Latest news with #UniversityofMaryWashington
Yahoo
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Democrats and Republicans were out on the Virginia campaign trail. Here's what they had to say.
With four months until Election Day in Virginia, the campaigns for statewide office are heating up. Both parties are projecting a message of unity, but the ways they've sought to demonstrate unity amongst themselves has varied. Immediately after June's primaries, Democratic gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger embarked on an eight-day bus tour across the state, where she was joined at stops by Ghazala Hashmi and Jay Jones, the nominees for lieutenant governor and attorney general. Meanwhile, Republican candidates Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, Attorney General Jason Miyares and conservative radio host John Reid — who have been the presumptive nominees for months — appeared together for the first time Tuesday night. 'To describe the Republican rally as a unity rally requires a very flexible definition of unity,' said Stephen Farnsworth, a political science professor at the University of Mary Washington. 'The party candidates barely appeared on stage together, did not have a lot to say about each other, and generally have a kind of problematic history for imagining that they're going to be able to work together this fall.' Statewide candidates are elected separately, meaning it's possible to have a governor and lieutenant governor from different parties. In 2005, Virginians elected Democrat Tim Kaine as governor and Republicans Bill Bolling and Bob McDonnell as lieutenant governor and attorney general. Here's how Hampton Roads lawmakers voted on Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Spanberger, other Democrats vying for office draw hundreds at Williamsburg campaign stop Virginia's Republican statewide ticket rallies together for the first time But whether Republicans Earle-Sears, Reid, and Miyares — candidates for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general — have convinced voters they're past their infighting, Farnsworth said a split ticket is unlikely. 'I do think that in this political environment, there aren't going to be very many swing voters,' he said. 'The reality of 2025 is that of a very, very partisan time, and so most voters are likely to vote a unified ticket, because the parties have become increasingly distant from each other nationally and in Virginia.' That means voting for candidates and policies for or against President Donald Trump. 'I think most people, particularly given the very combative approach to governing from President Trump, have decided they're either all in with the president or all not in with the president,' Farnsworth said. 'The old saying that all politics is local I don't think really applies these days when you're looking at what's motivating people.' Meanwhile, the Democratic statewide ticket campaigned together in Hampton Roads last weekend as part of Spanberger's bus tour. The tour concluded Saturday with stops in Williamsburg, Newport News, Norfolk and Virginia Beach. Jones seemingly took aim at the Republicans, who had then not appeared in public together. 'We got a ticket with Ghazala Hashmi and Abigail Spanberger,' he said at a speech at Lafayette High School in Williamsburg. 'And I'll let you in on a little secret this morning: We actually like each other.' Jones made the same comment in Norfolk later that day. Democrats are running on a staunchly anti-Trump platform. Along the trail, Jones pledged to enter Virginia into lawsuits against the Trump administration brought by Democratic attorneys general. Hashmi criticized Gov. Glenn Youngkin for telling laid off federal workers to polish their resumes. And Spanberger said she would defend veterans' access to health care. 'At the theoretical level, people are more likely to describe themselves as conservative,' Farnsworth said. 'But when people start seeing programs cut, they're a lot less conservative than they thought there were … the challenge for Republicans in this environment is not unlike what Democrats faced during the Biden years. 'You have to live with the consequences of the policy choices in Washington, even if you had nothing to do with them.' Statewide Republicans on the campaign trail are engaging less with federal policy, and instead spoke on issues such as transgender children, school choice and Virginia's status as a right-to-work state. At a rally before a packed house Tuesday in Vienna, Earle-Sears spoke at length about her father fleeing socialism in Jamaica and the nomination of Zohran Mamdani as Democratic mayoral candidate in New York. 'You've seen where my old hometown New York has nominated a socialist,' she said. The crowd booed. 'And make no mistake about it, the ideas that my opponent has are socialist in nature, because it's all about what government is going to do and to take your money to do it.' In Williamsburg, Spanberger dismissed the connection to Mamdani. 'I'm kind of a little bit laughing because it's New York City — we're Virginia,' she told reporters. 'I don't know anything about New York politics.' Farnsworth was not convinced that was an effective political strategy. 'It strikes me as a desperate move to imagine that the voice of Democratic primary voters in New York City has any bearing on the Virginia gubernatorial election,' he said. 'People always wish they were running against the politician that they mention, but they're actually running against the politician whose name is on the ballot, or the national figure, the president.' Farnsworth predicted that Republicans will face some significant headwinds this election. Historically, the party out of power in the White House does well in statewide elections in Virginia the following year. For example, in 2021, a year after Joe Biden was elected as president, Republicans regained control of the House of Delegates and won all three statewide positions. Kate Seltzer, 757-713-7881,
Yahoo
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What's behind India and Pakistan's conflict over Kashmir, and why it's so serious
Tensions between India and Pakistan significantly escalated last week, with the neighboring countries exchanging fire for several days after India's missile attack on Pakistan. While the two countries announced a full and immediate ceasefire on Saturday, experts say dangers in the region remain. The United States conversed with Indian and Pakistani officials to broker the ceasefire, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. India on Saturday evening accused Pakistan of breaking the ceasefire, saying it is responding to the violations. The recent attacks came after already rising tensions as India continued to blame Pakistan for a deadly attack in April in the disputed Kashmir region, a claim that Pakistan denies. That militant attack, known as the Pahalgam incident, left 26 people dead in Indian-controlled Kashmir. MORE: Pakistan says it is responding to 'act of war' after India missile strikes "This is just the most recent in a series of conflicts between Pakistan and India," retired Col. Stephen Ganyard, an ABC News contributor and former State Department official, said. "Ever since the formation of Pakistan in the mid to late '40s, these two countries have not gotten along." With both countries possessing nuclear weapons, the threat of escalation is especially concerning. "Of any place in the world, the easiest to imagine a nuclear exchange happening is between Pakistan and India," Ganyard said. "You have these two neighbors with so much hate, so much history and lots and lots of nuclear weapons exchanging live fire." The origin of the recent hostilities between Pakistan and India largely dates back to 1947, when they gained their independence from British rule, according to Surupa Gupta, a professor of political science and international affairs at the University of Mary Washington in Virginia. "When you think about the current conflict, it is really about Kashmir," Gupta told ABC News. Sovereign, princely states in the subcontinent were given the option to accede to India or Pakistan at the time of independence, but Kashmir was among several that did not, she said. Its ruler at the time eventually agreed to sign a treaty of accession with India after seeking its support against attacks on the state. "Pakistan has never really recognized that treaty of accession," Gupta said. "Pakistan's argument has always been that Kashmir was, and continues to be, a Muslim-majority region, whereas they see India as a Hindu-majority state. Which it is, but its origin story is as a secular state." A war between India and Pakistan erupted over the Himalayan region, and in 1949, the two countries agreed to establish a ceasefire line dividing Kashmir, which is highly militarized and monitored by the United Nations. Today, India controls the southern half of the Kashmir region and Pakistan controls the northern and western portion, though both lay claim to all of Kashmir. China also controls a part of northeastern Kashmir. "It's one of the few places in the world where the geography is very tight, where borders are up against each other, and so the tensions often spill over because they're still competing for various parts of Kashmir and Jammu," Ganyard said. Continuing to fuel the conflict between India and Pakistan are strong nationalist sentiments and religious fervor, Ganyard said. "These are two countries with very strong religious feelings, and that religion gets injected into the relationship between the two countries," he said. "So very strong Muslim population and very strong Muslim sentiment within the politics of Pakistan. Prime Minister Modi in India has been a very ardent Hindu nationalist." "Throughout humanity, the most horrible, bloodiest kinds of conflicts between human beings tend to be those that have religious fervor behind them. And so that's part of what makes this so dangerous," he continued. MORE: India, Pakistan agree to full and immediate ceasefire In the ensuing decades since gaining independence, India and Pakistan have fought several wars and battles, including ones over Kashmir. In recent years, the conflict has "manifested itself in the form of terrorist attacks on India," Gupta said, including deadly attacks on military targets in 2016 and 2019 and a siege targeting Mumbai hotels and a railway station in 2008. Since the late 1980s, "India has accused Pakistan of supporting international Islamist terrorist groups operating inside of Kashmir," Manjari Chatterjee Miller, a senior fellow for India, Pakistan and South Asia for the Council on Foreign Relations, told ABC News. Tensions have calmed a bit in recent years, barring occasional clashes along the border areas, Ganyard said. Tourism in Kashmir has also increased in recent years, helping drive the economy, and there was a "sense of normalcy," Gupta said. The April 22 attack near the resort town of Pahalgam targeted Indian tourists, with the civilian attack marking a departure from the more recent military attacks on military, Gupta and Miller said. India's missile attack on Tuesday, which it said targeted "terrorist infrastructure" in Pakistan and Pakistan-controlled Jammu and Kashmir, was "very clearly a reaction to the massacre of the 26 tourists," Ganyard said. Before the ceasefire was announced, the world was "sort of holding their breath" and "waiting to see if the pressure gets let off a bit," he said, noting that it's "in the best interest of both sides not to let this get out of hand." MORE: At least 31 dead in Pakistan in overnight India attacks, military says Since 1998, both India and Pakistan have nuclear arms, between 160 and 170 weapons each, Ganyard noted. The two are among a handful of countries that have never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India has a no-first-use policy for its nuclear weapons, which Pakistan does not, Gupta noted. "This is why this is so critical. You have this religious fervor that divides the two countries. This anger. You have the nationalist pride of both sides. And then you have these two sides that have nuclear weapons. So very, very, very dangerous cocktail, which is why it's so concerning that it could get out of control," Ganyard said. Another aspect that could escalate conflicts is water. Following the April 22 attack, India suspended a key water treaty with Pakistan regarding the Indus River. "There have been many people who've predicted that the next war would be fought over water," Ganyard said. India had not previously suspended that treaty, marking a "departure," Gupta said. If India restricts the flow of water to Pakistan, "that could be grounds for war," Ganyard said. Both India and Pakistan "have incentives to not escalate, but at the same time the risk of escalation, particularly through miscalculation, is real," Miller said. "And anytime you have conflict between nuclear-armed neighbors, it's a serious issue." Amid concerns of further escalation in its latest conflict, India and Pakistan announced Saturday they had agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire. In the past, relations between India and Pakistan have de-escalated with the help of back-channel diplomacy and international actors such as the U.S. have talked to both, Gupta said. "There have been instances where the military commanders have gotten in touch," she said. "Based on a shared interest in avoiding a full-scale war, both countries have scaled it down." The ceasefire talks were mediated by the U.S., with Rubio in a statement commending the leaders of India and Pakistan for "choosing the path of peace." The wider issue over Kashmir, though, may not be resolved in the immediate future, Gupta said. India has previously tried to negotiate a lasting peace with various Pakistani governments, but "the lack of stability in who rules Pakistan is a major factor," she said, and the efforts have not gone anywhere. "I think there is always a possibility of resolving conflicts, but it doesn't seem immediate. It doesn't seem likely in the short run, in the medium run," she said. "It would require a lot of effort to do so, a lot of very sincere effort to do so." Given the variable stressors, "things are never going to be good between these two countries," Ganyard said. "Whether it's water, whether it's religion, whether it's territory, geography -- there are so many things that are constantly and going to continue to irritate the relationship between Pakistan and India that the best we can hope for is some sort of very low-scale war, or some sort of very high tension kind of relationship, but not the exchange of nuclear weapons," he said. What's behind India and Pakistan's conflict over Kashmir, and why it's so serious originally appeared on
10-05-2025
- Politics
What's behind India and Pakistan's conflict over Kashmir, and why it's so serious
Tensions between India and Pakistan significantly escalated last week, with the neighboring countries exchanging fire for several days after India's missile attack on Pakistan. While the two countries reached a full and immediate ceasefire on Saturday, experts say dangers in the region remains. The United States conversed with Indian and Pakistani officials to broker the ceasefire, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The recent attacks came after already rising tensions as India continued to blame Pakistan for a deadly attack in April in the disputed Kashmir region, a claim that Pakistan denies. That militant attack, known as the Pahalgam incident, left 26 people dead in Indian-controlled Kashmir. "This is just the most recent in a series of conflicts between Pakistan and India," retired Col. Stephen Ganyard, an ABC News contributor and former State Department official, said. "Ever since the formation of Pakistan in the mid to late '40s, these two countries have not gotten along." With both countries possessing nuclear weapons, the threat of escalation is especially concerning. "Of any place in the world, the easiest to imagine a nuclear exchange happening is between Pakistan and India," Ganyard said. "You have these two neighbors with so much hate, so much history and lots and lots of nuclear weapons exchanging live fire." Kashmir at center of conflict The origin of the recent hostilities between Pakistan and India largely dates back to 1947, when they gained their independence from British rule, according to Surupa Gupta, a professor of political science and international affairs at the University of Mary Washington in Virginia. "When you think about the current conflict, it is really about Kashmir," Gupta told ABC News. Sovereign, princely states in the subcontinent were given the option to accede to India or Pakistan at the time of independence, but Kashmir was among several that did not, she said. Its ruler at the time eventually agreed to sign a treaty of accession with India after seeking its support against attacks on the state. "Pakistan has never really recognized that treaty of accession," Gupta said. "Pakistan's argument has always been that Kashmir was, and continues to be, a Muslim-majority region, whereas they see India as a Hindu-majority state. Which it is, but its origin story is as a secular state." A war between India and Pakistan erupted over the Himalayan region, and in 1949, the two countries agreed to establish a ceasefire line dividing Kashmir, which is highly militarized and monitored by the United Nations. Today, India controls the southern half of the Kashmir region and Pakistan controls the northern and western portion, though both lay claim to all of Kashmir. China also controls a part of northeastern Kashmir. "It's one of the few places in the world where the geography is very tight, where borders are up against each other, and so the tensions often spill over because they're still competing for various parts of Kashmir and Jammu," Ganyard said. Continuing to fuel the conflict between India and Pakistan are strong nationalist sentiments and religious fervor, Ganyard said. "These are two countries with very strong religious feelings, and that religion gets injected into the relationship between the two countries," he said. "So very strong Muslim population and very strong Muslim sentiment within the politics of Pakistan. Prime Minister Modi in India has been a very ardent Hindu nationalist." "Throughout humanity, the most horrible, bloodiest kinds of conflicts between human beings tend to be those that have religious fervor behind them. And so that's part of what makes this so dangerous," he continued. Years of hostilities In the ensuing decades since gaining independence, India and Pakistan have fought several wars and battles, including ones over Kashmir. In recent years, the conflict has "manifested itself in the form of terrorist attacks on India," Gupta said, including deadly attacks on military targets in 2016 and 2019 and a siege targeting Mumbai hotels and a railway station in 2008. Since the late 1980s, "India has accused Pakistan of supporting international Islamist terrorist groups operating inside of Kashmir," Manjari Chatterjee Miller, a senior fellow for India, Pakistan and South Asia for the Council on Foreign Relations, told ABC News. Tensions have calmed a bit in recent years, barring occasional clashes along the border areas, Ganyard said. Tourism in Kashmir has also increased in recent years, helping drive the economy, and there was a "sense of normalcy," Gupta said. The April 22 attack near the resort town of Pahalgam targeted Indian tourists, with the civilian attack marking a departure from the more recent military attacks on military, Gupta and Miller said. India's missile attack on Tuesday, which it said targeted "terrorist infrastructure" in Pakistan and Pakistan-controlled Jammu and Kashmir, was "very clearly a reaction to the massacre of the 26 tourists," Ganyard said. Before the ceasefire was announced, the world was "sort of holding their breath" and "waiting to see if the pressure gets let off a bit," he said, noting that it's "in the best interest of both sides not to let this get out of hand." Neighboring nuclear powers Since 1998, both India and Pakistan have nuclear arms, between 160 and 170 weapons each, Ganyard noted. The two are among a handful of countries that have never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India has a no-first-use policy for its nuclear weapons, which Pakistan does not, Gupta noted. "This is why this is so critical. You have this religious fervor that divides the two countries. This anger. You have the nationalist pride of both sides. And then you have these two sides that have nuclear weapons. So very, very, very dangerous cocktail, which is why it's so concerning that it could get out of control," Ganyard said. Another aspect that could escalate conflicts is water. Following the April 22 attack, India suspended a key water treaty with Pakistan regarding the Indus River. "There have been many people who've predicted that the next war would be fought over water," Ganyard said. India had not previously suspended that treaty, marking a "departure," Gupta said. If India restricts the flow of water to Pakistan, "that could be grounds for war," Ganyard said. Both India and Pakistan "have incentives to not escalate, but at the same time the risk of escalation, particularly through miscalculation, is real," Miller said. "And anytime you have conflict between nuclear-armed neighbors, it's a serious issue." 'Things are never going to be good between these two countries' Amid concerns of further escalation in its latest conflict, India and Pakistan announced Saturday they had agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire. In the past, relations between India and Pakistan have de-escalated with the help of back-channel diplomacy and international actors such as the U.S. have talked to both, Gupta said. "There have been instances where the military commanders have gotten in touch," she said. "Based on a shared interest in avoiding a full-scale war, both countries have scaled it down." The ceasefire talks were mediated by the U.S., with Rubio in a statement commending the leaders of India and Pakistan for "choosing the path of peace." The wider issue over Kashmir, though, may not be resolved in the immediate future, Gupta said. India has previously tried to negotiate a lasting peace with various Pakistani governments, but "the lack of stability in who rules Pakistan is a major factor," she said, and the efforts have not gone anywhere. "I think there is always a possibility of resolving conflicts, but it doesn't seem immediate. It doesn't seem likely in the short run, in the medium run," she said. "It would require a lot of effort to do so, a lot of very sincere effort to do so." Given the variable stressors, "things are never going to be good between these two countries," Ganyard said. "Whether it's water, whether it's religion, whether it's territory, geography -- there are so many things that are constantly and going to continue to irritate the relationship between Pakistan and India that the best we can hope for is some sort of very low-scale war, or some sort of very high tension kind of relationship, but not the exchange of nuclear weapons," he said.
