The governor’s administration may be inconsistent in its interpretation of ACCII, but the vast benefits of the public policy remain the same. So let’s set the record straight on what ACCII is and isn’t.

First and foremost, the governor’s actions exhibit blatant disregard for not only the law, but also Virginians’ health, as Clean Cars Standards would enable Virginians to avoid nearly $30 billion in health care costs and 2,700 premature deaths due to tailpipe pollution. People who live in communities located near busy roadways are at greatest risk, as reported in the American Lung Association’s 2022 report, “Zeroing in on Healthy Air.” Families on the front lines of pollution need policy protections like the ACCII.

In 2020, when the General Assembly was considering legislation to adopt Clean Cars Standards, the Virginia Auto Dealers Association (VADA) sent a letter to key General Assembly members explicitly outlining what the commonwealth needed do in order to successfully meet the standards: “Virginia should be committing today no less than $720 million over the next five years to prepare and grow market demand for EVs … Virginia does not have any consumer vehicle purchase or infrastructure incentives in place to increase the adoption of EVs. Both of these are proven ways to grow customer interest in buying EVs.”

Yet no action was taken by the commonwealth, effectively hindering ACCII’s success and sending Virginians the message that maintaining the fossil fuel status quo trumps public health.

Despite VADA’s detailed plea for EV incentives and the General Assembly’s passage of the Virginia Electric Vehicle Rebate Program in 2021, the program remains unfunded. That’s a shame, because it was designed as one of the most equitable rebates in the country, and would have put an electric vehicle within reach of many families and individuals who otherwise could not afford one while providing the incentive that Virginia’s auto dealers need to successfully sell large numbers of EVs.

Let’s also address the dubious claim that ACCII reduces consumer choice. If the standards are repealed, residents will actually have restricted choice of vehicles, because automakers prioritize delivery of electric vehicles to states that have adopted ACCII. Those states make up a significant percentage of the automobile market, and manufacturers are producing vehicles that align with the standards right off the bat.

In fact, many automakers have their own electrification goals; e.g., GM plans to eliminate tailpipe emissions from new passenger vehicles by 2035. So Virginia reversing its decision to be a Clean Cars state won’t bring back the fossil fuel Silverado or Camaro. That decision has already been made by GM.

Advanced Clean Car Standards are the low-hanging fruit on the path to reducing harmful emissions. Virginians should not be stripped of the standards that they have chosen. Residents and businesses deserve full access to the reduced operating costs that come with owning EVs, especially low-income used-EV purchasers who are afforded significant reductions in vehicle operating costs. And auto dealers should be given the tools they need to be successful in the EV economy.

Gov. Youngkin, don’t let Virginia lag behind. Invest in EV charging infrastructure, fund the EV Rebate Program and honor Virginians’ choice of Advanced Clean Cars Standards.

Cheri Conca is the transportation and smart growth program manager at the Sierra Club Virginia Chapter.

The current student loan crisis has deep roots in the rising costs of higher education and the burden placed on individuals seeking to improve their prospects through education. According to 2013 research by Susan Dynarski and Judith Scott-Clayton, skyrocketing tuition fees coupled with stagnant wage growth have made it increasingly challenging for students to finance their education without resorting to loans. Consequently, many graduates find themselves entering the workforce burdened with substantial debt, limiting their ability to invest in homes, start businesses or save for retirement.

Critics of government intervention in student loan debt argue against moral hazard, asserting that forgiving loans would incentivize future borrowers to take on excessive debt without consequences. However, research suggests that student loan forgiveness can have positive economic effects, stimulating consumer spending and boosting economic growth. A 2017 study by Marshall Steinbaum and Kavya Vaghul found that canceling student debt would lead to an increase in GDP and create more than 1 million jobs over a decade.

Moreover, addressing student loan debt aligns with principles of social justice and economic equity. According to a 2017 study conducted by Mark Huelsman and Jason Delisle, students from low-income families, who are more likely to borrow to finance their education, are disproportionately burdened by student loan debt. By alleviating this burden, the government can promote greater equality of opportunity and ensure that higher education remains accessible to all, regardless of socioeconomic background.

In addition to forgiveness, policymakers should consider reforms to the student loan system to prevent future debt crises. This includes expanding access to income-driven repayment plans, which cap monthly payments based on borrowers’ income levels, thereby making loan repayment more manageable.

Critics of student loan forgiveness often raise concerns about the fiscal impact and fairness to taxpayers. However, according to Steinbaum and Vaghul, studies suggest that the economic benefits of forgiveness could outweigh the costs, particularly if targeted to those most in need. Furthermore, the federal government already bears significant costs associated with student loan defaults and income-driven repayment plans, underscoring the need for comprehensive reform.

In conclusion, the government plays a crucial role in addressing the student loan debt crisis through a combination of forgiveness, reform and equitable policy measures. By tackling this issue head-on, policymakers can promote economic growth, reduce inequality and reaffirm higher education as a pathway to prosperity for all Americans. This action should include exploring avenues for widespread forgiveness, implementing fairer repayment options and ensuring that higher education remains accessible and affordable for all. By doing so, we not only fulfill a moral obligation to our citizens but also lay the foundation for a more equitable and prosperous society.

Darry Powell-Young, Ph.D., is a faculty member in the Department of Political Science, History and International Studies at Hampton University. He holds a doctorate in political science, with specializations in urban politics, public policy and public administration, from Wayne State University in Detroit; a dual master of public administration and public policy from Roosevelt University in Chicago; and a master of arts in political science from Wayne State.

The question isn’t whether voters are ready for a woman leader. Vice President Kamala Harris has already passed that milestone.

She has more than proved her integrity, leadership and effectiveness. Every time this sexist trope is used against Harris, voters see it for what it is — a cheap shot intended to keep her from shattering that last glass ceiling over the White House.

A better question is whether voters are ready to support that proven leader, stand behind her when she’s viciously attacked, and be her allies on the campaign trail, and, once elected, in governing.

Women know they are “ready to lead, and leading” every day — there isn’t a challenge they can’t meet or an obstacle too daunting to tackle. And they know that to win in November, Harris will have to overcome centuries of sexism and decades of extremist politics that led to Donald Trump’s rise and return.

To succeed as the first woman president, Harris must depend on a broad coalition of support, one built on shared values and fundamental rights, not partisan bickering.

As the first woman vice president — and the first Black and Asian-American woman — Harris has firsthand experience unlike any other occupant of the White House. But as a candidate, Harris will face what may be the last stand of systemic sexism in our presidential politics.

Sebastian Gorka, a former Trump administration official, used a racist phrase from the 1950s when he said this about Harris: “She’s a DEI hire, right? She’s a woman. She’s colored. Therefore, she’s got to be good.”

Less than a year ago, Pew Research surveyed voter attitudes toward women and political leadership, especially on the importance of electing a woman president and the likelihood voters saw of that happening.

Only one in four said they thought it was extremely or very likely that the U.S. would elect a woman president in their lifetime. When asked why there are fewer women than men in office, more than half (54%) said women need to do more to prove themselves, and 46% said many Americans aren’t ready to elect a woman to high office.

That’s the result of that history of sexism baked into our politics — a history we can and must change to defend our democracy.

Gender will matter in this election, just as it has in so many others — but maybe in a different way.

In 2016, 53% of white women voted for Trump, while 94% of African-American women and 69% of Latinas voted for Hillary Clinton. A repeat of that result could mean defeat for Harris.

Of course, the historic nature of Harris’s candidacy will make gender a central issue in this campaign. Her opponents will try to put her on the defensive and make her explain why her gender isn’t an obstacle. Voters will see through that one, too.

The issue of women in politics shouldn’t be an issue — it should just be a fact. And it certainly shouldn’t be a weapon to diminish and weaken our democracy.

We can’t accept a campaign system where men have a head start and the finish line is placed out of reach for many women.

More and more, today’s voters — especially younger voters — are motivated not by partisanship or personal attacks but by their values, such as the right to vote, reproductive rights, gender equality, pay fairness, and safety in school and the workplace.

Those are the cornerstones of our democracy; women can be just as vigorous defenders of democracy as anyone. If we say that democracy is the “government of the people, by the people and for the people,” then that must include all the people. All of us. Not just, as the Founders believed, other white men like themselves.

These are different times, and we are a different nation, one that we’re still creating and improving. Harris’s presidential candidacy will show how blasting gender bias in politics, along with that last glass ceiling, is a long overdue fix.

Christian F. Nunes is the president of the National Organization for Women. She wrote this for InsideSources.com.

We’ve seen this in numerous other races, including with former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Anytime a female candidate on the left is criticized, progressives complain of a “war on women” and “sexism.” This form of deflection is sexist in its own way — coddling a candidate by claiming she’s not strong enough for democratic scrutiny.

To be sure, we have too many personal attacks generally in our feverish, hyper-polarized political climate, but the brass-tacks truth is Americans don’t care that Harris is a woman, nor should they. If she loses, it will be based on the substance of her terrible policies, her inarticulate communication and her unimpressive record while in office.

It’s also impossible to claim that Harris is a victim of more venomous personal attacks than her opponent, Donald Trump, who literally took a sniper’s bullet during a political rally.

President Joe Biden dropped out, but his dismal policy record with Harris remains. Per RealClearPolitics, 68% of Americans say the United States is on the wrong track. Harris now owns that terrible ratio, especially since she helped orchestrate the effort to deceive the American public into believing that Biden’s cognitive abilities were fine.

Harris will lose because typical Americans have effectively lost thousands of dollars in wages due to the ravages of inflation wrought in part by massive government stimulus spending — leading to a staggering $35 trillion in national debt — championed by this administration and, specifically, by Harris.

Harris also owns the terrible results along our southern border — her most visible portfolio assignment from Biden. What’s shocking is that Border Patrol Chief Jason Owens said Harris has not spoken with him since he was appointed in July 2023. Harris also snubbed Owens’ predecessor, never speaking with retired Border Patrol chief Raul Ortiz during his service from August 2021 through June 2023.

Harris utterly failed on immigration, and now the highest number of people since 2001 told Gallup that illegal immigration is “a critical threat to the U.S.” and we need stronger immigration controls. Harris will lose because she’s proven her incompetence on immigration, one of the top issues voters say they care about.

In a Daily Beast column titled “America Is Ready for a Black Female President — but Not Kamala Harris,” Keli Goff rightly cites “data showing she underperforms compared to Biden among women and non-Black minorities” and “a recent poll of Black voters in swing states found that Harris polls a couple of points better than Biden — both landing in the 70s, behind former president Barack Obama, whose favorables stand at 90% and whose unfavorables are at 10%. The vice president’s unfavorables among Black voters stand at 22%.”

Goff also cites Harris’s abysmal record of staff turnover, with Harris’ office blistering through a turnover rate of 92% during the last 3 1/2 years, according to a watchdog report by Open the Books. Goff also notes Harris struggled with high staff turnover during her previous offices.

Harris will lose in November because she couldn’t persuade her party to back her during her 2020 cycle’s bid for the White House. Harris struggled to gain traction during the primary and dropped out of the race before a single ballot was cast, contrasting with another female candidate of color, former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who actually garnered delegates.

Gabbard excoriated Harris during a presidential debate about Harris’ record as a prosecutor, saying Harris “put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana” and that Harris “blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so.”

Harris will also lose because she favors a panoply of terrible policies, including job-killing business tax hikes, destroying private health insurance, banning fracking, and slapping a carbon tax on the backs of American families.

In short, it won’t be Harris’s sex that voters will reject in November. It will be her destructive ideology and policies.

Carrie Sheffield is a senior policy analyst at Independent Women’s Voice. She wrote this for InsideSources.com.

The banking system in the United States historically established practices that restricted financial access for Black communities. From the early 1800s, when depository institutions were created, Black Americans were largely barred from accessing these services. Even after slavery was abolished, discriminatory practices such as redlining and subprime lending continued to marginalize our community. As a result, many Black families relied on alternative service providers, such as churches and Black-owned insurance companies, to meet their financial needs.

Today, the racial wealth gap still remains a significant issue. The median net worth of Black families is about $24,000, compared to $250,000 for white families. Black households are also disproportionately unbanked and underbanked, with the highest rates of being denied or approved for less credit than requested, regardless of household income. These barriers have hindered the ability of Black families to build wealth and secure financial stability.

These problems are not easily solved, but the first step in closing the racial wealth gap is improving financial literacy. This education turns simple money management ideas into practical actions, enabling people to make smart decisions — from boosting credit scores to investing wisely. This basic knowledge is vital for communities that have historically been without these essential resources, and there are several local organizations doing their part in expanding access to financial education.

Richmond Heritage Federal Credit Union (RHFCU) has been a steadfast ally in addressing these financial inequities. Our mission has always been to provide fair and responsible financial services, ensuring that our members have access to the tools they need to achieve their financial goals, and we’ve taken a proactive approach to address these challenges through our offerings of financial advisory services, financial planning, estate planning and retirement planning. These initiatives are designed to empower our members with the knowledge and tools they need to achieve financial independence.

Our commitment to economic empowerment is further demonstrated through our collaborations with Virginia Union University, Bon Secours Community Hospital, Richmond Public Schools, Richmond NAACP and Self-Help Credit Union. These partnerships help us maintain our institutional and historical significance while growing our member base and advocating for financial empowerment in the Richmond community.

Not far from Richmond, several organizations in Hampton Roads have also taken up a similar mission and have achieved remarkable success. First Genesis of Virginia in Norfolk, for example, educates the Black community on financial planning and investment, empowering individuals to harness their economic power. Hampton University School of Business has demonstrated its commitment to financial literacy through its recent victory in the HBCU Financial Literacy Bowl, showcasing its students’ proficiency in financial principles. Additionally, The Urban League of Hampton Roads provides essential financial coaching and resources, helping individuals to establish good money habits and improve their financial wellbeing.

To truly address these financial disparities, we must all prioritize financial literacy and education. Richmond Heritage is committed to this mission, providing the resources and support needed to empower our members and foster financial stability. We call on our community, partners and stakeholders to join us in this effort across the commonwealth. The future is bright, but it’s in our hands to make it happen.

Tonji Coleman is the branch operations manager for the Richmond Heritage Federal Credit Union, a member of the Virginia Credit Union League. Email her at tonji.coleman@richheritage.org or reach her by phone at 804-233-8872.

But these facts come with an important caveat: America’s large shipbuilders are almost entirely propelled by military spending. While there remains a healthy industry building smaller boats such as tugs and barges, the commercial production of oceangoing vessels has been mostly offshored. And our production numbers, when compared to our geopolitical rivals, are alarming.

In 2022, for example, there were only five such vessels under construction in U.S. shipyards. In China, there were 1,794.

That gap represents a real problem. Shipyard and shipbuilding capacity translates directly to a nation’s naval production, maintenance and operational capacity. And while we have a skilled workforce with lots of knowhow, it’s not very big.

In 1975, the United States employed more than 180,000 workers in shipbuilding and had orders to produce 20 commercial ships annually. Today, there are 70,000 fewer workers, and commercial orders are in the single digits each year.

That is an alarming amount of capacity loss, and none of it is by accident. The federal government in the 1980s removed crucial support that made commercial shipbuilding viable, and other countries stepped into the vacuum. Today, China dominates commercial shipbuilding, and not because of comparative advantage. It’s because China has committed significant resources to this end.

No nation should be faulted for seeking to develop maritime capabilities. But Beijing’s ambitions go well beyond that.

Barely half of China’s 100 largest shipyards are privately owned. The support the Chinese state has extended to its shipbuilding industry includes loans from state-owned banks, equity infusions and debt-for-equity swaps, the provision of steel plate from state-owned steelmakers at below-market prices, tax preferences, grants, and financing from state-owned export credit agencies.

That adds up. Chinese support for this industry was more than $130 billion between 2010 and 2018. And this flood of capital has worked: China accounted for 76% of global shipbuilding orders in April alone. It currently has roughly 5,500 flagged merchant vessels in oceangoing service. The U.S. has fewer than 185.

When a country with such economic heft trains its sights on the dominance of a manufacturing sector, the ripple effects are global. In the U.S., it has meant the market exit of 20,500 domestic shipbuilding suppliers over the past several decades.

As I said at a hearing of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party in June, a single commercial ship can require approximately 13,000 tons of structural steel, 60,000 gallons of paint, and 130 miles of electrical cable.

But when a shipyard closes and orders dry up, demand drops for those American-made materials and all the aluminum, glass, forged products, maritime engines, springs and anti-skid grating material needed to construct modern container ships and tankers. The completion of the third Ford-class carrier under construction in Newport News is already well behind schedule because of supply chain issues. And the delays further stress the suppliers that still exist.

Deindustrialization strains our military readiness, and ours is increasingly guaranteed by Chinese sources. The federal government is subsidizing the operation of Chinese-made oil tankers to supply U.S. Navy vessels. Commercial shipyards that build and maintain U.S. navy ships purchase drydocks from Chinese manufacturers.

The Biden administration’s U.S. trade representative has announced an investigation into the anticompetitive practices of the Chinese shipbuilding industry. It sprung from a petition brought by the United Steelworkers and other unions that represent workers in U.S. shipyards, which calls for a dockage fee to be assessed on Chinese-built ships entering U.S. ports. These proceeds would go to a commercial shipbuilding revitalization fund.

This is an outstanding idea, and one Washington should enact. A dynamic shipbuilding industry is the key to supply chain resiliency and sustained power projection throughout the world. And right now, for all of America’s mighty shipbuilding capabilities, dynamic is one thing our industry isn’t.

It won’t be without a presence of a commercial market. And any attempt at rebuilding one in America must begin with addressing China’s dominance in this space.

Scott Paul is president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, with headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Correction

A correction was made on July 30, 2024: Because of incorrect information provided to The Virginian-Pilot and Daily Press, an opinion column on Sunday’s page A15 (“American security needs domestic commercial shipbuilding”) used an outdated figure when describing the number of flagged merchant marine vessels operated by the United States. The most recent figure is 185. It incorrectly stated the number of commercial ships produced annually by the United States in 1975; shipyards produced about 20 ships per year. And the federal government subsidizes the operation of Chinese-made oil tankers supplying U.S. Navy vessels, but does not directly purchase them.

Now for the good news: As a result of the recent integration of Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS) into Old Dominion University and our critically important partnership with Sentara Health, Hampton Roads is uniquely situated to face this challenge.

A few years ago, discussions began in earnest about integrating EVMS into ODU. This was neither an easy undertaking nor a new idea. This time, however, our partners — including the governor, the Virginia General Assembly, Sentara Health and community leaders — aligned behind the efforts. In early June, these groups gathered to celebrate the culmination of nearly three years of hard work. On July 1, Macon & Joan Brock Virginia Health Sciences at Old Dominion University was established, thereby creating the most complex and largest academic health sciences center in the commonwealth.

A key goal of our new academic health sciences center and partnership with Sentara is creating a robust and expanded health care workforce pipeline. Expanding medical residency and fellowship programs for physician training is a cornerstone strategy for our shared work, but expansion of these critical programs is a complex challenge due to the considerable amount of required resources. Fortunately, Sentara’s strong commitment and extensive support are helping to alleviate this issue.

Over the past 20 years, Sentara has invested substantially in our graduate medical programs nearly doubling the training positions it funds. In the 2005-06 academic year, Sentara funded 125.5 full-time equivalency residency/fellowship positions (FTEs). In 2013-14, that funding increased to 156 FTEs and for 2024-25 that funding supports 240 FTEs. Moving forward, we continue to work closely with Sentara to expand the number of residency programs we provide, specifically targeting areas of acute physician shortage and community need. In the near term, physician shortages and care gaps in areas such as anesthesiology, neurology, cardiology, rheumatology, internal medicine and rural-track primary care/family medicine are expected to be addressed through the creation and expansion of residency programs.

In addition to our collaborative efforts to enhance residency training and provide the physician workforce for the region, the merger of EVMS into ODU will result in expanded and new training programs to help address other health care workforce needs as well through our Ellmer College of Health Sciences, Ellmer School of Nursing and EVMS School of Health Professions.

Sentara’s support plays a critical role in all of these endeavors and more. In addition to residency/fellowship training, its steadfast support allows us to expand and maintain required training sites for our medical, physician assistant, surgical assistant and nurse practitioner students, as well as others. It provides needed support for research activities necessary to train the future health care workforce and it enhances our ability to recruit leadership and clinical providers to the area.

Simply put, the current and future success of Macon & Joan Brock Virginia Health Sciences at Old Dominion University could not be accomplished without our one-of-a-kind partnership with Sentara Health, which includes a commitment of $350 million over the next 10 years to support our ability to address the health care workforce needs of Hampton Roads.

Finally, we would be remiss not to mention that recruiting the best and brightest to the region just became easier thanks to our generous community leaders. Joan Brock’s gift of $20 million provides scholarships for medical students planning to stay in Virginia after residencies or fellowships. Similarly, Dennis and Jan Ellmer gave $20 million to support scholarships for students pursuing health degrees and planning to stay in Hampton Roads. These gifts, coupled with support from Sentara, are essential to our long-term success.

While challenges lie ahead, we are fully committed to put all resources to help address them. Our bold and promising future is amplified if we collectively work together and align our resources to provide a larger health care workforce and to help address the health equity in our communities.

Alfred Abuhamad, M.D., is executive vice president of Macon & Joan Brock Virginia Health Sciences at Old Dominion University and dean of Eastern Virginia Medical School. Brian O. Hemphill, Ph.D., is president of Old Dominion University.

To Republicans’ dismay, Democrats are instead falling into line like, well, the GOP used to back in the day.

Since Vice President Kamala Harris was endorsed by Biden as his successor on Sunday afternoon, her campaign says it has raised $100 million, while digital Democratic fundraiser Act Blue took in more than $90 million. By Monday, every state party chair had endorsed Harris. The governors of Illinois, Michigan Wisconsin, Minnesota and Kansas also announced their support within minutes of one another, reconstructing a “blue wall” that had been looking increasingly shaky.

By Monday evening, Harris had secured enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee.

Republicans, who built their entire campaign around running against an incumbent even older than their 78-year-old nominee, were caught flat-footed, stunned by the discipline Democrats deployed in working to bring Biden to the realization that he should step down. The drama turned out to be intense, but short-lived. Just a little over three weeks from his disastrous debate, Biden ended his bid for a second term.

Republicans were counting on a summer of infighting among top Democratic prospects. Instead, it is they who suddenly have the oldest candidate ever to run for president, and one who may have his own cognitive issues.

For all the GOP whining about the lack of “process” regarding Biden’s replacement, Democrats managed to do what Republicans could not: ease their candidate out, and in doing so, hit a reset button that allows them to potentially reframe the election on more advantageous terms.

Former President Donald Trump now can expect to get savaged by an opponent already redefining this race. As a seasoned prosecutor who brought frauds, cheats and sexual abusers to justice, Harris said in a recent appearance to a roaring crowd, “Hear me when I say I know Donald Trump’s type.”

But Trump has spent the better part of a decade tearing apart the Republican Party and reconstructing it in his own image. He can be counted on to fight as though his life and freedom depended on it, as it might, given his legal issues. Republicans have only begun to tear into Harris, and will undoubtedly be spurred on by a new Reuters Ipsos poll released Tuesday showing Harris edging past Trump with a 2-percentage-point lead (a difference within the survey’s 3% margin of error). Other polls continue to show a race in flux.

Trump has a fanatically loyal base — as evidenced by the number of ear bandages some GOP convention delegates wore in solidarity with the recent attempt on his life. But it’s also no secret that some in his party would prefer a different nominee. From old-school Reaganites to the primary voters who cast ballots for Nikki Haley long after she had left the race, the desire for an alternative to the MAGA megalomaniac has been palpable.

For Democrats, the task that lies ahead for the next 100 or so days is to sustain the outburst of unity in a party whose many elements are often at odds with one another. Like Biden, Harris in the past has struggled with low approval ratings. Her opportunity now lies in her ability to reframe the campaign around her strengths, which are significant. Chief among them is her proven ability to speak unashamedly about abortion and reproductive freedom in a way that Biden never could.

Harris and the party will have to deal with a lot of nonsense along the way. One Republican House member has already filed — pardon the expression — trumped up articles of impeachment against her.

No campaign sprints through its last 100 days trouble-free. This race, widely expected to be close, bitter and hard fought to the end, will be no exception.

Democrats have bought themselves a fresh start. They must not squander it.

Patricia Lopez is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy. She is a former member of the editorial board at the Minneapolis Star Tribune, where she also worked as a senior political editor and reporter.

Joe Biden’s weekend announcement that he would not accept his party’s nomination for another term followed what will go down in history as the single worst presidential debate performance ever.

Bad enough, in this case, to knock Biden out of a race he had already won — the Democratic primary.

The debate was a miscalculation of epic proportions. Biden’s campaign — trailing at the time but close enough to come back and win — asked for it. They scheduled it. They bragged about it. And then Biden fell on his face.

What followed has been truly stunning. Three weeks of Democrats melting down, Biden defiantly telling them to pound sand and then finally the president bending the knee in a mysterious letter posted during a weekend bout with COVID.

It was plumb weird that the White House didn’t release a photo of Biden signing the letter or meeting with his political advisors. For the most powerful person in the world to announce an Earth-shattering decision via social media without really giving a reason just adds to the humiliation for a man who had once said that only the Lord Almighty could drive him from the race.

Perhaps the Lord Almighty for Democrats is House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, who, working with former President Barack Obama and other party leaders, not to mention George Clooney and party donors, mounted the pressure campaign to remove Biden from the race.

Thou shalt have no other speakers before me, I reckon. Read this passage from Politico’s reporting about what happened:

“‘Nancy made clear that they could do this the easy way or the hard way,’ said one Democrat familiar with private conversations who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. ‘She gave them three weeks of the easy way. It was about to be the hard way.’”

President “Democracy is on the ballot” Biden found his end in the most undemocratic way possible — not at the hands of voters, but rather of the political elites.

I was right that the Democrats would turn to Vice President Kamala Harris as Biden’s replacement. Though Harris piously proclaims she wants to “earn” the nomination, anyone can see that the fix is in.

For Donald Trump’s part, he simply needs to transfer the arguments he was making against Biden to Harris. She is, after all, just as responsible for Biden’s failures as he is and carries an approval rating in the high 30s, same as the president.

Trump was already arguing that a vote for Biden was actually a vote for Harris, as nobody expected Biden to complete a second term. Trump was proven right, albeit on an accelerated timeline.

Democrats are using the talking point that Trump is now the oldest presidential candidate in American history. But Biden’s numeric age was never the problem. It was his rapid decline that had Republicans — and most Americans — exercised about Biden’s fitness for office.

Republican Nikki Haley, who lost to Trump in the GOP primary but endorsed him at the Republican Party convention, said in January, “The first party to retire its 80-year-old candidate is going to be the one who wins this election.”

Now the 2024 election will test her theory. Harris, who is 59, will be portrayed in the media as young and vigorous; Trump, old and past tense.

Trump starts ahead of Harris in the national polls. But for the next three weeks, it’s likely that Harris will receive glowing profile after profile, followed by a coronation at the Democratic National Convention.

Trump must step up the pressure and invade her political space as much as possible during this time, proving his own vigor while defining his new opponent as more extreme and incompetent than his former one. His campaign, I have no doubt, is ready to unleash just such an attack.

The question is: Will Americans hold Biden’s record against Harris? Or is simply putting a younger face on a failed administration enough to give it a second chance?

Scott Jennings is a contributing writer to the Los Angeles Times Opinion page, a former special assistant to President George W. Bush and a senior CNN political commentator. Follow him on X @ScottJenningsKY.

Health informatics is about using computer and information sciences to benefit and advance the health care industry, public health and individual patient care. Professionals in this field work to store, organize, protect, retrieve and analyze health care information from a variety of sources to meaningfully impact the delivery of health care. They apply analytic and visualization skills to learn from data, design information systems and use technology to solve public health problems.

While the focus is data science, the program is about much more than numbers. With health care disparities continuing to plague our communities, it is crucial that the health care informatics workforce is broadly inclusive to ensure cultural competence in the field. Data increasingly shapes health care, and understanding of the unique qualities and strengths of our communities is essential to using that data to benefit everyone.

Graduates of the informatics program are known as PHIT — pronounced “fit” — professionals, and their presence will expand the public health workforce and increase its responsiveness to communities.

The students I have had the pleasure of working with are passionate about solving problems. This training gives them skills to tackle issues such as disparities in health care, unequal social determinants of health, future pandemics and even climate change. Much of the PHIT curriculum is focused on developing quantitative reasoning and data literacy skills that are essential to addressing these issues.

PHIT professionals are in demand at a wide variety of organizations such as hospitals, private health care practices and pharmaceutical companies. Students in the NSU Master of Health Informatics program engage with health care practitioners and expand their experience through paid internships. When they complete the program, they are positioned for a variety of career opportunities, and they will be able to combine their newly developed skills and unique perspectives to address pressing issues.

Community partners to the NSU master’s degree program ensure real-world connections for students. Hampton Roads Community Health Center and Virginia Department of Health help develop the curriculum, and these partners provide internships and career contacts.

The PHIT program is a great option for undergraduate students who wish to pursue a career in health IT; professionals with a bachelor’s degree who are already in the workforce and want to advance their careers; first responders who wish to expand their leadership skills by acquiring informatics skills; and nurses who did not receive formal informatics instruction as part of their nursing education. With the exception of the in-person internship, all courses in the curriculum are taught online.

To learn more, visit the Masters in Health Informatics webpage at the Norfolk State website, nsu.edu.

Marie St. Rose, Ph.D. is the director of the Norfolk State University Public Health Informatics and Technology program and the director of Allied Health in the Department of Nursing and Allied Health. This project is supported by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number: 90PH0002; Public Health Informatics & Technology Workforce Development Program (The PHIT Workforce Development Program) for $5,088,354. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by ONC, HHS or the U.S. government.