Blog

The latest Gallup poll paints a stark picture of the financial hardship across party lines.

The Gallup Economic Confidence Index has lingered in negative territory since the onset of the pandemic, reaching historic lows in June 2022 as inflation hit its highest point in four decades. Despite Democratic optimism about the economic trajectory from President Joe Biden, the poll reveals that 51 percent of Democrats are contending with financial hardship due to inflation.

The key findings shed light on the prevailing economic sentiments and challenges as a majority express pessimism about the economy under Biden, with a significant portion anticipating a further downturn. The prevailing sentiment is one of concern regarding the future economic landscape.

The data indicates that 63 percent of respondents acknowledge experiencing financial hardship due to recent price increases. Within this group, 17 percent describe their situation as a severe hardship affecting their ability to maintain their standard of living, while 46 percent report a moderate hardship that does not jeopardize their standard of living. However, 37 percent of respondents believe inflation has not posed a hardship.

Approximately 45 percent of Americans rate the current economic conditions in the country as poor. In contrast, just over one-quarter view conditions as excellent (5 percent) or good (22 percent), while 29 percent believe they are only fair. It reflects a prevailing sentiment of dissatisfaction with the current economic landscape.

The index, a key indicator of public sentiment, continues to dwell in negative territory, underscoring the overall economic pessimism prevalent among Americans. The impact of inflation on Nevada households reveals that the average family needs to spend an additional $13,296 per year to maintain the same standard of living as in January 2021.

An ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted in early January showed record-low approval rating of 33 percent for Biden.

My Cousin Elmo says, “I remember in years past when the New Year arrived it came with best wishes, now when it comes it wants money without a job and a new game station.”

My Cousin Elmo says, “The ladies all wanna cowboy until they get Copenhagen in their lipstick.”

For the first time in over a century, one of many concrete barriers on the Klamath River began its water release in preparation for dam removal as part of the drawdown phase.

The operation commenced on Thursday, January 11, with water released through a tunnel at the base of Iron Gate. Subsequent milestones included the blasting out of a concrete plug at J.C. Boyle on Tuesday, January 16, which drained the area in 16 hours, and a week later, on Tuesday, January 23, another concrete plug met the same fate at Copco’s reservoir.

The strategic release of water during winter, a period when sensitive aquatic life, including endangered salmon, tends to be away from the main stem of the Klamath, aims to facilitate the movement of sediment. The Klamath River Renewal Corporation (KRRC), the entity overseeing the dam removal, estimated that 17 to 20 million cubic yards of sediment behind Iron Gate, JC Boyle, and Copco No. 1, with an anticipated five to seven million cubic yards expected to cascade downstream through February.

While the reservoirs may experience periodic refilling during winter runoff, the prevailing drought conditions have kept levels in check. Iron Gate’s reservoir has seen partial refilling from upriver water releases.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and KRRC estimate it will take 18 to 24 months for the water quality to attain pristine conditions. Activists and environmentalists expressed optimism that sediment removal, though a temporary disruption, is preferable to the toxic algae that plagued the reservoirs each summer.

As part of the ongoing restoration efforts, the Yurok Fisheries Department has already begun planting native vegetation in the exposed areas. Meanwhile, the larger objective of dam removal remains on track for Fall 2024.

In what some in the media have termed a symbolic gesture, Nikki Haley’s presidential campaign redirected its efforts to California on Wednesday, February 7, following a setback in Nevada’s Presidential Preference Primary.

Haley, facing another challenging bid against former President Donald Trump, reaffirmed her commitment to the race during an indoor rally in Los Angeles’s historic Hollywood neighborhood.

“I’m not going anywhere. I’m in this for the long haul,” Haley declared to cheers from supporters.

With mail voting already underway in California, attendees at the rainy night rally remained optimistic about her chances, brushing off the Nevada setback as inconsequential and soon to be forgotten.

As the Republican contest narrows Trumo and herself, Haley has embraced her role as a defiant Trump opponent and positioned herself as an outsider to the establishment. She has consistently warned against the prospect of another Trump presidency, citing potential “chaos” for the nation.

The day earlier, Haley suffered a blow in Nevada, where GOP voters overwhelmingly chose a “none of these candidates” option on the ballot, effectively snubbing her publicly. Further, the primary did not allocate any delegates needed for securing the GOP nomination, and Haley refrained from campaigning in Nevada, alleging rule manipulation by Trump allies. Despite the setback, Haley’s campaign reported a fundraising haul of $16.5 million in January.

Meanwhile, Trump bypassed the Nevada primary to focus on the state’s caucuses, where he secured all 26 delegates at stake.

In California, Trump is heavily favored, with the primary election concluding on Tuesday, March 5. Given California’s significant delegate count of 169, it is conceivable that Trump could sweep the state. However, California’s heavily Democratic leanings suggest that its electoral significance may diminish in November 2024, with the state widely expected to favor the Democratic nominee on Election Day.

Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas, the venue for Super Bowl 2024, was powered entirely by renewable energy for the first time in Super Bowl history.

The stadium, home to the Las Vegas Raiders, has entered into a 25-year agreement with NV Energy to purchase power from a newly installed solar facility. These include a cutting-edge chiller plant, high-efficiency air handling units, energy-efficient lighting, and a sophisticated lighting control system.

CEO Doug Cannon says the new solar installation can generate approximately 10 megawatts of power, equivalent to the energy consumption of about 46,000 households.

“We have enough power for Usher and all of his lights and all the fanfare that’ll be there,” remarked Cannon, highlighting the stadium’s capacity to support the extravagant productions typical of Super Bowl halftime shows.

In addition to its reliance on renewable energy sources, Allegiant Stadium has implemented various sustainability initiatives. The stadium’s roof, constructed from ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), a recyclable plastic material, offers climate adaptability, insulation performance, self-cleaning properties, and a long lifespan. Furthermore, the stadium collects around 12 thousand pounds of food scraps during each game, which become food for animals on local farms.

Raiders President Sandra Douglass Morgan emphasized fostering environmental consciousness among stadium guests.

“When you come to a game, you may be thinking about just focusing on the game, but when they hear that and know that we’re being conscious of our environmental footprint, hopefully that guest will leave and have that same mindset when they go back home,” she stated.

U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, who toured the stadium’s main electrical entry room, praised the reliability of renewable power showcased by Allegiant Stadium, asserting its potential to inspire similar initiatives.

Recent whispers suggest Mayor Hillary Schieve may be considering stepping down, paving the way for an unexpected succession plan involving City Councilman Devon Reese.

The orchestrated maneuver would mean that Schieve’s resignation would lead to Reese’s appointment as Mayor by a council predominantly sympathetic to their cause. This purported strategy would secure Reese’s position in municipal governance, ensuring continuity in executing the agenda favored by his alleged “puppet masters.”

It all comes down to strategic calculus, balancing Reese’s electoral prospects against the desire for mayoral incumbency. If Reese’s bid for Ward 5 succeeds, his ascent to the mayoral seat could trigger a domino effect, necessitating another appointment to fill his vacant council position, thereby bolstering the council’s aligned majority.

Critics of this speculated plan decry its undemocratic nature, highlighting concerns over the erosion of public trust and electoral integrity. They argue that such behind-the-scenes machinations subvert the fundamental principle of representative democracy, depriving citizens of their rightful voice in choosing their leaders.

There is skepticism surrounding the purported rationale behind these potential moves, particularly regarding cost-saving measures often cited to justify appointments over elections. Critics argue that avoiding special elections comes at the expense of democratic principles, prioritizing expediency over transparency and public participation.

Neither Schieve nor Reese has denied the so-called rumors.

In the name of “protecting democracy,” we are witnessing the quiet cancellation of democracy itself, though many are yet to acknowledge the profound implications of this reality.

On Sunday, January 14, NBC News published a story about fears that Trump might use the military in “dictatorial ways” if he returns to the White House. This article highlighted a loose network of public interest groups and lawmakers quietly strategizing to thwart any attempts by Donald Trump to expand presidential power.

The story quoted former high-ranking officials, all warning of Trump’s potential misuse of the Department of Defense for political purposes. This narrative, framed as a defense of democracy, was reminiscent of a similar storyline from the summer of 2020.

Since late 2023, when Joe Biden’s team leaked a strategy memo portraying Trump as an “existential threat to democracy” for the 2024 campaign, there has been a concerted effort to insert terms like “existential” and “democracy” into public discourse. The recent NBC story continued this trend, with Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, proclaiming, “We’re about 30 seconds away from the Armageddon clock when it comes to democracy.”

Skye Perryman of Democracy Forward echoed these sentiments, stating, “We believe this is an existential moment for American democracy.”

The coalition formed to combat Trump’s alleged threats includes organizations such as Democracy Forward and Protect Democracy, both known for filing numerous lawsuits against Trump in the past. The article suggested that a future Trump presidency might require new forms of external control over the military, referencing Senator Richard Blumenthal’s bill to “clarify” the Insurrection Act.

This scenario, however, is not new. In the summer of 2020, a similar narrative emerged with the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), a group of around 100 former officials, think-tankers, and journalists who conducted simulations of contested election scenarios. The TIP’s predictions and warnings about Trump’s unwillingness to leave office were widely covered in major media outlets, depicting apocalyptic scenarios of mass unrest and violence.

The Transition Integrity Project (TIP) is a group of progressive academics, political operatives, and former government officials who came together to simulate potential scenarios that might unfold during the 2020 U.S. presidential election and the inauguration in January 2021. The project was not a government initiative but a Democratic-led effort to explore possible outcomes and challenges related to the electoral process.

TIP conducted “war games” or simulations involving hypothetical scenarios where different actors, including political campaigns, legal teams, and the media, responded to various situations, such as a narrow victory, a defeat, or a contested result. The simulations aimed to identify potential risks and vulnerabilities in the electoral system and the transition of power.

TIP says it was not predicting specific events but exploring possibilities and assessing how various stakeholders might react in different circumstances. The project gained attention for its findings and analysis in the August 2020 report “Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition.”

The report highlighted concerns about potential disputes over election results, legal challenges, and the role of institutions in ensuring a smooth transition. Some saw it as a valuable exercise in understanding and preparing for potential challenges to the democratic process, and others criticized it as a blueprint for disrupting U.S. elections.

The co-founders of TIP are Rosa Brooks, a law professor and former Defense Department official, and Nils Gilman, a historian, and scholar. The project involved the participation of various individuals, including Jennifer Granholm (current Biden Administration Secretary of Energy), John Podesta (former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman), and Norm Eisen (former Obama administration ethics czar.)

Looking back, the TIP story in 2020 seems like a precursor to the current political situation. It outlined “potential abuses of power” by Trump, eerily resembling the tactics used against him during the Russia collusion investigation. The report also hinted at the possibility of Trump casting doubt on election results, manipulating classified information, and using foreign interference to question legitimacy — ironically mirroring the same tactics employed against him.

TIP also delved into the concept of “color revolutions,” causing speculation about the group contemplating mass protests as a response to a Trump victory. Despite denials from TIP organizers, the association with color revolutions, often linked to regime change efforts abroad, fueled suspicions.

Democrats believe that drastic measures are necessary to prevent a perceived threat of a Trump dictatorship. The heightened paranoia raises concerns about potential pre-election actions, setting the stage for a chaotic campaign season.

Initially seen as a warning against Trump’s abuses, TIP has a different significance now. It reads like a playbook, with the “loose-knit group” attempting to delegitimize Trump’s presidency. The ongoing efforts to remove Trump from the ballot and suppress third-party challengers further underline the conviction that each side believes the other will be the first to abandon democratic norms.

The Biden administration, faced with declining poll numbers, has centered its messaging on “protecting democracy.” However, this narrative is losing its impact as “democracy” is increasingly associated with actions contradicting the principles it is supposed to represent. Legal maneuvers, censorship, and attempts to eliminate political opponents raise questions about who is committed to preserving democracy.

There is a valid point in highlighting the distinction between a Constitutional Republic and a pure Democracy in the context of the United States. The U.S. is indeed a Constitutional Republic, where the powers of the government are limited — the Constitution — and there are checks and balances to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

In a pure Democracy, decisions are made directly by the majority of the people, which could potentially lead to the oppression of minority rights. The framers of the U.S. Constitution were wary of the pitfalls of direct democracy and designed a system that combines democratic principles with safeguards to protect individual liberties.

Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, celebrated for her unparalleled knack for losing to no one, experienced another exhilarating defeat in Nevada’s state-run Presidential Preference Primary.

In a spectacle that resembled a twisted political version of dodgeball, Haley found herself engulfed in a landslide of epic proportions, securing a victory as substantial as a politician’s word. While the outcome failed to dispense any of Nevada’s prized Republican delegates, it did serve a generous helping of humble pie to Haley, who persists in clinging to her campaign like a lost puppy with a malfunctioning GPS, trailing behind Trump.

Trump, the undisputed titan of Republican politics, smartly avoided the ballot, opting instead to focus on the impending Nevada GOP caucus, leaving Haley and her motley crew of contenders to scrap over the consolation prize of zilch. And oh, what a prize it was!

Haley managed to snag a whopping 30.8 percent of the vote, an accomplishment akin to being the last kid chosen for kickball. Meanwhile, “None of these candidates” swooped in like a political wrecking ball, clinching over twice as many votes at 62.9 percent.

Pence, bless his heart, brought up the rear with a pitiful four percent, though he had the sense to exit stage left before the thrashing began.

Even Gov. Joe Lombardo opted for the resounding “none of these candidates” option, a clear message that Nevada wasn’t buying what Haley and her crew were peddling. Washoe County Republican Party Chair Bruce Parks summed it up succinctly: “They couldn’t care less about us, so why should we care about them?”

Nevada GOP Chairman Michael McDonald echoed the sentiment, implying that Haley’s disregard for Nevada voters met a resounding “thanks, but no thanks” at the ballot box. Ouch.

But fret not, for Haley’s camp remains undeterred, marching forward with the unwavering determination of a toddler refusing to consume their greens. Spokesperson Olivia Perez-Cubas proclaimed that the campaign was forging ahead, presumably armed with positive affirmations and a bulk-sized supply of resilience.

As for the murmurs of a rigged process, Haley’s campaign manager, Betsy Ankney, played the age-old “it’s not you, it’s me” card, insisting Nevada was never their primary focus. With their sights firmly set on South Carolina, they brushed off the Nevada debacle like a lamentable blind date, eager to venture into more promising territories.

So, as the dust settles in the Silver State, one thing is abundantly clear: Nikki Haley may have lost to no one in particular, but she refuses to let reality dampen her spirits. Onward to South Carolina, where, with any luck, she’ll receive a true Trumpian drubbing.

The Washoe County Republican Party no longer acknowledges Washoe County Commissioner Clara Andriola as a member.

During their monthly Central Committee meeting on Monday, January 29, party members voted not to recognize Andriola as a Republican and to not endorse or support her in her bid for County Commissioner. Instead, the party will support Tracy Hilton-Thomas, Vice Chair of the Washoe County Republican Party, in the upcoming June primary.

Hilton-Thomas is known for blowing the whistle on the Washoe County Registrar of Voter’s Office’s ballot and signature verification irregularities in March 2021.

The resolution lists specific examples, including Andriola’s approval of the Lands Bill privatizing public land, appointing liberals to boards, approving large expenditures, and ignoring voter rights and free speech issues. It further cites Andriola voting 87 percent of the time with the Democrats as Commissioner, claiming that she has “weakened the brand and the integrity of the Republican party.”

Andriola has contested these allegations, saying no one from the party contacted her to discuss the concerns. She argued that she has a long history of being a Republican and working to ensure responsible use of taxpayer dollars.

Chairman Bruce Parks of the Washoe County GOP countered Andriola’s claims, pointing to meetings with her to voice concerns about her alignment with party expectations. He asserted that Andriola, representing a conservative district, claimed to be apolitical, which he deemed inappropriate for her role.

Parks also criticized Governor Joe Lombardo for appointing Andriola without consulting the Washoe County Central Committee or Republican commissioners. He expressed frustration at being ignored by the governor’s office over Andriola’s voting alignment.

Despite a letter signed by some Republicans asking the central committee to reject the resolution, the committee proceeded with the decision.