SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
With less than a month before the midterm elections, recent polling and reporting have heightened fears about the GOP seizing control of the evenly split U.S. Senate--and particularly, whether Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada can hold on to her seat.
Cortez Masto's is one of few key Senate races--along with those in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin--that election watchers largely consider a toss-up. In Nevada, the first-term incumbent senator faces Republican Adam Laxalt, who succeeded her as state attorney general.
Some polls have suggested that Laxalt could be Republicans' "golden ticket" to reclaim the Senate, showing him with slim leads over the chamber's "most vulnerable" Democrat. While the results of a USA TODAY/Suffolk University poll out Wednesday showed Cortez Masto with a 46%-44% lead, that's within the margin of error for the survey, which was conducted last week.
"Both candidates have solidified support within their parties," noted USA TODAY's reporting on the survey. "Cortez Masto is backed by 89% of Democrats, Laxalt by 87% of Republicans. Independents favor Laxalt by 40%-36%. The two sides are matched in intensity; 46% of the backers of each say they are 'extremely' motivated to vote."
\u201cOne chart shows why GOP so optimistic about Nevada this year and also why there is so much uncertainty. Since Election Day 2020:\nDems: -86K voters\nGOP: -49K voters\nOthers: +118K voters\n\nDem lead under 3%, those 118K voters are key.\n\n(Yes, the early voting blog returns next week.)\u201d— Jon Ralston (@Jon Ralston) 1665524743
The new poll results also highlighted key priorities for Nevada voters:
Concern about inflation and the economy dominates in Nevada, the top issue for 43% of likely voters. Almost half of those surveyed, 46%, say their standard of living is worse now than it was two years ago. Only 16% say it's better.
By 46%-39%, Nevadans say the state is on the wrong track, not heading in the right direction.
One in four cite abortion as the top issue. Asked how much impact abortion views would have on their choice of a candidate in November, using a scale of one to ten, 40% of those surveyed chose 10--the most powerful possible impact.
The U.S. Supreme Court ending the constitutional right to abortion in June with its Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling gave pro-choice Democrats a motivating issue to run on, but Cortez Masto's race may also be revealing the potential pitfalls of focusing too singularly on the issue.
Senate Budget Committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)--who serves as outreach lead for the chamber's Democrats and won Nevada in the party's 2020 presidential primary--wrote Monday that "I am alarmed to hear the advice that many Democratic candidates are getting from establishment consultants and directors of well-funded super PACs that the closing argument of Democrats should focus only on abortion."
"I disagree," Sanders explained in his Guardian opinion piece. "In my view, while the abortion issue must remain on the front burner, it would be political malpractice for Democrats to ignore the state of the economy and allow Republican lies and distortions to go unanswered."
\u201cCortez Masto\u2019s \u201cpredicament is the starkest example of the challenge facing Democrats nationwide as they try to capitalize on anger over the abortion ruling while Republicans focus on crime and stubborn inflation.\u201d https://t.co/VNTbP6Zi3A\u201d— Seung Min Kim (@Seung Min Kim) 1665400149
The Associated Pressreported Monday that Democrats predicted abortion would be the "saving grace" for Cortez Masto, "but inside Nevada's crowded union halls, across its sun-scorched desert towns, and on the buzzing Las Vegas strip, there are signs that outrage over the Supreme Court's decision to dismantle abortion rights may not be enough to overcome intensifying economic concerns."
While Laxalt in June celebrated the reversal of Roe v. Wade as a "historic victory," the Republican has since highlighted that in a 1990 referendum, voters "determined that Nevada is and will remain a pro-choice state," allowing abortion until 24 weeks of pregnancy.
The New York Times on Saturday pointed to Laxalt as an example of the kind of GOP candidate who has "sought a delicate two-step on abortion, catering to a base demanding its prohibition and to the political center, which is largely supportive of Roe."
As the newspaper detailed:
Laxalt... is broadcasting television ads proclaiming that no matter what happens in Washington, abortion will remain legal in Nevada, attempting to pivot voter attention back to crime and the economy.
"Over the last two years, Democrat politicians have done incredible damage to America," one ad intones. "But one thing hasn't changed: abortion in Nevada. Why do Democrats like Catherine Cortez Masto only talk about something that hasn't changed? Because they can't defend everything that has."
The AP's Monday report noted that "in an interview, Cortez Masto sidestepped questions about her fragile political standing. She acknowledged 'there's more work to be done' on the economy in a working-class state in which gasoline remains over $5.40 per gallon, the unemployment rate is higher than the national average, and spending at casinos has not kept pace with inflation."
"I know our families, the issues that are important to them are the kitchen-table issues," she said, citing the Democrats' recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act. "But I also know, talking with our families, the repeal of Roe v. Wade is having an impact... We're a pro-choice state, proudly. That's why so many are outraged by the repeal."
Cortez Masto also took aim at her GOP opponent for openly backing former President Donald Trump's claim that Democrats stole the 2020 election, saying that he "was the face of the Big Lie" in the state and "in my view, he stands with the insurrectionists and not the people of Nevada."
\u201cThe fate of the Senate may come down to Nevada, where Republicans are poised for huge wins against the machine Harry Reid built. A loss in a diverse, working-class state would be a huge blow to the Democratic coalition.\n\nhttps://t.co/DLoP1LV6vj\u201d— Ross Barkan (@Ross Barkan) 1665516210
Laxalt is a favorite of both Trump--who campaigned for him in Nevada last weekend--and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), making him "a perfect fusion for a GOP that needs both Trump's base and McConnell's ability to marshal millions to effectively compete," Ross Barkan wrote Tuesday for Intelligencer.
Barkan pointed out that ushering in a GOP Senate majority that thwarts President Joe Biden's legislative goals is not the only potential consequence of a loss by Cortez Masto--a "protege of the late Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid," who oversaw a "highly effective apparatus that forged coalitions between progressive groups and organized labor while homing in on voter registration, consistently turning out the new Democrats that joined the rolls."
According to Barkan, "Her defeat may also say something disconcerting about the health of the Democratic coalition itself: If an increasingly diverse and working-class state slips away from them, what hope is there?"
The death of former Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid of Nevada has brought forth praise for his parliamentary skills, which helped make possible some critically important legislation, as well as preventing the passage of a number of seriously problematic bills. However, on the foreign policy front, it should be noted that Reid not only failed to challenge dangerous Republican initiatives that violated fundamental principles of international law and human rights, he was often among their most prominent supporters.
As the Senate Assistant Majority Leader in 2002, Reid was prominent among the rightwing minority of Congressional Democrats who supported President George W. Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq. To help win public support for this illegal war, Reid teamed up with the Bush Administration, prominent neoconservatives, and Fox News in making a series of false allegations regarding Iraq's military capability.
It is sad to have to acknowledge that a highly effective legislator who left a generally positive mark on domestic policy... simultaneously played such a deleterious role regarding international affairs.
The resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq accused that nation, without evidence, of "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability [and] actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, thereby continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States."
When other Democratic Senators tried to limit the war resolution so as not to give President Bush the blank check he was seeking, Reid helped circumvent such efforts by signing on to the White House's version.
As the Democratic whip, Reid then persuaded a majority of Democratic Senators to vote down a resolution offered by Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, that would authorize force only if the U.N. Security Council voted to give the United States this authority. They instead supported a Republican-led resolution giving Bush the right to invade even without such legal authorization. (By contrast, a sizable majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives, under the leadership of then-whip Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, voted against the GOP resolution.)
But the alleged weapons of mass destruction were never really the issue. Indeed, Reid continued to support the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, even after it was apparent, as many arms control experts had been arguing all along, that there were no banned weapons, weapons systems, or manufacturing facilities to be found.
Historically, opposition leaders in the Senate have taken seriously Congress's role under the U.S. Constitution to place checks on presidential powers, including such illegal activities as wars of aggression. Reid, unfortunately, felt no duty to uphold this Constitutional role.
In granting Bush unprecedented war-making authority, Reid insisted that he was acting out of necessity, claiming that "no President of the United States of whatever political philosophy will take this nation to war as a first resort alternative rather than as a last resort."
Before Reid, the last Senator from the inland West to lead the Democrats was Mike Mansfield of Montana, who served as Senate Majority Leader for most of the 1960s and 1970s. He courageously spoke out against the Vietnam War, not only when Republican Richard Nixon was President, but also when Democrat Lyndon Johnson was President. Reid, in contrast, refused to speak out even when the administration from the opposing political party was insisting on initiating a similar debacle.
Reid's support for the Bush agenda on Iraq was not a fluke. He also co-sponsored Senate resolutions defending Israel's massive onslaughts on the Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon, wars which resulted in the deaths of more than 3,000 civilians. And Reid directly contradicted findings by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and various United Nations agencies, insisting that Israel's attacks against civilian population centers was legal.
Reid also was an initiator of a letter to President Barack Obama defending Israel's 2010 attack on an international humanitarian aid flotilla in international waters attempting to deliver foods and medicines to the besieged Gaza Strip. Ten participants were killed, including a nineteen-year-old U.S. citizen, who was shot at close range in the back of the head.
Reid also co-sponsored an unsuccessful resolution condemning the International Court of Justice for its 2004 opinion confirming that governments engaged in foreign belligerent occupation are required to uphold relevant provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention and related standards of international humanitarian law.
Concerns that Reid's support for wars against predominantly Muslim nations might be rooted in bigotry towards Muslims was heightened when he joined anti-Muslim extremists in opposing the planned construction of an Islamic Cultural Center in downtown Manhattan--a project defended by President Obama, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the city's Christian and Jewish leaders, and many others.
With Reid leading Senate Democrats, Bush was emboldened in his reckless and dangerous foreign policy agenda regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, and elsewhere. When Obama became President in 2009, Reid joined his Republican colleagues in undermining Obama's efforts to steer U.S. foreign policy in a more moderate direction. This included pressuring Obama to veto any U.N. Security Council resolutions supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, opposing Obama's calls for a withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces, and challenging the Democratic President's opposition to recognizing illegal Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank as part of Israel.
It is sad to have to acknowledge that a highly effective legislator who left a generally positive mark on domestic policy, which pundits have been roundly praising, simultaneously played such a deleterious role regarding international affairs. But in remembering Harry Reid, both legacies must be acknowledged.
As condolences for the loved ones of Harry Reid poured in following his death Tuesday at the age of 82, progressives recalled the former Senate majority leader's vocal condemnations of the upper chamber's filibuster rule and urged Democrats to honor the late Nevada lawmaker by eliminating it for good.
"In a chamber where too many Democrats can be afraid of their own shadow, Harry Reid was willing to deliver for the American people and didn't care what it took," tweeted Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.) following news of Reid's passing. "They should learn from his example and abolish the filibuster."
"I am now calling on the Senate to abolish the filibuster in all its forms."
Long a dominant political force in Nevada, where he grew up in deep poverty, Reid--an early supporter of the Iraq invasion and an opponent of Medicare for All--was hardly an unalloyed darling of progressives during his lengthy tenure as the Senate's top Democrat.
But Reid's outspoken opposition to the Senate filibuster in his later years was seen as a major catalyst of Democrats' growing push to kill the rule, which is stifling progress on voting rights, climate action, immigration reform, and other key elements of the party's agenda by effectively giving the GOP minority veto power over most legislation.
In November 2013, the Reid-led Senate Democratic majority ended the 60-vote rule for presidential nominations in response to unceasing Republican obstruction. Following his retirement from the Senate in 2017, Reid endorsed the complete elimination of the filibuster, which he said was "suffocating the will of the American people."
"The Senate is now a place where the most pressing issues facing our country are disregarded, along with the will of the American people overwhelmingly calling for action. The future of our country is sacrificed at the altar of the filibuster," Reid wrote in a New York Times op-ed published in August 2019. "Something must change. That is why I am now calling on the Senate to abolish the filibuster in all its forms."
That same month, Reid toldThe Daily Beast: "It is not a question of if. It is a question of when we get rid of the filibuster. It's gone. It's gone."
"The answer is yes," Reid said when asked whether he would support nuking the filibuster rule to pass climate legislation. "[T]he No. 1 priority is climate change. There's nothing that affects my children, grandchildren, and their children, right now, more than climate."
Altering or scrapping the filibuster rule would require the backing of all 50 members of the Senate Democratic caucus plus a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Kamala Harris--a level of support the party has yet to reach thanks largely to Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), the upper chamber's most ardent filibuster apologists.
As soon as the first week of January, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is expected to attempt once again to advance a voting rights bill in the upper chamber, an effort that is likely to prompt yet another GOP filibuster.
Related Content
Should such a scenario play out, the Senate will "consider changes to any rules which prevent us from debating and reaching final conclusion on important legislation," Schumer wrote in a recent letter to colleagues.
In an appearance on MSNBC following news of Reid's death Tuesday, Schumer said the Nevada Democrat "was a strong advocate of changing the rules of the Senate, which I hope we carry with us forward in the next few weeks."