Given the current state of partisan polarization, it’s unlikely Biden can get majority job approval next year even with the most fortunate set of circumstances. But the good news for him is that he probably doesn’t have to. Job-approval ratings are crucial indicators in a normal presidential reelection cycle that is basically a referendum on the incumbent’s record. Assuming Trump is the Republican nominee, 2024 will not be a normal reelection cycle for three reasons.

Mulvaney outlined how Trump's legal woes could play out in an opinion piece published in The Hill Wednesday morning.

He described an "outlandish" scenario in which President Joe Biden offers Trump a deal if the former president is convicted. Under that agreement, Biden would pardon Trump in exchange for his dropping out of the presidential race. Biden would then end his 2024 campaign to assure Americans that the deal was not done to make his reelection chances easier.

Mulvaney predicted Trump would ultimately accept that offer. While he said the scenario is not likely to happen, he described how the former president might approach such an offer to avoid serving time in prison.

It's a tense time on the world stage. The U.S. is playing a supporting role in two foreign wars, Ukraine and Gaza, while simultaneously trying to shift its national security focus to the challenges posed by China.

If there were any questions about the role of foreign policy in the Republican primaries, the answers came following the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas on Israel. At the last debate in Miami, Republicans clashed over their support for Israel.

In a November Des Moines Register/NBC News/Mediacom poll, 57% of likely Iowa GOP caucus-goers said the Israel-Hamas war is "extremely important" to them as they evaluate candidates.

But with all the talk about the Koch Network stepping into the arena on behalf of Nikki Haley, there's been hardly a mention of another big bucks right-wing family coming off of the sidelines for Donald Trump. CNBC reported last week that according to "people familiar with the matter," Bob Mercer and his daughter Rebekah are considering getting back in the game after laying out since 2018. And they've got $88 million sitting in their private nonprofit, the Mercer Family Foundation, just waiting to be spent.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy to review a ruling that set aside a decision of the SEC that the hedge fund manager George Jarkesy committed fraud when he misrepresented his financial position to investors. Based on that finding, the agency barred Jarkesy and his company from certain parts of the investment business, imposed $300,000 in penalties on him, and required him to disgorge unlawful profits of nearly $685,000. What makes this case so extraordinary is not that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit concluded that the SEC’s decision was unconstitutional, but the substance of the three separate grounds it found for doing so. If the lower court ruling is upheld, it would likely make adjudications by most federal agencies (and not just the SEC) a thing of the past. Here’s why.

The legal arguments are complicated, but the consequences of the 5th Circuit’s ruling, if upheld, would be straightforwardly devastating. First, Jarkesy argues that the SEC’s decision must be vacated because the agency sought civil penalties and disgorgement of unlawful gains in an agency proceeding and not in a federal court, where he would be entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. The result would be the demise of agency proceedings if any agency―not just the SEC―sought monetary relief except in federal court. Not all agencies have the statutory authority to bring cases in federal court, and if they wanted the right to recover money from a wrongdoer, today’s stalemated Congress would need to act (it won’t). Even agencies that currently have the right to go to court would have to choose between getting full relief in court or settling for an order stopping the unlawful conduct, which they could do in an administrative proceeding. And to the extent that agencies choose the federal court route, those courts would see a significant increase in complex litigation, with no new judges or additional resources.

Trump is asking a judge to force the special counsel’s office to turn over records from the intelligence community that he wants to use at trial for the Jan. 6 case, where he faces charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

What Trump wants includes reports on damage wrought by Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and threats to the 2020 election. It’s part of a series of defenses which Trump wants to raise at trial aimed at debunking a core position of Special Counsel Jack Smith: that Trump spread lies about breaches in 2020 election because he was “motivated by a desire to maintain office and undertaken with specific intent and unlawful purpose,” his attorneys wrote in the request.

...Still, the costs and consequences so far haven’t quelled election denialism in the county. An effort to recall Crosby fell short of its signature goal in May, and the former supervisor is now crowdfunding for legal help to continue his crusade. (Crosby and Judd did not respond to requests for interviews.)

The rural, red county has became a microcosm of far-right election fervor that’s featured a host of conspiracies and attempts to curtail voting access. Proponents have pushed the county to hand-count all ballots, get rid of any machines involved in the voting process, end voting by mail and vote solely on one day. They have rarely pointed to any specific claims of fraud in Cochise’s elections, but instead called out problems in other places or cited potential issues.

The Iowa caucuses are seven weeks from today. While AFP Action says it will deploy “the largest grassroots operation in the country and a presence in all fifty states” behind Haley, it’s hard to imagine her beating Trump. It feels like another exercise in political delusion: a powerful mainstream Republican force pretending Trump doesn’t control the party.

There’s also deep irony here. As the major financial and political force behind the reactionary, anti-Obama Tea Party movement, AFP helped create Trump, the man it is now trying to defeat.

It's been more than a decade since then-President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, his signature legislative accomplishment, into law. Since then, Republicans in the House and Senate have spent years trying to repeal some, if not all, of the massive health care infrastructure that provided medical insurance coverage to more than 40 million Americans in 2023 alone, according to an estimate from the Department of Health and Human Services. After wielding their repeal efforts as a perennial campaign cudgel for the better part of the 2010s, the 2022 midterms elections were "the first [time] in more than a decade" Republicans didn't make erasing the ACA a tentpole issue, NBC News reported, citing the "diminished appetite" for that particular fight from a GOP resigned to the fact that Obamacare seems here to stay.

As the 2024 general elections ramp up in earnest however, the relative lull of 2022's ACA detente appears at risk of being labeled a fluke, as GOP frontrunner former President Donald Trump insists on making his predecessor's battle-tested legislation a campaign issue once again. Calling it "not good Healthcare," in a post on his Truth Social network this weekend, Trump claimed to be "seriously looking at alternatives" while urging fellow Republicans to "never give up!" on efforts to repeal the law.

The Supreme Court, after a long period of hostility toward any claim brought under the federal Voting Rights Act, recently signaled that this hostility has limits. Last June, the Court surprised nearly everyone who follows voting rights litigation by declaring Alabama’s racially gerrymandered maps illegal and ordering the state to draw a second majority-Black congressional district.

Yet if the Supreme Court’s June decision in Allen v. Milligan (2023) was supposed to be a signal that the justices intend to keep at least some safeguards against racism in elections in place, several Republican appointees to the lower courts missed the memo. Last week, as most Americans were thinking about their Thanksgiving dinners, a pair of federal appeals courts handed down some of the sharpest attacks on the Voting Rights Act — the landmark 1965 law prohibiting race discrimination in US elections — in the law’s history.

The agony of Wehner, Gerson, former Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore, and others over the intense loyalty most of their fellow conservative Evangelicals have displayed to Donald Trump, even as his record and rhetoric have grown more heathenish, is understandable. But they shouldn’t be all that surprised. In the mid-20th century’s great battles over fascist and quasi-fascist threats to parliamentary democracy, support for authoritarian and totalitarian leaders of the political right was generally concentrated among religious Christians who had incorporated secular conservative cultural views (especially nationalism and in many cases antisemitism) into their faith.

In the latest report on billionaire philanthropy from the nonprofit Institute for Policy Studies, authors Helen Flannery, Chuck Collins, and Bella DeVaan use Forbes data to calculate that the 73 surviving American pledgers who were billionaires when the pledge was created in 2010 have more than doubled their collective wealth since then—and 30 individuals have seen their net worths at least triple. Behold the greatest hits.