US elections: These two states could decide it all: Michigan and Wisconsin - Stephen Collinson, Caitlin Hu, Shelby Rose (CNN Meanwhile in America)

These two states could decide it all

 Stephen Collinson, Caitlin Hu and Shelby Rose

CNN Meanwhile in America, April 3, 2024

By November, you’ll be bored with hearing about Wisconsin and Michigan.

 

The two midwestern states might well hold the key to the second terms that both Donald Trump and Joe Biden crave, but that only one can claim.

 

Because the US electoral system works on a state-by-state basis rather than according to a nationwide popular vote, presidential candidates must plot a path to the White House through a handful of states that are competitive.

 

This year, in a country that is becoming increasingly polarized, there are even fewer swing states than usual. Nevada, Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania and North Carolina make most lists. But there’s a strong case that the election will be decided in Wisconsin and Michigan.

 

In 2016, Trump won both, shocking Hillary Clinton on turf that her campaign had assumed was solidly Democratic. In 2020, Biden grabbed them back and made Trump a one-termer. The Midwestern pair could be even more critical in 2024. If Biden clings onto Pennsylvania and keeps Michigan and Wisconsin in his column, he will almost certainly be president again. He can even drop two far western states — Arizona and Nevada — that he won last time but that are tight in 2024.

 

This explains why Wisconsinites and Michiganders will see a lot of Biden and Trump. The former president had both on his itinerary on Tuesday, in a rare venture away from the court room and the golf course. Trump knows that if he can repeat his double win from 2016, Biden will probably have to find a much harder long-shot route to 270 electoral votes, assuming the rest of the map remains stable. The President in fact would have to fashion some combination of Georgia and Arizona that he won in 2020 and North Carolina which Trump carried — to get back to the White House.

 

Wisconsin and Michigan offer a passable approximation of the US as a whole. Both include cities — like Milwaukee and Detroit and their suburbs — where Democrats prosper and deep red rural areas that Republicans rule. Both reflect Biden’s current troubles. High interests rates and grocery prices are making life tough for many.  In Michigan, Arab American voters are critical of the president’s support for Israel in its war in Gaza. 

 

Biden needs to block Trump’s bid to claim a higher share of the Black vote in the cities than Republicans normally get. In Wisconsin, independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could pose a particular threat to the president among disaffected Democrats. Trump, meanwhile, is trying to play up fears of auto workers around the Motor City that Biden’s support for electric vehicles could cost them their jobs. 

 

So there is an opening for the ex-president in two states that polls suggest are currently too close to call. And then there’s this. These two battlegrounds that could decide the election will probably depend on just a few thousand votes.

What happened to the new world order? - Stephen Collinson, Caitlin Hu, Shelby Rose (CNN)

Todo mundo quer uma nova ordem mundial, desde que seja a seu favor. Alguns embarcam na conversa de outros. É o que está acontecendo agora mesmo com a diplomacia lulopetista.

What happened to the new world order?

Stephen Collinson, Caitlin Hu and Shelby Rose CNN in America, Sept 5, 2023

 

At the G20 summit in London in 2009, Britain's then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown heralded a “new world order” in which rich and developing nations would come together to tame the inequities and excesses of globalization.

 

At the height of a global financial crisis, Brown declared a “new progressive era of international co-operation.” Fourteen years later, the G20 summit in India later this week will reflect how hopes of a global order based on a Western rules-based system have splintered, the world's division into democratic and autocratic camps, and the way in which internal populism and protectionism in many states have eroded pushes for free trade. Brave words about reforming carbon economies now face resistance as the economic price and political complications of fighting climate change emerge. Xi Jinping, the leader of the world’s new superpower, China, won’t even show up to the summit. G20 member Russia is a pariah over the war in Ukraine and President Vladimir Putin cannot risk travel in case he’s arrested for war crimes on an international warrant.

 

It’s unlikely that the G20 meeting will produce any consensus on the war in Ukraine, given that Russia and probably China would block it. The biggest risk of the summit is that it could actually heighten antagonism between many of the Western and developing nations that the group was set up to bridge. Any new mistrust between Western democracies and developing states in the G20 of course plays into the hands of Putin and Xi.

 

Xi’s reasoning is often opaque, but his no-show might be a protest at simmering border tensions and rising geopolitical angst with the great eastern Pacific superpower India, or could even be motivated by internal economic concerns over a property market crisis in China. But Xi did find time to attend an summit of the BRICS nations in Johannesburg last month. The group -- including Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa -- welcomed new members Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ethiopia, Egypt, Argentina and the United Arab Emirates. The move was widely interpreted as another step by China toward creating its own competing world order to the US and its allies, in which it leads a group of developing states. In that light, his absence from the G20 takes on a whole new perspective.

 

US President Joe Biden said at the weekend that he was disappointed that he wouldn’t see Xi, after a flurry of US foreign policy and trade officials visited Beijing in a bid to slow plummeting relations. Biden might still be able to set up a bilateral meeting with Xi at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum summit in San Francisco in November. But the jury is still out on whether Beijing is as keen on easing crisis-hit relations as much as Washington is.

 

Xi’s absence could offer Biden an opening to push forward his relationship with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whom he welcomed to a glittering state dinner at the White House in June. The US would like to nudge India closer to security arrangements and political groupings involving its allies in the Pacific, as it seeks to counterbalance rising Chinese power. But India is likely to go only so far, as its historic non-aligned status evolves into a posture of trying to have a foot in both camps. New Delhi has disappointed the West by failing to forcefully condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and has profited from cheap Russian oil following a boycott by US-allied nations. As a rising power that is still regarded as a developing nation, India is a leading member of both the BRICS and the G20.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping during the 2023 BRICS Summit in Johannesburg.

O dia que vai encerrar o apoio dos EUA à luta pela soberania e democracia na Ucrânia - Stephen Collinson, Caitlin Hu and Shelby Rose (CNN)

 

Stephen Collinson, Caitlin Hu and Shelby Rose CNN Meanwhile in America, March 7, 3023

Will Ukraine be a big loser in the 2024 US election?

China might soon give it a run for its money, but no foreign nation has been dragged deeper into US politics in recent years than Ukraine.   In 2019, a rookie President Volodymyr Zelensky (top right) was the unfortunate recipient of what Donald Trump misleadingly termed a “perfect” call: The then-US president tried to use military aid to extort him to open an investigation into his eventual Democratic rival Joe Biden.   Ukraine has played a huge role in Biden’s presidency as well -- after the brutal Russian invasion led to an extraordinary US and Western attempt to ensure its survival with billions of dollars in arms and aid.   Now, as it heads into the second year of a vicious war, Ukraine’s plight is again about to be tied up in America’s extreme and shifting politics. First, radical members of the new Republican majority launched an attempt to halt its lifeline of American aid. The stirring Republican presidential race meanwhile brings more bad news, with two potential top candidates who take a dim view of Kyiv’s fight for freedom.   Trump says he'd end the war in Ukraine in one day -- claiming that doing so would avert World War III -- while Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (top middle) is keener on waging a culture war than a proxy one to save a foreign democracy. Their positions might be bad news for democracy, but they make sense politically in the scorched earth politics of the Republican primary. Support for US military aid to the country has decreased compared with last spring, according to an AP-NORC survey conducted in late January -- and the decline was sharper among Republicans, falling from 53% in May 2022 to 39% .    In a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday, Trump seemed eager to rekindle his genuflecting relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the disastrous war between Russia and Ukraine settled. ... I will get the problem solved. And I will get it solved in rapid order and it will take me no longer than one day," Trump said. "I know exactly what to say to each of them," he added, before hinting at a potential strategy of siding with the aggressor in the war by reminding his audience, "I got along very well with Putin." DeSantis has yet to declare his campaign. But he’s already warned against the possibility of a proxy war with China in Ukraine after Washington told Beijing not to send weapons to Russia. And in his new book, he lashed out at US democracy promotion overseas, especially under ex-President George W. Bush who launched the Iraq war 20 years ago this month. A tough primary against Trump, who is gearing up to accuse Biden of caring more for Ukrainians than Americans, would probably force DeSantis to adopt his former mentor’s hardline position.   If one of these two Republicans were to win the White House, Biden’s vow to stand with Russia in its fight for Ukraine may have an expiry date: The day of the next US presidential inauguration on January 20, 2025.

Presidents' Day ... in Ukraine - Stephen Collinson, Caitlin Hu and Shelby Rose (CNN Meanwhile in America)

CNN, February 20, 2023

Stephen Collinson, Caitlin Hu and Shelby Rose

Presidents' Day ... in Ukraine

US President Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky embrace in Kyiv after their visit to the Wall of Remembrance to pay tribute to killed Ukrainian soldiers on Monday.

There is no more powerful symbol of Vladimir Putin's failure. A year ago, the Russian leader launched a blitzkrieg against Ukraine, mocking its history and sovereignty, sending his tanks churning toward Kyiv to obliterate the democratically elected government led by a former comic actor. His purpose was clear: To crush once and for all Ukraine's dreams of joining the West and to force it to return to the orbit of greater Russia. Back then, anyone predicting how the anniversary of the war would be marked might have mused about a Russian military parade and a visit by Putin himself to a puppet leader he installed in a nation again under Moscow's iron fist. The reality is far different following heroic Ukrainian resistance bolstered by weapons sent by NATO members. The president of the United States, in overcoat and shades, strolled through Kyiv in daylight Monday, visiting a historic church as air raid sirens wailed. He stood exposed alongside President Volodymyr Zelensky in the city's vast, open and iconic St. Michael's Square. Biden's presence sent a message of defiance to Putin most directly along with a cherished sign of resolve and empathy for the people of Ukraine. His audience also included European powers in a Western alliance that Biden has led and invigorated like no president since the end of the Cold War. And every time a commander in chief makes such an audacious splash on the world stage, he's also making a point to Americans -- on whose support continuing extraordinary aid for Ukraine's war effort depends -- and to his own fervent domestic critics.

President Joe Biden walks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at St. Michael's Golden-Domed Cathedral in Kyiv on Monday.

"One year later, Kyiv stands. And Ukraine stands. Democracy stands," Biden declared. "The Americans stand with you and the world stands with you."   Biden's words might have lacked the poetry of "Ich bin ein Berliner" or "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." But his visit instantly went down in history alongside two defining trips to divided Berlin by Presidents John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan that were flashpoints of the Cold War and each of which sent their own image of US resolve to the Kremlin.

President Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky attend a news conference in Kyiv on Monday.

Those presidential trips made clear that the United States stood with its Western allies for as long as it took to prevail over the Soviet Union. Biden's visit was meant to give similar historic heft to his comment that Washington is there for "as long as it takes" -- though it's unlikely that it will assuage fears in Kyiv and Europe that a change in president might weaken that US vow.   Biden's secret visit, which involved the president leaving the US unannounced and heading to an active war zone, matched some of the colorful stagecraft that Zelensky -- a master of public relations -- has used to maintain Western support for his people and the multi-billion dollar pipeline of weapons and aid. During America's Middle East wars of the last 20 years, Americans became accustomed to Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump leaving Washington in the dead of night and popping up in Baghdad or Kabul to visit US troops and US-backed leaders. And while those trips had their own measure of daring and danger, Biden's visit went a step further -- venturing into a foreign capital that is often under air attack and lacks the security offered by large garrisons of American troops and air assets.  Biden had always planned to visit Europe this week to mark the anniversary of the Russian invasion -- though his public program mentioned only a trip to neighboring Poland. But a journey across the Atlantic that lacked a Ukrainian component would have been unsatisfactory given that fact that many European leaders have already visited Kyiv. Still, the security footprint of the US president is far greater than the one accompanying those leaders, and his position as the leader of the West leaves him far more exposed. But by not visiting Ukraine, Biden would have been implicitly admitting that there were some things that Putin could prevent him from doing -- in effect showing US weakness.   Political symbolism is only effective if it gets results, drives policy and changes an entrenched situation. So, like the Berlin visits of Kennedy and Reagan, the true historic sweep of Biden's perilous journey to Ukraine can only be judged in the light of subsequent events. In other words, his gesture will be an empty one if Russia -- which appears to be mustering for a spring offensive -- wins the war.

In this handout photo issued by the Ukrainian Presidential Press Office, US President Joe Biden meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the Ukrainian presidential palace on Monday.

Joe Biden, State of the Union: déjà vu all over again - Stephen Collinson, Caitlin Hu and Shelby Rose (CNN)

 

February 8, 2023       Stephen Collinson, Caitlin Hu and Shelby Rose

'The State of our Union is ....'

Biden arrives back at the White House on Monday after spending the weekend at Camp David where he worked on his speech for the 2023 State of the Union.

If President Joe Biden were truly honest in his annual televised address, he might have said something like this: “The State of our Union is divided, politically, culturally and between the uber rich and everyone else; it’s worried about a possible recession; self-estranged over guns; and slipping deeper into confrontation with two nuclear superpowers. And it really doesn’t want to see another election contest between myself and Donald Trump.” But of course, the theatrics of the State of the Union address and his own political requirements mean that Biden -- between incessant standing ovations from his own side of the House chamber -- must proclaim America stronger than ever. The rituals that play out year after year, after the House Sergeant at Arms bellows “Mr Speaker, the President of the United States” beg the question of whether the huge attention given to these addresses is over the top. Presidents are actually only required by the Constitution to deliver to Congress information on the state of the union from “time to time.” Presidents for generations only delivered written updates to Congress, until Woodrow Wilson decided to reinstate the in-person address in 1913. Later in the television age, savvy commanders-in-chief understood the huge opportunity of a captive audience of millions of viewers at home. The State of the Union address has become a bit of a political cliche — but it still offers a rare chance for a President to speak to the nation in prime-time across all TV networks without interruption or questions from pesky journalists. With the splintering of media in the 21st century, the White House typically streams the speech online and swamps social media with soundbites. It remains a big event — though viewing figures will pale in comparison to the numbers of Americans tuning into the other annual winter ritual — the Super Bowl on Sunday. Given America's politically fractured condition, it'd be asking too much for the State of the Union address to unite the nation. Especially this year, for the first time in his presidency, Biden will be in a House chamber run by Republicans, following the party’s narrow win in the midterm elections last year. Pundits are framing this State of the Union as the unofficial kick off of Biden’s reelection campaign. He is expected to tout his quite impressive legislative record, send a message of US resolve toward Russia over the war in Ukraine and to China following last week’s spy balloon crisis, and to subtly make the point that if many Americans are still feeling uncertain and hurting economically, things would be far worse under the Republican Party. One reason why Presidents like the State of the Union: It's one moment in the year when they can bask in the ceremony of their office and are shown the respect that is fleeting in bitter modern day politics. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has promised his side will live up to the dignity of the occasion and avoid political stunts that could play into Democratic characterizations of the “Make America Great Again” crowd as unhinged extremists. He's also promised not to tear up his paper copy of Biden's speech -- as former Democratic speaker Nancy Pelosi once did after one of Trump's addresses. That’s great, though this is the same McCarthy who in 2021 voted not to certify the president's election victory over false voter fraud claims, so he may not be one to talk about respecting America’s political institutions.  Biden will also have to confront a dubious distinction — as the first 80-year-old to deliver a State of the Union address — and so is under pressure to show vigor and coherence as he asks Americans to begin to think about handing him another term.    While much of the State of the Union hoopla seems hackneyed, it does serve an important, and unseen function. As draft after draft is passed between the White House and government departments, for weeks before the big night, an administration gets to assess what it has done and where it needs to go next. It’s a rare chance to regroup and tighten focus amid the rush of events, crises and political kerfuffles that can easily consume a presidency.

An end to the war in Ukraine? - Stephen Collinson, Caitlin Hu and Shelby Rose (CNN Meanwhile in America)

 How are we going to find an exit?

Stephen Collinson, Caitlin Hu and Shelby Rose

CNN Meanwhile in America, January 24, 2023

An email from a reader in Australia got us thinking about the West’s expanding effort to defeat Russia in Ukraine, as the brutal invasion approaches its one-year anniversary.

 

The reader called for more anti-war skepticism in press reporting, and argued that “piling it on with weapons” is the wrong answer, since Putin would never surrender in Ukraine. Others question whether the West’s escalation of its strategy to arm Ukraine is destined to create an even bloodier stalemate. Already the trench warfare of frozen frontlines in eastern Ukraine and the merciless Russian bombing of Ukrainian cities recalls dark historic echoes from 20th century total warfare, and there’s no meaningful international diplomatic effort even to forge a ceasefire.

 

Strategists warn of a new Russian spring offensive while the West debates whether a swift influx of missiles, tanks, artillery and defensive weapons could help Ukraine push Russia out. Many more civilians are likely to die, along with young troops and young Russians being used as cannon fodder by President Vladimir Putin.

 

So why not try to stop the war before it lasts another year?

 

To begin with, Ukraine is committed to defending every last inch of its territory. And though Kyiv has said it’s open to talks, it doesn’t trust Putin and won’t accept any semblance of victory for the Russian strongman. Western leaders meanwhile fear the broader consequences if Ukraine loses; allowing a large authoritarian state to crush a small democracy would set a dangerous precedent and make Europe far less stable and secure. They also reason that stopping the flow of weapons to support Ukraine would allow Putin a quick victory and shatter NATO’s credibility. So it’s hard to imagine any peace that would be simultaneously palatable to Russia, Ukraine, and the West.

 

Yet, the longer the war drags on and the deadlier the weapons poured into Ukraine by allies, the greater the risk of a spillover clash between NATO and Russia. “Shouldn’t we now ask ourselves how we are going to find an exit from this war?” asked former senior French politician and diplomat Pierre Lellouche, in a commentary in “Le Monde” last week : He warned of “an immense frozen conflict on the Old Continent” and that the allies were sliding into anti-Russia belligerence and increasingly direct confrontation with Moscow.

 

Such voices are often drowned out in American media coverage driven by political hawks and retired generals who came up during the Cold War. A group of progressive Democrats was shouted down last year when they suggested President Joe Biden should negotiate an end to the war. Hardline House Republicans are also increasingly skeptical about the war: they want to keep US billions at home.

 

Still, the top US General Mark Milley caused a stir last year when he suggested that it would be hard for Ukraine to fully vanquish Russia and that eventually it might have to think about a political solution — though he later walked it back. 

 

These views are not yet approaching critical mass. But the question posed by our correspondent and many others is ineluctable: How many more thousands need to die before the war ends.

Protestos populares na China: a postura dos EUA em 1989 e agora - Stephen Collinson, Caitlin Hu and Shelby Rose (CNN Meanwhile in America)

 

Stephen Collinson, Caitlin Hu and Shelby Rose

A familiar tug of war

Mass protests broke out in major Chinese cities during the weekend and early this week over the country's zero-Covid policy.

As China attempts to suppress mass protests, the Biden administration is treading carefully in its response -- a reflection of the possibility that a full-scale revolt against the Chinese Communist Party could leave the United States in a classic tug of war between its values and strategic interests.   Officials stressed that Washington strongly supports the right of people everywhere to peacefully demonstrate, but have not given any direct indication of support for the protests. Going further could imperil US President Joe Biden’s effort to improve relations between the two countries, after he met Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Bali.   It’s a strategically defensible position, given the need to avoid a clash with China that could spiral into a superpower clash in Asia. But if the protests spread and are brutally put down, Biden will face pressure from both hawks and human rights advocates to take a harder line -- and live up to his promise to put promoting democracy at the center of his foreign policy.   He is not the first president to face such a dilemma.   In the run-up to Beijing’s suppression of pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989, then-President George H.W. Bush’s White House was preoccupied with preserving relations with Beijing. In retrospect, though, the administration badly underestimated the ruthlessness of Chinese leaders.    China is unrecognizable since 1989, and recent protests -- this time arising out of frustration with Covid-19 lockdowns but expressing some dissent towards Xi -- are not fully analogous. But Bush, who was a China expert after serving as top US envoy in Beijing at the dawn of the diplomatic relationship in the mid-1970s, faced the same questions Biden must answer now: How explicitly to speak about the situation in public? What messages -- if any -- to send in private to Beijing? And ultimately, when does the US instinct to stand up for values of freedom and democratic progress cede to more cynical economic and geopolitical interests?   These conundrums shine through a fascinating set of declassified documents that became public several years ago.   After Chinese soldiers crushed the rebellion in Tiananmen Square, with estimates of the death toll ranging from hundreds to thousands, Bush deplored the use of force and called on Chinese leaders for restraint. But he also stressed that he didn’t want the aftermath of the horror to “break” US-China relations.    However, behind the scenes, there was a real debate about the efficacy of US policy. In a secret cable to Washington, then-US ambassador James Lilley argued that Washington’s overarching goal had blinded it to the real nature of the Chinese regime. “The Chinese declared martial law against their own people in Beijing the day we were cozying up to their military in Shanghai,” Lilley wrote, referring to a US naval visit to the eastern Chinese city. “We were not coping with or anticipating current realities.”    Lilley was not just being wise after the fact. He had warned in a cable in May -- the month prior to the Tiananmen Square massacre -- that the Chinese military was “ready to strike” against the students and that the US should “distance ourselves from the Chinese authorities who appear to be getting ready to crack down on their own people.”

George H.W. Bush speaks at the White House on June 5, 1989.

Global revulsion over the snuffing out of the reform movement left China isolated. But Bush, seeking to avoid an irrevocable fracture with Beijing, sent a private letter “with a heavy heart” to Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping.    He explained that he had forcefully condemned the bloody march into the square because it offended Americans’ reverence for freedom of assembly and democracy. But Bush also wrote that he was resisting clamor at home for tougher action against China and said Deng could ease the situation by ensuring the peaceful treatment of future protests and offering clemency to those arrested.    Several weeks later, he sent his national security advisor Brent Scowcroft on a secret visit to meet Deng. The official and declassified memorandum of their conversation offers an extraordinary glimpse into high-level crisis diplomacy. It reveals that China interpreted even muted US support for the right to protest as evidence of a US effort to seed rebellion against the Chinese Communist Party.    “This was an earthshaking event and it is very unfortunate that the United States is too deeply involved in it,” Deng lectured Scowcroft, adding that Washington had impugned Chinese dignity. The US official explained that Bush was powerless to oppose the House of Representatives, which voted 418-0 to impose stiffer sanctions on China. But Scowcroft also said Bush was “deeply appreciative of your willingness to explain the dilemma in which he finds himself. That’s the message from a true friend of the Chinese government and the people of China.”   It’s impossible to imagine a similar conversation unfolding today between a US delegation and Xi, partly because China is far more powerful and Washington is far more openly hostile to Beijing’s domestic repression and global ambitions.   Bush has been accused of appeasement. Some historians have argued that his obsequiousness to Deng encouraged China’s decision to develop as a hostile, nationalist power that in many ways defines itself through its defiance of the United States. But others suggest that Bush was correct to try to avoid the kind of superpower standoff that has since developed and that makes Biden’s decisions today considerably more fraught.   In the end, Bush came down in favor of a hard-nosed judgment of US national interests over ideals. Biden would be likely to show far less deference to Beijing given today’s broad, bipartisan anti-China feeling in Washington. But with China now a strong military power threatening Taiwan and increasingly keen to confront Washington, it’s hard to imagine he would ultimately take a different course of action.

A statue called The Goddess of Democracy on May 20, 1989 in Tiananmen Square. The statue was modeled after the Statue of Liberty.

Subscribe to Meanwhile in America