Category Archives: Democrat

Progressives are preparing to try to clear out Democrats they say are hampering their ability to remodel the country while their party still controls Congress.

They see the skeleton Build Back Better (BBB) package and failed voting rights bill as warning signs that a few stubborn lawmakers can and, if given the chance, will block and blow up the liberal vision they had dreamed about enacting when President BidenJoe BidenFormer chairman of Wisconsin GOP party signals he will comply with Jan. 6 committee subpoena Romney tests positive for coronavirus Pelosi sidesteps progressives' March 1 deadline for Build Back Better MORE took office.

When things fell further apart last week, leaving the president and congressional Democrats scrambling for a way to advance their two main priorities, progressives saw a clear fix to all of it: primary challenges ahead of November.

We need strong progressives in Congress to have some sort of counterweight and leverage against the conservative, corporate backed Democrats who are an obstacle to delivering results, said Waleed Shaheed, a spokesperson for Justice Democrats,a progressive group that has backed several liberal challengers to Democratic incumbents in recent years.

These primaries are where those seats come from, where that leverage comes from, he said.

Manyonthe left are outraged that Sens. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinPelosi sidesteps progressives' March 1 deadline for Build Back Better On The Money Fed's inflation tracker at fastest pace since '82 Billionaire GOP donor maxed out to Manchin following his Build Back Better opposition MORE (D-W.Va.) and Krysten Sinema (D-Ariz.) joined Republicans last week in opposing a rule changeto the filibusterand in doing so killed off a voting rights bill. They are equally furious that the same two holdouts, particularly Manchin, sank Bidens social and climate spending package.

While both bills have defined Bidens first year in office, progressives see them as just the start.

They believe the moderate duo in the Senate and many more in the House will vote against their proposals as often as possible in 2022 and 2024, creating further pressure to oust them from within their own ranks before it gets to that point.

Manchin and Sinema arent up for reelection in 2022, but here are five moderate Democrats the left plans to target:

1) Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas)

Jessica Cisneross quest to remove longtime moderate Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas) from his position as a key centrist negotiator on Capitol Hill has attracted the most progressive energy this cycle.

Cuellar, a 10-term incumbent currently embroiled in an FBI investigation for alleged improper ties to Azerbaijan, is one of progressives biggestpotential gets.

He was seen as a major barrier to left-wing lawmakers goal of keeping Bidenssocial safety net packagelinked to the bipartisan infrastructure bill in November, arguing that he and others in similar positions in conservative districts needed an accomplishment to talk up back home.

Cisneros, a working class Mexican American woman, has a very different vision.

She gained someprominence forchallenging Cuellar for the same seat in Texass 28thCongressional District in 2020. And since then, progressives have become more interested in her candidacy. Like many on the left, she is firmly against corporate money in politics, particularly from the fossil fuel industryin the oil-rich state.Cuellar has sustained pushback from liberals over his ties to Big Oil.

While Cisneros is backed by liberal lawmakers, Cuellar, whos held his seat since 2005, has establishment weight behind his bid, including Majority Leader Steny HoyerSteny Hamilton HoyerClyburn calls for full-court press on voting rights Biden talks climate and child care provisions of Build Back Better agenda with top CEOs The Hill's Morning Report - Biden: Russia attack 'would change the world' MORE (Md.), the No. 2Democrat in the House. Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiPelosi sidesteps progressives' March 1 deadline for Build Back Better Let's 'reimagine' political corruption Briahna Joy Gray discusses Pelosi's 2022 re-election announcement MORE (D-Calif.) has remained neutral so far, butsupportedhim last cycle against Cisneros.

2) Rep. Carolyn MaloneyCarolyn MaloneyOvernight Defense & National Security Inside Austin's civilian harm directive House committee to hear from former Washington Football Team employees on misconduct claims House Dems seek to advance Equal Rights Amendment after new DOJ opinion MORE (N.Y.)

Rana Abdelhamid is progressives biggest chance to create a liberal trifecta in deep blue New York.

Abdelhamid, a 28-year-old Muslim woman, is competing againstRep. Carolyn Maloney, a nearly three decade House veteran, for a shot at the 12thCongressional District of the state where Democrat-on-Democrat action is something of a blood sport.

In Abdelhamid, top strategists see an opening to recreate the fire theyve captured cycle after cycle in the state that sent Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezOcasio-Cortez: Supporting Sinema challenge by someone like Gallego would be easy decision New Mexico Democrat tests positive for COVID-19 breakthrough case Warner tests positive for breakthrough COVID-19 case MORE and Jamaal Bowman to Congress against their more well-known and well-funded incumbent opponents.

The millennial progressive told The Hill she hopes that she can draw a contrast between her establishment rivalbacked by Wall Street and real estate who, she adds, has held this seat for as long as I have been alive.

We saw how important it is to have real progressives in Congress during the fight for Build Back Better,Abdelhamid said.We need leaders who will fight as hard as the people of this district already do.

3)Rep. Danny K. Davis (Ill.)

Activists desperate to send another social justice advocate to Capitol Hill have set their sights on Kina Collins, a young, Black gun violence prevention activist with ties to community organizing.

If Collinss story sounds familiar, its because it is strikingly similar to another progressive recruit from the activist class, Rep. Cori BushCori BushLaquan McDonald's family pushes for federal charges against officer ahead of early release Rep Cori Bush says 'gun violence shakes your soul' after car struck by gunfire Five Democrats the left plans to target MORE (D-Mo.), who rose to power and prominence by defeating longtime Rep. Wm. Lacy ClayWilliam (Lacy) Lacy ClayFive Democrats the left plans to target The FCC must act to promote minority-owned broadcasting Cori Bush hits her stride by drawing on activist past MORE (D-Mo.) amid an uproar over racial unrest.

Operatives see parallels between Bush and Collins, who is taking on Rep. Danny K. Davis, a 13-term lawmaker and member of the Congressional Black Caucus, in Illinois's 7thCongressional District.

Davis, progressives contend, is too closely tied to corporate money, which they say has long influenced his decision making, whereas Collins relies exclusively on small-dollar donations tofundher insurgent bid.

Illinois's7th District is one of the most unequal districts in the country, yet our representative Danny DavisDaniel (Danny) K. DavisFive Democrats the left plans to target Don't just delay student debt, prevent it Illinois Democrats propose new 'maximized' congressional map MORE has stopped showing up in the community, misses votes, and takes money from corporate donors, Collins said.

LikeAbdelhamid, Collins believes the ongoing struggle and public spectacle around passing Democrats social spending plan further spotlighted the need for her candidacy and others challenging lawmakerswholiberalssay are slowing things down.

We need progressive fighters, she said.

4) Rep. Tim RyanTimothy (Tim) RyanCooper becomes latest House Democrat to not seek reelection Marjorie Taylor Greene endorses JD Vance in Ohio Senate race The Hill's Morning Report - Biden, NATO eye 'all scenarios' with Russia MORE for Ohio Senate

Columbus native Morgan Harper, a former adviser for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is challenging moderate Rep. Tim Ryan in the states Democratic Senate primary, a race thats attracting national eyeballs.

Harpers rsum reads a bit like Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenDemocrats press cryptomining companies on energy consumption Ocasio-Cortez: Supporting Sinema challenge by someone like Gallego would be easy decision Over 80 lawmakers urge Biden to release memo outlining his authority on student debt cancellation MOREs (D-Mass.). A lawyer and policy wonk, but from the Midwest, not Massachusetts.

She hopes that in Ohio, the state that Democrats have watched turn red over the last several cycles, shes making the pitch that populist policies like "Medicare for All" and the Green New Deal are needed to inject optimism and concrete results into struggling areas.

Ryan, a Youngstown native and early backer of Biden, has long enjoyed the support of the party's establishment wing. While some Democrats are skeptical that the seat can go to any candidate from their side of the aisle, Harper would have to outcompete the moderate factions favorite candidate in 10-term Ryan to have a shot against the eventual Republican nominee.

5) Rep. Jim CooperJim Cooper Romney tests positive for coronavirus DCCC expands list of vulnerable House Democrats The Hill's Morning Report - Biden: Russia attack 'would change the world' MORE (Tenn.)

If theres an underdog to be had among progressives 2022 dream draft, its Odessa Kelly.

The young Nashville native is challenging Rep. Jim Cooper, a 16-term conservative Democrat and member of the Blue Dog Coalition in the House, forTennessee's 5thCongressional District.

Like other outsiders angling for a way in, Kelly, a mother of two, has the support of Justice Democrats and progressive groups like Indivisible, Brand New Congress, the Working Families Party and a slew of local and community leaders in Tennessee.

Her platform is unabashedly progressive.

While fellow organizers see hope in Kellys bid against Cooper, some privately acknowledge she has a tougher road ahead than her counterparts. Her district has been recently gerrymandered to lean toward Republican control, making it even harder for some to envision any Democrat clinging to power in the Southern enclave.

2024 Honorable Mentions:

6) Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.)

Theres no shortage of progressives who want Manchin out of Congress and away from politics altogether. But can anyone make that happen?

The West Virginia senator has been the lefts biggest problem child on Capitol Hill for the entirety of Bidens administration. FromBBBto the federal minimum wage, many progressives are loath to even refer to Manchin as a moderate, arguing that he is more of a Republican officeholder than a team member of the Democratic caucus.

Its notjust the left flank who ismad. As the negotiations around major legislation lagged for months for what he promised were good faith talks with the White House and congressional colleagues, many in the party felt he basically delivered a middle finger to the plans to pass an agenda that would address many social and environmental problems before the midterm elections.

The whole episode was cinematic. And it drastically upped the pressure among aggravated activists at the state and national levels to find someone who could be viable against him.

That, of course, wont be easy. Former President TrumpDonald TrumpFormer chairman of Wisconsin GOP party signals he will comply with Jan. 6 committee subpoena Overnight Defense & National Security Pentagon tells Russia to stand down Billionaire GOP donor maxed out to Manchin following his Build Back Better opposition MORE swept the state easily in both elections, and Manchin is still deeply popular with his constituents, despite the overall mood among Democrats in Washington souring on him.

7) Sen. Kyrsten SinemaKyrsten SinemaThe Hill's Morning Report - Democrats sense opportunity with SCOTUS vacancy Schumer finds unity moment in Supreme Court fight Left says they're not to blame for Biden's problems MORE (Ariz.)

Unlike Manchin, Sinema is a relatively newer target on the left. But shes quickly caught up to being equally reviled by those who want her out.

What started as a nascent primary Sinema movement among some rogue activists has gained steam in recent weeks after the first-term Arizona senator voted against amending the filibuster and effectively halted the debate on passing voting rights legislation.

Beyond the majority of Democrats in Congress, who have become increasingly unhappy with Sinemas position on the filibuster and refusal to budge after meeting several times directly with Biden, officials in her own state are even more upset.

Members of the Arizona Democratic Party recently voted tocensuretheir own senator after her GOP-aligned vote last week, a move that received praise from Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersSchumer finds unity moment in Supreme Court fight McConnell warns Biden not to 'outsource' Supreme Court pick to 'radical left' Briahna Joy Gray discusses Pelosi's 2022 re-election announcement MORE (I-Vt.), who has been critical of both Sinema and Manchin in their opposition to changing the procedure.

Activists say they expect a Sinema challenger to emerge ahead of 2024, with some anticipating that Rep.Ruben GallegoRuben GallegoOcasio-Cortez: Supporting Sinema challenge by someone like Gallego would be easy decision Poll: Sinema approval higher among Arizona Republicans than Democrats It's time for 'Uncle Joe' to take off the gloves against Manchin and Sinema MORE could mount anintraparty fight, despite shooting down the idea earlier.

Originally posted here:

Five Democrats the left plans to target | TheHill - The Hill

Rep. Josh Gottheimer is the latest addition to the Democrats list of House members who could face tough re-election campaigns as polls show Republicans with an edge in this falls midterm elections.

Gottheimer, D-5th Dist., became the fourth New Jersey Democratic representative more than any other state on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committees Frontline program, which provides extra help for incumbents expected to be in tight races.

This is in large part a reaction to the gubernatorial election and closer-than-expected result there, said Jacob Rubaskin, an analyst with Inside Elections, which rated the district as solid Democratic.

Thats when Gov. Phil Murphy defeated Republican nominee Jack Ciattarelli in a race that was not called until the following day. Ciattarelli outpolled Murphy in Gottheimers old 5th District.

Im focused on one thing: fighting for the families of the 5th District, Gottheimer said.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman James Singer said the decision to include Gottheimer was made on internal DCCC criteria. Gottheimer was one of seven people added.

Rep. Gottheimer has been a bipartisan leader who has represented New Jersey with distinction and we look forward to working with him to win this district again, he said.

Under the new map approved by the states independent redistricting commission, Gottheimer will be running in more friendly terrain come November. In addition, he is one of the Houses formidable fundraisers, having banked $11 million for his re-election entering October.

It takes more than close gubernatorial election to make a race competitive, Rubashkin said. If things are really terrible for Democrats, could this district become more competitive? At the moment, we just havent seen that yet.

But National Republican Congressional Committee spokeswoman Samantha Bullock called Gottheimer one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the country because hes failed to deliver for his district.

Former investment banker Frank Pallotta, who lost to Gottheimer in 2020; businessman Fred Schneiderman, who has former Donald Trump campaign manager and New Jersey native Kellyanne Conway working for him; and Marine Corps veteran Nick De Gregorio are seeking the Republican nomination.

In a recent Monmouth University Poll, 35% of Americans said theyd rather see Republicans control Congress, compared with 33% who chose the Democrats. And just 39% approved of President Joe Bidens performance in office with 54% disapproving.

Democrats are spooked and they have good reason to be, Rubashkin said. If this race truly is one of the Democrats most vulnerable, they are in a world of trouble.

Also on the House Democratic list are 3rd Dist. Rep. Andy Kim, 7th Dist. Rep. Tom Malinowski and 11th Dist. Rep. Mikie Sherrill.

Kim and Sherrill also got friendlier districts for 2022 while Malinowski did not. The map is being challenged in court by the Republican commission members.

After the new districts were drawn, Kim and Sherrill were rated as safe bets for re-election while Inside Elections called Malinowskis race a tossup and the Cook Political Report gave the Republicans an edge in that district.

Those three and Gottheimer all are on the House Republicans target list. The NRCC also announced it was going after the four Democrats in 2020 but fielded only one strong challenger, then-state Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean Jr., R-Union, who barely lost to Malinowski.

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.

Jonathan D. Salant may be reached at jsalant@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him at @JDSalant.

Start your day with the latest from Trenton, D.C. and your town. Get the N.J. Politics newsletter now.

Continued here:

Democrats concede this N.J. congressman could be in trouble. Is it a warning sign for Biden midterm? - NJ.com

Hello, and happy Thursday,

On Tuesday afternoon, Jim Cooper, a moderate Democrat who has been in Congress for more than three decades, announced he was retiring. The timing was not a coincidence.

Less than 24 hours earlier, the Tennessee legislature had approved a map with new boundaries for the states eight congressional districts. Since 2003, Cooper has represented a district that includes all of Nashville, and it has been reliably Democratic (Joe Biden carried it by 24 points in 2020). But the legislatures new plan erased his district. Republicans sliced up Nashville into three different districts, attaching a sliver of Democratic voters in each to rural and deeply Republican areas. Donald Trump would have easily won all three of the new districts in 2020.

Get the latest updates on voting rights in the Guardians Fight to vote newsletter

Cooper was blunt in his assessment of what had happened. Republicans, he said in a statement, had made it impossible for him to win re-election to Congress. Despite his best efforts, he said, he could not stop Republicans from dismembering Nashville.

The map doesnt just weaken the voice of Democrats, it also dilutes the influence of Black voters and other voters of color in Nashville. In Coopers current district, Black voters make up about a quarter of the voting-age population. They will comprise a much smaller share of the voting age population in the new districts, making it harder for them to make their voices heard.

Andrew Witherspoon, my colleague on our visuals team, and I put together an interactive map that shows exactly how Republicans transformed Coopers district. Its one of the clearest examples of how politicians can essentially rig elections in their favor just by moving district lines. It underscores how gerrymandering is a remarkably powerful and efficient method of voter suppression the influence of certain peoples votes matter less before a single ballot is even cast.

Tennessee isnt the only place this is happening. In Kansas, Republican lawmakers are advancing a plan that would similarly crack Kansas City, making it more difficult for the Democrat Sharice Davids, the first Native American woman elected to Congress, to get re-elected. In North Carolina, Republicans cracked the city of Greensboro in order to dismantle the states sixth congressional district, currently represented by a Democrat.

Democrats have also shown a willingness to engage in this kind of distortion where they have control of the redistricting process, in places such as Illinois, Maryland and probably New York. Democrats will have complete control over drawing 75 congressional districts, compared with 187 for Republicans.

The day before he announced his retirement, I spoke with Cooper about why he thought this was happening and what he thought the consequences would be for Nashville voters. Whats happening now is just raw politics, Cooper said.

In two previous redistricting cycles, none of the politicians in the state knew that I existed as a candidate. That made it easier they werent trying to get Jim Cooper. And then in cycles where they did know I existed, it was either too difficult to rearrange the counties, or they were gentler, he told me. Politico reported recently that after Republicans werent as aggressive as they could have been in states such as Texas and Georgia, there is some pressure to be even more aggressive in places like Tennessee.

The Nashville constituents who are being sliced up into each of the three districts are likely to have much less importance to their new, Republican representatives, Cooper said. Any input they have, at most, it will be tokenism.

This is not a majority-minority community, but it will limit the ability for them to be heard. Because theyll become essentially a rounding error in much larger districts that are dominated by the surrounding towns, he said. The center of gravity will shift.

Also worth watching

A federal court told Alabama to redraw its congressional districts after finding Republican lawmakers had discriminated against Black voters. Alabama is appealing the ruling.

Arizona Republicans are proposing a suite of new voting restrictions after a widely criticized review of the 2020 election results.

Texas continues to face significant problems after implementing sweeping new voting restrictions ahead of its 1 March primary.

Ohio Republicans are redrawing state legislative and congressional maps after the state supreme court struck down earlier efforts as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. There are still concerns the new state legislative maps are severely gerrymandered.

See original here:

Republicans just wiped out a Democratic district. Heres how - The Guardian

Amidst endless partisan bickering and with the unpredictability of the pandemic looming in the background the notion of a unified Democratic party seems like a pipe dream. With the advent of social media, what once occurred behind closed doors has become a spectator sport. Flash and virility have replaced good governing. Opinions have replaced facts.

As the newly elected president of the Democratic Mayors Association, Ive been given the privilege to speak on behalf of Democratic Mayors across the country. Weve witnessed the tenets of the Democratic Party being drowned out by a national screaming match and its time to get back to the basics: jobs, housing, education and healthcare.

Im the Mayor of Richmond, Va., the former Capital of the Confederacy where I see firsthand the struggles that everyday Americans are facing. While catchphrases touted by both sides of the aisle make headlines that evoke strong emotional responses, their most lasting legacy is division. Its time we shift our focus away from appeasing party extremists and get back to appealing to our base. This is not reinventing the wheel. This is how countless mayors, including myself, have gotten elected and how weve chosen to lead.

At the end of the day, being a Democrat is about helping folks. We want everyone to have the opportunity to succeed, and if youve fallen on hard times we want there to be a way out.

My upbringing had no silver spoons or picket fences. My mom was 16 when she had me and I was raised paycheck to paycheck by my father and grandmother he was a public school custodian with a felony on his record, and she was a domestic worker. Free school lunches were sometimes the difference between hungry and not.

The reason I bring this up isnt for sympathy. Its because when Democrats talk about helping those in need, I was one of those people. I understand what its like to need help, and how valuable that help can be. In spite of my circumstances, I became the first in my family to graduate high school (and then college) and now Im the twice elected Mayor of Richmond, Virginia. I was lucky.

I got into public service because my story is not unique. Its not an inner-city story, a Black story, or a coming from a broken home story. Its an American story that far too often doesnt get to happily ever after and that is something I will spend my life fighting to change.

Recent elections and the current trajectory of the GOP should serve as a cautionary tale. If we continue to allow them to set the narrative we will continue to lose. Our party was once one of inclusion; a party whose rhetoric was based on hope and growing stronger together. The issues of the Democratic Party are issues that affect peoples everyday lives that should give us a huge advantage.

As we head towards the midterms and future elections, my hope is that our party will unify. We must resist theeye for an eyementality when baited by the Republicans. We must extricate ourselves from the culture war and remind voters, and ourselves, what Democratic leadership means: access to affordable housing, good-paying jobs, and high-quality education and healthcare.

Getting back to the basics isnt just about winning. Its how we help people. In a country as powerful as the United States, the status quo is unacceptable. We can do better. This is a critical moment for our country and our democracy, lets not let it pass by.

LevarStoneyis the 80th mayor of the City of Richmond. He is the youngest mayor in Richmond history and the first millennial African American mayor to serve in the city.

More:

To win in 2022, Democrats must cut the squabbles and get back to basics | TheHill - The Hill

Like many scholars of democracy, I have strongly supported both the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act. Both are necessary (though not sufficient) to secure the most precious rights in any democracy the right to vote and the right to have ones vote counted fairly and accurately.

Most supporters of these bills believed the urgent need for them justified lifting the Senate filibuster and passing them on a purely partisan vote. But with the refusal of Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema (or any Republican senators) to vote to suspend the filibuster, its clear that these bills will not pass this Congress.

The only remaining option is to pare back the reform cause to a much narrower agenda that can command bipartisan support. Democrats must recognize that politics is the art of the possible, and democratic responsibility demands that we not sacrifice what is valuable and possible on the altar of the unattainable. That means supporting the bipartisan efforts to reform the Electoral Count Act.

This work is now taking shape in bipartisan negotiations among moderate senators convened by Susan Collins, Republican of Maine. The new bill would fix some of the most dangerous vulnerabilities in the 1887 Electoral Count Act some of which we saw in the 2020 election that could enable a future Congress (or a rogue vice president) to reverse the vote of the Electoral College in certain states or to plunge the process of counting electoral votes into such chaos that there would be no way of determining a legitimate winner. Such a deadlock could precipitate a far larger and more violent assault on the democratic order than what we saw on Jan. 6. Reducing the risk of such a calamity is a democratic imperative.

Senator Collinss group is reportedly considering making it much more difficult for Congress to question properly certified state election results, clearly specifying that the vice presidents role in counting the electoral votes is limited, protecting election officials from harassment and intimidation while they carry out their lawful functions and granting states new funding to improve their voting systems.

As the N.Y.U. election law expert Richard Pildes has written, federal election laws from the 19th century (the Presidential Election Day Act and the Electoral Count Act) contain provisions that could offer troubling opportunities for disruption and abuse during a postelection struggle over the presidential vote. The potential for a state legislature to declare a failed election and appoint its own slate of electors must be closed through a reformed law. The danger that postelection litigation could carry on beyond the meeting of the Electoral College can also be addressed by extending the safe harbor date for reporting a states electoral votes from early December until later that month and then postponing the formal Electoral College vote from December until early January (shortly before the Congress convenes to count the electoral votes on Jan. 6).

Mr. Pildes and three other leading electoral law experts from diverse ideological backgrounds recently proposed a reform of the Electoral Count Act that would prevent Congress from questioning a states electoral votes once the state certified them through policies established in advance of the election. If state authorities could not agree on who won their electoral votes, the reformed law should establish a mechanism like a nonpartisan tribunal to resolve the dispute. (In addition, before the safe harbor deadline, there would still be the option of challenging in the courts any state legislative effort to circumvent rules and steal an election.) Angus King, an independent senator from Maine, has also been leading efforts to reform the Electoral Count Act; one focus is to establish a procedure for judicial review of state results if a state failed to follow the procedures it previously prescribed for choosing its electors. This reform would at least remove one pathway to reversing a states legitimate presidential election result.

So far, the Republican leaders of the Senate and House, Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy, have expressed openness to Electoral Count Act reform. Beyond such a bill, Republican senators such as Mitt Romney have also signaled an openness to considering some reforms on voting rights.

We cant know what might be possible through bipartisan negotiations, but we do know that the Democrats two voting rights bills have not gotten passed this year.

We must embrace the reform we can achieve and continue the fight for the important reform work of the future.

Larry Diamond is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a senior fellow in global democracy at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford. He is the author, most recently, of Ill Winds: Saving Democracy From Russian Rage, Chinese Ambition, and American Complacency.

Follow this link:

Opinion | Democrats, Want to Defend Democracy? Embrace What Is Possible. - The New York Times

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) expressed openness to lowering the income limits for families to access the expanded child tax credit if it helps win Sen. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinPelosi sidesteps progressives' March 1 deadline for Build Back Better On The Money Fed's inflation tracker at fastest pace since '82 Billionaire GOP donor maxed out to Manchin following his Build Back Better opposition MOREs (D-W.Va.) support for the partys sweeping climate and socialspending bill.

Clyburn said in an interview withThe Washington Post on Thursday that he thinks Democrats still have wiggle room with getting Manchin on board with a party-backed expansion to the child tax credit after its recent lapse.

The No. 3 House Democratsaid Manchin has made it very clear that he has concerns about the structure of the expansion, but Clyburn said he doesnt think the West Virginia senator is entirely opposed to the credit.

He wanted to see it means-tested. I'm not opposed to that, Clyburn said, adding he would like to see Manchin come forward with a bill for the child tax credit thats means-tested.

I think it would pass. Hed get it through the Senate. I think we could get it through the House, Clyburn continued, adding he thinks theres a lot in Build Back Better that he says hes for so, lets do that.

Democrats have been working for months to make changes to and scale down the partys Build Back Better Act, in large part to try to get support from Manchin, a key centrist holdout.

Democrats hope to pass the bill,a legislative priority for President BidenJoe BidenFormer chairman of Wisconsin GOP party signals he will comply with Jan. 6 committee subpoena Romney tests positive for coronavirus Pelosi sidesteps progressives' March 1 deadline for Build Back Better MORE, using a complex procedure known as budget reconciliation thatwould allow them to greenlight the package in an evenly split Senate with a simple majority.

But, with Republicansuniformly opposed to the bill, Senate Democrats would need total support from their caucus to pass the measure, giving Manchin significant influence over the shaping of the legislation.

In an interview on Thursday morning, Manchinsignaled that he is stillopen to participate in negotiations around the spending plan and the expanded child tax credit, but added he thinks means testing will ensure it is targeted to those most in need.

Everyone thinks the child tax credit has gone away. The child tax credits still there, the $2,000 child tax credit is still there, and we're going to make sure that we can help, continue to help those in need, Manchin toldWest Virginia MetroNews's Hoppy Kercheval.

I want to target West Virginians basically to make $75,000 or less should be the highest priority we have. They have it up to $200,000 for an individual and $400,000 for families. That's a lot of money, headded,after expressing concerns about inflation earlier in the interview.

Excerpt from:

Top House Democrat open to lower income caps for child tax credit to win over Manchin | TheHill - The Hill

Fox News host Dan Bongino issued a warning on Saturday's "Unfiltered," saying Democrats are "obsessed" with tearing down "family and religion."

DAN BONGINO: You ever noticed that every time the Democrats have a crisis, the fix they propose always seems to attack our pillars of Western culture? It's all part of what they call the "Great Reset." Folks, the left can't stand conservatives. They hate what we stand for. They hate that this country is built on objective truths. They hate that God-given rights exist, but you already know that. The answer is why do they hate these things? And it's found in what they call the "Great Reset." It's because you are in their way.

So what's the "Great Reset"? The World Economic Forum is a globalist organization of self-professed elites. The founder and chairman is Klaus Schwab, who literally wrote the book "COVID 19: The Great Reset" and made it a focal point of his summit in Switzerland in 2020. You want to read up on the "Great Reset"? There's an entire page on their website dedicated to how they want to start over with year zero.

View post:

Dan Bongino: Democrats are obsessed with tearing down values - Fox News

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greenewho has been stripped of her House committee assignments for writing inflammatory social-media posts, thrown off Twitter for spreading COVID-19 misinformation, and fined more than eighty thousand dollars for violating House rules on masksis facing a primary challenge. Three Republicans are running against her for the Party nomination in Georgias Fourteenth Congressional District, in the northwest corner of the state. The most serious of these challengers, it seems, is Jennifer Strahan, a health-care executive who has tried to portray herself as right-wing, just not loony right-wing. Strahan claims to be uniting conservatives who want a congresswoman who can accomplish something other than managing to embarrass the Republican Party and the entire state of Georgia.

A poll released last week suggested that Strahan might have a shot at beating Greeneif, that is, she gets a lot of help. The poll, conducted by a firm called TargetPoint, was designed to test anti-Greene messages. Respondents were asked, for example, whether theyd be more or less likely to vote for Greene after hearing that she had called the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Newtown, Connecticut, and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida, false flag operations. (The Web site Jewish Insider, which first obtained the poll, reported that it was financed not by the Strahan campaign but by a group of anti-Greene Georgia Republicans.) By the time respondents had been informed of some of Greenes most outrageous positions, including her claim that 9/11 was a hoax, she and Strahan were roughly even. Meanwhile, when respondents who said that they were planning to vote in the Democratic primary were asked whether they would consider, instead, voting for Greenes opponent, in order to hold Marjorie Taylor Greene accountable, all of them said yes.

Georgia is an open-primary state, meaning that voters can choose which partys primary they want to participate in. (Voters in Georgia do not register with a party.) Thus, some of Strahans help could come from people who disagree with her and have no intention of casting a ballot for her in November. All of this raises the question: Should it?

Crossover voting, as its known, has an unfortunate reputation. Usually, when its been advocated for, this has been done with the intention of undermining the opposition. In March, 2008, for example, the conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh launched what he called Operation Chaos. At that point, John McCain had already clinched the Republican Presidential nomination, and Barack Obama was leading in the race for the Democratic nomination. Limbaugh urged his listeners to vote for Hillary Clinton, to prolong the Democratic contest. In Indiana, an open-primary state, it seems that Limbaugh was either effective or else served as a convenient excuse, because the Obama campaign blamed crossover voters, at least in part, for Clintons victory in that states May primary.

Twelve years later, in South Carolina, another open-primary state, several G.O.P. politicians urged Republicans to cross over and cast their ballots for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Presidential primary. They, too, dubbed their campaign Operation Chaos. The Greenville News reported that conservative political groups were calling on Republicans to vote for the worst Democrat. We dont see this as in any way improper or underhanded because were being very open about it, Stephen Brown, the former chairman of the Greenville County Republican Party, said at the time. (Whatever the impact of the effort, Joe Biden won the South Carolina primary by a wide margin.)

Voting for the worst candidate in order to sow chaos is, for obvious reasons, a bad idea. Universalized, such conduct wouldor, at least, couldlead both parties to nominate extremists and incompetents. But what about voting for the least worst candidate in an effort to save the Republic? This would seem to fall into a different ethical category. As John Stuart Mill put it, in Utilitarianism, The morality of the action depends entirely upon the intention.

Because Republicans are nominating extremists, Democrats could engage in crossover voting with the very best of intentions. In Greenes district, they could vote for Strahan in the hope of defeating a dangerous conspiracy monger. Were G.O.P. voters in blue-leaning districts to do the sameto engage in what might be called principled crossover votingthey would end up voting for the most centrist candidates in Democratic primaries. If that happened, its hard to see how the country would be worse off than it is now.

The lines for Greenes district have recently been redrawn in such a way as to render it slightly less red. (Greene has blasted the new lines, calling them a fools errand that was led by power-obsessed state legislators.) Still, the district leans heavily Republican, and whoever wins the G.O.P. nomination will, almost certainly, head to Washington. Indeed, Democrats in the district are such a minority that its not even clear they could swing a primary. But, it could be argued, they have an obligation to try.

Why Republicans keep electing politicians like Greene is a question that will occupy historians and political scientists for decades. Part of the reason, though, would seem to be structural. In safe red districts, which sophisticated gerrymandering is producing more and more of, the only campaigns that matter are primary campaigns, and voters who turn out for primaries tend to be the most politically committed. (James Huntwork, a Republican election-law expert, once described the primary-campaign dynamic in a lopsided district as a race between one candidate who says, I am completely crazy! and another who claims, I am even crazier than you!)

In total, fifteen states hold open primaries. These include Michigan, where Representative Peter Meijer, who was one of ten House Republicans to vote for Donald Trumps second impeachment, is facing a primary challenge from a former Trump staffer, John Gibbs, who is perhaps best known for claiming, in 2016, that Hillary Clintons campaign chairman, John Podesta, was a satanist. (Asked whether he regretted his rhetoric, Gibbs said, I regret that its unfortunately become an issue.) Nine other states allow unaffiliated voters to participate in either partys primary. These include Colorado, where Greenes ally Representative Lauren Boebert is facing a primary challenge from State Senator Don Coram, whos considered a moderate. (Boebert has repeatedly been criticized for anti-Muslim remarks; most recently, she is reported to have asked a group of Orthodox Jews visiting the Capitol whether they were there to conduct reconnaissance.) The lines for Boeberts district, too, have been redrawn, and it is considered a safe Republican seat. But unaffiliated voters in the district outnumber both registered Democrats and Republicans, so they, presumably, could decide the races outcome. Lets hope they turn out for the G.O.P. primary, because right now leaving the future of the Republican Party to Republicans seems way too risky.

Follow this link:

Should Democratic Primary Voters Help Save the G.O.P. from Itself? - The New Yorker

WASHINGTON It was a testament to the breakdown of the Senates judicial confirmation machinery that the first question posed by many this past week regarding an upcoming Supreme Court vacancy was whether Democrats could install a new justice entirely on their own.

The answer is yes, if the party sticks together. And the prospect of President Bidens eventual nominee receiving only Democratic votes is hardly far-fetched, given the bitter history of recent confirmation fights for the high court.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the last member of the court confirmed by the Senate, did not receive a single Democratic vote. But Republicans held a 53-to-47 advantage and could afford to lose a colleague or two in ramming through her nomination just before the presidential election in 2020.

With their bare-minimum 50-seat majority, Democrats will not have that luxury after Mr. Biden nominates the first Black woman for the court sometime in the next few weeks. Considering the toxic partisan atmosphere surrounding contemporary Supreme Court fights, it is conceivable she could make history not only because of her gender and race, but also as the first person elevated to the court by a tiebreaking vote of the vice president.

It would be a far cry from the simple voice-vote approval of many of her predecessors as recently as the 1960s. Or the 98-to-0 confirmation of Justice Antonin Scalia, a leading judicial conservative, in 1986. Or even the 87-to-9 vote in 1994 for Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a member of the courts liberal wing, who announced on Thursday that he would step down after nearly three decades.

The decline in consensus Supreme Court confirmations has been precipitous, and the escalation of partisan warfare has been sharp.

Deep bitterness lingers over the Democratic assault on Robert H. Bork in 1987; the routine deployment of filibusters against judicial nominees of both parties beginning during the administration of President George W. Bush; the Republican blockade of Judge Merrick B. Garland in 2016; the tumultuous confirmation of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in 2018; and the hardball Republican move to rush Justice Barrett onto the court two years later.

With the Supreme Court deciding so many of the most polarizing issues of the day including abortion rights and affirmative action neither side is willing to cede much ground, and both display their battle scars.

It is a sad commentary on the nomination process that it has so disintegrated over the years, said Senator Susan Collins of Maine, one of the handful of Republicans considered to be in play as potential backers of Mr. Bidens pick. If you look at the incredibly strong vote by which Stephen Breyer was confirmed, you just dont see it nowadays.

Democrats would dearly like to avoid a skin-of-the-teeth party-line vote for whomever Mr. Biden puts forward. One of the first calls made by Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was to Ms. Collins, promising her whatever material and assistance he could provide to help her evaluate the forthcoming nominee.

Democrats also hope the fact that Mr. Bidens pick would replace a liberal justice and not tip the ideological balance of the firmly conservative court and the fact that she will be an African American woman will deter Republicans from a scorched-earth campaign when their odds of winning are low.

But while Republicans are promising an open-minded review of the nominee, hard feelings over the earlier confirmation clashes, such as Justice Kavanaughs fight against sexual assault allegations, are never far from the surface.

Whoever the president nominates will be treated fairly and with the dignity and respect someone of his or her caliber deserves, something not afforded to Justice Kavanaugh and other Republican nominees of the past, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a senior Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, said in response to Justice Breyers retirement.

Besides Ms. Collins, another Republican who will be the focus of Democratic attention is Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a frequent supporter of judicial nominees of Democratic presidents and the only Republican to oppose Justice Kavanaugh.

Ms. Murkowski is running for re-election this year under a new ranked-choice voting system back home. She is already opposed by a hard-right conservative vigorously backed by former President Donald J. Trump, who is furious at Ms. Murkowski for voting to convict him at his impeachment trial following the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Siding with Mr. Bidens choice for the court could help her attract the Democratic and independent voters she could need to prevail under the new election rules in her state.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has also deferred to Democratic presidents in the past and voted for justices and lower-court judges they put forward.

Last year, Mr. Graham, Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski were the only three Republicans to back Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, a front-runner to succeed Justice Breyer, for a seat on the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Supporting someone for a circuit court seat is no guarantee of supporting that same person for the Supreme Court. However, backing someone for the high court after opposing that person for a lower court would be harder to reconcile, making it unlikely that any of the 44 Republicans who opposed Judge Jackson would reverse course and support her now. All were well aware at the time that she was a future high court prospect. Three Republicans were absent.

Mr. Biden could also select Judge J. Michelle Childs of Federal District Court in South Carolina, who has been strongly endorsed by Representative James E. Clyburn, a powerful lawmaker from that state and the No. 3 House Democrat. If Judge Childs is the presidents pick, Mr. Graham and South Carolinas other Republican senator, Tim Scott, could face pressure to back her.

But home-state allegiance is no guarantee. Senator Michael Bennet, Democrat of Colorado, opposed the Supreme Court nomination of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a Colorado native, even though the senator introduced him at his confirmation hearing.

Justice Gorsuchs case is instructive. Though very conservative, he was the sort of highly experienced, pedigreed and qualified candidate a Republican president could have put forward in the past with the expectation that he would receive a strong show of support in the Senate despite ideological differences.

But since Justice Gorsuch was filling the seat held open by the nearly yearlong blockade of Judge Garland and had been nominated by Mr. Trump, most Democrats balked. Just three voted for his confirmation. Only one, Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, remains in the Senate; he was also the sole Democrat to vote for Justice Kavanaugh.

Another potential nominee with a Senate voting history is Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright of Federal District Court in Minnesota, who was confirmed on a 58-to-36 vote in 2016. Thirteen Republicans voted for her, and five of them remain in the Senate today, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader. But a vote for a district court nominee does not equate to a vote to place a person on the highest court.

Even before the nominee is known, it is clear the outcome in the Senate is most likely to be highly partisan, with the candidate receiving a few Republican votes at best and perhaps none at all. For a country torn apart by partisanship and a court struggling with its image and credibility, that is far from an ideal outcome.

I really think it would be harmful to the country to have a repeat of what we saw with the last two nominees being so narrowly confirmed, Ms. Collins said. I just dont think that is good for the country, nor the court.

Go here to see the original:

Bitterness From Supreme Court Fights Hangs Over Coming Nomination - The New York Times

When it comes to elections, the Republican Party operates within a carapace of lies. So we rely on the Democrats to preserve our system of government.

The problem is that Democrats live within their own insular echo chamber. Within that bubble convenient falsehoods spread, go unchallenged and make it harder to focus on the real crisis. So lets clear away some of these myths that are distorting Democratic behavior:

The whole electoral system is in crisis. Elections have three phases: registering and casting votes, counting votes and certifying results. When it comes to the first two phases, the American system has its flaws but is not in crisis. As Yuval Levin noted in The Times a few days ago, its become much easier in most places to register and vote than it was years ago. We just had a 2020 election with remarkably high turnout. The votes were counted with essentially zero fraud.

The emergency is in the third phase Republican efforts to overturn votes that have been counted. But Democratic voting bills the For the People Act and its update, the Freedom to Vote Act were not overhauled to address the threats that have been blindingly obvious since Jan. 6 last year. They are sprawling measures covering everything from mail-in ballots to campaign finance. They basically include every idea thats been on activist agendas for years.

These bills are hard to explain and hard to pass. By catering to D.C. interest groups, Democrats have spent a year distracting themselves from the emergency right in front of us.

Voter suppression efforts are a major threat to democracy. Given the racial history of this country, efforts to limit voting, as some states have been implementing, are heinous. I get why Democrats want to repel them. But this, too, is not the major crisis facing us. Thats because tighter voting laws often dont actually restrict voting all that much. Academics have studied this extensively. A recent well-researched study suggested that voter ID laws do not reduce turnout. States tighten or loosen their voting laws, often seemingly without a big effect on turnout. The general rule is that people who want to vote end up voting.

Just as many efforts to limit the electorate dont have much of an effect, the Democratic bills to make it easier to vote might not have much impact on turnout or on which party wins. As my Times colleague Nate Cohn wrote last April, Expanding voting options to make it more convenient hasnt seemed to have a huge effect on turnout or electoral outcomes. Thats the finding of decades of political science research on advance, early and absentee voting.

Higher turnout helps Democrats. This popular assumption is also false. Political scientists Daron R. Shaw and John R. Petrocik, authors of The Turnout Myth, looked at 70 years of election data and found no evidence that turnout is correlated with partisan vote choice.

The best way to address the crisis is top down. Democrats have focused their energies in Washington, trying to pass these big bills. The bills would override state laws and dictate a lot of election procedures from the national level.

Given how local Republicans are behaving, I understand why Democrats want to centralize things. But its a little weird to be arguing that in order to save democracy we have to take power away from local elected officials. Plus, if you tell local people theyre not fit to govern themselves, youre going to further inflame the populist backlash.

But the real problem is that Democrats are not focusing on crucial state and local arenas. The Timess Charles Homans had a fascinating report from Pennsylvania, where Trump backers were running for local office, including judge of elections, while Democrats struggled to even find candidates. Im not sure what the Democratic Party was worried about, but it didnt feel like they were worried about school board and judge of elections races all of these little positions, a failed Democratic candidate said.

Democrats do not seem to be fighting hard in key local races. They do not seem to be rallying the masses so that state legislators pay a price if they support democracy-weakening legislation.

Maybe some of the energy that has been spent over the past year analyzing and berating Joe Manchin could have been better spent grooming and supporting good state and local candidates. Maybe the best way to repulse a populist uprising is not by firing up all your allies in the Northwest quadrant of Washington, D.C.

The crisis of democracy is right in front of us. We have a massive populist mob that thinks the country is now controlled by a coastal progressive oligarchy that looks down on them. Were caught in cycles of polarization that threaten to turn America into Northern Ireland during the Troubles. We have Republican hacks taking power away from the brave state officials who stood up to Trumpian bullying after the 2020 election.

Democrats have spent too much time on measures that they mistakenly think would give them an advantage. The right response would be: Do the unsexy work at the local level, where things are in flux. Pass the parts of the Freedom to Vote Act that are germane, like the protections for elections officials against partisan removal, and measures to limit purging voter rolls. Reform the Electoral Count Act to prevent Congress from derailing election certifications.

When your house is on fire, drop what you were doing, and put it out. Maybe finally Democrats will do that.

Go here to read the rest:

Opinion | Democrats Are Failing to Defend Democracy - The New York Times