The eclectic coalition of competing interests that has the ear of President-elect Donald Trump has exposed a yawning but important rift over whether or not legal immigration should be restricted as much as illegal immigration will be.

Trump has made deporting illegal immigrants a key part of his agenda, as he and his administration prepare to take office in less than a month. But his imminent return to office has also raised the question about what policies he should pursue to expand or restrict legal immigration.

BIDEN USES LAME-DUCK PRESIDENCY TO SHAPE LEGACY AND FINISH TO-DO LIST

The so-called Tech Bros, whose champions include Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, and David Sacks (each of whom has been tapped for key advisory roles in the incoming administration), are among those pushing for more legal immigration. Musk and Sacks, whose companies rely on many foreign-born workers, wish to see a more streamlined and expansive approach to granting H-1B visas to highly skilled foreigners.

But if Trump wants to achieve his goals of lowering the cost of living, and ensuring that Americans have stable and good-paying jobs, expanding the H-1B visa program and other legal immigration pathways is not the way to do it.

To begin with, H1-B visas have been grossly abused by companies eager to hire foreigners over American citizens. These visas are given out on a lottery basis every year to a maximum of 85,000 foreigners, out of hundreds of thousands of applicants. But in an attempt to game the odds, companies often submit multiple (and thus fraudulent) applications for the same individual to boost their chances of being selected.

WHAT TO EXPECT FROM TRUMP’S MASS DEPORTATION PLAN

The abuse of the program is even worse after a visa has been granted. Companies that secure new foreign born employees in many cases are not hiring this individual for an open position, rather, the company will turn around and fire an American born employee. A report from Bloomberg earlier this month detailed how Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. used the H1-B visa program to replace a number of American-born employees with Indian immigrants and only given the option to remain employed by the company if relocated. To add insult to injury, these American-born workers were forced to train their foreign-born replacements.

Cognizant is currently litigating its hiring practices in court, but its modus operandi is hardly new. In 2019, Axios reported that telecommunications giant AT&T had forced thousands of native employees who were being laid off to train their foreign-born replacements.

But beyond the issues of fraud and abuse, expanding the H1-B visa program will be an obstacle to domestic prosperity. Every year, the United States admits 85,000 foreign workers under the visa program. Each one of those 85,000 new residents will require a housing unit, food, fuel, and all the other necessities of life. That means 85,000 new customers competing with the existing population for a finite amount of resources. And over a span of five years, that’s nearly half a million people. Simple supply and demand economics would dictate that prices for goods would rise.

The rising costs of goods and services are only one negative impact that importing a foreign workforce to compete with the native population creates. Currently, 10% of men ages 25-54 have left the workforce, equating to roughly 7 million would-be working-aged men. Replacing these able-bodied people with foreign workers who are viewed as no more than cogs in a market machine further exacerbates deep-seated cultural issues towards work and life while placing native-born workers at a competitive disadvantage.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The duty of the U.S. government is to its own citizens. That is the essence of the America First ideals that created the Make America Great Again movement and delivered Trump to the White House for a second time.

If the Trump administration is to be successful in its promise of a new American golden age, it must resist the notion that the nation cannot succeed economically without importing a foreign workforce through legal means. It cannot view economic growth as an end unto itself that justifies inflating a competitive job market at the expense of American citizens. The administration must remember that its duty is to ensure that every American, regardless of where they live, has the opportunity to work hard and hold a job, own a house, raise a family, and retire with dignity.

2024-12-26 21:24:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3270230%2Flegal-immigration-must-be-cut-too%2F?w=600&h=450, The eclectic coalition of competing interests that has the ear of President-elect Donald Trump has exposed a yawning but important rift over whether or not legal immigration should be restricted as much as illegal immigration will be. Trump has made deporting illegal immigrants a key part of his agenda, as he and his administration prepare,

The eclectic coalition of competing interests that has the ear of President-elect Donald Trump has exposed a yawning but important rift over whether or not legal immigration should be restricted as much as illegal immigration will be.

Trump has made deporting illegal immigrants a key part of his agenda, as he and his administration prepare to take office in less than a month. But his imminent return to office has also raised the question about what policies he should pursue to expand or restrict legal immigration.

BIDEN USES LAME-DUCK PRESIDENCY TO SHAPE LEGACY AND FINISH TO-DO LIST

The so-called Tech Bros, whose champions include Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, and David Sacks (each of whom has been tapped for key advisory roles in the incoming administration), are among those pushing for more legal immigration. Musk and Sacks, whose companies rely on many foreign-born workers, wish to see a more streamlined and expansive approach to granting H-1B visas to highly skilled foreigners.

But if Trump wants to achieve his goals of lowering the cost of living, and ensuring that Americans have stable and good-paying jobs, expanding the H-1B visa program and other legal immigration pathways is not the way to do it.

To begin with, H1-B visas have been grossly abused by companies eager to hire foreigners over American citizens. These visas are given out on a lottery basis every year to a maximum of 85,000 foreigners, out of hundreds of thousands of applicants. But in an attempt to game the odds, companies often submit multiple (and thus fraudulent) applications for the same individual to boost their chances of being selected.

WHAT TO EXPECT FROM TRUMP’S MASS DEPORTATION PLAN

The abuse of the program is even worse after a visa has been granted. Companies that secure new foreign born employees in many cases are not hiring this individual for an open position, rather, the company will turn around and fire an American born employee. A report from Bloomberg earlier this month detailed how Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. used the H1-B visa program to replace a number of American-born employees with Indian immigrants and only given the option to remain employed by the company if relocated. To add insult to injury, these American-born workers were forced to train their foreign-born replacements.

Cognizant is currently litigating its hiring practices in court, but its modus operandi is hardly new. In 2019, Axios reported that telecommunications giant AT&T had forced thousands of native employees who were being laid off to train their foreign-born replacements.

But beyond the issues of fraud and abuse, expanding the H1-B visa program will be an obstacle to domestic prosperity. Every year, the United States admits 85,000 foreign workers under the visa program. Each one of those 85,000 new residents will require a housing unit, food, fuel, and all the other necessities of life. That means 85,000 new customers competing with the existing population for a finite amount of resources. And over a span of five years, that’s nearly half a million people. Simple supply and demand economics would dictate that prices for goods would rise.

The rising costs of goods and services are only one negative impact that importing a foreign workforce to compete with the native population creates. Currently, 10% of men ages 25-54 have left the workforce, equating to roughly 7 million would-be working-aged men. Replacing these able-bodied people with foreign workers who are viewed as no more than cogs in a market machine further exacerbates deep-seated cultural issues towards work and life while placing native-born workers at a competitive disadvantage.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The duty of the U.S. government is to its own citizens. That is the essence of the America First ideals that created the Make America Great Again movement and delivered Trump to the White House for a second time.

If the Trump administration is to be successful in its promise of a new American golden age, it must resist the notion that the nation cannot succeed economically without importing a foreign workforce through legal means. It cannot view economic growth as an end unto itself that justifies inflating a competitive job market at the expense of American citizens. The administration must remember that its duty is to ensure that every American, regardless of where they live, has the opportunity to work hard and hold a job, own a house, raise a family, and retire with dignity.

, The eclectic coalition of competing interests that has the ear of President-elect Donald Trump has exposed a yawning but important rift over whether or not legal immigration should be restricted as much as illegal immigration will be. Trump has made deporting illegal immigrants a key part of his agenda, as he and his administration prepare to take office in less than a month. But his imminent return to office has also raised the question about what policies he should pursue to expand or restrict legal immigration. BIDEN USES LAME-DUCK PRESIDENCY TO SHAPE LEGACY AND FINISH TO-DO LIST The so-called Tech Bros, whose champions include Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, and David Sacks (each of whom has been tapped for key advisory roles in the incoming administration), are among those pushing for more legal immigration. Musk and Sacks, whose companies rely on many foreign-born workers, wish to see a more streamlined and expansive approach to granting H-1B visas to highly skilled foreigners. But if Trump wants to achieve his goals of lowering the cost of living, and ensuring that Americans have stable and good-paying jobs, expanding the H-1B visa program and other legal immigration pathways is not the way to do it. To begin with, H1-B visas have been grossly abused by companies eager to hire foreigners over American citizens. These visas are given out on a lottery basis every year to a maximum of 85,000 foreigners, out of hundreds of thousands of applicants. But in an attempt to game the odds, companies often submit multiple (and thus fraudulent) applications for the same individual to boost their chances of being selected. WHAT TO EXPECT FROM TRUMP’S MASS DEPORTATION PLAN The abuse of the program is even worse after a visa has been granted. Companies that secure new foreign born employees in many cases are not hiring this individual for an open position, rather, the company will turn around and fire an American born employee. A report from Bloomberg earlier this month detailed how Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. used the H1-B visa program to replace a number of American-born employees with Indian immigrants and only given the option to remain employed by the company if relocated. To add insult to injury, these American-born workers were forced to train their foreign-born replacements. Cognizant is currently litigating its hiring practices in court, but its modus operandi is hardly new. In 2019, Axios reported that telecommunications giant AT&T had forced thousands of native employees who were being laid off to train their foreign-born replacements. But beyond the issues of fraud and abuse, expanding the H1-B visa program will be an obstacle to domestic prosperity. Every year, the United States admits 85,000 foreign workers under the visa program. Each one of those 85,000 new residents will require a housing unit, food, fuel, and all the other necessities of life. That means 85,000 new customers competing with the existing population for a finite amount of resources. And over a span of five years, that’s nearly half a million people. Simple supply and demand economics would dictate that prices for goods would rise. The rising costs of goods and services are only one negative impact that importing a foreign workforce to compete with the native population creates. Currently, 10% of men ages 25-54 have left the workforce, equating to roughly 7 million would-be working-aged men. Replacing these able-bodied people with foreign workers who are viewed as no more than cogs in a market machine further exacerbates deep-seated cultural issues towards work and life while placing native-born workers at a competitive disadvantage. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER The duty of the U.S. government is to its own citizens. That is the essence of the America First ideals that created the Make America Great Again movement and delivered Trump to the White House for a second time. If the Trump administration is to be successful in its promise of a new American golden age, it must resist the notion that the nation cannot succeed economically without importing a foreign workforce through legal means. It cannot view economic growth as an end unto itself that justifies inflating a competitive job market at the expense of American citizens. The administration must remember that its duty is to ensure that every American, regardless of where they live, has the opportunity to work hard and hold a job, own a house, raise a family, and retire with dignity., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/elon-musk-vivek-ramaswamy.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Jeremiah Poff,

It turns out the legal marijuana business in the Golden State is not golden at all.

For all of the promises that legalizing marijuana would create a boon for tax revenue and allow a previously underground industry to flourish as a legitimate business, California marijuana vendors have faced so many problems that they are now shifting to selling hemp, a legal form of marijuana that has much lower THC than conventional marijuana.

The main problem for California’s dope sellers is that there is simply not enough demand for recreational marijuana. This is, of course, a shocking development for marijuana vendors who were utterly convinced that everyone and their mother wants to smell like a skunk and inhibit their mental faculties.

The vendors, who entered the market about six years ago, believed the industry would only grow exponentially over time. But as it turns out, the market for legal marijuana users is finite, and the regulated market must compete for a number of morally flexible customers who are still perfectly content with buying from unsanctioned dealers.

Luckily for these entrepreneurs, there is a solution: hemp. Unlike regular marijuana, hemp, which comes from a different part of the marijuana plant, is legal on the federal level, largely unregulated, and is easily sold to the masses, including in many beauty products and skincare creams.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

One marijuana vendor told the California outlet SFGate that the shift in product emphasis provides the ability to sell online and in 30 states, something that cannot be done with regular marijuana. And the best part is vendors can pass off hemp as practically the same thing as regular marijuana without paying the same vendor costs to the state, all the while ensuring that their old customers won’t go elsewhere.

California, much like other states that have legalized marijana, is learning that the industry is not so lucrative for the state as it seemed. Instead, all the legalized industry did was offer short-lived profit while making public spaces smell bad.

2024-08-16 07:05:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3122494%2Fcalifornia-learns-the-marijuana-industry-is-far-from-dope%2F?w=600&h=450, It turns out the legal marijuana business in the Golden State is not golden at all. For all of the promises that legalizing marijuana would create a boon for tax revenue and allow a previously underground industry to flourish as a legitimate business, California marijuana vendors have faced so many problems that they are now,

It turns out the legal marijuana business in the Golden State is not golden at all.

For all of the promises that legalizing marijuana would create a boon for tax revenue and allow a previously underground industry to flourish as a legitimate business, California marijuana vendors have faced so many problems that they are now shifting to selling hemp, a legal form of marijuana that has much lower THC than conventional marijuana.

The main problem for California’s dope sellers is that there is simply not enough demand for recreational marijuana. This is, of course, a shocking development for marijuana vendors who were utterly convinced that everyone and their mother wants to smell like a skunk and inhibit their mental faculties.

The vendors, who entered the market about six years ago, believed the industry would only grow exponentially over time. But as it turns out, the market for legal marijuana users is finite, and the regulated market must compete for a number of morally flexible customers who are still perfectly content with buying from unsanctioned dealers.

Luckily for these entrepreneurs, there is a solution: hemp. Unlike regular marijuana, hemp, which comes from a different part of the marijuana plant, is legal on the federal level, largely unregulated, and is easily sold to the masses, including in many beauty products and skincare creams.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

One marijuana vendor told the California outlet SFGate that the shift in product emphasis provides the ability to sell online and in 30 states, something that cannot be done with regular marijuana. And the best part is vendors can pass off hemp as practically the same thing as regular marijuana without paying the same vendor costs to the state, all the while ensuring that their old customers won’t go elsewhere.

California, much like other states that have legalized marijana, is learning that the industry is not so lucrative for the state as it seemed. Instead, all the legalized industry did was offer short-lived profit while making public spaces smell bad.

, It turns out the legal marijuana business in the Golden State is not golden at all. For all of the promises that legalizing marijuana would create a boon for tax revenue and allow a previously underground industry to flourish as a legitimate business, California marijuana vendors have faced so many problems that they are now shifting to selling hemp, a legal form of marijuana that has much lower THC than conventional marijuana. The main problem for California’s dope sellers is that there is simply not enough demand for recreational marijuana. This is, of course, a shocking development for marijuana vendors who were utterly convinced that everyone and their mother wants to smell like a skunk and inhibit their mental faculties. Various marijuana buds for sale are displayed at The Green Cross cannabis dispensary in San Francisco, California. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu) The vendors, who entered the market about six years ago, believed the industry would only grow exponentially over time. But as it turns out, the market for legal marijuana users is finite, and the regulated market must compete for a number of morally flexible customers who are still perfectly content with buying from unsanctioned dealers. Luckily for these entrepreneurs, there is a solution: hemp. Unlike regular marijuana, hemp, which comes from a different part of the marijuana plant, is legal on the federal level, largely unregulated, and is easily sold to the masses, including in many beauty products and skincare creams. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER One marijuana vendor told the California outlet SFGate that the shift in product emphasis provides the ability to sell online and in 30 states, something that cannot be done with regular marijuana. And the best part is vendors can pass off hemp as practically the same thing as regular marijuana without paying the same vendor costs to the state, all the while ensuring that their old customers won’t go elsewhere. California, much like other states that have legalized marijana, is learning that the industry is not so lucrative for the state as it seemed. Instead, all the legalized industry did was offer short-lived profit while making public spaces smell bad., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Marijuana_Dispensary_California_991.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Jeremiah Poff,

In one of the final primary races of the 2024 cycle, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) avoided the ignominious fate of Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and Cori Bush (D-MO) by easily winning renomination, allowing Congress’ left-wing “Squad” to heave a sigh of relief.

In two highly publicized races, Bowman and Bush fell to primary challengers by wide margins, a shocking result for two high-profile incumbents who are associated with that small group of far-left lawmakers. The group also includes Omar and Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Summer Lee (D-PA), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). All of the members have been among the most vocal critics of Israel and, at times, have even offered tacit endorsements of the terrorist group Hamas.

The brazen antisemitism displayed by the Squad invited a cascade of outside money, primarily from the political arm of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which spent millions on bids to successfully unseat Bush and Bowman. In the aftermath of her loss, Bush vowed to AIPAC that she was “coming to tear your kingdom down.”

But Bush and Bowman lost not because of their antisemitism or their radical politics. The flavor of far-left politics that they both espoused was right at home in their heavily Democratic districts. One only needs to look at how easily Tlaib, Lee, and Ocasio-Cortez won their respective primaries. Bush and Bowman lost because voters, regardless of their partisan leanings, do not like performative representatives who create drama and act corruptly.

Bush and Bowman both had unique vulnerabilities that set them apart from the other members of the Squad. Bowman infamously pulled the fire alarm in a House office building last year in a bid to delay a vote. He later incredulously claimed that he believed the alarm was a button to open a door. Bush, for her part, is currently under investigation for using campaign funds to pay her husband to be a part of her private security detail.

With the two members losing their respective primaries, a pattern is emerging of voters taking a skeptical look at lawmakers who make public antics and social media fodder a focal point of their time in office.

In 2022, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), who had been known to seek out media attention through viral videos and other means, came within a few hundred votes of losing to a moderate Democratic candidate in a district that typically favors Republicans by comfortable margins. The near-loss was followed by a string of bad headlines that included a racy moment in a theater.

The trail of self-inflicted bad publicity led her to embrace a much lower profile in Congress and avoid making headlines. She then moved to an even more Republican-friendly district for 2024 to allow a less controversial candidate to run in her old district.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

That same year Omar, who had already served two terms in Congress but had also developed a national profile that could be argued came at the expense of her constituency, nearly lost her primary to Don Samuels. But on Tuesday, running against Samuels again and carrying the same record of antisemitism as Bush and Bowman, she won handily after making a more robust effort to campaign.

Make no mistake, the ouster of Bush and Bowman is a welcome development, but their opposition to Israel’s war against Hamas had little to do with it. Their losses should serve as a warning to lawmakers of either party who put their personality and self-interests above their constituents.

2024-08-14 17:57:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3120998%2Fantics-not-antisemitism-hurt-the-squad-with-voters%2F?w=600&h=450, In one of the final primary races of the 2024 cycle, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) avoided the ignominious fate of Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and Cori Bush (D-MO) by easily winning renomination, allowing Congress’ left-wing “Squad” to heave a sigh of relief. In two highly publicized races, Bowman and Bush fell to primary challengers by,

In one of the final primary races of the 2024 cycle, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) avoided the ignominious fate of Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and Cori Bush (D-MO) by easily winning renomination, allowing Congress’ left-wing “Squad” to heave a sigh of relief.

In two highly publicized races, Bowman and Bush fell to primary challengers by wide margins, a shocking result for two high-profile incumbents who are associated with that small group of far-left lawmakers. The group also includes Omar and Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Summer Lee (D-PA), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). All of the members have been among the most vocal critics of Israel and, at times, have even offered tacit endorsements of the terrorist group Hamas.

The brazen antisemitism displayed by the Squad invited a cascade of outside money, primarily from the political arm of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which spent millions on bids to successfully unseat Bush and Bowman. In the aftermath of her loss, Bush vowed to AIPAC that she was “coming to tear your kingdom down.”

But Bush and Bowman lost not because of their antisemitism or their radical politics. The flavor of far-left politics that they both espoused was right at home in their heavily Democratic districts. One only needs to look at how easily Tlaib, Lee, and Ocasio-Cortez won their respective primaries. Bush and Bowman lost because voters, regardless of their partisan leanings, do not like performative representatives who create drama and act corruptly.

Bush and Bowman both had unique vulnerabilities that set them apart from the other members of the Squad. Bowman infamously pulled the fire alarm in a House office building last year in a bid to delay a vote. He later incredulously claimed that he believed the alarm was a button to open a door. Bush, for her part, is currently under investigation for using campaign funds to pay her husband to be a part of her private security detail.

With the two members losing their respective primaries, a pattern is emerging of voters taking a skeptical look at lawmakers who make public antics and social media fodder a focal point of their time in office.

In 2022, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), who had been known to seek out media attention through viral videos and other means, came within a few hundred votes of losing to a moderate Democratic candidate in a district that typically favors Republicans by comfortable margins. The near-loss was followed by a string of bad headlines that included a racy moment in a theater.

The trail of self-inflicted bad publicity led her to embrace a much lower profile in Congress and avoid making headlines. She then moved to an even more Republican-friendly district for 2024 to allow a less controversial candidate to run in her old district.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

That same year Omar, who had already served two terms in Congress but had also developed a national profile that could be argued came at the expense of her constituency, nearly lost her primary to Don Samuels. But on Tuesday, running against Samuels again and carrying the same record of antisemitism as Bush and Bowman, she won handily after making a more robust effort to campaign.

Make no mistake, the ouster of Bush and Bowman is a welcome development, but their opposition to Israel’s war against Hamas had little to do with it. Their losses should serve as a warning to lawmakers of either party who put their personality and self-interests above their constituents.

, In one of the final primary races of the 2024 cycle, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) avoided the ignominious fate of Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and Cori Bush (D-MO) by easily winning renomination, allowing Congress’ left-wing “Squad” to heave a sigh of relief. In two highly publicized races, Bowman and Bush fell to primary challengers by wide margins, a shocking result for two high-profile incumbents who are associated with that small group of far-left lawmakers. The group also includes Omar and Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Summer Lee (D-PA), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). All of the members have been among the most vocal critics of Israel and, at times, have even offered tacit endorsements of the terrorist group Hamas. The brazen antisemitism displayed by the Squad invited a cascade of outside money, primarily from the political arm of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which spent millions on bids to successfully unseat Bush and Bowman. In the aftermath of her loss, Bush vowed to AIPAC that she was “coming to tear your kingdom down.” But Bush and Bowman lost not because of their antisemitism or their radical politics. The flavor of far-left politics that they both espoused was right at home in their heavily Democratic districts. One only needs to look at how easily Tlaib, Lee, and Ocasio-Cortez won their respective primaries. Bush and Bowman lost because voters, regardless of their partisan leanings, do not like performative representatives who create drama and act corruptly. Bush and Bowman both had unique vulnerabilities that set them apart from the other members of the Squad. Bowman infamously pulled the fire alarm in a House office building last year in a bid to delay a vote. He later incredulously claimed that he believed the alarm was a button to open a door. Bush, for her part, is currently under investigation for using campaign funds to pay her husband to be a part of her private security detail. With the two members losing their respective primaries, a pattern is emerging of voters taking a skeptical look at lawmakers who make public antics and social media fodder a focal point of their time in office. In 2022, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), who had been known to seek out media attention through viral videos and other means, came within a few hundred votes of losing to a moderate Democratic candidate in a district that typically favors Republicans by comfortable margins. The near-loss was followed by a string of bad headlines that included a racy moment in a theater. The trail of self-inflicted bad publicity led her to embrace a much lower profile in Congress and avoid making headlines. She then moved to an even more Republican-friendly district for 2024 to allow a less controversial candidate to run in her old district. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER That same year Omar, who had already served two terms in Congress but had also developed a national profile that could be argued came at the expense of her constituency, nearly lost her primary to Don Samuels. But on Tuesday, running against Samuels again and carrying the same record of antisemitism as Bush and Bowman, she won handily after making a more robust effort to campaign. Make no mistake, the ouster of Bush and Bowman is a welcome development, but their opposition to Israel’s war against Hamas had little to do with it. Their losses should serve as a warning to lawmakers of either party who put their personality and self-interests above their constituents., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/cori-bush-aipac-1024×591.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Jeremiah Poff,

For all the promises that our elections are safe and secure, a major news outlet is now reporting that the voting machines that will be used this November have a number of vulnerabilities, and there is no time to fix them.

Last weekend, a group of hackers convened in Las Vegas for a planned conference that included trying to hack into voting machines so that the vulnerabilities could be exposed and addressed. But according to Politico, there simply is not enough time to fix the problems they found before Election Day.

But of course, the primary concern with the hackers’ findings is not that these vulnerabilities exist, but rather that they will provide fodder for those who are concerned that our elections are insecure and are vulnerable to fraud.

“Many in the election security community are bemoaning the fact that no system has been developed to roll out fixes faster and worrying that the security gaps that get identified this year will provide fodder for those who may want to question the results,” the report said.

It is pretty damning for the “election security community” that the only time it tries to detect these vulnerabilities is three months before Election Day during the most contentious and polarized electoral cycle in recent history. But even more shocking is the lack of concern that government officials seem to have about these potential problems.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

We count on our leaders in government to competently and effectively run elections so that we can be confident that the leaders who are in power are the ones that we elected through the democratic process.

There are less than three months until Election Day. And while early voting begins in several states in just a few weeks, there is no reason that election officials cannot use paper ballots to ensure that any electronic result can be verified with a physical count. The alternative is demanding that the people accept an insecure result, which will further undermine the public’s faith in the electoral system, regardless of which candidate ultimately prevails.

2024-08-13 21:47:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Fbeltway-confidential%2F3120344%2Faccept-the-unsecured-elections-or-else%2F?w=600&h=450, For all the promises that our elections are safe and secure, a major news outlet is now reporting that the voting machines that will be used this November have a number of vulnerabilities, and there is no time to fix them. Last weekend, a group of hackers convened in Las Vegas for a planned conference,

For all the promises that our elections are safe and secure, a major news outlet is now reporting that the voting machines that will be used this November have a number of vulnerabilities, and there is no time to fix them.

Last weekend, a group of hackers convened in Las Vegas for a planned conference that included trying to hack into voting machines so that the vulnerabilities could be exposed and addressed. But according to Politico, there simply is not enough time to fix the problems they found before Election Day.

But of course, the primary concern with the hackers’ findings is not that these vulnerabilities exist, but rather that they will provide fodder for those who are concerned that our elections are insecure and are vulnerable to fraud.

“Many in the election security community are bemoaning the fact that no system has been developed to roll out fixes faster and worrying that the security gaps that get identified this year will provide fodder for those who may want to question the results,” the report said.

It is pretty damning for the “election security community” that the only time it tries to detect these vulnerabilities is three months before Election Day during the most contentious and polarized electoral cycle in recent history. But even more shocking is the lack of concern that government officials seem to have about these potential problems.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

We count on our leaders in government to competently and effectively run elections so that we can be confident that the leaders who are in power are the ones that we elected through the democratic process.

There are less than three months until Election Day. And while early voting begins in several states in just a few weeks, there is no reason that election officials cannot use paper ballots to ensure that any electronic result can be verified with a physical count. The alternative is demanding that the people accept an insecure result, which will further undermine the public’s faith in the electoral system, regardless of which candidate ultimately prevails.

, For all the promises that our elections are safe and secure, a major news outlet is now reporting that the voting machines that will be used this November have a number of vulnerabilities, and there is no time to fix them. Last weekend, a group of hackers convened in Las Vegas for a planned conference that included trying to hack into voting machines so that the vulnerabilities could be exposed and addressed. But according to Politico, there simply is not enough time to fix the problems they found before Election Day. But of course, the primary concern with the hackers’ findings is not that these vulnerabilities exist, but rather that they will provide fodder for those who are concerned that our elections are insecure and are vulnerable to fraud. “Many in the election security community are bemoaning the fact that no system has been developed to roll out fixes faster and worrying that the security gaps that get identified this year will provide fodder for those who may want to question the results,” the report said. It is pretty damning for the “election security community” that the only time it tries to detect these vulnerabilities is three months before Election Day during the most contentious and polarized electoral cycle in recent history. But even more shocking is the lack of concern that government officials seem to have about these potential problems. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER We count on our leaders in government to competently and effectively run elections so that we can be confident that the leaders who are in power are the ones that we elected through the democratic process. There are less than three months until Election Day. And while early voting begins in several states in just a few weeks, there is no reason that election officials cannot use paper ballots to ensure that any electronic result can be verified with a physical count. The alternative is demanding that the people accept an insecure result, which will further undermine the public’s faith in the electoral system, regardless of which candidate ultimately prevails., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/California-city-16-year-old-voting.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Jeremiah Poff,

One of the funniest political Saturday Night Live sketches I have ever seen was during the Democratic primary in 2016, when Hillary Clinton, played by Kate McKinnon, slowly morphed into her opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

The sketch was styled as a Clinton campaign ad and showed the then-candidate telling everyone that she believed what they believed and would do whatever it was that they wanted.

“Luckily, I, Hillary Clinton, share all of your exact same beliefs, cause I always have,” McKinnon said as Clinton before slowly integrating talking points from the Sanders campaign. By the end of the sketch, McKinnon had lost all of her hair, was speaking in a Sanders’s New York accent, and vowing to take on the rich.

In 2024, SNL could easily make a similar sketch in which Vice President Kamala Harris slowly morphs into President Donald Trump, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), or anyone else for that matter.

On Saturday, the Democratic Party nominee told a crowd in Las Vegas that she supports ending taxation on tips. Now, this was a noteworthy proposal for two reasons.

The first is that any time Harris proposes a policy, it is noteworthy because the candidate has not released much in the way of a policy agenda. Her campaign website is devoid of anything that even hints at policy proposals or where she stands on issues.

But the proposal to stop taxing tips is also notable because it has been a major policy proposal of the Trump campaign that the Republican nominee has repeatedly touted at his rallies, especially in Nevada, where a large number of workers are in the service industry.

Harris, much like Clinton in 2016, is counting on her campaign being all things to all people, even if that means adopting policies from the Trump campaign or using surrogates to renounce previous policy positions. Meanwhile, she can avoid answering any questions because no one in the legacy media will scrutinize her decision to avoid interviews with major outlets.

If you are looking for a candidate who repudiates the far-left of the Democratic Party by offering vague platitudes about prosperity, then Harris is the candidate for you! If you are a far-left campus radical who wants the president to take a harsher line on Israel, then good news, Harris is your candidate too!

Are you worried that Harris embraced far-left policy positions during her 2020 campaign? Well, fear not! Her surrogates have assured you that she no longer supports a ban on fracking, gun buybacks, Medicare for All, or decriminalizing illegal immigration.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But if you are worried that Harris is moving too far to the right in her campaign, do not fear! The vice president has not publicly repudiated any of those previous policy positions, at least not in person, and if you are hoping for the most liberal president in history, after all, her surrogates do not speak for her. Only she does. And the fair and unbiased legacy media have little interest in forcing her to answer for her supposed contradictions.

To get your vote, Harris will be whatever you want her to be.

2024-08-12 18:19:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Fbeltway-confidential%2F3118202%2Fharris-is-whomever-you-want%2F?w=600&h=450, One of the funniest political Saturday Night Live sketches I have ever seen was during the Democratic primary in 2016, when Hillary Clinton, played by Kate McKinnon, slowly morphed into her opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The sketch was styled as a Clinton campaign ad and showed the then-candidate telling everyone that she believed what,

One of the funniest political Saturday Night Live sketches I have ever seen was during the Democratic primary in 2016, when Hillary Clinton, played by Kate McKinnon, slowly morphed into her opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

The sketch was styled as a Clinton campaign ad and showed the then-candidate telling everyone that she believed what they believed and would do whatever it was that they wanted.

“Luckily, I, Hillary Clinton, share all of your exact same beliefs, cause I always have,” McKinnon said as Clinton before slowly integrating talking points from the Sanders campaign. By the end of the sketch, McKinnon had lost all of her hair, was speaking in a Sanders’s New York accent, and vowing to take on the rich.

In 2024, SNL could easily make a similar sketch in which Vice President Kamala Harris slowly morphs into President Donald Trump, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), or anyone else for that matter.

On Saturday, the Democratic Party nominee told a crowd in Las Vegas that she supports ending taxation on tips. Now, this was a noteworthy proposal for two reasons.

The first is that any time Harris proposes a policy, it is noteworthy because the candidate has not released much in the way of a policy agenda. Her campaign website is devoid of anything that even hints at policy proposals or where she stands on issues.

But the proposal to stop taxing tips is also notable because it has been a major policy proposal of the Trump campaign that the Republican nominee has repeatedly touted at his rallies, especially in Nevada, where a large number of workers are in the service industry.

Harris, much like Clinton in 2016, is counting on her campaign being all things to all people, even if that means adopting policies from the Trump campaign or using surrogates to renounce previous policy positions. Meanwhile, she can avoid answering any questions because no one in the legacy media will scrutinize her decision to avoid interviews with major outlets.

If you are looking for a candidate who repudiates the far-left of the Democratic Party by offering vague platitudes about prosperity, then Harris is the candidate for you! If you are a far-left campus radical who wants the president to take a harsher line on Israel, then good news, Harris is your candidate too!

Are you worried that Harris embraced far-left policy positions during her 2020 campaign? Well, fear not! Her surrogates have assured you that she no longer supports a ban on fracking, gun buybacks, Medicare for All, or decriminalizing illegal immigration.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But if you are worried that Harris is moving too far to the right in her campaign, do not fear! The vice president has not publicly repudiated any of those previous policy positions, at least not in person, and if you are hoping for the most liberal president in history, after all, her surrogates do not speak for her. Only she does. And the fair and unbiased legacy media have little interest in forcing her to answer for her supposed contradictions.

To get your vote, Harris will be whatever you want her to be.

, One of the funniest political Saturday Night Live sketches I have ever seen was during the Democratic primary in 2016, when Hillary Clinton, played by Kate McKinnon, slowly morphed into her opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The sketch was styled as a Clinton campaign ad and showed the then-candidate telling everyone that she believed what they believed and would do whatever it was that they wanted. “Luckily, I, Hillary Clinton, share all of your exact same beliefs, cause I always have,” McKinnon said as Clinton before slowly integrating talking points from the Sanders campaign. By the end of the sketch, McKinnon had lost all of her hair, was speaking in a Sanders’s New York accent, and vowing to take on the rich. In 2024, SNL could easily make a similar sketch in which Vice President Kamala Harris slowly morphs into President Donald Trump, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), or anyone else for that matter. On Saturday, the Democratic Party nominee told a crowd in Las Vegas that she supports ending taxation on tips. Now, this was a noteworthy proposal for two reasons. The first is that any time Harris proposes a policy, it is noteworthy because the candidate has not released much in the way of a policy agenda. Her campaign website is devoid of anything that even hints at policy proposals or where she stands on issues. But the proposal to stop taxing tips is also notable because it has been a major policy proposal of the Trump campaign that the Republican nominee has repeatedly touted at his rallies, especially in Nevada, where a large number of workers are in the service industry. Harris, much like Clinton in 2016, is counting on her campaign being all things to all people, even if that means adopting policies from the Trump campaign or using surrogates to renounce previous policy positions. Meanwhile, she can avoid answering any questions because no one in the legacy media will scrutinize her decision to avoid interviews with major outlets. If you are looking for a candidate who repudiates the far-left of the Democratic Party by offering vague platitudes about prosperity, then Harris is the candidate for you! If you are a far-left campus radical who wants the president to take a harsher line on Israel, then good news, Harris is your candidate too! Are you worried that Harris embraced far-left policy positions during her 2020 campaign? Well, fear not! Her surrogates have assured you that she no longer supports a ban on fracking, gun buybacks, Medicare for All, or decriminalizing illegal immigration. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER But if you are worried that Harris is moving too far to the right in her campaign, do not fear! The vice president has not publicly repudiated any of those previous policy positions, at least not in person, and if you are hoping for the most liberal president in history, after all, her surrogates do not speak for her. Only she does. And the fair and unbiased legacy media have little interest in forcing her to answer for her supposed contradictions. To get your vote, Harris will be whatever you want her to be., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Kamala-Harris-arizona.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Jeremiah Poff,

An ascendant pro-labor wing of the Republican Party had its moment in the spotlight Monday as International Brotherhood of Teamsters President Sean O’Brien addressed the Republican National Convention.

The speech came just hours after former President Donald Trump announced that Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) would join him on the Republican presidential ticket. Vance has been one of a handful of Republican lawmakers who has consistently supported organized labor and taken a critical approach to corporate power.

“Anti-union groups demanded the president rescind his invitation,” O’Brien said in his speech. “The Left called me a traitor. This is precisely why it’s so important for me to be here today. Think about this. I must be doing something correct if the extremes in both parties think I shouldn’t be on this stage.”

O’Brien, the first leader of the Teamsters union to address a Republican convention, also noted that he has worked with several Republican lawmakers on legislation, including Vance, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY).

“The Teamsters and the GOP may not agree on a lot of issues, but a growing group has shown the courage to sit down and consider points of view that aren’t funded by big money think tanks,” O’Brien said.

The outreach to organizations like the Teamsters by a handful of members is evidence that the changes in the Republican Party’s coalition are driving real changes in policy. No longer is the party dominated by the highly educated white-collar class. Instead, it is a party that relies primarily on working-class blue-collar voters who were once the backbone of the Democratic Party’s coalition.

Such an alliance requires the party to rethink its old views on trade, big business, and even its old hostility to organized labor.

In an op-ed for Compact, Hawley noted that the Republican base is increasingly made up of union members and the party must listen to its voters rather than corporate benefactors.

“​Republican elites may have sold out to Big Business in years past, but their voters never did,” Hawley wrote. “From Missouri to Ohio to Florida, states where Republicans compete and win are home to millions of working people who back the GOP. Many belong to unions or have friends and family who do. They get it: Unions are a vital piece of the fabric of a nation that depends on working people.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

If the GOP is going to be the party of the working class for the next generation and beyond, it must find room in its coalition for O’Brien, the Teamsters, and other labor unions whose members make up large swaths of the Republican electoral coalition.

The Trump-Vance ticket is showing the rest of the party a path forward toward permanently realigning the Republican Party alongside the interests of Youngstown, Ohio, rather than the interests of Orange County, California.

President Joe Biden and his reelection campaign are so desperate to find a bogeyman to save their sinking ship that they have now turned a conservative think tank into a major element of their campaign messaging.

The Heritage Foundation launched Project 2025 as a presidential transition project to ensure that the next conservative president was ready to govern effectively on his first day in office without being weighed down by staffing shortages and a resistant bureaucracy.

For Biden and the Democratic Party, such a prospect is so terrifying that it is now the centerpiece of the presidential campaign, despite the fact that former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, is not involved in any aspect of the project.

Still, the project only exists because the myriad of personnel pitfalls that befell Trump’s first term in office exposed the degree to which conservatives were unprepared to take control of a bureaucratic apparatus filled with liberal career staff that resisted any attempts to implement conservative policy.

The promise to replace the bureaucracy’s career staff with political appointees is what scares the Democratic Party and the Biden campaign because the bureaucracy or “deep state” is the liberal establishment’s firewall against any conservative president or cabinet secretary that may take office. Sure, some conservative policies will be enacted, but these changes in policy are met with substantial resistance that Democratic administrations never face, greatly slowing the changes made or their impact.

Beyond the efforts to replace the career bureaucrats with ideologically aligned appointees, the Biden campaign and the Democratic Party like to point to the 900-page policy document A Mandate for Leadership as further evidence of an impending right-wing authoritarian takeover.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But even this book is hardly anything unusual in conservative policymaking. Practically everything in the mandate is a policy agenda item that has been proposed by the Republican Party at some point over the past four decades. Whether it is eliminating the Department of Education, opposing abortion, or building a wall at the southern border, each of these policy items has been a part of the Republican Party platform in fairly recent memory.

Biden and the Democrats are only turning to fearmongering about Project 2025 and the Heritage Foundation because they are afraid they are going to lose, and this time a Republican administration is going to be ready to govern on day one without any deep state resistance.

Former President Donald Trump is closing in on announcing his running mate to fill out the Republican ticket, and indications are that Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) is the favorite for the job.

Trump is reportedly considering choosing between Vance, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND) to join him on the GOP ticket. An announcement is expected by the beginning of next week.

Vance is by far the superior choice of the three finalists. A first-term senator and author of the bestselling memoir Hillbilly Elegy, the junior Ohio senator would bring youthful energy to the Trump ticket but also sends a clear message that the political movement that Trump has built will outlast him. Furthermore, his affable demeanor and charisma make him a strong surrogate for the ideas and policies he and Trump support.

More than any other Republican politician, Vance is the natural heir to the populist movement that propelled Trump to the White House first in 2016 and potentially again this year. And for a ticket led by a term-limited candidate, Vance would provide Trump with a running mate that allows voters to think about the next 12 years, not simply the next four.

Should Trump win, whoever is his vice president will immediately become a front-runner for the Republican nomination in 2028. But of the three finalists to join the ticket, only Vance carries the same ideological vision for domestic and foreign policy that Trump does.

While old-guard Republicans shudder at the market skepticism that Vance has brought to the Senate, as well as his willingness to embrace private-sector labor unions and some social welfare programs, the fact is that it is those policies that have made him the heir to the Trump movement.

Trump catapulted onto the political scene by appealing to the pains that voters had felt under the administrations of former Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. He vowed to end unfair trade deals, bring manufacturing jobs back to the midwest cities and towns that had long relied on industry, end U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts, and secure the border.

The simplicity of this message is what made Trump the political juggernaut he is today. But what happens after he leaves the political scene? Try as they might, the vast majority of Republican politicians do not share Trump’s skepticism of trade deals and entanglements abroad.

But Vance does. And not only does he share Trump’s policy vision on these matters, but he has also shown an intellectual and moral grasp of the ethical and philosophical principles that inform these policies in a way that no other politician has.

Take comments that Vance made in 2019, shortly after he converted to Catholicism, where he noted that social conservatives had made a self-defeating alliance with “market libertarians” in the political arena.

“I think the Republican Party has been too long a partnership between social conservatives and market libertarians, and I don’t think social conservatives have benefited too much from that partnership,” he said. “Part of social conservatism’s challenge for viability in the 21st century is that it can’t just be about issues like abortion, but it has to have a broader vision of political economy and the common good.”

Vance made those comments three years before he won a seat in the Senate, showing that his moral principles have informed his policy goals long before he ever ran for office. But, since entering the Senate, he has shown a willingness to work with any lawmaker who aligns with his common good conservative policy agenda.

Just weeks after taking office, he introduced bipartisan legislation to address the safety failures that contributed to the train accident in East Palestine, Ohio. He has also pushed bills to ban diversity, equity, and inclusion in government offices, prevent government officials from cozying up to pharmaceutical companies, and eliminate anti-competitive corporate handouts.

In foreign policy, he has led the charge in fighting efforts to send billions of unchecked dollars to Ukraine in its war against Russia while demanding that European nations take the lead in providing funding and resources for their own defense.

While Vance is by far the vice president contender most ideologically aligned with Trump, there are still downsides in choosing him. The most glaring is Trump losing a major political ally in Congress.

If a Trump-Vance ticket were to win the presidential election, Gov. Mike DeWine (R-OH) would likely appoint a more establishment-minded successor to Vance’s vacated Senate seat. A special election would also be held in 2026 to fill out the remaining two years of the term, forcing the GOP to defend a Senate seat that would be heavily targeted by the Democratic Party, despite Ohio’s Republican leanings.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

And despite being a sitting senator and one of Trump’s most visible campaign surrogates, Vance is still relatively unknown to the nation. He likely does not provide any added electoral benefit to Trump’s candidacy.

But one thing is certain, if Vance becomes vice president, Trump’s political legacy will be secured in 2028 and beyond.

If the members of the Democratic Party truly believe that former President Donald Trump is the threat to democracy they claim he is, they would be acting very differently right now.

As President Joe Biden and his campaign continue to fend off calls from his own party for him to step aside in the presidential race to allow a younger, more energetic candidate to lead the party’s ticket, the fact that the party is not unified in dumping its geriatric presumptive nominee betrays how little the party actually believes its talking point that Trump is a grave threat to democracy.

On a recent episode of the Bulwark Podcast, hosted by never-Trump commentator Tim Miller, New York Times opinion writer Ezra Klein admitted that he has heard from Democrats who admit that they don’t actually believe their hysterical talking point.

“I’ve had top Democrats say to me basically something like, ‘I don’t know why all these Democrats who think Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy are acting the way they are,” Klein said. “But the reason I’m acting the way I am is because I don’t think that.’”

Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME), who represents a House district that overwhelmingly voted for Trump four years ago, likewise said in a column published earlier this month that democracy would be just fine if Trump were to win in November.

“Unlike Biden and many others, I refuse to participate in a campaign to scare voters with the idea that Trump will end our democratic system,” he wrote.

The truth is that most party-line Democratic Party politicians have never believed that Trump is the threat to democracy they claim he is. Instead, they have parroted this talking point for years to rile up their base and bolster fundraising.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But now the reality is setting in that Trump is very likely to win the presidency in November, and quite possibly in a landslide. Under such a scenario, one would think that the leaders of the Democratic Party, Biden aside, who repeatedly claim that he will destroy democracy would be in a hurry to find a candidate who could stop the bleeding and make the presidential race competitive once again.

Given the lack of urgency, one can only conclude that the Democratic Party does not actually believe Trump is a threat to democracy. And given the state of the race, it appears that voters never bought the party’s hysteria in the first place.

The general election in the United Kingdom revealed two things: First, that the incumbent Conservative Party has lost its mandate with voters, and second, that it is possible to count millions of votes in short order.

Before the sun rose on July 5 in the U.K., the results for 648 of the 650 parliamentary constituencies had all been posted, and the newly elected members of Parliament had been certified and sent off to Westminster where they will form a new government under the leadership of new Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

While the change in government will no doubt have an impact on the “special relationship” between the United States and the U.K., the U.S. could learn a thing or two from the swiftness with which the U.K.’s election results were known.

In 2020, the results of the presidential election were infamously unknown for days after Election Day, setting the stage for a lack of confidence in the results. Two years later, in the 2022 midterms, control of the House of Representatives was not officially known until eight days after Election Day because states such as California took days to count all of the outstanding votes.

As the U.K. just showed, there is no excuse for voters to have to wait days for the final results of their elections. The capability exists for the results to be quickly counted and the results announced within hours of polls closing.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

In fact, the U.K. vote counting project is so efficient that the only reason two seats remained unconfirmed in the morning was due to close margins that required a recount that was completed by Friday evening. But in the U.S., a planned recount for the Republican primary in Virginia’s 5th Congressional District has yet to take place for an election that took place on June 18.

The U.S. can learn a thing or two from our friends across the pond. Counting votes is a pretty basic function of a democracy, and there is no excuse for why it cannot be done in a prompt manner that reinforces voter’s and candidate’s faith in the system.