Democrats' pick to replace Rep. Connolly wants to carry forward his legacy
As the popular lawmaker's chief of staff for a decade, Walkinshaw, 42, had long been seen as a likely successor in Virginia's 11th Congressional District — even well before Connolly's death opened up this seat in the D.C. suburbs. With support from Connolly and the broad political coalition he had built across Fairfax, Walkinshaw managed to win almost 60 percent of the vote in Saturday's election against nine other candidates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Japan 'investment vehicle' could become trade talk template — even if nobody is sure what it is
A closely watched piece of a trade deal announced with Japan this past week is a plan for a "new Japanese/USA investment vehicle" that Trump and his team said will put $550 billion aside for the president to personally deploy to finance new investments in the US. Observers are watching this unusual provision closely amid a growing expectation it will serve as a template of sorts for remaining trade talks — even as conflicts grow over exactly what was agreed to, especially a disagreement on how profits might be split. It's just one of the questions that cropped up immediately after the president's announcement Tuesday — and appears to have only grown in the days since. Trump and his team have deployed a range of metaphors to describe this part of the deal, from a "signing bonus for the country" (Trump) to a "national security sovereign fund" (Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick) to a "blank check" (trade adviser Peter Navarro). The Japanese are describing things very differently, suggesting that the provision is more akin to a non-legally binding agreement to look for joint investment opportunities for both US and Japanese companies. "There are a lot of details that need to be worked out here," former trade negotiator Wendy Cutler, now at the Asia Society Policy Institute, noted on Yahoo Finance on Friday. She added that the very different accounts from different sides at the very least "does not bode well for smooth implementation." Yet the bumpiness has done little to slow momentum for the idea in Trump's orbit, with a sense that similar provisions could be part of any possible deal with South Korea and perhaps Taiwan. Trump also appeared to suggest Friday that it may be what's needed to close a deal with the European Union. As he left for Scotland, the president described a deal with the EU as far from a sure thing, adding that what might push talks over the line is a pact "where they buy down their tariffs." Trump officials, for their part, stand by their side's version of the deal with Japan and often note they have an easy way to make sure things work out to their liking: the constant threat of re-raising tariffs. A White House spokesperson declined to offer further details Friday on exactly how the investment vehicle would work and what Trump meant with Friday's comments around EU negotiations, which are set to continue this Sunday while the president is in Scotland. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet 'Hardly the operation of the free market' What is known about the investment portion of the deal has come under growing criticism. Iain Murray, a vice president at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, called the outline "hardly the operation of the free market in action." He added that the government-run process to direct funds could quickly become messy, with "all the usual problems of state-directed, industrial policy." This piece of the deal was one that was clearly hammered out quickly and late in the negotiating process. A social media post by White House deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino earlier this week showed the president sitting across from Japan's chief negotiator Ryosei Akazawa. Before him was a paper outlining the deal, with $400 billion crossed out and replaced in pen with $500 billion. The final agreement of $550 billion was then subsequently announced. The full text of the trade agreement has not been released, but a White House fact sheet describes the plan as for "a new Japanese/USA investment vehicle" that will be "over $550 billion." "At President Trump's direction, these funds will be targeted toward the revitalization of America's strategic industrial base," the document adds, listing energy, semiconductors, critical minerals, pharmaceuticals, and shipbuilding as the five areas of focus. It's a provision Trump has likened to "a $550 billion signing bonus for the country," adding of the money, "We control the whole lot of it and it's really been great." Lutnick has gone further and described this part of the deal as "literally the government of Japan giving Donald Trump and the American people $550 billion to invest, at his direction, on things that are important to America and national security." Mounting disagreements around the deal The Japanese appear to disagree fundamentally. Japan's top trade negotiator told Reuters this week that "some people are saying Japan is simply handing over $550 billion, but such claims are completely off the mark." It all could complicate the overall pact that is set to reduce "reciprocal" and automotive tariffs on Japanese imports to the US from previously threatened levels of 25% to 15%. Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute added that the deal, depending on how much power the president ultimately has to direct funds, "has all the sorts of things that the founders were worried about about presidential power: the power of patronage, the capacity for corruption." It all adds up to a potential "end run around constitutional checks and balances," according to Murray. And as financial writer James Surowiecki put it on social media: "Trump and his people are pure, top-down central planners. They're just convinced they can allocate capital better than the market." Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How redistricting in Texas and other states could change the game for US House elections
Texas Legislature WASHINGTON (AP) — Redistricting usually happens after the once-a-decade population count by the U.S. Census Bureau or in response to a court ruling. Now, Texas Republicans want to break that tradition — and other states could follow suit. President Trump has asked the Texas Legislature to create districts, in time for next year's midterm elections, that will send five more Republicans to Washington and make it harder for Democrats to regain the majority and blunt his agenda. The state has 38 seats in the House. Republicans now hold 25 and Democrats 12, with one seat vacant after the death of a Democrat. 'There's been a lot more efforts by the parties and political actors to push the boundaries – literally and figuratively – to reconfigure what the game is,' said Doug Spencer, Rothgerber Jr. Chair in Constitutional Law at the University of Colorado. Other states are waiting to see what Texas does and whether to follow suit. The rules of redistricting can be vague and variable; each state has its own set of rules and procedures. Politicians are gauging what voters will tolerate when it comes to politically motivated mapmaking. Here's what to know about the rules of congressional redistricting: When does redistricting normally happen? Every decade, the Census Bureau collects population data used to divide the 435 House seats among the 50 states based on the updated head count. It's a process known as reapportionment. States that grew relative to others might gain a seat at the expense of those whose populations stagnated or declined. States use their own procedures to draw lines for the assigned number of districts. The smallest states receive just one representative, which means the entire state is a single congressional district. Some state constitutions require independent commissions to devise the political boundaries or to advise the legislature. When legislatures take the lead, lawmakers can risk drawing lines that end up challenged in court, usually for violating the Voting Rights Act. Mapmakers can get another chance to resubmit new maps. Sometimes, judges draw the maps on their own. Is midcycle redistricting allowed? By the first midterm elections after the latest population count, each state is ready with its maps, but those districts do not always stick. Courts can find that the political lines are unconstitutional. There is no national impediment to a state trying to redraw districts in the middle of the decade and to do it for political reasons, such as increasing representation by the party in power. 'The laws about redistricting just say you have to redistrict after every census,' Spencer said. 'And then some state legislatures got a little clever and said, well it doesn't say we can't do it more.' Some states do have laws that would prevent midcycle redistricting or make it difficult to do so in a way that benefits one party. Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., has threatened to retaliate against the GOP push in Texas by drawing more favorable Democratic seats in his state. That goal, however, is complicated by a constitutional amendment that requires an independent commission to lead the process. Is Texas' effort unprecedented? Texas has done it before. When the Legislature failed to agree on a redistricting plan after the 2000 census, a federal court stepped in with its own map. Republican Tom DeLay of Texas, who was then the U.S. House majority leader, thought his state should have five more districts friendly to his party. 'I'm the majority leader and we want more seats,′′ he said at the time. Statehouse Democrats protested by fleeing to Oklahoma, depriving the Legislature of enough votes to officially conduct any business. But DeLay eventually got his way, and Republicans replaced Democrats in five seats in 2004. What do the courts say about gerrymandering? In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts should not get involved in debates over political gerrymandering, the practice of drawing districts for partisan gain. In that decision, Chief Justice John Roberts said redistricting is ' highly partisan by any measure. ' But courts may demand new maps if they believe the congressional boundaries dilute the votes of a racial minority group, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Could other states follow suit? Washington Rep. Suzan DelBene, who leads House Democrats' campaign arm, indicated at a Christian Science Monitor event that if Texas follows through on passing new maps, Democratic-led states would look at their own political lines. 'If they go down this path, absolutely folks are going to respond across the country,' DelBene said. 'We're not going to be sitting back with one hand tied behind our back while Republicans try to undermine voices of the American people.' In New York, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul recently joined Newsom in expressing openness to taking up mid-decade redistricting. But state laws mandating independent commissions or blunting the ability to gerrymander would come into play. Among Republican-led states, Ohio could try to further expand the 10-5 edge that the GOP holds in the House delegation; a quirk in state law requires Ohio to redraw its maps before the 2026 midterms. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he was considering early redistricting and 'working through what that would look like.'
The Verge
28 minutes ago
- The Verge
Online MAGA cope is now Congressional strategy
When it comes to defending Donald Trump from the worst accusations, the MAGA influencer-industrial complex, whether out of loyalty or self-preservation, often defaults to whataboutism, arguing that the Democrats are just as guilty as Trump, or (ideally) worse. This principle has held true with the current Jeffrey Epstein saga, and as their audience's anger against the Trump administration skyrockets, the MAGA influencer world is trying a new tack: blame the Democrats, not Trump, for keeping the 'Epstein Files' under lock and key. Trump, the person who could feasibly order the release of said documents, has spent the past few weeks trying to smother the drama from a few different angles, ultimately only fanning flames every time he attempted to deemphasize Epstein. He tried dismissing it during a Cabinet meeting ('Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?'), downplaying it on Truth Social ('Let's … not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about'), and criticizing a reporter for asking about Epstein ('Are people still talking about this guy?'). But there's no indication that the MAGA-influencer complex will ever stop talking about Epstein, or that their audiences will ever let it go. But over the past week, the influencer class, and subsequently the GOP, has started to maneuver Trump's spin into a more acceptable talking point, inspired by a recent Wall Street Journal bombshell reporting that the Justice Department had told Trump back in May that his name was in the pile of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. 'Of course there's going to be mentions of Epstein, who was a member of Mar-a-Lago until Trump kicked him out' over a decade ago, said Alex Jones, the Infowars host who'd spent the past several days raging about the Epstein Files. But while he had been calling for the head of anyone in the administration for failing to deliver, it was much easier to circle the wagon around Trump the moment that a mainstream publication tied him to bad behavior. Laura Loomer, another prominent influencer who'd been criticizing the administration for its underwhelming response, also took the opportunity to try coming home by questioning where exactly Trump's name appeared in the files, while also glazing Trump. 'Are they trying to say that a file is somebody's name in an address book?' she rhetorically asked Politico Playbook on Thursday, adding that she, too, had a large address book. 'Some of those people in my address book have committed crimes. Does that mean I'm implicated in their crimes? President Trump is not a pedophile. And I look forward to seeing him sue every journalist and publication that is trying to imply that he is one.' Either cater to their audience's demand to keep asking what the elites are hiding about Epstein, or maintain their relationship and standing with the White House In the days and weeks since the Trump administration released their brief memo about the Epstein files, the MAGA influencer world — specifically, those who built their careers 'just asking questions' about Epstein while also cozying up to Trump — has grappled with a difficult choice: either cater to their audience's demand to keep asking what the elites are hiding about Epstein, or maintain their relationship and standing with the White House. Some have chosen their audiences, gambling that their following is loyal beyond Trump, and that their influence isn't contingent on their White House access. (Tucker Carlson, for instance, published a two-hour episode that was entirely focused on the Epstein conspiracies — one week after he implied that Epstein was a Mossad agent.) Others have completely flipped back to Trump, such as the influencer Catturd, an onetime Epstein truther who began implying that 'the podcast bro 'influencers'' now criticizing Trump may have taken Russian money to do so. (In 2024, US prosecutors indicted two employees of RT for illegally funneling money to spread Kremlin propaganda, alleging that they had put $10 million into a Tennessee-based media company whose description matched up with Tenet Media, which worked with Tim Pool, Benny Johnson, and others.) Catturd then tweeted that he was 'never abandoning Trump', and spent the subsequent week calling for Barack Obama's indictment and posting memes of press secretary Karoline Leavitt. But for everyone else, it's been difficult to have it both ways. Loomer's attempt to pin the blame on Attorney General Pam Bondi, for instance, failed when Trump refused to fire Bondi, while influencers who attempted to convince their audience to move onto different topics saw their audience revolt (particularly if those influencers, such as Benny Johnson, cited their conversations with government officials as reason enough). Normal, everyday constituents also hold deep suspicions about the entire Epstein matter And before you dismiss it as sturm-and-drang on the internet, the very same dynamic can be seen in Congress, where the Republicans are trying their best to satisfy the base while appeasing the President — a task made difficult because their normal, everyday constituents also hold deep suspicions about the entire Epstein matter. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released last week found that the vast majority of voters — including a majority of Republicans — believe that the government is hiding information about the infamous 'client list'. And tellingly, only 35 percent of Republicans believed that the Trump administration was handling it well. (30 percent said Trump was not, and 35 percent were unsure.) On Wednesday, a House Oversight subcommittee voted to subpoena the Department of Justice for the Epstein Files, with a majority composed of five Democrats and three Republicans. The two Republicans who opposed the subpoena ended up tacking on other requests for Epstein-related communications from Biden officials and the DOJ. Per ABC News, the 'officials' included the Democratic subjects of MAGA's most enduring conspiracy theories: 'Bill and Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Merrick Garland, Robert Mueller, William Barr, Jeff Sessions and Alberto Gonzales.' In other words, no one seems to be able to run with Trump's assessment that Epstein is 'somebody that nobody cares about.' Unable to quell the belief that there's a conspiracy afoot, the only thing to do is try to implicate Democrats. Even Speaker Mike Johnson, who abruptly called a five-week recess last Thursday to prevent his Democratic counterparts from voting to release the Epstein files, leaned in on a potential conspiracy. 'One of our concerns is, of course, that it was held in the hands of the DOJ leaders under the last administration, the Biden-Harris administration,' he told a Newsmax reporter on Wednesday. 'And we all know how crooked and corrupt so many of those officials were, how they engaged in lawfare against President Trump. He has a concern, and I do as well, that things could have been doctored in those records.' When it comes to right-wing talking points based on sordid, unproven allegations, it's best to start winking early — and in sync with the president, too. Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All by Tina Nguyen Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Culture Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Entertainment Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Internet Culture Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Policy Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Politics
