Pelosi vs. McConnell: Know the Difference

Posted on by Matt Di Sandro

Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi stand opposed to one another. Two years after the election of President Trump, a serge of anti-Trump fever pushed Democrat voters to switch the majority party in the House of Representatives. With a new Democrat majority, Pelosi was elected as Speaker of the House. In contrast, McConnell serves as the Republican majority leader of the Senate, effectively controlling the legislative program and schedule.

Although they both are leaders of the majority in their respective chambers of Congress, McConnell and Pelosi represent different parties with different aims. This directly puts the two at odds with each other with bills having to pass both the House and Senate.

Differences

Sen. McConnell and Speaker Pelosi disagree on virtually all partisan issues. You can count on Republican McConnell to stand up for the Second Amendment and Pelosi to pursue tighter restrictions on gun ownership. After each mass shooting, McConnell receives severe blowback from Democrats and the public for his stubborn conviction in the right to bear arms. He does not see gun control legislation as an impactful way to combat school shootings or gun violence in general. At one of Pelosi’s weekly press conferences, she blasted McConnell in response to his stalling of background-check gun reform by calling him a “Grim Reaper” due to his “killing” of bills that are passed in the Democrat-controlled House. Reinforcing this point, she stated that “the ‘Grim Reaper’ has decided that more people will die.”

Both do not see eye to eye on many foreign policy issues. Most notably, they have been engaged in a long-term gridlock on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. The international agreement mandates that Iran halt operations conducive to the production of nuclear weapons in exchange for lifted sanctions and access to the international market for oil revenue. Although McConnell and Pelosi share the overarching belief that Iran should be stopped from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons, they differ on whether the Iran Nuclear Deal is an adequate means of achieving that objective. As Trump reimposed sanctions on Iran, McConnell supported the President’s abandonment of the agreement, arguing that increased pressure is the first step to re-negotiating the terms of a deal that has been flawed from the start. In contrast, Pelosi stands with fellow Democrats in pointing out that the US is violating the trust of its international allies by breaching the terms of an agreement. Furthermore, Pelosi warns that the Iranian government is likely to pursue nuclear development if the US continues to ignore its side of the deal.

Fiscally, McConnell has advocated for balancing the federal budget while Pelosi sees the need for increased government spending through infrastructure investment. In 2011, McConnell himself introduced a Balanced Budget Amendment for the Constitution, making it extremely hard to pass bills that raise taxes or spend outside specified limits. Pelosi voted against the amendment. Under McConnell, the Senate passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 which effectively reduced personal and corporate taxes, with individual tax cuts diminishing over time and corporate tax cuts remaining permanent. Pelosi has sharply criticized the Republican tax bill for its disproportionate benefits for the rich. More broadly, McConnell’s conservative economic stance signals his faith in the free market to invigorate entrepreneurship and investment without government spending, taxes, or regulation. In contrast, Pelosi hopes to protect workers and middle class taxpayers through a more liberal approach to fiscal policy.

Considered one of his primary concerns, Mitch McConnell has maintained a staunch opposition towards increased campaign financing regulations. He believes that increased regulations protect incumbents and diminish participation in political campaigns. The Senator equates money with speech, essentially arguing that campaign donors are protected under the First Amendment. McConnell’s stance was eventually echoed in the Citizens United v. FEC case which prohibits the government from restricting political expenditures of corporations and other associations. Pelosi sees loose regulations on campaign financing as the reason why lobbyists and corporations have a stranglehold on Washington. In order to hold politicians accountable to voters instead of special interests tied to money, the Speaker of the House advocates for increased restrictions on campaign donations as well as better enforcement of existing regulations.

Finding Agreement

Given their mutual disdain for one another, it is incredibly hard to find areas in which Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi can agree. However, both advocate for a pro-Israel stance internationally. Although Pelosi has opposed Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s promise to annex the West Bank, by and large she is in favor of maintaining a strong alliance with Israel. Similarly, McConnell seeks to maintain and strengthen the US’ relationship with Israel. He has even gone so far as to condemn anti-Israeli sentiment from members of Congress such as Ilhan Omar.

Another area of concurrence is COVID relief legislation. Despite initial disagreement about the exact nature and extent of funding, they were both able to pass the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) which provided trillions of dollars to address the COVID crisis. Given the need to pass legislation quickly, McConnell and Pelosi were eventually able to lead the majorities in their chamber to find common ground and gain bipartisan support.

Why the gridlock?

The ongoing fight between Pelosi and McConnell is not just petty politics. It highlights the foundation of our political system. Predicting the selfish and conflicting ideological interests of individuals and factions, our Founding Fathers created a system of gridlock. The inability to quickly pass legislation with counteracting people such as Pelosi and McConnell is certainly annoying and inconvenient. But, it is most certainly better than allowing one faction or idea to adopt a tyrannical position, passing any laws that they would like.

Libertarianism versus Anarchism

Posted on by Ben Carron

The Libertarian Party is the fastest growing and third largest political party in the United States. Each year, more and more Americans become disillusioned with the two party system that has dominated American politics and are looking at other parties and other ideologies. A large group of these people believe that when it comes to government, less is more. Less regulation, less federal spending and less people telling them how they should be living their lives. Per their official website, the Libertarian Party states that libertarians “strongly oppose any government interference into their personal, family, and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.” If it’s not hurting them and not hurting others, then the government doesn’t need to be a part of it. However, there must be a balance, as complete opposition to the state falls into the territory of anarchism.

What is Libertarianism?

Libertarianism rejects the control of the government over its citizens and advocates heavily for individual rights. Essentially, Libertarians just want to be left alone to be free to live their lives, and not be coerced by the Federal government. While Democrats and Republicans clash over issues such as immigration, drugs, abortion, law enforcement, and most recently the morality of our capitalist system, libertarians argue that government involvement in these areas infringes on their rights, not only as an American, but as a human being.

The libertarian philosophy supports drug decriminalization, open borders, LGBTQ+ rights, property rights, and free-market economy. With the ideas of freedom and self-ownership in mind, Libertarians consider themselves free-thinkers independent of the conservative/liberal dichotomy. Despite this, left and right wing philosophy do exist within the realm of libertarianism. The spectrum of libertarianism lies mostly with the issue of natural resources. The extent to which an individual believes in the equal distribution of natural resources is a key indicator of their right or left tendency within the libertarian philosophy. Advocating for natural resources to be distributed more evenly would put someone on the left end of libertarianism, and vice versa.

Libertarianism versus Anarchy: Understanding the Key Differences

Increasingly more Americans each year are breaking away from the Democrat/Republican dichotomy and embracing libertarianism, valuing their rights and freedom above all else. Libertarianism is a valuable and necessary philosophy for any democratic system; however, there comes a point where the focus on freedom and self-ownership can devolve into a lack of order and poor judgement. While many libertarians would argue that the effects of the state on its citizens are generally harmful and limiting, there are many inherent problems in the anarchist stance towards an established state.

The rejection of government institutions entirely is where the potential for anarchy begins to creep into the picture. Anarchism is a philosophy that is skeptical of all forms of authority and their intentions. The Russian revolutionary anarchist Mikhail Bakunin famously claimed that “If there is a State, there must be domination of one class by another and, as a result, slavery; the State without slavery is unthinkable—and this is why we are the enemies of the State.” While Libertarians are also skeptical of governmental power structures, anarchists view the authority of the state as an enemy force that they must continue to work against.

Libertarians are not advocating for abolition of government, as anarchists do. Rather, they understand that limited governmental structures are required to allow a free society to function without chaos and harm to others, providing safety for its citizens. A government that allows its citizens to participate in the open market, to be free to own property, firearms, and live according to their own desires and orientations is not a bad thing to them. If it was, a dedicated Libertarian Party wouldn’t exist in the first place.

Anarchist philosophy, such as the beliefs espoused by Bakunin, places trust in the hands of the people and seeks to abolish systems of power that are “repressive”. This philosophy becomes problematic in that it empowers people to act with full freedom and autonomy, which opens up the possibility of causing violence or danger to others, thereby infringing on their ability to live their lives and be as free as possible. When those who have adopted anarchist ideology use it as a means of acting violently in an attempt to dismantle the system, personal freedom is no longer the goal and society can quickly turn into unsafe territory. Libertarians are not advocating for an overthrow of the system, rather they are looking for a political solution that gives the power back to the people, rather than increasing government scope and power as well as government debt, which Libertarians feel will inevitably negatively affect the people.

Currently, there is no anarchist part in the US in any form in mainstream politics, but the Libertarian party is growing every year. In the 2016 US presidential election, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson received 3.27% of the national vote with over 4 million votes, which though small, was the highest result for a third party candidate since Ross Perot in 1996. Compared to the party’s 2012 presidential election, which saw Libertarians win just under 1% of the vote, this is a sign of the party’s growth and increasing interest of Americans in other options beyond Democrats and Republicans. The 2020 Libertarian Party presidential candidate is Jo Jorgensen, an academic and political activist from South Carolina. It is anticipated that she will be on the ballot in all 50 states.

 

Ted Cruz vs. Rand Paul: Telling Them Apart

Posted on by Matt Di Sandro

For many Americans, the last time Rand Paul and Ted Cruz were seen together was the 2016 Republican presidential debates. At some points in the political news cycle surrounding the Republican primaries, their drama and banter even rivaled the controversy surrounding Trump. But even harder to remember is the friendship the Senators shared going back to Rand Paul’s public endorsement of Ted Cruz during the 2012 Senate election in Texas.

Regardless of their ups and downs with each other, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz currently serve as Senators for Kentucky and Texas respectively. Cruz has even mentioned that he often sits next to Paul during the Senate Republicans’ daily lunch. In addition to the agreeable but unpredictable aspects of the two Senators’ friendship, their policy platforms provide key areas of concurrence and contention.

Differences

Rand Paul and Ted Cruz disagree on foreign policy. Sen. Paul maintains his ideal of small government regardless of whether he’s referring to domestic or foreign policy. He believes that the US should not police foreign affairs. Ted Cruz told ABC News’ Jonathan Karl “I don’t agree with him on foreign policy. I think U.S. leadership is critical in the world.” This means that whenever Cruz is faced with a foreign policy decision, he is likely to pursue a more aggressive approach. This can be seen in Sen. Cruz’s denunciation of the US taking part in peace negotiations with terrorists.

Ted Cruz and Rand Paul also differ on their views of marijuana. Rand Paul has advocated for a more liberal policy at the federal level as he was 1 of 3 Senators that introduced the Compassionate Access, Research, Expansion, and Respect States Act (CARERS) which would have legalized medical marijuana. Paul is also vocal in support for lighter sentencing on drug offenses. While Paul has opted for a libertarian approach, Cruz takes a notably federalist stance on the drug. Instead of taking action at the federal level in one direction or the other, Ted Cruz would rather let states individually decide.

More broadly, the difference between Cruz and Paul can be viewed through the lens of their appeal to voters. When announcing his bid for the 2016 presidency, Cruz did so at the biggest Evangelical Christian university in the country, Liberty University. In his rhetoric, Ted Cruz routinely brings up his Christian upbringing of a father who works as a pastor. Although this allows Cruz to rally a significant conservative base among states such as Texas that have a majority of Evangelicals among GOP voters, he has a much harder time appealing to non-Evangelical conservatives. In contrast, Rand Paul’s platform often attracts more than just conservative voters. He has introduced liberal legislation such as the Justice for Breonna Taylor Act which prohibits no-knock warrants in order to combat specific forms of police brutality. In addition to this bill, Paul has worked across the aisle with Democrats such as Cory Booker to seek criminal justice reform, another seemingly Leftist legislation. Although Paul has a better opportunity to broaden his base outside of his party, in comparison to Cruz, Paul’s liberal views certainly make him less popular among many staunchly conservative and Evangelical Christian voters.

Common Ground

In spite of their differences, the senators can certainly agree on a lot. Within the Republican Party, Paul and Cruz represent the anti-establishment wing. They are both members of the informal Tea Party Caucus, a group within the Senate Republicans that typically fosters members that are more conservative than their Republican counterparts. In addition, Rand Paul is a self-proclaimed libertarian conservative and Ted Cruz is considered a social conservative who tends toward libertarianism. Given this ideological overlap, the Senators ultimately agree that the present state of government is too big. Thus, they advocate for downsizing of government intervention with respect to both fiscal and social issues.

More specifically, in their pursuit of the idea of small government, both of the Senators would like to get rid of the Department of Education. Ted Cruz wants to go even further and get rid of the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In eliminating these responsibilities at the federal level, Paul and Cruz hope to delegate the power among these departments to state and local jurisdiction.

Another area of concurrence is their view on healthcare. Sen. Cruz and Paul both see the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) as a significant overreach of federal intervention. They both point out that Obamacare has vastly increased premiums and limited the number of choices that many people have. Instead, the Senators advocate for a free-market approach that creates competitive pricing and allows patients to choose private health insurance across state lines.

In terms of taxes, both are supportive of a flat tax rate. Rand specifically argues for a 14.5% income tax rate for all Americans while Cruz has advocated for a 10% rate. They would also like to abolish the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) which is a bureau under the Department of the Treasury that is responsible for collecting taxes and enforcing federal statutory tax law. In pushing for a flat tax rate and limited regulatory power, they seek to drastically simplify the system and create more equitable demands for taxes.

Their ideal of limited federal intervention and free markets also extends to other stances on the economy. They see regulations and taxation as interfering with capital gains and entrepreneurship. In addition to the siphoning of money directly, Cruz and Paul see regulation in the capital market as deterring investment. More broadly, they hope that decreased regulation of markets will incentivize individuals to start their own small private firms.

In pursuing their political platforms, the Senators are known for their prolific filibusters. Rand Paul’s longest filibuster of 13 hours helped push the confirmation of John Brennan as the director of the CIA off the agenda. Cruz stood and talked for a 21-hour filibuster to defund Obamacare. Reinforcing their similarity in Senatorial tactics, Ted Cruz was even at Rand Paul’s filibuster cheering him on.

Moving Forward

Paul and Cruz will be up for reelection in the years 2022 and 2024 respectively. They are likely to maintain their seats as they both have strong conservative bases in their home states. It’s possible that we even see one or both of them throw their hat in the ring for the 2024 presidency. Hate them or love them, it looks like their presenceーfilibusters and banter includedーwill continue being a facet of conservative libertarianism in the US Senate and Washington as a whole.

 

Libertarianism and Conservatism: Understanding the Difference

Posted on by Ben Carron

Despite the dominance of the two party system in American politics, a majority of American voters neither identify as Republicans or Democrats. In a country as large and diverse as the US, it makes sense that things are in reality much more complicated than the liberal/conservative divide. An increasing number of voters identify as libertarians, with the Libertarian Party being the third largest and fastest growing party in the country. Despite the increasing number of individuals identifying as libertarians, there is still some confusion as to how libertarianism differs and overlaps with conservatism.

Understanding the Differences

While many tenets of libertarianism and conservatism appear to share similarities, they are different ideologies. According to the Libertarian Party, libertarians are neither liberal nor conservative, but have many stances that could fall in either party, however, it is more complicated than that.

Libertarians value personal as well as economic freedom, believing that individual liberty is the key to society. The freer the people, the better the society. Economic freedom by lowering or eliminating taxes, shrinking the central government to a minimal state, isolationist tendencies, fair trade, drastically removing smothering bureaucracy and regulations for businesses as well as charitable welfare, rather than government welfare, are some of the biggest platforms libertarians believe in. Socially, they are inclusive and believe that individuals should be free to choose their own way of living as long as they do not infringe on others’ rights. Libertarians are against all laws that attempt to control someone’s personal lives such as restrictions on same-sex marriage, abortion, gun control and the criminalization of drugs and victimless crimes that do not infringe upon the rights of others. Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, with the idea that the individual should possess as much freedom as possible, with little, if any, interference from the government. Libertarian principles are based around the cooperation and consent of the individual, and want to leave the government out of their lives as much as possible.

This is in contrast to conservatism, which may appear similar to libertarianism on the surface, but upon closer inspection has many differences.  Conservatives seek to preserve or conserve, hence their name, the institutions that made the country what is it today. Traditional values, personal responsibility, limited government and strong national defense are some of the tenets of conservatism. Conservatives feel that the role of the government is to empower the individual to solve their own problems. While these may appear to be many of the same beliefs held by libertarians, conservatives have shown to be much more likely to support interfering in other country’s affairs, restricting personal freedom such as opposition to social issues such as same-sex marriage, the abortion issue as well as being against illegal immigration. Conservatives are also more likely to support increased military spending, which libertarians oppose.

Why the Difference Matters

While it is easy to say that liberals are Democrats and conservatives are Republican, in reality it is more complicated than that. There are many members of Congress who identify as conservative Democrats, such as Joe Manchin, senator from West Virginia, and Ben McAdams, representative from Utah, as well as members of the Republican party who hold many strong libertarian views, such as Rand Paul, senator from Kentucky and Mike Lee, senator from Utah. Because political parties in the US are so large and diverse, it is important to understand the individual candidate’s stances and beliefs, and not to simply vote based on party.

Particularly in election years such as this one, it is important to understand where each party stands on the key issues and how they affect the average voter. Many people may find themselves holding strong libertarian views but feeling they must choose between Republicans or Democrats. Likewise, someone may feel very strongly on certain social issues, but feel there is a need for a fiscally conservative government, and that neither Democrat nor Republican is the right choice. In that case, the Libertarian party and its 2020 presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen might be the candidate they are looking for. Understanding the difference when someone claims to be conservative or libertarian could help undecided voters make up their mind when choosing who to vote for.

 

How Republicans Are Looking To Hold the Senate

Posted on by Charles Bonkowsky

Republicans still hold a majority in the Senate, and regardless of who wins the presidential race, it’s a majority they want to keep. At present, elections analysts give even odds of either party holding onto Congress’ upper chamber come November; significantly better than the odds facing Trump amidst a [re]surging pandemic and flaring protests, which hover around 20% in most analyses.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has boasted about being the “grim reaper” of the legislation passed by the Democratic-led House, illustrating that the party which controls the Senate has almost total control over which bills are passed and which are never given a vote, much less sent to the president’s desk—and Republicans no doubt remember the benefits between 2014 and 2016 of having a majority even if a Democratic president is elected (Voters are much more critical of the president and the president’s party for perceived failures to pass legislation, meaning that an opposition Senate—or House—reaps the political spoils of holding legislation back).

So what makes the Republican odds so much better than Trump’s?

The Senate has always favored smaller, more rural states—and has since Congress was divided into two chambers. Benefiting smaller states was the entire reason the Senate was created: to offset the proportional (based on population) representation that the House afforded, which gave power to the larger and more populous states. However, this means that control of the Senate tends to skew towards whichever party is most dominant in those small, rural states. In the early 20th century, when direct election of Senators began, that meant that the average Senate seat was biased towards Democrats—but now, control of the Senate is biased towards Republicans:

(The reason the House is skewed as well is largely due to gerrymandering, and is beyond the scope of this article)

Yet despite this bias, Republicans are on the defensive in 2020. They’re facing much the same situation as Democrats did in 2018, where the party had to defend almost half of their delegation, much of it on unfavorable territory such as West Virginia (voted for Trump by 42 points), Montana (Trump by 20 points), Indiana (Trump by 19 points), and North Dakota (Trump by 35 points). But Republicans also lack a favorable national environment for their candidates, which is why they’re facing tight races even in red states.

What Seats Could Republicans Gain?

Despite being largely on the defensive, Republicans still have a chance to pick up a few seats. Out of the 12 Democrats are defending, Republicans believe that two incumbents look particularly vulnerable:

Senator Doug Jones won an upset victory in Alabama in 2017 over scandal-plagued Roy Moore, but he may not be able to repeat it. The state is deeply red, and Jones only managed to eke out a margin of 1.6 points against Moore, becoming the first Democratic senator elected since 1992. The problem he faces is that both the Republican frontrunners to replace him are much more popular in the state—Jeff Sessions used to hold the senate seat before becoming Trump’s Attorney General, and Tommy Tuberville is a well-known football coach who worked for nearly a decade at Alabama’s University of Auburn.

While recent polls predict that Jones will do much better than a typical Democrat in the state—which has seen presidential margins of ~30 points towards Republicans in the last three elections—recent polls have him tied or slightly behind against both front-running Republican candidates.

And in Michigan, many Republicans see John James—who ran unsuccessfully against Senator Stabenow in 2018—as having a good chance against first-term Democratic Senator Gary Peters (who is the only other Democratic Senator, besides Jones, who is up for re-election in a state Trump won in 2016). James is an African-American army veteran who many see as a ‘rising star’ in the Republican Party—but he may be fighting the trends within the state.

In 2018, Michigan moved away from Trump’s narrow victory: Democrats swept all the statewide races, ousting many Republican incumbents, and James lost to Stabenow by 6.5 points. While James is a strong challenger, it’s unclear if he can do better his second time around: he’s outraised Peters in the last few quarters, but recent polls show Peters still with a double-digit lead over James.

Once again, polls can be found here.

Where Democrats Are Looking To Win The Senate

Posted on by Charles Bonkowsky

Last Thursday, Tom Cotton of Arkansas decried the bill to make Washington D.C. a state, dismissing it as an attempt to gain “two Democratic Senate seats in perpetuity”. However, even in that scenario, Republicans would maintain a majority: 53-49. Instead, Democrats are looking to a different path to attain a majority in Congress’ upper chamber, in thirteen races across the country:

The State of the Senate

Come November 2020, 35 Senate seats are up for re-election: twelve currently held by Democrats, and twenty-three held by Republicans. Of those twenty-three, Democrats believe they have a shot at flipping thirteen (though some have much longer odds than others):

In two states, the Democratic candidates lead in polls by double digits over the Republican incumbents. Colorado is a purple state that has steadily drifted blue, and former governor John Hickenlooper appears well-positioned to take on Cory Gardner, though he faced a primary challenge from Andrew Romanoff heightened by his decision to blow off a recent ethics hearing. The problem for Gardner is that US Senate races have become increasingly nationalized, and he’s tied himself to a deeply unpopular Republican president in a state that leans Democratic (unlike other senators such as Susan Collins of Maine, another Republican in a blue state, who is much more willing to criticize Trump).

The polls reflect this: a survey in May, the most recent Senate poll, has Hickenlooper up by 18 points over Gardner. Even if the race narrows as November approaches, Colorado voters appear unlikely to split their tickets: there were no crossover districts between the 2016 Senate election and the 2018 governor election:

A map of Colorado by state House district

To the southwest, former astronaut Mark Kelly is well-positioned against Senator Martha McSally in Arizona, leading her both in fundraising (with double her cash on hand) and the polls (by 11 points on average). Unlike Colorado, the state isn’t particularly blue-leaning; it voted for Trump by 3.5 points in 2016, and 2020 polls show a thin margin between Biden and Trump.

So what explains the double-digit margin? Even though the state isn’t blue, it’s still trending towards Democrats—and it seems McSally hasn’t embraced those trends. Unlike John McCain and Jeff Flake, the Arizona senators in 2016 who criticized the president and provided key votes against him, McSally has been loath to criticize Trump. But the president isn’t popular in Arizona, and her decision to stick with Trump is likely key to the fact that Kelly is up 2-to-1 among moderates and 15 points among independents.

Rounding out the trio of Western states which are key to Democrats’ Senate chances is Montana, where Democratic Governor Steve Bullock is running against incumbent Steve Daines. And unlike Colorado, Montana is known for its ticket splitting: in 2016, the state voted for Trump by 20 points while also re-electing Bullock by 4 points; in 2018, Democratic Senator Jon Tester was re-elected by 3.5 points while the statewide race for the House went to Republican Greg Gianforte by 4.6 points.

Instead, Bullock’s chances may hinge on the coronavirus pandemic. Most governors have seen their approval ratings soar, and Bullock is no exception, garnering a 70% approval rating for his response and leading Daines by 7 points in the most recent poll (conducted early May). Much of that approval, however, hinged on the fact that Montana has the lowest coronavirus infection rate in the country, and that Bullock was able to begin a reopening earlier than most states. As the pandemic resurges in the US, Bullock needs Montanans to continue to believe that he is the one to lead them through it.

The Toss-Ups

There are three other states where Democrats hold a consistent if narrow, polling lead. In Maine, incumbent Republican Susan Collins, a self-described moderate who won her last election by 30 points in the slightly Democratic state, faces a much steeper challenge this time around. Much of her support among Democrats has dropped away with her support of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and vote to acquit Trump during his impeachment trial, but she’s also lost support among Republicans for criticizing the president, voting not to repeal Obamacare, and calling for witness testimony in that same trial.

She appears likely to face the Speaker of Maine’s House of Representatives, Sara Gideon; though the Democratic primary for the seat has not yet taken place, Gideon leads her nearest challenger, Betsy Sweet, by around 50 points in polling of the primary. In the general election, Gideon holds a narrow lead over Collins in polling—but both campaigns have the fall ahead of them to sway voters, in what’s expected to be the most expensive Senate race ever in Maine.

Besting it is the Senate race in North Carolina, set to be the most expensive Senate race ever between incumbent Republican Thom Tillis and former state senator Cal Cunningham. Tillis is seen as a uniquely vulnerable Republican senator, briefly boasting the lowest approval ratings of any Senator and unpopular among both Republicans and Democrats for his rapidly changing positions on the border wall, among other policies (he wrote an op-ed opposing the emergency declaration, and then refused to vote against it).

North Carolina is the only state where the senatorial, gubernatorial, and presidential races are all expected to be competitive; Cunningham holds a razor-thin lead over Tillis in the latest polls, Biden leads in a state Trump won in 2016 (and wants to again), and Democratic Governor Roy Cooper, who saw a spectacular rise in polling in the early days of the pandemic, now faces a challenge in his own lieutenant governor. The state is expected to lean back towards the Democrats, but both parties are expected to invest millions before November arrives.

Iowa is perhaps best categorized as the opposite of Colorado: a former swing state which has drifted red in the 2010s, though it still boasts a competitive Senate race. Democrat Theresa Greenfield faces Senator Joni Ernst and holds a narrow lead in the most recent polls. Ernst is another Senator who’s seen her allegiance to Trump handicap her election hopes—his approval rating has dropped dramatically in a state he carried by ten points in 2016, and hers with it.

Ernst’s main hope is that Greenfield is not well-known; she served as the president of a real-estate company and held no political office, meaning that a large group (almost 40%) of Iowans have little opinion of her. But the face that the race is competitive demonstrates the strength of the national political environment for Democrats, especially in a state that Trump won so decisively.

Expanding the Map

Several other races, mostly in red states, are seen as competitive, though the Democratic challenger holds no clear advantage. In Kansas, for example, Democratic hopes were buoyed by the success of gubernatorial candidate Laura Kelly in 2018 against unpopular Kris Kobach, who got the lowest percentage of the vote by a Republican candidate in a decade. While the race is still likely Republican, Democrats believe they have a shot because Kobach is also a frontrunner for the Republican nomination for Senate—Kobach is an extremely polarizing Republican even in Kansas for his hardline immigration policies and harsh view of voting rights, but faces a tight primary ahead of him.

The presumptive Democratic nominee is Barbara Bollier, a Republican-turned-Democrat who Democrats believe is their best shot at winning a reliably red state. In recent polls, she ran even with almost every front-running GOP candidate—but election analysts warn that this isn’t an indication of anything, as Republican voters haven’t yet coalesced around a candidate. When they do, Bollier faces a much more difficult fight for the Senate.

In South Carolina, Jaime Harrison, former state Democratic Party chair, faces an uphill battle to take on Republican Lindsey Graham, one of Trump’s most ardent defenders in the Senate. While other Republican senators have suffered for their loyalty to Trump, in South Carolina it has largely strengthened Graham’s position as one of the most popular Republican officials in the state. Recent polls and fundraising have been good for Harrison—he’s outraised Graham and is locked in a virtual tie with the sitting senator—but it’s hard to say whether that will be enough in such a red state.

Georgia has not one, but two Senate races this cycle (a regular election and a special election), both of which are shaping up in odd ways. The regular election features incumbent David Perdue up against Democrat Jon Ossoff, with both candidates locked in a virtual tie after Ossoff won his primary. Georgia, though a Republican state, is largely seen as trending Democratic—based largely on results from the 2018 gubernatorial election—and Democrats hope that trend will allow Ossoff to eke out a narrow victory.

The special election, however, is much messier. The primary for the seat is a “jungle primary”, meaning that candidates from all political parties appear on the same ballot, and the top two advance to November. But both the Republican and Democratic nominations for the seat are contested: Republicans between incumbent Kelly Loeffler and Representative Doug Collins, Democrats between Reverend Raphael Warnock and Matt Lieberman. But due to the quirks of the jungle primary, it remains a distinct probability that two Republicans, Collins and Loeffler, and no Democrats, could make the November runoff.

Another unexpectedly competitive race is the Senate seat in Alaska, where independent Al Gross (who would caucus with the Democrats if elected) is looking to unseat first-term Senator Dan Sullivan. Gross is a unique candidate—a doctor and fisherman who “killed a grizzly bear in self-defense when it snuck up on him” (according to his first ad)—and one whose presence has caused many to rethink their evaluations of the Alaska Senate race as safely Republican.

Gross also raised more money than Sullivan early in 2020, though Sullivan has more cash on hand, and the incumbent senator is still strongly favored. There are no recent external polls of the state—Democrats claim their polling shows Gross and Sullivan tied, while Republicans claim their own numbers don’t worry them.

Last, and probably least, are the Senate races in Texas and Kentucky. While they’ve garnered high-profile attention, especially Kentucky, where Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is up for re-election, Texas and Kentucky are reliably red states, and recent polls put both Republican incumbents up by double digits over any challenger. While nothing’s impossible—Democrat Andy Beshear managed to win the governor’s mansion in Kentucky in a perfect storm, facing a deeply unpopular incumbent, and Texas is ever-so-slowly trending blue—these are not races that Democrats are likely to win.

Most cited polls have been aggregated here.

Utah’s Primary For Attorney General

Posted on by Charles Bonkowsky

While the race for governor is the most high-profile contest on the ballot come June 30th, the other statewide race is the Republican primary for Attorney General: a surprisingly close contest between incumbent Sean Reyes and challenger David Leavitt.

The Role of an Attorney General

The main role of an attorney general (AG) is to uphold both the federal and state constitutions. They are, first and foremost, the lawyers of state governments: they defend their state in any lawsuits brought against it (though when state and federal laws conflict, AGs can decline to defend the state), bring enforcement actions if a regulation is violated, and can bring cases in certain areas, like consumer protection/antitrust in their own name against an organization.

It is often state AGs who will sue the federal government over laws they view as unconstitutional: examples include the lawsuit led by Texas’ Attorney General to declare the Affordable Care Act unlawful, a lawsuit backing the repeal of employment protections for LGBTQ+ employees that the Supreme Court ruled against last Monday, and a successful challenge against the Waters of the United States Rule that sought to expand the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act—all lawsuits signed onto or led by Reyes during his tenure.

The Race

Now, Reyes, the current Attorney General, is seeking a third term. He was appointed by Governor Herbert after the resignation of the scandal-plagued John Swallow in 2013. Since then, he has served on several committees of the National Association of Attorneys General, of which he currently chairs the Human Trafficking Committee, as well as the Conference of Western Attorneys General. Despite his pledge to restore honor to the office after its two predecessors left amid scandal, Reyes has faced his own allegations, most notably that of the state’s relationship to Banjo. The attorney general’s office bypassed the normal procurement process to secure a contract for the surveillance company, whose leader was revealed to have ties to white supremacy groups and is now under investigation.

He faces steep challenge in David Leavitt, a Utah County attorney who has centered his campaign around criminal justice reform, calling it the “issue of our generation”. He seeks to lessen the number of cases that are decided by plea bargain rather than jury trial (a cause which Reyes calls “quixotic” and “unrealistic”) and to find alternatives to prison for non-violent offenders. On other issues, he is politically similar to Reyes: he supports the lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act, and both support the legalization of medical cannabis at the federal level. Leavitt, however, spent much of the past two decades in Ukraine advising the government, prompting accusations that he doesn’t know what’s best for Utah.

The race between the two is tight, and undecided voters outweigh either Reyes’ or Leavitt’s supporters: in the most recent poll, Reyes led Levitt 30.8% to 26%, but 43.2% of voters surveyed were undecided. Such low numbers for an incumbent are strange, as David Magleby at BYU states: “[Reyes]…performed in a way that should have reassured the Republican base”, so “you would think he would be at or above 50%.” Instead, the race could swing either way, and neither candidate has much more time to make their pitches to voters.

Whoever wins will face Democratic nominee Greg Skordas, a longtime defense attorney who also ran for the post in 2004.

The Utah Gubernatorial Primary

Posted on by Charles Bonkowsky

Against a once-in-a-century pandemic, Utahns have until June 30th to mail in their ballots for the state’s primary election. There are various Democratic & Republican down-ballot contests across the state (and depending on congressional district), but the most-watched is surely the Republican primary for governor. Four candidates are competing for the nomination in what looks to be a close race, not to mention Utah’s first primary conducted entirely by mail.

So: who are the candidates, and what are their visions of Utah? What does the race look like, and what does the winner face in November?

The Candidates

Spencer Cox/Deidre Henderson

Cox is the current Lieutenant Governor of Utah and has already picked up some notable endorsements, including that of current governor Gary Herbert and more than half of Utah’s mayors. However, his campaign has come to be defined by the coronavirus, as Cox is the head of Utah’s pandemic taskforce, in charge of coordinating the state’s response. He seeks to cast that experience as vital for a governor who will have to lead Utah out of the damages caused by an economic shutdown, not to mention face a possible second wave of infections, saying in a debate that “[Utah] is better off than any other state in the country and the people of Utah know that,” and in a statement to KUER that “Now, more than ever, Utah needs a prepared and proven leader”.

His campaign platform has also changed with the pandemic: while before the onset of the coronavirus, he described one of his most important issues as continuing the growth of Utah’s economy that began after the recession, now he looks to rebuild that economy. Other issues central to his vision of Utah include changing the education system to minimize federal involvement and give local districts/cities more control over their hiring and curriculums.

Beyond that, Cox has largely been seen as the most moderate of the Republican candidates: in a May poll, he won over self-described ‘moderate conservatives’ by double-digits while tying ‘strong conservatives’ with former Utah House Speaker Greg Hughes. That said, he hasn’t fully embraced that view. When asked about it shortly after launching his campaign, he said that “I think sometimes we confuse kindness and moderation…people see somebody who tries to be kind and listen to others and thinks, ‘Oh, well, he must be a moderate.’ I do have some very conservative views…” (such as strong Second Amendment support, opposition to abortion, and lowering taxes)

In essence, Cox is running a fine line between two groups of people who will vote in the primary: the moderate Republicans and even Democratic crossovers on one side, and the strident conservatives on the other. To be seen as too conservative will likely pull that moderate support towards Jon Huntsman Jr.—but if voters think Cox is too moderate, they will lean towards Hughes instead, who has already criticized Cox over his comments towards the president.

Jon Huntsman Jr./Michelle Kaufusi

In contrast, Huntsman has stuck by his moderation despite its costs of strong conservative support. Some of that may be simply because of his political record: as governor of Utah, he supported many of Obama’s policies like the economic stimulus plan, a carbon cap-and-trade bill, and civil unions for same-sex couples, not to mention serving under Obama as ambassador to China. Now, he seeks to return to the governorship with a promise that his experience as ambassador will make Utah competitive not just within the US but on the world stage.

Like Cox, one of Huntsman’s first priorities is revitalizing Utah’s economy, which he sets as a precursor to his “Utah Unlimited” plan, which Huntsman claims will more than double the state’s GDP. This growth, he claims, will be created largely in the fields of biotechnology, defense, and financial services. Other priorities on his list include giving the state and local communities greater control over Utah’s public lands, improving air quality across the state, and giving people access to mental health resources (especially as rates of depression and suicide have skyrocketed in Utah and other Mountain West states).

Will it be enough? For much of 2019, Huntsman led in polling, but sometime around March 2020—when the pandemic made its impact in the US—he lost that lead to Cox. In the most recent poll, he and the Lieutenant Governor are polling within three points of one another, and it seems likely that the race could tip either way. If it does lean towards Huntsman in the end, he may have an unusual constituency to thank: Democrats and more progressive voters.

Since Utah is an overwhelmingly Republican state, many Democrats and independents (such as former state senator Jim Dabakis) are registering as Republicans to have a say in the primary (which is closed to only registered party members). Huntsman leads among that group 42% to 30%, and it may be the votes of the only-temporarily-Republicans that could hand him the nomination.

Greg Hughes/Victor Iverson

While many have described the Republican primary as a “two-person race” [between Cox and Huntsman], the candidate most likely to break into that race is Greg Hughes, former Speaker of Utah’s House of Representatives. In the Republican convention, he beat out Huntsman for second place (and, more importantly, a spot on the primary ballot), and has surged in more recent polls to trailing the two frontrunners by only single digits, the biggest change in polling so far in the race.

Hughes seeks to sell himself and Washington County Commissioner Victor Iverson as the “conservative ticket”, and has tied his fortunes to that of President Donald Trump in the state. Hughes was an early supporter of Trump during the 2016 primary, and has run ads featuring the nickname given to him by the president: “The Original”, as well as attacking Cox for distancing himself from Trump. Hughes is also the only candidate of the four who doesn’t believe in human-caused climate change, and boasts about his opposition to the Affordable Care Act.

Fighting to earn the votes of the most conservative voters also puts Hughes most at odds with the current governor—he gave the state a ‘D’ rating for its response to the pandemic, calling it a “heavy-handed lockdown” and referring to a short-lived effort to track entrances into Utah as “communist-style snitch hotlines”.

It remains to be seen whether Hughes will benefit or suffer from his association with the president. Despite Utah’s heavy Republican lean, Trump is not particularly popular in the state, with recent polls showing Trump leading former vice president Joe Biden by only three points (though Trump’s approval remains higher among registered Republicans).

Thomas Wright/Rob Bishop

If Hughes is the conservative candidate, Wright seeks to portray himself as the outsider. The former chair of the Utah Republican Party and the owner, president, and principal broker of Sotheby’s International Realty, his pitch to voters is that a combination of business and political experience will let him make the best decisions for the state of Utah.

He lists his top priority as reopening the economy and getting Utahns back to work, using vocational schools to retrain unemployed workers and cutting items from the budget when necessary. Wright has also called for development of an efficient mass transit system in order to take cars off the road and improve air quality, as well as policies addressing education, housing, and rural development, which all candidates agree need to be addressed.

Wright’s campaign hasn’t taken off, however, even as ballots are being sent out — he hasn’t gotten above 10% in any primary polls. Though he claims internal polling still shows a path to the nomination, his voters may instead be the kingmakers in the race between Cox, Huntsman, and Hughes, for Wright’s own path is difficult to see so late in the race (barring a drastic change in the state of the primary).

What Comes Next

Whoever wins the Republican primary will face Democrat Chris Peterson, a professor at the University of Utah and former official in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. One of his top priorities is challenging predatory loan companies in the state, as well as expanding access to health care, which he calls a ‘basic human right’. He was chosen at a virtual Democratic convention with more than 88% of the vote.

Peterson acknowledges that his campaign will be a “tough uphill climb” in a state that hasn’t elected a Democratic governor since Scott Matheson in 1980, which is also the reason many Democrats are switching registrations. The race is rated Safely Republican, meaning many believe the candidate who wins the Republican primary will be Utah’s next governor come November.

Top 20 Politician Tweets about George Floyd

Posted on by Connor Haugen

Co-Author: Claudia Morales

The nation and the world are seeing the largest movement for race equality since Martin Luther King Jr. Peaceful protests to riots, the death of George Floyd has sparked a powder keg. Many Americans are outraged.

This came right after the loosening of restrictions from social distancing. Many government officials have an opinion on this issue. Here are the top 20 from some of the biggest names in government right now.

20. Cory Booker

Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey has shown active support for the Black Lives Matter movement. On June 2nd he attended a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to co-sponsor a bill that would prohibit police officers to engage in a choke-hold, eliminate racial profiling, increase police accountability, etc. Furthermore, Booker is wanting to end qualified immunity for police officers. Even though there is concern for a surplus number of lawsuits filed against police officers without immunity, Booker believes that priority should be placed on civilians being able to take civil action against police officers if their rights are violated.

19. Keisha Lance Bottoms

After a long day of peaceful protest in Atlanta on May 29th, riots overturned the evening into a disaster. The city began burning in flames as the situation got out of control and police officers turned to tear gassing to disperse crowds. Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms attended a press conference at City Hall that same night to deliver a speech that received high appraisal by the nation. She expressed, “When I saw the murder of George Floyd, I hurt like a mother would hurt . . . What I see happening on the streets of Atlanta, is not Atlanta. . . If you care about this city, then go home.” Her speech proved to be effective because many returned home that night shortly after it.

Mayor Bottoms implemented a city curfew immediately, but since then there have only been peaceful protests so the curfew has been lifted. She has been serving as mayor since 2017. According to the Washington Examiner, her prospects of being vetted as a nominee to become Joe Biden’s vice president has improved as she has gained the spotlight for delivering an extraordinary speech.

18. Gavin Newsom

Along with other major cities, Los Angeles has witnessed a lot of rioting these past couple of weeks. Governor Gavin Newsom has seized the opportunity to meet with the community members and leaders to discuss police brutality and racism. He is also meeting with multiple mayors to further discuss the Black Lives Matter Movement and what can be modified in their system to provide equality to black members of the community. Many of them are considering cutting the police budget.

Newsom has recently expressed his opposition to the use of force against peaceful protesters on Twitter. He is “Calling for the creation of a new statewide standard for the use of protests” which will not be tolerated. Newsom’s approval ratings have increased significantly.

17. Tom Wolf

Philadelphia is one of the cities that has captured the nation’s attention as multiple police vehicles were set on fire, police officers were injured, and local businesses were looted. Governor Tom Wolf implemented a night curfew and declared a state of emergency calling on the national guard.

However, Governor Wolf has recently done something that is not being commonly done by other governors, he joined the protesters. Marching from Harrisburg capitol to a community center protesting police brutality and racial injustice.

16. Kate Brown

Oregon Governor Kate Brown is currently dealing with two critical issues: handling the protests in her state and challenging a county court rule in which churches can reopen. She is supporting the Black Lives Matter movement and is praising protestors. Governor Brown even included how “I count myself as one of the many white politicians whose good intentions haven’t done enough to tackle the scourge of systematic racism.” She promised that she will push for state level work to focus on racial equality.

On the other hand, multiple rural churches are challenging her COVID-19 state orders. Judge Matthew Shirtcliff issued an injunction on Brown’s order, but the State Supreme Court immediately stepped in. The court is now awaiting to set deadlines for the case.

15. Henry McMaster

Governor of South Carolina, Henry McMaster, is supportive of Trump’s perspective on how to handle protests as he witnessed firsthand the state confronting massive riots. There were historical statues being graffitied, looting, setting fire to police vehicles, etc. McMaster recently had a telephone call with Trump describing the chaos of the situation. He specifically pointed out the difference between protests that were handled on different days with force compared to those that were not. McMaster even acknowledged that Trump was right about the urgency of sending a heavy police force.

However, McMaster later tweeted support for peaceful protesters. He expressed understanding for the anger members of the community are feeling about racial injustice.

14. John Kasich

Governor John Kasich, a former 2016 Republican presidential nomination, is vocalizing his understanding for members of the community feeling frustrated and angry due to racial injustice. He has been working on issues that are centered on racial injustice since December. After the Cleveland Division of Police came under scrutiny for gunning down a 12 year old black boy named Tamir Rice, he created a task force. This task force is currently working on a state policy regarding the use of deadly force by police. The practice of recruiting and hiring police officers is also going to be modified.

13. Ron DeSantis

Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis had a telephone call meeting with Trump and other advisors, he increased the amount of police force in Florida and implemented a curfew. In a statement released by DeSantis, he proclaimed that, “Florida has zero tolerance for violence, rioting and looting . . . George Floyd’s murder was appalling . . . but this cannot be used as a pretext for violence in our Florida communities.” The amount of resources that Florida has available for security include mobilizing 700 National Guard soldiers and 1300 Highway Patrol troopers. Many protesters have since been arrested for not following curfew and misbehavior conduct.

12. JB Pritzker

Following the unrest of protesters, looting, and disaster that has taken place in Chicago, Governor JB Pritzker was one of the many governors who participated in a conference call with Trump. Pritzker confronted him by expressing how “I wanted to take this moment . . . to speak up and say that I’ve been extraordinarily concerned about the rhetoric that’s been used by you,” according to CNBC Chicago 5. Trump responded by shifting attention to the concerning rhetoric from Pritzker regarding the pandemic. Governor Pritzker and Mayor Lori Lightfoot both then publicly criticized Trump for his response in handling the situation in Minneapolis.

11. Mitt Romney

Senator Mitt Romney has recently made headlines for being the first GOP senator to actively participate in a Black Lives Matter protest. He marched with a Christian group in Washington D.C. He tweeted that “We need a voice against racism, we need many voices against racism and against brutality.” Although, he was recently criticized by Trump for participating in the march.

10. Gregg Abbott

Texas Governor Gregg Abbott has stated that, “This is the most horrific tragedy I’ve ever personally observed,” and has personally visited the Floyd Family. He has also hinted that there may be something called the George Floyd Act which would see to the restructuring of police departments and services.

His state had special attention as George Floyd’s service and burial where held in Huston.

9. Andrew Cuomo

Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo has stated that George Floyds death should not go in vain. He has stated that this is a time for change and for the nation to learn something. He is saying that this was due to decades of racial injustice.

He has also said that it is time for a new era of policing and called out Trump’s reaction as crude, mean and irresponsible.

8. Gary Herbert

Utah Governor Gary Herbert has stated support for the police and use of the national guard in Washington D.C. He has also stated that he is deeply saddened by George Floyds death, calling it “inhumane” and “Brutal.” Violent protests broke out in Salt Lake City as those asking for change not only mourned George, but local man Bernardo Palacios-Carbajal. who was gunned down by police.

7. Jay Inslee

Governor of Washington D.C Jay Inslee stated his opinion on reforming policing. He has urged those in his community to propose new legislation. He is meeting with Ethnic Minority leaders and the police department to come to the best conclusions. President Trump reached out to Governor Jay Inslee through a tweet. Trump expressed concern for the city of Seattle and the urgency of the governor and mayor to take control of the riots.

He has also heavily criticized Trump and his remarks on deploying the national guard to stop protestors stating that “These are the rantings of an insecure man trying to look strong, after building his entire political career on racism and the lie of birtherism.

6. Nancy Pelosi

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has had little public statement on George’s death and protests. Participating in the moment of silence and kneeling in the Emancipation Hall for 8 mins 46 seconds. Each major member wearing Kente cloth, a traditional African scarf, has brought heavy criticism as a PR play rather than respect.

Nancy is also on board for police reform and went over some of the changes she and other members of the house would like to see like demilitarization and lynching as a federal crime and the tearing down of confederate statues.

5. Tim Walz

Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota, has been vocal about how tragic this event has been. Going to the site where the death of George Floyd occurred he has stated that he is afraid of “white politicians appropriating black pain.” He went on to say that he is saddened that he has become friends with mothers because of events like this coming to light. He also asked his state early on June 9th to have a moment of silence in honor of George for 8 min 46 sec, the time George was on the ground suffocating.

4. Bill Barr

Attorney General William “Bill” Barr is for the police force. He has stated in interviews that a majority of Police are good people and that policing is one of the toughest jobs. He stated that you shouldn’t “automatically [assume] that the actions of an individual necessarily mean that their organization is rotten.”

Bill was involved in the unwarranted clearing of peaceful protesters so Trump could have a photo-shoot in front of a church.

3. Barack Obama

The first black president in office for two terms and a hero to many people of color, Barack Obama has been active in stating his opinion on reform. He also started and still funds the My Brother’s keeper alliance “so that every boy and young man of color in America would know that their dreams mattered as much as any other child’s.”

He has also written articles on how protesters and activists can bring real change to this problem. Being one of the best examples that equality has come a long way, but still have much further to go.

2. Joe Biden

Taking this opportunity, Joe Biden has been continually active on social media. Talking with Hollywood actor Don Cheadle, who plays Roadie in Iron Man 2 and Avengers series. Not making a direct appearance at his funeral, Joe did make a video to be played stating his condolences and understanding at the loss of loved ones.

He has also stated that reform is in order for banning choke-holds and having more accountability for officers’ actions.

1. Donald Trump

Many are criticizing Trump on his reaction to the protests. From tear gassing to clear a way to St. John’s Church, an Episcopal church, for a photo shoot. He has been retweeting videos judging George Floyd’s character (this has since been removed from his twitter feed).

The video judged George’s character and criminal history but still said that what police did was wrong. He has also tweeted, stating that official’s “Should have let police do their job and brought in National Guard on Day One, not Day Four!” in a Tweet about the protests turned into riots.