Lindsey Graham’s Latest Move Shows How Desperate Trump Is Getting

Senator Lindsey Graham hit the road this week, hoping to secure Nebraska’s five electoral votes for Donald Trump.

The South Carolina Republican met with Governor Jim Pillen and more than a dozen Republican lawmakers Wednesday with the hopes of shoring up support for a bill that would make all five of Nebraska’s electoral votes go to whoever wins the state, according to KOLN. 

Nebraska splits its five votes, granting two of them to the winner of the state’s popular vote, while the other three are given to the winner of the three congressional districts. 

Nebraska’s Republican congressional delegation wrote a letter to Pillen Wednesday urging the state to return to a model where all the votes would be granted to the winner of the whole state. Such a bill would transform Nebraska’s presidential election into a winner-take-all system—at the very last minute. 

This change has the potential to hurt Harris in the increasingly tight presidential race. Currently, she has a chance to pick up an electoral vote in Nebraska’s second congressional district, which includes the Democratic-leaning Omaha–Council Bluffs metropolitan area. If the law changes, then the state’s five votes will likely go to Trump. 

Graham’s concerted efforts to pick up extra votes for Trump on the path to 270 shows just how desperate the former president’s campaign has become, as Harris closes the gap in key battleground states. 

The longtime Trump ally seems perfectly aware of how badly things are going for the Republican nominee. He recently criticized Trump’s debate performance, calling it a “disaster,” and practically begged Trump to stop hanging out with right-wing conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer.  

The Uncommitted National Movement, an organization of Democrats who seek a cease-fire in Israel’s war in Gaza as well as an arms embargo against the country, announced Thursday that they will not be endorsing Kamala Harris.

In a statement, the organization said that “Vice President Harris’s unwillingness to shift on unconditional weapons policy or to even make a clear campaign statement in support of upholding existing human rights law has made it impossible for us to endorse her.”

But the organization added that they oppose “a Donald Trump presidency, whose agenda includes plans to accelerate the killing in Gaza while intensifying the suppression of anti-war organizing,” and that they wouldn’t recommend “a third-party vote in the presidential election, especially as third party votes in key swing states could help inadvertently deliver a Trump presidency given our country’s broken electoral college system.” 

The nonendorsement comes after Harris gave a boilerplate answer to a panel from the National Association of Black Journalists when asked about Israel’s brutal war on Gaza, which has killed over 41,000 Palestinians. The Democratic presidential nominee stuck to the talking points on her campaign website and didn’t offer any specific solutions or changes to existing U.S. policy.  

At the Democratic National Convention last month, the Uncommitted movement, which had 30 delegates at the convention, pushed unsuccessfully for an acknowledgment of the suffering and genocide taking place in Gaza on the main stage and asked the party to allow George state Representative Ruwa Romman to deliver a short speech. In the end, all they received was a panel on Palestinian human rights on the convention’s first day. 

Still, at that point, the organization held out hope that Harris would reach out, giving her until September 15 to meet with Palestinian American families in Michigan who lost family members to “U.S.-supplied bombs in Gaza and to discuss their demands for halting arms to Israel and securing a permanent ceasefire.”

That deadline came and went, prompting Thursday’s statement from the organization. Meanwhile, the Council on American Relations, in polling of Muslim American voters in the battleground states, has Green Party candidate Jill Stein leading Harris in Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin. While the Uncommitted movement didn’t endorse Stein, many of its supporters plan to vote for her, which could be a problem for Harris and the Democrats come November. 

The Teamsters’ International Union will not be endorsing either candidate for president this election cycle—but that doesn’t mean that the local chapters of the million-plus-member union will be taking the same stance.

On Thursday, several chapters of the Teamsters in key battleground states, including Wisconsin, Michigan, and Nevada, came out in support of Vice President Kamala Harris.

“The Harris-Walz ticket offers a comprehensive vision for America—one that not only prioritizes economic fairness but also stands steadfastly by our nation’s workers,” wrote Michigan Teamsters Joint Council 43 President Kevin Moore in a statement. “Their record and future plans are exactly what our country needs to continue growing and prospering.

“I urge all my Teamster members and fellow citizens to lend their support to this outstanding campaign,” Moore continued. “In conclusion, as a nation we must move forward to protect and grow the middle class. ‘We are not going back’!!!”

Groups in Nevada, California, Hawaii, and Guam also came out in support of Harris, representing a collective 300,000 Teamsters. In a campaign email celebrating the local endorsements, the Harris-Walz ticket acknowledged that Teamsters groups in several other states, including Florida, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, had also backed the Democratic ticket.

Donald Trump, meanwhile, painted the national nonendorsement notice as a win for his campaign, telling reports after the fact that the nothingburger was “a great honor.”

“It’s a great honor,” Trump said during a stop in New York City, reported Fox News. “They’re not going to endorse the Democrats. That’s a big thing.”

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are neck and neck in Pennsylvania, an essential swing state.

A Washington Post poll published Wednesday found that Harris is favored by 48 percent of likely and registered voters, while Trump is favored by 47 percent of likely and registered voters.

When third-party candidates are removed, the race becomes even closer, with Harris and Trump in a 47 percent matchup among likely voters, and Harris at 48 percent and Trump at 47 among registered voters.

Twice as many presidential debate watchers said that Harris won the face-off between the two candidates. Fifty-seven percent said that Harris had won, while only 27 percent said Trump. Seventeen percent thought that neither won.

The slim margin between Trump and Harris shows just how competitive this race has become, in a battleground state that was narrowly won the last two cycles: once by Trump in 2016 and then by Joe Biden in 2020.

Following Harris’s strong debate performance, a few other polls placed Harris ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania. The New York Times published a poll Thursday that found her in the lead by four points, at 50 percent, with Trump at 46 percent. A Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday found Harris was leading Trump 51 percent to 45 percent. A Franklin & Marshall College poll found that Harris was in the lead with 49 percent to Trump’s 46 percent.

For Harris, Pennsylvania is key to making it to the White House. If she loses Pennsylvania, she will have to win Georgia and North Carolina if she has any hope of making it to 270 electoral votes, according to Politico.

Trump’s campaign is focusing its energy on thwarting her advances in these three states. The former president has reportedly spent the most on advertising in Pennsylvania, hoping to secure voters in the pivotal state.

In that same vein, Trump has also picked a new town to harass with racist claims that it’s been overrun by Haitian immigrants, and it’s predictably in the battleground state of Pennsylvania. It seems the former president hopes to stir up some grievance-based votes and sow a little chaos along the way.

Speaking in Long Island on Wednesday, Donald Trump was as bombastic and boastful as ever—but also slurred his words on several occasions.

Trump stumbled over words like “migrants” and “Russia” and had trouble stringing sentences together. In another instance, Trump said he was “greater even than Elvis” because unlike the King, he doesn’t have a guitar—a riff that has increasingly featured in his speeches. 

Trump also promoted his wife Melania Trump’s new memoir—but admitted that he hadn’t read it and that he doesn’t know what she wrote about him, telling the crowd, “If she says bad things about me, I’ll call you all up and I’ll say, don’t buy it, get rid of it.” 

Trump’s erratic mental state has been on full display as his presidential campaign enters its final months before November. During last week’s debate with Kamala Harris, he went on long-winded rants unrelated to the questions asked. His speech patterns and alertness looked vastly different from 2016, as CNN demonstrated in a video comparing last week’s debate to one from eight years ago. Cognitive experts have also compared his recent speeches to ones from years ago, and see worrying signs.  

Trump even seems to have his own, false recollection of the debate, telling Fox News’s Greg Gutfeld about a nonexistent audience going “crazy” for him. Somehow, though, Trump remains neck and neck with Kamala Harris in the polls despite these stumbles. With the election less than two months away, will the Harris campaign be able to capitalize? 

Congress has until September 30 to pass a bill that continues to fund the government, but that doesn’t mean that Republicans are all in on a solution.

Fourteen Republicans voted against an iteration of the bill on Wednesday, upending a floundering effort led by House Speaker Mike Johnson to include the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE, Act, a piece of legislation that would require proof of citizenship in order to vote, in the continuing resolution at the behest of Donald Trump. Five House Democrats voted for the SAVE Act in July before it was rolled into the continuing resolution, but just three remained after Wednesday.

“I’m very disappointed it didn’t pass,” Johnson told Fox News’s Sean Hannity on Wednesday. “We ran the right play, we came a little bit short of the goal line, so now we’ll go back to the playbook, we’ll draw it up. We’re already hearing good ideas from our members. And we got time to fix this, and we’ll get it done.”

But despite Johnson’s efforts, he’s still catching flack for the political theater.

“Let me ask you, you keep saying it’s the right play, and you can’t get every Republican to vote for it,” prompted Hannity. “That’s your own party. What are their objections, and how do you get them on board?”

“Well look, there’s a range of objections. Some people look for the perfect piece of legislation. Some people are philosophically opposed to continuing resolutions. Look, I’m one of those. I don’t like this,” Johnson said, before deflecting the blame of months of House chaos onto Democrats in the Senate, claiming Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is the reason why Congress hasn’t passed a dozen appropriations bills that continue to fund the government the traditional way.

Johnson has cryptically alluded to a “plan B” for finding a funding solution but has refused to share the details, further frustrating members of his own party. That could include a six-month continuing resolution, which defense leaders have warned against. That measure would also be stripped of the SAVE Act, which could translate into lost votes from Trumpian loyalists and force Johnson to turn to Democrats for a funding solution.

One unidentified GOP lawmaker told Axios Wednesday that Johnson is “not where the conference is.”

Even if the stopgap bill does manage to scrape by the House, its chances of passing through the Senate are slim to none, setting the stage for an ominously familiar experience to that which preceded former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s exit.

“We now have only a few days left for House Republicans to come to their senses, come to the table, and come together with Democrats to craft a bipartisan agreement,” Schumer said after Wednesday’s House vote.

Does Donald Trump remember that there was no audience at the presidential debate?

During an appearance Wednesday night on Fox News’s Gutfeld! the former president took his obsession with gushing about his inflated crowd sizes a step further. He seemed to invent a crowd where there wasn’t one at all: at his presidential debate with Kamala Harris.

“And they didn’t correct her once, and they corrected me, everything I said, practically. I think nine times or 11 times,” said Trump. “And the audience was absolutely, they went crazy.”

For a moment, the Republican nominee seemed to suggest that there was an actual live audience. He then attempted to correct course.

“I walked off, I said that was a great debate, I loved it. You know you got a lot of people watching, I guess we had 75 million people watching, something like that,” Trump said.

Trump underestimates how easy it is to fact-check him. CNN’s Daniel Dale spotted at least 33 false claims Trump made during the audience-less debate.

Another burgeoning conservative outlet has been tied to Russia, with former advisers to Donald Trump coordinating directly with contributors for Kremlin state media.

Former Trump policy aide George Papadopoulos and his wife, Simona Mangiante, have become involved with Intelligencer, a growing conservative site heavily critical of the war in Ukraine (the right-wing site has no apparent connection with New York magazine’s Intelligencer). Nearly half of the company’s board members are former aides, surrogates, or fake electors for Trump’s previous campaigns, The Guardian reported Thursday.

The site’s financial backing did not indicate that it had received funds directly from the Kremlin. Instead, Intelligencer began as a subsidiary of a right-wing radio station in Australia that covers a host of conservative U.S. issues, including climate change denial and Covid-19 conspiracies, until George Eliason, an American journalist with experience in Ukraine, took over the website. In recent months, Intelligencer’s conspiracy-laden articles have been shared by the likes of Alex Jones and former Trump aide Roger Stone.

“Intelligencer appears to be one of several [Russia-friendly] operations targeting the upcoming U.S. elections, leveraging a network of far-right figures and disinformation tactics,” Olga Lautman, a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, told The Guardian.

Intelligencer is far from the only conservative site that’s been busted in a recent government crackdown ahead of the November election. Earlier this month, another pro-Trump media group—Tenet Media—folded under the pressure of a Justice Department investigation that found the company had been backed to the tune of millions of dollars from Russian state-controlled media.

The DOJ indictment accused Tenet and its founders of receiving nearly $10 million from employees of Russia Today as part of “a scheme to create and distribute content to U.S. audiences with hidden Russian government messaging,” Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said in a statement.

The Russian funds paid for videos by popular far-right personalities, including podcaster Tim Pool and Lauren Southern. Pool described himself as a “victim” in the Tenet scandal.

The switch to utilizing more overt methods to sway American voters, including relying on conservative influencers, is a decidedly new strategy for Russian propaganda outfits.

“Since the invasion of Ukraine, Russia has increasingly been forced to rely on networks of proxies and influencers whose conspiracist ‘brand’ generates income and audiences through social media monetization and some of whom Russia has now been caught covertly subsidizing,” Emma Briant, an associate professor of news and political communication at Monash University in Australia, told The Guardian.

But while conservative media tried to wash its hands of the Tenet scandal, the Trump campaign did not, with Trump campaign senior adviser Alina Habba chalking the indictment up to another “hoax.”

“A $10 million payment to some podcasters who had no idea from some ties allegedly to Russia is now going to make a spin on Russia backing Trump,” Habba told Fox News last week.

Speaking to the press Wednesday in front of a crowd of his supporters in North Carolina, J.D. Vance escalated his attacks on immigrants, claiming that even those here legally are in fact “illegal” and subject to deportation.

A reporter asked Vance about the Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, whom he falsely accused of killing and eating pets. As the reporter noted, the majority of those immigrants are legally in the United States under Temporary Protected Status, so they wouldn’t be subject to a future Trump administration’s plans to deport all undocumented immigrants. 

Vance’s response was that he still considered them “illegal,” calling the question “a media and Kamala Harris fact-check.”

“Now the media loves to say that the Haitian migrants … they are here legally. And what they mean is that Kamala Harris used two separate programs: mass parole and temporary protective status. She used two programs to wave a wand and to say, ‘We’re not going to deport those people here,’” Vance said. 

“Well, if Kamala Harris waves the wand illegally, and says these people are now here legally, I’m still going to call them an illegal alien. An illegal action from Kamala Harris does not make an alien legal. That is not how this works,” Vance added as his supporters cheered. 

Vance’s remarks Wednesday are in line with his attacks on legal immigration on CNBC last week, claiming that “if the path to prosperity was flooding your nation with low-wage immigrants, then Springfield, Ohio, would be the most prosperous city in the world.” 

This stance flies in the face of what Vance was saying years before he entered politics. In 2012, Vance attacked the Republican Party’s immigration policies at the time, saying that a plan to mass deport “millions of unregistered aliens … fails to pass the laugh test.”  It also flies in the face of the fact that his wife, Usha, is the daughter of Indian immigrants. 

Vance’s North Carolina remarks are disturbing, as he is now calling legal immigrants illegal without knowing anything about how they entered the country, claiming that they were magically made legal by the Biden administration in an illegal action. If Trump or another Republican “waved a magic wand,” it’s doubtful that Vance would be making the same claim. It also sends the message that the chaotic and inhumane immigration policies from Trump’s first administration would be even worse if he is elected again.

On Monday, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson visited Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago following the attempt on Trump’s life. Two days later, the Republican presidential nominee is publicly pressuring Johnson and his fellow Republicans in Congress to follow his orders on the spending bill, pushing the entire country to the brink of a government shutdown.

On Wednesday, the House is set to vote on a continuing resolution to extend government funding—to which Johnson is attaching the SAVE Act, a MAGA-backed bill that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote.

The spending plan with the SAVE Act attached is expected to fail, and, as NOTUS reports, “at that point, the question is whether [Johnson] can just bring up a clean continuing resolution to avoid a shutdown, or if he’ll have to engage in more … ‘failure theater.’”

On Wednesday afternoon, Trump chimed in on Truth Social, exhorting Republicans to take a hard line on the SAVE Act. “If Republicans don’t get the SAVE Act, and every ounce of it, they should not agree to a Continuing Resolution in any way, shape, or form,” Trump wrote, recklessly indifferent to the prospect of a government shutdown.

Trump’s post asserted, baselessly, that “Democrats are registering Illegal Voters by the TENS OF THOUSANDS,” and concluded, “BE SMART, REPUBLICANS, YOU’VE BEEN PUSHED AROUND LONG ENOUGH BY THE DEMOCRATS. DON’T LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN.”

The Brennan Center has deemed the SAVE Act a “misguided” piece of legislation, since noncitizen voting is already illegal and “vanishingly rare.” David Dayen at The American Prospect writes that the act is largely aimed at sowing doubt about the legitimacy of the 2024 election and making “people who have the legal right to vote … too nervous about potential harassment by law enforcement to do so.”