SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), former Vice President Joe Biden, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) raise their hands during the Democratic Presidential Debate at Texas Southern University's Health and PE Center on September 12, 2019 in Houston, Texas. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
New CNN polls from two key early states released Sunday solidify the notion that the Democratic Party presidential primary has largely become a three-way race between Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren.
The new polling figures show that Sanders and Biden are tied for first place in Nevada (both receiving 22%), while a third-place Warren trails slightly at 18% -- just four points behind and within the margin of error. In Nevada, the state survey (pdf)--coupled with national demographic trends--suggests Sanders first-place finish has much to do with his strong support from Latinx voters and the working class.
In Nevada, notes CNN, Sanders "does about twice as well among whites without a college degree in our sample than whites with a college degree. That matches what we see nationally." With Warren surging in other recent state and national polls, CNN political analysis Henry Enten said "our Nevada poll is the best news for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders by far" over the last couple of weeks.
In South Carolina, meanwhile, the poll (pdf) shows Biden with 37% -- a more commanding lead over Warren's spot in second place with 16% and Sanders' 11% which landed him in third place. Both in Nevada and South Carolina, no other candidate escaped low single digits.
\u201cNew CNN poll of likely Dem primary voters in SC:\n\nBiden - 37%\nWarren - 16%\nSanders - 11%\nButtigieg - 4%\nHarris - 3%\nSteyer - 3%\n\nAnd NV caucus goers:\n\nBiden - 22%\nSanders - 22%\nWarren - 18%\nHarris - 5%\nButtigieg - 4%\nSteyer - 4%\nYang - 3%\n\nhttps://t.co/I4SnWj9O8o @jennagiesta\u201d— Dan Merica (@Dan Merica) 1569759224
According to Enten's review of the South Carolina data:
Perhaps the biggest question of the Democratic primary race is whether Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren can extend her appeal beyond her white well-educated base. Specifically, can she earn the support of black voters, who are the base of the Democratic Party?
Our South Carolina poll suggests the Massachusetts senator has a lot of work to do. She gets only 4% of the black likely primary voters. That looks quite similar to the 2% Warren was earning amongst this group in previous polls by Fox News and Monmouth University.
For comparison, Warren's at 28% among white voters in our South Carolina poll.
While Biden received the support of 45% of black voters in the South Carolina poll, Sanders was at 13% compared to Warren's 4%.
"Black voters, of course," notes Enten, "make up a majority or near a majority of Democratic primary voters in southern primaries such as Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina. Warren's going to run into some major problems in southern primaries if she can't do better with this bloc of voters."
As Vox's Dylan Scott detailed last week, there is much evidence now to support the idea that the primary has become a three-way race:
The three leading candidates have pulled away from the rest of the field. Sen. Kamala Harris and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg have enjoyed moments of strong polling, but they haven't been able to sustain it. Others -- Sen. Cory Booker, former Rep. Beto O'Rourke, Sen. Amy Klobuchar -- are still languishing in the low single digits after months of campaigning. They are starting to confront the real possibility of getting cut from future debates, as the Democratic National Committee raises its standards.
Biden still enjoys a decent polling lead in national polls, according to the Real Clear Politics average, but Warren has been steadily rising behind him, and Sanders still carries a lot of support.
With announcement this week of an official impeachment inquiring into President Donald Trump by House Democrats, the stakes of the 2020 elections continue to rise. One thing national polls have repeatedly shown is that Biden, Sanders, and Warren all beat Trump in hypothetical general election matchups.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
New CNN polls from two key early states released Sunday solidify the notion that the Democratic Party presidential primary has largely become a three-way race between Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren.
The new polling figures show that Sanders and Biden are tied for first place in Nevada (both receiving 22%), while a third-place Warren trails slightly at 18% -- just four points behind and within the margin of error. In Nevada, the state survey (pdf)--coupled with national demographic trends--suggests Sanders first-place finish has much to do with his strong support from Latinx voters and the working class.
In Nevada, notes CNN, Sanders "does about twice as well among whites without a college degree in our sample than whites with a college degree. That matches what we see nationally." With Warren surging in other recent state and national polls, CNN political analysis Henry Enten said "our Nevada poll is the best news for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders by far" over the last couple of weeks.
In South Carolina, meanwhile, the poll (pdf) shows Biden with 37% -- a more commanding lead over Warren's spot in second place with 16% and Sanders' 11% which landed him in third place. Both in Nevada and South Carolina, no other candidate escaped low single digits.
\u201cNew CNN poll of likely Dem primary voters in SC:\n\nBiden - 37%\nWarren - 16%\nSanders - 11%\nButtigieg - 4%\nHarris - 3%\nSteyer - 3%\n\nAnd NV caucus goers:\n\nBiden - 22%\nSanders - 22%\nWarren - 18%\nHarris - 5%\nButtigieg - 4%\nSteyer - 4%\nYang - 3%\n\nhttps://t.co/I4SnWj9O8o @jennagiesta\u201d— Dan Merica (@Dan Merica) 1569759224
According to Enten's review of the South Carolina data:
Perhaps the biggest question of the Democratic primary race is whether Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren can extend her appeal beyond her white well-educated base. Specifically, can she earn the support of black voters, who are the base of the Democratic Party?
Our South Carolina poll suggests the Massachusetts senator has a lot of work to do. She gets only 4% of the black likely primary voters. That looks quite similar to the 2% Warren was earning amongst this group in previous polls by Fox News and Monmouth University.
For comparison, Warren's at 28% among white voters in our South Carolina poll.
While Biden received the support of 45% of black voters in the South Carolina poll, Sanders was at 13% compared to Warren's 4%.
"Black voters, of course," notes Enten, "make up a majority or near a majority of Democratic primary voters in southern primaries such as Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina. Warren's going to run into some major problems in southern primaries if she can't do better with this bloc of voters."
As Vox's Dylan Scott detailed last week, there is much evidence now to support the idea that the primary has become a three-way race:
The three leading candidates have pulled away from the rest of the field. Sen. Kamala Harris and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg have enjoyed moments of strong polling, but they haven't been able to sustain it. Others -- Sen. Cory Booker, former Rep. Beto O'Rourke, Sen. Amy Klobuchar -- are still languishing in the low single digits after months of campaigning. They are starting to confront the real possibility of getting cut from future debates, as the Democratic National Committee raises its standards.
Biden still enjoys a decent polling lead in national polls, according to the Real Clear Politics average, but Warren has been steadily rising behind him, and Sanders still carries a lot of support.
With announcement this week of an official impeachment inquiring into President Donald Trump by House Democrats, the stakes of the 2020 elections continue to rise. One thing national polls have repeatedly shown is that Biden, Sanders, and Warren all beat Trump in hypothetical general election matchups.
New CNN polls from two key early states released Sunday solidify the notion that the Democratic Party presidential primary has largely become a three-way race between Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren.
The new polling figures show that Sanders and Biden are tied for first place in Nevada (both receiving 22%), while a third-place Warren trails slightly at 18% -- just four points behind and within the margin of error. In Nevada, the state survey (pdf)--coupled with national demographic trends--suggests Sanders first-place finish has much to do with his strong support from Latinx voters and the working class.
In Nevada, notes CNN, Sanders "does about twice as well among whites without a college degree in our sample than whites with a college degree. That matches what we see nationally." With Warren surging in other recent state and national polls, CNN political analysis Henry Enten said "our Nevada poll is the best news for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders by far" over the last couple of weeks.
In South Carolina, meanwhile, the poll (pdf) shows Biden with 37% -- a more commanding lead over Warren's spot in second place with 16% and Sanders' 11% which landed him in third place. Both in Nevada and South Carolina, no other candidate escaped low single digits.
\u201cNew CNN poll of likely Dem primary voters in SC:\n\nBiden - 37%\nWarren - 16%\nSanders - 11%\nButtigieg - 4%\nHarris - 3%\nSteyer - 3%\n\nAnd NV caucus goers:\n\nBiden - 22%\nSanders - 22%\nWarren - 18%\nHarris - 5%\nButtigieg - 4%\nSteyer - 4%\nYang - 3%\n\nhttps://t.co/I4SnWj9O8o @jennagiesta\u201d— Dan Merica (@Dan Merica) 1569759224
According to Enten's review of the South Carolina data:
Perhaps the biggest question of the Democratic primary race is whether Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren can extend her appeal beyond her white well-educated base. Specifically, can she earn the support of black voters, who are the base of the Democratic Party?
Our South Carolina poll suggests the Massachusetts senator has a lot of work to do. She gets only 4% of the black likely primary voters. That looks quite similar to the 2% Warren was earning amongst this group in previous polls by Fox News and Monmouth University.
For comparison, Warren's at 28% among white voters in our South Carolina poll.
While Biden received the support of 45% of black voters in the South Carolina poll, Sanders was at 13% compared to Warren's 4%.
"Black voters, of course," notes Enten, "make up a majority or near a majority of Democratic primary voters in southern primaries such as Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina. Warren's going to run into some major problems in southern primaries if she can't do better with this bloc of voters."
As Vox's Dylan Scott detailed last week, there is much evidence now to support the idea that the primary has become a three-way race:
The three leading candidates have pulled away from the rest of the field. Sen. Kamala Harris and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg have enjoyed moments of strong polling, but they haven't been able to sustain it. Others -- Sen. Cory Booker, former Rep. Beto O'Rourke, Sen. Amy Klobuchar -- are still languishing in the low single digits after months of campaigning. They are starting to confront the real possibility of getting cut from future debates, as the Democratic National Committee raises its standards.
Biden still enjoys a decent polling lead in national polls, according to the Real Clear Politics average, but Warren has been steadily rising behind him, and Sanders still carries a lot of support.
With announcement this week of an official impeachment inquiring into President Donald Trump by House Democrats, the stakes of the 2020 elections continue to rise. One thing national polls have repeatedly shown is that Biden, Sanders, and Warren all beat Trump in hypothetical general election matchups.
"Bureau of Labor Statistics data is what determines the annual cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security benefits," said Rep. John Larson. "It should alarm everyone when a yes-man determined to end Social Security is installed in this position."
U.S. President Donald Trump's pick to replace the top labor statistics official he fired earlier this month has called Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" that needs to be "sunset," comments that critics said further disqualify the nominee for the key government role.
During a December 2024 radio interview, Heritage Foundation economist E.J. Antoni said it is a "mathematical fiction" that Social Security "can go on forever" and called for "some kind of transition program where unfortunately you'll need a generation of people who pay Social Security taxes, but never actually receive any of those benefits."
"That's the price to pay for unwinding a Ponzi scheme that was foisted on the American people by the Democrats in the 1930s," Antoni continued. "You're not going to be able to sustain a Ponzi scheme like Social Security. Eventually, you need to sunset the program."
Trump's choice for the Commissioner of the Bureau Labor Statistics called Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" in an interview:
" What you need to do is have some kind of transition program where unfortunately you'll need a generation of people who pay Social Security taxes, but… pic.twitter.com/MXL7k1C644
— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) August 12, 2025
Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), one of Social Security's most vocal defenders in Congress, said Antoni's position on the program matters because "Bureau of Labor Statistics data is what determines the annual cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security benefits."
"It should alarm everyone when a yes-man determined to end Social Security is installed in this position," Larson said in a statement. "I call on every Senate Republican to stand with Democrats and reject this extreme nominee—before our seniors are denied the benefits they earned through a lifetime of hard work."
Trump announced Antoni's nomination to serve as the next commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) less than two weeks after the president fired the agency's former head, Erika McEntarfer, following the release of abysmal jobs figures. The firing sparked concerns that future BLS data will be manipulated to suit Trump's political interests.
Antoni was a contributor to the far-right Project 2025 agenda that the Trump administration appears to have drawn from repeatedly this year, and his position on Social Security echoes that of far-right billionaire Elon Musk, who has also falsely characterized the program as a Ponzi scheme.
During his time in the Trump administration, Musk spearheaded an assault on the Social Security Administration that continues in the present, causing widespread chaos at the agency and increasing wait times for beneficiaries.
"President Trump fired the commissioner of Labor Statistics to cover up a weak jobs report—and now he is replacing her with a Project 2025 lackey who wants to shut down Social Security," said Larson. "E.J. Antoni agrees with Elon Musk that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and said that middle-class seniors would be better off if it was eliminated."
"This sends a chilling message that the U.S. is willing to overlook some abuses, signaling that people experiencing human rights violations may be left to fend for themselves," said one Amnesty campaigner.
After leaked drafts exposed the Trump administration's plans to downplay human rights abuses in some allied countries, including Israel, the U.S. Department of State released the final edition of an annual report on Tuesday, sparking fresh condemnation.
"Breaking with precedent, Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not provide a written introduction to the report nor did he make remarks about it," CNN reported. Still, Amanda Klasing, Amnesty International USA's national director of government relations and advocacy, called him out by name in a Tuesday statement.
"With the release of the U.S. State Department's human rights report, it is clear that the Trump administration has engaged in a very selective documentation of human rights abuses in certain countries," Klasing said. "In addition to eliminating entire sections for certain countries—for example discrimination against LGBTQ+ people—there are also arbitrary omissions within existing sections of the report based on the country."
Klasing explained that "we have criticized past reports when warranted, but have never seen reports quite like this. Never before have the reports gone this far in prioritizing an administration's political agenda over a consistent and truthful accounting of human rights violations around the world—softening criticism in some countries while ignoring violations in others. The State Department has said in relation to the reports less is more. However, for the victims and human rights defenders who rely on these reports to shine light on abuses and violations, less is just less."
"Secretary Rubio knows full well from his time in the Senate how vital these reports are in informing policy decisions and shaping diplomatic conversations, yet he has made the dangerous and short-sighted decision to put out a truncated version that doesn't tell the whole story of human rights violations," she continued. "This sends a chilling message that the U.S. is willing to overlook some abuses, signaling that people experiencing human rights violations may be left to fend for themselves."
"Failing to adequately report on human rights violations further damages the credibility of the U.S. on human rights issues," she added. "It's shameful that the Trump administration and Secretary Rubio are putting politics above human lives."
The overarching report—which includes over 100 individual country reports—covers 2024, the last full calendar year of the Biden administration. The appendix says that in March, the report was "streamlined for better utility and accessibility in the field and by partners, and to be more responsive to the underlying legislative mandate and aligned to the administration's executive orders."
As CNN detailed:
The latest report was stripped of many of the specific sections included in past reports, including reporting on alleged abuses based on sexual orientation, violence toward women, corruption in government, systemic racial or ethnic violence, or denial of a fair public trial. Some country reports, including for Afghanistan, do address human rights abuses against women.
"We were asked to edit down the human rights reports to the bare minimum of what was statutorily required," said Michael Honigstein, the former director of African Affairs at the State Department's Bureau of Human Rights, Democracy, and Labor. He and his office helped compile the initial reports.
Over the past week, since the draft country reports leaked to the press, the Trump administration has come under fire for its portrayals of El Salvador, Israel, and Russia.
The report on Israel—and the illegally occupied Palestinian territories, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank—is just nine pages. The brevity even drew the attention of Israeli media. The Times of Israel highlighted that it "is much shorter than last year's edition compiled under the Biden administration and contained no mention of the severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza."
Since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, Israeli forces have slaughtered over 60,000 Palestinians in Gaza, according to local officials—though experts warn the true toll is likely far higher. As Israel has restricted humanitarian aid in recent months, over 200 people have starved to death, including 103 children.
The U.S. report on Israel does not mention the genocide case that Israel faces at the International Court of Justice over the assault on Gaza, or the International Criminal Court arrest warrants issued for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The section on war crimes and genocide only says that "terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah continue to engage in the
indiscriminate targeting of Israeli civilians in violation of the law of armed conflict."
As the world mourns the killing of six more Palestinian media professionals in Gaza this week—which prompted calls for the United Nations Security Council to convene an emergency meeting—the report's section on press freedom is also short and makes no mention of the hundreds of journalists killed in Israel's annihilation of the strip:
The law generally provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, and the government generally respected this right for most Israelis. NGOs and journalists reported authorities restricted press coverage and limited certain forms of expression, especially in the context of criticism against the war or sympathy for Palestinians in Gaza.
Noting that "the human rights reports have been among the U.S. government's most-read documents," DAWN senior adviser and 32-year State Department official Charles Blaha said the "significant omissions" in this year's report on Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank render it "functionally useless for Congress and the public as nothing more than a pro-Israel document."
Like Klasing at Amnesty, Sarah Leah Whitson, DAWN's executive director, specifically called out the U.S. secretary of state.
"Secretary Rubio has revamped the State Department reports for one principal purpose: to whitewash Israeli crimes, including its horrific genocide and starvation in Gaza. The report shockingly includes not a word about the overwhelming evidence of genocide, mass starvation, and the deliberate bombardment of civilians in Gaza," she said. "Rubio has defied the letter and intent of U.S. laws requiring the State Department to report truthfully and comprehensively about every country's human rights abuses, instead offering up anodyne cover for his murderous friends in Tel Aviv."
The Tuesday release came after a coalition of LGBTQ+ and human rights organizations on Monday filed a lawsuit against the U.S. State Department over its refusal to release the congressionally mandated report.
This article has been updated with comment from DAWN.
"We will not sit idly by while political leaders manipulate voting maps to entrench their power and subvert our democracy," said the head of Common Cause.
As Republicans try to rig congressional maps in several states and Democrats threaten retaliatory measures, a pro-democracy watchdog on Tuesday unveiled new fairness standards underscoring that "independent redistricting commissions remain the gold standard for ending partisan gerrymandering."
Common Cause will hold an online media briefing Wednesday at noon Eastern time "to walk reporters though the six pieces of criteria the organization will use to evaluate any proposed maps."
The Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group said that "it will closely evaluate, but not automatically condemn, countermeasures" to Republican gerrymandering efforts—especially mid-decade redistricting not based on decennial censuses.
Amid the gerrymandering wars, we just launched 6 fairness criteria to hold all actors to the same principled standard: people first—not parties. Read our criteria here: www.commoncause.org/resources/po...
[image or embed]
— Common Cause (@commoncause.org) August 12, 2025 at 12:01 PM
Common Cause's six fairness criteria for mid-decade redistricting are:
"We will not sit idly by while political leaders manipulate voting maps to entrench their power and subvert our democracy," Common Cause president and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón said in a statement. "But neither will we call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarian tactics that undermine fair representation."
"We have established a fairness criteria that we will use to evaluate all countermeasures so we can respond to the most urgent threats to fair representation while holding all actors to the same principled standard: people—not parties—first," she added.
Common Cause's fairness criteria come amid the ongoing standoff between Republicans trying to gerrymander Texas' congressional map and Democratic lawmakers who fled the state in a bid to stymie a vote on the measure. Texas state senators on Tuesday approved the proposed map despite a walkout by most of their Democratic colleagues.
Leaders of several Democrat-controlled states, most notably California, have threatened retaliatory redistricting.
"This moment is about more than responding to a single threat—it's about building the movement for lasting reform," Kase Solomón asserted. "This is not an isolated political tactic; it is part of a broader march toward authoritarianism, dismantling people-powered democracy, and stripping away the people's ability to have a political voice and say in how they are governed."