Category Archives: Democrat

Democrats midterm election prospects are daunting.

They are defending razor-thin majorities in the House and Senate in a year when voters arepessimisticabout the state of the country and the economy and arefrustratedthat the party has moved increasingly to the left.

Democrats are also faced with a problematic internal chasm between progressives and moderates a dynamic that plagued President BidenJoe BidenRussian rocket attacks wound five in western Ukraine city of Lviv If we de-list the IRGC, what will the dictators think? Biden to propose minimum tax on billionaires in budget MOREs first year in office and is now a defining feature of Democratic Primary contests across the country.

Consequently, there are two major questions heading into the 2022 midterms:

First, will Democrats be able to turn around this unfavorable political climate by delivering on a more centrist yet still forward-looking agenda in order to win key toss-up races?

Second (which will portend the answer to the first), will the moderate wing of the Democratic Party that has a much broader national appeal compared to progressivism ultimately prevail in primary contests?

In the coming months, we will be able to answer both questions by focusing on one contest in particular: the Pennsylvania Senate race. The result of this Democratic primary will be a bellwether for the partys national performance in November; and at the same time, the outcome of this general election will provide a strong indication of the partys current and future political viability.

Generally speaking, statewide races in swing states, especially without an incumbent, are often indicative of the current national political environment. The Pennsylvania Senate race fits the bill: it involves an open-seat Republican Sen. Pat ToomeyPatrick (Pat) Joseph ToomeyThe Supreme Court just made a US-EU Privacy Shield agreement even harder The Hill's Morning Report - Biden on Russia: Distrust and verify Overnight Health Care Biden eyes additional COVID-19 funding MORE is retiring in a toss-up state that Joe Biden won in 2020 after Donald TrumpDonald TrumpBiden administration names FAA safety official as agency's acting chief Pennsylvania Senate primaries get personal Can Rick Scott trump Ron DeSantis to win the GOP base? MORE carried it in 2016.

Notably, the political power and tendencies of suburban voters in Pennsylvania mirror those of national suburban votersan important parallel, as suburban areas are the last remaining competitive areas left in the country, perDoug Sosniks recent analysis.

Indeed, elections both nationwide, and in Pennsylvania are won or lost in the suburbs. In 2020, the enthusiastic turnout for Democratsin the suburbs of Philadelphiapropelled Joe Biden to victory in the state and helped him win the presidency, along with his strong showings in the suburbs of Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin.

In 2018, suburban voters in Pennsylvania reelected Democrats in statewide races and secured upset wins for Democrats in local contests a trend that illustrated the partys strong performance nationally.

However, in the 2021 elections, there was ashift toward the G.O.Pin the Pennsylvania suburbs similar to suburbs across the country, even in blue states. In statewide elections inVirginiaandNew Jersey, as well as local races inNew Yorks Long Island suburbs, there was a demonstrable swing toward the G.O.P. that was driven by suburban voters defecting from Democrats.

Why did this shift occur, and what can Democrats do to prevent it from continuing in 2022?

Sosniks analysis provides critical insight. He notes that suburban voters main misgivings about the G.O.P. center on anti-Trump attitudes; while on the Democratic side, suburban voters dislike the culture wars and identity politics that are pervasive on the left, are concerned about rising crime, and arent looking for an expansive or intrusive federal government.

Thus, in 2021, Democrats alienated suburban voters in Pennsylvania and elsewhere because the party was viewed as being supportive of big spending plans, and as embracing or at the very least, not discrediting the identity politics and culture wars of the progressive wing.

At the same time, these voters clearly view Republicans more favorably without Donald Trump. In Trumps absence, Republicans found a viable model for a candidate with a suburban appeal: Glenn YoungkinGlenn YoungkinJudge rules 12 Virginia families with immunocompromised kids can ask schools to require masks Majority believes public schools on wrong track: poll Youngkin's crusade against equity hurts white people too MORE, the newly elected governor of Virginia. Youngkin was thought of as a more moderate Republican who spoke to issues that suburban voters in particular care about: lower taxes, less government interference in schools and businesses, and lowering crime.

In this sense, the general election for Pennsylvanias Senate seat will ultimately be a dry run and potentially a harbinger for the 2024 presidential election. Indeed, the frontrunner in the G.O.P. primary in Pennsylvania hedge fund CEO Dave McCormick, who has a9-point advantageover Mehmet OzMehmet OzPennsylvania Senate primaries get personal Biden asks Herschel Walker and Mehmet Oz to quit council or be ousted The Hill's Morning Report - Jackson fends off attacks; Biden to Europe MORE is working to delicately balance, as Youngkin did, the Trump-wing of the party with the moderate side.

Ultimately, if Democrats are unable to advance a national agenda this year that is centered on core moderate themes, Republicans will have a much better chance at winning the Senate seat in Pennsylvania, and of retaking control of Congress.

That being said, Democrats ability to convincingly make this strategic shift to the center by November hinges in large part on the success, or lack thereof, of moderates in key primary races across the country. In a number of congressional races and some Senate races, moderate Democrats are facing primary challenges from the left, as is the case in the Pennsylvania Senate race.

In Pennsylvania, the progressive Lieutenant Governor, Josh Fetterman, is in a close contest with Rep. Connor Lamb, who is backed by the establishment and is viewed as a more moderate, conventional candidate who has more crossover appeal to suburban voters.

Put another way, while a Fetterman win would be a daunting indicator for the Democrats chances of retaining control of Congress in the general election, a Lamb victory would be an encouraging sign for the party.

Indeed, Lamb winning would indicate that the Democratic Party is choosing to embrace a more moderate, effective and electable approach and at the same time, would show that Democrats have a fighting chance to regain their footing among suburban voters in Pennsylvania, and across the country.

Douglas E. Schoen is a political consultant who served as an adviser to former President Clinton and to the 2020 presidential campaign of Michael BloombergMichael BloombergHow Biden and Democrats can stack up legislative wins before November Biden's State of the Union address won't help Democrats politically This SOTU, Biden can win back voters with a plan for lower drug prices MORE. He is the author of The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat." Zoe Young is vice president of Schoen Cooperman Research.

View original post here:

Pennsylvania's Senate race is a bellwether for Democrats in 2022 and beyond | TheHill - The Hill

This month, after The New York Times first reported that U.S. officials were visiting Caracas to explore talks with oil-rich Venezuela, the diplomatic gambit drew an angry response from one senator in particular.

The democratic aspirations of the Venezuelan people, Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey said in a blistering statement, are worth much more than a few thousand barrels of oil.

These were harsh words coming from a member of the presidents own party, who was furious that he hadnt been adequately consulted on the trip. But they were emblematic of the extraordinary influence the New Jersey Democrat wields over some of the most politically radioactive topics in U.S. foreign policy, current and former lawmakers, officials and Senate aides say. The administration quickly denied accusations that the Caracas trip was part of an effort to find new supplies of energy to replace Russian oil or to undercut the Venezuelan opposition.

There is no dialogue between us and the regime, Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said under questioning from reporters.

The episode is only the most recent example of how Menendez, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is able to define the boundaries of what is acceptable on subjects from Iran to Venezuela. He is plugged in with Washington-savvy pro-Israel groups and with the politically active Cuban- and Venezuelan-American communities in South Florida. Sometimes in sync with the administration and often at odds with it, he is always to be handled with a healthy amount of respect and fear.

Hes somebody that you need on your side no matter what, so theyre very careful, said Juan Cruz, who served as a senior director for the Western Hemisphere during the Trump administration.

Last year, in a measure of the deference given to Menendez, the White House allowed him to suggest who should and should not be invited to an event with President Biden. The three individuals Menendez nixed were critics of the decades-old economic embargo of Cuba, which many on the left view as an example of a failed, right-wing policy.

Menendez has a very moralistic and inflexible view on the use of sanctions to punish and improve human rights, regardless of evidence, said Christopher Sabatini, a senior fellow for Latin America at Chatham House, a think tank in London.

At the same time, Menendez has been a crucial administration ally on a number of Bidens priorities, from clearing a path for dozens of appointees Republicans have tried to block to fostering a bipartisan consensus on the Ukraine war. Top administration officials consult with Menendez multiple times a month. His relationship with Biden is also a vast improvement over the tension-filled Obama era, allies said.

Chairman Menendez is a partner on our foreign policy goals and this administration benefits from his counsel, said Adrienne Watson, a spokeswoman for the White Houses National Security Council.

In response to questions about tensions with the Biden administration, Menendezs office pushed back hard on the perception that he approached the job of chairman any differently than he had under previous presidents of both parties.

Menendezs clout may soon be tested anew if and when the administration unveils its long-awaited reset of the Iran nuclear deal.

In recent days, officials have briefed members of House and Senate committees about the status of the talks in Vienna, and details of the 25-page agreement have begun to spill out in newspaper accounts.

One of the final obstacles, according to those who have attended the briefings, is Irans demand that the U.S. no longer designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization.

Doing so would mean little in a practical sense because other sanctions on the group still apply, proponents of a deal say. But the Biden administration would need to expend precious political capital defending the move at a time when it has little to spare.

Id want to see what that means in practice, said Representative Tom Malinowski, Democrat of New Jersey, who said he was waiting to see the text of an agreement. But once Iran gets the bomb, our ability to confront their other malign activities will be diminished.

Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat of Connecticut, said in an interview that hed seen bone-chilling assessments of how close Iran is to producing weapons-grade uranium. Others who have been briefed on the U.S. intelligence assessments say Iran could produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon in as little as two weeks, escalating the risk that Israel might take military action.

The consequences of no deal are horrific, Murphy said. And there is no other practical path to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon other than diplomacy.

The main reason the crisis has reached this point, advocates of a deal say, is Donald Trumps withdrawal from the original nuclear deal, which allowed Iran to keep enriching uranium past agreed-upon levels.

But the Biden administration also moved too slowly to engage Tehran upon entering office, fearing Menendez-led blowback on Capitol Hill.

It didnt want to lose fence-sitters in Congress, said Ali Vaez, an Iran expert at the International Crisis Group.

Now that a deal is close, administration officials are being cagey about whether they believe Congress must be allowed to review its terms. Under a bipartisan law passed in 2015, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, the administration must submit the text of any new agreement to congressional oversight.

Menendez, who opposed the original nuclear agreement in 2015 and has criticized the current deal under discussion, has signaled he will insist on the Senate having its say. In February, he teamed up with Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican of South Carolina, to propose his own diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff.

There is no chance in bringing Senator Menendez on board, and the alternative that he offers is unworkable for the administration, Vaez said. I think its a lost cause.

State Department officials caution that an agreement is neither imminent nor certain, as one put it. The administration is also still examining its legal options regarding congressional review of a potential deal, which might not technically qualify as new.

If an Iran deal is put to a vote in the Senate, Menendezs reaction will be crucial. Republicans most likely will uniformly oppose it. The administration can still afford to lose a handful of Democrats, because only 41 votes would be needed to allow a revived agreement to proceed. But it might take some arm twisting to round up enough votes to win.

Ben Cardin, the hawkish Maryland senator, has already expressed concerns about delisting the Revolutionary Guards. Other influential Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, such as Chris Coons of Delaware, have said little in support of a fresh deal.

A defeat in the Senate could deal the president a damaging blow on one of his signature foreign policy initiatives, supporters of the talks warn. And given Irans rapid advance toward producing weapons-grade uranium, should diplomacy fail, the president could be facing the prospect of a new conflict in the Middle East on top of a grinding war in Ukraine.

If there is no deal, Vaez said, I think this will escalate very quickly and the specter of war will emerge as soon as the spring.

Closing segment

Its certainly not rare for a senator questioning a nominee to interrupt. At one point during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings this morning, Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, did just that, apologizing to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as he did so and explaining he had only four minutes left.

But Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, took it to another level one that made the interruptions themselves, not the content of the questions and answers, the main feature of his line of questioning.

During Grahams exchange with Jackson on Wednesday, she asked for permission to speak multiple times, with Senator Richard J. Durbin, a Democrat and the chair of the Judiciary Committee, occasionally hopping in to help. When Jackson did speak, Graham shook his head dismissively or fidgeted in his chair, trying to jump in.

Toward the end of his line of questioning, our colleague Catie Edmondson described audible groaning and noises of protest from many of the spectators as Graham interrupted her. When his time was up, he left the dais.

Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, later tried to one-up Graham, refusing to stop talking when his time was up. When he asked Durbin why he wouldnt allow his last question, Durbin said, You wouldnt allow her to answer anyway.

And what was Cruzs excuse for more time? Durbin wouldnt stop interrupting him.

Thanks for reading. Well see you tomorrow.

Blake & Leah

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.

Excerpt from:

The Democrat the White House Fears the Most - The New York Times

Fixing New Yorks bail requirements was hailed as a national victory after Democrats regained dual majorities in the state Senate in 2019. A series of reforms, which included banning cash bail for all but the most violent felonies, were signed into law as a symbol of what the party could do united in power for the first time in years.

Flash forward three years later: The fierce fight over how to address a crime wave has infiltrated the debate in all New York statewide races this year, including for governor, and for critical House seats that could help determine the control of Congress in November.

I believe this is a nationally coordinated campaign, quite honestly, about linking crime to progressives, and linking crime to people in power, said state Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D-Yonkers), whose conference is resisting pressure to revise the bail laws.

I dont subscribe to that, but I understand that is politics.

In New Jersey, liberal Democrats and more moderate ones battled last year over abortion rights, leading Democrat Gov. Phil Murphy to sign a pared back measure that passed in January. And in California, liberal Democrats are clamoring to end offshore oil drilling while moderate Democrats have echoed industry calls to intensify fossil fuel production given overseas volatility.

In New York, calls for rollbacks to bail reform are being championed by newly elected New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a moderate who beat progressive candidates at the polls last year. Gov. Kathy Hochul, a moderate herself, is trying to satisfy Adams and his supporters, but also compromise with the Democratic-controlled, more left-leaning Legislature in the coming days of budget negotiations for the fiscal year that starts April 1.

Theres potential peril in how leaders in Albany proceed: Several local candidates, particularly on Long Island, lost elections last year to Republicans, who tied bail reform to spikes in crime and won election in the battleground, suburban areas.

We need to look at crime holistically because whats driving violent crime is not bail reform. Unfortunately, thats a narrative, but thats not what the facts are, warned state Sen. Peter Harckham, a Westchester County Democrat in a moderate district.

Gov. Kathy Hochul is facing pressure to reform New York's bail laws, but is facing pushback from progressive Democrats in Albany.|Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/AP Photo

No issue has dominated New York politics in recent months more than crime and what to do about it. No data, so far, suggests that bail reform has been responsible for higher rates of violent crime New Yorkers are seeing on the news, on the streets and in the subways, according to several recent analyses.

But that hasnt stopped political candidates from saying so on the airwaves, in mailers and at news conferences, especially as voters across the political spectrum signal that crime will be their top concern heading to the ballot box.

Its political gold for Republicans, who are hoping to make gains in the suburbs this fall.

Those who support the bail law after two NYPD officers were murdered and innocent New Yorkers were being pushed in front of subways, attacked on the street with hatchets and followed into their homes and stabbed to death will have blood on their hands, state GOP Chair Nick Langworthy said.

Long Island Rep. Tom Suozzi, who is challenging Hochul from the right in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, has accused Hochul of being ill prepared and uncommunicative about how she will address crime. Changes to the bail reform law particularly changes to allow judges more discretion about when to require cash bail for dangerous individuals are just common sense, he said Thursday.

We have a crime crisis, and the governor has treated it like an afterthought, he said.

The drumbeat of criticism from moderate Democrats and Republicans has left centrists like Hochul who initially attempted to avoid the debate by emphasizing other public safety proposals toeing a difficult line.

Shes at odds with the left wing of the party if she suggests adding more exceptions to the laws, but could face backlash by moderates and independents on Election Day if she doesnt, officials suggested.

Republican New York City Council Minority Leader Joe Borelli, who supports more extensive rollbacks to bail reform than what Hochul laid out, called the proposal a lose-lose.

It gives her a political headache without actually addressing the root of the problem, he said. It makes no one happy and gives her opponents from every angle a new round of criticism. She should literally fire whoever told her this is a good idea.

Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie and Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins have raised concerns about an overhaul of bail laws in New York.|(AP Photo/Hans Pennink)

Hochul has proposed a series of changes to bail and other criminal justice laws, including allowing judges to set bail for repeat offenders and in all felony cases involving illegal guns.

In an op-ed in which she outlined the plan after days of refusing to discuss it in public she also argued that bail reform was not responsible for the recent spike in crime and conceded her proposal would not immediately reverse the rise in violence.

The proposal, and its timing just days before the due date for the state budget where shed like it included, sparked immediate backlash on the left, while failing to quell criticism from the right.

And it appears unlikely much of her plan will make it in the final state budget deal. Liberal Democrats fear a watered-down, new law would lead more poor people to be kept in jail and discriminate against minorities, as had been the case for decades.

This governor literally has said that these bail reforms have nothing to do with the rise of crime, has literally said they wont lower crime, but has literally said were going to do it anyway, said New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, who is running against Hochul in the Democratic primary, and headlined a rally against her plans outside the governors office in Manhattan on Thursday.

The criminal justice reform movement embodied by the massive protests that swept New York and the country after the 2020 murder of George Floyd is butting up against concerns against rising crime.

Many Democrats who rushed to promise more criminal justice reform during the wave of protests with some embracing the call to defund the police are less than two years later in the camp seeking to roll back previous reforms.

Democrats are terrible about talking about public safety, Williams said in an interview. They default to Republican-lite talking points because the fear mongering gets so [bad], they get so overwhelmed with it they dont know what to do.

Rep. Tom Suozzi talks to reporters at the state Capitol in Albany on Thursday, March 24, 2022, as he runs in a Democratic primary for governor.|Joseph Spector/POLITICO

Jared Trujillo, policy counsel at the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the backlash was predictable.

One of the primary goals of the reforms was to ensure that poor communities and people of color would not be disproportionately penalized by their inability to pay bail, especially for low-level crimes.

Proponents regularly pointed to the case of Bronx teenager Kalief Browder who spent three years on Rikers Island because his family could not raise $3,000, only to have a robbery charge dropped for lack of evidence. Browder later died by suicide.

These bills are some of the most significant civil rights reforms in New Yorks history, Trujillo said. After every civil rights victory in this country, there has been pushback to it. After Reconstruction, we got Jim Crow. After the civil rights movement of the 1960s, we got the Rockefeller drug era and we got mass incarceration.

The people that capitulated during all those movements, they are not heroes. It got them no electoral wins. It did not help them, he said.

At first it seemed like Hochul, who is running for reelection less than a year after she took office in the wake of Andrew Cuomos resignation in August, would avoid the debate.

She pointed to her seriousness about crime with a series of public safety proposals that include addressing illegal gun trafficking and funding community-based gun violence prevention programs.

She and Adams last month jointly announced they would ramp up enforcement in subway stations to get people experiencing homelessness out of the subways and into housing or treatment. Just one day earlier theyd both pled for party unity at the state Democratic convention in Manhattan.

But Adams, a former NYPD captain who centered his campaign on a pledge to bring down gun violence, is one of several of her fellow moderates who say that new public safety plans should also include changing the bail laws to give judges discretion to hold people in jail before trial if they are deemed dangerous.

Hochuls proposal stops short of that, but Adams has backed the measures she outlined.

I complain about every dangerous person thats released. Every one. We dont need dangerous people on our streets, Adams told reporters at City Hall this week. Its contributing to the sea of violence that we are experiencing.

In February voters seemed to be on the same page, according to Siena College Research Institute polling.

By a 65-27 percent margin, they said the so-called bail reform law should be amended to give judges more discretion to keep dangerous criminals off the streets.

The state budget is often where policies as controversial as bail reform are accomplished using political pressure from key spending elements, a point brought up by Cuomo, who also waded into the debate from a comeback tour speaking event on St. Patricks Day.

I will wager anyone in the room if they dont pass a law changing bail reform in the budget they wont pass any meaningful reform by the end of the session in June, he told a group of Hispanic clergy and former politicians.

But legislative leaders have maintained a cool reception to Hochuls suggested changes to bail laws, though they acknowledge it could affect some of the more vulnerable members in their conferences at the polls this year.

Nobody in our conference is wanting to go backwards, Stewart-Cousins said.

I will continue and my conference will continue to do what we think is right for the people of New York state, she said. And I believe that if we continue to do that, we will transcend politics, especially politics of lies, and untruth.

Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie of the Bronx, who hails from the same borough as Browder, said he no longer believes the debate is centered around the policy itself.

I know our opponents are going to say: They are being soft on crime; they dont care about victims. Thats all bullshit, Heastie said. We care about having safe communities, and I hate when people try to politicize these things.

CLARIFICATION: The article has been updated to clarify that New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed a pared-back version of the bill that was sent to his desk.

See original here:

Democrats' fight over bail reform might be a fight for the party's direction - POLITICO

SACO In one area race for the State House, two Republicans are in a primary contest to run against an incumbent Democrat.

And in one county race, two Democrats are each running to win their partys nod to run for District 3 York County Commissioner in the fall election.

Both contests will play out in party primaries June 14.

The deadline for candidates to submit nominations for state and county offices for Democratic and Republican primaries was 5 p.m. March 15.

In House District 134, which includes part of Biddeford, along with Kennebunkport and part of Kennebunk, Republicans Elizabeth Jordan and Ronald Russell are each seeking the nod from their party to run against Democrat incumbent Traci Gere Nov. 8. All live in Kennebunkport.

Also, in York County Commission District 3, incumbent Allen Sicard is challenged in the Democratic primary by former state Senator Justin Chenette. The district includes Saco, Old Orchard Beach, Buxton, and Hollis. There is no Republican in the primary, and barring an independent bid in November, whoever wins the primary would be elected. Both are of Saco.

There are no candidates for the Republican primary for five seats, including one State House race and four York County government offices.

Democratic candidate Marc Malon is running for House District 133, part of Biddeford, an open seat formerly known as House District 11. There is no Republican candidate. Democrat Ryan Fecteau, who currently holds the seat and is Speaker of the Maine House of Representatives, will have completed four terms by the end of this year and because of Maines term limit law cannot run for a fifth consecutive term.

In York County government races, incumbent District 2 County Commissioner Democrat Richard Dutremble of Biddeford is seeking a fifth, four-year term. There is no Republican candidate in the district, which includes Biddeford, Arundel, Kennebunk, and Kennebunkport.

Democrat incumbent Kathryn Slattery of Old Orchard Beach is seeking her partys nod for York County District Attorney, also known as Prosecutorial District 1. Incumbent Democrat incumbent Nancy Hammond of Lyman is running for York County Register of Deeds. As well, incumbent Democrat Bobby Mills of Biddeford is running for York County treasurer. There are no Republican candidates for those races.

There are several others in the running for their partys endorsement.

Incumbent Democrat Sen. Donna Bailey of Saco and Republican Sharri MacDonald of Old Orchard Beach, a former member of the Maine House, are looking to represent Senate District 31, which includes Saco, Old Orchard Beach and Buxton.

In Senate District 32, Democrat Henry Ingwersen of Arundel and David Corbett of Lyman are running for the open seat. Ingwersen is a former member of the Maine House; Corbett has made previous bids for York County Sheriff. The newly reapportioned district includes Arundel, Biddeford, Dayton, Hollis, and Lyman. The current senator, Democrat Susan Deschambault, is termed out.

In the running for House 129, part of Saco, incumbent Democrat Margaret ONeil and Republican Stephen DuPuis are each seeking their partys nod June 14. ONeil is currently serving her third term.

Incumbent Democrat Lynn Copeland and Republican Theodore Sirois are in the running for House District 130, part of Saco.

In House 131, incumbent Democrat Lori Gramlich and Republican Scott Eccleston are looking to represent Old Orchard Beach.

In House 132, part of Biddeford, incumbent Democrat Erin Sheehan and Republican Timothy Keenan are each seeking their partys nod in the June 14 primary.

Incumbent Democrat York County Sheriff William L. King of Saco is looking for his partys endorsement for a third, four-year term in the June 14 primary. Retired deputy Roger Hicks of Hollis is seeking the nod from Republicans which means a rematch from the 2018 election, provided no independent candidates join the November race.

Go here to see the original:

Here's who's running in the Democrat and Republican primaries June 14 - Press Herald

It isnt getting colder in Hell just yet, but the Democratic National Committee and its Rules and By-laws Committee does seem to be getting warmer in its efforts to create a new primary calendar for selecting delegates to its 2024 National Convention. As everyone knows, the early states are critical to the presidential nomination system. And, according to a draft resolution circulating before the next Rules Committee meeting, the DNC looks like it will seriously consider changing the traditional opening sequence of the nomination system.

As things stand right now, the first state to hold a delegate selection process in 2024 would be Iowa, whose 80% white electorate hasnt voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in a decade. As Gilberto Hinojosa, chairman of the Texas Democratic Party said of the current primary calendar, as it was getting underway in Iowa in 2020, It is bizarre. It makes absolutely no sense except for tradition, and sometimes tradition doesnt get us anywhere. The second state would be New Hampshire, which may have more of a historical and legal claim to be first in the nation but whose electorate is even whiter, 90%, than Iowas. At least it can claim a greater tendency to vote Democratic in statewide contests. Most importantly, neither state voted for Joe Bidens candidacy in 2020, thus depriving them of the ability to use their loyalty to the incumbent President to block this latest effort to restructure the calendar as has happened so often in the past.

Under the committees proposal, states wishing to help kick start the 2024 campaign would have to apply to the DNCs Rules and By-laws committee, which would base their final decision on which states get to go early from among those who:

Iowa loses on all three counts; New Hampshire is on shakier grounds but could take a simple step to solidify their claim.

Since the party will want to get an early reading on the preferences of all four regions in the country, if the party passes over Iowa, their biggest decision will be on which Midwest state to choose to take Iowas place on the calendar. The most likely choice, given the criteria, would be Michigan, whose attempt to go early in 2008 resulted in each of the delegates selected in the primary held outside the window of the partys primary calendar being given only a half of a vote at the Denver convention that nominated Barack Obama. Despite that punishment and Hilary Clintons primary victory in Michigan, the former President carried Michigan in the general election by over 800,000 votes, but it has become much more competitive lately. That, along with its diversity and strong labor presence will allow Michigan Democrats to make a strong case that they are the Midwest state that best meets the DNCs proposed criteria of diversity and general election competitiveness.

The only other real choice facing the DNC, should it adopt the co-chairs proposal, is which eastern state to choose to go early, if not New Hampshire. South Carolina and its powerful spokesperson, Congressman James Clyburn, will successfully argue for their continued inclusion as the early southern state, not just because of the states large percentage of African American voters but, more quietly, their key role in President Bidens nomination. Nevada has already taken steps to change their early caucus to a primary. Even without the recently departed Senator Harry Reid around to argue their case, the strong union and Latino presence in this western region states electorate makes them almost a shoo in for an early spot. That leaves the question of New Hampshires early status on the table.

As was argued back in the 1980s when I chaired the partys rules commission, one of the reasons for having a few states go early is the opportunity it provides for a relatively unknown candidate, such as Jimmy Carter, to campaign on a smaller budget until they become better known. New Hampshires traditional primary style of campaigning in small gatherings in small towns may be more myth than reality, but the stories the national press corps files every day during their primary does allow candidates to become better known nationally. However, their media market, which is mostly driven by Boston television, is relatively expensive for the size of their electorate.

This potential weakness is, however, not a problem if the competing eastern state is New Jersey, which it appears to be at this stage of the deliberation. To reach New Jersey voters, candidates have to buy time on New York media, the most expensive market in the country. Add to that New Jerseys lack of any history of effective one on one campaigning for statewide office and New Hampshire still looks like it will survive this new process. There is, however, one thing New Hampshire can do to assure their first in the nation status, at least for 2024.

To deal with the states lack of diversity, the party should permit only registered Democrats to vote in its primary in 2024, abandoning their tradition of allowing voters from one party to vote in the other partys contest. The courts have given the Democratic party the authority to enforce such a rule, in a case that tested that very provision (Rule 20B) in the rules written by what is generally known as the Winograd Commission for the 1980 nominating process. (Yes, I was the Chair of that Commission and, full disclosure, also the Chair of the Michigan Democratic Party.) The policy argument in favor of enacting such a rule is easily made by citing the potential for mischief if Trump voters are given a chance to vote against President Biden in the primary. But in terms of the DNCs proposed criteria for being an early state, such a Democrats only electorate would be more proportionally diverse and give greater weight to the states burgeoning suburban vote that will be so crucial for victory in the general election. If the New Hampshire Democratic party enacts such a provision as part of their application to the DNC, their already good chances to remain first in the nation, increase to almost a certainty.

As I wrote for Brookings almost two years ago, although no set of rules can guarantee the selection of a presidential nominee who is prepared to meet the challenges the country now faces, by increasing the participation of as many Democrats as possible in a process that better reflects the makeup of todays Democratic coalition, the party can improve the odds that its next nominee will win the prize national politicians dream about. Lets hope for the sake of our American democracy the party surprises the pundits and does the right thing this time.

See original here:

Democrats have a chance to get their rules right for 2024 - Brookings Institution

LOVELAND Democrat Alan Darnowsky has announced that he has filed paperwork with the Clermont County Board of Elections to run in southern Ohios Second Congressional District against incumbent U.S. Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio.

Darnowsky, a retired small business owner and IT executive, said Wenstrup puts party ideology over common sense.

Brad is a quiet guy, Darnowsky said in a news release. Hes pleasant. Hes not Jim Jordan or Marjorie Taylor Greene. But hes every bit as dangerous to the future of our country.

Wenstrup, a U.S. Army Reserve officer and doctor of podiatric medicine, has represented the 2nd District since 2013.

Due to congressional redistricting, the race may appear on Lawrence County ballots this fall.

The county is currently in the 6th District, held by Republican Bill Johnson.

However maps created by Ohios redistricting commission have shifted the county into the 2nd District. The commissions maps have been struck down repea5tedly by the Ohio Supreme Court and the status of the countys representation remains up in the air for now.

Darnowsky took issue with Wenstrup voting against the bipartisan infrastructure bill, earlier this year, as well as a reinstatement of the Child Tax Credit.

Darnowsky also said he supports renewable energy, gun safety measures and increased access to health care.

I want investments in the future that will help everyone, versus what Brad wants, Darnowsky said. He voted for the 2017 tax cuts, which were just a giveaway to the wealthy. Brads 10 years in Washington have brought almost no benefits to the Second District.

See original here:

Democrat files for 2nd District Congress race - The Tribune | The Tribune - Ironton Tribune

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota Democrat, called Sunday for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from any cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot based on his wifes leaked texts, and some Democrats went even further.

Rep. Ilhan Omar, Minnesota Democrat, tweeted Thursday that Clarence Thomas needs to be impeached, while Rep. Nydia Velazquez, New York Democrat, said in a Friday tweet that the conservative justice needs to resign.

At the bare minimum, Justice Thomas needs to recuse himself from any case related to the January 6th investigation, and should Donald Trump run again, any case related to the 2024 election, said Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, in a Friday statement.

The demands followed reports Thursday of leaked texts sent by Virginia Ginni Thomas to Mark Meadows, Mr. Trumps White House chief of staff, urging him to challenge the outcome of the 2020 presidential race.

This is unbelievable. You have the wife of a sitting Supreme Court justice advocating for an insurrection, advocating for overturning a legal election to the sitting presidents chief of staff, said Ms. Klobuchar on ABCs This Week. She also knows this election, these cases, are going to come before her husband.

The senator called it a textbook case for removing him, recusing him from these decisions.

SEE ALSO: Klobuchar calls for Justice Thomas to recuse himself from 2020 election cases over wifes texts

The 29 texts sent in 2020-21 between Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Meadows first reported by CBS News include comments from her such as Do not concede and The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.

Ms. Klobuchar said that the Supreme Court needs to respond publicly to the leaked texts, which were reportedly handed over by Mr. Meadows to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot, saying the entire integrity of the court is on the line here.

Sen. Rick Scott, Florida Republican, said Sunday he was confident Justice Thomas would act appropriately.

Well, first off, I admire and respect Clarence Thomas, he said on Fox News Sunday. I think hes been a great Supreme Court justice. And Clarence Thomas, in my opinion, will always do the right thing.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy have also expressed confidence in Justice Thomas ability to make impartial decisions.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board came out against recusal, saying that Mrs. Thomas can believe all the crank theories she wants, and she has the right to participate in politics even as the spouse of a Justice.

Mrs. Thomass text messages are embarrassing but amount to an outsider kibitzing and commiserating with the White House chief of staff, said the Friday editorial. They are no reason for Justice Thomas to recuse himself from cases involving the Trump Administration.

Critics on the left pointed to Justice Thomass lone dissent in the courts Jan. 19 ruling against Mr. Trumps bid to stop the National Archives from releasing documents to the select committee.

Ms. Klobuchar noted that Justice Thomas and other justices have recused themselves from cases in the past involving family members. Even so, she called for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to adopt formal ethics rules.

I would hope Justice Roberts, who I respect, will stand up and get those ethics rules in place, she said. Theyve got to do that, they should do it themselves.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, one of only two Republicans on the House select committee, declined Sunday to confirm the existence of the Thomas-Meadows texts, saying we have thousands of text messages from lots of people.

Asked whether the committee would subpoena Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Kinzinger said he wanted to make sure the investigation was not driven by political motivation.

So when it comes to any potential future calling in of Ms. Thomas, well take a look at what the evidence is, Mr. Kinzinger said on CBS Face the Nation. Well make a decision and you all will know as soon as we do. What I dont want to do is get into speculating too much.

Here is the original post:

Democrats call for sidelining Justice Thomas over wife's post-election texts - Washington Times

Family mourns Clovis Marine veteran killed in crash30 mins ago

Suspected gas thief arrested in Clovis, police say2 days ago

Several seasonal heat records have been broken recently2 days ago

On Your Side: Door Dash driver loses two days worth2 days ago

Fresno Police Department pledges to have 30% female2 days ago

Troubled trailer park clashes over future ownership2 days ago

Karbassi unloads on two of his council colleagues,2 days ago

Exclusive: CA Senator Hurtado says California is2 days ago

Fresyes Fest returns to Downtown Fresno after pandemic2 days ago

Fresno Police offering $5000 reward for information3 days ago

This democrat believes he can pull off a major upset3 days ago

This political newcomer believes his foreign policy3 days ago

Read the rest here:

Exclusive: Fresno councilman Karbassi unloads on his democrat colleagues following unprecedented audit vote, Soria and Arias are holding the council...

Rep. Ro KhannaRohit (Ro) KhannaSunday shows preview: US, allies up pressure on Russia; Jackson undergoes confirmation hearings Gas prices lead to tensions within Democratic Party A chance to improve research MORE (D-Calif.) on Sunday sought to clarify President BidenJoe BidenRussian rocket attacks wound five in western Ukraine city of Lviv If we de-list the IRGC, what will the dictators think? Biden to propose minimum tax on billionaires in budget MORE's recent off-the-cuff remarks concerning Russian President Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinRussian rocket attacks wound five in western Ukraine city of Lviv If we de-list the IRGC, what will the dictators think? Putin's war against Ukrainian civilians is not new nor will it work MORE remaining in power, stating that there was no policy for regime change among congressional Democrats.

On Saturday, Biden gave a speech in Warsaw, Poland in which he said Putin "cannot remain in power." This comment drew widespread international attention, with observers wondering if Biden was calling for a regime change. The White House quickly walked back Biden's remark, sayingthe president meant that Putin should not have power over countries outside of Russia.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Khanna said the president was likely "frustrated" after meeting with refugees who fled Ukraine.

"Look, when Putin inMariupol is bombing theatres with 300 kids there,where there's a sign saying 'children' and he's bombing that, any human being would express frustration," Khanna said. "And the president was speaking from his heart, but it's not the U.S. policy to seek regime change."

"Fox News Sunday"hostJohn Roberts noted that Biden has a "propensity to sometimes say the quiet part out loud."

"The president, I think, is a straight shooter. He's deeply empathetic. I'm sure he's so frustrated with these scenes of children, women being killed," Khanna said.

"It's not the policy of regime change there's no support in the Democratic Congress for regime change. We've been the party against regime change for the past 20 years."

Go here to read the rest:

Khanna: 'There's no support in the Democratic Congress for regime change' | TheHill - The Hill

If you want an indication of how completely the Democrats have been transformed from the workingmens party to the party of affluent professionals, consider how intensely progressives are pressuring President Biden to extend for the sixth time the freeze on college-loan repayments.

This is class war and the folks with 21st-century versions of monocles and top hats are winning.

The people who have college loans to pay back are, on average, pretty well-off. Thats no surprise: Only one in three working-age Americans are college graduates, and college graduates earn more money than people who have only high-school diplomas. So do people who go to college but dont get a degree. College-loan forgiveness is first and foremost a government handout to people who have higher-than-average incomes.

If you know anything about higher education, you will not be surprised to learn that the people with the most college debt are the people with the highest incomes. Those big loans usually dont come from financing a liberal-arts degree at an Ivy League college: The elite schools have big money of their own, which is why, for example, the vast majority of Princeton graduates finish with no student debt at all, while the small share who do take out loans typically finish with less with debt less than $10,000.

Instead, the big loans usually go toward financing graduate studies, especially professional education: law school, medical school, MBAs, and other preparation for high-paying careers. Americans sometimes forget where the money actually lands in our economy: Your local junior-high principal doesnt have Jeff Bezos money, but he makes nearly $20,000 a year more than the typical architect, earning just shy of $100,000 on average in 2020,according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That guy can afford to pay his student loans. So can his lawyer ($126,930 average salary) and the local nurse practitioner ($117,670), who earns about as much money as the typical aerospace engineer ($118,610).

Policy analysts, including progressives, who take the time to run the numbers consistently, come to the same conclusion: Every program for college-loan forgiveness under serious consideration disproportionately benefits high-income people. Astudy by the University of PennsylvaniasSylvain Catherineand the University of Chicagos Constantine Yannelisfinds that a universal debt-forgiveness program would benefit earners in the top 10% five times as much as those at the bottom; capping forgiveness at $50,000 or even at $10,000 would produce similar results, providing much more benefit to the well-off than to those who are struggling. As the scholars note, this is true in large part because big student loans go along with big incomes.

The poorest Americans wont benefit much from college-loan forgiveness for the same reason they dont benefit from income-tax cuts the same affluent people who pay most of the income taxes also have most of the college debt.

The COVID-era freeze on repayments already has provided$200 billion in benefitsfor borrowers who have relatively high incomes. Thats $200 billion out of the pockets of U.S. taxpayers including low-income taxpayers. If we want to relieve the debts of the poor, we could pay off the credit-card balances of the lowest-earning 20% of US households for half that much money. For the full $200 billion, we could buy a $350,000 house for everyhomeless person in the United States. Instead, we are transferring that money to the nations poor, struggling personal-injury lawyers, suburban dentists, and generously compensated McKinsey dorks.

Why?

Because Democrats prefer to use your money when buying votes. In the United States, the cities are Democratic and the countryside is Republican the real political contest is in the suburbs, which is where those affluent, college-educated professionals live and vote.

The Democrats are happy to help the rich get richer, as long as they vote the right way.

Kevin D. Williamson is the author of Big White Ghetto: Dead Broke, Stone-Cold Stupid, and High on Rage in the Dank Woolly Wilds of the Real America.

Excerpt from:

Student loan forgiveness proves Democrats are the party of the rich - New York Post