Category: ACE Research

After his performance in the first debate of the 2024 presidential election, President Joe Biden is now facing calls from those in his own party to step down as the Democratic nominee.

These calls to step down come after months of Republican lawmakers criticizing the president’s mental ability and stamina, as well as Special Counsel Robert Hur’s decision not to pursue charges against Biden in his classified documents case due to his “poor memory” and old age.

In the Special Counsel’s statement not to pursue charges, Hur wrote, “…at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him… It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him–by then a former president well into his eighties–of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

Since then, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and other top Biden administration officials have been vigorously defending the President and his ability to do the job, saying Hur’s report does not “[live] in reality.”

But on Thursday, Americans were able to get a rare glimpse of an unscripted and unprompted Joe Biden, and their reaction was all but positive.

Now, with one in three Democrats saying Biden should not run for re-election, top Democratic officials have to juggle whether they stick with their nominee or make a last-ditch effort to defeat Donald Trump.

Never before has an incumbent President been removed at a party convention or stepped down due to an inability to do the job. 

In these unprecedented times, it can be tough to get the facts and your questions answered. Here’s all you need to know without the spin:

Can there be a new Democratic Nominee?

There are two possibilities in which there can be a new 2024 Democratic nominee.

The first: President Biden decides to step down from the presidency on his own, releasing all the delegates bound to him and allowing a new vote for new candidates at the convention in late August.

The second: A split convention.

There are an estimated 4,672 delegates up for grabs in 2024. Of these, 3,933 are pledged delegates and 739 are super-delegates, who have no allegiance to any electoral outcome. Super-delegates are not permitted to vote on the first ballot for president at the convention but can vote on the second if no candidate reaches the 1,968 pledged delegates needed to clinch the nomination.

After sweeping every state in the Democratic primary, President Biden has received 3,896 delegates. This means that, by all metrics, he should easily clinch the nomination on August 22. But there’s a catch.

The 2024 DNC Rules clearly state, “All delegates to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”

The phrase “good conscience” indicates that delegates are not legally bound to the electoral outcome of the primary election results they represent.

Therefore, technically, if enough delegates were to defect from their electoral outcome to support another candidate, a split convention could occur, opening the door for unbound super-delegates to vote and for last-minute challengers to emerge in the following rounds of voting.

Who would replace Biden?

Ever since the debate ended, political pundits have been speculating about who could replace Biden if he were to step down.

The names most frequently mentioned include Vice President Kamala Harris, California Governor Gavin Newsom, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, and former First Lady Michelle Obama.

But how would these candidates fare against Donald Trump?

In a post-debate poll conducted by Reuters/Ipsos, Trump and Biden remain in a dead heat at 40% each.

All considered rising stars and the future of the Democratic party, in a hypothetical matchup against former President Trump, Kamala Harris loses by 1, Newsom by 3, Whitmer by 5, Beshear by 4, and Pritzker by 6.

The only Democrat polled who beat Trump was Michelle Obama with a staggering 11-point advantage over the former president. However, the former First Lady has been adamant about her resistance to political life.

In March, her director of communications told NBC News, “As former First Lady Michelle Obama has expressed several times over the years, she will not be running for president. Mrs. Obama supports President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris’ re-election campaign.”

Does Biden want to step down?

Seems like no. Despite his debate performance, President Biden immediately agreed to the next debate hosted by ABC in September.

At a campaign rally the following day in North Carolina, Biden addressed the crowd, saying, “Folks, I might not walk as easily or talk as smoothly as I used to. I might not debate as well as I used to. But what I do know is how to tell the truth.”

On a Wednesday call with top allies and advisors, Biden was clear about his desire and ability to remain in the race.

NBC White House Correspondent Gabe Gutierrez reported on X, “President Biden on call with staff just now: ‘Let me say this as clearly as I possibly can, as simply and straightforward as I can: I am running. No one is pushing me out. I’m not leaving. I’m in this race to the end and we’re going to win.’”

However, there have been reports that Biden is “weighing his options” on whether to pull out.

According to the New York Times, “President Biden has told key allies that he knows the coming days are crucial and understands that he may not be able to salvage his candidacy if he cannot convince voters that he is up to the job after a disastrous debate performance last week.”

The article continued, “‘He knows if he has two more events like that, we’re in a different place’ by the end of the weekend, said one of the allies, referring to Mr. Biden’s halting and unfocused performance in the debate.” This ally spoke anonymously.

The most recent post-debate New York Times/Siena Poll of registered voters nationwide has Biden losing to Trump 49% to 43%—a six-point bump for the former president from the same poll conducted just a week earlier.

Questions to ask yourself after reading:

Should Biden be replaced as the Democratic Nominee?

Can any other candidate beat Donald Trump?

Can a person run for president and win in two months?

What qualities in a president are most important to me?

• Do any of these alternatives possess those qualities more than the presumptive nominees?

Would I feel more inclined to vote if one of these alternatives was on the ballot instead of Joe Biden?

Would an alternative Democratic nominee change the party of the president I plan to vote for? 

With less than two months until the Democratic National Convention, Democrats are on the clock in deciding whether or not to replace their nominee.

While some may seem like more formidable candidates than Biden, there is one thing Democrats don’t have that can’t be bought with any amount of money in the world: time.

If there were to be a new Democratic nominee, they would have just over two months to convince a majority of Americans that they should be their president. That would be unprecedented, but these are unprecedented times.

In the U.S., elections typically start with party primaries, where members of each political party select their candidates for the general election. There are two main types of primaries: closed and open. In closed primaries, only registered members of a party can vote in its primary. Open primaries, on the other hand, allow all voters to participate, regardless of their party affiliation. Within these primary systems, when members of a single party dominate the electorate — in heavily Democratic cities, for instance, or mostly Republican rural areas — primaries can effectively decide contests, because the general election (with only one candidate from each party) is uncompetitive. 

Critics of the existing primary system propose a variety of reforms to make results more responsive to the electorate as a whole. One such reform is the top-two primary. Jurisdictions with a top-two primary system hold a single primary election for all candidates and all voters, and the candidates with the top two vote shares — regardless of party — advance to the November general election. The reform aims to increase voter choice, reduce incentives for political polarization and extremism, and make winning candidates more reflective of the broad electorate. 

California and Washington are the lone states to use the top-two primary system for state and congressional elections. (Nebraska also uses it for state legislative elections, which are nonpartisan in the state.) Proponents have led efforts to institute it in various other states, including Florida, Maryland, and Oregon, but none have been successful.

Arguments in Favor

A central goal of top-two primaries is to increase the share of the electorate that casts meaningful votes. Primaries generally see lower turnout than general elections — per one analysis, on average, primary turnout between 2000 and 2020 was under 30%, while general election turnout exceeded 60%. Since primaries can be decisive in jurisdictions that are less competitive between parties, this difference in turnout means that a lower percentage of the electorate tends to vote in the elections that matter. According to the Unite America Institute, the results of 83% of congressional elections in 2020 were determined by primary elections that just 10% of Americans voted in.

In top two-primaries, the top two candidates that advance to the general do not necessarily represent both major parties. In 2022, for example, top-two primaries in six heavily Democratic congressional districts in California chose two Democrats (rather than candidates from both parties) to advance to the general election. Traditional primaries in those districts might typically yield a Democratic nominee strongly favored in the November election and a Republican candidate with a very low probability of winning. Instead, voters in the higher-turnout general could choose between two candidates who garnered significant support in the primary, increasing the chance that more voters have a meaningful say in the race.

Moreover, in this example, a Republican minority with little potential impact in a traditional primary could now express its preferences between two viable (Democratic) candidates. Some advocates say partisan primaries, especially closed ones, effectively “disenfranchise” voters by preventing voters of one party from having a say in the elections that matter. Proponents of the top-two primary argue that more voters’ choices affect the result in the system.

Many also argue that the top-two primary helps more moderate candidates win and thus discourages extremism. In the traditional primary system, candidates must appeal to voters within their party first, before moving on to others in the general election. When the general election is an afterthought (as it is in races dominated by a single party), this can encourage candidates — including incumbents — to adjust their positions to appeal to a more partisan audience rather than the broader scope of the general electorate, fueling political polarization. Top-two primaries, advocates argue, take this effect out of play by eliminating single-party primaries. In addition, if two candidates of the same party advance to the general election, they have an incentive to appeal to voters from the minority party in that race, pulling them towards the center ideologically. A London School of Economics analysis found that candidates in such races are “more likely to talk about partisanship and policy in ways that seek support from voters outside of their own party base.” A University of Southern California study showed that instituting top-two primaries in California consequently “reduced ideological extremity among legislators” elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from the state between 2003 and 2018.

In typical general elections after party primaries, three or more candidates can split the electorate, resulting in winners with well under 40 percent support. In these traditional contests, so-called “spoiler candidates,” those with small shares of support, can determine close races despite their low chance of winning. Because only two candidates can appear on the ballot in a general election under the top-two system, these November elections serve functionally as runoffs, ensuring that the winner receives more than 50% of the vote without adding an extra election and its associated costs.

Arguments Against

A key critique of the top-two primary system is its vulnerability to political gamesmanship, particularly through the phenomenon of primary spoilers. In this system, the sheer number of candidates from one party can drastically affect the outcomes. For instance, in a predominantly Democratic district, if multiple Democratic candidates split the vote while a single Republican candidate consolidates their party’s vote, the Republican could advance to the general election. Despite this advantage in the primary, such a Republican candidate would typically face slim chances of winning in the November general election. Candidates can exploit these peculiarities. In one prominent example, Rep. Adam Schiff, running against two other Democrats for Senate in California this year, ran ads implicitly favoring Republican candidate Steve Garvey so he could compete with a Republican instead of a Democrat in November. Garvey came in second place after Schiff, advancing to the general election, making Schiff’s race no longer competitive according to news outlets.

Since top-two primaries include candidates from all parties, some opponents argue top-two primaries act as a first-round general election with lower turnout. This shifts political power to low-turnout primary elections that still often decide elections — voters in the other 44 California congressional districts advanced a Republican and a Democrat to the 2022 general election, for instance, unchanged from the results of a traditional party primary. One study also found that parties’ incentives to field few candidates in primaries (to ensure general-election advancement) reduces voters’ additional choices in top-two primaries. At the same time, turnout might be discouraged in general elections as well: Minority-party voters may not have a candidate they strongly support, and so are less likely to vote. The overall outcome might be lower turnout without much increase in choice.

Many opponents of top-two primaries say the system disenfranchises minority-party voters in any given jurisdiction, because when two candidates of the same party advance to the general election, minority-party voters are prevented from voting for a candidate of their party. On the other hand, if their party’s candidate would have little chance of winning the election, choosing between two candidates of the other party might give them a greater ability to influence the result in a direction they prefer. Another notable problem with the system is its consequences for third parties. The runoff form of general elections (in which only two candidates can compete) makes it difficult for third parties to advance past the low-turnout primary, limiting their exposure. 

ConclusionTop-two primaries could have wide implications for American electoral politics: according to advocates, they offer a strong alternative to polarizing partisan primaries; opponents say they would make the system even more restrictive than it already is. State-level electoral reforms have mainly focused on other proposed systems, like ranked-choice voting, in recent years, but top-two primaries remain a compelling and significant option to address the problems of traditional primary elections.

In the United States, voters typically choose single candidates on their ballots, and the candidate who receives the most votes wins. In a ranked-choice election, voters instead rank candidates in order of preference. After the election is over,  only first-choice votes are counted. The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated from consideration, and the votes for that candidate are reassigned to the candidate’s supporters’ second choices. This process is repeated until a single candidate has more than fifty percent of the vote, ensuring majority support.

Jurisdictions in the U.S. have increasingly implemented ranked-choice voting (RCV) for various contests, including for federal elections in Alaska and Maine. Prominent local elections, including in New York and San Francisco, also use the system. The precise rules of the system vary from state to state. Alaska, for example, allows four candidates to advance to general elections and selects among them using RCV. Maine, on the other hand, uses RCV in both traditional party primaries and the November general election.

How could RCV be a good policy?

Ranked-choice voting is meant to ensure that winning candidates command majority support in the electorate. In plurality-based races without RCV — sometimes called “first-past-the-post” elections — three or more candidates can split the electorate, resulting in winners with well under 40 percent support. Moreover, in these traditional contests, so-called “spoiler candidates” with only small shares of support can also determine very close races even while they have little chance of winning themselves. In RCV elections, such candidates would be eliminated and their votes reassigned if no candidate receives a majority of votes, guarding against the influence of spoilers in narrow contests. A 2023 study showed that by a variety of measures, RCV elections are less affected by spoiler candidates than plurality ones. At the same time, RCV can encourage more candidates to run in the race, precisely because concerns about acting as spoilers are minimal. More people might choose to run for office when prospective candidates no longer worry about unintentional adverse results of their participation, potentially increasing the number of options for voters.

Proponents of RCV argue that the system has positive impacts beyond its simple mechanics. When candidates are campaigning for second- and even third-choice votes, they might have stronger incentives to appeal to broader sectors of the electorate, thereby promoting moderation and depolarization. FairVote, an RCV advocacy group, cites the 2022 elections in Alaska as an example of this effect: Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola, two moderates who endorsed each other, won on the same ranked-choice ballot; FairVote writes that the result reflected Alaska’s “ideological diversity.”

There is also evidence that RCV can encourage candidates to conduct more civil campaigns. When candidates rely on secondary support, there is a higher cost to alienating opponents’ voters, so attacks against competing candidates lose appeal. A 2021 analysis of campaign communications in local elections across the U.S. found that examples from races using RCV used more positive language than those from plurality races, supporting the civility theory.

What are the downsides of using RCV?

RCV is not always simple to implement. Results in RCV elections generally face delays compared to those for plurality ones, which can be tabulated more quickly; for example, Alaska’s Division of Elections did not release any ranked-choice returns for 15 days after its 2022 elections. Some argue there is a higher risk of error in more complex RCV tabulation. In a high-profile example, the New York City Board of Elections accidentally included 135,000 “test ballots” in results for the 2021 mayoral race before catching its mistake, causing widespread confusion. Moreover, introducing RCV could burden local bodies already straining to conduct elections.

Voting in RCV elections is also more complicated for voters than in single-choice ones, which some argue can increase the risk of mistakes on ballots that disqualify votes. Less informed voters who do not take advantage of the opportunity to rank multiple candidates can be disadvantaged if their ballot is eliminated (and therefore not counted), a situation known as “ballot exhaustion.” Some opponents say this results in systematic disparities, but evidence on the subject is mixed. Many advocates recommend voter education efforts to ensure voters take advantage of RCV and to minimize the risk of ballot exhaustion.

There is also a risk that the electorate views results of RCV elections as less legitimate than those of traditional first-past-the-post ones, especially when the winner is not the candidate who receives the most first-place votes. A George Washington University study found that these “come-from-behind victories” lead to greater voter dissatisfaction. More generally, voters can perceive RCV elections as less transparent, since determining winners relies on a less intuitive process than they are used to. There are already signs of mistrust in some examples. In the 2021 New York mayoral race, some allies of the eventual winner, Eric Adams suggested that the system was perpetrating “voter suppression” of minority voters when it appeared that another candidate might overtake Adams’s early lead in later rounds of tabulation.

Alternatives and variants

Runoff elections between the top two vote-getters in a given election aim to solve many of the same problems as RCV, and according to the George Washington University study, are often seen as more legitimate by the public. Nevertheless, proponents argue that RCV is more efficient and reliable, especially since runoffs often have lower turnout rates than general elections. RCV is sometimes called instant-runoff voting, because it eliminates lower-performing candidates and evaluates top performers immediately rather than requiring another election to do so.
Ranked-choice voting is not identical in every jurisdiction: Distinct forms include the four-candidate ranked-choice system in Alaska and various ranking and tabulation methods for races in which multiple candidates win. Its use is only growing. According to a Ballotpedia count, 31 states have introduced legislation concerning RCV, and the use of RCV will itself be on the ballot in three states in 2024. Advocates say the system is a democratic reform that will improve consensus, while others view it as inefficient and unfair. Either way, ranked-choice voting is increasingly a part of the political conversation in the U.S.

Updated July 3, 2024: With Highlights from Independent Candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “The Real Debate” live-streamed by Elon Musk on X

For the first time in 1,336 days, President Joe Biden and Former President Donald Trump faced off in the inaugural debate of the 2024 presidential election cycle. This historic event marks the first instance of a sitting president and a former president competing head-to-head in a presidential debate, promising a night filled with intrigue and high drama. Voters now have a rare and unprecedented opportunity to directly compare two administrations they have lived under, evaluating whether they prefer to continue with the current leadership or return to the policies and life of four years ago.

Adding to the unconventional nature of this debate, it was not hosted by the Commission on Presidential Debates, featured no audience, and included muted microphones when it was not a candidate’s turn to speak. This format ensured that the focus remained on the candidates’ policies and responses, offering a clearer, more controlled comparison for the voters. The stakes are incredibly high, as this debate provides a critical platform for each candidate to outline their vision for the future and persuade the electorate of their capability to lead the nation.

While he did not meet CNN’s requirements to be on the debate stage, Independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. held “The Real Debate” live-streamed by Elon Musk on X. The debate featured a simulcast of CNN’s Presidential Debate with periodic pauses after Trump and Biden’s statements for Kennedy to answer.

Before the debate began, FiveThirtyEight conducted a poll on voters’ views of the candidates and issues. In terms of favorability, Trump entered the debate with a 2-point lead over Biden 40.6% to 38.4%. RFK Jr. entered the night with a favorability average of 32.7%. 

The most pressing issues on voters’ minds were:

50% Inflation and Rising Costs

37% Immigration

25% Political Extremism/Polarization

19% Abortion

18% Crime or Gun Violence

17% Government Budget and Debt

16% Climate Change and Environment

15% Foreign Conflicts or Terrorism

The stage was set, the candidates were ready, and here’s what happened:

Economy

Jake Tapper and Dana Bash immediately began the debate with questions on the economy. The first question was directed at President Biden, asking him to respond to the pain many Americans feel from inflation and rising costs. Biden quickly blamed Trump for leaving him with an economy “in freefall” that he was tasked with fixing. He highlighted actions his administration has taken, such as reducing the price of insulin, and Trump’s focus on supporting the ultra-rich.

Trump rebutted by claiming his administration had the greatest economy in history while blaming Biden for rising inflation. Throughout the night, Trump frequently referred to his Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, asserting that it was highly beneficial. In contrast, Biden argued that it hurt more Americans than it helped. The same disagreement extended to Trump’s plan for a 10% tariff on all imports.

“We had an economy that was in freefall,” Trump stated “The pandemic was so badly handled. What we had to try to do was put things back together again, and that’s exactly what we began to do.” He continued, saying, “Inflation is killing our country; it is absolutely killing us.”

Trump also boasted, “Nobody ever cut taxes like us. He’s the only one I know who wants to raise your taxes by four times. He wants to let the Trump tax cuts expire. So everybody, including the two of you, will pay four to five times more. All my life, I’ve seen politicians talking about cutting taxes. When we cut taxes, we did more business. Apple and all these companies were bringing money back into our country.”

Biden responded, “Look, the fact of the matter is that he’s dead wrong. He increased taxes. He will increase the taxes on middle-class people.” Adding “I think not everybody else who thinks they agree he had the greatest economy in the world. And the fact of the matter is that he pride ourselves in a situation where his economy, he rewarded the wealthy.”

In his response, RFK Jr. quickly criticized both the former and current president for their contribution to the increased national debt and deficit, saying they are both responsible for inflation and soaring costs. He called the rising budget an “existential crisis.”

“These two men are the people who ran up the deficit that is causing the inflation,” he stated. “Trump came into office promising to balance the budget; instead, he spent more money in office than every president in United States history combined, from George Washington to George W. Bush—283 years of history. Biden will surpass him. He’s already run up $6.3 trillion in debt, and by the end, he’ll have exceeded Trump’s total. That’s why we have inflation. Inflation is caused because they’re printing money to pay for expenses that we can’t afford.”

RFK Jr. continued, “The interest alone on that debt is costing us more than our military budget. In five years, 50 cents out of every dollar we collect in taxes will go to servicing the debt. Within 10 years, it will be 100 percent. This is existential. This is one of the problems that neither of these two will talk about.”

On the taxation question, RFK Jr. acknowledged that Trump had a strong economy but dismissed its success, saying, “It was a strong economy. Anybody can have a strong economy by borrowing $8 trillion because you’re forcing our children to pay for our present-day prosperity with this enormous debt, which ultimately is paid by the poor and by people with fixed incomes.”

He also used this opportunity to criticize both presidents for their handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the media’s role during the crisis. “These two presidents shut down every business in our country—3.3 million businesses—with no due process, no just compensation. Forty-one percent of the Black-owned businesses that they closed will never reopen. There was no scientific reason to do this. There was no public hearing. They made a bad mistake, and that was the worst financial mistake in American history. They shifted $4.3 trillion upward to this new oligarchy of billionaires that he was talking about. They created a billionaire a day in 500 days. And one of the problems is that CNN was their biggest cheerleader. The same company, BlackRock, that owns CNN, also owns Pfizer. Pfizer’s the biggest advertiser. They were all in cahoots in telling us what we needed to do, and we ended up having the worst record of a dead body count of any country in the world.”

Abortion

Although over two years have passed since the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, the issue of abortion rights continues to be a key topic in 2024. When asked about the most recent Supreme Court ruling on abortion, Donald Trump agreed with the court’s decision allowing access to abortion pills. He praised his efforts in overturning Roe v. Wade and emphasized his belief in exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, asserting that states should make their own laws on this issue. According to Trump, states are currently “working it out.”

Biden repeatedly attacked Trump on his positions regarding abortion, staunchly supporting the re-establishment of Roe v. Wade protections at the federal level.

“Fifty-one years ago you had Roe v. Wade and everybody wanted to get it back to the states, everybody,” Trump stated. “Texas is different, Florida is different, but they’re all making their own decisions right now. And right now, the states control it. That’s the vote of the people. Like Ronald Reagan, I believe in the exceptions.”

Biden countered, “It’s just ridiculous. And this is the guy who says the states should be able to have it. We’re in a state where it’s six weeks. You don’t even know whether you’re pregnant or not, but you cannot see a doctor and have him decide on what your circumstances are with your need for help.”

He continued, “The idea that states are able to do this is a little like saying, we’re going to turn civil rights back to the states, but each state will have a different role.”

When asked about his position on Roe v. Wade, RFK Jr. immediately voiced his continued advocacy for “bodily autonomy.” “Well, I’ve spent probably more energy protecting medical freedom and bodily autonomy than any other leader in this country,” he said.

He acknowledged the role of the states in “increasing viability outside the womb” and laid out his “poor choice, fewer abortions” policy. This policy, he argued, relies on the fact that “52% of the abortions in this country are because the woman says that economic considerations played the key role in her decision. Every abortion is a tragedy. Many women don’t want to have abortions—over half of them—because they do not believe they can care for that child for financial reasons.”

In terms of exceptions, RFK Jr. explained, “Yeah, I believe it should be limited. It’s late-term. It should be limited, absolutely. That’s what was permitted under Roe v. Wade. So every European country has the same law. And that law makes sense. If that baby is fully viable outside of the womb, the state has an absolute interest in protecting it.”

Immigration

On the issue of immigration, the moderators began by asking Biden why they should trust him to handle the crisis, given that “a record number of migrants have illegally crossed the southern border on [his] watch.” Biden touted the bipartisan bill intended to curb the immigration crisis, which ultimately failed to pass the Senate a few months ago. He also emphasized the increased number of border patrol agents deployed to the southern border.

President Trump immediately fired back, claiming he had overseen the “most secure border in history” and criticized Biden for not maintaining it. Trump repeatedly blamed Biden for worsening the crisis by repealing Trump-era policies early in his term, only to reinstate them recently in an attempt to curb the flow of migrants. Trump also emphasized his plan to carry out the largest mass deportation effort in American history.

“We worked very hard to get a bipartisan agreement,” Biden stated. “We significantly increased the number of asylum officers… In addition to that, when he was president, he was separating babies from their mothers, putting them in cages, and ensuring families were separated.”

Trump countered, “He decided to open up our border, open up our country to people from prisons, mental institutions, insane asylums, and terrorists. We are living right now in a rat’s nest. They’re killing our people in New York, California, and every state in the union because we don’t have borders anymore. Every state is now a border.”

He continued, “Because of his ridiculous, insane, and very stupid policies, people are coming in and killing our citizens at a level that we’ve never seen. We call it migrant crime.”

When asked about what he would do about the border, RFK Jr. said, “Well, I would say that on this one, President Trump is more right than President Biden. I think almost everything that President Biden said, I know to be not true, including his claim that he was endorsed by the border patrol.”

He continued by blaming Biden for halting construction of the border wall, allowing illegal aliens to pass through the “gaps.” He criticized Biden for decreasing border security measures, stating, “President Biden ordered the deconstruction of fences, the censoring systems were taken down. I can’t tell you why. The long-distance cameras were taken down. The night lights were taken down. So that with some decision in the administration to open up the border, and then the two laws that were changed under President Biden as soon as the day that he came in.”

RFK Jr. agreed with President Trump that “there’s a lot of bad people coming across,” attributing rising crime rates to the influx of illegal immigrants in the U.S. He then blamed Democrats for creating the border crisis out of “compassion.”

“I think a lot of the Democrats allowed this to happen out of a humanitarian impulse, out of the impulse of compassion,” he said. “But when you’re actually down there and talking to people, it’s not a compassionate solution. The people that I talk to—many of them have been extorted, exploited, robbed, and raped. We have an immigration policy in this country that is now being run by the Sinaloa Drug Cartel. Border patrol [has] been ordered not to do their job. They’re, you know, catch and release. They bring them to the Yuma Airport, put them on a plane to any destination they want. And this is true. It sounds like hyperbole, but it’s not. And they pay their ticket.”

Foreign Policy

Russia/Ukraine

In the foreign policy section of the debate, moderators opened with a question on Putin and the war in Ukraine: “If Russia keeps the Ukrainian territory it has already claimed and Ukraine abandons its bid to join NATO, are Putin’s terms acceptable to you?”

Trump began his response by stating that the military and world leaders respect him far more than they do Biden. He highlighted that Putin did not attempt to take any part of Ukraine during his administration, unlike during the previous and current administrations. Without providing a clear plan for resolving the war, Trump repeatedly claimed that, if elected, he would settle the conflict with Putin and Zelensky before his inauguration. He also used this topic to attack Biden’s handling of the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan.

In response, Biden criticized Trump for his lack of support for troops attacked by Iran, who suffered brain damage, noting that Trump had dismissed their injuries as mere “headaches,” stating “Iran attacked American troops, causing brain damage for a number of these troops, and he did nothing about it.” Biden labeled Trump as Putin’s puppet while advocating for continued support of Ukraine and ongoing funding for weapons to help end the war. Trump argued that the U.S. is giving too much money to Ukraine without seeing significant results.

“As far as Russia and Ukraine,” Trump said, “if we had a real president, one that was respected by Putin, he would have never invaded Ukraine. A lot of people are dead right now—much more than people know. You can double or triple the reported numbers. He did nothing to stop it.”

He continued, “I’ll tell you what happened. He was so bad with Afghanistan. It was such a horrible embarrassment—the most embarrassing moment in the history of our country—that when Putin watched that and saw the incompetence, he should have fired those generals like I fired the ones you mentioned.”

Regarding financial support, Trump noted, “He’s given $200 billion. That’s a lot of money. I don’t think there’s ever been anything like it. Every time Zelensky comes to this country, he walks away with $60 billion. He’s the greatest salesman ever. And I’m not knocking him. I’m only saying the money we’re spending on this war—we shouldn’t be spending it. It should have never happened.”

Biden countered, “Putin is a war criminal. He’s killed thousands upon thousands of people. He wants to reestablish what was once the Soviet empire—not just a piece; he wants all of Ukraine. And then you think he’ll stop there? What happens to Poland? To Belarus? To those NATO countries? If you want a war, you ought to find out what he’s going to do because, if he does what he says and walks away, all that money we give Ukraine goes to weapons we make here in the United States to give them the weapons, not the money at this point.”

RFK Jr. was quick to criticize not only Putin for his role in escalating the war in Ukraine but also Biden and Trump. He argued that “Putin has been asking to settle this war from the beginning,” citing the Minsk Accords in 2008 and Zelensky’s promise to sign them when he ran in 2019.

“And really the only thing Putin wanted was to keep NATO out of Ukraine. President Putin did not go into Ukraine intending to conquer Europe. He only sent 40,000 troops. It’s a nation of 44 million people. He didn’t even want to take Ukraine. He wanted us back at the negotiating table,” RFK Jr. said.

He continued, “Zelensky asked the United States to help negotiate a treaty with Putin, and the Biden administration said no. Putin and Zelensky then went to Israel’s former Prime Minister and Turkey’s President Erdogan, who both agreed to help. They negotiated a beautiful treaty in Istanbul in April of 2022 and signed it. The one thing Putin wanted was for NATO to stay out of Ukraine. He didn’t want to conquer Europe. Putin was withdrawing his troops, leaving Donbas and Luhansk. But then President Joe Biden sent Boris Johnson to Kyiv to convince Zelensky to tear up that agreement because they had another agenda—to weaken Russia.”

Turning to Trump, RFK Jr. said, “President Trump was part of it. He gave the first $1.3 billion to Ukraine in 2017 for offensive weapons. He then sent Mike Pompeo over there in 2019 to say that we’re going to put NATO there. And then he unilaterally walked away from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia. So the two of them are equally culpable in the provocations that led to this war.”

Addressing the Russian president, Kennedy proclaimed, “I’m not excusing Putin. Putin didn’t need to go into Ukraine, and he should be held responsible too. But we need to look at our responsibility, which falls on the backs of both President Trump and President Biden.”

Israel/Hamas

President Biden was asked about what “additional leverage” could be used to end the war between Israel and Hamas. He outlined a three-point plan, which involves negotiating a ceasefire to release the remaining hostages, followed by a ceasefire with additional conditions, and ultimately ending the war. While the plan appears straightforward, it has yet to be enforced. Biden also highlighted his efforts to weaken Hamas and support Israel’s right to self-defense.

Biden stated, “…plan that put forward…has three stages to it. The first stage is to trade the hostages for a ceasefire. The second phase is a ceasefire with additional conditions. The third phase is the end of the war. The only one who wants the war to continue is Hamas. We’re still pushing hard to get them to accept this.”

He continued, “Hamas cannot be allowed to continue. We continue to send our experts and intelligence people to help Israel combat Hamas. They’ve been greatly weakened and should be eliminated. But we have to be careful using certain weapons in population centers.”

During his response, President Trump diverted the discussion to his concerns with NATO, criticizing member countries for not paying their fair share. He emphasized that Israel needs to finish the job and controversially compared Biden to a Palestinian.

He responded, “Why doesn’t he call them and say you’ve got to put up your money? Like I did with NATO. I got them to put up hundreds of billions of dollars. The Secretary-General of NATO said Trump did the most incredible job he’s ever seen.”

Trump also said, “Israel’s the one that wants to go. He said the only one that wants to keep going is Hamas. Actually, Israel is the one, and you should let them finish the job. He doesn’t want to do it. He’s become like a Palestinian, but they don’t like him because he’s a very bad Palestinian.”

RFK Jr. emphasized the need for more diplomacy regarding the war between Israel and Hamas “from the beginning.” He addressed many of the fundamental differences between the two sides.

“I think we have to recognize a couple of things. One is we’re a nation of compassion. And all of us are heartbroken by seeing the plight that’s happening in Gaza. All of us are affected and horrified by the injuries to the civilians and the damage to the innocent in Gaza. We also have to understand that Israel is in an existential battle now. Hamas is a genocidal organization, pledged to Israel’s annihilation and the extermination of Jews. It does not want a two-state solution; it wants a one-state solution, which is Israel gone. So Israel is in a five-front war with Hamas, which is a proxy of Iran, with the Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria, with Hezbollah—all proxies of Iran. We have to let Israel disarm Hamas. We have to support them. Israel’s our oldest ally and the only democracy in the Middle East. Imagine what the world would be like without Israel for the first time in 80 years.”

He also issued a warning about the power of Iran and suggested a pathway toward a solution.

“Iran is now a superpower in the Middle East and has the capacity to maintain a war and to wipe out Israel. We need to support Israel, but we also need to use diplomacy, and the current administration is not capable of doing that. We need to bring in President Xi, President Putin, and even consider negotiating with Iran. The neocons in the White House see this as a bipolar world where the United States dominates and won’t negotiate with anybody. That is the problem that caused this.”

Democracy

Midway through the debate, the moderators turned to the question of threats to democracy. Trump was asked, “What do you say to voters who believe that you violated that oath through your actions and inaction on January 6, and are worried that you’ll do it again?” Initially, Trump did not answer directly, instead highlighting the strengths of his administration and criticizing Biden’s weaknesses. 

Trump stated, “On January 6, we had a great border. Nobody coming through. Very few. On January 6, we were energy independent. On January 6, we had the lowest taxes ever. We had the lowest regulations ever. On January 6, we were respected all over the world. And then he comes in and now we’re left with that.”

When the moderators redirected him, he responded by claiming he had asked protesters to go “peacefully and patriotically” and pointed to newly released footage in which Nancy Pelosi allegedly took responsibility for not calling in additional security. He stated “I said peacefully and patriotically. And Nancy Pelosi, if you just watched the news from two days ago, was on tape to her daughter, who is a documentary filmmaker, saying, ‘Oh no, it’s my responsibility. I was responsible for this because I offered her 10,000 soldiers or national guard and she turned them down, and the mayor of DC in writing turned it down.’”

Biden attacked Trump for his actions, and lack thereof, on January 6, emphasizing the former president’s sympathy for his supporters who attacked the Capitol. 

“Look, he encouraged those folks at the Capitol. I sat in a dining room off the Oval Office. He sat there for three hours watching, being begged by his vice president and a number of his Republican colleagues to do something, to call for a stop. Instead, he called these people patriots and great Americans. In fact, he said he would not forgive them for what they’ve done, and they’ve been convicted.”

He continued, “He says he wants to commute their sentences. He went to every single court in the nation, including the Supreme Court, and they all said no. This guy is responsible for what happened. He did nothing. These people should be in jail.”

Trump also criticized the January 6th select committee, implying political persecution. “One other thing, the unselect committee, which is basically two horrible Republicans and Democrats, destroyed and deleted all the information they found because they discovered we were right. They should go to jail for that. If a Republican did that, they’d go to jail.” Trump said.

In the wake of arguments about court cases and the criminals involved on January 6, Biden seized the opportunity to call Trump a convicted felon. “The only person on this stage who is a convicted felon is the man I’m looking at. The fact of the matter is that there was no effort on his part to stop what was happening on Capitol Hill, and all those people have been rightfully convicted.”

On the issue of democracy and January 6th, RFK Jr. immediately stated, “I don’t know if President Trump obstructed the orderly transition of power, which is one of the keystones of American democracy. If he did, he should be punished for it, he should be held accountable.”

He then turned the issue on both candidates, accusing them of not doing their duty to the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold. “Both of them subverted the right to free speech, which is the most important right. Biden, 37 hours after he took the oath of office, was ordering social media sites to censor his political opponents. I’m not just talking about me, and I’m not just talking about COVID, but on all kinds of issues like Ukraine, etc. This never happened in American history. He opened a portal to the FBI, the CIA, the NIH, DHS, the IRS, and other agencies to tamper with social media sites to take out things that were not politically palatable.”

Regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, RFK Jr. continued, “You couldn’t sue somebody who was involved in COVID, no matter how negligent that corporation or the biggest corporations in the world were, no matter how reckless they were being, no matter how grievous your injury, you could not sue them. They shut down 3.3 million businesses with no due process, no just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. They shut down the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions against warrantless searches and seizures with this track-and-trace surveillance. That was an all-out assault on the Constitution that we’ve never seen the likes of at any time in American history.”

On the question of Donald Trump’s ongoing criminal trials, RFK Jr. agreed with the former president that he is undergoing political persecution.

“I think President Trump was right. I’m not a fan of President Trump. I’m running against him. I think he was a bad president. But he’s right. It’s shocking. Fifty-one CIA agents signed this document saying that the Hunter Biden laptop was a Russian hoax. They were accusing the Russians of tampering with our election when it was actually the CIA tampering with the election. I want to say this too: President Biden got three billion dollars from big corporations in this country. He’s using that corporate money to sue me in virtually every state to keep me off the ballot. That’s not democratic. We all know.”

Child Care

Trump did not speak on child care when asked the question, he rather spoke about Joe Biden’s record and the success of his tax cuts. President Biden blamed Trump for doing “perpetually nothing to childcare.” While advocating that “we should significantly increase the childcare tax credit and “significantly increase the availability of women and men or single parents to be able to go back to work.”

Being the only candidate to answer this question, RFK Jr. attributed the crisis surrounding child care to the hollowing out of the middle class. “Oftentimes I’m running into people with four jobs between the couples. It used to be that when you and I were growing up, one parent stayed at home and took care of the kids. That doesn’t happen anymore. Now both parents need to be working to hold onto their home. So we do have a childcare crisis in this country, and it’s because of the destruction that all of these men contributed to the American middle class, and neither of them is offering any solution to this issue.”

RFK Jr. claimed the only way toward resolution is by balancing the budget and creating new industries.

“We cannot cut our way out of this debt. We have to build industry and grow GDP. One of the most efficient ways of building GDP is through childcare. There’s a 22 times return on investment. For every million dollars we spend on military weapons, we create two jobs. For every million dollars we spend on childcare, we create 22 jobs. We need to grow our way out of this budget death spiral, and one of the ways to do that is by providing childcare and reallocating half a trillion dollars from the military.”

Environment

President Trump initially pivoted from the climate question to address a previous topic regarding police. When redirected to the climate question, he claimed that all he wants is clean water and clean air, emphasizing that any form of energy use is beneficial. He asserted that his administration had the cleanest air. 

Trump declared, “So I want absolutely immaculate clean water and I want absolutely clean air and we had it. We had H2O, we had the best numbers ever, and we did, we were using all forms of energy, all forms, everything. And yet, during my four years, I had the best environmental numbers ever and my top environmental people gave me those statistics just before I walked on the stage, actually.”

Biden quickly countered stating “I don’t know where the hell he’s been. The idea today that he said it’s true—I passed the most extensive climate change legislation in history, in history.”

Biden emphasized, “The only existential threat to humanity is climate change, and he didn’t do a damn thing about it.” He also criticized Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement.

Trump defended his decision to withdraw from the Paris Accord, saying, “Paris Accord was going to cost us a trillion dollars and China nothing and Russia nothing and India nothing. It was a rip-off of the United States, and I ended it because I didn’t want to waste that money because they treated us horribly. We were the only ones who were costing us money.”

When addressing climate change, RFK Jr. emphasized his commitment to the environment and his record in protecting it. While he acknowledges climate change as an existential threat, he does not “insist other people believe that.”

He laid out his plan, stating, “I think we should focus on market-based solutions, which I think are the most efficient. This includes eliminating subsidies for the energy industry, particularly carbon. We give carbon $5.2 trillion in subsidies here and need to create a national grid system robust enough to handle the long-haul transportation of electrons. We should turn every American into an energy entrepreneur, every home into a power plant, using the cheapest, most efficient forms of energy. We need to start by protecting habitats, our air, water, wetlands, and soils. That’s the most important thing you can do for climate, and it’s almost altogether ignored. President Biden’s program, which includes the Inflation Reduction Act, does a few good things, but the bulk of it involves large subsidies to the oil industry, BlackRock, and other really sinister corporations.”

Social Security

One of the biggest fears facing Americans is Social Security becoming insolvent, leaving millions without proper retirement benefits. It will likely be the job of the next president to address this pressing issue. When asked what each candidate would do to address this issue, President Biden answered quickly, stating that the wealthy need to pay their fair share. He argued that by raising rates on millionaires and top earners, Social Security can remain solvent. Trump then blamed the problems with Social Security on Biden and the influx of illegal immigrants entering the country.

Biden explained, “Yes, it makes the very wealthy begin to pay their fair share. Right now, everybody making under $170,000 pays 6% of their income, of their paycheck. Every single time they get a paycheck from the first one they get when they’re 18 years old. The idea that millionaires are only paying 1% is ridiculous. I propose that we not raise the cost of Social Security for anyone making under $400,000. After that, we will increase the percentage to ensure the program’s longevity.”

Trump responded, “But Social Security, he’s destroying it because millions of people are pouring into our country. And they’re putting them onto Social Security. They’re putting them onto Medicare and Medicaid. They’re putting them in our hospitals, taking the place of our citizens. What they’re doing to the VA and our veterans is unbelievable.”

RFK Jr. began by stating, “Social Security is not an entitlement. Social Security is a contract. The United States would be outrageous if the government did not live up to its full faith and credit of paying back those obligations.”

He continued, “Even if it has to reach outside of the Social Security system to get it, what we need to be doing is winding down our military commitments. We need to unravel the war machine. We need to solve our chronic disease epidemic, which is the biggest cause, costing $4.3 trillion. And we can do those things very quickly. I’m going to cut the military budget in half during my first four years. I’m going to use AI and blockchain to eliminate waste in government and save more money. And I’m going to address the chronic disease epidemic. Ultimately, that’s going to save us a lot of money. This has to be a priority for us.”

Post-Debate Questions to ask yourself:

Did this debate change my mind on who I am going to vote for?

Did I view who won differently by reading about it compared to watching it?

• How much does policy matter compared to image of a President?

Which candidate most closely aligns with my ideology? One? Two? All Three? None?

Do I want to vote for any of these candidates?

Should RFK Jr. be on the debate stage with Joe Biden and Donald Trump?

Am I better off now than I was four years ago?

In just an hour and a half of debating, a lot was covered, and political pundits are already spinning their takes on who won. This article isn’t here to tell you who won; it’s meant to provide you with all the information you need to make a proper, educated, and informed decision based on the facts. We believe in empowering you to form your own opinions rather than being swayed by external narratives. It’s your voice, your vote. Make it yours and make it count!

Introduction

Before 2006, U.S. states did not require voter identification at the polls; it was only necessary when registering to vote. However, Indiana introduced a law in 2006 mandating ID at the polls, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld, ruling that securing elections justified the requirement, provided the laws were neutral and did not significantly burden voters. Following this and the Shelby County v. Holder decision, which overturned a key section of the Voting Rights Act, thirty-six states have implemented varying degrees of voter ID laws. Meanwhile, fourteen states and Washington D.C. still allow voting without ID.

Across the country, states employ two types of voter ID laws: strict and nonstrict. Under strict voter ID laws, voters who cannot present acceptable identification—driver’s license, state-issued identification card, military ID, tribal ID, etc.—are only allowed to vote on a provisional ballot and must return to the election office with identification for their vote to count. Non-strict laws allow voters without acceptable ID to cast a ballot without additional steps. In the last year, seven states passed laws making voter identification requirements stricter.

Arguments in Favor

Support for voter ID laws is often fueled by concerns over voter fraud. A 2013 poll of 906 U.S. adults found that 43% believed voter fraud to be relatively common, and a 2010 poll showed over 80% of respondents supporting some form of ID requirement at the polls. Advocates of strict voter ID laws, like Texas Governor Greg Abbott, frequently emphasize voter fraud to justify these measures. Abbott has publicly stated, “Voter fraud is real, that it must be stopped, and that voter ID is one way to prevent cheating and ensure integrity in the electoral system,” reinforcing the perceived necessity and effectiveness of voter ID laws.

Supporters of voter ID laws argue that these regulations affect both political parties equally. A 2023 study revealed that voter ID laws mobilize supporters from both major parties, ultimately neutralizing any significant impact on election outcomes. Republicans frequently cite this point to demonstrate that the laws do not disproportionately benefit them but are aimed at ensuring election security for all parties involved.

Arguments Against

Opponents of strict voter ID laws argue that they disproportionately affect minority, low-income, and elderly populations. Statistics show that 13% of Black Americans lack proper voter identification, compared to just 5% of white Americans. Additionally, new voter ID laws could potentially disenfranchise ten million Latino Americans. The costs of acquiring the required IDs range from $75 to $175, not including the additional transportation expenses. In rural areas, some citizens must travel over a hundred miles to obtain the necessary identification, further highlighting the discriminatory impact of these laws.

Critics of strict voter ID laws argue that they address a virtually non-existent issue, as voter ID fraud rates are exceedingly low. A 2017 report estimated the rate of voter fraud to range between 0.0003% and 0.0025%, including all types of voter fraud such as clerical errors and issues with mail-in voting, not solely those related to identification. Thus, the rate of fraud specifically tied to voter IDs is even less than 0.0025%. For instance, in the 2020 Georgia election, where nine million votes were counted, only one fraud case was reported, and it did not involve voter ID fraud. Opponents maintain that these laws fail to enhance election security and instead serve to disenfranchise specific voter groups.

Future Developments

Maintaining a secure election process is essential for the functioning of democracy, and steps should be taken to ensure that the integrity of the voting process is maintained. However, policymakers must do this without disenfranchising voters from minority and low-income groups. As these laws become more prevalent, it will be essential to continue to observe the impacts of the legislation on voter turnout and vote concentration.