Category Archives: Democrat

I am not suggesting that partisan governance will never lead to the repeal of valuable legislation. But theres little in recent history to support the view that political parties will undo everything their predecessors did. Sharp swings are likelier to happen when congressional gridlock pushes policymaking into executive orders which is true now. After legislation to protect Dreamers fell to a filibuster in the Senate, President Barack Obama turned to an executive order. President Donald Trump then reversed that order, and then President Biden reversed Trumps reversal. If the Dream Act which passed the House and got 55 Senate votes had been made law in 2010, I think it would have had a better shot at surviving the Trump era intact.

If anything, past legislation in America is too stable. More old policy should be revisited, and if its not working, uprooted or overhauled. Theres nothing wrong with one party passing a bill that the next party repeals. That gives voters information they can use to decide who to vote for in the future. If a party repeals a popular bill, it will pay an electoral price. If it repeals an unpopular bill, or replace it with something better, itll prosper. Thats the way the system should work.

We are a divided country, but one way we could become less divided is for the consequences of elections to be clearer. When legislation is so hard to pass, politics becomes a battle over identity rather than a battle over policy. Dont get me wrong: Fights over policy can be angry, even vicious. But they can also lead to changed minds as in the winning coalition Democrats built atop the successes of the New Deal or changed parties, as savvy politicians learn to accept the successes of the other side. There is a reason Republicans no longer try to repeal Medicare and Democrats shrink from raising taxes on the middle class.

This is what Manchin gets wrong: A world of partisan governance is a world in which Republicans and Democrats both get to pass their best ideas into law, and the public judges them on the results. That is far better than what we have now, where neither party can routinely pass its best ideas into law, and the public is left frustrated that so much political tumult changes so little.

This whole debate is peculiarly American. In parliamentary systems, the job of the majority party, or majority coalition, is to govern, and the job of the opposition party is to oppose. Cooperation can and does occur, but theres nothing unusual or regrettable when it doesnt, and government does not grind to a halt in its absence. Not so in America, where the president can be from one party and Congress can be controlled by another. In raising bipartisanship to a high political ideal, we have made a virtue out of a necessity, but thats left us little recourse, either philosophically or legislatively, when polarization turns bipartisanship into a rarity. Thats where we are now.

The legislation Senate Democrats have passed and considered in their first 100 days is unusually promising precisely because it has been unusually partisan. They are considering ideas they actually think are right for the country and popular with voters as opposed to the narrow set of ideas Republicans might support. The question they will face in the coming months is whether they want to embrace partisan legislating, repeatedly using budget reconciliation and even ridding the Senate of the filibuster, or abandon their agenda and leave the rest of the countrys problems unsolved.

I can tell you this, I am going to do everything I can to get the biggest, boldest change we can, because I think the people I represent depend on it, Schumer told me. My party depends on it. But most of all, the future of my country depends on it.

Go here to see the original:

Opinion | 100 Days of Big, Bold, Partisan Change - The New York Times

Democrats in the state are gearing up to try to re-elect Gov. Laura Kelly, and Ben Meers, the executive director of the Kansas Democratic Party, said he hoped to test the theory. He said that having Democrats campaign in deep-red districts required a different type of field organizing.

There are some counties where if the state party cant find a Democrat, we cant have an organized county party, because the area is so red, he said. But if we can run even the lone Democrat we can find out there, and get a few of those votes to come out you know the analogy: A rising tide lifts all Democratic ships.

Some Democratic strategists in Kansas noticed that phone-bank canvassers had more success with voters during the general election when they focused on congressional and local candidates, rather than headlining their calls with Mr. Biden. Theyre hoping that building local connections in the state will help Ms. Kellys campaign.

In Georgia, Run for Something believes that Ms. Carters presence on the ballot significantly helped Mr. Bidens performance in her area of the state. While the group said that district-level data alone could be misleading, and needed to be combined with other factors taken into account in its analysis, Mr. Biden averaged 47 percent of the vote in the three counties Newton, Butts and Henry in which Ms. Carters district, the 110th, sits. That was five percentage points better than Hillary Clintons performance in 2016.

Ms. Carter said she had tried to start grass-roots momentum in the district. For me, running for office was never an ambition, she said. It was more so out of the necessity for where I live.

Ms. Carters district has grown exponentially during the last decade, bringing with it changing demographics and different approaches to politics. She knew through previous political organizing and her own campaigning that many people in her district, including friends and family, didnt know when local elections were, why they were important or what liberal or conservative stances could look like at a local level.

Ms. Carter said she spent a lot of time during her campaign trying to educate people on the importance of voting, especially in local races that often have more bearing on day-to-day life, like school and police funding.

Read the original post:

How Democrats Who Lost in Deep-Red Places Might Have Helped Biden - The New York Times

Democrats have introduced a bill to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court from nine to 13. Such a move could allow President Biden to swing the current 6-3 conservative majority in favor of liberals.

The effort, condemned by Republicans, faces long odds and has raised questions about why the issue is being raised now and what Congress can actually do.

Heres a look at some key questions:

Democrats say it is in response to Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell.

Early in 2016, McConnell blocked hearings or a vote on Judge Merrick Garland, President Obamas nominee to fill the seat left by the sudden death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

McConnell said that in an election year, the voters should decide who will choose the next justice. When Donald Trump was elected, he chose Scalias replacement. But late in 2020, when liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, McConnell rushed through another Trump nominee to fill her a seat a week before the election which was won by Joe Biden.

The Republicans stole two seats on the Supreme Court, and now it is up to us to repair that damage, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the bills sponsor, said outside the court on Thursday.

Yes. The Constitution leaves this decision to Congress. It says, the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

And from time to time, Congress has indeed changed the number of justices. It was six when Congress passed the first Judiciary Act in 1789 and the number fluctuated in the mid-19th century. But since 1869, the high court has had nine justices.

Yes, but it is dubious precedent.

In 1937, after winning a landslide reelection, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said the Supreme Court justices were old and overworked, and he proposed to add one new justice for every current justice over age 70. This could have expanded the court to 15 justices.

But everyone understood FDRs true motive. He was angry with the old conservative justices who had struck down several of his New Deal measures designed to cope with the Great Depression. They had a horse and buggy view of the Constitution, he told reporters.

Despite huge Democratic majorities, the House and Senate took no action on FDRs plan.

But in the spring, the Supreme Court appeared to change direction. A narrow majority upheld a New Deal measure to protect workers and unions as well as laws setting minimum wages. It was the dubbed the switch in time that saved the nine.

And within a few years, FDR had packed the court the old-fashioned way. As the old justices retired, he replaced all of them with New Deal liberals.

Because it would take four new Democrats to create a liberal majority. With the arrival of 49-year old Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court has six Republican appointees who lean right, and three Democratic appointees who lean the left.

The eldest of the nine is liberal Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who is 82. He is expected to retire this year or next, allowing President Biden to fill his seat. But Republican appointees look to retain a lopsided majority for another decade or more, barring a dramatic change.

Not good. The leading Democrats are lukewarm to the idea.

Biden said he is no fan of court packing and opted to set up a 36-member commission to spend six months pondering possible reforms or changes to the Supreme Court.

And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said she was not enthused about the expansion bill introduced Thursday. I have no intention to bring it to the floor, she said.

Markey acknowledged Democrats would also first have to abolish the filibuster rule in the Senate to have a chance to pass his court expansion bill. And even so, it would require all 50 Democrats to vote in favor.

They say they would do the same as soon as they regained full control of Congress and the White House, and change the number of seats to either add justices or reduce the number if a Democratic appointee retired or died.

One popular proposal would limit the justices to an 18-year term, and have a president appoint a new justice every two years. This would have several advantages. It would allow each president to appoint two justices in a four-year term, and it would end the incentive to choose ever younger justices in the hope they could serve in a powerful position for 30 or 40 years.

But the Constitution may need to be amended, since it says judges and justices, once appointed, shall hold their offices during good behavior.

Not surprisingly, most of them denounce it as a terrible idea.

But some conservative analysts worry about FDR precedent for a different reason. They hope the Supreme Court will wield its solid conservative majority to make major changes in the law on issues like abortion, religion and guns. And they fear some justices may decide now is not the time for a conservative revolution inside the court.

Read the rest here:

Can Democrats really expand the Supreme Court? - Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON Even in a dysfunctional capital, the Federal Election Commission has long stood out for monumental dysfunction.

It has endured years without full membership, months without a quorum and persistent deadlocks between its three Democratic and three Republican commissioners over whether to even begin inquiries into campaign law violations not to mention open hostility in its ranks and longstanding vacancies in critical posts.

As billions of dollars have poured into American political campaigns in recent years, the F.E.C. has been an idle bystander, a zombie watchdog in the view of many in the campaign finance world from both political parties.

You have literally seen the referee leave the field, said Representative Derek Kilmer, Democrat of Washington and a longtime proponent of shaking up the commission.

The F.E.C. is in dire need of reform, Trevor Potter, a former Republican-appointed chairman of the agency, told Congress last month.

Yet as the Senate prepares to begin work on a sweeping voting rights and elections overhaul bill, the two parties are bitterly divided over a proposal to restructure the enforcer of campaign finance rules, a central plank of the legislation. It is a significant reason Republicans oppose the measure so strongly.

The bill would reconfigure the panel from being evenly divided to having a 3-to-2 split, making stalemates far less likely, giving more power to its presidentially appointed chairman and building in stronger enforcement mechanisms.

Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the minority leader who has long fought against campaign finance restrictions including by steering like-minded allies onto the commission placed revamping the panel at the top of his list of examples of Democratic overreach in a measure he said was stuffed with outlandish ideas.

First, I would list turning the F.E.C. from the judge into a prosecutor and giving the party of the president the opportunity to harass opponents, said Mr. McConnell when asked to itemize his objections to the bill. Completely outrageous.

He and fellow Republicans argue that the commissions overhaul would set off a series of back-and-forth partisan campaign investigations each time power shifted in Washington and the makeup of the panel changed.

I think that is a mistake, said Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama and a senior member of the Rules Committee that is scheduled to take up the elections and campaign bill in May. One group will go after the other. With Republicans in control, they will go after the Democrats, and vice versa.

He also questioned whether it was necessarily bad that the commission often could not agree on enforcement measures.

Maybe they dont need to, he said. Most things are disclosed, and you all are sure watching, he said of the news media.

Democrats suspect that Mr. Shelby nailed the true reason that Republicans oppose the overhaul that they prefer the tightly leashed watchdog that exists now over an empowered election commission that would rigorously carry out the law.

Republicans want to keep it broken because they want people to be able to skirt the law with impunity, said Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland and a proponent of the changes. The problem is that it is so broken, people have accepted it as the status quo. But campaign finance laws are meaningless if they are not enforceable.

Democrats and other advocates of giving a new start to the commission which was established in the post-Watergate era also take issue with the idea that it would be weaponized, saying sufficient safeguards would be built in.

Besides the consequential change in the makeup of the commission, the legislation would also give its chairman much more say in managing the agency and filling important staff positions, such as the general counsel, that have sometimes sat empty for years. New enforcement mechanisms would be instituted as well.

But the main bone of contention for now is the plan to revamp the membership of the commission itself.

Under the proposal that has passed the House and is being considered in the Senate, the evenly divided six-member panel would be reduced to five members to avoid the regular ties that now prevent it from doing much besides building a huge backlog of cases.

The legislation calls for the commission to be composed of two members from each party and one independent. Rather than the informal practice today of having congressional leaders handpick candidates for the job a tradition that has provided Mr. McConnell with significant influence over Republicans named to the commission a blue ribbon advisory panel would be created to recommend prospective commissioners.

The legislation recommends that the members include knowledgeable retired federal judges, former law enforcement officials and election law experts.

The idea is to try to take this away from being a purely political appointment and rather have folks who have expertise around campaign finance law and add legitimacy to the agencys efforts, said Mr. Kilmer, the Washington congressman, who said he modeled the new commission on a redistricting panel in his home state.

Needless to say, there is some skepticism about whether the independent member of the commission could be truly independent or instead just be a partisan in disguise who swings the commission in one partys direction. But the legislation specifies that an independent member would have to have had no affiliation or connection with either party for the previous five years.

Critics are not convinced. In a letter to congressional leaders, nine former Republican commissioners denounced the legislation as a partisan takeover with likely ruinous effect on our political system. They argued that the panels unique role in overseeing political cases made partisan parity mandatory.

In our experience, the agencys bipartisan structure both assures that the laws are enforced with bipartisan support and equally important, that they are not perceived as a partisan tool of the majority party an electoral weapon, if you will, they wrote.

Mr. McConnell said that the creators of the commission recognized that it could not be perceived as partisan if it was to have any credibility at all.

The F.E.C. was set up 3-to-3 when Democrats had huge margins in Congress, he said. They could have done anything they wanted. It never occurred to them that you would have the police, in effect, all be on one side.

Supporters of the overhaul say the commission was created when campaign finance was a less partisan issue than it is today, and added that the agency operated much more effectively in its earlier years. And the commission changes have backing from some congressional Republicans, though no Republicans in the House or Senate support the overall elections bill.

Backers see the changes as a way to make the panel function more like other big regulatory agencies in Washington such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission. They also recognize that reshaping the commission could mean that decisions will not always go their way as the membership shifts. But they say they are fine with that outcome.

I really do take issue with this notion that the presidents party would automatically dominate the commission, said Daniel I. Weiner, a lawyer at the liberal Brennan Center for Justice and a former legal counsel to a Democratic commission member. But I would still rather this be an agency that was periodically run by people I disagree with than an agency that is just paralyzed the way it is now.

Read more:

Democrats Aim to Revive a Campaign Finance Watchdog - The New York Times

They might not even be able to do it, but theyve sort of laid down a road map for us, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a close ally of GOP leader Mitch McConnell, said this week.

As with many things Schumer wants to accomplish in the evenly split Senate, his plan to eke out new filibuster-proof legislating opportunities hinges on the support of Sen. Joe Manchin. And the West Virginia Democrat just firmly reiterated his disapproval of repeatedly working around the 60-vote margin required to pass most bills.

So Schumer might not be able to muster the votes to take another crack at the same budget measure Democrats used to ease passage of the Covid relief bill, never mind the policy limitations he'd face if he pushed ahead. Still, the New York Democrat's highly public flirtation with the maneuver could help Republicans use it against his party whenever the Senate swings back to GOP control.

Hes certainly laying out what future majorities could do, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said. That doesnt mean that we should.

The Senate parliamentarian, who serves as the chambers nonpartisan procedural referee, said last week that it is possible to revise a budget measure like the one used to sideline Republicans on the Covid bill. But critical questions about the tactic remain unanswered, including whether Democrats could recycle that same resolution to facilitate passage of Bidens infrastructure plan this year and whether they could take unlimited attempts at legislating via the budget.

It's possible that when you unleash the magic that the magic is a whole lot harder to execute than you would think particularly when you get beyond the traditional uses of raising money or spending money, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said.

If Schumer's plan turns out to be workable, the move could afford Senate Democrats at least six chances to stave off the filibuster before the midterm elections next year, rather than the three shots they already get.

How that happens and what way that happens, we have to have discussions with the parliamentarian, of course, Schumer said this week. And we have to decide how to use it. But its something were going to explore using.

"I havent made a decision yet," the majority leader said when asked about the timing for his decision on the so-called budget reconciliation process.

Either way, the procedural insight Schumer is amassing could become source code for his successors to exploit from the outset of their time in control, especially any future Senate leader who has a more substantial majority and policy goals that fit easily within the constraints of the budget process.

For every action, theres an equal and opposite reaction, and this does expand reconciliation. That old door swings both ways, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said.

I would never presume to tell my friend Sen. Schumer how to do his job," Kennedy added. "But I would caution him to be careful with just looking for instant gratification, because its not in the Constitution that Ive been able to find that says hell always be majority leader and that hell always be in the majority.

For Schumer, Manchins resistance isnt the only impediment to pulling off the novel ploy. Utilizing the budget to pass a bill without a 60-vote hurdle is time-consuming, as Democrats were newly reminded during the grueling process of turning the new presidents pandemic aid plan into law in March.

Employing the budget trick even two more times during the current session of Congress as is already allowed would be an ambitious feat on its own. That would mean four more vote-a-rama amendment sessions, much like the all-nighters senators endured in February and again in March to get the stimulus off to Bidens desk.

To work under the budget maneuver, legislation must also be carefully tailored to abide by the so-called Byrd rule designed to ensure reconciliation is only used to advance bills related to spending, revenues or the debt. Democratic priorities like a clean energy standard, paid leave mandates and workers rights could breach those rules, so the tool can be as limiting as it is liberating.

Reconciliation is not a panacea, Cornyn said, noting that Democrats had to ditch major policy goals after the Senate parliamentarian ruled that they wouldnt work in the stimulus. That includes scrapped proposals to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour and fund a California transit project Republicans dubbed Pelosis subway to slam the Speaker.

Democrats acknowledge that Schumers gambit, if successful, could sting should Republicans regain control of Congress and the White House. But limiting Democrats reconciliation options could also prove risky, said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who pointed to the GOPs use of the budget to pass a massive package of tax cuts in 2017.

Listen, we learned this lesson four years ago, Durbin said. Theyll use reconciliation for their highest political priority tax cuts for the rich. They wasted no time doing it. Theyll do it again. Wed be naive to step back and say, Were afraid theyre going to misuse it. Theyre going to use it if they get the opportunity.

The rest is here:

Democrats hand their foes a weapon as they weigh a filibuster loophole - POLITICO

Answers may finally be coming over the cause of an apparent voting discrepancy in a state House of Representatives election last November in Windham which grabbed national exposure and even caught the attention of former President Donald Trump.

Gov. Chris Sununu this week signed Senate Bill 43 into law, which authorizes a forensic audit of the Rockingham County District 7 race in Windham.

The saga began on Election Day last November when Democrat Kristi St. Laurent, a candidate for one of four seats to represent Rockingham District 7 in the state House, was just 24 votes shy of winning. The narrow margin automatically triggered a recount of the ballots.

Then things really got interesting.

The recount discovered that four long-serving AccuVote optical scanning machines that were used on Election Day shorted the four GOP candidates in the contest between 297 and 303 votes. Three other Democratic candidates were shorted 18 to 28 votes, but the recount showed St. Laurent was credited with 99 more votes than were cast for her.

The result of the recount which was witnessed by dozens of officials and observers was, to say the least, puzzling.

With state law only allowing for a single recount in political races, New Hampshires Ballot Law Commission accepted the recounts results. But Republicans asked the state Attorney Generals Office to investigate the matter.

A bill calling for the forensic audit sailed through both the state House and Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support and landed on Sununus desk at the beginning of the week.

New Hampshire elections are safe, secure and reliable, Sununu said in a statement after signing the bill. Out of the hundreds of thousands of ballots cast this last year, we saw only very minor, isolated issues which is proof our system works. This bill will help us audit an isolated incident in Windham and keep the integrity of our system intact.

The audit will take place later this spring in Concord.

So how did Trump hear about the controversy?

Give credit there to Howie Carr, the well-known nationally syndicated conservative talk radio host and strong supporter and ally of the former president.

Carr briefly chatted with Trump in early February while dining at Mar-A-Lago, the former presidents residence and resort in Palm Beach, Florida.

Carr said he told Trump about the vote discrepancy in Windham, which he said piqued the former presidents interest.

After Trump narrowly lost New Hampshire in the 2016 general election to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, he charged without providing any proof that there was massive voter fraud in the state.

And Trump continues to refuse to concede the 2020 election to now-President Joe Biden. He promoted unfounded claims that last years election was rigged and stolen from him as he unsuccessfully tried to reverse his loss to Biden.

As the first special election legislative election in New Hampshire this year, the showdown in Merrimack for the state House of Representatives seat left vacant by the December death of House Speaker Dick Hinch grabbed tons of attention in recent weeks, both in the Granite State and even nationally.

Merrimack town councilor Bill Boyd succeeded in his mission to keep the seat in Republican hands, defeating Democratic candidate and former state Rep. Wendy Thomas by a roughly 53%-45% margin.

Both parties spent a good amount of time and resources on the race.

Two potential 2024 GOP presidential contenders, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, each headlined virtual New Hampshire GOP fundraisers to help raise money for Boyd.

And state Democrats, looking to rebound from losing the majorities in the both chambers of the New Hampshire legislature as well as the Executive Council in the November elections, raised more than $32,000 and contacted over 10,000 voters on behalf of Thomas.

Special elections tend to draw outsized attention, and both sides were spotlighting the potential political ramifications of the contest.

First Congressional District 2020 Republican nominee Matt Mowers, who helped the NHGOP organize the Pompeo and Cotton fundraisers for Boyd, characterized Merrimack as a swing town.

You saw a lot of ticket splitting last year, he said.

He argued that Boyds win spells a lot of problems for Democrats in the midterms and its certainly encouraging for those of us who want to see more common sense, whether thats in Concord or down in Washington.

Longtime New Hampshire Democratic Party chair Ray Buckley rejected the notion.

Merrimack is a traditionally Republican town, and the fact that Wendy Thomas came so close to victory shows just how strong our Democratic values are in red areas across the state, he said.

Buckley said the special election results were another step in the continued journey to turn Merrimack blue.

The participation by Pompeo and Cotton to help raise money for a special state legislative election should come as no surprise. This is New Hampshire, which for a century has held the first in the nation presidential primary.

With the early pre-season moves in the 2024 GOP presidential nomination race already underway in New Hampshire as well as Iowa, South Carolina, and Nevada, the other three early voting states in the primary and caucus calendar along the road to the White House, its never too early to make friends that could pay dividends down the road.

After Boyds victory, he received congratulatory calls from Pompeo, Cotton, as well as former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a 2016 presidential candidate whos mulling another stab at the White House in 2024.

Later this month, on April 28, Christie will make a remote appearance before a virtual meeting of the Right of Centergroup of leading Granite State conservative activists and leaders thats co-chaired by NHGOP chair Steve Stepanek and former state House Speaker Bill Obrien.

Christie will become the second potential GOP White House hopeful this year following Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, the National Republican Senatorial Committee chair to headline the groups regular meetings.

Continue reading here:

On the Trail: Unravelling how Democrats in one NH race wound up getting extra votes - Concord Monitor

Everybody agrees the polls missed the mark in 2020, as they had four years earlier. But nobodys certain why.

In search of answers, five competing Democratic polling firms have decided to put their heads (and their data) together, forming a group that will undertake a major effort to figure out what went wrong in 2020 and how the polling industry can adjust.

The team released a memo today announcing the project and offering some preliminary findings that seek to address why polls again underestimated support for Donald Trump. But over all, the message was one of openness and uncertainty. The big takeaway: Things need to change, including the very nature of how polls are conducted.

The authors wrote that their analysis thus far had pushed them toward thinking that pollsters must take a boldly innovative approach when mapping out the road ahead.

We know we have to explore all possibilities, Fred Yang of Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group, one of the five firms involved in the study, said in an interview today.

That will probably mean embracing some tools that had been considered too untested for mainstream public polling: Officially, the survey-research community still considers live-interview phone calls to be the gold standard, but there is growing evidence that innovative methods, like sending respondents text messages that prompt them to respond to a survey online, could become essential.

And it could also mean going back to some methods that have become less common in recent decades, including conducting polls via door-to-door interviews, or paying respondents to participate.

We are going to put every solution, no matter how difficult, on the table, the memo read.

The consortium of Democratic firms plans to release a fuller report this year; so will a number of traditional survey-research institutions. The American Association for Public Opinion Research, which undertook a widely discussed post-mortem analysis in 2016, is already at work on another. AAPOR is a bastion of polling traditionalism, but if the Democratic groups preliminary report is any indication, even the associations coming analysis might acknowledge that the industry should embrace more experimental approaches to data collection.

In a separate analysis released late last month, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight found that traditional, live-interview phone polls werent meaningfully more accurate than others. In fact, out of dozens of polling firms analyzed, none of those with the lowest average error had exclusively used live-interview phone calls (and some hadnt used them at all). Two of the three most accurate firms were Republican-aligned companies that are held in suspicion by most leaders in the social-science world, partly because they use methods that have long been considered suspect including robo-calling, as well as newer techniques like contacting respondents via text message.

The Democratic firms memo said polls had slightly missed the mark when determining the makeup of the electorate last year. This means they misunderstood, to some degree, who was likely to vote and who wasnt: a crucial X factor in pre-election polling.

Among so-called low-propensity voters that is, the ones pollsters consider the least likely to turn out Republicans proved four times as likely as Democrats to actually end up casting a ballot in November. This can be taken as another indication of how effective Donald Trump was at expanding the Republican electorate, and pollsters difficulties accounting for that, particularly among white voters without college degrees and those in rural areas.

Tellingly, the researchers found that voters who considered Trump presidential were underrepresented in polls.

But a greater source of concern was so-called measurement error. Thats a fancy way of saying polls have had trouble figuring out what percentage of people in certain demographic groups plan to vote for one candidate over the other.

The report proposed some explanations for why there was significant measurement error in 2020 pre-election polling, and it landed on two big potential culprits. One was the higher prevalence of anti-institutional views (sometimes referred to as social distrust) among Trump supporters, meaning those voters would be less willing to respond to official surveys. The second explanation was the lower incidence of pandemic-related fears among Trump voters, meaning they were more likely than Biden voters to be willing to turn out to vote.

What we have settled on is the idea there is something systematically different about the people we reached, and the people we did not, the reports authors wrote. This problem appears to have been amplified when Trump was on the ballot, and it is these particular voters who Trump activated that did not participate in polls.

New York Times Podcasts

Why do election fraud allegations live on, even after theyve been debunked? In our new audio series with Serial Productions, we went to one rural county to try to find out. Listen to the first episode now.

On Politics is also available as a newsletter. Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.

Is there anything you think were missing? Anything you want to see more of? Wed love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com.

See the article here:

Can These Democratic Pollsters Figure Out What Went Wrong? - The New York Times

Half of Americans approve of Democratic congressional leaders' performance compared to only about a third who said the same of their GOP counterparts, according to a new Pew Research Poll out Friday.

The poll found that 50 percent of respondents overall approved of Democratic leaders in Congress and 47 percent disapproved.

Sixty-four percent of respondents disapproved of Republican congressional leaders, while 32 percent approved.

The support for Democratic leaders in Congress has jumped 9 points since the spring of 2019 in a time of divided government, when Democrats controlled the House and Republicans still held the Senate.

Pew attributed the increase in approval to higher approval ratings among Democratic voters.

Democrats were also found to be more supportive of their party's congressional leaders compared to Republicans.

The poll found 84 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents approved of their party's leaders in Congress, while only 55 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning respondents approved of their party's leaders.

By contrast, 69 percent of Democrats approved of their party's leaders in 2019.

Aside from the support for Democratic leaders in Congress, the poll found that a majority of Americans approve of President BidenJoe BidenFour members of Sikh community among victims in Indianapolis shooting Overnight Health: NIH reverses Trump's ban on fetal tissue research | Biden investing .7B to fight virus variants | CDC panel to meet again Friday on J&J On The Money: Moderates' 0B infrastructure bill is a tough sell with Democrats | Justice Dept. sues Trump ally Roger Stone for unpaid taxes MORE's job performance.

A total of 59 percent of respondents approve of how Biden is handling his job as president, while 39 percent disapproved.

The number marks an increase of 5 points since March, when 54 percent said they approved of Biden's job performance.

Biden has spent his first few months in office focusing on legislative priorities that are broadly popular with the public, including pandemic relief and infrastructure.

The poll showed that the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief measure he signed into law in March, for example, was approved by 67 percent of respondents.

Other polls have indicated that the provision authorizing another round of stimulus checks, this time of up to $1,400 for individuals, proved to be particularly popular.

Pew's poll also found that 72 percent believe the Biden administration has done an excellent or good job in handling the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. The views differed by party, but overall a majority approved: 88 percent of Democrats approve, compared to 55 percent of Republicans.

The poll was conducted April 5 to 11, with a 2.1 percentage point margin of error.

View post:

Pew poll: 50 percent approve of Democrats in Congress | TheHill - The Hill

What theyve been very forthright about is protecting the institution against pressures from their own party. I know what thats like, McConnell said, referring to former President Donald Trumps demands that he kill the filibuster. Every time I said no. And its nice that there are Democrats left who respect the institution and dont want to destroy the very essence of the Senate.

Its a surprising turn for McConnell and his party, who tried unsuccessfully to defeat both centrist politicians in the 2018 election and only occasionally tried to woo the pair while they held the majority. But in a 50-50 Senate where Democrats are eager to sidestep Republicans, Sinema and Manchin are the GOPs most important allies under the dome. The more that duo resists liberal entreaties to gut the filibuster and fall in line, the more reassured Republicans are that the upper chamber can remain a check on their partys most left-leaning impulses while Democrats control Washington.

McConnells top lieutenant, John Thune of South Dakota, chats up both Democrats frequently on the floor and sometimes hangs out with them outside the Senate. He spoke of Manchin and Sinema in almost reverential terms on Wednesday.

For me right now, theyre almost guardians of democracy because theyre trying to protect us from the loss of the legislative filibuster and everything that would come with that. Theyre good people, Thune said in an interview. They want to do the right thing.

Manchin didnt quite return the compliments when asked about Republicans praise. Sure, hes sincere about working with them, but at some point he hopes the GOP budges a bit on its unrelenting criticism of President Joe Bidens domestic agenda.

I just hope they help me a little bit in bipartisanship, Manchin said of Republicans. Thats all."

Though moderation and deep relationships with the GOP unite them, Sinema and Manchin have yin-and-yang personalities. Sinema zips into votes quietly and rarely utters a word to the plethora of media stationed around the Capitol. Manchin is a gregarious backslapper who revels in a hallway gaggle or Sunday show appearance, an old-school retail politician who cant resist jumping into a bipartisan gang to try to make a deal.

And the two are dominating the otherwise barren fields of bipartisanship in todays Senate. Republicans are under the impression that both are sincere about pursuing a bipartisan infrastructure deal, not another party-line proposal.

Sinema is talking to Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) about infrastructure, working with Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) on minimum wage legislation and trying to write a bill addressing the migration surge at the border with Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). A spokesman for Sinema said she believes the best way to achieve lasting results for Arizona is through bipartisan negotiations.

And Manchin is the only Democrat not supporting the massive voting rights measure passed by the House, trying to force a bipartisan negotiation on infrastructure and digging in against the White House's initial offer on corporate tax hikes. He said he believes Republicans arent all talk and no give, that "they really want to work.

But what makes Manchin and Sinema particularly valuable to Republicans is their defense of the filibuster, which gives the GOP's 50-vote minority significant sway over the agenda. Both have recently dug into their defense of the 60-vote requirement to pass most bills, an indication that Democrats may simply lack the votes to squash the minority party's legislative power during this Congress.

Cornyn compared Sinema to former Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), beloved in his party, after she urged senators to change their habits instead of messing with the Senate rules. I thought that was a pretty profound statement on her part," the Texan said.

Theyve both taken strong stands against the filibuster, and [Republicans are] very much committed to that, said Capito, Manchin's junior senator and friendly with Sinema since their days in the House.

Manchin and Sinema's frequent defense of the filibuster, Capito added, helps "reinforce how valuable that is to the institution but also, obviously, to us as Republicans.

Romney said he speaks to both of them every day, describing the two prominent filibuster backers as proxies for a larger group of Democrats who more quietly voice their own concerns about killing the 60-vote threshold.

There are a number of Democrats that are appreciative of the fact that Manchin and Sinema are standing tall [and] taking the slings and arrows, Romney said.

Whats more, Republicans acknowledge the duo are the Hill's most effective advocates for moderation as Democrats eye a go-it-alone approach on huge spending bills. When they can't drive compromise directly through legislation that's passed through budget reconciliation, GOP senators can influence the process by keeping close ties to Sinema and Manchin.

Notably, Manchins personal relationship with Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) ended up forcing Democrats into a last-minute paring back of unemployment benefits during debate on Biden's $1.9 trillion coronavirus aid bill. No Republicans supported that legislation, but they were able to make their mark through Manchin.

If Democrats do pursue infrastructure legislation along party lines, Republicans will once again look to their two buddies across the aisle to exert a centrist pull -- whether or not progressives howl in protest.

Manchin and Sinema's influence has "been very helpful, said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.). Now, I dont want to overstate that. I dont think either one of them have fundamentally changed the direction of important Democratic legislation just yet. But theyve certainly slowed down a lot of the more radical ideas.

View post:

Mitch McConnell wants his conference to say nice things about these 2 Democrats - POLITICO

BALLSTON SPA, N.Y. A lawsuit has been filed to prevent a number of Saratoga County Democrats seeking elective office in November from getting the Working Families Party ballot line.

The filing on behalf of Thomas J. Sartin, Jennyfer L. Gleason, Julia L. Spratt, Robert J. Decelle, Jeremy B. Fifield, Stefanie E. Music, Michael J. Music Jr. and Jeffrey D. Cleary was submitted April 7 in Saratoga County State Supreme Court. The lawsuit was filed by the plaintiffs attorney former Congressman John Sweeney.

The filing requests that the Working Families designating petitions naming the Democrats and the respective offices they seek be declared insufficient, defective, invalid, and null and void to designate or authorize them as candidates for the partys June 22 primary.

It also requests the court direct and compel the Saratoga County Board of Elections not certify, print, or place the names of the candidates on the Working Families primary election ballot.

Upon receiving the lawsuit Judge Dianne Freestone ordered representatives for the opposing parties to show cause before a special term of the court at 3 p.m. Wednesday April 14 at the Saratoga County Courthouse in Ballston Spa.

The defendants in the case are candidates Jerome Holland, Melissa L. Boxer, Jennifer P. Jeram, Alexander CD Patterson, Michael J. Williams, Cynthia C. Young, John T. Fealy, Christopher Scarincio, Erin H. Trombley, Tara N. Gaston, John E. Bishop and Barbara K. Turpin. Included also as a defendant is the Saratoga County Board of Elections.

Jeram is running for Clifton Park Town Judge trying to oust longtime Judge James Hughes, a Republican. Boxer is challenging incumbent Clifton Park Supervisor Philip Barrett, also a Republican, while Patterson is running against three Republican incumbents for a seat on the Clifton Park Town Board.

Young is running to retain her seat on the Malta Town Board. Fealy is running to join Young on the town board and Williams is running for town supervisor.

Holland is running for Saratoga County Sheriff, Scarincio for Moreau Superintendent of Highways, Trombley for a seat on the Moreau Town Board and Gaston is running to retain her seat as one of two Saratoga Springs County Supervisors. Bishop and Turpin are running for council seats in the Town of Waterford.

The filing states that the plaintiffs are challenging the Democrats designating petitions for the Working Families ballot line because they are photocopies of the signed petitions and signatures rather than the hard copy petitions themselves. As such, the filing states, they do not comply with election law.

The lawsuit claims those Democratic candidates who are not enrolled members of the Working Family Party took a shortcut in the petitioning process by using the photocopies rather than getting them signed by the presiding officer and secretary of the Working Family Party.

There is no basis in law or in equity for a court to waive the strict statutory language and requirement of a duly executed Certificate to allow a non-enrolled candidate to carry the banner and name of a political party in which they chose not to enroll, the filing states.

Though the Saratoga County Board of Elections had not ruled on the petitions validity as of the filing, the lawsuit asks the court to make sure the board adheres to the plaintiffs version of the law and rule the Working Families Party authorization of the petitions to be invalid.

In an email about the filing Jeram said as a newcomer to the intricacies involved in running for elective office she is troubled by the filing in general and in particular with her race because it is her belief that the lawsuit has no merit whatsoever.

The statute they relied on in their filing does not apply to judicial candidates, she said.

Additionally, Jeram feels the lawsuit may get tossed because an Executive Order by Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2020 states that due to the public health emergency posed by the COVID-19 virus, notary publics are authorized to officiate documents remotely and can use audio-video technology to witness a document being signed and then notarize it.

Jeram said she has retained counsel and believes the county Board of Elections has also.

Im still excited to be running for town office but it is frustrating that the Republican Party does not seem to want voters to actually have a vote, she said.

Read the original post:

Lawsuit seeks to disqualify Democrats from Working Families Party support - The Saratogian