to transition from agriculture to manufacturing, first in low-skilled manufacturing and then later on to high-skill manufacturing (Herrendorf, Rogerson, and Valentinyi 2013). At the global level, this implies that high-income countries (HICs) that once specialized in low-skilled activities cede manufacturing export space to poorer countries that come along to occupy that space. In 1965, advanced economies accounted for about 60 percent of global value-added exports in four key low-skilled manufacturing sectors, i.e., apparel, leather, textiles, and footwear. Over time this share declined and began to be occupied first by the East Asian tigers and, beginning in the late 1990s, by China. Today China accounts for about 50 percent of the global market. The question is whether China, with its rising prosperity, is continuing to behave like its richer counterparts and ceding export space to poorer followers or to behave unlike them and continuing to occupy space. In terms of the conceptual maneuvers it performs, of the three China shock discourses, the “China squeeze” argument is by far the most ambitious. After all, it bases its critique of China on a counterfactual imagining of the world. Like any counterfactual argument, to construct this alternative reality it must rely on a heuristic model. To make their argument Chatterjee and Subramanian mobilize two key claims. The first reference point is the actual history of rich-country industrialization, what they refer to as the “canonical path”. The idea is that countries transition from agriculture to light industry and low-skilled manufacturing and from there up the value chain. To make this useful as a standard of comparison and a means to construct a normative standard, they adjust sectoral export shares for two factors: 1. the underlying level of economic development of the exporting country, as measured by national income and 2. the degree to which the sector in question is internationalized. The idea being that for a high income country to have a high export share in low-skill sectors is anomalous and even more so if that particular product is highly internationalized and thus suitable for being “conceded” to lower-income competitors. Where should this process end? Here Chatterjee and Subramanian introduce their second benchmark. Their normative idea of a global development path is one in which, in due course, low-skill manufacturing exports are distributed in proportion to a country’s share in the global labour force. They imagine, in other words, a world of proportional, polycentric global development without much national specialization in low-skill manufacturing. A useful benchmark is that, in labor-intensive manufacturing sectors, a country’s share of world exports should be broadly commensurate with its share of the world’s low-skilled labor endowment. … In the Heckscher-Ohlin model, this would be true if value added per worker and export propensities, i.e., fraction of output that is exported, are the same across countries. It is this pleasant liberal vista of orderly global development, progressing towards a general distribution of low-skilled manufacturing against which they judge reality and conclude that the low-income countries are suffering a “China squeeze”. China is not exiting low-skill sectors fast enough Allowing for its gdp level and the degree of globalization, China’s share of low-skill manufacturing exports is far higher than it “should” be. Relative to population, its low-skill share of exports is far too high. That in turn yields the conclusion that huge numbers of jobs - the authors suggest tens of millions - are being hoarded by China. For the four sectors captured in figure 4, this excess in value-added exports is $110 billion in 2022. For all low-skilled sectors overall captured in appendix figure D.1, excess value-added exports amount to $365 billion. The crowding out of LMIC exports by China is therefore substantial. Both these claims have in common that they are strong structuralisms. The first is that development paths ought to resemble each other. The second is that broadly speaking as far as low-skilled manufacturing is concerned, all countries are alike. If the world currently diverges from the distribution of trade implied by these assumptions, if China is not following the advanced economy path and has huge exports, this must be the result of “policy”, which the authors then put in question as illegitimate or unfair. Thus the naturalistic construction of a canonical path leading to a “level” distribution of low-skilled manufacturing reveals itself to be a polemical tool. From the point of view of China shock polemics, this discourse is no doubt welcome. But as an account of economic history, it must surely be regarded as nothing short of bamboozling. Development paths do not follow a regular, natural sequence. As David Fishman put it aptly, “development is not a queue”. They are always and everywhere, through and through political. Development is not so much a process, as a project. Each such project is more or less well adjusted to its context. As Gerschenkron taught uneven and combined development implies differentiation rather than simple imitation on a single parth. It may be true that Europe and the US exited relatively early from low-skill work. But clearly technology has changed. As C&S themselves point out, China no longer enjoys a low wage environment. Do they really believe that such huge differences can be accounted for either by industrial policy, which as they admit does not operate powerfully in low-skill sectors, or by exchange rate manipulation? What is overwhelmingly dominant in explaining the persistence of “low-skill” manufacturing in China are surely the network effects of complex supply chains. Indeed the label of “low-skill” may miss the point. The degree of globalization which Chatterjee and Subramanian decide to conjure away in their model of the development path - to allow for the fact that Europe and American textiles exporters did not enjoy just-in-time logistics in the 1950s - obscures the point that the networks through which Chinese factories supply the world are themselves key parts of the low-skill industrialization project. China isn’t knocking out 1970s style “cheap”. It has redefined the entire product cycle. C&S’s casual reference to “T-shirts” is telling. In today’s “fast fashion”, there is weight on both terms. Fashion and fast. China’s success in delivering on both at unprecedentedly high speed and at unprecedentedly low cost, isn’t a low-skill operation at all. If we see development trajectories not as the serial repetition of the same, but as distinctive, crafted projects that cumulate in complex agglomerations of skill, technology and labor, then this explains why the assumption that low-skilled manufacturing should follow the distribution of population flies in the face of all experience. As countless cases attest, low-wage, low-income developed economies are not by themselves the makings of a competitive production base. As Leon Liao puts it quite fairly: “International trade has never been allocated according to population. A country’s population gives it no natural claim to an equivalent share of global exports." And the remarkable fact is that Subramanian alone and with co-authors has long been making this point, not to pillory China, as is the case of the tendentious _Foreign Affair_s and Peterson pieces, but to highlight the great counterpart to China’s industrial success, namely India’s relative failure. The much-quoted Foreign Affairs piece showed low-skill export shares only for China, not for India. If you put both countries in the picture as Chaterjee and Subramanian have done on other occasions, the picture looks like this. China is far above the line, but India, almost as large in terms of population, is no less anomalous, just in the opposite direction. As far as global populations are concerned, and the imagining of tens of millions of “squeezed” jobs, it is this Sino-Indian pair that account for a huge share of the action. What this graph reveals is not China’s cheating, but India’s “greatest development failure”, at least this is the argument made Arvind Subramanian, this time in co-authorship with Devesh Kapur, in their major book, A Sixth of Humanity. Independent India’s Development Odyssey which appeared with Oxford University Press earlier this year. In this highly critical work on India’s development, China is repeatedly evoked, not to criticize but as a benchmark against which to illuminate what India’s political economy has not delivered i.e. large-scale formal employment for hundreds of millions of citizens. Kapur and Subramanian leave no doubt, if you want to understand why China, not India was the main driver of manufacturing globalization from the 1980s, don’t look to slots opening up in the division of labour thanks to the liberal mindedness of advanced economies, look to the contrasting political economy of the Maoist PRC and India’s post-independence political economy. As Kapur and Subramian note: The great divergence between China and India did not begin in 1978 with the Deng reforms—it was well underway by then. In one of the great ironies of modern history, the conditions created by Maoism turned out to be a great launching pad for industrial globalization. As the comparison of India and China in 1980 makes clear, to imagine manufacturing would be equally distributed when populations are so differently endowed in terms of educational and nutritional is fanciful. Here is the data from Kapur and Subramanian, data which I explored back at the very beginning of Chartbook. As Kapur and Subramanian insist, the striking fact is that even as India’s growth accelerated from the 1980s, structural change has not. Formal employment in India lags woefully behind. Why? As Kapur and Subramanian note, the path-dependent impact of India’s poor early start was devastating. The list of factors they mention is long and weighty: We argue for a new five-fold explanation applicable at different stages of Indian history: in the initial stages, the legacy of two key pre-1980s policies, the neglect of agriculture and the strangling of the domestic private sector, were critical. The failure of broad-based agricultural growth militated against rural industrialization, which would have been devoted to satisfying local needs that would have necessarily been labour intensive. Then, when the boom came after 1980, the thicket of regulation and broader labour protections that were legislated prematurely in a nascent democracy, underpinned by a deep ideological aversion to private capital in general and big capital specifically, became a barrier to attaining the size that would be necessary to compete globally. Similarly, the reforms after 1991, while wide-ranging, did not quite encompass non-tradeable inputs critical to manufacturing, namely, land, logistics infrastructure and power. A combination of low investment (logistics infrastructure), regulation (land) and the continued monopoly supply by state governments (power), combined with residual socialism, kept costs at 75–100 per cent above efficient supply. These factors were compounded on the supply side by the government, which dominated the formal labour market and established exorbitantly high wages at the lower end of the skill spectrum. This made their employment in the labour-intensive sector by the private sector less attractive. Finally, when the services sector and its exports boomed, wages soared even further via a Dutch Disease effect: one successful tradeable sector killed and cannibalized another less-skilled tradable sector, namely, manufacturing. Thus, scarcity-inducing policies of the planning era, precocious democracy and a Gandhian aversion to size; inefficient, monopolistic supply of critical non-tradable inputs; the behemoth of government; and super-successful skill-intensive services successively undermined India’s unskilled labour employment opportunities. The employment failure seems to have been over-determined. … Less quantifiable but no less important are some of the sociological factors that have undermined manufacturing and factory jobs. Take the impact of the success of the IT sector—located in urban areas with better working conditions, such as air-conditioned offices, good schools for children and attractive entertainment options. It became a more attractive place for engineering and management graduates to flock to. … Consider manufacturing and female employment. Indian society makes it difficult for women to work, reflected in India’s unusually low female labour force participation (elaborated in Chapter XIII). Indian society, in particular the routine harassment of women in public spaces, makes it even more difficult for them to travel long distances to take up work.37 Combined with onerous regulations on creating hostels and dormitories for women—which, in turn, prevents multiple shifts of operation—factories need to be located in areas with a large female labour pool. While firms can take apparel plants to female labour or bring them to the plants by building large-scale dormitories, this raises costs. If there was a case for subsidies to encourage labour-intensive manufacturing, housing subsidies to build dormitories for women workers would be a good place to start. All of this meant, that when opportunities did open up, in part thanks to adjustments in China, India was in no position to take advantage. Here is the account of the 2020s from Kapur and Subramanian. It stands in dizzying contrast to the one-sided, “China squeeze” argument delivered in the Peterson and Foreign Affairs pieces: In 2022, for example, India’s share of global exports in clothing (the canonical labour-intensive sector) was 3.1 per cent compared to 32 per cent for China. This is extremely disappointing because China started vacating export space in this sector after the Global Financial Crisis as its wages started rising; it then vacated further space in the aftermath of geopolitical developments that led investors to seek alternative investment locations. Between its peak and today, China lost about 7.5 percentage points of global export share (worth about $43 billion in 2022); over this period, India’s export share remained stagnant at 3 per cent, while that of Vietnam and Bangladesh rose by 3.5 to 4 percentage points. China’s loss did not translate into any gain for India in terms of low-skill exports and employment. Put differently, when the conditions for dynamism and prosperity were established after 1991, and even more tantalizingly when the global export opportunities opened up, it was as if India was a high-wage economy and only skilled labour could benefit from the dynamism. It had converted its physically abundant unskilled workforce into an economically expensive resource, penalizing its use. It is not my mission here to argue for or against Kapur and Subramanian’s interpretation of India’s development trajectory. The point in this context is simply that the “China squeeze” such as it is can only be understood, in relation to the heavy burden of domestic constraints that Kapur and Subramanian so unsparingly enumerate. I am concentrating here on India because it is the great counterpart to China and the unspoken reference point of the “China squeeze” discourse. But the point is more general. Can anyone with a straight face suggest that the main problems afflicting the development of South Africa or Nigeria, the great centers of mass underemployment in sub-saharan Africa, are cheap competition from China driven by Beijing’s industrial policy and an undervalued RMB? Likewise, is the main problem of the American working-class the threat of Chinese competition or the manifest crisis of social reproduction in the United States itself? The point here, as in the discourse around China shock 2.0 in Europe, is to insist that we should not normalize the world and pathologize China, without actually investigating what is going on in America’s industrial wastelands, the German car industry, or India’s lopsided labour market. One-sided pathologization should be understood for what it is, a polemical gesture. Concepts like China shock and China squeeze are, what Reinhart Koselleck, following Carl Schmitt, would have described as “asymmetrische Kampfbegriffe”, or “asymmetrical counter-concepts” or “asymmetrical combat concepts”. If the function of arguments like the “China squeeze” is to alert elites in the rest of the world of the need to rejuvenate and energize their development projects, so be it. But let us see the resulting discourses as the mobilizing interventions that they are. Interestingly, a significant slice of China’s public sphere - the so-called industrial party - have been obsessed for the last twenty years with precisely these questions of counterfactual economic history. Since the mid 2000s, a massive online discourse developed around an alternative history in which Chinese techno-patriots were asked to imagine how they would proceed if they had the possibility of traveling back in time to transport modern technology into the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) thus averting the “great divergence” of the 18th and 19th centuries. It is a fantasy of course, but also a goad. The point was not directed at Westerners. The alternate history is dramatically nationalist, but few n the West had even heard of it until recently. The adherents of the industrial party are not liberal moralists. They don’t project natural ladders of international development and ask why others don’t cede space. They take the Realpolitik of global economic development for granted. Their pointe was directed against fellow Chinese. The rallying cry of the alternative narrative was this: Now that we are beginning to gain steam and push forward on our national development path, now that we are breaking out of the inferior position assigned to us even in the early years following WTO accession, do not lose yourself in humanistic imaginings about better futures. In the spirit of Deng, they called on China to embrace the hard truth of development. Perhaps one might of the Industrial Party as a cultural trend born out of desire for symbolic revenge against those who had inflicted the century of humiliation. In terms of the various temporalities of the “China shock” - retrospective, prospective and counterfactual - one might think of the Industrial Policy discourse as truly speculative, conjuring up the China shock that never was. Or perhaps one might better think of it as imagining a world in which a powerful China was no shock at all, but simply a defining fact of modern history. I love putting out Chartbook. I am particularly pleased that it goes out for free to thousands of subscribers around the world. But, writing this newsletter takes a lot of work. If you are enjoying it and would like to support the project, sign up for one of the subscription options here. It is the equivalent of a fancy cup of coffee per month! Subscribe
Michigan Election Results Live Updates: El-Sayed and Stevens Locked in Close Senate Race
The race between Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive, and Representative Haley Stevens, a centrist, had not been called as of 4 a.m. Wednesday. Kansas, Missouri, Virginia and Washington also voted.
California Democrats defy Newsom, back billionaire tax
The state’s Democratic Party voted to support California’s billionaire tax, siding with a growing populist movement seeking accountability for the rich
Todd Blanche's nomination for attorney general clears critical hurdle
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12-10 along party lines in support of the nomination of President Donald Trump's former personal attorney
David Ellison says court fight over Warner Bros. is about his politics, CNN
The Paramount Skydance CEO defended his deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery and said he’s voted for Democrats and Republicans and held liberal and conservative values.
Capricor’s Duchenne AdCom Didn’t Fail on Science. It Failed on Statistics.
FDA's CTGTAC voted 9-3 against Capricor's deramiocel on July 30, 2026. The science wasn't the problem. The statistical methodology was — and the FDA let it get…
Press Release: Atlanta Braves Honored with IDEA Golden Matrix Award for Best Overall Production in Sports
The IDEA Golden Matrix Award for ‘Best Overall Production’ represents the best game presentation in professional sports and is voted on by teams across professional sports in North America The Atlanta Braves’ Fan Experience team was recently honored with the 2026 Golden Matrix Award for ‘Best Overall Production’ by the
If Not AOC, Then Who?
What do we do if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez decides not to run for president in 2028? It makes sense that many leftists are currently focused on calling on her to take the plunge. But the absence of a Plan B, or even much discussion about one, is worrisome. The US Left can’t afford to sit out the 2028 Democratic primary. Doing so in 2024 was a disaster: our abstention self-marginalized anti-billionaire politics from the national conversation and thereby gave space for Harris to pivot to the “center” (i.e. the policy preferences of corporate donors, establishment hacks, and AIPAC). Abstaining again in 2028 would be especially counterproductive since democratic socialists now have so much wind in our sails after our big electoral wins in NYC and across the country. It’s time to deepen our momentum, organization, and profile — not to retreat to the margins during America’s single most important political battle. Even more urgently, keeping Trump’s heir out of the White House may depend on whether leftists and the party’s unprecedentedly disenchanted base can force the Democrats in 2028 to take meaningful steps towards a very angry electorate and away from the corporate-consultant blob that has helped get us into this mess. If AOC (or Abdul El-Sayed) decides to run, we should enthusiastically go all in — DSA, fighting unions, progressive organizations, anybody who wants to see a better country and world. But, as far as I can tell from the outside, there’s a real chance that she doesn’t run. And we can’t just wait and see where she lands before discussing alternatives, since AOC’s decision might not come for quite a while, giving us little time to scramble at the last minute for an alternative. So we should start working now on getting a Plan B into motion, and recruiting a good candidate for the role. Here’s one idea. A Worker Candidate — Healthcare Not Warfare 2028 Run a union worker Leftists don’t need to always run experienced, well-known socialist politicians for high-profile contests. Lula, the current president of Brazil, began his political career as a metalworker militant who ran for governor of São Paulo in 1982. Especially in an era of institutional distrust, it’s possible to lean hard into making a virtue out of a working-class comrade’s distance from traditional politics. Experience abroad shows this clearly. Rachel Kéké — an immigrant hotel housekeeper — ran as the candidate of the leftist La France Insoumise for the National Assembly in 2022, defeating a former minister in the Macron government. The Belgian Workers’ Party in 2024 won its first Flemish seat in the European Parliament by running Rudi Kennes, a three-decade veteran of the Opel Antwerp auto factory. And the South Korean left in 2024 elected auto factory militant Yoon Jong-oh to the National Assembly. If a tiny French Trotskyist organization could make such a big splash in 2002 and 2007 by running a well-spoken postal worker cadre for office — the LCR’s Olivier Besancenot received about 1.5 million first-round votes — it’s not far-fetched to expect that a much larger organization like DSA, together with a broader coalition of the willing, could run this playbook to much greater effect. This is especially the case now that almost everything DSA does immediately becomes a national news story. We don’t need someone famous. We just need a charismatic, well-vetted comrade who works in a relatable working-class occupation — e.g. a nurse, or a worker in auto or construction, or at Amazon. Ideally, they have a compelling personal story or have been part of a significant strike or organizing campaign, but even those criteria don’t necessarily have to be deal-breakers. The main lesson of the Graham Platner fiasco isn’t that we should never run outsiders for office (the momentum he generated proves the exact opposite), but that they need proper vetting and roots in democratic membership organizations like DSA or a union. In any case, there are plenty of ways to signal working-class authenticity without resorting to Platner’s or Fetterman’s performative macho white dude affect. Better to have someone of any gender or race who is actually working class, with firm socialist politics, who can speak from experience about the day-to-day realities of trying to make it in America. There are surely at least a dozen such worker leaders in our movement nationwide; we just need to sit down and convince one that their personal sacrifice for the greater good (i.e. running for president) will be worth it. If we don’t have a frontrunner with a clear path to victory like AOC (or El-Sayed, were he to win Michigan), it’s better to embrace someone whose decision to run in itself tells an important story about US politics: workers have been iced out of our political system and are now fighting hard to break back in. The novelty factor, in itself, would generate press. And it would help democratic socialists signal to the American public that our movement’s defining characteristic is that we represent workers vs. bosses, not that we’re “the furthest left” force in American politics — a framework that suggests we’re extremists and that helps our opponents isolate us from non-college-educated voters by highlighting extremely minoritarian (and misguided) stances included in DSA’s platform like prison abolition. We don’t get many opportunities to speak to tens of millions of Americans; we need to use these opportunities to broaden our appeal beyond those already in our orbit. Run to polarize the 2028 primary and general election around “Medicare for All” and “End All Aid to Israel” Why should democratic socialists use our scarce time and volunteer energy to run in a race we’re unlikely to win? Running in the 2028 primary will not only recruit us scores of members (imagine having a DSA member intervening in eleven nationally televised primary debates!), but — more importantly — it has the potential to be a decisive leap forward towards an America that finally starts meeting the needs of working people instead of HMO and AIPAC billionaire donors. Polarizing litmus tests are good, actually — as long as they’re fought for around popular demands in a thoughtful and strategic way. Democratic socialists have an opportunity and responsibility to make the 2028 primary about two of the most widely and deeply felt issues of our moment: domestically, America’s unaffordable, family-breaking private healthcare system; internationally, America’s bankrolling of the genocidal Israeli government. A candidacy relentlessly demanding Medicare for All and No Aid to Israel would pose a sharp question to the American public, the Democratic Party, and other 2028 contenders: Why can’t working-class Americans afford their healthcare bills at the same time that our government is spending at least $3.8 billion yearly to fund an Israeli regime eager to keep dragging us and the world into more forever wars? Our candidate can agitate around a clear message: I’m running to give voice to all those working-class Americans who are struggling to get by. No matter what state you live in, who you voted for in 2024, or your background, it’s just plain common sense that we should make healthcare more affordable instead of spending billions to enable the Israeli government’s crimes against humanity. Every American who agrees with me when I say ‘Medicare for All — Not a Dime for Israel’ should make their voice heard through our campaign. Racking up a high number of votes for this agenda is a crucial way to show the Democratic Party and the country as a whole that we can’t keep supporting a life-destroying status quo in our healthcare system and in the Middle East. If we want to defeat Trump’s handpicked crony this coming November, we need to speak to ordinary people’s frustrations with the status quo — we can’t keep running the same tired establishment playbook and expecting a different result. For those highly engaged voters (or skeptical media pundits) who raise concerns about wasting votes, the candidate can take the time to explain why this isn’t the case: It's true I'm a long shot. But Zohran showed anything can happen — and voting for me is a pragmatic decision, not a wasted vote. In a heavily divided primary with a large number of candidates and a very discredited establishment, my campaign and the democratic socialist movement I’m part of are positioned to be the balance of power if we can get a large enough number of voters to loudly demand Healthcare Not Warfare. Since there’s a high chance no candidate will get to 50% in the 2028 primaries, the Democrats could very well be heading towards a brokered convention, where a disciplined, principled current committed to breaking from corporate donors can play an outsized role in making sure whoever ends up with the nomination raises the banner of single-payer healthcare and cutting aid to Israel. How exactly could running this sort of primary campaign be translated into actual leverage? The candidate replies: I’m aiming to win the nomination, but if I don’t achieve that goal, my delegates and I will pledge our support in the primary only for a candidate who agrees in the general election to call for ending US aid to Israel and establishing Medicare for All at home. These are both winning planks for November against the Republicans, and the only reason I can see that other candidates haven’t yet raised these is that they’re still more scared of the donor class than they are of the people. That needs to change. If Democratic leaders want young people, workers, and those sick of the status quo to show up in big numbers this November, they need to meet us halfway. In this way, whether or not we win the nomination, democratic socialists could still play a decisive role in 2028. The approach outlined here is similar to what radical left parties periodically do in parliamentary democracies like Denmark or Sweden when they find themselves as a junior partner electorally: they dictate to center-left allies what their terms would be for enabling, from the outside, the formation of a new government. Running a Healthcare Not Warfare candidate will make it significantly more likely that the 2028 Democratic candidate stands with ordinary people instead of donors on these two pivotal planks — a shift that will, in turn, make it easier to achieve the existentially important task of defeating MAGA’s heir in November. Look at how much popular traction the Uncommitted movement got with a similar strategy in 2024 with so little on-the-ground organization — surely we can go much further with a working-class candidate, a much bigger DSA, and a Democratic Party base that has turned against Israel, billionaires, and the hacks in the party who prop them up. Objections and Responses There are quite a few objections to this proposal, many of which are very reasonable. Let me briefly address each here. Socialists shouldn’t waste their scarce time and resources on a candidate unlikely to win. This is a good rule in general, but there are important exceptions, and presidential elections are the main one. There’s no other political contest that gets anything like this level of attention and engagement in the US, so if you want to be a serious force in nationwide politics, you basically can’t afford not to have a candidate. Far from being an overall drain on our resources, running a dynamic 2028 campaign would likely result in a major net increase in members and capacity. In that spirit, the very pragmatic Milwaukee sewer socialists — who mostly ran to win at home in Wisconsin — supported Eugene Debs’s propagandistic presidential campaigns, which they correctly saw as a crucial means of recruiting to the Socialist Party. And now that the (post-1972) Democratic Party gives more weight to voters than party operatives in determining its presidential nomination, it’s become feasible to run as a socialist in primaries without risking a split in the vote against the Republicans in November. We should just support Ro Khanna, who also supports M4A and ending aid to Israel. I like Ro Khanna and would enthusiastically vote and canvass for him for president were he to get the nomination. But there’s a real chance that Khanna’s bid for office doesn’t catch on; he lacks the grassroots organizational apparatus of DSA, and, because he’s not really of the Left or labor (despite his current very good positions), he’s unlikely to generate the type of buy-in and enthusiasm that a DSA candidate would. Moreover, Khanna would be running as an individual, not as someone emerging from and building an organized movement — his campaign would not likely focus on building sustained power from below, nor would it likely polarize the 2028 primary around M4A and Israel aid. Also, and not inconsequentially, the poor electoral results for Tom Steyer and Saikat Chakrabarti this spring suggest that there’s perhaps not much of a popular appetite in the Democrats’ base to support multi-millionaire class traitors. Much better, then, to run a democratic socialist worker. If by Super Tuesday it’s clear that our campaign has captured the main left lane in the primary, Khanna should drop out and endorse us; conversely, if he’s managed to capture this lane, DSA could at that point transform its Healthcare Not Warfare campaign into an independent campaign to elect Ro Khanna focused on winning (and holding him accountable to) those two critical planks. An openness to consolidating an anti-corporate candidate by Super Tuesday is a necessary component of the strategy I’m proposing, because otherwise we risk splitting the primary votes (per DNC rules, you need at least 15% to get any delegates to convention). We should convince Shawn Fain or Sara Nelson to run for president instead. I agree it’d be great if either ran for president, but my impression is that there’s basically no chance that will happen in 2028, because both are firmly focused on their union leadership duties (and, in the case of Fain, beating back a federal witch-hunt). This plan could have DSA end up endorsing a non-socialist, non-DSAer for president. That’s against our principles. It’s a myth, and bad politics, that socialists can’t ever support candidates who aren’t members of their organization and/or who don’t call themselves socialists. Bernie, after all, was not a DSAer. And socialists abroad regularly make tactical decisions about if and when supporting a non-socialist candidate makes sense from the standpoint of promoting working-class interests, defending democracy, and building a socialist current in the process. If your “principles” prevent you and DSA from helping achieve the momentous stride forward of having a Democratic candidate in 2028 run on Medicare for All and ending aid to Israel, those “principles” are not very good. In fact, they actively undermine the causes they’re aiming to support. We shouldn’t confuse principles (working-class independence) with tactics (the best way to advance this in a given context). In my recent article in Catalyst on Milwaukee sewer socialism (I’ve uploaded the full text here), I have a section showing how similarly rigid rules about endorsements had to be eventually discarded in the old Socialist Party nationwide after WWI because they tended to lead socialists towards a sectarian abstention from broader anti-corporate electoral insurgencies beyond their party’s control. For what it’s worth, Lenin’s current under Tsarism frequently backed bourgeois candidates in the second round of elections and Lenin himself advocated that British Communists support Labour Party candidates; for his part, Kautsky in 1912 defended the German Social Democracy’s electoral pact with the Progressives in the runoffs. If our predecessors could be that tactically flexible in an era before the limits of their underlying strategic assumptions about intransigent class politics in capitalist democracies were made clear, then there’s no need to insist on being more tactically rigid today, after a century’s worth of accumulated experience. As long as you maintain your own political profile and organization while engaging in broader coalitional efforts, there’s zero inherent contradiction with the principle of political independence. More specifically: DSA and allied organizations should enthusiastically back Michigan’s Abdul El-Sayed if AOC declines to run and he throws his hat in the presidential ring. (I have no idea whether he’s even considering this path, but there’ll surely be chatter about it if he wins his Senate race this November.) Though he doesn’t call himself a socialist, El-Sayed is a principled Berniecrat, a consistent fighter for Palestine, and would have a clear path to victory. Using the “s” word is far less important than whether a campaign fights for the interests of working people at home and abroad — and whether actively participating in it can grow the organized working class and the Left. And the same holds true if a less anti-corporate candidate were, under pressure, to adopt our two Healthcare Not Warfare planks. Why focus only on M4A and ending US aid to Israel? There are so many other important issues to fight for! Obviously there are many pivotal issues beyond healthcare and Israel, and our candidate — and especially our organizations involved in the campaign — should be prepared to speak on all of these. But one of the crucial lessons of the Zohran campaign is that you have to relentlessly stay on message if you want to cut through the noise. CNN and Fox News will want to talk about DSA’s views on Venezuela and abolishing the police; we need to polarize the debate on the widely and deeply felt issues that are most favorable for growing the Left, isolating our opponents, and winning urgently needed changes. One recent poll found 63% of Americans support M4A, even after respondents were told it would raise taxes and eliminate most private insurance. Another found that 74% of Democrats opposed “providing additional economic and military support to Israel.” And focusing on two demands sets the campaign up to be able to leverage its mandate to make clear demands upon other candidates (which we can’t do if we run with a laundry list of demands). Talking about a Plan B is a distraction from the more urgent work of building a groundswell of calls on AOC to run. It’s good for DSAers, fightback unionists, and progressive organizations to try to convince AOC to run. This proposal is meant as an addendum to pushes to get AOC to run and to line DSA up for that eventuality, not as a substitute for those efforts. But I’m worried that, like in 2024, we might eventually find ourselves with no time to find a viable alternative unless we start now. DSA, with its abundant deliberative processes, moves slowly. The approach you’re suggesting seems risky. If a DSA candidate runs but doesn’t receive a lot of votes, it’ll undercut our current national momentum. This is a reasonable worry. All big initiatives always carry risks, and the path I’m advocating is certainly not free of these. That said, if a Healthcare Not Warfare campaign doesn’t catch on like we envisioned, it’s a pretty simple pivot in March 2028 to explain that in the future we really need our standard-bearers like AOC, or our growing bench of national electeds, to step up in presidential primaries. Moreover, it’s worth noting that the risk of my Plan B proposal is on the whole significantly less than the risk entailed by an AOC run. We should all back her if she runs, since she’d fire up the base, provide huge openings for organizing, have a real shot at defeating a Republican (especially given MAGA’s unpopularity), be a great standard-bearer for our issues, particularly M4A and ending aid to Israel, and be less willing than mainstream candidates to capitulate to any anti-democratic machinations from Trump and co. But it’s also true that AOC could lose, which would be a devastating setback to the country and the Left. Or she could win and find herself unable to pass much, if any, of her (and our) program, a demoralizing prospect. So if we’re willing to take these risks with AOC (and we should), it follows that we should be able to take lower-level risks if she doesn’t throw her hat in the ring. What’s Your Plan B? The US Left is facing its biggest opening for growth and influence since the 1930s. Initiatives that would have been impossible a few months ago are now potentially feasible. A President AOC is now easier to imagine, but if she ultimately assesses that the risks aren’t worth the potential reward in 2028, we can’t be left flat-footed. So even if you’re not convinced by the specifics of my Plan B, I hope you can at least agree that it’d be a disaster for us not to have one — and not to start getting a Plan B into motion. Hopefully other organizers and political currents will put forward their responses and alternative ideas ASAP. The stakes are too high to just wait and see. More As always, please share this article widely. This newsletter depends on all you lovely people to get the word out. Thank you! I uploaded the full text of my Catalyst article on Milwaukee sewer socialism here (it’s updated and 3x as long as the version published earlier on this substack). If you haven’t yet, please make sure to subscribe to Catalyst here; I read every issue front to back, highly recommend. 🌹🎵 Ivan Lins (arranged by Arthur Verocai) — “General da Banda” 🌹🎵
GOP congressman defies Trump on Iran but keeps his endorsement
GOP Rep. Tom Barrett voted for the third time to limit President Donald Trump’s Iran war powers in late July — attempting to help drive a stinging rebuke of the commander-in-chief that can only pass if members of his own party sign on.
Freddy Peralta trade: Rays acquire disappointing Mets starter as they try to hang on to AL East lead
The Rays missed out on Tarik Skubal and pivoted almost immediately
We the people: Learning the navigation of politics and voting
Democracy has become a loaded word, along with the U.S. Constitution. Then I was extended the opportunity to playtest a game, Convention of States. I began to see how democracy was complicated and often politically maneuvered. To understand this: Article V of the U.S. Constitution allows state legislatures to bypass Congress and propose amendments to the Constitution. Therein lies the game: a role-playing game that casts players as democratically elected delegates representing the regions and states of America. I was lucky enough to become a Justice, heavily equipped with states, which is voting power. I voted on behalf of Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.
She Voted for a Justice Who Overturned Roe. Now it Haunts Her on the Trail.
Senator Susan Collins, who supports abortion rights, endorsed Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination for the Supreme Court. It has emerged as a major issue in her campaign for re-election.
Trump has quietly throttled an agency devoted to the safety of American healthcare
The agency, which has been key to improving patient safety, has been shut down by the Trump administration through cuts to funding.
SEC and Big Ten agree to support college sports bill after weeks of negotiations
University leaders voted to back the long-percolating deal late Friday, but it’s unclear how soon it could hit the Senate floor.
UnityPoint nurses' union vote faces objections from health care provider
The Teamsters Local 90 announced UnityPoint Des Moines nurses voted to unionize, but UnityPoint Health disputes the results, citing objections that require a hearing.
FDA advisers support easing restrictions on six peptides. Here’s what those drugs are and what happens next
Peptides have become one of the hottest trends in wellness, with promises like faster muscle recovery and healthier aging. And six of these compounds cleared a major hurdle last week, when an advisory panel to the US Food and Drug Administration voted in favor of making them available through compounding pharmacies.
One Big Beautiful Bill cut healthcare funds. Now, Republicans have to sell the costs
Blanketing the airwaves with ads about healthcare, Republican candidates who voted to cut federal funding in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act are positioning themselves as advocates for lower costs.
CDC, public health preparedness nominees advance in Senate
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Thursday approved President Donald Trump’s nominees to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and to serve as a key assistant secretary, two leadership roles that the administration has struggled to fill. The committee voted 12-11 along party lines to advance Sean Kaufman to serve […]
Four science-backed ways to tell if your cat loves you
Even the most devoted cat owners wonder at some point whether their cat really loves them
US Biathlon pushes back decision to join US Ski & Snowboard in merger of Olympic sport organizations
The U.S. Biathlon board of directors voted Wednesday to push back a planned merger with U.S. Ski & Snowboard in order to review the details after facing opposition from its community.
3 biggest takeaways from the July Federal Reserve decision
The FOMC voted to hold rates steady, but three members wanted to hike. Fed Chair Kevin Warsh laid out more of his vision for the central bank.
The Lone Republican Who Voted Against Advancing Bill to Put Tougher Sanctions on Russia
The lawmaker referred to the legislation as the "latest counterproductive attempt to hold Russia accountable for its war against Ukraine."
Israel's decades-old US support risks losing Democrats
This month, nearly half of House Democrats voted for a failed amendment to cut off aid to Israel.
Teamsters nurses, Corewell Health East reach tentative union contract
This would be the first contract after nurses voted to unionize in 2024.
Trump administration has quietly throttled an agency devoted to the safety of American healthcare
How Trump’s political director came to Congress
Brian Jack wanted to snag Newt Gingrich’s old House office during the 119th Congress’ freshman room lottery. But as the 28th pick, he lost his first choice and pivoted to another historic room: President Lyndon B. Johnson’s office in Longworth, which the Democrat occupied from 1939 to 1942. A Republican from Georgia, Jack served as […]
In memoriam: Dr. Roger Detels, HIV/AIDS researcher and public health leader
The distinguished professor emeritus of epidemiology and former dean devoted five decades to the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health.
‘Money Out of Politics’ proposal in Michigan moves closer to November ballot
The Michigan Board of State Canvassers voted 3-1 Friday to certify the ballot drive.
GOP wants funding for Iran war that lacks approval from Congress
'The hypocrisy is breathtaking,' House Democrats say of party that last year voted to cut food assistance and federal health care coverage
Andy Burnham rules out early election in exclusive BBC interview
The new prime minister told Laura Kuenssberg that people "voted for a manifesto" that he would honour, when pressed on whether there will be an early general election.
Trump administration admits it canceled clean-energy grants in states that voted for Kamala Harris
Democratic lawmakers accused the Trump administration of abusing its power after officials admitted in a federal court filing they recommended terminating several billion dollars in grants for clean-energy projects based “solely” on states’ “political identity” and whether President Donald Trump won the vote there in the 2024 election.
Trump administration admits it canceled $7.6 billion in clean energy projects ‘based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state’
In this case, that includes 16 states that voted for Democrat Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.
This week in politics: How Schuylkill County’s legislators voted
The PA House of Representatives was in session last week. The House passed zero bills during their one day in session July 23. They’re now on a summer break until Sept. 9. The PA Senate was last in session July 11 and 12, and they passed t…
Governance committee proposal advances after lengthy debate at North Shore Health
The North Shore Health Hospital board debated forming a governance committee during its July 23 meeting. After a half-hour of debate, the board voted to form a pilot committee to evaluate the appropriate nature of a governance committee made up of two board members and appropriate members of the public. The motion comes after a...
John Cusack makes rare comment about why he pivoted away from film career
The star of “High Fidelity” and “Say Anything” was promoting his new graphic novel that required “no committee.”
John Cusack makes rare comment about why he pivoted away from film career
Actor John Cusack explains why he’s not working as much in Hollywood these days
Trump administration admits grants for clean energy were canceled based on politics
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has acknowledged in court documents that it canceled $7.6 billion in grants for hundreds of clean energy projects “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state” — in this case, 16 states that voted for Democrat Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential
Trump administration admits grants for clean energy were canceled based on politics
The Trump administration has again acknowledged in court documents that it terminated $7.6 billion in grants for hundreds of clean energy projects “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state,” in this case, 16 states that voted for Democrat Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election
Trump administration admits grants for clean energy were canceled based on politics
The Trump administration has again acknowledged in court documents that it terminated $7.6 billion in grants for hundreds of clean energy projects “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state,” in this case, 16 states that voted for Democrat Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.
Trump administration admits canceling grants based on politics
The Trump administration has again acknowledged in court documents that it terminated $7.6 billion in grants for hundreds of clean energy projects “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state,” in this case, 16 states that voted for Democrat Kamala Harris in the 2024 presid
Trump administration concedes that it canceled research grants in blue states
The Trump administration conceded that 284 research grants were canceled because they were in states that voted against President Donald Trump in 2024.
Opposing Defense Bill, Democrats Shift Their Tactics
Crossing what was once seen as a political red line, Democrats voted against the usually bipartisan measure, registering dissent about the war in Iran.
Registered nurses at Adventist Health St. Helena vote overwhelmingly to join California Nurses Association
Registered nurses at Adventist Health St. Helena in St. Helena, Calif. voted overwhelmingly this week to join California Nurses Association (CNA), an affiliate of National Nurses United, the nation’s largest and fastest-growing registered nurse (RN) union. In an overwhelming landslide vote, 250 nurses elected to join CNA.
Colorado Commission prioritizes feelings over science
The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission voted Thursday and prioritized feelings over science-based management. Meanwhile, Rancher X is the beneficiary of those feelings-driven decisions. Well played, governor. The newest appointees to the CPW Commission are...
Protect College Sports Act unlikely to be voted on before summer recess
The bill has drawn support from the NCAA and many Division I conferences, but not the Big Ten and SEC, which are recommending changes.
Trump’s Approval Ratings Are Plummeting. The Last Group of People You’d Expect Is Behind the Shift.
The same reasons they voted for him are the reasons they're changing their minds.
House votes to restrict Trump’s Iran war powers in latest rebuke over the conflict
The US House voted to halt President Donald Trump’s war in Iran absent congressional approval, the latest repudiation by lawmakers of the president’s handling of the conflict.
What New Jersey’s disclosure says – and doesn’t say
New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s disclosure Wednesday that a software glitch caused her state to mistakenly add 6,600 non-citizens to its voter rolls — and that about 400 of them improperly voted in recent years — has given Republicans something to grab onto in their long-running campaign against non-citizen voting.
Daylight Saving Time bill faces strong headwinds in the Senate
The US House voted last week in strong bipartisan fashion to enact year-round Daylight Saving Time across the country. But it faces strong headwinds in the Senate, with one key Republican senator warning the bill won’t “see the light of day.”
Dozens of House Democrats reject bill fusing congressional stock ban with federal voter ID
The House voted on a legislative package that includes a partial ban on lawmakers trading stocks and a federal voter ID requirement.
2026 Best of Portland Readers’ Poll: Arts & Entertainment
Portland’s best in the arts and entertainment scenes, voted by you.
US attorney who Trump fired minutes after he got the job sues to get it back
A former US attorney in Washington state is suing the Trump administration for firing him less than one hour after a panel of federal judges unanimously voted to appoint him to the role.
Nearly 400 noncitizens voted in New Jersey elections, governor says
Mikie Sherrill (D) said she learned of the problem, which she attributed to a software error, last week and ordered the removal of ineligible voters from the rolls.
Mobile City Council revokes All Weather Roofing and Construction’s city business license
The Mobile City Council voted unanimously to remove All Weather Roofing and Construction LLC’s business license.
Shaky political "science": breakdown of the peer review process
[This article is the latest in our “Shaky Political Science” series. In our 38 page report, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting,” released in December 2025, we examined over 40 studies focused on ranked choice voting (RCV). Many of these studies suffered from puzzling research methodologies, poorly constructed surveys, unrealistic simulated elections, cherry picked data and faulty analyses that often were contradicted by results from real-world elections (a link to our full paper is here). Here are links to the first four articles in our series: the first one summarizing the overall results of our report; the second one analyzed a study co-authored by University of Minnesota academic Larry Jacobs, which was one of the most error-prone of all the research we reviewed in our report; a third article showing an admirable example of two political scientists holding two other political scientists accountable for their flawed, sloppy research; and a fourth article that analyzed seven studies sponsored by New America’s political reform program that deployed flawed methodology based on “simulated” elections instead of real-world elections, which when combined with some basic misunderstandings of RCV, produced odd and misleading results]. In this fifth article in our “Shaky Political Science” series, we examine two flawed studies on the impact of RCV on voter turnout authored by San Francisco State University professor Jason McDaniel. McDaniel’s research in these two papers stands out for its puzzling methodology, inadequate and cherry-picked data, and faulty analyses that not only misunderstands ranked choice voting but reflects a basic misunderstanding of politics in general. The first of the McDaniel studies actually passed through a peer review process and then was subsequently published by the Journal of Urban Affairs, despite its obvious errors. It is perplexing that a jury of peer political scientists did not catch the errors and send it back to McDaniel for a rewrite or outright rejection. This calls into question the credibility of the peer review process itself. The peer review process is supposed to represent the intellectual pinnacle of the profession – a way for academics to certify the quality of each other’s work, and to act as a check against sloppy research. In the case of the McDaniel study, the peer review process failed. Yet his flawed study has been cited dozens of times by other political scientists in their own flawed works — an unvirtuous circle of academic research. Here is the first Jason McDaniel study that we analyzed: “Writing the Rules to Rank the Candidates: Examining the Impact of Instant-Runoff Voting on Racial Group Turnout in San Francisco Mayoral Elections,” by Jason McDaniel, 2016, Journal of Urban Affairs. This study covered San Francisco’s use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in mayoral elections, purporting to show that RCV reduces voter turnout overall, increases voter errors, and has a negative impact on “marginal populations,” i.e. racial minorities, mainly as the result of the alleged complexity of RCV asking voters to rank candidates and having to be familiar with multiple candidates and related dynamics. McDaniel reached these conclusions by examining five San Francisco mayoral elections taking place in odd years (i.e. where there are no federal or state races on the ballot) from 1995 to 2011, comparing three earlier non-RCV races (in 1995, 1999 and 2003) with the later two RCV races (in 2007 and 2011). Only two RCV races were studied, and as McDaniel acknowledged, only the contest in 2011 was “competitive” (that contest in 2007 was the first mayoral election using RCV, and incumbent mayor Gavin Newsom won easily in the first round of counting, earning 74% of first choices and far ahead of the second place candidate who had just 6.3% of first choices). Yet even the allegedly competitive contest in 2011was won by an incumbent with a landslide margin of nearly 20 points. No other elections were studied by McDaniel, even though San Francisco elects 17 other offices besides mayor with RCV, including the 11 seats on the Board of Supervisors (the name for the city council) in even years, and six other citywide offices in odd years. Previous academic research has found that competitive elections can stimulate greater voter involvement and higher turnout. For unexplained reasons, this study ignored at least 34 other RCV races between the years 2004 to 2011, many of which were very competitive and had high voter turnout. Instead, McDaniel’s analysis based its conclusions on data from only a single, marginally-competitive mayor’s race using RCV. These 2007 and 2011 mayoral elections were the only two RCV elections that McDaniel used as the sole basis for his small data set to determine the impact of RCV on voter turnout. Despite having no meaningful data to inform his study, McDaniel nonetheless concluded that RCV lowered turnout when compared to the previous three mayoral non-RCV elections using two-round runoffs. Then, using the same inadequate database of San Francisco elections, McDaniel also found that “Instant-runoff voting is associated with a significant decline in Black voter turnout and White voter turnout…On average, Black voter turnout decreases by 18 points and White voter turnout decreases by 16 points …” But how could he credibly arrive at that conclusion when his study was based on voter turnout in two RCV contests that were not even remotely competitive? Beyond that, McDaniel tacitly admits that the key determining factor driving Black voter turnout was not RCV vs non-RCV elections, but the presence of a viable Black candidate. McDaniel wrote, “Black voter turnout was about 17 percentage points higher for the two elections that featured an African American candidate compared to the three elections that did not” — but one of those three elections did not use RCV. The same dynamic was present for White voter turnout, in which higher turnout was not correlated with RCV vs non-RCV elections, but the presence of a viable White candidate. Beyond that, McDaniel’s voter turnout results, whether correlated with the race of the candidates or RCV vs non-RCV elections, showed no clear patterns. In his Figure 1, he shows low Asian voter turnout in the non-RCV elections in 1999 and 2003 when there was no viable Asian candidate running, but in the 2007 mayoral election using RCV, there is still no viable Asian candidate, yet Asian turnout increases dramatically. For Latinos, voter turnout is virtually the same in 1999 (no viable Latino candidate, non-RCV elections), 2003 (leading Latino candidate, non-RCV elections), 2007 (no viable Latino candidate, RCV elections) and 2011 (leading Latino candidate, RCV elections). Meanwhile White voter turnout increased dramatically from a low in the 2007 mayoral election, in which the leading candidate was a white incumbent, to the 2011 election in which there were no leading white candidates that finished any higher than sixth place with 5.6% of the vote. Clearly other factors were determining voter turnout than either the race of the candidates or RCV vs non-RCV elections. Despite these inconsistent findings, McDaniel boldly marches forth to render conclusions about the impact of RCV on different groups of racial voters, even though his conclusions are not remotely supported by his data. This looks like the worst kind of “data cherry picking” to cover up a puzzling conclusion based on a poor data set involving only two RCV elections, neither of which were remotely competitive. McDaniel’s cherry picking didn’t stop there. In calculating voter turnout for the three non-RCV mayoral elections in 1995, 1999 and 2003, he failed to mention that in each of these years there was a two-round runoff election, with a first round election in November in which no candidate garnered a winning majority of the vote, followed by the decisive runoff in December. So there were two non-RCV elections in each election year. But McDaniel only decided to include one of the two elections in his data set, apparently the December runoff in each year (which had higher turnout in two out of the three mayor’s races, and lower turnout in the third). So he ignored the November 1995 election, the November 1999 election when turnout was only 45 percent, and the November 2003 election when turnout was only 45.7 percent. This is flawed methodology based on blatant cherry picking, since McDaniel simply omitted three elections worth of data that did not fit within his frame. His study should never have made it through a peer review process, and it is an embarrassment to political science that not only was it approved for publication, but it has been uncritically cited by dozens of other political scientists. Share A “study” without wider context or credible data Lacking a data set that included even a single competitive RCV mayoral race, McDaniel declared that RCV lowered voter turnout in 2011, when turnout was 42.5 percent. But he also ignored -- or did not realize -- that voter turnout in mayoral elections during 2011 had sharply declined in all big cities, including far more steeply in nearby Los Angeles and other cities. In fact, San Francisco’s election in 2011 had the second highest turnout of any mayoral election in the nation’s 22 largest cities from 2008-2011. Was 2011 just a particularly low turnout year all across the country, perhaps because the country was still reeling from the aftermath of the housing market collapse in 2008-2010? McDaniel ignored this factor and did not search for alternative explanations beyond his flawed thesis. Furthermore, while McDaniel suggested that RCV leads to more “overvotes” – which is an invalidated ballot in which a voter, in either a non-RCV or RCV race, makes a mistake and selects two candidates for a single choice – he failed to address that in the June 2012 US Senate primary contest, which used the typical “one-choice” plurality method and did not use RCV, there was more than five times as many overvotes in San Francisco and Oakland than in the RCV mayoral elections in those cities. Additionally, turnout had been significantly higher and more representative in RCV elections for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors races -- that McDaniel didn’t even bother to study -- as compared to previous “delayed two-round runoffs” for those offices, often higher by as much as 40% in the RCV races. Perhaps the most surprising irony was that an earlier study co-authored by McDaniel (Overvoting and the Equality of Voice under Instant-Runoff Voting in San Francisco by Francis Neely and Jason McDaniel, 2015, California Journal of Politics and Policy) found that overvotes are often more common in lower-income precincts, but that the pattern of overvoting is similar in both RCV and non-RCV contests. Wrote Neely and McDaniel: “[Overvote] errors appear to be a function of complexity in general and not IRV per se…. the pattern of overvoting is similar in both IRV and non-IRV contests…Even among votes cast in a top-of-the-ticket race like U.S. Senate, overvoting occurs in an uneven fashion” (IRV, or ‘instant runoff voting,’ is another name for ranked choice voting in single-winner contests). So McDaniel not only contradicted his own conclusion in his earlier study with Neely, but the earlier study had been an important corrective for one of the most frequently made mistakes made by anti-RCV political scientists – a continual failure to provide crucial context by pairing a comparative analysis of real world RCV elections with an analysis of real world plurality or other electoral methods. Unfortunately McDaniel’s earlier study does not get cited much by other researchers, and McDaniel did not even cite it in his own flawed study analyzed above. Incredibly, McDaniel cherrypicked McDaniel, even as his flawed study has been cited dozens of times. Despite being a textbook example of poor political “science,” featuring both inadequate as well as cherrypicked data, the shelf life of McDaniel’s study has been extended endlessly by other political scientists and media outlets who have cited it uncritically. Equally troubling, the Journal of Urban Affairs put this paper through its peer review process and published it despite its numerous flaws. McDaniel gets it wrong, Part II Not content with producing one shoddy, confused paper, McDaniel produced another one a few years later, here is the link: Electoral Rules and Voter Turnout in Mayoral Elections: An Analysis of Ranked-Choice Voting by Jason McDaniel. San Francisco State Univ. (McDaniel, 2019). In this paper, McDaniel extended his previous flawed research focused on San Francisco, about voter turnout and voter impact, to multiple RCV cities through the 2018 elections. In his data set he included San Francisco, Minneapolis, St Paul, Oakland, Berkeley, San Leandro and Santa Fe. He then compared their turnout in mayoral elections to non-RCV cities, and to mayoral elections in those cities held before first RCV usage, and concluded “a significant decrease in voter turnout of approximately 3–5 percentage points in RCV cities after the implementation of RCV.” But he replicated many of the same mistakes as his first study presented above. While in this study McDaniel attempted to distinguish between various factors, such as odd year vs. even year elections, competitive races vs. noncompetitive, contests with open seats and other factors, the analysis is superficial and inadequate. He attempts to incorporate so many often-conflicting variables that his conclusions are once again unsupported by the actual data, and ultimately unconvincing (this second study never underwent a peer review process). For example, McDaniel declared that for RCV cities “in elections that are more competitive than average (margin of victory less than 20%), there is no significant RCV effect on voter turnout.” Yet McDaniel is a professor in a city, San Francisco, in which the 2018 special election using RCV to fill a mayoral vacancy was exceedingly close, decided by a margin of only one percentage point, and resulted in the second highest turnout in San Francisco history for a mayoral election. Illustrating the complexity involved in assessing the critical factors in turnout, that special election was held on the same election day as federal and state offices, which tends to boost turnout. Yet more voters participated in that RCV mayoral election than voted on the same day in the non-RCV primary for governor in which former San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom was running. Even more puzzling, in this study McDaniel inaccurately cited his own previous study from 2015 with Neely. McDaniel wrote, “Neely and McDaniel (2015) examine individual ballot image files within a natural experiment, and find higher rates of ballot errors in RCV elections compared to non-RCV elections” (emphasis added). However, we quoted from that 2015 study several paragraphs above, and in actual fact Neely and McDaniel actually concluded the opposite -- that the pattern of overvoting – which is the most common form of ballot error – is similar in both RCV and non-RCV contests. McDaniel also ignored the fact that in Bay Area RCV elections held in even years – at the same time as federal and state elections, when turnout is highest -- the “undervote” (that is, the dropoff in ballots cast for governor or mayor) has declined, which contradicts his thesis that the act of ranking ballots in RCV elections is too complex and presents a barrier for certain demographics of voters. To his credit, McDaniel actually acknowledged another contradiction in his own paper, which found a negative RCV turnout effect in some odd-year elections but not others, admitting that “may present a challenge to the theory that increased complexity [from RCV] will have a marginal negative effect on voter turnout.” But he tried to wallpaper over that contradiction by blaming it on an unlikely source -- bad election administration. McDaniels wrote, “This would suggest that the negative impact of RCV on voter participation may be alleviated by high quality election administration,” without presenting any data or even anecdotes to support such an unfounded theory. While competent election administration of any election, whether RCV or non-RCV, is crucially important, there is no credible research that supports the far-fetched notion that the quality of election administration has much of an impact on voter turnout in US elections, whether using RCV or otherwise. Upgrade to a $5 subscription The unvirtuous circle of academic research It is puzzling how McDaniel’s first study could have survived the peer review process for the Journal of Urban Affairs. The mistakes in McDaniel’s first study above should have been obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of ranked choice voting as well as elections in general, and elections in San Francisco specifically. It undermines faith in the credibility of the peer review process to think that a jury of peer political scientists did not catch the egregious errors and reject McDaniel’s sloppy research and paper. And it remains a black mark on political science that this thoroughly discredited study has been cited dozens of times by other researchers. Indeed, in our research paper it became apparent that many political scientists cite each other’s flawed research to pad their list of citations and to legitimize their own flawed research, creating an unvirtuous circle of political science. More broadly, McDaniel’s voter turnout studies, like other studies evaluating RCV’s impact on turnout, lacked a recognition that no credible opinion or research can claim that RCV increases voter turnout merely because so many voters are excited to vote for their favorite candidates instead of “lesser evil” candidates without worrying about spoilers. Instead, with respect to turnout, the advantage of RCV has always been that, in most places where it has been used, it has eliminated a pre-November primary or post-November runoff, which usually saw about half the turnout of the November general election. This is especially true during even years when there are state and federal elections on the ballot which substantially drive turnout more than local contests. Any study that does not adequately account for this non-November primary/runoff vs November general election dynamic, or odd year vs even year election factors, is simply not credible. Both of McDaniel’s studies largely failed on those grounds. Steven Hill and Paul Haughey Share Upgrade to a $5 subscription Thanks for reading DemocracySOS…your digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work. Subscribe
Colorado Commission prioritizes feelings over science
The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission voted Thursday and prioritized feelings over science-based management. Meanwhile, Rancher X is the beneficiary of those feelings-driven decisions. Well played, Governor. The newest appointees to the CPW Commission are just the parting gift you had in mind for rural Colorado. The Commission voted Thursday 6-5 to reject CPW staff […]
Colorado Commission prioritizes feelings over science
The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission voted Thursday and prioritized feelings over science-based management. Meanwhile, Rancher X is the beneficiary of those feelings-driven decisions. Well played, Governor. The newest appointees to the CPW Commission are just the parting gift you had in mind for rural Colorado. The Commission voted Thursday 6-5 to reject CPW staff […]
Citizen Scientists Helped Decipher How Harvestmen Became Oddly Devoted Dads
Paternal care is vanishingly rare in the animal kingdom, yet one spider relative pulls it off repeatedly across thousands of species. Unlocking why required a surprising shortcut that compressed decad...
These 16 Democrats Voted to Stop Israel Aid. AIPAC Took Action.
After 103 Democrats voted to eliminate aid to Israel, the lobbying group closed off online donations for more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers it had endorsed.
Trump’s devoted base is really shrinking now
Few factors have loomed over American politics for the past decade like President Donald Trump’s sway over his base.
Chico City Council moves forward with proposed entertainment zones ordinance
Seeking to revitalize local businesses, the Chico City Council voted unanimously to approve the first reading of a proposed ordinance establishing two entertain
Chico City Council approves entertainment zones for downtown and Meriam Park
CHICO, Calif. - Chico City Council voted 6 to 0 to approve an ordinance creating entertainment zones in downtown Chico and Meriam Park.The ordinance, taking effect September 18, 2026, will allow customers to carry approved alcoholic beverages and walk around outside within those designated areas."I feel like the downtown could use all the help it could get right now," said Celeste Cramer, general manager of Downtown Chico Business Association. "In the other areas where they have been doing the entertainment zones and throughout California, it has increased their sales. They haven't seen an increase in violence, or tickets, or anything like that. It's a good thing to try out."Numerous other cities around California such as Redding, Sacramento and San Francisco have put their own entertainment zones into effect and have had success.Action News Now stopped by both designated locations and spoke with organizers and bar owners."I'm super excited, I think this is an opportunity for us," said Scott Baldwin, owner of Argus. "We can get a booth at the farmers market. You can order a cocktail from that booth and then we'll have it ready for you at the door as you walk through. Think of it as a picnic situation. You can grab some tacos, you can get a Kentucky Buck. You can sit down anywhere in the entertainment zone and enjoy Argus outside of Argus."Chico's Chamber of Commerce hosted community stakeholder meetings and community engagement sessions to tailor the ordinance to the city's needs as a university town and rural area.The ordinance will allow people 21 and older to walk around with open containers of alcohol within the entertainment zones as long as they have a wristband, stamp or another visible marker showing they're allowed to do so."To us it's more than an ordinance," said Jen Rothenwander, marketing manager at Meriam Park. "It's an opportunity to invest back into the community, and to continue to do what Chico does well – which is to create the spaces for people to stick around and gather, and shop and spend."The Meriam Park entertainment zone will be enclosed by Springfield Drive, Alcott Avenue, Notre Dame Boulevard and E. 20th Street.The Downtown Chico entertainment zone will span mostly from Highway 32 to Lost Park.Chico Chief of Police Billy Aldridge spoke with Redding Police and was informed they had zero problems with their entertainment zone.Chief Aldridge endorses the ordinance in Chico. freestar.config.enabled_slots.push({ placementName: "actionnewsnow-com_blox_yup-rectangle-one", slotId: "actionnewsnow-com_blox_yup-rectangle-one", targeting: { "pos": "yup-rectangle-one" } });
Giants Rivals Feature 2 of NFL's top-10 Wide Receivers
The New York Giants are ecstatic to see A.J. Brown leave the NFC East. CeeDee Lamb and George Pickens each landed on the list of the top-10 wide receivers, which was voted on by 70-plus scouts, coaches and executives and compiled by ESPN's Jeremy Fowler. The Giants went 1-1 against Dallas last year, and nearly swept the the Cowboys if not for the Cowboys' furious, last-minute comeback.
Over 100 Democrats vote to block billions of dollars in military aid to Israel, reflecting growing schism in party
More than 100 Democrats voted to block billions of dollars in military aid to Israel — an ultimately unsuccessful effort that highlighted the growing division in their party on the issue.
The House voted to make Daylight Saving Time permanent. Here’s what’s next
The US House on Tuesday voted in strong bipartisan fashion to enact year-round Daylight Saving Time across the country. But the measure’s fate in the Senate remains far from certain.
Majority of Fort Worth Council supports data center pause. Will it happen?
The majority of Fort Worth City Council wants a temporary moratorium on data centers. A supermajority is needed. This comes after the Fort Worth Zoning Commission voted not to recommend new rules for data centers within the city. Lone Star Politics speaks with Councilwoman Elizabeth Beck, one of the leaders of the effort.
Lone Star Politics: July 12, 2026
This week on Lone Star Politics, Fort Worth City Council is taking the next steps after the zoning commission voted not to recommend new rules for data centers within the city. Plus, a lawsuit at Texas Tech is looking to clarify the line between censorship and academic freedom.
Josh Allen voted the NFL’s top quarterback by AP writers
The 2024 AP NFL Most Valuable Player beat out Patrick Mahomes, who earned the top spot each of the three previous seasons.
Germany pushes through healthcare reform package despite pharma's drug discount resistance
Even as the effort has met with fierce pushback from drugmakers, trade groups and opposition parties in the country’s own government, German lawmakers late Friday voted to pass health insurance ref | Even as the effort has met with fierce pushback, German lawmakers late Friday voted to pass health insurance reforms aiming to cut healthcare costs, in part by hiking up mandatory rebates that pharmas must pay on branded medicines.
Armor Health selected as new medical provider for Blair County Prison
HOLLIDAYSBURG — A Florida-based company is expected to take over inmate medical care at the Blair County Prison as of Aug. 1, after the county’s longtime contract with PrimeCare Medical, a Harrisburg-based company, expires as of July 31. Commissioners voted Thursday to award a three-year contract to Armor Health, with a first-year price of $3.73 […]
The First Test of Bar Harbor's New Entertainment Rules.
The Bar Harbor Story is generously sponsored by the Bar Harbor Historical Society. BAR HARBOR—The Finback Alehouse was the first real test of the town’s new special amusement permit process, July 7 while eight other permits sailed through the process last week. The permit allows music in places where liquor is served. The town’s ordinance which was recently tweaked for a new process allows for the regulation of noise and hours of activity. The only discussion at the July Town Council meeting was about the Finback Alehouse on Cottage Street, in the heart of Bar Harbor’s downtown district. The Finback’s distinctive design—a front wall that is like a garage door that can be opened and closed—was a key to that discussion. The restaurant, which often hosts live bands, singers, and karaoke, at night, has had one substantiated noise complaint this season, which is documented on its application. According to Bar Harbor Police Chief David Kerns, most complaints about noise happen after 10 p.m., and if the Finback had two more violations within a year, they’d have to stop having music. One town councilor said that he’d have no problem reissuing the permit if the door was down. The permit passed through the process with no conditions. Vice Chair Earl Brechlin moved the motion with two time changes for two holiday weekend dates. It passed unanimously. The council asked the Finback why they’d chosen an indoor license with a wall that can be opened to the street. Dale Stockburger, representing the Finback, said he’d applied for an indoor permit rather than an outdoor structure or partial structure (which is usually applied to tents or pavilions). The restaurant has traditionally had an indoor license. Stockburger said that whether the door is open or closed is immaterial because he now stands outside with a decibel reader to make sure that the music isn’t too loud. OTHER SPECIAL AMUSEMENT PERMITS New Councilor Deborah Vickers worried that she had potential conflicts of interests on two other renewals due to the location of her employee housing. Vickers co-owns the Black Friar Inn. They have employee housing directly behind the Finback, which is also 300 yards from the Bar Harbor Inn, she explained. The Bar Harbor Inn also had a permit up for renewal. The councilors unanimously voted she did not have a conflict of interest. The councilors approved permits at The Bluenose Inn, 90 Eden St, Class A; Acadia Hotel Downtown, 20 Mount Desert St, Class A and C; the Bar Harbor Inn, 8 Newport Dr, Class A, B, C and D; C-Ray Lobster, 882 State Hwy 3, Class D; Holiday Inn Bar Harbor Regency, 123 Eden Street, Class B; Finback Alehouse, 30 Cottage St, Class B; Project Social, 278 Main St, Class C and D; Bar Harbor Beer Works, 119 Main St, Class B and D; and Mainely Meat BBQ Dreamwood Hill, 369 State Hwy 3, Class D. That process is laid out in the Special Amusement Ordinance of the Bar Harbor Town Code which is Chapter 14 of the town code. Special amusement permits have class codes. These are the meanings: Number - how many musicians are allowed by the permit. Class A - Indoor non-amplified entertainment. Class B - Indoor amplified entertainment or dancing. Class C - Outdoor non-amplified entertainment. Class D - Outdoor amplified entertainment. RESIDENCE LICENSES RENEWED AND A TAXI LICENSE The councilors also renewed the licenses for three specific sorts of residences that require that yearly renewal per the town code. The employee living quarters at Atlantic Oceanside Hotel, 119 Eden St and another at 278 Main Street were renewed. The shared accommodations license renewal at 39 Kebo Street also occurred. These are annual renewals. Bernard Taxi Services’ license was also renewed. This license had been added to the agenda at the meeting. Bar Harbor Update on Leaf and Grass Clipping Disposal BAR HARBOR — Bar Harbor residents will still have a place to throw away their leaf and grass clippings this summer. The town’s agreement with EMR in Southwest Harbor for disposing of those items will continue through November 30. The agreement, according to a town press release, will continue “while the Town continues evaluating long term composting solutions and the required state permitting process.” As of July 1, residents bringing their grass and leaves across the island to the facility in Southwest Harbor will have to fill out a property registration card. Each property can throw out up to 85 pounds of the grass and leaves. “Any disposal exceeding the 85 pound allowance during this period will be the responsibility of the property owner at the applicable disposal rate,” the press release explains. LINKS TO LEARN MORE Watch the meeting Meeting agenda QUICK NOTE: We’d released the Bar Harbor Leaf information as a brief, but wanted to make sure that people saw it, so we’ve included it here, too. HELP SUPPORT THE BAR HARBOR STORY When we started The Bar Harbor Story, we didn’t know if anyone would read it. But you showed up. You shared. You sent tips. Now—over 400,000 views every month later—it’s clear: people here care about their community and each other. We’ve kept everything free because news should never be out of reach, but every one of our stories takes time to write, and your support keeps The Bar Harbor Story going. If you value our work, please consider a paid subscription, a founding membership, or a sponsorship. It truly helps us cover one more meeting, tell one more story, shine one more light. Even $5 a month makes a difference. Click here to become a one-time supporter now. Thank you so much for being here. Founding member information can be found here. Have questions about sponsorships? Just send Shaun an email at sfarrar86@gmail.com, he’d love to hear from you. Subscribe Share Bar Harbor Story Share Leave a comment
Joe Klein: At 80, Here’s What I’ve Learned About Politics—and Life
I am 80 years old, this year of our 250th anniversary, and I find myself a cliché. My life has been a common political journey, from left to center. I recently took the Pew Research Center’s “political typology” test and found that I was a “pragmatic and polite conservative,” which seemed a rather abstruse basket: A politically mixed (though Republican-tilting) group, they lean conservative on economics and the role of government, while tilting more liberal on issues related to race and foreign policy. They prize civility and cooperation in politics. Well, that sounds pretty mushy—and I find it hard to square with the strong opinions I have on many issues. I’ve voted for Democrats in federal elections, but I grow more Republican the closer I get to local politics. Democrats, I’ve found, simply aren’t very good at running things, especially school systems, where they are in the thrall of the teachers unions. My friends joke about my obsession with the unions. They know all my lines. If industrial unions are organized against the power of capital, who are the public employees organized against? But enough of that. I’ve ranted that rant too often, and my political journey has been more complicated than that one issue. It has been empirical, based on actual experience—on a lifetime of reporting and a lot of reading. An early example: I was a journalist with the underground press in Boston at the turn of the 1970s and considered myself a member of the antiwar and civil rights movements. The first big issue I covered was busing to achieve school integration. Yes, the white bigots were disgusting. But I couldn’t find any black parents who favored the plan to bus their children to schools outside their neighborhoods either. Black activists and politicians—and white liberals—were gung ho, but not actual parents of black kids in school. Busing was a form of social engineering imposed from on high, by a judge—W. Arthur Garrity—who lived in a wealthy liberal suburb. Wealthy liberal suburbs were not affected by his plan, of course. I began to see that there were limits to what government could do, especially when it came to changing a society’s culture.