Mediaboss Marketing

Several House Democrats have signed onto a letter amping up calls for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from a case reviewing whether former President Trump is immune from prosecution over charges of trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

“[W]e strongly implore you to exercise your discretion and recuse yourself from this and any other decisions in the case of United States v. Trump,” the group of Democrats, which included Reps. Hank Johnson (Ga.), Jamie Raskin (Md.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), wrote in the letter obtained by The Hill on Monday.

Johnson serves as ranking member of the Judiciary subcommittee on courts. The letter, first reported by The Washington Post, was also signed by Democratic Reps. Madeleine Dean (Pa.), Gerry Connolly (Va.), Dan Goldman (N.Y.) and Jasmine Crockett (Texas).

Senate Democrats sent a similar letter to Thomas last week, urging him to remove himself from considering the case.

The Hill has reached out to Thomas for comment.

Special counsel Jack Smith has asked the court to decide “Whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin.”

The request puts the justices at the center of a pivotal election-year battle.

The House Democrats, in their letter dated Dec. 15, noted Thomas’s wife, Ginni, was an active supporter of Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen and pushed Trump allies on the issue. The panel that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol interviewed Ginni Thomas last year and said she reiterated the false claims.

In their letter calling for Justice Thomas to recuse himself, the House Democrats also pointed to the court’s new code of conduct, which was adopted amid scrutiny surrounding reports on luxury travel and other previously unreported perks that he and other justices had received.

The Supreme Court last month approved the new ethics code, with justices pledging to recuse themselves when “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The ethics code has been met with mixed reviews from Democrats, who have highlighted it lacks an enforcement mechanism.

“If you want to show the American people that the Supreme Court’s recent Code of Conduct is worth more than the paper it is written on, you must do the honorable thing and recuse yourself from any decisions in the case of United States v. Trump,” the House members wrote in their letter to Thomas.

Continued here:
House Democrats call on Thomas to recuse himself from Trump immunity case - The Hill

Minnesota Democrats, newly in control of the state government, began 2023 by enacting a clean electricity standard. Michigan lawmakers followed suit months later as one of their final acts before gaveling out for the year.

The two laws were bookends to a year of climate action, experts say, as Democratic state officials advanced major policies that climate hawks could once only dream of.

State officials committed serious money and political capital to cleaning up the electricity sector the backbone of the energy transition while also boosting electric vehicles, restricting gas in new buildings, and building factories to manufacture batteries and other clean technology. Climate activists hope such actions ripple out nationwide, as the U.S. lags in its goal of halving emissions by 2030.

While some states took steps to boost oil and gas, or turned down federal funds for clean energy, such setbacks were the exception, not the rule, said Sonia Aggarwal, CEO of the climate policy firm Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.

Were not talking about broad, sweeping programs that take us backwards, said Aggarwal, who was formerly a White House climate aide to President Joe Biden. On the whole, its really been kind of a banner year for clean energy policy in the states.

The turnaround was seeded last year, when Congress passed $369 billion for clean energy programs in the Inflation Reduction Act. Then, in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning federal abortion rights, Democrats overperformed in the midterm elections to hold or flip key state capitols.

Those officials took power just as unprecedented federal climate money began flowing to states. That dovetailed with an equally important, but less tangible, change: Democrats got more aggressive.

Controlling each statehouse by a single vote, Minnesota and Michigan Democrats defied Republican warnings that major climate legislation would spark a backlash after a year of high energy prices. Instead, swing-state Democrats treated climate action as an electoral asset.

Polling has long pointed to strong public support for more renewable energy, but Democrats have often hesitated to risk higher prices or disruptive mandates. The falling cost of renewable energy (especially relative to fossil fuels) has eased that reluctance.

And with the fresh example of voters rewarding Democrats for embracing progressive fights on abortion, some state lawmakers said they felt emboldened to push further on popular climate policies, too.

Abortion changed the political landscape for Democrats, said Michigan House Speaker Pro Tempore Laurie Pohutsky. I think that was the first instance of us just taking the public at their word about what they wanted and not worrying about pushing things too far.

When Michigan lawmakers faced Republican and industry pushback over their climate package, Pohutsky said, Democrats looked to abortion as a road map: They defended their policies using some traditionally conservative messages, like property rights and energy independence, and trusted polling that showed voters generally supported their agenda.

It was just kind of a matter of getting out of our own way, Pohutsky said.

Over the past year, states stretching from California to New York have advanced major climate policies for electricity, transportation, buildings and industry.

New Jersey and a half-dozen other states adopted Californias stringent tailpipe-emissions standards, extending the Golden States pollution rules to about one-third of the U.S. car market. (Others, like Massachusetts, already adopted them last year.) The standards require automakers to sell an increasing percentage of zero-emission vehicles, effectively banning new gas car sales by 2035 though Colorado and New Mexico stopped short of adopting that total ban.

In Minnesota, lawmakers set new standards for their transportation planning that seek to cut down on vehicle miles traveled an innovative approach, experts said, that could inspire similar efforts in other states.

Several states also tackled the hot-button issue of transitioning away from gas appliances. In New York, for example, lawmakers passed a ban on fossil fuel infrastructure in most new buildings that will phase in between 2026 and 2029.

Washington state was also poised to ban gas hookups in new buildings, but the state pulled back after a federal court in April overturned a gas ban in Berkeley, California. Instead, Washington state will allow builders to install gas systems only if they can match the energy efficiency of a heat pump meaning they will have to offset gas appliances by installing more insulation or cutting energy use elsewhere.

Washington state also began its new cap-and-trade system, with its carbon auctions fetching the state more than $1.5 billion in revenue so far this year. Washington state law directs that money toward emissions-cutting projects, with a mandate that at least 35 percent of the funding directly benefit overburdened communities.

Other states, enticed by federal climate programs that require matching funds, passed hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies or grants. Some, like Michigans $350 million Make it in Michigan Competitiveness Fund, gave state officials broad leeway to pursue federal funding for clean manufacturing and vehicle electrification as well as investments further afield from climate, like semiconductor production.

Other states passed more narrowly targeted subsidies. Oregons$90 million climate package included an energy performance standard for commercial buildings, offering subsidies to building owners who meet their benchmarks ahead of schedule. The state intends to align those incentives with federal programs, allowing building owners to stack their subsidies.

Will all those new climate policies translate into deep emissions cuts? The real test will come as states begin to implement the programs they pushed through this year, experts say.

The gears are turning, but were still very much in the planning phase, said Miguel Moravec, a senior associate at the nonprofit RMI who focuses on transportation policy.

Even as state climate policies multiply, U.S. oil and natural gas production has reached record highs. Some analysts expect that growth to continue into next year.

There has been little appetite among some Democratic governors like Govs. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico, Jared Polis of Colorado and Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania to curb drilling, even as they back some limits on the industrys environmental impact.

Indeed, climate-oriented governors across the country are behind their own decarbonization targets, according to a report this month from the Environmental Defense Fund.

Twenty-three states, along with Puerto Rico and Guam, are on track to miss their emission reduction targets by about 29 percent, according to the EDF report, an overshoot of almost 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

Many of these governors have been in a position of climate leadership for years, said Pam Kiely, EDFs associate vice president for U.S. climate. Its time for them to move beyond pledges and plans.

Some Democratic governors have also worked against climate policy. Grisham vetoed several climate programs, including EV subsidies of up to $4,000 and geothermal research funding, citing their costs.

And in Kentucky, Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear rejected federal funding to develop a climate plan a decision that forgoes millions of dollars from EPAs climate pollution reduction grants. Some Kentucky cities hope to step into the states role, create a plan and claim the funds.

Republican governors in Florida, Iowa, South Dakota and Wyoming rejected those same grants, one of the Inflation Reduction Acts biggest pots of money for states.

Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon pulled out of the program last month after initially applying, citing my ever-growing concern that EPA will turn Wyoming and other states planning efforts upside down into a mandate to prematurely shut down Wyomings all-of-the-above energy development approach.

Other Republican-governed states took direct action to boost fossil fuels. Texas passed legislation to encourage construction of new gas-fueled power plants, including $5 billion in loans and grants.

And North Carolinas GOP-dominated Legislature blocked Democratic Gov. Roy Coopers clean car standards, as well as new energy efficiency codes for homes, defanging the states building code-writers in the process.

That split-screen more renewables on one hand; more oil on the other has some climate advocates questioning whether 2023 will mark a true turning point.

There is an open question of whether or not were actually investing in a transition away from fossil fuels, said Erik Schlenker-Goodrich, executive director of the Western Environmental Law Center.

Simply adding more renewables on top of fossil fuels means missing the decarbonization timeline that science demands, he said. But thats been the approach from New Mexico and other oil-producing states, and its been reinforced by federal policies.

The Inflation Reduction Act ties auctions of federal offshore wind leases to offshore oil leases, and it subsidizes carbon capture and hydrogen all priorities of the oil and gas sector. The 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law also provided billions for EV chargers, capping oil and gas wells, and traditional roads and bridges.

Those laws are focused on carrots, not focused on sticks, Schlenker-Goodrich said.

Efforts to directly limit emissions have seen mixed results. An example came in September, when Colorado finalized its regulations on major industrial polluters.

The Polis administration hailed the rules as a pioneering effort to curb emissions from a hardto-regulate sector. But climate advocates assailed it as worse than doing nothing, because its carve-outs and high emissions cap could enable manufacturers to pollute more than the status quo.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative an 11-state mandatory cap-and-trade market has also had a bumpy road.

A Pennsylvania court decision blocked the states participation in the market and though the Shapiro administration is challenging that decision, the governor has remained officially noncommittal to joining the carbon-trading program. Meanwhile, Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkins effort to pull Virginia out of RGGI suffered a setback after Democrats recaptured full control of the Legislature.

While states are opening new doors to climate action thanks in part to the climate and infrastructure laws the future is still uncertain, said Schlenker-Goodrich.

[The Inflation Reduction Act] turned the entire advocacy, political and economic landscape into hotly contested space. But it remains contested, he said. That is a positive step in the right direction. But in many respects, for the folks who are leaning into what comes next, it is also illuminating how politically and economically difficult that transition is going to be.

See the rest here:
How 2023 changed the way states do climate policy - E&E News by POLITICO

The Colorado Supreme Court, which barred former President Donald J. Trump from the states primary ballot, is composed of seven justices who were all appointed by Democratic governors.

Justices on the court serve 10-year terms, and Democrats have held the governors office for the last 16 years, so all of the current justices were appointed by that party, with five appointed by one man: John Hickenlooper, who was governor from 2011 to 2019 and is now one of the states U.S. senators.

Still, the chief justice, Brian Boatright, is a Republican, while three justices are Democrats and three are listed in voter registration records as unaffiliated with a party.

And the court was not of one mind on whether Mr. Trump should appear on the ballot. The decision was 4-3, with the court ruling that the 14th Amendment forbade Mr. Trump from holding office because he had engaged in insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, when his supporters overran the Capitol. (Of the four who voted with the majority, two are registered Democrats and two are not registered with a party.)

The decision was harshly criticized by supporters of Mr. Trump, who said that keeping him off the ballot was undemocratic. The head of Colorados Republican Party, Dave Williams, said out-of-control radicals in Colorado would rather spit on our Constitution than let the people decide which candidates should represent them in a free and fair election.

But some observers of the court say that it is notably nonpartisan, in part because of how the justices are named. The governor must choose from a pool of nominees recommended by a bipartisan commission. The majority of the members on that commission are not lawyers. Still, most are chosen by the governor.

Its perceived to be way less political than the U.S. Supreme Court, and I think its true that its way less political, said Chris Jackson, a lawyer in Denver whose practice includes election law. There arent really conservative and liberal justices in the way that we describe the U.S. Supreme Court justices.

The decision on Trump on Tuesday was not the first time the court has removed a political candidate from the ballot. In 2020, it ruled that a Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, Michelle Ferrigno Warren, could not appear on the primary ballot because she had not collected enough signatures from voters. A lower court had been more lenient, citing the Covid-19 pandemic, but the states highest court disagreed.

Two years earlier, in 2018, the court removed a Republican candidate from a ballot. It found that Representative Doug Lamborn, a longtime congressman from Colorado Springs, had not collected enough valid voter signatures to be on the ballot. In that case, however, a federal court disagreed and eventually reinstated Mr. Lamborn, who won the election.

Mr. Lamborn said in a statement that he hoped Mr. Trump would have similar success in the U.S. Supreme Court.

This wrongful decision was made by the same court that unconstitutionally removed my name from the ballot years ago & had to be corrected by a federal court, Mr. Lamborn wrote on the social media platform X.

Like the U.S. Supreme Court, the Colorado Supreme Court can choose whether to hear cases that are appealed to it, and, in some of the states biggest recent cases, the Colorado high court has declined.

That was true in two cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court eventually weighed in: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which that court sided in 2018 with a baker who had refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, and a case this year, Counterman v. Colorado, in which the high court said that the First Amendment put limits on laws banning online threats.

Doug Spencer, a law professor at the University of Colorado, said the states high court appeared, in its Trump decision, to try to walk a tight line. It had ruled to remove Mr. Trump from the ballot but put a pause on its own ruling.

If the case is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, as is expected, then Mr. Trumps name would, under the state courts order, remain on the ballot until the Supreme Court decides the case. But the Colorado secretary of state said on Tuesday that she would follow whatever court order is in place on Jan. 5, when the state must certify ballots for the primary election.

In staying its own decision until the Supreme Court weighs in, Professor Spencer said, the state court had teed it up in just the right way to be decided by the nation's top court.

He added: Theyre very thorough in terms of explaining themselves, whether or not you agree with them.

Susan C. Beachy contributed research.

Original post:
Colorado Supreme Court Was Narrowly Split on Barring Trump From Ballot - The New York Times

In April 2022, during his Senate primary campaign in Pennsylvania, John Fetterman spoke enthusiastically about his unqualified support for Israel and said he did not consider himself a progressive when it came to his views on the Jewish state.

Whenever Im in a situation to be called on to take up the cause of strengthening and enhancing the security of Israel or deepening our relationship between the United States and Israel, Im going to lean in, Mr. Fetterman, then the lieutenant governor, told Jewish Insider at the time. When it came to far-left Democrats who harshly criticized Israel, he added, I would also respectfully say that Im not really a progressive in that sense.

So as the left has turned against Mr. Fetterman in recent weeks, branding him #GenocideJohn for his unequivocal support of Israels fierce retaliation against Hamas in response to the groups Oct. 7 terrorist attacks, the senator has dug in.

Once a darling of progressives who positioned himself as a champion of the underdog and highlighted his association with Senator Bernie Sanders, the self-described democratic socialist from Vermont, Mr. Fetterman now has a less rosy view of the left and says the label of progressive does not fit him anymore.

What I have found out over the last couple years is that the right, and now the left, are hoping that I die, Mr. Fetterman, who suffered a near-fatal stroke during his campaign, said in an interview on Wednesday. There are ones that are rooting for another blood clot. They have both now been wishing that I die.

Mr. Fetterman has rejected calls for a cease-fire, filled the walls of the hallway outside his Senate office with photos of the hostages taken by Hamas, draped himself in an Israeli flag and even waved one provocatively in the face of pro-Palestinian demonstrators. A large Israeli flag even hangs on the wall behind his desk, positioned to be visible in his Zoom shots.

In forcefully inserting himself into an issue that has exposed a deep divide in the Democratic Party as the death toll in Gaza has risen, Mr. Fetterman has shattered any lasting perception that he is a progressive warrior in lock step with the left.

He has also publicly encouraged Democrats in recent days to engage in border negotiations with Republicans, talks that have outraged progressives who object to efforts to clamp down on migration through the United States border with Mexico.

I dont think its unreasonable to have a secured border, Mr. Fetterman said in the interview, conducted over Zoom. I would never put Dreamers in harms way, or support any kind of cruelty or mass expulsion of hundreds of thousands of people. But its a reasonable conversation to talk about the border.

It all marks a shift in Mr. Fettermans image, even if the progressive label was never a perfect fit for him. In 2018, Mr. Sanders called Mr. Fetterman an outstanding progressive as he endorsed his campaign for lieutenant governor. Mr. Fetterman, an early backer of Mr. Sanderss 2016 presidential bid, used to introduce himself at political events as a Democrat and a progressive.

The Pennsylvania senator said he still aligns with many progressive goals, including a $15 minimum wage, universal health care, legalizing marijuana and abolishing the Senate filibuster.

But he said he no longer relates to the overarching label of progressive especially as the left has become more interested in demanding what he described as purity tests.

Its just a place where Im not, he said. I dont feel like Ive left the label; its just more that its left me.

Im not critical if someone is a progressive, he added. I believe different things.

Such stances have given his former critics some of whom routinely called him a vegetable after his stroke and accused him of pushing a radical socialist agenda a disorienting sense of whiplash.

What multiverse is this? the right-wing website Breitbart posted on social media, with a link to Mr. Fettermans recent appearance on CNN where he claimed that TikTok was responsible for giving younger Americans a warped view of the Israel-Hamas war.

Mr. Fetterman is shedding the progressive label at the same time his health has markedly improved, after his 2022 stroke and a six-week stay this year at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for clinical depression.

He still suffers from some auditory processing problems that are a side effect of the stroke, but his speech is notably improved even from a few months ago, and he has emerged ready for action.

These days, the freshman senator who arrived in Washington struggling to interact with colleagues and journalists appears to relish the limelight and the give and take with the press. He said he tries to ignore the criticism he sees online, which he said creates a warped and twisted perspective, and instead focus on the positive interactions with voters who approach him at coffee shops for selfies and to chat. And while he still maintains that his goal is to provide his party with a reliable Democratic vote in the Senate, Mr. Fetterman thrives in moments when he can position himself as an independent thinker.

He said he is mystified that anyone on the left would have expected a different response from him on Israel. Im not really sure what part of any of this would be a surprise if anyones been paying attention, Mr. Fetterman said.

Still, the backlash has been blistering. Demonstrators have shuttered streets in front of his district offices demanding his support for a cease-fire. A group of former campaign staff members wrote an anonymous letter calling his support for Israel a gutting betrayal of what they had believed to be his values. And progressives have expressed frustration that Mr. Fetterman, of all people, has rallied to support Israel rather than the Palestinians whose plight they have made their cause.

Melissa Byrne, who worked on Mr. Sanderss 2016 presidential campaign and is now an organizer for liberal causes, accused Mr. Fetterman of trying to have it both ways, claiming to be a progressive only when it helped him electorally.

Hes here for the vibes, she said. You should at least be honest and say, Hey, I called myself a progressive because we wanted to raise more money. We needed to win.

Ms. Byrne said she always had her doubts about Mr. Fettermans progressive bona fides, ever since he proclaimed Pennsylvania to be the Saudi Arabia of natural gas and said it was impossible to win the state in a presidential election while supporting a ban on fracking.

These days, she said, hes aligning himself with Likud, the right-wing governing party in Israel, and its leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Why is he not critiquing Netanyahu for not cracking down on settler violence? she asked.

In the interview, Mr. Fetterman was unchastened. He was tempered in criticizing Mr. Netanyahu, whose governments failure to prevent the Oct. 7 attacks has led to backlash at home and abroad, and who has come under criticism from President Biden for his response.

Im not suggesting that he is ideal any more than someone might think Trump is ideal, Mr. Fetterman said. But thats the leader that we have.

Mr. Fetterman, for his part, said he has always prided himself on passing his own internal common sense test before bowing to the demands of his party or his base. Outside his Senate office, for instance, he displays a flag honoring American prisoners of war and another proclaiming L.G.B.T.Q. pride. Im pretty sure Im the only senator that has both, he said. Cant it be possible that its really appropriate to stand for both?

But it is on the issue of Israel where Mr. Fetterman is as flummoxed by members of the left as they are by him.

I do find it confusing where the very left progressives in America dont seem to want to support really the only progressive nation in the region that really embraces the same kind of values I would expect we would want as a society, he said of the pro-Palestinian demonstrators.

As for the gripes of anonymous former members of his campaign staff, Mr. Fetterman said that its difficult to respect somebodys opinion if theyre not going to attach their name to it. None of his current aides have raised concerns about his political stances, he said.

Still, Mr. Fetterman said he is not completely surprised that he is not satisfying the same Democratic voters who were outraged in 2016 when he endorsed Hillary Clintons candidacy after Mr. Sanders left the race.

This bizarre purity thing, where people were offended that I was embracing Secretary Clinton when we have Trump on the other side? Mr. Fetterman said. How did that work out for you?

Read more:
Fetterman, Breaking With the Left on Israel, Rejects 'Progressive' Label - The New York Times

(December 20, 2023 / JNS)

Democrats are more firmly supportive of Israels war against Hamas in Gaza than some recent national polling has suggested, according to a survey released on Tuesday.

The new poll, commissioned by Democratic Majority for Israel, found that Democrats believe the United States should support Israel over Hamas by a wide margin: 63% to 6%, which is nearly identical to the margin for U.S. registered voters (67% to 5%.)

The study surveyed 1,637 registered voters in the United States from Dec. 7-12 and had a margin for error of plus or minus 2.42%.

Asked if they prefer a ceasefire with Hamas immediately, or only after the terrorist group was disarmed and dismantled, nearly half (48%) of Democrats supported the latter, with less than a third (29%) calling for immediate ceasefire.

Mark Mellman, president of Democratic Majority for Israel, whose research group conducted the poll, told JNS that other polls suggesting outsized Democratic support for a ceasefire or high favorability for Palestinians are based on faulty polling and poorly-worded questions.

A lot of this has been not polling, but guesswork, Mellman said. If you just say to people, Should there be a ceasefire? Well, who would be against that? Why would anybody be against that?

But if you say, Should there be a ceasefire if it leaves the hostages in Hamass hands or leaves Hamas in control of Gaza? People say No. There shouldnt be a ceasefire under those circumstances.

Critics of Israel have seized on polls purporting to show that a majority of Americans support a ceasefire to demand that the Biden administration pressure Israel to halt its campaign against Hamas.

The majority of Americans are with us in supporting immediate de-escalation and a ceasefire, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) wrote on social media on Oct. 20, citing a Data for Progress poll. Its time for President Joe Biden and Congress to support our ceasefire now resolution to save lives.

Pollsters have consistently found that majorities of Americans support a ceasefire in general terms, with that support particularly strong among Democrats and younger American adults.

An Economist/YouGov poll released earlier in December found that 78% of self-identified Democrats would support a future ceasefire, and a Harvard/Harris poll last week found that 67% of registered voters aged 18-24 favored an unconditional ceasefire that would leave everyone in place, the only age group in which a majority of respondents took that position.

Those figures, combined with former-President Donald Trumps recent polling leads over Biden in several 2024 battleground states, has led some within the Biden administration to urge the president to soften his public messaging on Israel.

On Thursday, Politico reported that Vice President Kamala Harris has told Bident to express more sensitivity towards Palestinian civilians.

Publicly, many administration officials have balanced support for Israels right to self-defense and condemnation of Hamas in the aftermath of Oct. 7 with statements disapproving of the number of Palestinian civilians killed during Israels operations against Hamas.

Its clear that the conflict will move, and needs to move, to a lower-intensity phase, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said at a press conference Wednesday. We expect to see, and want to see, a shift to more-targeted operations, with a smaller number of forces, thats really focused-in on dealing with the leadership of Hamas, the tunnel network and a few other critical things.

Blinked added that the suffering of civilians in Gaza was gut wrenching and that he personally was very, very deeply affected by the humanitarian toll.

Mellman doesnt buy the argument that Biden and down-ballot Democrats need to triangulate on Israel to have success at the ballot box.

Theres really no evidence to support the proposition that President Bidens support for Israel is doing him any electoral damage whatever, he said. If anything, I think his support for Israel is a net positive.

Youll find there are more people that are likely to vote for Biden because of his pro-Israel stance than to vote against him because of that, Mellman said, citing swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Nevada, where Jewish voters make up about 2-3% of the electorate, while Muslim voters account for 1% or less.

Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicate by email and never miss our top stories

By signing up, you agree to receive emails from JNS and allied pro-Israel organizations.

You have read 3 articles this month.

Register to receive full access to JNS.

Excerpt from:
Guesswork, Mark Mellman says of polling that Democrats favor ceasefire, Palestinians - JNS.org