party

WASHINGTON — Democrats’ hopes of reclaiming the U.S. Senate are colliding with a fight within their own party.

In Maine, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has thrown his weight behind Gov. Janet Mills in a crucial race, but some of his Senate colleagues are backing insurgent candidate Graham Platner in a rebuke of his strategic vision. A similar dynamic is playing out in other battlegrounds, including Michigan and Minnesota, where progressive senators are endorsing non-establishment candidates.

At stake is more than any single race. Democrats are fighting over whether the party’s traditional playbook still works in a country that elected Donald Trump for a second time — and whether leaders like Schumer should remain in charge.

“Clearly there’s a disagreement of strategy here,” said New Mexico Sen. Martin Heinrich, who has endorsed Platner.

He added that “the business-as-usual calculation for what is going to be successful in a given election cycle does not necessarily, in my view, meet the moment.”

The divide reflects a Democratic base frustrated after the last presidential election, when President Biden ran for a second term despite widespread concerns about his age. He dropped out and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris, who lost to Trump.

Nan Whaley, a Democratic strategist in Ohio who ran for governor four years ago, said the debate is no longer about progressive or moderate.

“It’s really about, who do you trust? Establishment or not establishment?” she said. “And frankly, the establishment hasn’t given us a lot to trust these past few years.”

‘A rebuke of Schumer’

In Maine, Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have backed Mills, a 78-year-old moderate in her second term.

Platner, a veteran and oyster farmer, quickly won the backing of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), just days after launching his campaign. His bid has since gained momentum despite scrutiny over past controversial comments and a tattoo resembling a Nazi symbol.

In recent weeks, Heinrich, Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren have endorsed Platner as he builds support on Capitol Hill. Heinrich and Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse held a fundraiser for him, too.

Gallego, a first-term senator who won a battleground race in 2024, downplayed the endorsements as a broader critique of party leadership.

“Senate leadership didn’t back me at the beginning. So I didn’t take that as a critique,” Gallego said.

Michigan also has a contentious primary, with three high-profile candidates. State Sen. Mallory McMorrow has said she would not support Schumer as the caucus leader if Democrats regain the majority, and she’s been endorsed by four senators.

Abdul El-Sayed, running further to the left, has been endorsed by Sanders and has also run on an anti-establishment platform.

U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens has aligned with establishment figures, working with a former executive director of the Democratic campaign committee and securing support from two senators.

Democratic strategist Lis Smith said the endorsements in races like Maine and Michigan are “as much as a rebuke of Schumer as it is an endorsement of these candidates.”

“It’s pretty uncommon for sitting senators to endorse against the Senate leader,” Smith said. “Senators are reading the tea leaves and are getting feedback from the grassroots that they are dissatisfied with Schumer’s performance as leader.”

In Minnesota, an open-seat race has similarly emerged as a test of the party’s direction. Rep. Angie Craig is seen as the centrist candidate in the primary, with endorsements from House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Rep. Nancy Pelosi. Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, the more progressive candidate, has been backed by Sanders, Warren and others, including Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith, who is vacating the seat.

“She understands that right now what we need are fierce fighters, people who are willing to stand up to the status quo,” Smith said in her endorsement.

‘The election may impact’ Schumer’s time as leader

Some tensions trace to March 2025, when Schumer voted with Republicans to end a government shutdown, drawing backlash from Democrats who argued he did not push hard enough against Trump’s agenda.

Later that year, Democrats held firm in a record-long shutdown fight, helping regain some ground with activists and progressives. But divisions resurfaced when a group of moderates ultimately sided with Republicans, fueling renewed frustration with party leadership even as Schumer opposed the move.

Since he became Senate leader in 2017, Schumer’s record in elections has been mixed. He led Democrats back to the majority in 2020 and expanded it in 2022 but lost ground in both 2018 and 2024.

“Leader Schumer’s North Star is taking back the Senate and is pursuing a path to do just that,” said Allison Biasotti, a spokesperson for Schumer.

He’s recruited high-profile candidates this year in tough Senate races, such as Alaska, Ohio and North Carolina. Maeve Coyle, communications director for the campaign committee, said Schumer “created a path to win a Democratic Senate majority this cycle” with the recruitment.

“Senate Democrats overperformed in the last four election cycles and in 2026, we will win seats and flip the majority,” she added.

David Axelrod, who served as a top strategist for President Obama, said that being Senate leader is never easy, and that Schumer “has been under fire for some time, particularly from progressives in the party.”

Schumer’s time as leader, Axelrod added, is likely directly linked to the outcome of the 2026 midterms.

“There’s questions as to whether he’ll run in 2028. There’s even questions as to whether he might be challenged as leader,” he said. “I think the results of this election may impact that.”

For now, Schumer’s caucus is tentatively standing behind him. None have explicitly called for him to step aside. But discontent has lingered, with some openly questioning whether the party needs a new direction.

“How people did politics in the 1990s is going to feel different than in the 2020s,” said Heinrich.

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press.

State Sen. Lucy Killea’s decision to quit the Democratic Party and become an independent is not going to fool any Republicans in her largely GOP district.

But she may succeed in exacerbating the very cynicism toward politicians that she says prompted her to make the change.

In a scathing criticism of her colleagues, Killea said lawmakers “have lost the public’s confidence.” She’s right.

A recent Times Poll found that only 25% of San Diegans have confidence in local elected officials. She also pointed to the public’s deep dissatisfaction and resentment, and its view that the “Legislature is interested only in itself.”

Those are easy chords to strike. Too easy. The public has made its frustration known loudly and repeatedly in recent years.

Quitting the Democratic Party isn’t going to lessen the public fury, and it won’t reform the system.

Plus, Killea’s request for a change in state law to allow her to appear on the June, 1992, ballot as an independent–current law requires at least a year’s notice–smacks of the same self-serving politics of which she accuses her colleagues.

She is also guilty of some of the sins for which she castigated them. For instance, she criticized the Legislature for trying to “undo the will of the people” by going to court to overturn the initiative limiting legislative terms and cutting office budgets by 40%.

Yet, Killea is one of only two state senators who have failed to make the budget-reduction goals set by the Senate. She was supposed to cut $110,000 from her $869,000 budget, but has only cut about $65,000.

It’s hard to figure how leaving the Democratic Party will help Killea. She will lose the considerable Democratic financial support that helped her win in 1988.

And the way she is making her exit is winning her no new friends and probably earning the enmity of current allies. How can she help her constituents if she is frozen out of the system?

Her departure also weakens the already ailing Democratic Party. Republicans outnumber Democrats in the county 47.8% to 37.7%–almost 120,000 voters–and GOP registration is still on the rise.

If they lose much more strength, San Diego County Democrats run the risk of becoming an endangered species, as they already are in Orange County. And that could reduce debate on important policy issues, here and in Sacramento.

Killea’s frustrations with the current system, and the “old-boy network,” are understandable. The public may give a brief cheer to hear Killea express its sentiments on the Senate floor.

But Killea’s dramatic gesture is a hollow one that could do more damage than good.

The year was 1998. Bill Clinton was in the White House, Titanic was packing movie theaters and a startup with a funny name, Google, was just launching.

In California, voters were choosing their next governor.

There was great anticipation surrounding a political heavyweight and whether she’d jump into the race. There was a rich businessman whose free-spending ad blitz made him inescapable on the airwaves. And an underdog who stayed in the contest in defiance of steep odds and, seemingly, common sense.

Those elements could very well describe the current gubernatorial race, which, as it happens, is the most wide-open since that volatile campaign a generation ago.

The outcome was one few anticipated, with Gray Davis romping to victory in the Democratic primary, then winning the governorship in a landslide.

Less than three months before the June primary, Davis had been running dead last, behind two well-heeled Democrats and the eventual GOP nominee. The number of people who told him to quit would have filled the L.A. Coliseum, Davis recalled this week. But he never considered dropping out; the pressure only made him more determined.

“Sometimes it’s meant to be. Sometimes you get every break,” Davis said. “Sometimes it’s not meant to be and you get no breaks.”

His bottom line: “Anything can happen.”

Of course, no two campaigns are the same.

This gubernatorial contest is being conducted under a system in which the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, will advance to a November runoff. In 1998, California held an “open primary,” under rules later voided by the Supreme Court. All candidates appeared on the same ballot, with the top finishers in each party guaranteed a spot in November.

Beyond that, the world has vastly changed: politically, socially, culturally. (Google is now one of the most valuable companies on the planet, pulling in a record $403 billion in revenue in fiscal 2025.)

Voter attitudes are different. One of Davis’ greatest assets was his position as lieutenant governor; that currency — incumbency and government know-how — no longer trade at the same high value.

The media landscape has fractured — back then newspapers set the political agenda, fewer than half of voters were online and streaming was something mostly done by water. Californians aren’t nearly as tuned in to the governor’s race as they were then.

“There’s a sideshow going on internationally and nationally and people are like, ‘Oh, right, there’s a governor’s race happening,’” said Paul Maslin, who was Davis’ pollster and is now working for Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Betty Yee. “Whereas in ‘98, that was clearly the big act in town.”

Having said all that, luck and an opportune break or two are still key ingredients to political success, as Davis suggested.

In his case, the first stroke of good fortune was Dianne Feinstein’s decision to not run. (This go-round, it was former Vice President Kamala Harris who held the race in suspension until she finally opted out.)

Feinstein, the state’s senior U.S. senator, had nearly been elected governor in 1990 and her lengthy deliberations froze out other potentially strong contenders. Had Feinstein run, she very probably would have blown away the field and made history by becoming the state’s first female governor.

Davis also greatly benefited when a federal court tossed out strict contribution limits, allowing him to go from collecting bite-size donations to much greater sums. Though he was vastly outspent by his two rich Democratic opponents, multimillionaire Al Checchi and then-Rep. Jane Harman, the decision allowed Davis to remain competitive and eventually pay for the statewide ad blitz that is indispensable in California.

Checchi, in particular, barraged voters with an unrelenting flood of ads. (Shades of the omnipresent Tom Steyer.) In one of them, a spot attacking Harman, Checchi included a photo of the lieutenant governor — and not a bad-looking one at that. The glimpse reminded voters that Davis, who was husbanding his resources for a late advertising push, was still in the race. He enjoyed a significant boost in polls.

Still, Checchi and Harman saw each other as the main opponent and their strategists acted — and tailored their advertising and campaign messaging — accordingly. The result was “a murder-suicide, as the term went at the time,” said Garry South, who managed Davis’ campaign. “They decided to focus so much fire on each other and ignore us that we simply slipped through the hole.”

Davis can well relate to those gubernatorial hopefuls in the position he once was — dissed, dismissed and bumping along near the bottom of horse-race polls. Speaking from his law office in Century City, he had this simple advice:

“Follow your heart,” he said. “Do what you think is right.”

“It’s fine for someone else to tell you you should get out, but that’s not their business,” Davis said. “You’re the candidate, and if you think for whatever reason you want to stay in the race, you should stay in the race.”

The ex-governor, who was recalled in 2003 and replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger, acknowledged his comments won’t please Democrats worried about the party’s large field splintering support, resulting in two Republicans advancing to the November runoff.

But Davis isn’t too worried about that happening. Moreover, he said, it’s easy for those watching from the sidelines to take potshots and offer unsolicited — and not particularly empathetic — advice.

“They’re not running for office,” he said. “Other people are putting themselves on the line. … [If] people have the wherewithal, the courage and the dedication it takes to put themselves in a position to run for office, if they really believe it’s the right thing to do, they should. They should follow their dream.”

Besides which, you never know what might happen come June.

Governing liberals edge ahead of opposition conservatives in a race too close to call, according to exit poll.

Slovenia’s governing Freedom Movement (GS) is on track to win a parliamentary election but will need to find more coalition partners to form a government, according to an exit poll.

GS was set to secure 29.9 percent of the votes, or 30 seats in the country’s 90-seat parliament, in a dip from its previous result of 41 seats, according to the poll, published by TV Slovenia and Pop TV on Sunday.

The opposition Slovenian Democratic Party, led by populist Janez Jansa, is expected to come second and secure 27 seats in parliament, according to the Mediana polling agency.

As he voted, incumbent Prime Minister Robert Golob, 59, called on citizens to cast their ballots.

“Democracy and Slovenia’s sovereignty cannot be taken for granted any more,” he told reporters.

Jansa welcomed the exit poll results and said he would wait for the final result.

“If someone wants a government like the one we’ve had so far, then they are probably satisfied with what these parallel results indicate,” Jansa said.

“Whoever wants change will likely have to wait for the final results, just as we will, and then we will analyse the situation. But we have done everything that was within our power,” he said.

The opposition party leader has served as prime minister three times, most recently from 2020 to 2022.

Ahead of the vote, the election had been marred by controversy after a report last week alleged that Jansa met with officials from the Israeli spy firm Black Cube in December.

Golob told journalists after the report: “The fact that … foreign services are interfering in the elections of a democratic member state of the European Union is something unheard of.”

March 17 (Asia Today) — This commentary is the Asia Today Editor’s Op-Ed.

South Korea’s ruling Democratic Party and the government have decided to raise the operating rates of nuclear and coal-fired power plants to respond to rising oil prices triggered by the war in the Middle East, a move critics say marks a late reversal of the party’s long-standing opposition to nuclear energy.

Ahn Do-geol, secretary of the party’s economic task force on the Middle East crisis, said Monday the government will expand electricity generation from nuclear and coal plants to manage supplies of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, which has relatively limited reserves.

Under the plan, the government will lift a cap limiting coal-fired power generation to 80% of installed capacity and accelerate repairs on six nuclear reactors currently under maintenance. Two reactors are expected to return to service by the end of this month and four more by May, raising nuclear utilization rates from the current high-60% range to about 80%.

The decision signals a clear shift for the Democratic Party, which long supported a phase-out of nuclear energy.

Former President Moon Jae-in formally declared a nuclear phase-out policy in 2017, pledging to abandon nuclear-centered electricity generation after attending a ceremony marking the permanent shutdown of the Kori Unit 1 reactor.

At the time, Moon argued South Korea should move toward a nuclear-free era and halted or scrapped most plans to build new nuclear plants.

The party’s stance began to soften after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022, which triggered global energy supply disruptions. Near the end of his presidency, Moon said nuclear power would need to remain a major baseload energy source for decades and called for delayed reactors including Shin Hanul Units 1 and 2 and Shin Kori Units 5 and 6 to begin operations as soon as possible.

The latest shift reflects renewed energy concerns linked to instability in the Middle East, which has pushed oil prices higher.

Supporters of nuclear power argue it remains a critical energy source despite safety risks highlighted by past disasters such as the Fukushima accident in Japan.

Opponents warn that nuclear accidents can cause catastrophic damage, pointing to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in Ukraine, which has faced repeated safety concerns amid the ongoing war.

However, critics of the phase-out policy argue that abandoning nuclear energy without reliable alternatives risks creating energy shortages.

South Korea currently has only about nine days’ worth of LNG reserves, raising concerns about energy security during geopolitical crises.

Supporters of the policy shift say governments must adjust energy strategies as global conditions change but argue that long-term policies on energy and food security should be developed with careful planning rather than reactive decisions.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260316010004672

BROOKLYN Beckham was offered a public show of support by Sir Elton John — who made him a VIP guest at his Oscars party.

The 27-year-old, locked in a family feud, was seen at the bash alongside wife Nicola Peltz deep in conversation with the singer, 78.

We revealed last year that the I’m Still Standing singer has been acting as a peacemaker between Brooklyn and estranged parents David and Victoria.

And the VIP invitation to Sir Elton’s Academy Awards viewing party in West Hollywood on Sunday night showed his continued love and support for his godson.

A source said: “Elton has seen Brooklyn all adrift without his biological family and he’s stepped up for Brooklyn.

“Inviting him and Nicola to the party was a public show of support for him.

READ MORE ON BROOKLYN BECKHAM

BUILDING BRIDGES?

Brooklyn Beckham reunites with godfather Elton John amid family feud

MOTHER OF INSULTS

Brooklyn snubs Posh on Mother’s Day & posts gushing tribute to wife’s mum

“Elton doesn’t want to get involved in the row — as far as he’s concerned that’s between Brooklyn, David and Victoria.

“But he has been watching everything that has unfolded over the past ten months.

“Brooklyn lives in Los Angeles and when Elton is in town, he’ll often touch base with him.

“Brooklyn knows he has Elton’s ear and support.”

Brooklyn and US actress Nicola, 31, were among a string of celebs at the Elton John Aids Foundation bash, co-hosted by the singer and his husband, David Furnish.

They were photographed with Sharon Osbourne and her I’m a Celebrity star son Jack, while singer Dua Lipa and her actor fiancé Callum Turner were also there.

A source added: “Brooklyn and Nicola had a fantastic time with Elton and David.

“He just wants to move on with his life and is happy to have the support of Elton and David, who have always looked out for him.”

Sir Elton, who has two sons Zachary and Elijah with his hubby, has been very close friends with Posh and Becks for several years.

They asked the singer to be godfather to their first-born son Brooklyn in 1999, and they did the same with Romeo three years later.

Former Spice Girl Victoria was also a guest at Sir Elton’s Oscars party in 2009.

But they have not been pictured together in public since August 2019, when the Beckhams joined Sir Elton and David on a yacht during a holiday in the South of France.

Victoria posted pictures of their trip on Instagram with the caption: “Happy Summer with friends. Kisses @davidfurnish @eltonjohn. We love u both and your boys so much.”

In May 2023, David and Victoria supported Elton on the final night of his Farewell Yellow Brick Road tour and shared videos and photographs from a box at London’s O2 Arena.

Last summer The Sun revealed that Sir Elton had reached out to Brooklyn and Nicola amid their family feud — and invited them to lunch to talk in the South of France.

A source said at the time: “Elton wants everyone to be happy.

“There is no side-taking as such; he simply adores his godson, and really has a laugh with Nicola who he thinks has a great sense of humour.

“He wants to look after them in his role as ‘spiritual adviser’ as a godfather.

“It’s a role he takes seriously.”

We revealed yesterday that Brooklyn snubbed Victoria on Mother’s Day — while posting a birthday message to “the best mother-in-law”.

He told Nicola’s mum, Claudia, “Love u so much”, as she turned 71.

Who won on Hollywood’s biggest night?

One Battle After Another ran away with the night with six Oscars, while Sinners, which was nominated for a record-breaking 16 awards, came away with four. See the full winners list below:

Best Picture: One Battle After Another

Best Actress: Jessie Buckley, Hamnet

Best Actor: Michael B. Jordan, Sinners

Supporting Actress: Amy Madigan, Weapons

Supporting Actor: Sean Penn, One Battle After Another

Directing: One Battle After Another, Paul Thomas Anderson

Adapted Screenplay: One Battle After Another, Paul Thomas Anderson

Original Screenplay: Sinners, Ryan Coogler

Documentary Feature: Mr. Nobody Against Putin

Documentary Short: All the Empty Rooms

Animated Feature: KPop Demon Hunters

Animated Short: The Girl Who Cried Pearls

Cinematography: Sinners, Autumn Durald Arkapaw

Costume Design: Frankenstein, Kate Hawley

Film Editing: One Battle After Another, Andy Jurgensen

International Feature: Sentimental Value – Norway

Life Action Short: 

The Singers (TIED)

Two People Exchanging Saliva (TIED)

Makeup and Hairstyling: Frankenstein, Mike Hill, Jordan Samuel and Cliona Furey

Original Score: Sinners, Ludwig Goransson

Original Song: Golden, KPop Demon Hunters

Production Design: Frankenstein, Tamara Deverell and Shane Vieau

Sound: F1, Gareth John, Al Nelson, Gwendolyn Yates Whittle, Gary A. Rizzo and Juan Peralta

Visual Effects: Avatar: Fire and Ash, Joe Letteri, Richard Baneham, Eric Saindon and Daniel Barrett

Casting: One Battle After Another, Cassandra Kulukundis

Vietnamese elect members of parliament from a list of candidates ⁠almost exclusively fielded by the governing party.

Voters in Vietnam are casting their ballots for members of the National Assembly, the country’s top legislative body, which serves mainly to ratify decisions by the governing Communist Party.

Nearly 93 percent of the 864 parliamentary candidates in Sunday’s election are Communist Party members, while 7.5 percent are independents, according to the national election council, down from 8.5 percent in 2021.

The five-yearly elections in the tightly controlled one-party state will see more than 73 million voters elect 500 members of the National Assembly and representatives for local councils.

The Communist Party, which has ruled the Southeast Asian nation of 100 million people unopposed for decades, holds 97 percent of the parliamentary seats.

Voters expressed hope their representatives would continue modernising Vietnam, whose booming economy is undergoing major reforms introduced by top leader To Lam.

Red-and-yellow banners fluttered from lampposts and traffic lights in the capital, Hanoi, where well-dressed senior citizens were some of the first to vote.

“I do expect top leaders after this election will make major changes to make our country better,” Nguyen Thi Kim, 73, told the AFP news agency at a polling station set up in a community room of a high-rise residential block in Hanoi.

But in a country where major policies and projects are decided by senior cadres, many citizens feel lukewarm about elections. “I don’t think who wins will have any impact on my life,” said a woman, who gave her name as Huyen, in Hanoi.

Most polling stations are scheduled to close at 7pm (12:00 GMT), with results expected on March 23, parliament Chairman Tran Thanh Man told local media.

The opening plenary session of the National Assembly is scheduled for early April, when ⁠lawmakers are expected to approve the state’s top leaders previously nominated by the party, including the president and the prime minister.

The party confirmed Lam as its general secretary, Vietnam’s most powerful position, during ⁠its five-yearly congress in January, when it also selected the 19 members of ⁠the Politburo, its top decision-making body.

After voting on Sunday morning in Hanoi, Lam said on live television that the election aimed “to choose the most prestigious people to continue leading the country to more development”.

First-time voter Nguyen Kim Chi, 18, said she cast her ballot in the capital for “all the young” candidates.

“I know top positions are already set,” she added, “but I still hope my votes count.”

Fans of the musical “Hamilton” know three things about the nation’s first Treasury secretary because of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s brilliance. First, that Alexander Hamilton cheated on his wife, Eliza. Second, he was killed by the vice president, Aaron Burr. Third, and most importantly, he was considered a highly principled man. And when it came to the topic of nationalizing elections, do you know how this Revolutionary War vet and founding father characterized doing so?

A threat.

Referring to corruptible public officials, Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers: No 59: “With so effectual a weapon in their hands as the exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, a combination of a few such men, in a few of the most considerable States, where the temptation will always be the strongest, might accomplish the destruction of the Union, by seizing the opportunity of some casual dissatisfaction among the people to discontinue the choice.”

Hamilton’s prescient views became the framework for the Election Clause in the Constitution. And since returning to the White House, President Trump has been searching for ways to usurp it. Last month he made calls to nationalize elections. This month he’s at it again.

He’s also pushing Congress to pass his so-called SAVE Act, which would require voters to show proof of citizenship when they register to vote. It sounds innocuous until you realize a driver’s license isn’t good enough; a passport would often be required. But half the country doesn’t have a passport, and it costs roughly $200 and a few weeks to get one. The logistical burden is unreasonable and cruel: Consider that this year, during primary season, we’ve already witnessed natural disaster — such as the tornadoes that recently ripped through the Midwest or the fires in Texas — upend entire communities. Many people would not have been able to vote, simply because they had been separated from their papers during the disaster.

The financial obstacles that would be created by the SAVE Act are at least as onerous: Why would Congress choose to financially burden voters — with what is essentially an unlawful poll tax — at a time when the unemployment rate and gas prices are up and the approval rating for nearly everyone in office is down? There are a couple of reasons. One is that the party controlling Congress hopes to suppress voting in order to defy the will of the American majority and cling to power.

Another reason lawmakers support this terrible bill is simply that Trump wants it. Some Republicans in office are so afraid of angering a vengeful president that they would rather entertain his authoritarian tendencies than go through the fire of his opposition during a primary.

For politicians such as Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who this week changed his long-held position on the filibuster in order to push the SAVE Act, it’s simply about political survival. He needs the president’s endorsement heading into the runoff for his Senate seat.

Trump has called the election overhaul bill his top priority — not the war he started with Iran, not returning the billions collected from illegal tariffs, not justice for Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. Before there was a Constitution, there was a warning, written by Hamilton and other founders, whose concerns about nationalized elections are well documented and have proved to be well founded.

You would think a nation in the midst of beating its proverbial chest about our 250th birthday would take more heed from the country’s founders. But nope: This week Florida state lawmakers, in an attempt to appease their state’s most powerful resident, passed an election overhaul law that mirrors the federal SAVE Act. More red states are likely to follow, not because a national wave of voter fraud has been unearthed by authorities, but because the authorities want to stay in the good graces of someone who has yet to prove any widespread fraud other than his own.

The party that famously railed against “the bridge to nowhere” is now offering bills that solve nonexistent problems. Or in some cases, creating problems, particularly for women who changed their names after marriage so their state IDs don’t match their birth certificates.

Cornyn is not alone in exchanging his principles for Trump’s favor; he’s just the most recent. However, the manner in which he announced his flip flop was particularly tone deaf.

“If a man takes a swing at you and barely misses, that doesn’t make him a pacifist — it just means he has bad aim,” Cornyn wrote in an op-ed about the bill for the New York Post, the newspaper founded by Hamilton in 1801. “Standing still and giving him a second free swing wouldn’t be wise or honorable: it would be foolish.”

In 2016, then-candidate Trump took his first big swing at our elections when he implied — without evidence — that his opponent, Sen. Ted Cruz, had rigged the election after losing to him in the Iowa Republican caucus. Reportedly Trump even tried to get the state’s party chair to overturn the result. He’s been throwing jabs at our elections ever since. The Jan. 6 riot was a haymaker that barely missed. Given the president’s propensity to hand out Trump 2028 hats, it seems passing the SAVE Act would be, in Cornyn’s words, setting voters up to stand there while Trump takes another swing at our democracy.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

COLUMBIA, S.C. — U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the dean of South Carolina’s Democrats, said Thursday that he will run for an 18th House term, a move that could position him as an influential elder statesman in Congress if his party regains the majority in November.

The decision by the 85-year-old lawmaker cuts against calls for generational change within the party. Clyburn is one of several veteran Democrats running again instead of stepping aside for younger politicians whose frustration increased in the wake of President Biden’s failed reelection campaign.

“I’m here today to say I do believe that I’m very well equipped and healthy enough to move into the next term, trying to do the things that are necessary to continue that pursuit of perfection,” Clyburn said at state party headquarters in Columbia. “And so I will run a very vigorous campaign.”

Clyburn is among the oldest Democrats serving in Washington, and the only member of the last Democratic leadership team who is looking to stick around. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and former Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland both plan to retire at the end of their current terms.

Clyburn said that he sought counsel from his three daughters before making his announcement. One of them — Mignon Clyburn, a former member of the Federal Communications Commission — said she was concerned about the political vitriol that her father would face in Washington.

“Her interest was in her daddy and what she thought I might be subjected to,” Clyburn said. “When Mignon finally had decided that she could live with it, I’m here.”

Clyburn said he heard from another woman that “‘we don’t listen to them people up there, and you should not. You should listen to the people down here, and we don’t want you to leave.’ And so I’m responding to the people that are here.”

Clyburn served as majority whip and assistant Democratic leader. Remaining in Congress for another term could give him a chance to serve alongside the first Black speaker of the House as Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York is in line for the gavel should Democrats win control. Clyburn for many years was the highest-ranking Black lawmaker in the House.

On Thursday, asked about the prospect of being able to advise Jeffries, Clyburn said the two spoke recently about a possible working relationship in the next Congress.

“He expressed an interest in my being a part of his leadership, if we were to take the House back,” Clyburn said. “It made me feel necessary.”

Four years ago, when Clyburn announced his bid for a 16th term, he told the Associated Press that he intended to keep campaigning as long as his health and support from his family remained stalwart.

“I’ve told them, if you ever see that I need to go to the rocking chair or spend my spare time on the golf course, let me know,” he said describing his daughters’ counsel.

Clyburn won his 2024 reelection by more than 20 percentage points. First elected in 1992, he represents the district that sweeps from areas around the capital of Columbia through rural central and eastern counties down to Charleston.

Should he serve an 18th term, Clyburn would become the longest-serving South Carolinian ever in the U.S. House. Time horizons are longer for the state’s U.S. senators, two of whom — Republican Strom Thurmond and Democrat Fritz Hollings — served 48 years and nearly 39 years, respectively.

Filing for election in this year’s elections in South Carolina opens Monday and closes March 30. South Carolina’s primary elections will be held June 9.

Whenever Clyburn does leave office, the competition to be his successor will be fierce. He is the only Democrat representing his state in Washington.

As to whether his 18th term could be his last, Clyburn called that an “open question.”

“I’m looking forward to the day that I can spend more time reading, writing and playing golf, and so this could very well be to my last term,” he said. “And it could very well not be.”

Kinnard writes for the Associated Press.

For years, Magaluf has been a go-to party resort for Brits seeking fun in the sun. But a darker side to the tourist spot has emerged, with reports of spiked drinks, sexual assaults, and rape

With the promise of sun, sand, booze, and parties, Magaluf is a major party resort – but beneath it hides a dark underbelly. Popular amongst a younger demographic, it’s been seen to epitomise a typical ‘lads holiday’ or girls’ trip abroad, with tens of thousands of British 18 to 30-year-olds flocking there each summer.

Dubbed ‘Shagaluf’, alcohol-sodden tourists descend on the ‘strip’ in their droves, lured through the promise of cheap accommodation, cheap booze, and no-strings sex. However, it hides a seedier scene where vulnerable young girls are being exploited – duped into drinking too much and pressured into sex acts.

In 2014, viral mobile phone footage showed a British 18-year-old giving oral sex to 24 men on a Carnage Magaluf pub crawl, egged on by a DJ who called her a ‘slag’. The ‘prize’ was a free drink. In the horrifying video obtained by our newspaper, the vile music host is seen shouting: “This is Carnage and this is what we do” as a no-holds-barred sex act takes place in the middle of a bar. When the girl appears to stop, the DJ – who has a Geordie accent – bellows: “You little sl*g, stop f****** about. This is Carnage and this is what we do. We need to see someone get b*nged here don’t we? Who wants to see someone get sh**ged?”

And this week, eight men were jailed after a British teenager was filmed being gang-raped at a hotel in Magaluf. The accused, seven French nationals and one man from Sweden, subjected the 18-year-old to a sickening attack in at the BH Mallorca Resort on August 14, 2023.

The men agreed to plead guilty in exchange for reduced sentences. The five rapists accepted jail terms of nine to 11 years for sexual assault, with three receiving higher prison sentences because they repeated their crimes. The three men who didn’t take part in the sex attack but filmed it were handed prison sentences of two years and three months.

Reports at the time said three of the suspects had met the girl hours earlier while partying in Magaluf. After sexually attacking her, one went out into the hotel corridor to encourage strangers returning from their own night out to have ‘free sex’ with her.

“There, the accused men, during approximately half an hour, aware of the semi-conscious state the young woman was in and at one point seeing she had fallen in a state of unconsciousness, and taking advantage of the closed room she had been taken into, stripped her naked leaving her with only her bra on,” a 14-page indictment laying out the public prosecution case read.

“They then carried out different sexual acts on her, acting by common consent and without her consent.” The indictment further detailed how the woman had been raped, spat on, and “hit and smacked”.

“The accused men, each one with a mobile phone, throughout the actions previously described, recorded several videos focusing on the young woman’s private parts in which they appeared forcing her to to carry out sexual acts,” it added. One of the suspects was accused of filming 14 videos lasting 170 seconds, and another of filming five videos lasting 142 seconds.

Sadly, it’s not an unusual story. The dark underbelly of Magaluf was explored in the 2024 Channel 4 documentary Magaluf Undercover: Predators and Parties. It followed journalists Ellie Flynn and Emily Birtley as they went undercover for three nights, posing as drunk or vulnerable tourists to expose the predatory behaviour on the strip, in clubs, and on the beach.

In one instance, footage saw Ellie pretend to be drunk and slump on a sun lounger before being approached by two men. One asks: “Are you good? Do you want to talk for a little bit?” When she replies, “I’m good”, he continues to bombard her, saying: “You are my last chance, do you want to kiss a little bit?”

Ellie tells him “No”, and secret cameras, hidden around the lounger, show the man walking away. But instead of leaving, he goes to recruit another man. “She’s completely wasted,” he tells him in Spanish, before calling out “Let’s go for it.” A third man then moves in beside Ellie on the sun lounger saying: “If you want, I can keep you company.”

Reflecting on the encounter, Ellie said: “The arrival of the third male ­startled and genuinely scared me. I had seen the first two together, but the sudden appearance of another – and having no idea at the time if they were together – was enough for me to signal security to get me out.

“I leave the beach upset and frightened, feeling like I’ve experienced an orchestrated attempt to target drunk women alone on a night out in Magaluf. Shockingly, this was not an ­isolated incident, but a pattern that emerged across my three nights in the resort town.”

Another young woman, meanwhile, said she ended up alone on the beach after her drink was spiked. “I just started to feel worse and worse. I could barely speak, I could barely walk,” she said.

We spoke to Ellie about the latest arrest of the eight men – and the dangers that women can face abroad. She told the Mirror: “It’s just so horrifying, isn’t it? I guess first impressions are just, I’m so, so sorry for that girl, what she’s been through.

“I think having been on these holidays when I was younger myself – I went to Magaluf when I was younger – and similar places, I think I really understand some of the problematic culture there.

“I think that these holidays, unfortunately, can create a breeding ground for this kind of behaviour, because you have young people who are particularly vulnerable, perhaps away from home for the first time, with their friends, trying to have a good time, drinking, trying to party.

“And unfortunately, there are predatory people there who are looking to take advantage of those vulnerabilities. I think what’s so shocking about this case [is that] it’s not even the first or the only one of these kind of horrific group rapes. It says so much, I think, about this toxic culture that eight people got involved with that.”

Dr Charlotte Proudman, a barrister and academic who specialises in women’s rights, echoes these concerns, and believes the problem has been fuelled by the so-called ‘manosphere’ – an online space that often champions masculinity to the extreme. The online space includes content creators with huge followings, such as HS Tikky Tokky, who promote the ideals of masculinity – and even misogyny – via YouTube videos and podcasts.

“What we are seeing in places like Magaluf is the collision of toxic online misogyny with a holiday culture of excess, where alcohol, group dynamics and anonymity embolden some men to act with shocking entitlement towards women’s bodies,” she tells The Mirror.

“The influence of the ‘manosphere’ has normalised the dehumanisation of women and the idea that sexual aggression is a form of male bonding or status,” Dr Proudman explains. “The fact that some perpetrators even film these attacks is profoundly disturbing; it shows that for some men, sexual violence is not only committed but performed for an audience for entertainment.

“This is not about lowered inhibitions on holiday, it is about a culture that still allows misogyny and sexual violence to be trivialised, excused and, in some cases, celebrated.”

Indeed, an independent survey undertaken as part of the documentary exposed disturbing levels of predatory behaviour and sexual abuse – primarily toward women – on party holidays. The survey, which asked over 500 men and women aged 18 to 35 about their experience on party holidays, revealed:

• Almost of quarter of those surveyed said they’d experienced sexual assault with almost 1 in 10 women reporting experience of a sex act – including rape – without consent
• Nearly 35 percent of women reported unwanted sexual touching whilst on a party holiday
• 1 in 5 of the men surveyed admitting to touching a stranger in an intimate area without their consent
• More than 30 percent of the men surveyed admitted they had kissed someone without their consent during a night out on holiday
• Nearly a quarter of men believed that someone dancing or standing alone indicated they were looking for a sexual partner
• 33 percent of the women reported they had been followed whilst on holiday
• Nearly 40 percent of women surveyed felt that they had been taken advantage of whilst being alone on a party holiday
• More than 1 in 4 of the men believed that someone chatting to them on a night out meant that person wanted to be sexually intimate with them

In an effort to take control back on the streets of Magaluf, the government passed a new law in January 2020 to target “tourism of excesses and for the improvement of quality in tourist zones”.

At the time of the approval of the decree, Balearic tourism minister Iago Negueruela stated that it represented “one more commitment to a sustainable tourism of quality” and that it was part of “the fight against anti-social behaviour caused by excessive consumption of alcohol”.

Key rules include a six-drink limit per day for all-inclusive guests, a ban on shop alcohol sales between 9:30 PM and 8 AM, and prohibitions on pub crawls. There are also fines for being topless and naked in public, and the police presence has increased.

Ellie added that “it’s really hard to imagine and it’s horrifying” that one of the men went into the corridor and offered ‘free sex’ with the teenager, saying: “It’s almost difficult to um comprehend that anybody would respond to that in any way other than calling the police.

“I think it’s really symptomatic of how dangerous these holidays or these kind of environments can be, not just for women but you know mostly for young women.

“What I find the most shocking about it is the fact that they were, it’s such a bleak fact that this group of men who did not know each other, thought that this was something they would get involved in and I think that it shows how pervasive this kind of this culture of abuse of women is because you know in that environment people were willing to get involved in the most horrific crime.

“There’s something about these holidays, I think, where hedonism and abuse, the lines become so blurred and I think that people kind of go in with these attitudes of wanting to have sex, wanting to meet people, and unfortunately what we see in a society where, like, women are systematically abused and often used for kind of male gratification is this blurring of lines between sort of hedonism and trying to have fun and then really really serious abuse.”

When making her own documentary and surveying holidaymakers, Ellie noted, “a huge percentage of the men that we surveyed thought that someone standing near you was an indication that they might be interested in sex”. She added, “it was so shocking and I think there is this assumption that if you are on these holidays, if you’re out with your friends having a good time, having a drink that somehow that that makes you you know constantly available for sex – you know even if you’re unconscious”. Een if someone is “showing no signs at all that is what you want, there are people out there who will take advantage of the fact that you that you were just there”.

She added, “That was what really shocked me about the documentary,” pointing out that some people responded to the documentary in bizarre ways, “there were people who were replying to me on Instagram who were like, ‘Well you know, why would you go somewhere like Magaluf if you weren’t prepared to experience something like that?’ And I think it shows that we have such a long way to go in terms of actually stopping Violence against women and girls.”

Discussing the algorithmic silos that see totally different conversations about gender, sexual violence, and abuse taking place at once, Ellie said: “We’ve never seen a further divide between young men and young women and their views and their experiences.

“And there was a period in time where I think it felt like things were moving in the right direction. You know, we were taking women seriously, and we were listening to their stories and we were, saying all the right things to try and combat violence against women and girls and stop this kind of insidious abuse, but you know at the same time you have the rise of, you know, certain influencers and the manosphere and this kind of narrative that young boys are isolated and don’t know how to treat girls and are scared of kind of making any approaches, and and we have these kind of two conversations happening simultaneously and taking people down in completely different directions and I think that is where things are now particularly concerning.”

She added that “on one side you have young men,” hearing one message and “almost being justified in some cases in the abuse of women and in this mistreatment of women and in degrading women, because there are people, there are high profile figures, who have made them feel like it’s okay to do that.”

Ellie continued, “It’s clear that we need to be having conversations that include both sides of this argument.” She adds, “I have two sons and I don’t want them to grow up feeling like they are inherently bad because they are male, that’s not true, and I think that somewhere along the way that’s a narrative that some young boys have learned to believe, and so things have gone wrong in a sense that things have gone that way, but also ignoring the very real epidemic of violence against women and girls and highlighting those issues isn’t the answer. We should be able to do both at the same time.”

Decree strips parties of legal status and assets, as opposition leader calls on Guineans to resist

Guinea’s government has dissolved 40 political parties, including the country’s three main opposition groups, in a move critics say marks the final step towards a one-party state under President Mamady Doumbouya.

The Ministry of Territorial Administration and Decentralisation issued the decree late on Friday, citing the parties’ failure to meet their legal obligations.

Beyond stripping them of their legal status, the order froze their assets and banned the use of their names, logos and emblems, with a government-appointed curator assigned to oversee the transfer of their holdings.

The three most prominent parties dissolved are the Union of Democratic Forces of Guinea (UFDG), the Rally of the Guinean People (RPG) – the party of ousted former President Alpha Condé – and the Union of Republican Forces (UFR).

All three had already been suspended last August, weeks before a constitutional referendum that cleared the way for Doumbouya to stand in December’s presidential election.

UFDG leader Cellou Dalein Diallo, speaking from exile, accused Doumbouya of dismantling democratic life to entrench his grip on power. In a video posted to Facebook on Sunday, he said the dissolution was part of a deliberate drive to build a “party-state” and urged supporters to “rise as one” against a government that had lasted “far too long”.

He said that dialogue and legal routes had been exhausted, while his party’s communications coordinator went further, describing the decree as “the final act of a true political farce” aimed at cementing single-party rule.

Ibrahima Diallo, a leader in the pro-democracy National Front for the Defence of the Constitution, said the move had “formalised a dictatorship” and warned that Guinea was sinking into “profound uncertainty”.

The crackdown is the latest in a sustained campaign against dissent under Doumbouya, who seized power in a 2021 coup before winning a presidential election in December, a vote from which all major opposition figures were barred.

Since taking power, his government has shut down media outlets, banned protests and arrested or driven into exile scores of opposition figures and civil society activists.

Several relatives of prominent dissidents have also been abducted, and two well-known pro-democracy activists have been missing since July 2024.

Wave of coups

A wave of coups has brought military leaders to power in Africa, across a belt stretching from the Atlantic through the Sahel region to the Red Sea since 2020, while an attempted coup in Benin failed in late 2025.

The development has led to what analysts have described as a “coup belt“.

Madagascar’s and Guinea-Bissau’s armies most recently removed civilian leaders in their respective countries from power in late 2025, underscoring growing discontent with elected governments.

Although often carried out with popular backing, the military takeovers have also seen civil liberties clawed back.

A 2025 study found that while military takeovers have declined globally, the risk of coups in Africa remains comparatively high.

March 6 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s ruling Democratic Party has recently increased its engagement with major companies and business groups, a shift analysts say reflects growing economic uncertainty and the political importance of economic performance.

Party leaders have held a series of meetings with industry representatives while launching policy initiatives such as a “KOSPI 5000” special committee and a task force reviewing economic criminal penalties and business regulations.

The outreach marks a change from the party’s earlier image as primarily focused on regulation, positioning itself instead as a listener to industry concerns.

The move comes as tensions in the Middle East, potential U.S. tariff measures and volatility in financial markets raise economic risks. Political leaders have increasingly addressed these issues directly, as economic developments quickly translate into political and legislative debates.

On Wednesday, the Democratic Party held a meeting with business leaders to discuss risks stemming from the Middle East conflict and possible U.S. trade tariffs. Participants discussed concerns including potential disruptions to projects in the Middle East, export slowdowns and measures to stabilize financial markets.

Party officials have also held policy discussions with the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry while continuing work through the KOSPI 5000 committee on capital market reforms. Another task force has been examining ways to adjust criminal penalties related to economic activity and ease regulations that business groups say hinder corporate operations.

Economic risks increasingly shape political debate

Analysts say economic shocks are now quickly becoming political issues.

Recent disagreements between the ruling party and opposition lawmakers over legislation tied to investment cooperation with the United States delayed discussions in a parliamentary special committee for several weeks, illustrating how economic policy disputes can quickly turn into political battles.

Economic performance influences political approval

Academic research has also shown that economic conditions can influence political approval and election outcomes.

A study published in a Korean academic journal examining presidential approval ratings from 1993 to 2019 found statistically significant links between approval ratings and macroeconomic variables such as interest rates and inflation.

Research by scholars at Seoul National University also found that voting behavior in South Korea cannot be explained solely by regional political loyalties and is strongly influenced by voters’ economic evaluations.

Similar findings appear in international research, including a study from the University of Cambridge that examined how personal economic conditions and perceptions of national economic performance affect voting decisions in South Korea.

Corporate performance tied to government finances

South Korea’s fiscal structure is another reason the ruling party is expanding contact with businesses, analysts say.

According to the National Assembly Budget Office, national tax revenue in 2024 totaled about 336.5 trillion won ($253 billion), down 7.5 trillion won ($5.6 billion) from the previous year.

Corporate tax revenue alone fell by about 17.9 trillion won ($13.5 billion), making it one of the main reasons for the overall decline in tax revenue.

For the administration of President Lee Jae-myung, which has promoted a broader welfare framework described as a “basic society,” maintaining corporate growth and investment has become increasingly important to sustaining tax revenues needed for expanded public spending.

Still, analysts caution that the ruling party’s outreach should not necessarily be interpreted as a shift toward a pro-business policy stance.

Business groups have continued to raise concerns about legislation such as revisions to the Commercial Act and labor-related bills sometimes referred to as the “Yellow Envelope Law,” which they argue could weaken corporate governance protections.

Some lawmakers have therefore adopted what observers describe as a two-track approach – consulting with companies while continuing to pursue regulatory legislation.

Analysts say the recent outreach to business leaders reflects a broader political strategy combining economic crisis management, legislative coordination and efforts to maintain political support.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260306010001790

SACRAMENTO — Despite a plea from the head of the California Democratic Party for underperforming candidates to drop out of the governor’s race, all but one of the party’s top hopefuls spurned the request.

Party leaders fear the growing possibility that the crowded field will split the Democratic electorate in the state’s June top-two primary election and result in two Republicans advancing to the November ballot, ensuring a Republican governor being elected for the first time since 2006.

His advice largely unheeded, state party Chairman Rusty Hicks on Thursday said the fate of a Democratic victory now rests squarely on the gubernatorial candidates who flouted him.

“The candidates for Governor now have a chance to showcase a viable path to win,” Hicks said in a statement Thursday.

Eight top Democratic candidates filed the official paperwork to appear on the June ballot after Hicks released a letter on Tuesday urging those “who cannot show meaningful progress towards winning” to drop out. Friday is the deadline to file to appear on the primary election ballot. On March 21, the secretary of state’s office will formally announce who will appear on the June ballot.

“It sounded like someone who has his head in the sand,” former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said of Hicks’ open letter. “[Most] of us filed within 24 hours of getting that letter. It created some press but not much else. It didn’t impact [most] of the candidates and it certainly didn’t impact my candidacy.”

Democratic strategist Elizabeth Ashford said it was appropriate for Hicks and other Democratic leaders to make a public plea as opposed to keeping such discussions solely behind closed doors.

But the response showed the limited power of the modern-day party bosses.

“It’s definitely not Tammany Hall,” said Ashford, referring to the storied Democratic political machine that had a grip on New York City politics for nearly a century. “The party and Rusty are influential and they are helpful and that is their role. I don’t think anyone would be comfortable with outright public strong-arming of specific candidates.”

Ashford, who worked for former Govs. Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with former Vice President Kamala Harris when she served as state attorney general, added that the minimal power of the state GOP is likely a factor in the dynamics of Democrats’ decision to stay in the race. Democratic registered voters outnumber Republicans by almost a 2-to-1 margin in the state, and Democrats control every statewide elected office and hold supermajorities in both chambers of the California Legislature.

“If there were a strong viable opposition that existed, if the Republican Party was actually relevant in California, I think that would sort of force greater unity amongst Democrats,” she said.

Just one of the nine major Democrats did heed the party chair’s message. Ian Calderon, a former Los Angeles-area Assemblyman who consistently polled near the bottom of the field, withdrew from the race and endorsed Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) on Thursday.

Candidates cannot withdraw their name from the ballot once they officially file to run for office, leading to some fears that even if other candidates drop out of the race, a crowded primary ballot could still split California’s liberal votes.

“I’m disappointed most of them will be on the ballot,” said Lorena Gonzalez, the head of the California Federation of Labor Unions, which will announce whether it endorses in the governor’s race on March 16. But “I do still think you can have people drop out of the race or become viable. I think that there are candidates who know viability is a real thing they have to show in coming weeks” before ballots start being mailed to voters.

Jodi Hicks, chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said she is “still worried” about the prospect of two Republicans winning the top two spots in the June primary, shutting Democrats out of any chance of winning the governor’s office in November.

“I didn’t have any specifics of who I wanted to do what,” she said. “I’m just very, very concerned and the stakes are really high right now and seem to be getting worse by the day.”

Republican candidate Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host, said he is “confident that I’ll be in the top two” along with a Democratic candidate. “I find it very difficult to believe that the Democratic Party will just surrender California and allow two Republicans to be in the top two.”

Hilton made the comments Thursday after a gubernatorial forum in Sacramento hosted by the California Assn. of Realtors focused on housing and homeownership. Villaraigosa, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan and former Rep. Katie Porter also attended. Swalwell, who is currently in Washington, joined the panel virtually.

During the panel, candidates were in broad agreement about the need to reduce barriers and costs in order to build more housing in California, where the median single-family home costs more than $820,000. Many also endorsed proposals to disincentivize private investment firms from buying up homes as well as a $25-billion bond proposed by former Sen. Bob Hertzberg to help first-time homebuyers afford a down payment.

“This really isn’t a debate because we’re agreeing so much with each other,” Hilton said at one point during the event.

That political alignment on one of the most pressing issues facing California may explain why voters are having such a difficult time deciding who to support.

A recent poll of the Public Policy Institute of California found that the five candidates topping the crowded field were within 4 percentage points of one another: Porter, Swalwell, Hilton, Democratic hedge fund founder Tom Steyer and Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Earlier polls had Hilton and Bianco leading the field, though many voters remained undecided.

Some candidates took issue with Hicks’ push to cull the field, noting that most of the lower-polling candidates he asked to drop out are people of color.

“Our political system is rigged, corrupted by the political elites, the wealthy and well connected,” state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, who is Black and Latino, said in a video posted on social media in response to the open letter. “The California Democratic Party is essentially telling every person of color in the race for Governor to drop out.”

Villaraigosa argued that enough voters remain undecided that it was too early for quality candidates to call it quits.

“Most people don’t even know who’s in the race,” said Villaraigosa. “It’s premature to be thinking about getting out of the race. I certainly am not considering it and I feel no pressure.”

Aside from the opinion polls, other indicators on who may emerge from the pack a candidates are slowly emerging.

Though it wasn’t enough to win the party’s endorsement, Swalwell won support from 24% of delegates at the state Democratic convention last month, the most of any party candidate.

While spending is no guarantee of success, Steyer has donated $47.4 million of his own wealth to his campaign. Mahan, who recently entered the race and is supported by Silicon Valley leaders, has quickly raised millions of dollars, as have two independent expenditures committees backing his bid.

Ashford said part of candidates’ decisions to remain in the race could have been driven by their lengthy political careers, as well as Democrats’ crushing November redistricting victory.

“In several cases, these are people who have won statewide office,” she said. “It’s tough to feel like there may not be a sequel to that.”

Nixon reported from Sacramento and Mehta from Los Angeles.

After months of fretting, California Democratic leaders are now truly freaking out about too many of their own running for governor, potentially allowing two MAGA Republicans to advance to the general election.

Someone find me the world’s smallest violin.

It’s the latest mess created by a party that has held supermajorities in the state Legislature and the governor’s mansion for most of the last 15 years, yet has done little to make life better for its constituents while blaming President Trump for everything.

What does it say about them that no Democratic candidate of color is considered a favorite to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom, when whites are only a third of California’s population? That a party casting itself as the champion of the working poor against Trump’s oligarchic reign isn’t telling a billionaire like Tom Steyer — who spent $341 million of his own money on a failed 2020 presidential run — to bow out and throw his support and moolah behind someone else, just because he’s polling in the top five?

California voters have made the state Republican Party as relevant as the Angels in baseball — yet under Democratic rule, life keeps getting harder for too many. Especially galling is how the state Democratic Party has done next to nothing to help Latinos become household names who can win.

Three Latinos with distinguished resumes — former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and State Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond — are running for governor, yet they stand as much a chance of moving on to the general election as Alfred E. Neuman.

Latinos are a plurality of California’s population and the bedrock of the Democratic Party. Yet there’s a good chance that after November, no Latino will hold a statewide elected position for the first time since 2014.

Yes, Alex Padilla is our senior U.S. senator. But enough California Latino voters became disillusioned with the Democratic platform that Trump made large gains among them in 2024, and Latino GOP legislative candidates stormed Sacramento like never before.

So excuse my schadenfreude upon hearing earlier this week that California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks wants low-polling candidates to drop out of the governor’s race, claiming in an open letter that their continued presence will “imperil” democracy.

Candidates are definitely choosing — to spite Hicks. We all should. He could have made his move long ago, as the top Democrat in the state. Instead, waiting until just before the candidate filing deadline is more amateur than a Little League game.

Worse, his move reeks of el dedazo, the kingmaking process under Mexico’s long-ruling Partido Revolucionario Institucional that translates as “the finger point,” because that’s how undemocratic it was.

“El dedazo is not appropriate in California,” Becerra told me, referring not to Hicks but to other Democrats who have suggested that he and others withdraw. “And I suspect that very few voters in California think that a variety of choices [for governor] is not a good thing.”

Candidate Xavier Becerra chats in a hallway during the California Democratic Party convention in San Francisco last month.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

As of this columna’s publication, not only has no Democratic candidate dropped out, but most are officially filing papers to jump in. Thurmond even posted a video on social media implying that Hicks’ request is racist because almost all the potential spoilers are people of color, while the top three Democratic hopefuls — Rep. Eric Swalwell, Steyer and former Rep. Katie Porter — are white.

“To me, this act doesn’t reflect the Democratic Party of 2026,” Thurmond thundered. “Aren’t we supposed to be the party who embraces democracy?”

Hicks’ move and the embarrassing aftermath reminds me of Will Rogers’ famous quip that Democrats are members of no organized political party — even if I do understand why Hicks and other Dems are so nervous.

No Democrat is towering over the field, which is why party leaders and activists futilely tried to recruit big names like Padilla and former Vice President Kamala Harris. Those who are running are nice enough. But politically, they’re carbon copies of each other. As a group, they’re as inspiring as printer paper.

The subsequent free-for-all has allowed Republicans Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco to occupy two of the top three slots in the latest Public Policy Institute of California poll alongside Porter, with Swalwell and Steyer close behind.

No other candidate polled higher than 5%, but together, the rest of them added up to 30%. Factor in the 10% of voters who are undecided, and that’s a significant slab of the potential electorate. If just two Democrats drop out, that would almost certainly stop both Hilton and Bianco from advancing.

A Republican governor for California in the Trump era would be embarrassing, terrible and a political self-own without precedent. It would make previous California political earthquakes where conservatives pounced on liberal cluelessness, like Prop. 13, Prop. 187 and the Gray Davis recall, seem as innocuous as a bounce house.

But telling candidates to kill their campaigns to make it easier for people who supposedly have a better chance is the type of least-worst choice that Democratic leaders have forced upon party faithful for too long.

They need a rude awakening. Making them sweat about a gubernatorial primary is a start. That’s why I’m glad Hicks’ plea is going nowhere. If people want to scatter their votes, it’s not only their choice — it’s democracy.

When I asked Becerra if he or his fellow underdog Dems should accept responsibility if a Republican becomes California’s next governor, he brushed off the question.

“That’s more than speculative — it’s not going to happen,” he said, predicting that undecided voters will “crystallize” soon to make the issue moot. He once again joked that there are “too many dedazos in the air.”

Villaraigosa’s answer was more damning: “It would be a collective responsibility that as a party, we failed to convince the electorate.”

Watch out, Rusty — here come your Dems!

March 4 (Asia Today) — A series of legislative proposals by South Korea’s ruling Democratic Party has sparked debate over judicial independence, as critics argue the measures could affect ongoing criminal cases involving President Lee Jae-myung.

The legislation includes proposals to expand the Supreme Court, introduce constitutional review of court rulings and abolish the crime of breach of trust. Legal experts say the bills, combined with calls to drop certain prosecutions, raise concerns that lawmakers could influence judicial proceedings.

Five criminal cases involving Lee are currently paused while he serves as president. As the National Assembly moves forward with legal revisions, some members of the legal community warn the changes could intersect with those trials.

National Assembly inquiry targets prosecution investigations

According to political sources, the Democratic Party has launched a parliamentary committee seeking a national investigation into what it calls politically motivated prosecutions under the previous administration.

The committee plans to examine several high-profile cases involving political figures, including the Daejang-dong development case and allegations involving transfers of funds to North Korea.

Party officials have also urged prosecutors to withdraw indictments in cases involving Lee.

The move has prompted criticism from legal observers who say the National Assembly should not interfere in criminal proceedings.

Judicial reform bills move quickly through parliament

The Democratic Party has advanced three major judicial reform bills in recent weeks.

The legislation would expand the number of Supreme Court justices from 14 to 26, allow the Constitutional Court to review final court rulings through a judicial complaint system and introduce a new criminal offense for officials who deliberately misapply the law in judicial decisions or investigations.

Supporters say the reforms are aimed at addressing structural issues within the judiciary.

However, some legal analysts say the proposals could alter the balance of power within the court system and influence the legal environment surrounding ongoing cases.

Breach of trust law could affect corruption cases

Another proposal under discussion involves abolishing the criminal offense of breach of trust, which has been used in several major corruption investigations.

If the law were repealed, legal experts say it could affect cases related to development projects in Daejang-dong and Baekhyeon-dong as well as allegations involving misuse of a provincial government corporate credit card.

Under South Korean law, when a criminal statute is repealed after an alleged offense, courts may dismiss charges related to that statute.

Concerns raised over separation of powers

Some lawyers say the pace and scope of the legislative initiatives raise broader concerns about the balance between the legislative and judicial branches.

“The outcome of trials should be determined in court,” one attorney who previously served as a senior prosecutor said. “If lawmakers change laws in ways that directly affect ongoing cases, it raises questions about the separation of powers.”

Supporters of the legislation argue the reforms are necessary to improve accountability within the justice system.

Debate over the proposals is expected to continue as the National Assembly reviews the measures during the current parliamentary session.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260305010001168

AUSTIN, Texas — James Talarico did not mention President Trump when he greeted exuberant supporters at his primary night celebration.

But the newly minted Democratic U.S. Senate nominee in Texas is now a front man for the political opposition to the Republican president, not just in his own state but around the country. With his victory over U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, the state lawmaker from Austin will test whether a smiling message of unity and change is enough to answer voters’ frustrations amid discord at home and now a war abroad.

“We are not just trying to win an election,” Talarico told supporters in the Texas capital early Wednesday. “We are trying to fundamentally change our politics, and it’s working.”

The campaign provided “Love thy Neighbor” signs to people in the crowd.

The question for Talarico as he heads into the general election campaign is whether he can generate enthusiasm from voters who opted for Crockett because they saw her as the more aggressive fighter against Trump. Crockett conceded to Talarico on Wednesday morning, saying that “Texas is primed to turn blue and we must remain united because this is bigger than any one person.”

Talarico will need all the help he can get in a Republican-dominated state where Democrats have gone decades without winning a statewide race. He will face either U.S. Sen. John Cornyn or state Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, who advanced to a Republican runoff on Tuesday.

Conventional political wisdom has it that Talarico was the stronger Democratic candidate in November, especially if Republicans nominate Paxton, a conservative firebrand who has weathered allegations of corruption and infidelity over the years.

Although Democrats are often choosing between moderate and progressive candidates in primaries, they faced a largely stylistic choice in Texas.

Talarico, 36, is a Presbyterian seminarian who quotes Scripture and rarely raises his voice. Crockett, 44, is an unapologetic political brawler who hammers Trump and other Republicans with acidic flourish.

Both have been reliably progressive votes in their current roles and telegenic faces across cable news and social media. Both represent generational change for a party with aging leadership. Each called for a more equitable economy and society. Each talked about bringing sporadic voters into their coalitions.

But Talarico’s broader argument is one that he could have made regardless of whether Trump was in the White House. Talarico’s campaign, he said often, is about addressing a country whose fundamental divide is not partisan but “top vs. bottom.” He regularly assails the rise in Christian nationalism. A former teacher, he has advocated for public education — and against Texas conservatives’ policies to restrict curriculum and reshape how U.S. history is taught.

“He’s just a good friend and he’s a serious advocate for the disenfranchised and a serious policymaker,” said Lea Downey Gallatin, 40, an Austin resident who became friends with Talarico when they interned together for a congressman.

Crockett promised Democrats that she could increase turnout within the party’s base, while Talarico campaigned on the theory that he could pull new people into the party’s tent.

“I can’t tell you how many have come up to me, whispering that they’re not a Democrat,” Talarico said as he campaigned in San Antonio in the closing days of the primary campaign. “I can’t tell you how many young people have said it’s the first time that they’ve ever voted, and that they are participating for the first time.”

As he strolled through the city, Talarico posed for pictures and greeted the singer of a Tejano band playing nearby. He later spoke to hundreds of people at the historic Stable Hall, a 130-year-old circular structure built for showing horses and now a converted event center. Hundreds more, unable to get into the full event, wound around the corner and along the sidewalk for blocks.

Inside, Lori Alvarez, a 39-year-old who works for a disaster relief nonprofit, said she supported Talarico because “he really listens to what we need.”

“I think he’s going to be able to make change in Washington for us,” said the married mother of three young girls.

Yet that was not what attracted so many voters to Crockett.

Troy Burroughs, a 61-year-old Navy retiree, called Crockett “rugged” and “the only one I see fighting for us.”

He added: “I like how she doesn’t back down from anybody.”

Burroughs said some voters probably saw Talarico as more electable because he is more soft-spoken. But, he said, “We’ve got to get into the gutter with these folks, because that’s where they are.”

Talarico, meanwhile, keeps fighting his own way.

“Tonight, the people of our state gave this country a little bit of hope,” he said Tuesday, “and a little bit of hope is a dangerous thing.”

Barrow, Figueroa and Beaumont write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta, Figueroa from Austin, Texas, and Beaumont from San Antonio.

March 3 (Asia Today) — North Korea’s ninth congress of the Workers’ Party, held in Pyongyang from Feb. 19 to 25, reinforced leader Kim Jong Un’s centralized rule and reaffirmed the country’s nuclear posture, according to Cho Young-ki, secretary general of the Korea Foundation for the Advancement of the Korean Peninsula.

The party congress, convened every five years as the party’s highest decision-making body, drew about 5,000 delegates. It reviewed the Central Committee’s work, revised party rules and elected key leadership posts. Cho wrote that while the congress is formally tasked with deliberation, it primarily ratifies decisions already made by Kim and the leadership.

Kim declared that the past five years produced economic achievements “worthy of pride” despite internal and external challenges and said the country had permanently secured its status as a nuclear power. He pledged to pursue qualitative economic development under a “people-first” principle in the next five-year period.

Kim also defined inter-Korean relations as those between hostile states, dismissed Seoul’s reconciliation policies and reiterated North Korea’s nuclear deterrence. At the same time, he left open the possibility of negotiations with the United States if Washington withdraws what Pyongyang calls a hostile policy.

A key feature of the congress was renewed emphasis on what the regime calls a “Five-Point Party Building Line,” first proposed in 2022 and formalized in 2023. The line centers on strengthening political, organizational, ideological, disciplinary and work-style controls within the party.

Cho argued that reaffirming the five-point line formalizes Kim’s governing ideology and tightens centralized discipline under a party-centered system. The congress re-elected Kim as general secretary, revised party rules and reshuffled leadership posts.

Notably, the Political Bureau Standing Committee expanded from four to five members, and Kim’s sister, Kim Yo Jong, was reinstated and promoted, reinforcing what Cho described as a patronage structure around the leader. Twenty-three of 39 executive members were replaced in a generational reshuffle. Senior official Choe Ryong Hae was reported to have stepped back from his previous role near the top of the hierarchy.

Cho wrote that the five-point line ultimately serves to justify and entrench Kim’s centralized authority. He argued that the congress underscores North Korea’s lack of intention to abandon its nuclear weapons and signals a hardening of its stance toward South Korea.

Since the mid-1990s, Cho wrote, South Korea has operated under what he described as illusions that goodwill or dialogue alone could persuade Pyongyang to denuclearize. He said the latest congress challenges those assumptions.

Cho concluded that outside information remains one of the few factors that authoritarian systems fear. He pointed to North Korean laws enacted in recent years aimed at blocking foreign cultural and ideological influence, arguing they reflect the regime’s sensitivity to external information flows.

He said South Korea has a responsibility to expand technological and institutional means for North Koreans to access outside information, enabling independent thought and action.

Cho Young-ki, secretary general of the Korea Foundation for the Advancement of the Korean Peninsula and former professor at Korea University

※ The views expressed in this column are those of the author and may not reflect the position of this publication.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260303010000561

Fearing the prospect of a Republican winning California’s gubernatorial race, state Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks on Tuesday urged his party’s candidates who lack a viable path to victory to drop out.

“It is imperative that every candidate honestly assess the viability of their candidacy and campaign,” Hicks wrote in an open letter to the politicians vying to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom. “I recognize my suggestions are hard for many to contemplate and may be even viewed as overly harsh by some.”

Hicks did not name the Democrats he wants out of the race.

But, even though the odds are relatively low, California cannot risk having a Republican elected as the next governor at a time when President Trump is in the White House, he said.

“[S]o much is at stake in our Nation and so many are counting on the leadership of California Democrats to stand up and speak out at this historic moment,” Hicks wrote. “California’s leadership on the world stage is significantly harder if a Democrat is not elected as our next Governor.”

Hicks urged Democrats languishing at the bottom of the field of candidates to drop out before the Friday deadline to officially file to run for governor — to ensure their names do not appear on the June primary ballot.

Under California’s top-two primary system, the two candidates who receive the most votes in the June primary advance to the November general election, regardless of party.

With nine top Democrats running, the fear is that the candidates will splinter their party’s vote and allow the top two Republicans in the race to finish in first and second place. This is despite Democratic registered voters outnumbering Republicans in the state by almost 2 to 1, and no GOP candidate winning a statewide election since 2006.

Having two Republicans competing in the November election would be devastating to Democratic voter turnout and could hurt party candidates in pivotal down-ballot races.

“The result would present a real risk to winning the congressional seats required and imperil Democrats’ chances to retake the House, cut Donald Trump’s term in half, and spare our Nation from the pain many have endured since January 2025,” Hicks said in his letter. “We simply can’t let that happen.”

A recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that five candidates lead the contest — former Rep. Katie Porter, Rep. Eric Swalwell and hedge fund founder Tom Steyer among Democrats and conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, both Republicans. Hilton and Bianco have led all candidates in other polls over the last few months.

Discussions about the need for some Democrats to exit the race took place at last weekend’s California Democratic Party convention as well as when the powerful California Federation of Labor Unions began its endorsement process last week.

But a politically thorny issue is that nearly all of the Democrats lagging in the polls are people of color, as former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra noted at a candidate forum Monday evening.

“By the way, there are people who are calling for candidates to get out of the race,” he said at a gathering hosted by Equality California and the Los Angeles LGBT Center at the Renberg Theatre in Hollywood. “Isn’t it interesting that the candidates they are asking get out of the race are the candidates of color? So don’t take me there.”

Hicks, asked about the effect on candidates of color, lauded the field’s accomplishments.

“We have a number of strong candidates. They have incredible stories, and they are reflective of the diversity of our party. That being said, there are some political realities of where we are at at this particular moment,” he said in an interview. “I’m not calling on any specific candidates to move in one direction or the other. I’m just calling on them to assess their campaign and determine if they have a viable [path] and if they don’t, to not file.”

During Monday evening’s gubernatorial forum, Porter said she is concerned about the prospect of two Republicans making the top two.

“I hear people say to me, it could never happen, but everybody said that about Trump too,” she said at the forum. “And I look at how much harm we’re suffering, and I think about all the political risks that people are facing every day, the risk of an immigrant to leave their home and walk on our streets, the risk of a kid who’s trans to try to play sports even in this state. And I just don’t think we can take any more political risks.”

Times staff writer Phil Willon contributed to this report.