Biden also leads vote counts in the battlegrounds of Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Arizona.

A Biden win would see Trump leave office in January after four years.

“We’re going to win this race,” Biden told supporters in Wilmington, Delaware, on Friday night, striking an increasingly confident tone as vote tallies showed his lead extending, BBC reported.

He was joined by his running mate, California Senator Kamala Harris.

He said he was on track to win more than 300 Electoral College votes and pointed out that more people had voted for his campaign – over 74 million people – than any US presidential candidate in history.

Biden said Americans had given him mandate to tackle the coronavirus pandemic, the struggling economy, climate change and systemic racism.

The Democrat – presenting himself as the candidate of unity after a bitterly fought campaign – said it was time to “get the vitriol out of our politics” and “be civil to one another”.

The post Biden predicts victory over Trump as counts go on appeared first on Iran News Daily.

The post Over 10 Million Early Votes in US Presidential Election appeared first on Iran News Daily.

“Impeachment is certainly a domestic US affair. Neither the grounds, nor the procedures nor the prospects are clear now. There are grounds to believe that the outcome of this situation will depend not on the substance of the issue but on the interests of conflicting sides in the context of the 2020 election campaign. Certainly, this does not add trust in the sincerity of these impeachment initiators,” Kosachev told TASS.

The decision on launching an impeachment inquiry was announced after House Democrats held a closed-door meeting on Tuesday. The meeting discussed possible grounds for a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump after reports about his alleged attempts to exert pressure on Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky to hurt his Democratic rival Joe Biden.

Trump’s political opponents alleged that in his July phone conversation with Zelensky, Trump hinted that he would withhold military aid to Ukraine if Kiev refused to launch an investigation against former US Vice President Biden and his son. They claimed this move would help Trump’s re-election chances in 2020.

The post Russian Senator Links Trump’s Impeachment Inquiry to 2020 Election appeared first on Iran News Daily.

As The Hill reported, President Trump’s approval rating held steady in July amid stable job growth and fresh controversy over the president’s attacks against four minority congresswomen, according to a new Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released exclusively to The Hill.

Forty-five percent of respondents in the poll said they approve of the job Trump is doing, up 1 point from a similar survey the previous month.

The poll was conducted at the tail end of a tumultuous month in which the president unleashed a series of attacks against Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) and Ayanna Pressley (Mass.).

In one tweet, Trump told the lawmakers — all of whom are U.S. citizens with each being born in the United States except Omar, who came to the country as a refugee — to “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

Adding to the tumult of July was the Federal Reserve’s decision to cut interest rates for the first time in a decade — to counter looming economic uncertainties — as well as former special counsel Robert Mueller’s dramatic testimony on Capitol Hill. Mueller testified before the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees on his now-defunct investigation into whether the president’s campaign conspired with Russia during the 2016 election. He was questioned by lawmakers for hours about his decision not to come to a conclusion on whether the president obstructed justice.“Despite the turbulence of the tweets and tariffs, Trump’s ratings have remained as steady as the economy and may be showing an uptick,” said Mark Penn, the co-director of the Harvard CAPS/Harris poll.

Trump gets his highest marks for stimulating jobs as well as for his handling of the economy — 57 percent each, according to the latest survey. And more than half of respondents, 54 percent, said they approve of his job combatting terrorism. But approval of Trump’s work administering the government is underwater at 43 percent, according to the poll. His handling of foreign affairs doesn’t fare any better, with just 43 percent of respondents approving.

The Harvard CAPS/Harris poll surveyed 2,214 registered U.S. voters online from July 31 to Aug. 1. The Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll is a collaboration of the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University and The Harris Poll. The Hill will be working with Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll throughout 2019. Full poll results will be posted online later this week. The Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll survey is an online sample drawn from the Harris Panel and weighted to reflect known demographics. As a representative online sample, it does not report a probability confidence interval.

Sanders edges Trump by 1 point in Rasmussen poll

A general election Rasmussen Reports poll released Friday shows Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) leading President Trump by 1 percentage point in a hypothetical 2020 head-to-head, within the survey’s margin of error.

In the hypothetical match-up, Sanders had support from 46 percent of likely voters while Trump had support from 45 percent, according to the Rasmussen poll. In a previous poll from the conservative-leaning Rasmussen in April, Trump was leading Sanders, 47 percent to 44 percent.

In the latest match-up, Sanders would have 75 percent of the Democratic vote, up to one point from the April survey, while Trump would bring in 80 percent of the Republican vote, down from 83 percent in the past poll.

Thirty-three percent of all respondents think Trump will be defeated next year by the eventual Democratic nominee, the survey says. Forty-six percent say he is likely to be reelected, and 11 percent believe he will be impeached before the end of his first term.

Researchers surveyed 5,000 likely voters between July 21 and 25 and July 28 and Aug. 1. The results have a margin of error of plus or minus 1.5 percentage points. Sanders is among more than two dozen people vying for the 2020 Democratic nomination. He has consistently polled near the top of the field and is one of just eight candidates to thus far qualify for the September debates.

A Fox News poll from last week showed Sanders besting Trump by 6 points, while former Vice President Joe Biden held a 10-point advantage over the commander in chief.

The post Two new polls in the U.S., Sanders is still ahead of Trump appeared first on Iran News Daily.

For their part, moderates pushed back as they tried to define themselves on health care and decriminalizing the border. Mostly, though, their highlighting of ideological differences within the party offered Warren and Sanders a tune-up for higher-stakes showdowns this fall against the Democratic front-runner, former Vice President Joe Biden. Here are seven takeaways from Tuesday night, the first of the two nights of CNN’s Democratic debate in Detroit:

1. Warren and Sanders swat away their critics

Former Maryland Rep. John Delaney’s argument for pragmatism midway through the debate teed Warren up — and she landed a haymaker.

“I don’t understand why anybody goes to the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for,” Warren said.

The crowd erupted. Before the debate ended, Delaney’s Wikipedia page had been updated to say he’d died at Warren’s hands in Detroit.

It wasn’t the only time Warren took on Delaney. Early on, she called his attacks on “Medicare for All” proposals “Republican talking points.”

Then there was Sanders’ retort when Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan told him that “you don’t know that” as he questioned the coverage Medicare for All would provide.

“I do know. I wrote the damn bill,” Sanders shot back.

The visuals were memorable, too. Sanders at one point threw his hands up at Hickenlooper. Warren rubbed her hands at the thought of implementing her 2% wealth tax on Delaney’s $65 million personal fortune.

Delaney, Ryan, former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock all went at Sanders and Warren from the right. Delaney began the debate by comparing the two to failed Democratic nominees George McGovern (1972), Walter Mondale (1984) and Michael Dukakis (1988).

The problem facing the moderates is that their arguments largely consisted of dire warnings about the political consequences of moving too far left. They didn’t offer Democratic voters an alternative vision for a post-Trump America. It’s why none of them landed real blows on Warren or Sanders all night. If anything, sparring with the low-polling quartet served to sharpen Warren and Sanders for the fights against stronger opponents ahead.

2. No daylight between Warren and Sanders

The top two-polling progressives in the Democratic field were positioned on stage next to each other Tuesday night. But they showed no appetite for a fight with each other. Instead, Warren and Sanders largely stood together, beating back moderate critics all night.

The two are courting different voters right now, but eventually, one of them will need to consolidate progressive support to win the Democratic nomination. Still, Tuesday night showed that the time to turn against each other could be months away. Both are considered top-tier candidates who poll viable and are raising money effectively, and both appear to believe it’s far too early to take such a risk.

3. ‘Dark psychic force’

Author Marianne Williamson provided one of the night’s most memorable moments when she addressed the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, with a stirring condemnation of environmental racism — and other candidates’ approach to talking about it.”This is part of the dark underbelly of American society, the racism, the bigotry, and the entire conversation that we’re having here tonight — if you think any of this wonkiness is going to deal with this dark psychic force of the collectivized hatred that this President is bringing up in this country, then I’m afraid that the Democrats are going to see some very dark days,” she said.

“We need to say it like it is,” Williamson said. “It’s bigger than Flint. It’s all over this country. It’s particular people of color. It’s particular people who do not have the money to fight back, and if the Democrats don’t start saying it, why would those people feel they’re there for us? And if those people don’t feel it, they won’t vote for us and Donald Trump will win.”

The answer was a reminder of how powerful the perspective of a political outsider can be in presidential races. Williamson is a low-polling long-shot but generated buzz with her condemnation of “wonkiness” on racism.

4. Seeking a middle ground on health care

The debate began with a battle over health care dominated by Sanders and Warren defending Medicare for All against Delaney, Hickenlooper, and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, who cast it as politically fraught in a general election. Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg sought middle grounds — and their answers on health care underscored where they are trying to fit into the Democratic field. O’Rourke touted a plan called “Medicare for America.” It would enroll uninsured Americans in Medicare, and allow those who are dissatisfied with their private insurance to opt into Medicare — while retaining private insurance for those who wish to keep it.”Our plan ensures everyone is enrolled in Medicare or can keep their employer-sponsored insurance,” he said. Buttigieg argued for a similar approach — and said Democrats should stop worrying about being called socialists by Republicans over the health care policies they back.

“If it’s true that if we embrace a far-left agenda, they’re going to say we’re a bunch of crazy socialists. If we embrace a conservative agenda, you know what they’re going to do? They’re going to say we’re a bunch of crazy socialists,” he said. “So let’s just stand up for the right policy, go out there and defend it.”

5. Arguments for reparations

Asked about racism, O’Rourke was the first Democrat on stage to argue for a step toward reparations.

“The very foundation of this country — the wealth that we have built, the way we became the greatest country on the face of the planet — was literally on the backs of those who were kidnapped and brought here by force,” he said.O’Rourke said he backs legislation by Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee that would create a commission to study reparations.

It was an effective moment for O’Rourke — who, like Buttigieg, Williamson and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar — didn’t end up playing a part of the memorable clashes with other candidates, because they didn’t fit into the progressives-vs.-moderates theme that Warren, Sanders and their critics established early on.

Williamson also had a moment as she defended her plan to offer $200 billion to $500 billion in reparations.”We need to recognize when it comes to the economic gap between black and whites in America, it does come from a great injustice that has never been dealt with,” she said.

6. Trying to make moments

Klobuchar struggled more to get into the action. She didn’t attack Warren and Sanders the way others did, and there are reasons for her approach — Klobuchar could end up a viable contender for the vice-presidential nomination. But she did stake out moderate ground in her opening statement.

“You’re going to hear a lot of promises up here, but I’m going will tell you this,” she said. “Yes, I have bold ideas but they are grounded in reality. And, yes, I will make some simple promises. I can win this. I’m from the Midwest. And I have won every race, every place, every time.”

Buttigieg’s best moment came when he made the case for structural reform to the American political system — the issue on which his proposals have been the furthest-reaching in the Democratic field.

“Of course we need to get money out of politics, but when I propose the actual structural democratic reforms that might make a difference — end the electoral college, amend the Constitution if necessary to clear up Citizens United, have D.C. actually be a state, and depoliticize the Supreme Court with structural reform — people look at me funny, as if this country was incapable of structural reform,” Buttigieg said.

“This is a country that once changed its Constitution so you couldn’t drink and changed it back because we changed our minds and you’re telling me we can’t reform our democracy in our time. We have to or we will be having the same argument 20 years from now.”

7. Ideological split on decriminalizing the border

Mirroring the debate on health care, progressives and more moderate candidates split on the question of whether to decriminalize crossing the border illegally. Warren said the current law “has given Donald Trump the tool to break families apart.” Sanders also said he would decriminalize crossing the border.

But more moderate candidates said they would retain laws against crossing the border illegally.”We can argue over the finer points of which parts should be handled by civil law and criminal law,” Buttigieg said.

He later added: “If fraud is involved, that’s suitable for the criminal statute. If not, it should be handled under civil law.”

O’Rourke said he would waive green card fees, give so-called “Dreamers” — undocumented immigrants who were brought into the US as children — citizenship, ease the process of seeking asylum and aid struggling Central American countries.

“Then, I expect that people will come here, follow our laws, and we reserve the right to criminally prosecute them if they do not,” he said.

Hickenlooper said: “I agree that we need to secure borders. There is no question about that. The frustration with what’s going on in Washington is they are kicking the ball back and forth. Secure the borders and make sure whatever law we have doesn’t allow children to be snatched from parents and put in cages.”

The post A narrative of the Democratic primary election battle appeared first on Iran News Daily.

The post Anger at Donald Trump from Fox News appeared first on Iran News Daily.

Everyone remember that over Obama’s presidency and after they signed the nuclear deal with Iran, the United States Department of Treasury still prevented the actual removal of sanctions and inhibited their banking system from having normal transactions with Iranian banks. Additionally, they were Democrats who installed a set of legal and political conditions that later allowed Trump to pull out of the nuclear deal.

In fact, Democrat leaders believe that if they go back on the nuclear deal, they should wring more concessions out of Iran. By new concessions, they mean that the temporary limits defined for Iran in the deal should become permanent and eventually to dismantle Iran missile defense.

On this topic, Foreign Policy has recently published a report by Ilan Goldenberg and Eric Brewer. Ilan Goldenberg was the senior advisor to John Kerry, former U.S. Secretary of State and Eric Brewer is a Council on Foreign Relations international affairs at the Center for a New American Security.

The report suggest that the U.S. next president should rejoin the deal but only after they get new concessions from Iran:

“A future president should use the leverage gained from Trump’s exit—however much they might disagree with that decision—to come to some preliminary understandings with Iran on the many issues of contention that remain in the relationship and on the future of Iran’s nuclear program. The message to Iran and the world should be: We absolutely expect to rejoin the agreement, but first, we need to talk.”

These statements clearly show that Democrats have planned a complex scheme for their return to Iran nuclear deal, in case they win the elections. The mastermind behind this multilayered scheme is obviously John Kerry and his special advisors.
Goldenberg goes on as saying that “since Tehran has decided that abiding by the nuclear deal is in its interests despite Washington’s withdrawal, a U.S. return and the corresponding sanctions relief would essentially be a unilateral concession to Iran. Washington will have the ability to ask for something in return.”

It is clear what Democrats mean by “something in return”; they seek to constrain Iran’s missile program and power in the region, in exchange for reviving the “dead” and “distorted” JCPOA with putting even more restrictions on Iran in comparison to when Barack Obama was in office.

This scheme devised by John Kerry for Iran will become even more complicated when they start to request other international players to join this scheme.

If Democrats win the 2020 presidential election, he will definitely try to drag the European troika into this scheme of “redefining the JCPOA based on U.S. benefits”, the same as what Trump did in 2017 before he finally thwarted the deal.

However, the Democrats’ scheme is different from that of Trump’s, as Democrats are trying to forge general consensus to “restrain the powerful Iran”.

Democrats’ role in U.S. withdrawal from nuclear deal

It is also worth noting that Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal only became possible due to the set of legal and political conditions that democrats installed in the first place! In fact, before leaving the nuclear deal all together, Trump used these conditions as “triggers” which allowed him to justify himself in abandoning the deal.

Moreover, it was Democrats who set a precedent so as the U.S. president should “waive the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions” every 120 days. They were Democrats who put the fate of the Iran nuclear deal in the hands of every incumbent president. So, it can be concluded that, apart from Trump administration, Democrats should also be widely blamed for the shutdown of Iran nuclear deal.

Democrats planning for dissolution of the region

Democrats have very dangerous strategies in regard to West Asia and North East Asia and generally the Muslim world. For example, Joe Biden, one of the primary democrat candidates in 2020 presidential elections, has a dangerous and aggressive theory for “dividing Iraq”.

He believes that not only Iraq, but also other countries in West Asia and North Africa should be divided based on religious, ethical, and geographical features. He is in favor of strategies to turn these regions to a “scattered”, “fractured” zone where Washington and Tel Aviv can easily expand their authority.

By taking such strategies, Biden hopes to get the unconditional support of Europeans and other traditional Washington allies.

Starting proxy wars, supporting terrorist and Takfiri groups and pressuring the countries until they fall apart are all among the plans that Democrats have for Muslim countries in the region.

It is worth mentioning that Democrats played an important role in the creation of the terrorist group, ISIS during Obama’s presidency.

U.S. commitments means nothing

Violation of JCPOA revealed that the promises, commitments or deals made by any U.S. official, whether democrat or republican, have absolutely no credibility. The next U.S. president will follow in the footsteps of former untrustworthy presidents. It doesn’t matter who wins the next elections, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden or even Trump again!

Whether democrat or republican, the white house officials are not going to keep their commitments. By “abandoning the JPOCA” Trump proved the unreliability of U.S. promises and the next administration, if a democrat one, will do the same after staging a “fake return to Iran nuclear deal”.

Relying on any deal or contract that is signed an approved by U.S. officials, is not only a tactical but also a strategic mistake and would be to the cost of our economy as well as political stability.
We have already learned this bitter lesson by signing JCPOA and facing the events that succeeded it. Clearly, it is not the time for taking our chances and making yet another mistake.

The outcome of conflicts between Iran, Republicans and/or Democrats 

Donald Trump has ominous plans for Iran, and so do the Democrats.

White House intends to put extensive economic sanctions on Iran and reduce its power in the region at the same time.

In other words, the full-fledged anti-Iran scheme that Jimmy Carter adopted after the Iranian revolution in 1979 is now once again started by Trump, yet with using other means and methods.

In this scheme, there would be no difference between Democrats and the Republicans.

Now that Trump’s plans against Iran have been proven fruitless after two years that he has been in the office, other theories are gaining ground in U.S. political arena, especially that of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former U.S. National Security Advisor.

Before his death, Brzezinski said that the only solution for U.S. is to try to recognize “the powerful Iran” and how to live with it.

Finally, it seems that both Democrat and Republican parties have no fate other than failure in interaction with Iranian nation and government; and this would be the fate of Trump and any other president who comes after him.

The post Will U.S. next administration rejoin Iran nuclear deal? appeared first on Iran News Daily.