Category: Election Policy

  • Trump vs. Biden: An Unbiased Analysis of the Presidential Debate 2024

    Trump vs. Biden: An Unbiased Analysis of the Presidential Debate 2024

    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!

  • Pros and Cons of Voter ID Laws

    Pros and Cons of Voter ID Laws

    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.

  • Understanding the Electoral College Debate

    Understanding the Electoral College Debate

    Background

    During American presidential elections, news coverage focuses on the “270 to win” count rather than the actual majority of individual votes that candidates receive. This is due to the fact that presidential elections are decided by a system called the Electoral College, in which a candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. The Electoral College is outlined in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. It was devised by the Framers in 1787 as a compromise between competing visions for electing the president—rather than a direct popular vote, electors from each state would meet to choose the president. These electors are selected anew for each election and represent their respective states or the District of Columbia.

    In the late 18th century, the United States consisted of 13 states. Delegates at the Constitutional Convention struggled with how to balance the power of larger states with that of smaller ones. They sought a system that would prevent domination by states with larger populations. Thus, the Electoral College’s apportionment is based on the total state population, not the number of eligible voters. This approach also granted white voters in the South greater influence because enslaved people counted as a part of the total state population despite the fact that they could not vote. Initially, the College was envisioned as independent, empowered to choose winners based on merit. Few delegates had faith in citizens’ ability to make the ‘right’ selections directly but believed they could competently choose electors capable of making informed decisions.

    The Electoral College differs significantly from a direct popular vote for three reasons. The most drastic difference is in the form of the “Plus Two” effect. Each state is allocated electors based on the number of Representatives sent to the House of Representatives, plus the number of Senators sent to the Senate. Every state has two Senators, and Representatives vary by state population The impact of these additional votes varies greatly between populous states like California (53 Representatives) and smaller states like Wyoming (1 Representative). Secondly, all states and the District of Columbia (except for Maine and Nebraska) follow a winner-takes-all approach, in which the candidate who wins the majority of votes in a state receives all its electoral votes no matter how small said majority is. Lastly, U.S. territories are not eligible to send electors to the Electoral College.

    The question central to this debate today is whether or not the Electoral College is outdated or still necessary. Public opinion is not in favor of the College: in September 2023, 65% of U.S. adults favored its abolishment. This may be because five presidents won the Electoral College and lost the popular vote, including two in the past 25 years. Two reforms attempt to mitigate issues with the winner-takes-all effect and the somewhat frequent discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral vote. The first is the district system, which allocates electoral votes based on congressional districts, potentially reducing the winner-takes-all impact. The second is the National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC), where states commit to awarding their electors to the national popular vote winner. However, this compact has only been adopted by 16 states and D.C.

    Arguments in Favor of the Electoral College

    The Electoral College ensures that all parts of the country are represented in presidential elections, especially rural areas that might otherwise be overshadowed by cities. In addition, the Electoral College safeguards against the tyranny of the majority—supporters believe the Electoral College provides a clear, secure process, reducing potential questions about a national vote count and its accuracy and encourages broad-based coalitions to promote more moderate political parties due to the need of presidential candidates to capture swing states. 

    Supporters point to the fact that the Electoral College was the reason for the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, even though he won less than 50% of the popular vote. Supporters also counter the idea that the Electoral College is outdated by citing past reforms that arguably made the system more responsive to the popular vote. In particular, the 12th Amendment instituted a joint ticket system for the election of the vice president and the president together (in place of the second-place presidential finisher becoming the vice president). In addition, state legislatures used to choose the electors but, by the end of the 1800s all states moved to allow voters choose the electors. These reforms are cited as evidence that the Electoral College can be altered to evolve with the times while still remaining an important institution. In addition, some proponents say that because replacing the Electoral College with a different system would require a Constitutional amendment, it is too lofty of a goal, and that we should instead work on improving it when needed.

    Arguments Against the Electoral College

    A common argument against the Electoral College is that its design reflects compromises between slaveholding states and non-slaveholding states, tainting the legitimacy of the system. Today, there is evidence that Black people in the South hold less voting power in the winner-take-all system because they are overpowered by white voters in their states. Critics also argue that the winner-take-all system  makes elections unfairly rely on swing states and unequally spread votes. Furthermore, electors are not constitutionally obligated to vote for the person who won their state, although “faithless electors” are incredibly rare. Some also say that due to how nationalized politics have become in the 21st century, factoring state perspectives into the national political system is less important than it once was and thus no longer a valid argument for the Electoral College’s existence. One final argument by opponents of the College is that proposed reforms (such as the district system) will not solve the problem of how smaller states benefit from the “plus two” effect in the apportionment of votes.

    Recent DevelopmentsThe 2022 Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act, signed into law the year after the January 6th, 2021 attack, states that the Vice President’s role during Congress’s Electoral vote count will be primarily administrative rather than political. In addition, objections to the count by members of Congress must now be supported by at least one-fifth of both the House and Senate’s members. This act, intended to safeguard Congressional authority over the procedures of the Electoral College, will soon be put to the test. During the 2024 election cycle and those in the future, the American public and politicians must decide whether the Electoral College is needed to provide balance to the presidential election system and give smaller states a voice, or if it is an outdated element of the Constitution that reflects a different time in U.S. history.

  • Pros and Cons of TX SB1933

    Pros and Cons of TX SB1933

    Introduction

    Since 2022, legislatures nationwide have been passing legislation to secure election processes. In 2023, eleven states passed voting laws that make voting more restrictive to ensure the integrity of the election process. One of these laws is Texas’s Senate Bill 1933. The 2023 bill allows the Secretary of State to control an election within counties with a population of over four million contingent on someone filing a complaint against the election processes. However, Harris County is the only county in Texas with a population of over 4 million. Thus, it is the only county that qualifies under this bill. Although Harris County had notable issues in the 2022 election cycle, which caused it to be singled out, there are arguments that the legislation is politically targeted.  

    Arguments in Favor

    In an audit conducted by Texas’s Secretary of State, Harris County was found to have issues with ballot distributions, equipment issues, incomplete paperwork, and insufficient training, among other problems. With over ten thousand election irregularities in the primary and general elections 2022, the legislature saw cause for concern. By creating a process for intervention, proponents of the bill claim that the election process will be more secure, restoring voter confidence in the election process. Proponents also point out that there are requirements for the Secretary of State to be able to take control of the election. There must be a “good cause” with a pattern of issues in the election process. In the event of malfunctioning equipment, uncounted votes, or voting registration issues, the Secretary of State will notify the county election authority to conduct an intervention. If this intervention proceeds, the Secretary of State will eventually take charge of the election process. 

    Additionally, the law should deter partisan advantages. Some people think the election rules in 2020, like accommodations for mail-in ballots, were changed to benefit Democrats rather than to protect against the spread of COVID-19. In case of a claim like this, the SB 1933 will allow the Secretary of State of Texas to investigate and prevent such an occurrence. Much opposition to SB 1933 comes from the fact that, when put into practice, it could increase barriers to voting, such as ID restrictions and the prevention of mail-in voting. However, in analyzing election legislation across states that impose barriers to voting, Politico summarized that restrictions and expansions of voting laws do not create exaggerated impacts; instead, the turnout for voting, both Republican and Democrat, remains largely the same, eliminating any partisan advantage. This finding maintains that SB 1933’s impact would not lower voter turnout to the extent that the opposition claims. 

    Arguments Against

    Arguments against SB 1933 lie in the demographics of Harris County. 44.6% of Harris County is Hispanic, and 20.6% is African American, making it one of the most diverse counties in the state. Furthermore, Harris County is one of the largest democratic strongholds in Texas. Because the bill was passed by a Republican majority legislature, in conjecture, these demographic trends raise questions about the partisan bias in the bill. In the event of a takeover by the Secretary of State – a Republican – could make it harder for voting to take place, preventing largely Democratic votes from being counted. Opponents of the bill believe that if the Secretary of State could take over the election process, they would take subsequent steps to suppress democratic voters – who in Harris County are citizens in minority groups.

    Moreover, because the threshold for intervention in the “good cause” claim is vague, opponents argue it can be easily abused. If the Secretary of State finds a reason to take over the election, the oversight can last up to two years until the problems are resolved. If election control is maintained by the state, especially for long periods of time, there is a question of whether the election process would remain nonpartisan. Since someone from the Republican party generally holds the Secretary of State position, their oversight of elections in a largely Democratic county means they could change policy to make it less favorable to a specific demographic of voters. This possible policy change could manifest with restrictions on early voting, mail-in ballots, and absentee voting – all impacting democratic voter turnout.

    Future Developments

    Laws aimed at securing the election process, such as SB 1933, are going through various state legislatures. However, in analyzing these policies, answering whether the laws truly secure the election process or if they disenfranchise a group of voters is essential. SB 1933 has much debate on both sides; however, one thing is known: the next election in Harris County will be markedly different than the prior ones.

  • Voting Process: From Ballot to Inauguration

    Voting Process: From Ballot to Inauguration

    So, you figured out registering to vote, now HOW do you vote? With voting laws mainly being determined by state and local governments, understanding the voting process can be complicated. There are three main ways in which you may be asked to cast your vote: hand marked paper ballots, ballot marking devices, and direct recording electronic Systems. The most widely used method are hand marked paper ballots. The least common is the direct recording electronic system. 

    Hand marked ballots are paper ballots which the voter manually marks their selection. Even though a jurisdiction may primarily use hand marked ballots, ballot making devices or direct recording systems are required to be provided as an alternative for voters with disabilities. Ballot marking devices utilize an electronic medium to record votes onto a paper ballot. No record is kept on the electronic devices. Like the ballot marking devices, direct recording electronic systems use an electronic voting system, however they do keep an electronic record of votes cast. In some jurisdictions a paper ballot is created so that the voter can confirm their selections and the paper ballot be kept as a record in case there is an audit or recount. Once cast votes can be counted by hand, by optical scanner, or through the direct recording electronic systems. 

    The electoral college is a constitutional provision which served as a “compromise between a popular vote by citizens and a vote in Congress”. Each state has electors which is equal to the number of representatives they have in Congress and Washington  D.C receives three electoral votes for a total of 538 electors. In Maine and Nebraska electoral votes are proportionally allocated, whereas every other state chooses a winner takes all method based on the states popular vote. The candidate who receives 270 votes in the electoral college wins the race. 

    Election recounts occur either automatically when the margin of victory is narrow, or in response to a request from someone (typically the party or the candidate). Washington D.C. and in 41 states requests for recounts are permitted. When the victory margin is narrow a recount is automatically triggered in Washington D.C. and 23 states. In the states that do not offer a process to request a recount, or in which one is automatically triggered, the only remedy for the defeated candidate is to challenge the election results in the court, and the court may then order a recount.

    Your vote is a way to express your voice, sustain democracy, hold political actors accountable, spark societal shifts and drive policy change! Visit usa.gov to learn how you can vote in your jurisdiction! 

    Caption Ideas: 

    Voters under 30 have the lowest turnout rate in midterm and presidential elections, it’s time to change that narrative! Take action, be the difference, and vote in every election.

    In the 2020 presidential election only 66% of eligible voters cast their ballots! Every vote counts, make sure yours is heard in the next and all elections!

  • Local Government Roles 

    Local Government Roles 

    Overview:

    Local governments get their authority to rule only as it is granted by the state. They are the closest form of government to the people, therefore they have a deep understanding of their community’s unique challenges and priorities. They have the authority to enact laws, regulations, and policies tailored to the specific needs of their citizens, allowing them to respond quickly and effectively to address local concerns. Lastly, local governments generally take responsibility for parks and recreation services, police and fire departments, housing services, emergency medical services, municipal courts, transportation services (including public transportation), and public works (streets, sewers, snow removal, signage, ect.)

    Top Roles: 

    The mayor serves as the chief executive officer of the city and is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations and management of the government. Constituents may elect a mayor to their position directly, through a process that commonly includes primary elections and a general election. The mayor’s key duties include enforcing local laws and ordinances, presiding over city council meetings, representing the community at official functions, preparing and proposing the municipal budget, and exercising additional powers in emergency situations. While the specific responsibilities of the mayor are defined by state law, the city council can also prescribe additional duties, making the mayor a critical link between the legislative and executive branches of local government.

    The city council serves as the legislative body of local government and is responsible for  creating laws, policies, and budgetary decisions for the municipality. Council members are elected officials who represent the interests of their constituents, through either district-based or at-large voting systems. The council’s key duties include approving the municipal budget, overseeing city departments, establishing zoning and land use regulations, and providing general oversight of the local government’s operations. They work collaboratively to make decisions that address the needs and priorities of the community, serving as a crucial link between the people and their local government.

    County commissioners are responsible for overseeing county affairs such as public services, infrastructure, and budget allocation. They are a part of the legislative body of local government and are elected by constituents within specific districts. Their duties include budget allocation, public services, policy making, and resource management. Commissioners overall work together to address community needs, enact policies, allocate resources, and advocate for residents interests at the county level. 

    The sheriff, as the principal law enforcement officer at the county level, ensures public safety, enforces laws, and supervises the sheriff’s department. They are elected in primary and general elections, and are responsible for upholding the law, investigating crimes, and supporting local law enforcement agencies. Additionally, they oversee civil process serving, manage county jails, and represent the county in legal affairs, contributing to the overall safety and security of the community.

    School board members are elected members that  govern the local school district. They have the power to make decisions on school policy, budgets, programming, resource allocation, curriculum, and faculty tenure and can have a dramatic impact on issues of equity and quality of the education provided in your schools.They represent the interests of students, parents, and educators, making decisions that impact curriculum, facilities, and resources to promote academic success and student well-being.

    The city manager serves as an executive role for the city and is responsible for overseeing day-to-day operations, implementing policies set by the city council, and managing city departments. City managers are typically appointed by the city council based on their qualifications and experience and they carry out the directives of the council.. They work to ensure efficient delivery of public services, coordinate budget planning and implementation, and serve as a bridge between elected officials, city staff, and the community, prioritizing effective governance and the well-being of residents.

    Planning and Zoning Commissions, whether appointed or elected, are tasked with recommending zoning district boundaries and regulations to the town or city council. Their decisions shape the development of residential, commercial, industrial, and public spaces, impacting property values, tax revenue, job opportunities, traffic patterns, and quality of life. Therefore the commission’s role is vital in guiding community growth and development according to residents interests and local government.

    Municipal court judges oversee a range of local legal matters, including enforcing city ordinances, adjudicating misdemeanors, and handling small claims. Their rulings can significantly impact residents’ daily lives as they rule on traffic violations, minor criminal offenses, and code enforcement violations. Municipal city court judges can be either appointed or elected and they administer justice impartially, ensuring fair trials and upholding the rule of law to promote public safety and community well-being.

  • Student Voting

    Student Voting

    The Democratic process requires an active and participatory population. Voting lies at the center of this engagement, however increasing voter turnout in the United States has proven to be a formidable challenge. Social scientists have found that voting is a lifelong habit that is most likely to be formed when first done at a young age. Thus, encouraging young people to vote can pay dividends for democracy for years to come. Many issues today affect younger voters differently than other age groups which makes their democratic participation even more valuable, such as educational costs, national debt, and climate change. Only 43% of eligible students voted in 2016 compared to 56% of all eligible voters.

    Encouraging Student Voting: Campuses and Organizations

    Students can vote in their hometowns via absentee ballot, or in their college town (if different). This makes universities key actors who can take several main steps to facilitate democratic participation: 

    1. Register: actively registering student voters on campus leads to higher turnout. University of Michigan tripled student turnout from 2014 to 2018 from 14 to 41% after a large scale registration initiative.
    2. Educate: providing information on navigating voter registration, absentee ballot, and ID laws. 
    3. Facilitate dialogue: hosting debates and discussions on issues that are on the ballot box to educate students on what and whom they will be voting for. 
    4. Consider ID laws: providing ID’s that can be used at their states’ polling locations.

    Groups like The National Study of Learning Voting and Engagement (NSVLE) partner with campuses to educate and guide new voters. As a result, the colleges that partner with them see significant increases in participation. In 2016, 43% of college students voted, but 48.3% of NSLVE partnered campuses. Dozens of organizations like NSVLE focus on mobilizing students across the country. 

    Arguments Against Student Voting

    Student voting can cause friction with local communities, and is not an apolitical issue. Often, students have different ideologies than their host towns, because students tend to be more liberal than the general population, especially in rural or smaller communities. Locals perceive students as less invested in local politics because they can be insulated from the outcomes. Students may live and work on campus, purchase healthcare from their school, and return to their hometowns in the summer, and their membership in the community often comes with an expiration date upon graduation. This can cause resentment among locals who recognize a large voting bloc with the power to potentially shift election outcomes, but who are not necessarily focused on the wellbeing of the community.

    Barriers to Student Voting

    Student voting can be challenging because of statutory barriers, primarily voter ID laws. The 7 states in red don’t accept student IDs as voter IDs, and 5 yellow states restrict types of student IDs. In Wisconsin, student IDs must show an expiration date of less than two years and a signature. 23 of its 26 public universities and 16 of its 23 private universities did not provide ID which met both criteria. In Kentucky, student IDs must show a signature. These laws across the nation render 15% of 17-20 year olds and 11% of 21-24 year olds unable to vote.