How will mail-in voting limits, Trump’s Canada trade war, AI data centers play with voters? | Friendly Fire

This week, we discuss Trump’s election-funding fight, mail-in voting restrictions, tariffs on Canada, the battle for the Senate, AI data centers and the threat of a government shutdown. Our friends also weigh in on Hakeem Jeffries’ meeting with Jared Kushner and the CIA director’s secret trip to Moscow.

Julie Roginsky, a Democrat, and Mike DuHaime, a Republican, are consultants who have worked on opposite teams for their entire careers yet have remained friends. They break it down with Star-Ledger editor Enrique Lavín moderating.

Election funding fight

Q: State and local governments across the country, including New Jersey, are suing the Trump administration after it threatened to withhold millions of dollars in police and anti-terrorism grants unless they adopt new federal election rules, including requirements for paper ballots and citizenship verification. Local officials argue the move would jeopardize funding for counterterrorism equipment, emergency response programs and other public safety efforts. Should federal public safety funding be tied to state election policies?

Julie: To be clear, Trump does not care whatsoever about terrorist threats, protecting Americans from harm or crime, or any of the talking points Republicans have run on for decades. All he cares about is winning the next election for his party so he can avoid investigations into his corruption and self-dealing. Remember that as you get ready to begin voting next month.

Mike: In this part of the country, on the eve of the 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks that killed almost 1,000 New Jerseyans, I cannot see how anyone could justify holding up police or anti-terrorism funding over an unrelated policy matter, no matter what you think of that policy.

As for the election rules, Article I, Section 4, of the Constitution clearly stipulates that the times, places and manner of elections are to be prescribed by each state and its legislature. As conservatives, we should want the federal government out of dictating these rules. A major part of the security of our elections is their decentralization to the state and county levels.

Mail-in ballots and election rules

Q: President Trump has personally used mail-in or absentee voting on multiple occasions, even while criticizing mail voting and pushing for tighter restrictions on the practice. This week, the Supreme Court allowed Trump to move forward, for now, with an executive order restricting mail-in ballots ahead of the midterm elections. How do you see this ruling affecting turnout or election results in closely contested races?

Julie: Who knows what kind of mischief this administration will try to pull before the elections, even if it is almost too late to do anything before the midterms? These justices continue to act as black-robed MAGA operatives.

Mike: Republicans need to stop being scared of convenient voting options such as mail-in and early voting. These processes are secure. I was political director of the RNC. I know how this works. I know there are bad actors who try to cheat. I also know it is far less prevalent and far less effective than some would have you believe. Republicans will be better off embracing and encouraging more voting instead of throwing up roadblocks.

Trade war with Canada

Q: An escalating U.S.-Canada trade war is alarming congressional Republicans, who fear new tariffs and retaliatory measures could raise consumer prices and hurt local economies just weeks before the midterm elections. That seems like a political liability with voters focused on inflation and the cost of living. What’s the calculus here?

Julie: Trump is all about his own grievances, not making anyone’s life easier or better. His grievance with Canada goes all the way back to Justin Trudeau’s premiership, when a much younger, better-looking man led Canada. (To make matters worse, Trudeau is now living his best life with Katy Perry, which must really piss off old man Trump.) Then Trudeau’s successor, Mark Carney, delivered a speech at Davos a few months ago, sticking it to Trump in front of the world. Trump’s feelings got hurt, which is why the rest of us will soon be paying more for nearly everything — unless, of course, Trump blinks again.

Mike: My hockey sticks are already very expensive. Please, no tariffs on them.

On a political note, some of the states that would be hit hardest are battlegrounds with substantial trade in tariffed Canadian goods — Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin, to name a few. All have major elections this year, and there will be a price to pay if this backfires.

Battle for the Senate

Q: Republicans remain slightly favored to keep control of the Senate after the November midterms, but a handful of closely contested races in states such as Georgia, Michigan, New Hampshire and Maine are likely to decide the chamber’s balance of power. Both parties see the Senate map as competitive and still very much in play. Which issue will have the biggest impact on control of the Senate: the economy, immigration or voter turnout?

Julie: All of the above — and Democrats are winning on all of them. Trump has made this country unaffordable, voters are turning against his rigid and cruel immigration policies, and Democratic voters are highly motivated. That’s why Trump has consistently run to the Supreme Court to help him cheat.

Mike: Democrats have chances to pick up seats in North Carolina, Texas and Maine, but they are also on defense in Michigan and New Hampshire. The map certainly favors Republicans to keep the Senate.

I agree with Julie that those issues will be key, but as much as Trump will be a factor, individual candidates matter. Republicans have great candidates in Maine, New Hampshire and Michigan, but a really bad one in Texas. Democrats have a strong candidate in North Carolina, chaos in Maine after nominating a degenerate who dropped out, and a far-left socialist in play in Michigan. Candidates matter.

AI data centers

Q: A growing backlash against AI data centers is putting pressure on Congress as communities raise concerns about soaring energy use, infrastructure strain and local impacts. The issue is emerging as a major political fight, with Trump championing data-center growth while some state and local Republicans increasingly push back. Who wins this tug-of-war?

Julie: I would caution any elected official who supports a data center in their district to look at the polls.

Mike: I would caution all these elected officials to look in the mirror as well as at the polls. Elected officials invited data centers in and gave them huge tax breaks in a race to secure economic development. Now, too many of them feign outrage as they try to catch up with their constituents’ anger. It looks almost as fake as the phony outrage when New Jersey Democrats blame everyone but themselves for their misguided energy policies that drove up electricity costs.

Government shutdown threat

Q: Congress is racing to pass a temporary spending bill before the Sept. 30 deadline to prevent a government shutdown, with lawmakers hoping to keep the government funded through December while they negotiate a longer-term budget. While both parties want to avoid a pre-election shutdown, major fights over defense spending, domestic programs and federal budget priorities are expected to resurface when the stopgap measure expires later this year. Whom would voters blame if Congress fails to avoid a shutdown?

Julie: Republicans are in charge of everything, so they should have the votes to pass a budget. If they can’t, they should look in the mirror.

Mike: Yet somehow, Democrats always seem to lose the shutdown PR battle. It always seems to get blamed on Chuck Schumer.

Jeffries-Kushner meeting

Q: House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries and Jared Kushner met privately last week, reportedly to explore bipartisan “common ground” on issues such as housing, immigration and the cost of living ahead of the midterm elections, according to The New York Times. In the spirit of Friendly Fire, isn’t it a smart political strategy to keep lines of communication open with opponents?

Julie: Hell, no. I speak to Mike DuHaime because he is ethical and well-intentioned. On the other hand, the only time Democratic officials should be meeting with Kushner is when a Democratic committee member is holding the gavel and Kushner is under oath.

Kushner is emblematic of everything wrong and corrupt about this administration. He is not officially part of it, yet he has more power than any White House adviser or Cabinet member. Rather than meeting with him, Jeffries should be running against him.

Mike: Julie is right about the optics for Jeffries. This is not exactly Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan getting together. Heck, it’s not even Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich.

Democrats hate Trump and have a special disdain for what they perceive as the nepotism and self-dealing of his family. To justify a meeting with senior members of the opposing side — especially an unelected one — there needs to be a level of trust and respect despite policy disagreements. Democrats have none for Kushner. This was a mistake by Jeffries.

CIA chief’s Moscow trip

Q: CIA Director John Ratcliffe made a rare secret trip to Moscow for high-level talks with Russia’s intelligence leadership, delivering warnings against any escalation involving NATO allies, increased support for Iran or a broader expansion of the war in Ukraine. The visit underscored the historic importance of maintaining backchannel communications between Washington and Moscow. What are you watching for after this meeting?

Julie: The more we learn about the Ratcliffe trip, the more it portends absolute horror. Putin would not need to conquer Latvia or any of its neighbors. He would need only to manufacture a crisis by sending in a few tanks, standing back and watching Washington flinch. Is there any doubt that this president will? We are on a very dangerous precipice here.

Mike: Personally, I like the idea of the U.S. CIA chief delivering a private warning to our historic foe. It feels like a really cool scene out of a Tom Clancy Cold War novel.

I agree that backchannel communications are incredibly important. Russia needs to know where the lines are, and I fear its leaders believe this administration will give them plenty of leeway. Hopefully, Ratcliffe made those lines clear.

She’s a Dem. He’s GOP. And they’re friends

Editor’s note: Can Americans still have a sensible and friendly political discussion across the partisan divide? The answer is yes, and we prove it every week with this “Friendly Fire” conversation.

Read the original article on NJ.com. Add NJ.com as a Preferred Source by clicking here.