33 votes

Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of June 26

Automatically posted
Tags: usa, politics, recurring.weekly

This thread is posted weekly - please try to post all relevant US political content in here, such as news, updates, opinion articles, etc. Extremely significant events may warrant a separate topic, but almost all should be posted in here.

This is an inherently political thread; please try to avoid antagonistic arguments and bickering matches. Comment threads that devolve into unproductive arguments may be removed so that the overall topic is able to continue.

32 comments

  1. [3]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. [2]
      Gekko
      Link Parent
      I'm appalled that they're seriously considering whether or not you can deny people business based on utterly unfounded bigotry toward something they can't control. Can you deny opening your...

      I'm appalled that they're seriously considering whether or not you can deny people business based on utterly unfounded bigotry toward something they can't control. Can you deny opening your business to someone based on skin tone? Of course not.

      12 votes
      1. vord
        Link Parent
        They're looking to bring that back.

        Can you deny opening your business to someone based on skin tone? Of course not.

        They're looking to bring that back.

        12 votes
  2. [2]
    psi
    Link
    "Supreme Court Rejects Theory That Would Have Transformed American Elections." The New York Times. To wit, the Supreme Court rejected the "independent state legislature" theory, which could have...

    "Supreme Court Rejects Theory That Would Have Transformed American Elections." The New York Times.

    To wit, the Supreme Court rejected the "independent state legislature" theory, which could have given state legislatures nearly unlimited, unreviewable power over elections.

    The decision was 6-3, with Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissenting.

    17 votes
    1. scojjac
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      I'm not terribly familiar with Gorsuch, but am slightly surprised he was in dissent along with Alito and Thomas. Although there were some other cockamamie points in the dissent, the basic gist of...

      I'm not terribly familiar with Gorsuch, but am slightly surprised he was in dissent along with Alito and Thomas. Although there were some other cockamamie points in the dissent, the basic gist of it seems to be that the Court lacks jurisdiction in this matter. What a bizarro conclusion. 'This Court lacks jurisdiction over this dispute, ipso facto, state courts lack jurisdiction over the state legislature.'

      I'm also trying to understand the positions of Kavanaugh and Barrett and whether there is any pattern to their reasoning. Kavanaugh was in concurrence and one of his issues with the case was that it overstepped Rehnquist's opinion in Bush v Gore (itself a flawless ruling). Alito agreed on this point but still dissented. I'm not assuming good faith, only identifying inconsistencies.

      5 votes
  3. [2]
    purpleyuan
    Link
    The super PAC frenzy redefining campaign operations I think this is not OK. At this level, the rules around donation limits to a particular candidate's campaign are essentially pointless. Are we...

    The super PAC frenzy redefining campaign operations

    Never Back Down staffers regularly work DeSantis’ events in early voting states, delivering swag and volunteers whose messaging matches the campaign’s, right down to the slogan. DeSantis’ stump speech includes a line about how he does not back down from tough fights. (The group said it learns of DeSantis’ campaign events only when they are publicly posted.)

    Never Back Down staffers showed up to an event DeSantis headlined in Iowa shortly before announcing his campaign with signs and a decorated bus in tow. They followed his appearances throughout the Hawkeye State, joining him at an impromptu stop at a pizza shop in the afternoon and a bar later that evening.

    Though the presence of super PACs at campaign events might make it seem as though they are working with campaigns, the FEC has interpreted the restriction on coordination narrowly. Many candidates get around it simply by making campaign information available widely.

    In 2016, a super PAC backing former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina’s presidential campaign hosted and staffed events the candidate attended, a setup that was legal because Fiorina’s campaign made her travel schedule public, so there was no private communication between her campaign and the outside group. The super PAC, named Carly for America, even skirted an FEC rule that super PACs cannot use the name of the candidate by having “Carly” stylized in all capital letters and stand for “Conservative, Authentic, Responsive Leadership for You.”

    I think this is not OK. At this level, the rules around donation limits to a particular candidate's campaign are essentially pointless. Are we really dependent on the Supreme Court stating that donation limits to PACs don't violate the first amendment? Because that doesn't seem as if it would happen any time soon.

    12 votes
    1. arch_mage
      Link Parent
      The rulings you are referring to, Citizen's United vs FEC (2010) and SpeechNow v. FEC (2010), has effectively killed America Democracy. Whenever some asks me what is wrong with American Politics,...

      The rulings you are referring to, Citizen's United vs FEC (2010) and SpeechNow v. FEC (2010), has effectively killed America Democracy.

      Whenever some asks me what is wrong with American Politics, I always point people the the above cases. The outcomes of allowing Super PACs and unlimited corporate spending has turned Capitol Hill into a place "representatives" go to get rich (Not that it wasn't before, but significantly more now). I wholeheartedly agree with you, this wasn't OK 13 years ago and it still isn't OK today.

      My only hope that we can recognize and revert this mistake within my lifetime.

      13 votes
  4. CosmicDefect
    Link
    ‘We Never Stopped Applying Pressure’: Hard-Fought Success on Rail Sick Days Looks like the White House and the railway unions have continued their negotiations about sick days after the showdown...

    ‘We Never Stopped Applying Pressure’: Hard-Fought Success on Rail Sick Days

    After months of negotiations, the IBEW’s Railroad members at four of the largest U.S. freight carriers finally have what they’ve long sought but that many working people take for granted: paid sick days.

    Looks like the White House and the railway unions have continued their negotiations about sick days after the showdown happened in November and the long wait has borne fruit. I heard about this on the recent Pod Save America podcast and they pointed out that basically nobody was reporting on this, and they only heard about directly from a twitter post by IBEW which is a shame as it's good news.

    12 votes
  5. [4]
    purpleyuan
    Link
    U.S. pedestrian deaths reach a 40-year high If, like me, you were wondering if this is partly due to population growth, the report shows the pedestrian fatality rate per one billion vehicle miles...

    U.S. pedestrian deaths reach a 40-year high

    The organization [Governors Highway Safety Association], which tracks pedestrian deaths in the U.S., estimates that more than 7,500 pedestrians were killed by drivers last year — the highest number since 1981. The final tally may be even greater given that Oklahoma was unable to provide data due to a technical issue.

    Pedestrian deaths have been climbing since 2010 because of unsafe infrastructure and the prevalence of SUVs, which tend to be more deadly for pedestrians than smaller cars, according to Martin. When the pandemic arrived, there was an even greater surge as empty roads gave way to speeding and distracted driving.

    If, like me, you were wondering if this is partly due to population growth, the report shows the pedestrian fatality rate per one billion vehicle miles traveled has also increased.

    It's also important to examine the data by state (found in the report), since several states' fatalities went down or up significantly; each state has their own unique patterns of whether or not fatalities significantly decreased or increased in 2020 (compared to 2019), etc. Oregon, Virginia, and Arizona had huge increases, with Oregon increasing from 85 in 2019 to 131 in 2022, Virginia increasing from 124 in 2019 to 169 in 2022, and Arizona increasing from 220 in 2019 to 307 in 2022.

    10 votes
    1. [3]
      boxer_dogs_dance
      Link Parent
      So I should maybe apologize, it didn't occur to me that this article could be considered politics when I thought to post it, so I didn't check here. It got a fair amount of engagement. I found...

      So I should maybe apologize, it didn't occur to me that this article could be considered politics when I thought to post it, so I didn't check here. It got a fair amount of engagement. I found this that you posted later in the day, at work, with no real way to do anything about it.

      4 votes
      1. [2]
        purpleyuan
        Link Parent
        Hey, there's absolutely no need to apologize. I was happy to see engagement on your thread! It's not like it matters which post is popular as long as people are reading and engaging.

        Hey, there's absolutely no need to apologize. I was happy to see engagement on your thread! It's not like it matters which post is popular as long as people are reading and engaging.

        10 votes
        1. Gawdwin
          Link Parent
          I simply love your attitude. Please keep being the awesome person that you are!

          I simply love your attitude. Please keep being the awesome person that you are!

          3 votes
  6. [3]
    Gekko
    Link
    Moore v Harper still scares me also Counterman v. Colorado is ridiculous. If you have to prove intent before someone faces consequences for making threats to someone, a lot of stalking victims...

    Moore v Harper still scares me

    also
    Counterman v. Colorado is ridiculous. If you have to prove intent before someone faces consequences for making threats to someone, a lot of stalking victims could get hurt.

    9 votes
    1. Merry
      Link Parent
      Moore v. Harper was fortunately struck down, killing the indepedent state legislature theory.

      Moore v. Harper was fortunately struck down, killing the indepedent state legislature theory.

      5 votes
    2. Killfile
      Link Parent
      Sounds like the Court has ruled that the state has to prove intent or at least understanding. More's the pity, the MAGA contingent loves to issue death threats and engage in on-line intimidation....

      Counterman v. Colorado

      Sounds like the Court has ruled that the state has to prove intent or at least understanding. More's the pity, the MAGA contingent loves to issue death threats and engage in on-line intimidation.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/27/supreme-court-true-threat-stalking/

      4 votes
  7. CaptainAndorra
    Link
    Remember to Vote! It’s Primary Day in New York State and New York City for many local offices. Several other elections in states such as California and Colorado are also occurring today. I know...

    Remember to Vote!

    It’s Primary Day in New York State and New York City for many local offices.

    Several other elections in states such as California and Colorado are also occurring today.

    I know for a fact the linked site is not a comprehensive list of today’s elections. For instance, basically every county in New York State has some primary occurring today! If you’re unsure if you can vote in a Primary Election today check your local media.

    And if anybody has a more complete list please let me (and anyone you know eligible to vote) know.

    9 votes
  8. [3]
    arch_mage
    Link
    US Supreme Court sides with man who sent female musician barrage of unwanted messages I personally think that saying to someone "Die. Don't need you" is enough to warrant a threat (thus not...

    US Supreme Court sides with man who sent female musician barrage of unwanted messages

    The 7-2 decision, authored by liberal Justice Elena Kagan, vacated a lower court's ruling that had rejected defendant Billy Counterman's claim that his messages to Denver singer-songwriter Coles Whalen were protected speech under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

    Among Counterman's communications to Whalen were messages that read: "Was that you in the white Jeep?" and "You're not being good for human relations. Die. Don't need you." Others used expletives.

    I personally think that saying to someone "Die. Don't need you" is enough to warrant a threat (thus not protected under free speech), but the SCOTUS rules overwise. Now you have to prove that one threatening speaking to you has some "understanding" of the words coming out of their mouth.

    Kagan wrote that the First Amendment "requires proof that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements."

    This man terrorized this poor women for 2 years, and now the highest court in America is letting him free.

    Whalen has described the messages from Counterman, which came to her over a two-year span beginning in 2014, as life-threatening and life-altering. Whalen has said Counterman sent thousands of messages to her personal and public Facebook accounts, some of which suggested he had seen her in public.

    I can only image what this ruling does for stalking protection laws across the nation.

    9 votes
    1. [2]
      purpleyuan
      Link Parent
      Dang, I had to look into this when I saw that it was 7-2, which is a pretty big majority for our current Supreme Court makeup. It does seem that Counterman is not exactly off the hook (Source:...

      Dang, I had to look into this when I saw that it was 7-2, which is a pretty big majority for our current Supreme Court makeup.

      It does seem that Counterman is not exactly off the hook (Source: NYT):

      The Supreme Court vacated the conviction and returned the case to the lower courts, where prosecutors may decide whether to retry the defendant under the more demanding standard.

      The demanding standard is that of recklessness:

      In the context of threats, [Justice Kagan] wrote, quoting an earlier opinion, recklessness “means that a speaker is aware ‘that others could regard his statements as’ threatening violence and ‘delivers them anyway.’”

      Forbes reported that:

      Victims’ advocacy groups said in their brief that if the court was going to side with Counterman, imposing a recklessness standard would be the best way to do it, saying that would apply in Counterman’s case because he messaged her with “reckless disregard of the fact” that Whalen hadn’t responded to his messages and blocked him repeatedly.

      The ACLU argued that the government does need to "enforce restrictions on unlawful conduct, such as prohibitions on stalking and harassment, as well as restraining order violations," but that what the ruling was based on — that is the "true threat" doctrine — was ripe for abuse. (The article names a couple of instances of politically heated language that can be construed as threats, though the ACLU argues they should not be taken literally as threats).

      The Reporter's Committee for the Freedom of the Press argued similarly, saying that in the past, the "true threat" doctrine had been used to attack journalists in the past. One interesting example they gave was a newspaper that published an Op-Ed that had inflammatory (and imo unacceptable) language. The newspaper was sued.

      • Statutes intended to punish threatening or harassing conduct can be, and have been, misused to target members of the press engaged in routine newsgathering on matters of public concern.
      • The First Amendment shelters good-faith reporting — like other valuable speech — by requiring proof of intent to threaten.

      So that was an interesting deep-dive. I can't imagine that Counterman would actually get off in his retrial, but you never know. It does seem like somewhat of an imperfect system that makes it more difficult for victims of harassment and stalkers to get the enforcement they need, since it makes everything more subjective. But I can see the argument that the ACLU makes too. It's one of those extremely difficult things where you want to make it easy and low-barrier enough to protect folks that need to be protected, but you also don't want to make it too easy to abuse against political enemies.

      5 votes
      1. arch_mage
        Link Parent
        Thanks for sharing your deep-dive, as it was very informative. It made me that a second look at this with a more analytical eye. I had thought Counterman was not eligible for retrial, since...

        Thanks for sharing your deep-dive, as it was very informative. It made me that a second look at this with a more analytical eye.

        I had thought Counterman was not eligible for retrial, since Reuters didn't mention it. But that was cleared up with NYT piece which wasn't out when I made my first post.

        After reading the sources you linked and reading the first few pages of the full opinion, the SCOTUS ruling seems intended to regulate True Threat doctrine more strictly and add a recklessness standard.

        Again guided by our precedent, we hold that a recklessness standard is enough. Given that a subjective standard here shields speech not independently entitled to protection—and indeed posing real dangers—we do not require that the State prove the defendant had any more specific intent to threaten the victim.

        Your last paragraph worded it the best imo :)

        2 votes
  9. [4]
    psi
    (edited )
    Link
    "Supreme Court Strikes Down Race-Based Admissions at Harvard and U.N.C." The New York Times. Decision was 6-3 with the liberals dissenting. Some quotes from the dissent below. Sotomayor: Jackson:...

    "Supreme Court Strikes Down Race-Based Admissions at Harvard and U.N.C." The New York Times.

    Decision was 6-3 with the liberals dissenting. Some quotes from the dissent below.

    Sotomayor:

    The devastating impact of this decision cannot be overstated. The majority’s vision of race neutrality will entrench racial segregation in higher education because racial inequality will persist so long as it is ignored.

    Jackson:

    It would be deeply unfortunate if the Equal Protection Clause actually demanded this perverse, ahistorical and counterproductive outcome. To impose this result in that clause’s name when it requires no such thing, and to thereby obstruct our collective progress toward the full realization of the clause’s promise, is truly a tragedy for us all.

    Bizarrely the ruling exempts military academies. As Jackson pointedly writes,

    The court has come to rest on the bottom-line conclusion that racial diversity in higher education is only worth potentially preserving insofar as it might be needed to prepare Black Americans and other underrepresented minorities for success in the bunker, not the boardroom (a particularly awkward place to land, in light of the history the majority opts to ignore).

    8 votes
    1. [2]
      purpleyuan
      Link Parent
      The exception for military academies is absurd. Huffpost gives the quote and the rationale: Roberts: It seems that Roberts and the other conservative judges were responding to a brief filed by...

      The exception for military academies is absurd. Huffpost gives the quote and the rationale:

      Roberts:

      The U.S. government said using race as a factor in admissions to military academies can “further compelling interests,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a footnote to his opinion. “This opinion… does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.”

      [...]

      Roberts called the exemption justified because no military academies were involved in the cases in question. Yet Sotomayor pointed out that he and his five conservative colleagues did not exempt other institutions that were not parties to the cases, like religious universities.

      It seems that Roberts and the other conservative judges were responding to a brief filed by military leaders:

      “Placing a diverse Armed Forces under the command of homogenous leadership is a recipe for internal resentment, discord, and violence,” 35 retired admirals and generals, including four former joint chiefs of staff, wrote in a brief they filed with the Supreme Court as judges considered the affirmative action cases.

      “By contrast, units that are diverse across all levels are more cohesive, collaborative, and effective,” the former military leaders contended. “The importance of diverse leadership has risen to new heights in recent years, as international conflicts and humanitarian crises require the military to perform civil functions that call for heightened cultural awareness and sensitivity to ethnic and religious issues. All service members — minority or otherwise — are better equipped to meet these challenges if they are educated in a racially diverse environment and guided by diverse leadership in the field.”

      Admittedly I'm only reading these quotes, but this logic makes no sense to me. Roberts makes specific mention that military academies have a "distinct interest" in having a diverse leadership, but that doesn't matter for a student body, academic opportunities, or the makeup of our future leaders?

      7 votes
      1. CrazyProfessor02
        Link Parent
        For them, if the future leaders are not white like they are, then those potential leaders from minority groups are not true leaders. I mean look at the tan suit controversy (if you want to it...

        or the makeup of our future leaders?

        For them, if the future leaders are not white like they are, then those potential leaders from minority groups are not true leaders. I mean look at the tan suit controversy (if you want to it that) that Obama had to go through. I bet you that if a white president had wore a suit like that the conservatives won't have put much of an issue, if at all.

        As for the military academies, I have no fucking idea why it is like this, because the same rationale can be applied to board rooms, non-profits etc, etc.

        2 votes
  10. [4]
    unkz
    Link
    I saw this odd point raised in this article Trump valet arraignment delayed after losing Florida lawyer over fees dispute What’s the benefit of hiring a lawyer with no prosecutorial experience?

    I saw this odd point raised in this article

    Trump valet arraignment delayed after losing Florida lawyer over fees dispute

    But it has been made more difficult because Nauta’s team has been seeking defense lawyers who have not previously worked as prosecutors, and anyone Nauta retains would also need the blessing of Trump and his own defense team, who see no need to make a decision quickly.

    What’s the benefit of hiring a lawyer with no prosecutorial experience?

    4 votes
    1. [3]
      arch_mage
      Link Parent
      There is no benefit. You typically want a defense lawyer with prosecutorial experience. This is a delay tactic. From the same article you linked: And they are getting the delays they want.

      There is no benefit. You typically want a defense lawyer with prosecutorial experience. This is a delay tactic.

      From the same article you linked:

      In fact, the people said, Trump’s preference has been for delay, a strategy that has come about from the belief that if the trial can be pushed back to after the 2024 election and should he win – Trump is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination – the case would be moot.

      And they are getting the delays they want.

      At the brief, 10-minute hearing, the chief magistrate judge for the court, Edwin Torres, rescheduled Nauta’s arraignment for 6 July, after Woodward said his client had been unable to find local counsel and that he was unable to attend in court because of flight cancellations.

      In recognition of the fact that Nauta’s new arraignment could delay the criminal case, prosecutors asked the magistrate judge to set a new hearing date before 14 July, when all parties are due before US district court judge Aileen Cannon to set a timetable to start the discovery process.

      2 votes
      1. [2]
        unkz
        Link Parent
        Surely one can’t simply indefinitely delay by choosing to not find a lawyer though. Can the court appoint a public defender to break this tactic?

        Surely one can’t simply indefinitely delay by choosing to not find a lawyer though. Can the court appoint a public defender to break this tactic?

        1 vote
        1. arch_mage
          Link Parent
          You are correct, they cannot delay indefinitely by not finding a lawyer. However they can stall until the court is just about to force a public defender upon them, and then they magically find the...

          You are correct, they cannot delay indefinitely by not finding a lawyer. However they can stall until the court is just about to force a public defender upon them, and then they magically find the right person they need. They are trying to stack every small delay they can get (which in the court system is a lot). The best way to put it is think about it like dragging out the clock in American Football.

          2 votes
  11. cmccabe
    Link
    Record contributions from dark money groups and shell companies flooded 2022 midterm elections...

    Record contributions from dark money groups and shell companies flooded 2022 midterm elections
    https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/06/record-contributions-dark-money-groups-shell-companies-flooded-midterm-elections-2022/

    Federal political committees reported taking in $615 million from “dark money” groups and shell companies during the 2022 election – a new midterm record, according to a new OpenSecrets analysis of Federal Election Commission data.

    2 votes
  12. cmccabe
    Link
    Special counsel Jack Smith could hit Trump with up to 45 more charges in classified documents case https://news.yahoo.com/special-counsel-jack-smith-could-005200793.html

    Special counsel Jack Smith could hit Trump with up to 45 more charges in classified documents case
    https://news.yahoo.com/special-counsel-jack-smith-could-005200793.html

    Special counsel Jack Smith is reportedly ready to drop a hammer blow of up to 45 additional criminal charges on former President Donald Trump in the classified documents case, especially if Trump-friendly Judge Aileen Cannon looks set to thwart the case.

    The report suggests Smith’s team is deeply concerned about the possibility that Cannon could act in unforeseen ways to protect Trump.

    Cannon, an arch-conservative with very limited experience on the bench, issued several rulings that sought to protect Trump after the August 2022 search of Mar-a-Lago turned up more than 100 classified documents that Trump kept in defiance of a federal subpoena.

    2 votes
  13. Interesting
    Link
    Elena Kagan Has Had Enough I thought this article had a really important point - - Kagan straight up said in her opinion that she believes the majority is violating the constitution. Not that...

    Elena Kagan Has Had Enough
    I thought this article had a really important point - - Kagan straight up said in her opinion that she believes the majority is violating the constitution. Not that their ideas are mislead, but that they are ignoring the law entirely.

    (this is a gift link)

    2 votes
  14. [2]
    boxer_dogs_dance
    Link
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/06/dobbs-democratic-leadership-abortion.html Article critiques Democratic leadership response re the abortion issue since the Dobbs decision. Contrasts...

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/06/dobbs-democratic-leadership-abortion.html

    Article critiques Democratic leadership response re the abortion issue since the Dobbs decision. Contrasts with polls of ordinary citizens. Claims that this is an issue ripe for getting crossover votes from people who value individual freedom.

    1 vote
    1. purpleyuan
      Link Parent
      It's been my understanding that the strategy a lot of Democrats have been taking is "don't interfere with an enemy while they are in the process of destroying themselves." But I think this...

      It's been my understanding that the strategy a lot of Democrats have been taking is "don't interfere with an enemy while they are in the process of destroying themselves." But I think this reflects the incentive to be elected and a lack of desire to loudly influence the conversation/move the Overton window.

      KFF's polls show that there's a pretty substantial number of people who aren't even familiar with the laws in their own state:

      Over the past year, the U.S. has seen various state-level actions on abortion access with many states making abortion illegal, some states solidifying access to abortions, and in some states legal challenges to abortion bans are still being considered in in the state courts. Three in four U.S. adults say they understand the abortion laws in their own state either “very well” (30%) or “somewhat well” (45%), while one in four feel they understand them “not too well” (20%) or “not at all well” (5%).

      With many states passing bans on abortion, nearly three-fourths (73%) of adults say these bans make it more difficult for doctors to safely take care of pregnant people who experience major complications. In addition, two-thirds of the public are either “very concerned” (42%) or “somewhat concerned” (23%) that bans on abortion may lead to unnecessary health problems. This includes eight in ten (82%) Democrats and seven in ten independents and about half (47%) of Republicans who are concerned these bans could lead to unnecessary health problems. Four in ten Republicans say bans on abortion do not make it more difficult for doctors to treat pregnant patients.

      It's worse for people living in states that have banned medication abortion (mifepristone):

      In the 25 states and D.C. where abortion is legal beyond 22 weeks gestation six in ten correctly say medication abortion is legal in their state, while four in ten either incorrectly say medication abortion is illegal (6%) or say they are “not sure” (34%). In the 14 states where all abortion methods, including medication abortion is banned, one-third are aware of this while 13% incorrectly believe the medication is legal, and more than half (54%) say they are unsure. In states where abortion is banned beyond a certain number of weeks of gestation, medication abortion is a legal option for early intervention. Six in ten of adults living in these states are “not sure” about the status of medication abortion, 15% incorrectly say it is illegal, and one-fourth are aware it is legal in their state.

      Given the inherent support for legalizing abortion, I feel like simply educating voters on the laws in their own state has to potential to do a lot.

      4 votes
  15. purpleyuan
    Link
    First GOP debate: Who’s in, who’s out, and who’s sweating The five candidates almost certainly to make the cut: Donald Trump Ron DeSantis Nikki Haley Tim Scott Vivek Ramaswamy Candidates that are...

    First GOP debate: Who’s in, who’s out, and who’s sweating

    ...the RNC’s requirements are also stricter than they’ve been in the past, making it equally possible just a few candidates make the stage. Candidates who have long, impressive political resumes but are struggling to gain any traction in the polls may be left out in the cold.

    The five candidates almost certainly to make the cut:

    • Donald Trump
    • Ron DeSantis
    • Nikki Haley
    • Tim Scott
    • Vivek Ramaswamy

    Candidates that are probably going to be able to make the cut:

    • Mike Pence
    • Chris Christie
    • Larry Elder
    • Chris Sununu*
    • Asa Hutchinson
    • (?) Politico says this person hasn't announced yet, but has been polling at at least 1 percent in five of the last seven national polls

    The issue apparently isn't really with being able to poll at 1%. The RNC's guidelines say the only polls that meet the guidelines for qualification are polls that survey at least 800 "likely" primary voters or caucus-goers. And they have to hit 1% in at least three of them.

    The RNC’s debate plans have a major, largely unnoticed problem

    As the 51-day qualifying period begins on Saturday, a review of FiveThirtyEight’s database of GOP primary polling nationally and in the four early “carve out” states shows that only two polls out of 70 conducted in the previous 51 days would meet those requirements.

    While it’s a good bet that there will be at least three qualifying polls conducted between now and the Aug. 21 deadline, the RNC’s criteria could spell trouble for candidates outside of the five polling leaders: former President Donald Trump, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.).