Connect with us


Trump has announced his Tennessee House race endorsement, a test of his political power.



The former president Donald Trump made his preference well-known by winning the Republican nomination for a newly created Tennessee House district before the hopeful candidate officially announced his candidacy for this seat. The community, located in Nashville, could be a chance to test Trump as a kingmaker within Republican politics.

Following the announcement that Tennessee Democratic Rep. Jim Cooper announced on Tuesday that he would retire after the current year, Trump touted a run to succeed him by the former State Department spokeswoman and Fox News presenter Morgan Ortagus. Although Ortagus has not yet announced her intentions to run, several established Republicans consider a run for the position.


“I am told the very strong and impressive Morgan Ortagus is exploring a run for Congress in Tennessee’s 5th Congressional District. I couldn’t be happier because she’s an absolute warrior for America First and MAGA!” Trump declared.

Ortagus Thanked Trump via Twitter, a platform for which he is suspended, for his endorsement; however, she has not announced her candidacy.

Nashville is a liberal-leaning enclave that is home to state government employees in the capital of Tennessee and scholars and undergraduates from Vanderbilt University, which is being divided into three districts. The district that Nashville-based Cooper was a member of for over 20 years (plus a 1983-95 House time in a rural region) is now being changed to favor Republicans. The goal is to transform Tennessee’s present House delegation comprised seven Republicans to two Democrats to eight GOP lawmakers and one Democratic one.

Trump’s decision to apply anointing to Ortagus has riled those who are his supporters. They argue that Trump should have backed the music-video producer Robby Starbuck. Starbuck put forth an effort to run for the post last year and has tried to align himself with Trump.

The former Tennessee State House Speaker Beth Harwell is also reportedly contemplating a bid to run for the Republican nomination, Maury County mayor Andy Ogles and attorney Kurt Winstead. A House campaign by Harwell, who was a former state Republican Party chairwoman, would be “formidable” in the race, according to John Geer, a Vanderbilt University political scientist who is also a co-director of the poll.

Despite what Geer stated, the new configuration of the 5th Congressional District is not an easy win for Republicans. If Cooper had decided to run for office, Geer said, “He might have been able to win.”


“He has name recognition, and people respect him and, and he’s, you know, not an AOC-type Democrat,” Geer stated and added that absent a notable Democrat becomes involved, “the battle now is likely going to turn to the Republican primary to see who gets the nomination and therefore has an edge in the general election come this November.”


Democrats seeking to succeed Cooper are likely to include community activists Odessa Kelly. When it was clear that the state Republicans were planning to dismantle the 5th Congressional District to divide into its Nashville supporters, Kelly had already launched an initial campaign for the seat of Cooper, who is a leftist.

Kelly stated in a Facebook post that she intends to run for office. However, other candidates could also be in the race before the deadline for filing in April.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


A decline in trust in government demonstrates how critical local politics are.



The trust in the government has dropped substantially across the world since the initial times of the deadly pandemic. According to the latest Edelman Trust Barometer, trust in the world’s government has dropped 13 points since May 2020.

In America, the decline is a part of a longer trendline. It is reported that the Pew Research Center has data dating back to the 1950s, which shows a constant decrease in trust in the government. It went between 73% in the year 1958 to a lowly 24 percent in the spring of 2021. Gallup data also indicate the long-term decline of trust in government at the federal level for both the legislative and executive branches.

When the government’s trust declines, it can have significant and grave consequences. Most people realize that a lower level of confidence in the government makes it more difficult for us to resolve our problems as a community and undermines the sense of belonging.

Particularly relevant in this moment, the lack of trust in the government can affect the perceptions of federally-funded or controlled agencies like those of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These organizations require credibility to be effective during an emergency. My group, called The State Policy Network, has monitored trust levels in various institutions during the outbreak. We discovered that trust in the CDC has dropped from 60 percent in March 2020 to 41% by December 2021. The lack of confidence in government reduces confidence in our processes and procedures, which allow for the peaceful exchange of power and the acceptance of the courts’ decisions. While distrust of the government is an old American tradition, a lack of trust in our leaders is bound to lead to disaster.

The foundation of trust is when the actions are consistent with expectations. The confidence within the Federal government’s performance has dipped because it seldom exceeds expectations, either through over-promising or not delivering. The federal government often claims that it can solve most of our issues if given more funds and authority. However, with each rise in taxes, regulations, and laws, the problem worsens. While the fundamental tasks of the government, like precise financial reporting and prompt tax processing, diminish.

The in-depth Gallup results reveal an intriguing pattern. While the trust level of the government in Washington dipped from 70 percent in 1972 to just 39% in 2021, trust in state governments fell by just six points, ranging from 63 percent to 57%, and the belief in local government increased by three percentage points from 63 percent to 66 percentage. While confidence in Washington falls, many believe that their local government can accomplish.

Surveys of public opinion over the last 50 years have shown that incentive programs have resulted in positive outcomes and increased trust within communities. The optimism is well-placed. Local governments are more efficient than distant Washington. It is more probable for them to be aware of the consequences of policies and act swiftly to rectify unintended consequences. In addition, people with leadership positions are likely to be concerned. Suppose the leaders of a community reside in the community they manage. In that case, they are more likely to have a stake in ensuring the most favorable outcomes and not only those that generate the most funds or receive the most significant public attention.

From the COVID-19 reaction to the state election laws being manipulated, The current administration claims that federal authorities should have more power to address the nation’s challenges. However, it’s been demonstrated that giving more control to the government will result in nothing other than more significant failures and further deterioration of the government’s credibility. The trust will only improve in the event of greater participation from the citizens. Local politics can be a model for nationwide achievement.

Continue Reading


The ordinary’s transformative politics,



We voted for Democrats in 2020. It’s time that Democrats stand for us in 2022.

The nation faces the unavoidable consequences of climate change, a housing and affordability crisis, pandemics, gun violence, and racial inequality. As elected officials continue to take in more and more money day after day, working-class and middle-class families continue their losses. Corporate politicians from both parties are putting their financial interests ahead of their jobs.

I was not raised in a political family, nor was I groomed to run for higher office. I am a community activist, climate researcher, and rising educator. You can also vote for me in the State House.

If we demand it, I believe better is possible. We need someone to stand up and defend us.

Michigan should be a place where people thrive and can build a better future. Family incomes below $65,000 per year are eligible for tuition-free college or trade school. The environment and our posterity must be protected with a bold climate plan that stops Line 5 and implements comprehensive polluter-pay legislation. Michigan should also transition to solar and wind energy as soon as possible. It is essential to identify and root out the systemic causes of racism, hatred, and other forms of violence by reforming our institutions.

I am committed to keeping the promises made by the political establishment of Lansing.

Special interests were awakened when I announced my candidacy in April last year. A first-time candidate, who hoped to deliver for the people and not corporations, they disrupted the carefully calculated game of shifting positions from one political insider into the next. I was asked almost immediately to withdraw my candidacy. They said that I was too young and too naive to win. You can still have your chance in a few decades. Unfortunately, people elect their representatives.

These conversations always bring me back to why I started running: for real, tangible change.

The status quo is no longer appealing to people.

We are tired of being forced to choose between two options and repeatedly voting for the same politicians.

People want to make a difference for their families, children, and communities. They are not those who have been in government for many decades. People who have experienced the challenges and corridors of life. We are experts on the problems and have solutions. Let’s create a future we can be proud of.

I am asking for your vote to help me build something better on August 2nd.

A society that is fair and just for everyone. A system that will stand by you when you are ready to. A government that works for all, not just a few.

Continue Reading


Turkey’s stance on political debates threatens its democracy.



One element of democracy is likely to be missing next year as Turkey’s political elite face off in the country’s general elections. It will be the absence of political debates. Since 2002, when President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was elected as the first prime minister of Turkey, the televised broadcasting of ideas or differences has been absent from Turkish politics.

Erdogan’s “New Turkey” lacks political debate, which has deprived leaders of working for peoples’ votes and disenfranchised an already skeptical electorate. In other words, the deeper Turkey’s democracy gets, the more politicians avoid the lectern.

In 1983, Turkish TV first aired a political debate. It became so popular to watch public servants wrangle with words on primetime television that it spread from national politics to local politics. Millions of viewers were attracted to the television sets to see politicians defend and define their party platforms.

Like elsewhere, debates can make or break the careers of Turkish politicians. Erdogan rose to national prominence by participating in discussions. Erdogan defeated Deniz Baykal, Chairman of the Republican People’s Party, in a primetime TV debate during the 2002 election for prime minister.

A 2007 debate sank Dengir Mir Mehmet Frat’s aspirations to be AKP vice-chair. After a 95-minute discussion with Kemal Kilicdaroglu, a CHP parliament member, he resigned two months later. Kilicdaroglu was made chairman of CHP after defeating Melih Gokcek, Ankara mayor, in another debate. Firat was accused of corruption. It was political theater at its most entertaining and informative.

The podium has remained silent since then. Erdogan, an accomplished orator, refused to participate in the debate, despite several invitations. Murat Yetkin (former editor-in-chief Hurriyet Daily News) claims that Erdogan banned other AKP members from appearing in televised discussions. The ban on debates further demonstrates Erdogan’s political consolidation, which is another erosion of Turkey’s democratic freedoms.

Turkey is the country’s primary source of news and information, so it is particularly repressive to ban politicians from discussing on television. KONDA, a polling company based in Istanbul, discovered that 67% of Turks learned about the coup attempt by tv. Turks watch TV the majority of the time. According to a 2020 TV Audience Research Company report, Turks spend four hours and 33 minutes per day watching TV. Although not all people are tuned in to news 24/7, the time that most people spend watching TV shows how vital the small screen is to their lives.

Yet, Turkey’s news coverage is overwhelmingly partisan. Ilhan Tasci (the representative of the CHP party at Turkey’s Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTUK), revealed that almost all opposition parties are not given airtime. During the 2018 election campaign from April 17 through May 6, 2018, public broadcaster Turkish Radio and Television Company did not air any time to the Peoples Democratic Party (HDP), three hours and forty minutes to the CHP, and 36 hours to the AKP.

These concerns are compounded by the fact that half of the eligible voters for the general election will not have any memory of watching a televised debate. Generation Z, which includes 5 million people born after 1997, will vote their first time in a national election. Millennials, however, are 33%.

Turkey’s voters had not seen anything resembling a political discussion since 2019, when a stiff and sterile meeting was held between Binali Yildirim of the AKP and Ekrem Imamoglu. The latter was campaigning for Istanbul’s mayor. Both men did not engage directly with each other. The outcome of the mayoral election was not affected by any hard talk, substance, or disagreements.

It’s worth considering whether Turkey’s political sparring is still relevant, given the two-decade-old decline in Turkey’s debate scene and evidence from other countries proving that such events have minimal effect on election outcomes. It’s worth asking but not worth the answer.

The loss of transparency in political discourse has deprived entire generations of voters of the political process and prevented young people from fully understanding their rights and responsibilities. Turkey’s youth voters were taught to expect politicians not to keep their promises or make them. Millions of voters never saw politicians vote for them or be publicly criticized for their actions.

The most significant changes in Turkey’s political landscape since the AKP’s election are the lack of political “liyakat” (competence) and the elimination of public accountability. Turkey’s politicians have become accustomed to not engaging in public scrutiny. Turkey’s politics today is a black box.

It has led to a monolithic narrative that empowers one opinion at the expense and disadvantage of many voices. This trend is directly due to Erdogan’s position regarding public debates. Voters will have to decide what is public and not as they prepare to vote in the general election next year.

Alexandra de Cramer, a journalist from Istanbul, is Alexandra de Cramer. As a Middle East correspondent at Milliyet newspaper, she reported on the Arab Spring from Beirut. Her work covers current affairs and culture and has been featured by Monocle Magazine, Courier Magazine, Maison Francaise, and Istanbul Art News.

Continue Reading