Daily Archives: January 18, 2020

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the group that works to elect Democrats to Congress, is touting a fundraising advantage and expanding its battleground map after learning it outraised its GOP counterparts by $40 million in 2019.

The DCCC announced this week it raised $125 million last year, roughly $20 more than it raised in 2017, the last off year between elections. The fundraising was fueled by $59.6 million in grassroots contributions. At the same time, the 42 Democratic "frontline" members in competitive races raked in more than $91 million in 2019.

"We know that this gives them a huge tactical advantage in their districts because they can buy TV time at a significantly lower rate than the committee, than outside groups, than anyone else," said DCCC political director Kory Kozloski in a call with reporters. "They're going to have the resources to tell their stories in a significant way, in a way that incumbents have never had before, in a way that Democratic candidates in many cases have never had before."

Earlier this week, the National Republican Congressional Committee chair Tom Emmer revealed his committee raised $85 million in 2019, $40 million less than the DCCC. Emmer raised alarm bells to Republicans as they seek to take back the House in 2020.

"One red flag that we're going to start hitting in the next two weeks if you read about it, our members need to get their act together and raise more money," Emmer said. "The individual campaigns need to raise more money. They cannot expect somebody else is gonna do it for them."

During his 20-minute remarks, he blasted Democrats as the party of socialists and big government and argued control would be determined by what the parties had to offer referencing the economy and trade as an advantage.

As Democrats seek to defend their House majority and hold onto 30 districts President Trump won in 2016, the DCCC announced on Thursday that it is targeting five more Republican-held districts and one currently vacant seat.

Democrats are now eyeing Don Young of Alaska, Steve Watkins of eastern Kansas, Richard Hudson of central North Carolina, Dan Crenshaw of northern Houston suburbs, and newly-turned Republican Jeff Van Drew of southern New Jersey.

Democrats are also focused on keeping California's 25th district seat, vacated by Democrat Katie Hill, who resigned in October. Hill had flipped the seat in the 2018 midterm elections.

Those six additions are on top of the 39 Republican-held districts where the DCCC announced in November that it would be targeting.

"The bottom line is, House Democrats are on the offensive across the country, prepared to protect and expand the House Majority that fights for the priorities of the American people," said DCCC chair Cheri Bustos in a statement. "Our record fundraising gives us the ability to push deeper into Republican territory and hold Republicans accountable for their attacks on working families' health care."

However, among those six districts, Cook Political Report still rates Hudson's district as solidly Republican. Among the ones Cook Political Report deems competitive, it also rates Van Drew, Watkins, and Young's seats are likely Republican.

"We're going to take a hard look at every single one of these," said Kozloski when asked what resources from the DCCC might look like in the newly added more competitive districts.

Despite record fundraising by the DCCC, the Democratic National Committee trails behind the Republican National Committee in overall fundraising. The DNC announced this week it raised $95 million in 2019, including funds raised through its Democratic Grassroots Victory Fund. According to a spokesperson, it was the DNC's best off-year online fundraising in a decade, and the total raised was $30 more than what the DNC raised in 2015 while Democrats held the White House. But the RNC raised $241 million in 2019.

See the original post:

DCCC: Democrats tout fundraising advantage in 2020 congressional elections - CBS News

To paraphrase Santayana, Democrats who refuse to acknowledge Hillary Clintons failures in the 2016 election were always doomed to repeat them. Why is their primary field littered with the failed bids of woke candidates? Why is #WarrenIsASnake trending on Twitter? Because identity politics remains a political loser.

Thats the takeaway from the rapidly narrowing Democratic field, and smart liberals warned of it after 2016. Mark Lilla, writing in theNew York Times,faulted Mrs. Clinton for molding her campaign around the rhetoric of diversity, calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, LGBT and women voters at every stop. Successful politics, he noted, is always rooted in visions of shared destiny.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

Progressives heaped scorn on Mr. Lillaone compared him to David Dukeand doubled down on identity politics. Nearly every flashpoint in this Democratic race has centered on racism, sexism or classism. Nearly every practitioner of that factionalist strategy has exited the race. Mr. Lilla is surely open to apologies.

Kamala Harris created the first big viral moment when she tore into Joe Biden, absolving him of being a racist even as she accused him of working with segregationists to oppose school busing. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand didnt hold the race card but ran a campaign about womens equality, attacking any Democrat who didnt measure to her standards on abortion, child care and violence against women.

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING KIMBERLEY STRASSEL'S COLUMN IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

See the article here:

Kimberley Strassel: Why is the 2020 Democratic primary field littered with the failed bids of woke candidates? - Fox News

It is quite astonishing to see with what deadpan and neutral a tone our press and television report the open corruption and the flagrantly anti-democratic character of the Iowa caucuses.

I quote the late Christopher Hitchens because I couldnt put it better.

In a primary, eligible voters can show up anytime while polls are open, cast anonymous ballots and go home. In the caucuses, they must show up on a winter night and spend several hours jostling with neighbors and strangers as they show support for one candidate or another.

This setup favors activists who are not deterred by snow, cold and the dark.They tend to be educated and have the luxury of free evening hours. Theyre also aggressive and skilled in working the intricacies of the caucus process.

The caucuses disfavor working people who must juggle two children and three jobs. Add to that anyone who works nights at McDonalds or drives an Uber after hours. Or who depends on a public transportation system that slows down in the evening.

The obvious winners in this unfair setup are candidates with passionate followers. Bernie Sanders has notably been a beneficiary. In 2016, he did better in the caucuses, where his activists could exert control, than in the primaries, where a wider electorate cast simple ballots without pressure.

Caucuses routinely suppress voter participation, according to the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. In 2016, turnout at the Iowa caucuses was under 16%, whereas the New Hampshire primary attracted 52% of eligible voters.

Washington state, which held both a caucus and a primary in 2016, offered a real-world contrast of the two. In March that year, Sanders swept Washingtons Democratic caucus, walking off with 74 delegates to Hillary Clintons 27. When Washington held a primary two months later, Clinton won by 6%.

Only about 26,000 people voted in the Democratic caucuses, while more than 660,000 voted in the primary. The state Democratic Party is switching to a meaningful primary in 2020.

Were caucuses how a conservative state runs a general election, liberals would rightly accuse election officials of practicing voter suppression. The Supreme Court might even strike down its election laws as unconstitutional. But this is a party matter, and it is up to the Democratic National Committee to fix the problem.

In assessing a candidates ability to prevail in a general election, some members of the punditry put great importance on the level of voter enthusiasm. Should that matter? It shouldnt, not in a democracy. Votes are supposed to be equal. A vote cast with mild affection or indifference even with nose held counts every bit as much as a vote made with thumping heart.

Some friends, particularly younger ones, worship the ground Bernie walks on. I back Joe Biden but dont adore him. (I could be happy with another moderate, say, Amy Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg.) To me, Biden is a solid progressive and, more importantly, the Democrat whom President Trump most fears.

What excites me, though in a bad way, is the belief that a Sanders nomination or his trashing of the actual Democratic nominee, as he did in 2016 would deliver another four years to Trump.

Whatever the results in the Iowa caucuses, one can be confident that they will leave an exaggerated impression of the level of Sanders support. They will reveal the preference of a tiny slice of a tiny slice of the electorate and, in the Democrats case, of an electorate more heavily weighted toward the white liberal gentry than the party at large.

Only the Democratic Party can end this undemocratic means of choosing its nominees. And it should.

Froma Harrop is a syndicated columnist.

Read the original here:

Democrats should put an end to caucuses - Boston Herald

It was not that the CNN/Des Moines Register debate on the campus of Drake University was necessarily bad. But most of the dynamics on display were familiar as in, very familiar in ways that evidently suited the candidates interests in staying safe but also seemed to challenge the basic theory of the officially sanctioned Democratic National Committee debate schedule.

This was the seventh debate since last summer, and the last before the Feb. 3 Iowa caucuses. At least as I understood the hypothesis, the gradually rising thresholds to qualify for the debate stage six candidates this time compared with 20 over two nights at the first encounter last June would replace the historic role of early-state voting in winnowing the field and clarifying the race.

It is true that the field has been winnowed, but its hardly clear that electrifying debate moments along the way have played that big a role. The people bunched at the top of the race are mostly the same, led by former Vice President Joe Biden, probably the weakest debater in the top tier. Some briefly viral moments from the summer and fall passed quickly, delivered by candidates no longer in the race. With voting finally just around the corner, one might assume this latest encounter would represent a debate crescendo. In musical terms, however, it was more of a fermata the term for holding a note rather than beginning the next one with some modest variations in emphasis but no fundamentally new arguments.

By evenings end, it seemed possible that the candidates time, and for that matter the journalists, would have been more valuably devoted to individual encounters with audiences of actual early-state voters. The next big change in trajectory of the race is more likely to hinge on what they think rather than on some zinger that a candidate lets loose in a debate.

As it happened, there were only one or two of those in any event. There was an arresting moment when Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders volleyed over whether he had once told her in a private conversation as she and her campaign assert that he didnt believe a woman could be elected president. He strenuously denied saying that. She more strenuously noted of the four men on the stage that collectively, they have lost 10 elections, while she and the other woman on the stage, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, have won every single race.

So true, Klobuchar said, so true.

There was another possibly arresting exchange not shared with the rest of the class, as Warren and Sanders appeared to have a sharp moment she did not respond to his outstretched hand as they exited their lecterns at debates end.

Otherwise, it was an evening of things you know, unless you are one of the cohort of people that didnt care enough to follow the 2020 race even passingly in 2019, but with the turn of the calendar is ready to start acquainting yourself with the candidates and the choices they are offering.

You know that former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg is very articulate, and that he, Biden and Klobuchar all think the mandatory Medicare for All proposals backed by Sanders are too expensive and politically and practically unworkable. You know that Buttigieg seems to get on the other candidates nerves a bit, especially Klobuchars, as they think he is trying to cut in line on the strength of smooth talk but scant experience getting things done or proving real electability against Donald Trump.

You know that smooth talk isnt Bidens selling point, and words can elicit reactions that vary from Well, that was fairly crisp and emphatic to Whoa, that sentence is wandering nowhere even within a single answer. His Des Moines performance seemed to land around the median maybe a shade higher? of previous outings.

There were elements of what seemed like fairly obvious calculation, delivered for fairly obvious reasons. Buttigieg, who has negligible support among African Americans, kept invoking support from individuals in that community and how his policies would help Democrats largest voting bloc, which in polls so far has been loyal to Biden. The black voters who know me best are supporting me, he said, invoking support from South Bend.

Warren, meanwhile, seemed to be emphasizing a pragmatic, can-do approach, evidently a rejoinder to those who might believe she is enamored with the conceptual purity of her plans but would not be effective in Washington. She emphasized executive actions to lower drug prices that she would have legal authority to carry out as soon as she becomes president, without waiting for legislation.

None of this, however, lived up to too-optimistic projections from a POLITICO headline early Tuesday that promised the debate could be a doozy. That prediction failed due to extra o more doze than doozy.

As I write this, I hear the admonitory voice of Broder, who died in 2011, as well as those of more belligerent contemporary media critics: Why is that the test of a good debate, how colorful the exchanges or vigorous the conflict?

Some previous debates in this cycle have shown the candidates highlighting relevant differences on policy or electability without resorting to personal insults or triviality. But Im happy to plead no contest on charges of trying to cover democracy like a sporting contest to any prosecutor who truly watched the entire debate and did not even once have to scold themselves to pay attention.

During the first debates in 2019, the sheer number of candidates gave moderators a challenge of controlling the proceedings and cutting off politicians lest they attempt to filibuster. Oddly, though, Tuesdays moderators often acted like they had a herculean task to rein in candidates for going a little over time even when they did not seem to be speechifying or rudely ignoring rules.

Thank you, senator, Thank you, mayor, Thank you, Thank you dozens of times in ways that interrupted relevant answers and were often distracting.

The evening ended with questions to all candidates to address their perceived vulnerability. In Sanders case, it was polls say two-thirds of voters are unenthusiastic about voting for a socialist. CNNs Abby Phillip asked, Doesnt that put your chances of beating Donald Trump at risk?

A fair point, Sanders replied, one he had not previously considered. Actually, no, that was my own fantasy dialogue as I watched the clock and pondered what I might soon be writing. Sanders actual answer was, Nope, because people would understand that his brand of socialism is about things people will like such as universal health care and fighting climate change while he would also make the case that Trump is a pathological liar and a fraud, who actually practices socialism for polluters and wealthy self-dealers.

Similarly, Biden denied that he is not tough enough to take on Trump and his penchant for insults; Buttigieg denied that he cant expand his coalition; Klobuchar denied that her pragmatic approach is bland and uninspiring; Warren denied that she is too divisive; and billionaire Tom Steyer denied that he is just a rich guy with no other claim on peoples support.

So a debate can be helpful in getting certain things on the record. But there have been some 30 hours of Democratic debates over more than six months. At some point, proceedings must come to a close and the election really does belong to voters.

So, thank you candidates, thank you cable networks, thank you print and online partners, thank you, DNC. Just to repeat, thank you, your time is up, we will return to you when we can. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Read more:

Democrats Take a Walk on the Mild Side - POLITICO

By

LYNN ELBER AP Television Writer

January 17, 2020, 6:46 PM

3 min read

PASADENA, Calif. -- Hillary Rodham Clinton has advice for Democratic voters faced with an unsettled field of presidential contenders: pick a winner.

This is an election that will have such profound impact, so take your vote seriously, Clinton said. And for Democratic voters, try to vote for the person you think is most likely to win. Because at the end of the day, that is what will matter and not just in the popular vote, but the electoral college.

Voters must act thoughtfully because Lord knows what will happen if we dont retire the current incumbent and his henchmen, as (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi so well described them, the former first lady said.

Clinton, who won a majority of votes in the 2016 election but lost to GOP candidate Donald Trump in the electoral tally, made her comments Friday during a Q&A session with TV critics about a new Hulu documentary on her life and career, Hillary. The session largely focused on the documentary directed and produced by Nanette Burstein and ended before any questions about President Trumps impeachment trial were asked.

Former President Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 in connection with his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. He was not convicted in the Senate trial.

Hillary, which includes whats described as previously unseen footage from the 2016 campaign as part of an intimate portrait of Clinton, debuts March 6 on the Hulu streaming service.

What started out as a campaign documentary became something more expansive, said the former secretary of state for President Barack Obama.

Clinton recalled Burstein telling her it was a bigger story that needed to be told, one that was part of the arc of "womens history and advancement, choices that are made. Im not running for anything, Im not in office, so I said, Sure, why dont we give it a try. And off we went.

The filmmaker said a main goal was to help people see "this is a historical figure who is incredibly polarizing and why. When you actually get to know her and really understand the intimate moments of her life ... you realize how misguided we can be in the way we understand history and media.

Clinton was asked what she took away from the films depiction of her journey.

One was the recognition that I have been often, in my view, mischaracterized or misperceived, and I have to bear a lot of the responsibility for that. Whatever the combination of reasons might be, I certainly didnt do a good enough job to break through the perceptions that were out there, she said.

Excerpt from:

Hillary Clinton on whom she thinks 2020 Democratic voters should nominate - ABC News

An important story lost below the din of the primaries, impeachment, and rallies, is the growing party rancor toward a vocal left flank the politicians have correctly identified as weakened.

The far-left of the Democratic Party is out of the spotlight. Out of the spotlight, but clearly still within the crosshairs of their colleagues.

Its young congressional leaders, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar, the fresh-faced consciences of the swamp, are all-three the targets of finance investigations. Two are tangled in credible accusations of anti-Semitism, and one is mired in a hard-to-believe incestual infidelity scandal with a married man on her payroll.

Their outside support, which so successfully took media credit for gathering hundreds of thousands of liberals whod booked non-refundable hotels and plane tickets to Her D.C. inauguration and became the Womens March, has collapsed amid credible accusations of racism and, you guessed it, anti-Semitism. And the New York/D.C. media that ran glowing profile after fawning profile months ago dont seem to visit any more.

Somebody is at the door, though. An important story lost below the din of the primaries, impeachment, and rallies is the growing party rancor toward a vocal left flank the politicians have correctly identified as weakened.

Members of The Squads freshman congressional class, which largely ran against President Donald Trump and not for socialism, have begun to flock to Vice President Joe Biden as Sen. Bernie Sanders gathers party faithful, Politico reported Sunday. More than a dozen swing-seat freshmen have taken part in at least one private call session with Biden, Amy Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg in recent weeks, they reported, adding, A handful have already gravitated toward the former vice president, and more are expected to follow before the primary voting begins.

Days before, fellow Queens Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks openly criticized Ocasio-Cortez to Fox News for her refusal to pay congressional party dues and insistence on instead using her sizable fundraising to pay for far-left candidates and primary challenges to her Democratic colleagues.

Its no surprise Ocasio-Cortz is not paying dues to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Like leadership operations in any political party, the committee doesnt like the ideological primaries against members she has made her name on, and seek to blackball those involved in any capacity. What is a surprise is the rising willingness to publicly speak against Ocasio-Cortez and her inside and outside allies, even by a 22-year incumbent in her very neighborhood. It appears the trance is broken.

Back in Washington on Wednesday, a smiling, laughing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi named her impeachment team for the Senate trial, having delayed its date to the point that the trial will likely force Sanders and Warren off the campaign trail at a critical time. This, conservative Washington Post columnist Henry Olsen points out, will benefit Biden at the expense of his closest rivals.

Theres no definitive proof that strengthening Bidens hand was part of Pelosis otherwise-doomed ploy, but there is plenty evidence she, like all Democratic leaders, is not a fan of the rogue Sanders or his supporters in her caucus. The absence of howling protests over the delay from The Squad is entirely in line with the lack of talent for tactics they have displayed to date, and Pelosi can comfortably assume Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will take their blame if all happens as Olsen predicts.

No doubt, Ocasio-Cortezs immediate goal is her ally Sanders winning the primary. Toward that objective, the lies, back-stabbing, and attacks they have and will continue to face from former fellow travelers will be as vicious as they are relentless. Both he and she know, however, the ultimate goal is the transformation of the Democratic Party.

If they defeat the frantically-forming Biden wing of the party to win the primary, that prize will at once become more attainable and more imperiled than its been in 75 years, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelts socialist vice president was removed from the ticket and thereby ascendancy to the presidency for FDRs final re-election campaign.

A Sanders loss to Trump, which in 2020 is far more likely than it would have been in 2016, would result in party retribution against all involved. Primaries and political exiles would be sure to follow. Then, a similar fate was assured conservatives after Sen. Barry Goldwaters general election loss and, 12 years later, Gov. Ronald Reagans unsuccessful primary against sitting Republican President Gerald Ford. A political movement far stronger than Washington party politics saw to scuttling those planned executions.

This battle may be Sanderss last stand, but the war for control of the Democratic Party has just begun.

Here is the original post:

The War For The Democratic Party Will Destroy Lives, Change The US - The Federalist

Tuesday nights debate was the last one before the voting starts in Iowa, and before the debate, our forecast thought there was roughly a four-way tie for who will win the caucuses. So to get more insight into this neck and neck race, we once again partnered with Ipsos to track how the debate, hosted by CNN and the Des Moines Register, affected likely primary voters feelings about the candidates on the stage. The FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll, conducted using Ipsoss KnowledgePanel, interviewed the same group of voters twice, once on either side of the debate, to capture both the before and after picture.

To better understand which candidates did well or poorly Tuesday night, we plotted how favorably respondents rated the candidates before the debate vs. how debate-watchers rated candidates performances afterward and Elizabeth Warren, in particular, seemed to have a breakout evening according to this metric. She not only received the highest marks for her debate performance, but her scores were high even relative to her pre-debate favorability rating.

That said, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden also received medium-to-high marks for their performances, but because of their relatively high pre-debate favorability ratings, we expected a lot of voters to already be predisposed to viewing their debate performances in a positive light. So while they still did pretty well on the debate stage, they didnt exceed expectations the way Warren did. Amy Klobuchar and Tom Steyer, on the other hand, tied for the lowest overall debate grades, putting them only barely above where wed expect them to be given their pre-debate favorability ratings.

In terms of raw debate grades respondents graded candidates on a four-point scale (higher scores are better) Warren got the highest average score, closely followed by Sanders, Buttigeg and Biden.

Before debateAfter debate

Respondents could pick multiple candidates or someone else.

Unsurprisingly, given her strong debate performance, Warren was also the biggest winner in terms of attracting potential voters. She gained a little over 3 points in the share of respondents who said they were considering voting for her. Buttigieg and Klobuchar also gained roughly 2 points each in potential support. Gains were pretty small for the other candidates, though less than a point each for Biden and Sanders, and a little over 1 point for Steyer.

UnfavorableFavorableBefore debateAfter debate

We also asked likely Democratic primary voters how favorably they felt about each candidate both before and after the debate. And perhaps unsurprisingly, it was the less-well-known candidates who gained the most: Klobuchar and Steyer saw the largest jumps in net favorability (favorable rating minus unfavorable rating) 5.8 points and 5 points, respectively. Buttigieg and Warren also did well on this metric, however, with Buttigieg picking up 4.7 points and Warren 3.9 points. Sanders and Bidens net favorability, on the other hand, actually fell a bit Bidens dropped by 1.6 points, and Sanders took the biggest hit in this metric, falling by 3.6 points.

Excludes respondents who chose I don't know enough to say.

Voters were also asked what matters more to them a candidate who agrees with them on most issues or someone who would have a good chance of defeating President Trump and as you can see, there was no change in these numbers. Democratic primary voters really want a candidate who can beat Trump.

Finally, we asked respondents to estimate each Democrats chances of defeating Trump, from 0 percent (no chance) to 100 percent (certain to win). Going into the debate, as in other general-election polls, Biden was the candidate voters thought was most likely to beat Trump, on average. He still leads on that question after Tuesdays debate, with Sanders in second. But, as you can see below, Bidens average stayed essentially unchanged while all the other candidates gained ground.

Here is the original post:

Who Won The January Democratic Debate? - FiveThirtyEight

About half of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters (47%) describe their own political views as liberal, including 15% who describe their views as very liberal, according to an average of Pew Research Center political surveys conducted in 2019.

The share of Democratic voters who describe their political views as liberal has changed little over the past few years after increasing steadily between 2000 and 2016.

Liberals outnumber moderates (38%) and conservatives (14%) as a share of Democratic voters. Yet combined, conservatives and moderates continue to make up about half of Democratic voters (51%).

This analysis of changes in the self-identification of ideology among Democratic registered voters over time is based on a compilation of 239 phone surveys conducted by Pew Research Center from January 2000 through September 2019. These surveys were combined into a single, large file that allowed us to analyze data across a range of demographic characteristics, with comparisons made across different time periods. When combined, the 239 surveys represent over 150,000 interviews with Democratic or Democratic-leaning registered voters, or more than 8,000 interviews with this group each year. Yearly averages are calculated by combining all surveys for the calendar year, with appropriate weights applied.

While the ideological composition of the Democratic coalition is not much different than in 2016 when liberals constituted 45% of Democratic voters liberals make up a larger share of Democratic voters than they did in earlier presidential election years.

In 2012, when Barack Obama was reelected, a somewhat larger share of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters called themselves moderates (40%) than liberals (37%), while 19% described their views as conservative. And in 2004, when George W. Bush was reelected after defeating John Kerry, just 30% of Democratic voters called themselves liberal, while more than twice as many (66%) described themselves as moderate or conservative.

The subset of Democratic voters who describe their views as very liberal has similarly increased since 2000, though they remain a relatively small group within the party. In 2000, just 6% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters said their political views were very liberal. By 2019, 15% of Democrats described their views this way.

White Democrats remain more likely than black or Hispanic Democrats to describe themselves as liberal. In 2019, a majority (55%) of white Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters identified themselves as liberal, an increase of 27 percentage points since 2000. Among white Democrats, 19% called themselves very liberal in 2019, compared with 6% in 2000.

By contrast, more black Democratic voters continue to characterize their views as moderate rather than liberal. In 2019, 43% of black Democrats called themselves moderate, 29% called themselves liberal and 25% called themselves conservative.

Since 2000, the share of black Democrats who describe their political views as liberal has changed little, while liberal identification among white Democrats has nearly doubled.

Among Hispanic Democratic voters, 38% described their political views as moderate in 2019, while 37% called themselves liberal and 22% conservative.

A majority of Democratic voters with postgraduate experience (62%) described their political views as liberal last year, as did 56% of college graduates with no postgraduate experience. The share calling themselves very liberal was 19% among those with a postgraduate education and 18% among those with a college degree.

Fewer Democratic voters among those with some college experience but no degree (43%) and those with no college experience (34%) characterized their political views as liberal or very liberal in 2019. Just 13% of Democrats with some college education and 11% of Democrats with no college education described their own views as very liberal.

Americans descriptions of their political views are distinct from, but strongly related to, their attitudes on specific issues. Most Americans continue to express at least some mix of liberal and conservative attitudes, but the share with either uniformly liberal or uniformly conservative attitudes has grown in recent years.

Note: This is an update of a post previously published Sept. 7, 2017.

See the article here:

Liberals make up the largest share of Democratic voters, but their growth has slowed in recent years - Pew Research Center

Pelosis list reflects her desire for geographic, racial and gender diversity among the impeachment managers, and it draws from the Democratic Caucus wide swath of legal and national security-related experience.

Schiff was the de facto leader of the impeachment inquiry and has, over the years, cemented his status as Public Enemy No. 1 for Trump and his allies. During the trial, Schiff, 59, a close Pelosi ally and former federal prosecutor who earned his law degree from Harvard Law School, could be afforded an open-ended soliloquy to outline the presidents alleged misconduct. Giving Trumps political nemesis an uninterrupted stage on the Senate floor could test the notoriously mercurial presidents patience as he vacillates between a desire for a quick, dismissive trial and a robust one that includes a slate of his hand-picked witnesses. Trump has even mused about calling Schiff himself as a witness, though its highly unlikely that Senate Republicans would agree to such a move. Pelosi said Schiff will serve as the lead manager.

Nadler, a vocal Bill Clinton defender when the House impeached him in 1998, earned his spot atop the Judiciary panel in part based on a pitch that he has the constitutional know-how to lead a potential impeachment of the president. His committees efforts to pursue special counsel Robert Muellers evidence largely receded into the background while Schiffs panel led the Ukraine probe but the Judiciary Committee returned to the spotlight when it came time to draft articles of impeachment. The panel also issued lengthy reports about the constitutional underpinnings of the case against Trump, which padded Congress thin precedent on the issue. The 72-year-old Nadler, a Fordham Law School graduate, will likely buttress Schiffs presentation of facts by laying out the reason Trumps alleged offenses warrant removal from office.

Lofgren has more impeachment-related experience than perhaps any lawmaker in Washington. She was a staffer for the Judiciary Committee during the impeachment inquiry into Richard Nixon, and was a member of the panel during Bill Clintons impeachment in 1998. She ran for chair of the Judiciary Committee ahead of the swearing-in of the new Congress in 2019, but lost the race to Nadler. Lofgren, 72, was first elected in 1994 and got her law degree from Santa Clara University.

Jeffries, 49, has quickly risen through the ranks since his election to the House in 2012, and he has been floated as a future House speaker. Jeffries, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, was chosen as the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus after his party took control of the chamber in the 2018 midterm elections. He has stood out in committee hearings and on cable television as a vocal critic of Trump and a forceful Pelosi ally and defender. While dozens of House Democrats were announcing their support for an impeachment inquiry last summer, Jeffries remained aligned with the speaker, who was resisting an inquiry until the Ukraine scandal blew up. He got his law degree from New York University.

While she isnt a lawyer, Demings, 62, has an extensive background in law enforcement and was a standout during the impeachment hearings. Demings, the former Orlando police chief, is one of just two Democrats who sits on both the Intelligence and Judiciary committees, giving her a uniquely prevalent role during the Houses two-part impeachment process. She also brings geographic, racial and gender diversity to the lineup of impeachment managers a key priority for Pelosi.

Crow, 40, was a surprise choice, but Pelosi has leaned heavily on the so-called national security freshmen in the Democratic Caucus during her deliberations for the impeachment process. Crow, serving in his first term, doesnt sit on any of the committees charged with investigating Trump. But he is a former Army captain who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he received his law degree at the University of Denver. He was one of seven national security-oriented freshman lawmakers who wrote an op-ed in September calling for an impeachment inquiry after the Ukraine scandal came to light. He serves on the House Armed Services Committee.

Garcia, 69, was also an unexpected selection to be an impeachment manager, but she serves on the Judiciary Committee and is a former municipal judge in Houston. Garcia, a freshman lawmaker, brings racial, gender and geographic diversity to the lineup of impeachment managers. She received her law degree from Texas Southern University. Her district covers much of Houston, where she also served as the citys controller.

Read more here:

Meet the Democrats prosecuting Trump's impeachment - POLITICO

Tucker Carlson continued to take on the homeless crisis Friday night, this time tying itto the 2020 presidential election and asking viewers what kind of impact the election will have on the United States.

"The issues at stake are bigger than just the economy or even our foreign policy commitments. 2020 is about the broadest possible questions. What kind of country should we have? Who should live here? What will America look like 50 years from now?" Carlson asked on "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

"There are a lot of possible answers to those questions," he added, "but leading Democrats appear to have settled on their position. America, they're telling us, should be a lot more like California."

CALIFORNIA EXODUS COULD LEAD TO STATE LOSING CONGRESSIONAL SEAT, CENSUS ESTIMATES FIND

Carlson, who has covered California's problems extensively, mentioned Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg's recent comments praising the state.

"I think that California can serve as a great example for the rest of this country, Bloomberg said last week.

Carlson said he sees Bloomberg's view as being woefully outdated.

"The people who moved here in 1960 when Bloomberg graduated high school found their American dream," Carlson said. "But things have changed. Now, the children and grandchildren of those people are fleeing California."

The Golden State's problems have included health and immigration -- and residents leaving the state because of failed policies, Carlson said.

"It's messed up, really messed up," Carlson said after playing a montage of homeless people taking drugs and leaving filth in the street.

"That's right. And so finally normal people are leaving California. For decades, the state led the nation in attracting migrants from other states. Now the flow has reversed."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Carlson blamed the politicians.

"Instead of fixing the problems that are forcing people to flee," he said, "politicians here have spent the last few years on policies that are frivolous and counterproductive."

Follow this link:

Tucker Carlson: Democrats want US to be more like California -- the state that's driving residents away - Fox News