This has been an erratic election cycle. At times insane. Other times nonsensical. The campaign rhetoric was ratchet. The platform ominous.

Yet here we are. The nation, saturated by four years of disinformation, has chosen a new direction. It is our hope that campaign rhetoric does not become the new administration’s policies.

The rhetoric was not only ratchet, but vicious, disrespectful, and non-Christian principled. But it captured the emotions of the people.

Although inflation was down, and job creation up, wages were stagnant, and we believed the hype that the nation is headed in the wrong direction.  The price of eggs was central to the people’s choice.

A sustained campaign of misinformation, fear and disinformation led to “self-interest” voting. It polarized the nation into camps of “what is good for me.”

The promise of a great America gripped our emotions and harnessed our hope. It was fueled by iterations of failed policies, socioeconomic principles, and hardhanded treatment of immigrants.

But emotions don’t allow for critical thinking. Emotions reign in the moment. Emotions reign at the gas pump and the checkout counter at the grocery store.

Critical thinking allows one to process data that looks at the layered influence of international policies, and decisions of past and present administrations. 

The state of the economy at any given time is a continuum of policies from past administrations. Fiscal policies, trade policies and regulatory/deregulatory policies have cumulative impact.

Messaging void of this recognition leads the electorate to assign credit or blame for conditions on the current administration. They are not solely culpable.

One promise of President-elect Trump is to implement mass deportation of illegal immigrants. Hispanics and the recently disparaged Haitians will be subject to dislocation and the trauma of abrupt family separation.

The Hispanic electorate, now 20% of total population, cast their ballots in support of harsher immigration policies.

American history curricula fall short. An authentic presentation of the contributions of its diverse complexion, and the injustice many suffered are excluded. It’s detrimental to building a vibrant social climate.

The lack of authentic history education has far-reaching consequences. It perpetuates social divisions, limits civic engagement, and discounts the need to address ongoing injustices.

In the 1930s Great Depression era, hundreds of thousands Hispanic Americans were deported.  Estimates range that, between 1929 and 1939, nearly two million Mexican Americans, and Mexican nationals were rounded up and deported. The Mexican Repatriation is an overlooked chapter in American history.

The scarcity of jobs, and the fear that Mexicans were taking jobs from American citizens led to the deportation of documented and undocumented Mexicans. The government and media promoted the division. Fear drives the act of self-preservation.

Emotion driven, self-interest voting has set the tone and direction for the country. In God we trust.

Editor’s Note: The views expressed in this commentary piece do not necessarily the express the opinions of The Cincinnati Herald.

The post The people have spoken, are we clear about the direction chosen? appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By A. Scott Bolden

Former Chair of the DC Democratic Party 

and a NewsNation political contributor

“Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they have done.”

In a stunning turn of events, America has once again found its neck under Donald Trump’s foot—a figure with a history that should make any truly patriotic American pause. Instead, voters have chosen to dance with the devil they know (and, apparently, miss). They’ve chosen to forego their own interests in the name of “change.”

It’s a choice that, maybe this time, we will come to regret.

Trump’s re-election has made it clear that we underestimated the power that economic anxiety has in shaping voter decisions. While many of us assumed that the protection of democracy and the core American values of choice and freedom would take precedence, the stark reality is that the fear of inflation, food, gas, and housing costs won out. People voted with their feelings instead of their minds, and Trump masterfully exploited this, offering hollow promises to “fix” it all without any real plan.

Just as he did before, he leaned into his manufactured, fabricated persona—a successful businessman, a fixer, a man of the people—and even more Americans bought the con again.

But let’s be real: this isn’t a man who knows what he’s doing. He’s not a planner or a visionary; Donald Trump is a liar. He’s a con artist, plain and simple. We saw his inaction on healthcare reform during the pandemic, his disastrous pre-pandemic tariff policies that economists almost universally criticized, and his complete disregard for the truth the entirety of his presidential tenure.

Does character even matter anymore in seeking America’s highest office? America: you voted for him; you now own him. Now what?

Now, he’s back with Project 2025, deputizing loyalists like Stephen Miller to reinforce a conservative agenda that’s dangerously extreme. With fewer guardrails this time around, Trump is poised to impose an agenda that could reshape our Democracy for generations to come—and not for the better.

Another Trump presidency means that Black and Brown communities could once again find themselves marginalized even further, but he somehow made significant inroads in urban centers and among Latino and Black voters—a shocking and sobering fact. It seems the Democratic Party took these communities for granted, assuming their loyalty without taking meaningful steps to address the everyday issues impacting their lives. Dem strategists wrongfully believed that Trump, with his history of bigotry and divisive rhetoric, would translate into a common sense vote for Harris.     

But for voters grappling with soaring living costs and stagnant wages, Trump’s promises, however empty, offered a glimmer of hope that the Democrats, regrettably, failed to provide.

Trump sold himself as the answer to America’s problems, yet he offers only the same lies: he is the only one that can end the wars, fix inflation, bring down food and gas prices, and make life affordable, again.

How, exactly? I don’t know. These are the same promises he made years ago, and we’re still waiting for those results.

This time, he’ll have even more power to push through his agenda without fear of accountability: the House flipped red, the Senate flipped red, and the Supreme Court is already red–coming down with a decision that offers him protection from many criminal prosecutions. The guardrails that once kept him somewhat in check are now gone.

We’re about to see Trump unhinged and unleashed: backed by a court that’s aligned with his vision and a Congress ready to do his bidding, ready to turn back the clock on progress under the guise of “saving” America.   Plus, expect another round of conservative federal judicial appointments blessed by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.

Why do people vote against their own interests? Why do they ignore the acute, undeniable flaws in a man like Donald Trump?

It comes down to ignorance and despair, plain and simple.

When people feel disempowered, when they see no real improvement in their lives despite positive economic indicators, they gravitate towards strong, unfiltered rhetoric. Trump presents himself as a man outside the system, a disruptor who will fight for the average American. And so, many Americans—jaded and desperate for change—chose to embrace the “devil” they know, believing that maybe, just maybe, this time he’ll be different.

But he won’t be different. Donald Trump was never the man that they thought he was, and he never will be. This is the same man who suffers from deep narcissism, chronic business failure, who’s been found liable for fraud and sexual abuse, and who stoked the flames of division and discord to further his own agenda. This is the man who led America to one of its darkest moments on January 6th, 2021.

This is a convicted felon 34 times over. And somehow America still voted for him. In a strange way, this says more about America than it could ever say about Trump. We know who Trump is—is this really who America is and wants to be today and has always been?

To believe that he’s somehow learned his lesson or will suddenly care about the quality of life for all Americans is to ignore the mountain of evidence to the contrary. America is not getting a new and improved Trump; it’s getting a more experienced version of the same divisive, self-serving con man.

The repercussions of this election will be felt deeply in the coming years. America will see a reversal of healthcare reform, human rights, Civil Rights, climate regulation and other constitutional safeguards as Trump and his cronies take over. The marginalized communities that once looked to the government as a bulwark may now find it to be an assailant, with policies that prioritize corporate interests and the wealthy at the expense of the working class.

This election has exposed a painful truth about America: we are willing to overlook character and competence, even racism and sexism when we feel desperate for change. But be clear—this is not the kind of change we need.

Those who voted for Trump may/will come to regret their decision, that he never cared about the average American and that he was always in it for himself. But the realization will have been too late. The damage will have been irreparably completed. Policies, once enacted, can take decades to reverse, and the scars left on our democracy will take generations to heal, if at all.

Choosing Trump means that America has placed its faith in a man who trafficks in chaos, corruption, and crime. He is not the solution to our problems; he is a reflection of the underbelly of this country—a society so fractured and jaded that it’s willing to entrust its future to a man it would never let babysit their own children.

As I write this, I hope I’m wrong. I sincerely, deeply hope that Trump proves me and every critic wrong, that he somehow rises to the occasion and becomes the leader we need. But history tells a different story, and I can’t help but brace myself for what’s to come.

May God Bless America, especially for the next four (4) years.

The post The repercussions of Donald Trump’s re-election appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

This is the latest episode of the Chocolate News Podcast. We bring you news that discusses issues affecting the Black community.

On today’s show, we discuss the aftermath of 2024 Presidential Election, the closure of numerous Frisch’s restaurants, and more.

This week’s episode is hosted by John Alexander Reese (Digital Editor, The Cincinnati Herald) and Andria Carter (Digital Correspondent).

The views expressed on this podcast do not necessarily express the opinions of The Cincinnati Herald.

Originally recorded on Wednesday, November 13, 2024.

The post Chocolate News: 2024 Election Aftermath appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

We, the people.

Three words that changed the course of history.

We, the people.

The opening of the Constitution and the “Once upon a time” of the American dream.

The Constitution, our nation’s founding document of promise that both protects and challenges us. It was designed and enacted to form a more perfect union, unifying the group of states operating with different interests, laws and cultures and uniting its citizens as members of a whole, vesting the union’s power in we, the people.

Those words rang out on Tuesday as millions of Americans exercised their power. We voted early, by mail-in ballot and in person on election day, with lines stretching around blocks and voters waiting for hours. The process of democracy, scaffolded by our Constitution, worked as it was designed to, just as it has for over two centuries. We, the people, have spoken.

Over the past few weeks, millions of Americans exercised that power of the vote. The process of democracy worked as it was designed to, and We, the people, have spoken.

We saw a more diverse electorate than ever, with young people and people of color turning out in substantial numbers. We saw candidates who reflect the fullness of our nation’s experience. And we saw deep divisions laid bare.

Whether we feel happy, disappointed, sad or angry, now is the time to roll up our sleeves. It’s up to us, the people, to continue pursuing that more perfect union. We must advocate for equity and fight for justice, inclusion and the protection of every individual. We must continue to strive for absolute perfection for those who still seek its promise.

We’ve expanded opportunity before, from the abolition of chattel slavery to suffrage and civil rights. We, the people, can – and must – do it again. We don’t need to wait four more years to make our voices heard. Today, we, the people, can lead with equity, empathy and humanity. We can establish justice, promote general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our children.

We, the people, have work to do. But in the face of challenges, we have always found a way forward. Together, with a robust, diverse and clear voice, we will write the next chapter of our American story. One that is complete, inclusive and equitable.

The pursuit of our more perfect union and the success of our democracy requires it.

We, the people, demand it.

Woodrow Keown Jr.

President & CEO

National Underground Railroad Freedom Center

Editor’s Note: The views expressed in this commentary piece do not necessarily the express the opinions of The Cincinnati Herald.

The post National Underground Railroad Freedom Center reflection on the 2024 Election appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

This is the latest episode of the Chocolate News Podcast. We bring you news that discusses issues affecting the Black community.

On today’s show, we discuss the results of the 2024 Presidential Election and more.

This week’s episode is hosted by John Alexander Reese (Digital Editor, The Cincinnati Herald) and Andria Carter (Digital Correspondent).

The views expressed on this podcast do not necessarily express the opinions of The Cincinnati Herald.

Originally recorded on Wednesday, November 6, 2024.

The post Chocolate News: Trump Wins appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Farida Jalalzai, Virginia Tech

Kamala Harris was a candidate of many firsts, including the first Black and South Asian woman to run for president as the Democratic nominee.

Her resounding, swift loss in the presidential race to Republican Donald Trump on Nov. 5, 2024, means many things to different people, including the fact that American voters are unable to break the glass ceiling and elect a woman as president.

Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with Farida Jalalzai, a scholar of women political leaders and gender in politics, to better understand the significance of Harris’ defeat – and how the U.S. stands apart from other countries that have had female leaders.

How important was Kamala Harris’ gender in her loss?

I can’t say it was a main reason she lost. But what I can say is it was a factor that contributed to her lack of support, especially when you compare her performance with Joe Biden’s in the same places and with almost all of the same voting groups he won in 2020. Gender was part of the campaign landscape in many different ways this election. Trump and his supporters used insulting tropes about what a woman leader would look like on the world stage. He used a lot of misogynistic and racist appeals in his campaign and tried to mobilize voters in ways that aimed to reinforce patriarchy.

What does Harris’ loss say about where gender equality stands in the country?

I am not surprised that the glass ceiling for women in politics is still super durable in the U.S. This is an example of the country’s limits of making true progress on women’s empowerment and equality. Of course, the fact that Harris was a woman of color vying to be the first woman president of the U.S. is pertinent.

Trump asserted that the country needs a strong man to lead. He portrayed Harris as a liberal extremist and generally got the message through that a woman would not be up to the job of president.

When Geraldine Ferraro ran as the first female vice presidential candidate nominated by a major party in 1984, there were a lot of questions about whether she would be tough enough on the world stage. Now, there are still questions about whether a woman would be tough enough to lead.

How does this election compare with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign against Trump?

In 2016, Hillary Clinton highlighted the historic nature of a woman running for president of the U.S. – and, of course, she received nearly 3 million votes more than he did, though she still lost the election. Harris was reluctant to mention the historic nature of her candidacy. She did not mention this when she gave her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in August 2024. She recently explained this by saying, “Well, I’m clearly a woman. The point that most people really care about is can you do the job and do you have a plan to actually focus on them.”

Another important factor is Trump’s political trajectory. In 2016, Trump was still seen as an outlier and an extremist. Many political scientists – including myself – did not think he would receive the nomination, let alone win the general election that year. We see now that Trump is the new normal of the Republican Party. More moderate Republicans, such as Liz Cheney, are also not in power anymore. The party has become more extreme.

Is the country moving backward on gender equality, or is it stuck in neutral?

A few months ago, I would have said that the country is moving forward, but I feel like it’s moving backward now. That Trump’s sexist and racist messages resonated with a substantial number of people – or at least did not bother some enough – is a concern. Trump also said extreme things about women in 2016, including calling Hillary Clinton “a nasty woman.” This time around, these attacks seemed more normalized, saying that Harris was in a powerful political position only because she traded sexual favors, for example.

Women have led other countries. What makes the U.S. different?

The U.S. is a nuclear power and a major military and economic force. These realms are typically stereotyped by some as masculine. The president stands atop the U.S. political system and is directly elected. Women leaders often ascend through appointment as prime ministers in parliamentary systems. One of the vulnerabilities of prime ministers is that their terms in office are less secure. The traits deemed fitting for these roles – seeking compromise, for example – may prove less of a challenge to women than they would if they were seeking to be president of a powerful country like the U.S. on the world stage.

Only two women presidents in power in presidential systems were directly elected, and they are in Honduras and Mexico. The former is a former first lady, and the latter has strong ties to her predecessor. While women have been presidents of countries, several, such as the current presidents of Ethiopia, India and Greece, are essentially symbolic. Those positions are very different from the U.S. presidency, which has a more dominant role.

It is also pretty uncommon for a woman to be elected president in a presidential system without being a member of a powerful political family or without being supported by a male predecessor. When you look at Laura Chinchilla, the former president of Costa Rica, or former president of Brazil Dilma Rousseff, what connected a lot of these female politicians is that they were very much aided by male predecessors.

Cristina Elisabet Fernández de Kirchner, the former president of Argentina, had a wealth of political experience before she came to office in 2007, but she served immediately after her husband, Néstor Kirchner, was president.

There is a complexity to these cases, and a lot of these women brought in their own political credentials and experience. But there is still a tendency to have the additional demand that women in politics have these connections.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Farida Jalalzai, Virginia Tech

Read more:

• Trump’s comeback victory, after reshaping his party and national politics, looks a lot like Andrew Jackson’s in 1828
• Kamala Harris’ sudden political rise echoes that of another female politician, New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern
• US voters say they’re ready for a woman president − but sexist attitudes still go along with opposition to Harris

Farida Jalalzai does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

The post Glass ceiling persists for women leaders appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

Texas Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s words mirrored Shirley Chisholm’s groundbreaking observation decades ago: “Of the two handicaps, being Black is much less of a handicap than being a female.” Crockett’s reflection on Donald Trump’s resounding victory over Vice President Kamala Harris pointed to what many saw as a dissonance between the candidate and the country’s decision. Crockett highlighted Harris’s qualifications, intelligence, and kindness compared to Trump, yet acknowledged the public’s apparent preference for fear over progress. “As I said many times on the trail, this election was more about us and what it is that we wanted for our future… and well PROJECT 2025 is loading,” she warned, referencing the former president’s sweeping agenda.

For many African Americans, Trump’s victory felt like an isolating moment, a reaffirmation of what they’ve long suspected: their allies were never permanent. Bishop Talbert Swan put it bluntly on social media: “There is no Black/brown coalition…Latinos voted on the side of white supremacy. We’re in this by ourselves.” Swan’s words echo the sentiments of many Black voters who watched as Latino support for Trump surged, even as his platform targeted marginalized communities. Meanwhile, Black voters were again held to their high standard of loyalty to the Democratic Party, only to feel abandoned as alliances dissolved and communities prioritized their own survival.

“Black people are tired,” shared journalist Kathia Woods on Let It Be Known, the Black Press of America’s daily news broadcast. This sentiment of exhaustion has been echoed across social media, as Washington Informer journalist Anthony Tilghman tweeted an arresting graphic illustrating Black Americans’ sense of isolation: “This presidential race highlights the significant influence of race on the election outcome,” Tilghman wrote. “A majority of white women and men expressed reluctance towards having another Black president in office, regardless of the individual’s qualifications.”

Public figures sounded their own alarms on the social media landscape. Cardi B took to Instagram, bluntly posting: “I hate ya’ll bad,” in a pointed message to Trump voters. Justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered a sobering perspective: “Black people are relatively well prepared for what’s about to happen because it’s happened to us before. America has done this to us before.”

The stakes stretch further than any one individual’s leadership, with significant consequences predicted for American institutions. Actor Wendell Pierce, reflecting on Trump’s influence on the Supreme Court, tweeted, “The Supreme Court will be changed for a generation… I’ll never see a moderate court again in my lifetime.” For others, Yvette Nicole Brown captured the sentiment that the rest of the country may now begin to feel what Black communities have long endured. “The rest of you are about to be shocked by how America treats you when it doesn’t care about you… The find out phase has begun,” she posted.

Across demographics, voting trends highlighted a widening rift as each non-Black group increased their support for Trump. “When we say Black people have no permanent allies… we mean Black people have no permanent allies,” noted one commenter, underscoring a stark double standard: the willingness to elect a convicted felon, with seemingly little regard for qualifications or integrity.

The sense of betrayal was palpable in many reflections. Elie Mystal captured this frustration, stating, “Watching Latinos chase model minority status has never sat well with Black people, but this is a wound the Black community won’t soon forget.” The solidarity once hoped for among marginalized groups seems distant, fractured along lines of race, ideology, and self-interest.

Meanwhile, University of South Carolina Professor Sueanna Smith weighed in on the structural underpinnings of this political moment, explaining, “There is a reason why educated people vote blue. What we’re seeing is the uneducated population of America holding the rest of the country hostage. This is why there’s such a push to weaken education, ban books, and outlaw the teaching of Black history by the Republican Party.”

As Mystal aptly put it, “One thing I do worry about, is that the ‘solidarity’ between ‘people of color’ has been significantly damaged. Black people have learned that all we have is each other.”

The post Election proves Black Americans have no allies appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

If there were a job description for the presidency, it might as well be written in bold print: women and people of color need not apply. America made history on November 5, though not the kind many would have foreseen. Voters chose a convicted leader whom a jury has found guilty 34 times, a man whom a judge ruled committed massive business fraud, while another court determined he had sexually assaulted a journalist.

They chose the felon over the prosecutor, fascism over democracy, and servitude over freedom.

Latinos and white women, many of whom once more voted against their own interests, who have borne the brunt of his attacks, were primarily responsible for this outcome. But plainly put, Donald Trump has ascended to the highest office in the land once more. A bruised Kamala Harris, meanwhile, didn’t bother to address the thousands of heartbroken supporters who had gathered at Howard University and soaked up hours by dancing, praying, and hoping that they’d witness the first woman—and first Black and Southeast Asian woman—claim the presidency. As the clock ticked toward midnight, it became clear: Trump had taken the race, and, surprisingly, it wasn’t even close.

“I have to say from basically start to finish this night has been clear,” election analyst Harry Enten said on CNN. “There hasn’t been any weird shifting directions. It’s basically been Trump since we got the first counties in. Very much unlike 2020 when there was whiplash as the vote count went on.” Unofficial results showed that Trump earned at least 276 electoral college votes compared to Harris’s 223.

The battleground states that so-called experts had insisted were in play weren’t close at all: North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio all went Trump.

Riding Trump’s wave, the GOP regained control of the Senate, guaranteeing the rapid implementation of their sweeping conservative agenda, Project 2025. Democrats held out hope for the House, but with Trump facing little to no punishment for his alleged crimes, many wonder if it matters. Many European leaders watched the results overnight.

A French official told NBC News that President Emmanuel Macron viewed the results with some sleep breaks in between. He was one of the first to congratulate Trump, posting on X that he was “ready to work together as we did for four years.”

In Europe, the viability of NATO and other trans-Atlantic alliances hangs in the balance. Despite controversy over Labor Party officials openly backing Harris, Prime Minister Keir Starmer had little choice when he expressed optimism about the “special relationship” between the U.K. and U.S., saying, “I look forward to working with you in the years ahead.”

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, himself viewed as the kind of dictator Trump promises to become, appeared ecstatic, writing on X, “The biggest comeback in U.S. political history! A much-needed victory for the World!” German Chancellor Olaf Scholz took a more formal tone, emphasizing Germany’s commitment to working with the U.S. “promoting prosperity and freedom,” while European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen described the E.U.-U.S. relationship as “a true partnership.”

Back home, the path forward looks perilous for Trump’s political enemies. The outcome is a catastrophe for the world, many said. While Harris’s campaign was characterized by skill, grace, and a desire to become the first female president in America’s 248-year history, Trump’s campaign was marred by vulgarity, inflammatory rhetoric, and an attitude toward immigrants that often-echoed history’s darkest chapters. It may have been fair to ask, how was the race even close?

Exit polls reveal that white women, who appeared on the verge of breaking free from the grip of MAGA ideology, voted heavily for Trump despite his disregard for their rights and autonomy. Latino voters also leaned toward Trump, despite his incendiary rhetoric, which included labeling Puerto Rico as an “island of trash” at a recent Madison Square Garden rally.

Democrats must also face the reality of their shocking defeat. After a final debate in which some questioned his cognitive skills, the party sidelined President Joe Biden yet failed to portray Trump as the volatile threat he posed. With his 2020 victory in hand, Biden had warned that he alone could defeat Trump. But instead of managing their issues internally, Democrats choose to embarrass Biden, forcing him out just over 100 days before the election.

Although Harris raised unprecedented amounts of cash and had the backing of global celebrities, she and the Democratic National Committee faced criticism from Black Americans. There were complaints that the campaign appeared to scapegoat Black men, with even former President Barack Obama publicly admonishing Black voters for not doing enough.

High-ranking Democrats, including DNC Chair Jamie Harrison and former Congressman Cedric Richmond, played and lost the dangerous game of alienating Black voters, too. The campaign and the DNC largely ignored the Black Press, notably the National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA)—the trusted voice of Black America. Instead of engaging with Black-owned outlets in a move that would not only have provided needed resources for these African American small businesses while helping to get the party’s vital messaging to a critical constituency, the DNC choose to enrich wealthy mainstream outlets and leave out the Black Press. The DNC betrayed the NNPA by allowing the DNC to approach some Black newspapers with miniscule ad buys.

Harris’s campaign, if reluctantly so, only carried through on Biden’s original promise to spend the same $1.5 million with the Black Press of America that Biden’s people had promised. The paltry sum even rankled high-ranking Black lawmakers like Congressman Benny Thompson of Mississippi, who led the House Committee investigating Trump. Harris’s campaign and the DNC wrongly determined that the nearly 200-year-old Black Press couldn’t reach Black and Latino communities as effectively as megastars like Beyoncé, Tyler Perry, and Samuel L. Jackson. Instead, as an extension of the Biden administration, they offered cursory invites to functions like the White House’s Black Excellence celebration, and, after some pleading, access to campaign events like the vice president’s closing argument on the Ellipse and her no-show appearance at Howard University.

There’s little doubt that limited ad buys and the flat refusal to engage the Black Press backfired.

A lack of Trump’s accountability made the mistakes worse. Following his second impeachment by the House, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell, who had called Trump “stupid” and “despicable,” had the opportunity to bar Trump from ever running again. But McConnell balked, and Trump was acquitted. After Trump incited the January 6 insurrection, Democrats in Congress led a drawn-out investigation before finally recommending criminal charges. By the time prosecutors in New York, Georgia, Washington, and Florida issued indictments, Trump had rebranded these as “political witch hunts,” gathering momentum as a martyr figure.

“For nearly a decade, he has tapped into America’s id,” U.S. Guardian editor Betsy Reed observed, pointing to a painful racial history stoked by Obama’s election and a sense of displacement among white Christian Americans. Xenophobia, Reed added, remains the backbone of Trump’s political identity. His campaign’s investment in ads stirring fear over transgender rights (“Kamala’s agenda is they/them, not you”) only magnified the appeal.

With a sinister assist from billionaire Elon Musk, Trump secured his victory. “Now brace for another Trump inauguration—American carnage redux—and another fantastical claim about his crowd size,” Reed declared. “Brace for norms to be trampled, institutions to be undermined, opponents to be targeted for retribution. Brace for an Oval Office occupied by a malignant narcissist without guardrails this time. Brace for unhinged all-caps tweets that trigger news cycles and move markets. Brace for national anxiety off the charts and global tremors from China to Ukraine. Brace, also, for a new resistance and surge of anti-Trump energy.”

While many across the globe and in America ask how Trump returned to power, Reed concluded with an ominous reflection: “America had ample opportunities to stop Donald Trump, but each time, it failed. It won’t turn into an autocracy overnight, but there’s no doubt this is a democracy in decay.” And in a piercing final remark, she paraphrased Oscar Wilde: “To elect Trump once may be regarded as a misfortune; to elect him twice looks like madness.”

The post Trump returns to power in surprise victory appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Mollie J. Cohen, Purdue University and Geoffrey D. Sheagley, University of Georgia

When most people think of their experience of voting in person, they may remember other voters at the polls, or the hardworking election officials checking people in and helping people submit their ballots. But in many elections, a third group is often present: poll watchers.

Poll watchers are ordinary citizens who volunteer to observe elections on behalf of an organization. Many of them do so on behalf of a specific political party. Other volunteers are nonpartisan poll watchers; they observe the action at polling places on behalf of nonpartisan organizations, including domestic groups and international election watchdogs such as the Carter Center or the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

The United States has not historically relied extensively on international election monitors, and they are prohibited in some states, such as Tennessee. Most often, when journalists and academics like us refer to poll watchers in the U.S., we mean partisan election observers.

If all goes well on Election Day, poll watchers’ jobs will be tedious. They will simply watch voters performing the key acts of democracy: filing into the precinct, engaging with poll workers and casting ballots. Partisan poll watchers will also likely observe the tabulation of ballots and receive an official copy of the results in case they choose to conduct a simultaneous tally.

What do poll watchers do?

Poll watchers protect their organization’s interests at polling places. By observing as ballots are cast and counted, poll watchers can help ensure that only eligible voters participate and that blatant election rigging – like stuffing the ballot box with unauthorized ballots – does not occur.

As observers independent of the government officials they are monitoring, poll watchers can add an extra layer of transparency and accountability to election proceedings and help to ensure that elections are free and fair.

However, poll watchers can also undermine the integrity of elections. For example, poll watchers may overzealously – and illegally – challenge a citizen’s eligibility to cast a ballot without cause. Or their presence may intimidate or pressure voters.

In the 1980s, for example, the Republican Party in New Jersey recruited uniformed, off-duty police officers to watch the polls and posted signs offering a reward for information about people violating election laws. A lawsuit over that activity led to a nationwide court order barring the Republican National Committee from using poll watchers without clearance from a federal judge. The order was lifted in 2018.

Historical records show that, since the early 1800s, poll watchers from both parties frequently challenged the eligibility of African Americans and likely immigrants, often leading to their removal from the voter rolls. In cases like these, poll watchers can undermine the core democratic principle of voters’ freedom to participate.

It is also important to remember that many poll watchers are partisans – they work on behalf of their political parties. In fact, in recent years a central goal of the Republican Party has been recruiting and deploying poll watchers. Our research shows that in the current era of polarized partisan politics in the United States, the mere presence of partisan actors at polling locations can undermine voters’ trust in elections.

What are the rules?

While the history and partisan nature of election observation may raise concerns about voter intimidation, a variety of federal and state laws protect voters on Election Day.

Poll watchers are subject to federal laws that protect voters from intimidation and interference. Many states also have additional regulations that govern what poll watchers can do when observing elections.

For instance, some states require formal training. The state of Georgia, for example, requires all partisan poll watchers to complete training provided by their political party. Watchers in Ohio, on the other hand, must be registered voters but are not required to complete formal training.

Another important difference between states is whether they allow poll watchers to directly interact with voters. In some states, such as Georgia, poll watchers may not speak to voters. In others, such as Ohio, poll watchers can speak with voters but can’t threaten voters for choosing a certain candidate or encourage them to vote for another.

Challenging voters’ eligibility

A final important difference between states rules about poll watchers is whether they can challenge the eligibility of a voter. Good-faith challenges can arise when a poll watcher has a strong reason to believe that a voter is not eligible to vote in the district where they are voting. Pennsylvania poll watchers, for example, are allowed to keep a list of eligible voters and could register a challenge if they believe someone not on that list is attempting to vote.

Poll watchers who operate in bad faith may make challenges based on little or no evidence, with the intention of distracting poll workers, demoralizing voters and slowing voting, rather than ensuring the rules are followed correctly.

Poll watchers generally raise challenges at the polling place directly with election administrators, who are local volunteers and employees. Voters whose eligibility is challenged may have to cast a provisional ballot and present additional proof of their identification and residence to election officials, either on Election Day or in a later legal proceeding. Importantly, many states have strong regulations that aim to protect voters against arbitrary challenges to their eligibility. Challengers in Florida, for example, must submit a formal written oath attesting to the accuracy of their challenge and are subject to prosecution if the challenge is determined to be “frivolous.”

If a poll watcher suspects that something is amiss at a polling location while voters are casting ballots or while ballots are being tabulated, they can raise concerns with local election administrators or other election officials, such as local boards of elections. They may also pass the word up through the political party they are representing.

Many issues are straightforward to address, and election workers respond immediately. More complex concerns – or allegations reported to party leaders by many poll watchers in different locations – may ultimately lead to legal action in the courts.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Mollie J. Cohen, Purdue University and Geoffrey D. Sheagley, University of Georgia

Read more:

• Election officials are hard at work to deliver fair, secure and accurate elections – despite a constant flow of attacks
• Policy, shmolicy: Election Day weather and football victories could decide the election
• During the American Revolution, Brits weren’t just facing off against white Protestant Christians − US patriots are diverse and have been since Day 1

Mollie J. Cohen has received funding from the Russell Sage Foundation.

Geoffrey D. Sheagley receives funding from the Russell Sage Foundation.

The post What poll watchers can − and can’t − do on Election Day appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .

By Amy Dacey, American University

Unlike many other countries, where the president or prime minister is chosen by direct popular vote, in the United States a candidate may win the popular vote and still not be elected to the nation’s highest office. The U.S. also differs from most other democracies in that it has no independent electoral commission to certify the final vote count.

So who actually confirms the winner?

Step 1: Before Election Day

American democracy has many elected officials – state, local and national – and many processes for getting into office.

I have been working on election campaigns since I was 8 years old, when my dad ran for school board and I went door to door asking people to vote for him. I’ve also worked on local, congressional, senate and presidential races and now direct an academic research center on politics.

What’s striking is that every race is different, from deadlines and filing process to certification. Here, I’ll focus on the presidential race.

The unusual and complicated presidential election certification process in the U.S. entwines all 50 states and the District of Columbia, the Senate, House of Representatives, the National Archives and the Office of the Federal Register. It also involves the Electoral College – a uniquely American institution that convenes in 51 separate locations once every four years to pick the president.

This monthslong process was custom designed as a compromise by the Founding Fathers, who did not believe the American people should directly choose the president and vice president but did not want to give Congress the power of selection, either.

The Constitution declares that American presidential elections occur on the first Tuesday in November, every four years. But the federal election process actually begins in October, when the Archivist of the United States – a presidential appointee responsible for maintaining the government’s most important official documents – sends a letter to the governor of each state.

The document outlines their responsibilities regarding the Electoral College, which is not a place but a process by which electors – people who are chosen by their party – vote for their party’s presidential candidate.

The machinery of the Electoral College is complicated, but in short, Americans vote for electors and the electors vote for the president. Then, the winner is declared – right?

Read more:
How is the American President elected?

Step 2: After Election Day

Not quite.

Once a final tally of voters’ in-person, mail-in and provisional ballots has been concluded, all 50 governors prepare their state’s Certificate of Ascertainment, a document listing their electors for the competing candidates.

Each state completes that process at its own rate. This year, because of all the lawsuits disputing the results of the 2020 election, there are new procedures in place to expedite challenges to a state’s Certificate of Ascertainment by an aggrieved candidate. Once completed, copies of the Certificate of Ascertainment are submitted to the U.S. Archivist.

After the governor submits names to the Archivist, each state’s Electoral College electors meet in the state capital – D.C.’s meet in D.C. – to formally cast their votes for president and vice president on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December. This year, that’s Dec. 17, 2024.

In ways that vary state by state, each state’s electors prepare six Certificates of Vote. One of them is sent by registered mail to the president of the U.S. Senate and another to the Archivist of the United States. The remaining four certificates are sent to state officials.

That fulfills the Electoral College’s duties until the next presidential election.

Step 3: Congress meets

On Jan. 6, Congress convenes to count the electoral votes and certify the winner of the election.

Because the sitting vice president also serves as president of the Senate, Kamala Harris will preside over this count in 2025, just as Vice President Mike Pence did in January 2021 when Joe Biden officially became president-elect. Each state, called upon in alphabetical order, files its votes.

This process is normally ceremonial, because by January the media has declared a winner and usually a concession speech has been given. But, officially, it is the moment of truth.

On Jan. 6, 2021, an armed pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol in an attempt to stop Congress from certifying Biden’s victory. Both chambers of Congress were evacuated during the attack, and five people were killed.

Lawmakers reconvened a few hours later. It is the vice president’s job to announce the results and ask whether there are any objections. After the violent assault on the Capitol, most Senate Republicans abandoned their plans to dispute Biden’s win in 2021, but six still objected.

Objections are not unprecedented. In 2001 Democratic House representatives tried for 20 minutes to block Florida’s highly contested electoral votes for George W. Bush.

Both of those efforts failed because objections had to be signed by both a member of the House and the Senate before being voted on by both chambers of Congress. Lodging challenges got harder following legislation passed in 2022. Now, 20 senators and 87 House members must back any challenge to the certification of a state’s Electoral College results.

In 2021, it fell to Pence, as president of the Senate, to declare Biden – not Trump – the next president of the United States. He fulfilled his constitutional duty despite immense pressure from Trump to subvert democracy.

After the Senate certifies the election results, all the Certificates of Ascertainment and Certificates of Vote become available for public review at the Office of the Federal Registrar for one year, then transferred to the National Archives for the permanent record.

Those who question the outcome of a U.S. election, in other words, can double-check the tabulations themselves.

What happens in a tie?

In the extraordinary event that no candidate wins in the Electoral College, the House of Representatives meets to elect the next president. This is how John Quincy Adams became president in 1824.

Established almost 250 years ago, this complex process is a foundation of American democracy. Many have questioned whether this antiquated system truly represents the will of the people in modern America.

But for 2024, with a few tweaks, it remains the process that will decide the presidential race.

This article was originally published during the 2020 presidential election. It was updated on Nov. 1, 2024.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Amy Dacey, American University

Read more:

• Politics with Michelle Grattan: Bruce Wolpe says personal relations between Trump and Albanese would be ‘rocky’
• Could Ukraine be heading toward a frozen conflict? Why so much is hinging on the US election
• The Proud Boys founder counselled Kanye West about Hitler. John Safran has the lowdown

Amy Dacey is the former CEO of the Democratic National Committee. She has donated to the Harris for President campaign in the 2024 election cycle.

The post Who formally declares the winner of the US presidential election? appeared first on The Cincinnati Herald .