- Joe Biden again swept in Tuesday’s primary elections, winning four of the six states holding primaries— including Michigan, which was considered essential for Bernie Sanders.
- Biden won by massive margins in multiple races and beat out Sanders in states he had previously won in 2016.
- With more key battleground states set to vote next Tuesday, Sander’s prospects look grim as Biden further solidifies his lead.
Biden Wins Big
Former Vice President Joe Biden continued his winning streak, picking up wins in four out of the six states that held primary elections Tuesday.
Riding the momentum of his huge Super Tuesday showing, Biden won the elections in Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, and Missouri.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) took home a win in North Datoka. Washington State is currently too close to call.
While Biden was predicted to win many of those races, Sanders’ loss in Michigan is especially significant.
Michigan was largely viewed as the most important state in yesterday’s races, and an absolutely essential state for Sanders, because it had the most delegates to give: 125.
Sanders won Michigan in 2016 in a surprise win that set his campaign in motion and made for a competitive race against Hillary Clinton.
But Biden won the key swing state by more than double digits, taking 52.9% of the vote while Sanders won 36.4%— a pretty significant margin, especially in a state that Sanders won last time.
Results From Other Key States
Michigan was not the only state Sanders won in 2016 and lost on Tuesday. Biden also claimed a win in Idaho, though the margin was not as big.
Also of note is Washington State. While not all of the votes have been counted, the race is shockingly close. With 67% reporting, Sanders is only pulling ahead by 0.2%.
Though notably, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who dropped out of the race last week, is polling at 12.3% in the state, likely due to the fact that Washington has a long early voting period and mail-in ballots.
While that certainly is hurting Sanders by taking away necessary progressive votes, the fact that this race is so close in a state he won with more than 70% of the vote in 2016 does not bode well.
Another factor that is concerning for the Sanders campaign is the drastic margins Biden won by in Mississippi and Missouri.
In Mississippi, Biden received more than 80% of the vote. Sanders failed to meet the 15% threshold required to receive delegates, meaning that he did not pick up any of the 36 delegates in the state.
Meanwhile in Missouri, Biden earned almost twice as many as Sanders. This marked another notable loss for Sanders, who just barely lost the state in 2016 to Clinton.
Biden Solidifies Lead, Sanders Faces Uphill Battle
It is clear that Biden is solidifying his lead in this election, an incredible shift for a campaign that was once considered dead in the water. Biden has now won 14 out of the 20 states that had primaries in the last week alone.
That, combined with the fact that he also won multiple states Sanders took in 2016, indicates Biden is gaining momentum that Sanders seems to be losing.
While the sheer number of states Biden has won is certainly positive for his momentum, at the end of the day, the amount of delegates a candidate wins is much more important than the number of states they win.
But Biden is also leading in that respect too. In fact, most experts predict that he will widen the delegate gap even more in the coming elections.
Four more major primaries are set for next Tuesday in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and Ohio, and 577 delegates are up for grabs.
Sanders lost all four of those states back in 2016— and some by big margins. Most polls show him losing them this time around too. After the elections next week, a little over 60% of total delegates will be allocated.
With the biggest delegates still up for grabs in states where Sanders has historically fared poorly, it is unclear what the senator’s path forward will look like.
Voter Turnout Problems for Sanders
Exit polls and turnout data from Tuesday’s elections also paint a grim picture for Sanders. The big question with Sanders has always been whether or not he can bring in voters from outside his usual base.
But based on results from Tuesday, it looks like his coalition has largely remained the same. While Sanders brought in the usual young and very liberal voters, Biden, by contrast, has consistently pulled in a much more diverse coalition.
According to exit polls, Biden’s victories were again fueled by black voters, along with women, older voters, and white voters with college degrees.
And while Sanders does traditionally do well with Latino voters, who composed a lot less of the voting population in those races, he continued to struggle with courting black voters.
For example, in Mississippi, Biden won nearly 90% of the black vote, according to exit polls.
Another big problem for Sanders is the youth vote. The Democratic Socialist has long been banking on the fact that he is wildly popular with younger voters, and has argued that he can win if they turn out— but they have not been turning out.
Young voter turnout has remained low in many of the major races. In fact, on Tuesday, turnout for voters aged 18 to 44 was lower than it was in 2016 in Mississippi, Missouri, and Michigan, despite the fact that overall turnout was higher in all three states.
That is especially notable for Michigan, where youth turnout largely pushed Sanders to his win in 2016, and arguably even more notable because, overall, voter turnout in Michigan was significantly higher than 2016.
According to recent estimates, 1.7 million people voted in Michigan’s Democratic primary Tuesday, compared to 1.2 million in 2016.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (FiveThirtyEight.com) (NPR)
Supreme Court Begins Contentious New Term as Approval Rating Hits Historic Low
The most volatile cases the court will consider involve affirmative action, voting rights, elections, and civil rights for the LGBTQ+ community.
High Court to Hear Numerous Controversial Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday officially kicked off a new term that will be marked by a number of very contentious cases.
The justices, led by a conservative super-majority, will hear many matters that have enormous implications for the American people.
The first case the court will hear this term involves a major environmental dispute that will determine the scope of government authority under the Clean Water Act — a decision that could have a massive impact on U.S. water quality at a time when water crises’ have been heightened by climate change.
The case also comes amid increasing concerns about federal inaction regarding climate change, especially after the Supreme Court significantly limited the government’s power to act in this area at the end of its last term.
Cases Involving Race
Several of the most anticipated decisions also center around race, including a pair of cases that challenge affirmative action programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.
For over four decades, the high court has repeatedly upheld that race can be a factor in college admissions to ensure a more equitable student body. Despite the fact that multiple challenges have been struck down in the past, the court’s conservative super majority could very well undo 40 years of precedent and undermine essential protections.
The high court will decide a legal battle that could significantly damage key voting protections for minorities set forth under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The case in question stems from a lower court opinion that invalidated Alabama’s congressional map for violating a provision in the VRA prohibiting voting rules that discriminate on the basis of race.
Alabama had drawn its map so only one of its seven congressional districts was majority Black, despite the fact that nearly one in every three voting-age residents in the state are Black.
States’ Power Over Elections
Also on the topic of gerrymandering and elections, the justices will hear a case that could have a profound impact on the very nature of American democracy. The matter centers around a decision by the North Carolina Supreme Court to strike down the Republican-drawn congressional map on the grounds that it amounted to an illegal gerrymander that violated the state’s Constitution.
The North Carolina GOP appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause gives state legislatures almost total control over how federal elections are carried out in their state under a theory called the independent state legislature doctrine.
“That argument, in its most extreme form, would mean that [sic] no state court and no state agency could interfere with the state legislature’s version of election rules, regardless of the rules set down in the state constitution,” NPR explained.
In other words, if the Supreme Court sides with the North Carolina Republicans, they would essentially be giving state legislatures unchecked power over how voting maps are designed and elections are administered.
Another notable decision the justices will make could have huge implications for the LGBTQ+ community and civil rights more broadly. That matter involved a web designer in Colorado named Lori Smith who refused to design websites for same-sex couples because she believed it violates her right to religious freedoms.
That belief, however, goes against a Colorado nondiscrimination law that bans businesses that serve the public from denying their services to customers based on sexual orientation or identity.
As a result, Smith argues that the Colorado law violates the right to free speech under the First Amendment. If the high court rules in her favor, it would undermine protections for the LGBTQ+ community in Colorado and likely other states with similar laws.
Experts also say such a ruling could go far beyond that. As Georgetown University’s Kelsi Corkran told NPR, “if Smith is correct that there’s a free speech right to selectively choose her customers based on the messages she wants to endorse,” the Colorado law would also allow white supremacists to deny services to people of color because that “would be a message of endorsement.”
Record-Low Approval Rating
The court’s high-stakes docket also comes at a time when its reputation has been marred by questions of legitimacy.
A new Gallup poll published last week found that the Supreme Court’s approval rating has sunk to a record low. Specifically, less than half of Americans said they have at least a “fair amount” of trust in the judicial branch — a 20% drop from just two years ago.
Beyond that, a record number of people also now say that the court is too conservative. Experts argue that these numbers are massively consequential, especially as the U.S. heads into yet another highly-contentious court term.
“The Supreme Court is at an important moment,” Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs told The Hill.
“Trust in the institutions has vastly diminished, certainly among Democrats, and many have a close eye on how they rule on other vital matters. If decisions seem to keep coming from a very pointed political direction, frustration and calls for reform will only mount.”
See what others are saying: (The Hill) (CNN) (The Wall Street Journal)
Biden Mistakenly Calls Out For Dead Lawmaker at White House Event
The remarks prompted concerns about the mental state of the president, who previously mourned the congresswoman’s death in an official White House statement.
Video of President Joe Biden publicly asking if a congresswoman who died last month was present at a White House event went viral Wednesday, giving rise to renewed questions about the leader’s mental acuity.
The remarks were made at the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health, which Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-In.) had helped convene and organize before her sudden death in a car accident.
The president thanked the group of bipartisan lawmakers who helped make the event happen, listing them off one by one, and appearing to look around in search of Rep. Walorski when he reached her name.
“Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie?” he called. “I think she wasn’t going to be here to help make this a reality.”
The incident flummoxed many, especially because Biden had even acknowledged her work on the conference in an official White House statement following her death last month.
“Jill and I are shocked and saddened by the death of Congresswoman Jackie Walorski of Indiana along with two members of her staff in a car accident today in Indiana,” the statement read.
“I appreciated her partnership as we plan for a historic White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health this fall that will be marked by her deep care for the needs of rural America.”
The Age Maximum Question
Numerous social media users and news outlets presented the mishap as evidence that Biden, who is 79, does not have the mental capacity to serve as president. Others, meanwhile, raised the possibility of imposing an age maximum for the presidency.
Most of the comments against the president came from the right, which has regularly questioned his mental stability. However, the idea of an age limit goes beyond Biden and touches on concerns about America’s most important leaders being too old.
While Biden is the oldest president in history, former President Donald Trump — who is 76 and has also had his mental state continually questioned — would have likewise held that title if he had won re-election in 2020.
These concerns extend outside the presidency as well: the current session of Congress is the oldest on average of any Congress in recent history, and the median ages are fairly similar among Republicans and Democrats when separated by chambers.
There is also a higher percentage of federal lawmakers who are older than the median age. Nearly 1 out of every 4 members are over the age of 70.
What’s more, some of the people in the highest leadership positions are among the oldest members. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.), is the oldest-ever House Speaker at 82, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — the president pro tempore of the Senate and third person in line for the presidency — is the same age, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is 80.
As a result, it is unsurprising that a recent Insider/Morning Consult poll found that 3 in 4 Americans support an age max for members of Congress, and more than 40% say they view the ages of political leaders as a “major” problem.
Those who support the regulations argue that age limits are standard practice in many industries, including for airplane pilots and the military, and thus should be imposed on those who have incredible amounts of power over the country.
However, setting age boundaries on Congress and the President would almost certainly necessitate changes to the Constitution, and because such a move would require federal lawmakers to curtail their own power, there is little political will.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Business Insider) (NBC News)
Churches Protected Loophole in Abuse Reporting for 20 years, Report Finds
In some cases, Clergy members failed to report abuse among their congregation, but state laws protected them from that responsibility.
A Nationwide Campaign to Hide Abuse
More than 130 bills seeking to create or amend child sexual abuse reporting laws have been neutered or killed due to religious opposition over the past two decades, according to a review by the Associated Press.
Many states have laws requiring professionals such as physicians, teachers, and psychotherapists to report any information pertaining to alleged child sexual abuse to authorities. In 33 states, however, clergy are exempt from those requirements if they deem the information privileged.
All of the reform bills reviewed either targeted this loophole and failed or amended the mandatory reporting statute without touching the loophole.
“The Roman Catholic Church has used its well-funded lobbying infrastructure and deep influence among lawmakers in some states to protect the privilege,” the AP stated. “Influential members of the Mormon church and Jehovah’s witnesses have also worked in statehouses and courts to preserve it in areas where their membership is high.”
“This loophole has resulted in an unknown number of predators being allowed to continue abusing children for years despite having confessed the behavior to religious officials,” the report continued.
“They believe they’re on a divine mission that justifies keeping the name and the reputation of their institution pristine,” David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, told the outlet. “So the leadership has a strong disincentive to involve the authorities, police or child protection people.”
Abuses Go Unreported
Last month, another AP investigation discovered that a Mormon bishop acting under the direction of church leaders in Arizona failed to report a church member who had confessed to sexually abusing his five-year-old daughter.
Merrill Nelson, a church lawyer and Republican lawmaker in Utah, reportedly advised the bishop against making the report because of Arizona’s clergy loophole, effectively allowing the father to allegedly rape and abuse three of his children for years.
Democratic State Sen. Victoria Steele proposed three bills in response to the case to close the loophole but told the AP that key Mormon legislators thwarted her efforts.
In Montana, a woman who was abused by a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses won a $35 million jury verdict against the church because it failed to report her abuse, but in 2020 the state supreme court reversed the judgment, citing the state’s reporting exemption for clergy.
In 2013, a former Idaho police officer turned himself in for abusing children after having told 15 members of the Mormon church, but prosecutors declined to charge the institution for not reporting him because it was protected under the clergy loophole.
The Mormon church said in a written statement to the AP that a member who confesses child sex abuse “has come seeking an opportunity to reconcile with God and to seek forgiveness for their actions. … That confession is considered sacred, and in most states, is regarded as a protected religious conversation owned by the confessor.”