Category Archives: Democrat

Todays Democrats fancy themselves as the party that trusts the evidence wherever it might lead. This is why they invest heavily in science and technology and set up arms of government to translate that knowledge into action. But despite claiming to prioritize new ways of improving our society, Democrats dont always act in ways that are rooted in research.

In fact, sometimes they actively resist doing what the evidence says especially when it comes to implementing policies that give financial benefits to people low on Americas societal totem pole. Its not always said out loud, but the reality is that some Democrats, and American voters in general, do not think very highly of poor people or people of color there are countless examples of how society is quick to dehumanize them and how politicians struggle to address their needs in a meaningful way. These patterns of thinking and misleading portrayals of marginalized people too often mean that the policies that could help them most are opposed time and time again.

That opposition is, of course, rarely framed in terms of antipathy or animus toward a particular group. Instead, it is often framed as rationality, like adherence to fiscal conservatism, especially among members of the GOP, who have long abided by small-government views. But some Democrats are really no different. Consider President Bidens reluctance to cancel student loan debt, or the federal governments hesitancy to provide free community college, or West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchins recent opposition to including the child tax credit in the Build Back Better plan, reportedly on the grounds that low-income people would use the money on drugs. Indeed, politicians across the political spectrum have found a number of scapegoats to use while arguing against expanding the social safety net, including playing to Americans fears about rising inflation rates. As a result, various programs that would help people namely the poor and people of color have become taboo.

Whats striking, though, is that if you actually look at most social science research, investing in the social safety net is fiscally responsible it pays large dividends for both individuals and our collective society. Economists have studied this for decades, finding that anti-poverty and cash-assistance programs executed both in and outside of the U.S. are linked to increased labor participation in the workforce, while investing in childcare benefits not only children, but the broader economy and society they are raised in. Moreover, newer initiatives like canceling student debt could add up to 1.5 million jobs and lift over 5 million Americans out of poverty in addition to freeing many Americans of the debt trap that is contributing to a lagging housing market and widening racial wealth gap. Other research suggests that those saddled with student loan debt would be more likely to get married or have children if their dues were forgiven.

That is the evidence. Yet, rather than acting on it, there has been a tendency to highlight stories and tropes about people who might waste the resources invested in them. And thats oftentimes enough to undermine public and political support for these policies. So what were seeing from some moderate Democrats today is likely born out of an inherent distrust of what might happen if you just give people money or help them through an expanded social safety net.

But if we look in the not-too-distant past less than a hundred years ago, in fact we quickly see that Democrats didnt always oppose distributing money to support Americans well-being. In fact, former Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt rolled out safety-net programs like Oprah would give away her favorite things. In response to the Great Depression, Roosevelt oversaw a massive expansion of the social safety net during the 1930s and 40s, which included giving grants to states that implemented unemployment compensation, aid to dependent children and funding to business and agriculture communities. Recognizing the importance of a safety net to protect people from the uncertainties brought on by unemployment, illness, disability, death and old age, the federal government also created Social Security, which it deemed vital at the time for economic security. And in the 1960s, long after the Great Depression was over, the government created the Medicare program for similar reasons under former President Lyndon B. Johnson, another Democrat.

What is clear from these examples is that the federal government once understood the importance of a robust safety net for the health, well-being and the broader functioning of our society. The caveat, however, is that this general understanding does not extend to our thinking about all Americans; the government was supportive of these policies when most beneficiaries were white. But when people of color started actively utilizing and benefitting from these same programs, they became harder to attain and, in some cases, overtly racialized.

That was particularly true in the 1970s and 80s when conservative and right-wing political candidates vilified Americans on welfare. During his initial presidential run, Ronald Reagan would tell stories and give numerous stump speeches centered on Linda Taylor, a Black Chicago-area welfare recipient, dubbed a welfare queen. To gin up anti-government and anti-poor resentment among his base, the then-future Republican president villainized Taylor, repeating claims that she had used 80 names, 30 addresses, 15 telephone numbers to collect food stamps, Social Security, veterans benefits for four nonexistent deceased veteran husbands, as well as welfare as a way to signal that certain Americans namely those of color were gaming the system in order to attain certain benefits from the federal government. Reagan wasnt alone, however. In fact, his tough stance on alleged welfare fraud and government spending on social programs encapsulated the conservative critique of big-government liberalism at the time.

Democrats, however, werent that different either. Former Democratic President Bill Clintons promise to end welfare as we know it in the 1990s included stipulations like requiring a certain percentage of welfare recipients to be working or participate in job training. This helped foster, in turn, a belief that there were people who played by the rules and those who didnt (namely Black Americans). And once politicians started worrying about (Black) people taking advantage of the system, the requirements needed to acquire certain societal and financial benefits became even harder to obtain.

But all of this implicit rhetoric about reducing government waste by cracking down on marginalized people does not hold up to scrutiny when examining the evidence. The reality is that fraud among social safety net beneficiaries is extremely rare, and much less costly to society than, say, tax evasion among the richest 1 percent. Yet we spend an incredible amount of money trying to catch and penalize the poor instead of helping them.

Moreover, polls show that Americans particularly Democrats overwhelmingly want to expand the social safety net. According to a 2019 survey from the Pew Research Center, a majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaners (59 percent) and 17 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaners said that the government should provide more assistance to people in need. Even this October, around the time when Democrats were negotiating the size of the omnibus Build Back Better Act, a CNN/SSRS poll found that 75 percent of the partys voters (and 6 percent of Republicans) preferred that Congress pass a bill that expanded the social safety net and enacted climate-change policies.

However, despite many Americans wanting an expansion of the social safety net, it is still often hard to sell voters on these programs especially if theyre wrapped up in large policy packages (i.e. Obamacare) or associated with someone voters dislike (i.e. former Democratic President Barack Obama). Consider that a Politico/Morning Consult survey from late last year found that only 39 percent of Americans who received the child tax credit said it had a major impact on their lives. Moreover, only 38 percent of respondents credited Biden for the implementation of the program.

The fact that many expansions of the social safety net arent initially popular makes it all the easier for Democrats to fall back on the stories people tell themselves about different groups of people and whether they deserve help. And sometimes, those portrayals affect the concerns we have about members of those groups and the explanations we generate for why they experience the outcomes they do in life. As earlier expansions of the social safety net show, the U.S. hasnt always been allergic to giving people money, but there now seems to be this unspoken idea that poor people and people of color cant be trusted to spend free money or government assistance well.

This thinking, though, poses a problem for Democrats because, for years, theyve branded themselves as the party that promotes general welfare by advancing racial, economic and social justice. At the same time, they continue to fall short on campaign promises to expand the social safety net despite many poor people, and people of color, having fought long and hard to put them in office. The fact that so many of todays Democrats are still prisoners to antiquated tropes about who gets or is deserving of government benefits is a dangerous one, because it causes people to push members of those groups outside of their moral circles the circle of people that they think they have a moral obligation to help.

Of course, breaking this chain of thought wont be easy because it would require Democrats to break the long-standing mindset that poor people are in their current situation because of a series of unfortunate choices. It would also probably require them to stop worrying about how Republicans might falsely reframe social safety net programs as dangerous, especially given ongoing concerns regarding inflation and the economy during the COVID-19 pandemic. But at the end of the day, that shouldnt matter: While the politics might not be immediately convenient and the effects of these programs not immediately seen, that is not necessarily a reason to defer implementing them. Focusing solely on the short-term effects is not only short-sighted, but dangerous. And Democrats stand to lose more than the support of their base if they refuse to act.

Read more:

Democrats Helped Build The Social Safety Net. Why Are Many Now Against Expanding It? - FiveThirtyEight

March 2022 Primary Election Guide, featuring candidates for Senate District 10, House District 60, State Board of Education District 11, Palo Pinto County Commissioner Precinct 2, Palo Pinto County Commissioner Precinct 4, Palo Pinto County Justice of the Peace Precinct 2, Parker County Justice of the Peace Precinct 3, Parker County Justice of the Peace Precinct 4, Parker County Court at Law 1, Parker County Judge, Parker County Sheriff, Parker County Commissioner Precinct 2, Parker County Commissioner Precinct 4 and Parker County Republican Chair.

Parker County Precinct 3 Justice of the Peace Dusty Vinson faces a challenge by Randall Grissom in the upcoming Republican primary. Each candi

Four candidates are looking to occupy the vacancy left by former Parker County Precinct 4 Justice of the Peace Kirk Martin. The four hopefuls

Three candidates are looking to occupy the vacancy left by former Parker County Judge Jerry Buckner. Those candidates include Kirk Martin, Zac

Current Parker County Judge Pat Deen is being challenged by newcomer Thomas Moorman. Each candidate was sent a questionnaire seeking i

Parker Countys Republican Chair J. Scott Utley, seeking his second term in office, is facing a challenge by small business owner Rachael Wats

Parker County Sheriff Russ Authier, first appointed to the position by commissioners in March of 2021 after the passing of Larry Fowler, is be

Three individuals are looking to fill the vacancy as Parker County commissioner of Precinct 2, left open by Craig Peacock: Johnny Cannon, Joe

Theres a four-way race for Parker Countys Precinct 4 commissioner seat, as candidates look to replace Steve Dugans position: Michael Chandl

Two challengers are looking to unseat current Palo Pinto County Precinct 2 Justice of the Peace Jason Sheehy. Sheehy is facing a challenge fro

Two candidates are vying for the commissioners seat in Palo Pinto Countys Precinct 2: incumbentMike Reed and his challenger Leonard Maddox.

Two candidates are vying for the commissioners seat in Palo Pinto Countys Precinct 4: incumbent Jeff Fryer and challenger Tim Bezio. Each ca

A newly drawn Texas Senate District 10 has brought two men to the GOP ballot in hopes of ousting Democrat Sen. Beverly Powell of Fort Worth fr

The Republican field to represent Parker, Palo Pinto and Stephens counties in the Texas House of Representatives District 60 has drawn three c

Four candidates are vying in the GOP primary for a seat representing four North Central Texas counties on the State Board of Education. The bo

Read more from the original source:

Weatherford Democrat 2022 Primary Election Guide | News | weatherforddemocrat.com - Weatherford Democrat

Fresno Assemblymember Joaquin Arambula introduced a new bill that would establish a labor trafficking unit within Cal/OSHA to investigate and prosecute people who force or coerce vulnerable people into jobs with little or no pay, often under unsafe working conditions.

The bill is cosponsored by the Western Center on Law and Poverty and the Sunita Jain Anti-Trafficking Policy Initiative at Loyola Law School.

We must establish a Labor Trafficking Unit to help stop this cruel and inhumane treatment of workers who only want to make a living and provide for their families, the Democratic lawmaker said. For the first time, California would have a unit specifically assigned to investigate and prosecute unscrupulous perpetrators.

The bill authors said that, while the state has primarily directed its efforts and attention to sex trafficking over the years, there has been no coordinated effort focused on labor trafficking.

If the bill passes, the unit would reside under the California Department of Industrial Relations as a subdivision of Cal/OSHA and would investigate and prosecute complaints alleging labor trafficking.

California first enacted anti-trafficking laws 15 years ago, yet no state agency currently has a mandate to look for labor trafficking.

Despite some progress, California continues to have the highest number of victims of human trafficking in the U.S. over the last two decades, said Joseph Villela, policy director at Loyola Law Schools Sunita Jain Anti-Trafficking Policy Initiative.

The unit would also take measures to ensure the prosecution process does not victimize survivors and that they are informed of services available to them.

The U.S. Department of Justice defines human trafficking as a crime that involves exploiting a person for labor, services or commercial sex.

According to the Department of Industrial Relations, human trafficking is the worlds fastest-growing criminal enterprise and is an estimated $32 billion-a-year global industry.

The Little Hoover Commission, an independent state oversight agency in California, found that the state does not know the extent of labor trafficking in California because it doesnt track this kind of data.

In an email statement to the Bee, Pedro Nava, chair of the commission, called the bill a key step forward for investigating labor trafficking crimes.

The commission estimates that labor trafficking survivors account for about 22 percent of the more than 14,000 human trafficking survivors who received state assistance from 2016 to 2019.

Preliminary data analyzed by the commission showed labor trafficking survivors who sought help include men and women of all ages working in a wide range of industries.

According to the National Human Trafficking Hotline, domestic work, and agriculture work are the most common types of employment that see labor trafficking in California.

And the pandemic may have made the problem worse.

A 2021 analysis conducted by the Polaris Project, a nonprofit that aims to prevent sex and labor trafficking in North America, found that labor trafficking in agriculture may have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The report found that the proportion of reported labor trafficking victims with temporary agricultural work visas, or H-2A visas, increased from approximately 11 percent to 25 percent.

In November 2021, a federal court in Georgia found that a group of smugglers was fraudulently using the H-2A work visa program to smuggle foreign nationals from Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras into the United States under the pretext of serving as agricultural workers. The workers were subject to brutal working and living conditions, and at least two died due to workplace conditions.

People are being forced into labor trafficking right now in California most coming from poverty conditions, said Christopher Sanchez, a policy advocate at the Western Center on Law and Poverty. The introduction of this bill sends a message that California will not tolerate the exploitation of workers and their families.

If you believe you have information about a potential trafficking situation, you can call the National Human Trafficking Hotline at 1-888-373-7888 or text the National Human Trafficking Hotline at 233733. Message and data rates may apply.

You can also visit their website to report a tip online.

Anti-Trafficking Hotline Advocates are available 24/7 to take reports of potential human trafficking.

All reports are confidential and you may remain anonymous. Interpreters are available by phone.

The information you provide will be reviewed by the National Hotline and forwarded to specialized law enforcement and/or service providers where appropriate.

You can also report employers suspected of engaging in unlawful activity to the states Labor Enforcement Task force at: 855-297-5322, via email at letf@dir.ca.gov, or by visiting their website at http://www.dir.ca.gov. Spanish resources available.

Melissa Montalvo is a reporter with The Fresno Bee and a Report for America corps member. This article is part of The California Divide, a collaboration among newsrooms examining income inequity and economic survival in California.

See more here:

A Democrat Wants to Crack Down on Employers that Exploit Workers. Will this help? - North Coast Journal

The Democratic Party with Joe Biden at the helm has lost sight of how to connect with Americans, and as a result, is finding itself in an increasingly unelectable position.

Most Americans also say that the first year of the Biden Administration has been more of a failure (57 percent), rather than a success (41 percent). Notably, Independents and Latinos two key swing-voting groups have turned against the administration, as majorities of both deem the first year of the Biden presidency a failure.

To be sure, many of Americans frustrations including the pervasive pandemic and skyrocketing inflation are not fully and completely within the presidents control. Yet, voters blame him for these crises, as is the case with most presidents.

That being said, the president is in no way fully at the mercy of these external forces, and his declining ratings are due in large part to the fact that Americans simply dont feel that Bidens and Democrats priorities align with their own.

Two-thirds of Americans say that Biden and Democrats are focusing on issues that they either dont care about (39 percent) or only care a little about (28 percent). Just one-third say that Biden and Democrats are focusing on issues they care a lot about.

Thus, with just nine months until the midterm elections, Democrats must dedicate their focus to advancing centrist legislation that improves Americans quality of life and addresses their top concerns. Democrats should make a meaningful effort to work with Republicans on issues where compromise is possible, and push back on pressure from the far-left, whose policy positions alienate large swaths of the electorate.

When I was hired by Bill ClintonWilliam (Bill) Jefferson ClintonThe allure of 'strong and wrong' Americans think Biden's presidency is a failure Democrats can fix that A memory of JFK Jr. offers respite from today's stress-filled politics MORE in 1994 after the Democrats blow-out defeat in that years midterm elections, we did just that: worked with Republicans on a balanced budget and welfare reform. In 1996, Clinton won re-election by a landslide; in 1998, Democrats defied expectations and kept control of Congress; and in 2000, Clinton left office under a budget surplus.

To that end, there are several issues that would give Democrats an opportunity to deliver in a bipartisan fashion including transforming job training programs, passing fair and reasonable tax policies, improving immigration laws, and reforming criminal justice.

Foremost, Biden needs to show voters that he can deliver on the economy and jobs, as 62 percent of Americans disapprove of how he is handling the economy including 69 percent of Independents and 57 percent of Latinos.

Importantly, Democrats need to make a sincere commitment to fiscal discipline and prudence that involves ruling out any tax increases or new spending initiatives that lack broad bipartisan support.

This means fundamentally altering the Democratic partys current theory on tax policy, which centers on a misguided notion that the redistribution of wealth by taxing the rich is politically valuable, and will not cause any electoral backlash. Indeed, my own experience along with past history suggests that this theory is problematic.

Furthermore, given the dramatic shifts in the workforce and labor market that occurred during the pandemic, it is both practical and politically wise for Democrats to prioritize improving federal job training programs.

Focusing on passing the JOBS Act a bipartisan bill currently being considered by the Senate that would expand federal Pell Grant eligibility to high-quality, short-term job training programs is a good starting point. The JOBS Act would close the skills gap by helping more workers afford the job training and credentials that are in demand as industries have shifted during the pandemic.

In addition to the economic predicament, the Biden administration is also facing a multi-faceted immigration crisis, both in terms of the disaster at the Southern border, as well as the unsettled status of millions of undocumented immigrants.

Just one-third (33 percent) of voters overall including only 26 percent of Independents and 37 percent of Hispanics approve of Bidens handling of immigration, while a majority (56 percent) disapprove, per aMorning Consult survey.

Republicans have worked somewhat successfully to tie the migrant crisis at the border to Bidens failed policies; and at the same time, immigration activists on the left are frustrated with the president for not following through on the promises he made during the campaign.

Thus, Democrats can make an effort to work with Republicans on an immigration package that codifies lasting protections for Dreamers, creates a pathway to citizenship, secures the border, and requires employers to use E-Verify to certify the legal status of new hires.

Criminal justice reform presents another opportunity for Democrats to pursue a grand bargain with Republicans as crime rates spike across the country. A reasonable compromise would involve making the criminal justice system and policing fairer for Black Americans, who are disproportionately mistreated, while also funding local law enforcement.

In order to connect with voters in the middle who are concerned both about crime and curbing police misconduct, Biden can use New York City Mayor Eric Adams approach as a template.

Absent action by Democrats, Republican attacks on Democrats as being soft-on-crime will undoubtedly resonate in the midterms as 70 percent of voters believe crime in the country is out of control, while only 30 percent say crime is mostly under control, per the JanuaryHarvard CAPS/Harris poll.

Ultimately, by prioritizing immigration and crime, national Democrats can also protect vulnerable members of their caucus in the midterms from G.O.P. attacks linking Democratic policies to the border crisis and rising crime.

And by advocating for more reasonable tax policies and pursuing policies that help Americas workers Democrats can reclaim the mantle as the pro-American worker party, while also inoculating against G.O.P. attacks on Democrats economic policies as being too liberal or wasteful.

Without this course correction, President BidenJoe BidenBiden's FDA pick clears key Senate hurdle Overnight Health Care DC ending mask, vaccine mandates American unity is key to a Europe whole and free MOREs ratings will continue to drop, and Democrats are almost certain to be brought down by Republicans in 2022 and beyond.

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 BloombergAmericans think Biden's presidency is a failure Democrats can fix that Overnight Defense & National Security Defense gets OKto help civilians evacuate Michael Bloomberg to head Defense Innovation Board MORE. He is the author of The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat."

Read this article:

Americans think Biden's presidency is a failure Democrats can fix that | TheHill - The Hill

I dont see there being much in the way of consternation at this convention, said Bronx Democratic Chair Jamaal Bailey, whose county party is one of many that has backed Hochul. You still take nothing for granted but I dont see it being terribly contested.

Hochul is currently the only one of the five statewide incumbents on the ballot this year with a declared challenge in the primary. New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams is running against her from the left, while Rep. Tom Suozzi is coming at her from the right.

The first official step of that primary will be at the Thursday convention.

Gov. Kathy Hochul is poised to easily win the Democratic nomination Thursday at the party's convention in Manhattan.|Hans Pennink, Pool/AP Photo

Any candidate who receives 25 percent of the vote of the roughly 450 Democratic committee members will get an automatic spot on the primary ballot, while the others will be forced to gather petitions.

Any who receives over 50 percent will be dubbed the partys designee, letting them tap into state committee resources and sell themselves to Democratic voters as the candidate preferred by Democratic leaders.

No Democratic gubernatorial candidate has won a primary in New York without being the partys designee since 1982, when Mario Cuomo defeated the party-backed Ed Koch.

In a sign of how likely it is that Hochul will win that label, one of the other candidates has already begun to complain about being pushed out of the process.

During a candidate forum hosted by the partys progressive caucus last week, Suozzi and state party chair Jay Jacobs who ran Suozzis first quixotic campaign for governor in 2006 spent several minutes sniping over Zoom about whether Suozzi would be able to speak at the convention in accordance with years-old party bylaws.

In a recording of the meeting obtained by POLITICO, Jacobs, who has endorsed Hochul and is publicly and privately encouraging Suozzi to drop his bid, said he resented the implication or inference from Suozzis camp that the convention was being rigged.

And so everybodys clear here, the candidate cant speak at the state convention to the state committee people unless they get the 25 percent of the vote, Suozzi told the participants on the call. So theyre not given the opportunity to try and persuade the committee people by the speech they make.

New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams is running in a Democratic primary for governor.|Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

The rules are the same as always, Jacobs said, and hes not planning an attempt to change them prior to the Feb. 17 event.

I think its the same thing, Tom, as the Democratic National Committee, you know, the candidates do not get up and speak before the vote is taken, he said pointedly to the U.S. congressman. Youre permitted to communicate with committee people outside the convention but we dont have a long list of speeches.

Jacobs said in the forum that his support of the incumbent governor was an expectation of a party chair and suggested hed do the same for Cuomo. He said on Friday that Suozzi has already had opportunities to interact with state committee members, and he might help organize another such forum outside of the convention.

But the Suozzi campaign on Sunday said that they have been informed that Jacobs has now scheduled a 30-minute session for the candidates to briefly address committee members at the 8 a.m. breakfast on Thursday. Suozzi plans to speak.

Williams has not made rigging claims and will be attending the convention as a New York Democrat, he told reporters in Albany. But he points to the all-but-certainty of Hochuls dominance at the convention, he claimed, as a system built to shut out anti-establishment candidates like himself.

He received 6 percent of the vote at the convention when he ran against Hochul for lieutenant governor in 2018. There have been few signs that he has since made many new inroads among party leaders.

Long Island Rep. Tom Suozzi is running for governor against Gov. Kathy Hochul and New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams.|Cheriss May/Getty Images

Progressive Caucus Chair Rachel Lavine contrasted a campaign against Hochul from the left to those against Cuomo in recent years. While the current governor has spent years helping down-ballot Democrats, anger directed toward her predecessor in the past two primaries was often fueled by his lack of eagerness to go to war with Republicans.

Everybody understands what a critical election this is, said Lavine. They appreciate [Hochuls] efforts in helping up and down the ticket.

Neither Suozzi and Williams were ever expecting to dig deeply enough into Hochuls support to get enough support to get on the ballot at the convention, they said in separate interviews, and both expressed confidence in their ability to blitz the petitioning process.

They each point to times theyve accomplished it before Suozzi in 2006 for governor and Williams during his 2018 campaign for lieutenant governor.

Candidates who get on the ballot via the petitioning route need to gather at least 15,000 signatures and need to get at least 100 in half the states congressional districts. Since signatures are often thrown out when challenged, the widely-accepted rule of thumb is that a minimum of 30,000 is needed.

While petitioning can suck up resources and doesnt come with a long track record of success, there are some benefits. For one, it lets candidates run against the machine.

Id rather get shut out by the convention, Mario Cuomos campaign manager his son Andrew once recounted about the 1982 primary. Then I could say the Democratic bosses shut us out.

And having volunteers or employees go door-to-door across the state is far from a complete waste of time for a candidate.

Lavine noted that when she supported Zephyr Teachouts attorney general candidacy in 2018, Teachouts take on it was that there was a benefit to a challenger actually petitioning statewide, because you get to meet everybody statewide.

In 2018, it was actually one of the first jolts to our campaign because it is a good organizing tool, Williams said. So its a glass half full, either which way.

Still, Teachout and Williams lost their primary bids.

Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin speaks to reporters Sept. 22 in the Albany Capital Center.|Bill Mahoney/POLITICO

In the other races, Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin will likely need to face a primary of his own at some point.

But Williams does not seem likely to choose a running mate before the convention. Suozzi might, but it would be a surprise if his pick gained much traction in the next few days.

Schumer was once rumored to be facing a high-profile primary from a progressive like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But nobody has even made public overtures to such a campaign yet.

James, meanwhile, cleared the field soon after she announced shed be seeking another term rather than challenging Hochul.

And it has been over a decade since any Democrats have made serious noise about challenging Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, who is seeking another four-year term after being appointed to the position in 2007 and has gone on to be the fourth-longest serving statewide lawmaker in state history.

Follow this link:

Hochul poised to cement status as New York Democrats' standard-bearer this week - Politico

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

A new coalition that wants to install "better" Democrats in the Texas Legislature is endorsing primary opponents to two House members who were central in intraparty disputes last year.

The Texans for Better Democrats Coalition is throwing its weight behind Candis Houston, who is running against Rep. Harold Dutton of Houston, and Rep. Claudia Ordaz Perez, who is competing against Rep. Art Fierro after she was drawn her out of her El Paso district during redistricting.

The Democratic group is also endorsing Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo in her reelection bid as she faces a group of primary challengers including Erica Davis, the top staffer for a Harris County constable.

The coalition launched in October, and it is made up of three progressive groups tied to organized labor: the Texas Organizing Project, Communications Workers of America and Working Families Party. They are prepared to spend about $250,000 across the three primaries, funding field and mail programs in each one, said Pedro Lira, co-director of the Texas WFP.

"We're in it to win it," he said.

The battles within the party come after a year of contentious legislative sessions in which GOP leaders pushed the state firmly to the right and Democrats sometimes splintered on how hard to fight. Nowhere was that more apparent than House Democrats' quorum break over the GOP's priority elections bill, which ground the chamber to a halt for weeks but ended after a slow trickle of their members, including Fierro, began returning to the floor.

Texans need elected leaders who will stand with them, not ones who back down at the first sign of a fight," Derrick Osobase, administrator director for CWA District 6, said in a statement.

Dutton is well known as an occasional outlier in his party. He irked fellow Democrats last year when, as head of the House Public Education Committee, he helped revive legislation placing restrictions on transgender student athletes. He has long broken from some fellow Democrats when it comes to education supporting more charter schools, for example.

Houston is the president of the Aldine chapter of the American Federation of Teachers. She has been endorsed by the statewide AFT, as well as the Texas AFL-CIO and Annie's List, which works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights to state office.

Dutton shrugged off the coalition's endorsement.

"This organization is free to do as they wish and I expect to work with them again in the future," he said in a statement, "but otherwise I will remain focused on getting things done to improve our neighborhood public schools, create more local jobs, expand access to healthcare, and ensure justice and voting rights for all."

Dutton has the backing of the House Democratic Campaign Committee, which works to reelect incumbents and gave his campaign $2,500 last month. The committee has not taken sides in the matchup between Fierro and Ordaz Perez and does not plan to.

Ordaz Perez chose to run against Fierro after the Republican-led redistricting process forced her into the same district as a fellow Latina Democrat, Rep. Lina Ortega. In announcing her campaign against Fierro, Ordaz Perez criticized him for being one of the first House Democrats to return from the quorum break. A number of other House Democrats who remained in Washington, D.C., longer are backing her against Fierro.

In an interview, Fierro defended his decision to return along with two other El Paso-area Democrats, saying they had achieved their three goals from the start: staying off the floor for the remainder of the first special session, bringing national attention to the bill and "light[ing] a fire under Congress" to pass federal legislation protecting voting rights.

"I was on the bad-election-bill battle from day one," he said, pointing to his efforts to fight it as a member of the House Elections Committee.

Unlike Fierro, Dutton was not among the core 57 Democrats who had broken quorum. He did join them in Washington, but returned to Texas several days later, citing family medical reasons.

Campaign fundraising has been light across the two primaries, so the coalition's involvement could be significant. Ordaz Perez had $50,000 cash on hand as of Jan. 31, to just $6,000 for Fierro as of Jan. 20. Dutton had $73,000 in the bank as of Jan. 20, while Houston had $19,000.

Disclosure: Texas AFT and Annie's List have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Read more:

Texas Democratic group helping opponents of two House incumbents - The Texas Tribune

Not to worry, the editorial board opined, because alternative routes to reform still exist. There are also political remedies for political gerrymanders, they argued. Politicians can elevate extreme redistricting as a campaign issue and offer solutions that dont rely on judges. Florida added a fair districts amendment to its constitution. Some states have given the task of drawing lines to a neutral commission or a demographer. Congress could even pass a law forcing such changes.

Those suggestions may not have been completely sincere. Congressional Democrats, as it happens, have consistently proposed a federal ban on partisan gerrymandering over the last few years. But the editorial board has derided that proposal by claiming that no one should want to give Washington a veto over redistricting maps. And what about the state-level solutions that the board touted? When Californias independent commission produced a favorable map for Democrats this cycle, as noted earlier, it drew a furious response from the editorial board precisely for not creating enough safe Republican seats. The same outcry arose after Virginias anti-gerrymandering redistricting process went awry last year, at which time the board took the opportunity to declare that the progressive fiction of apolitical maps in a time of polarization may be on its last legs.

But Matt, you might ask yourself, youre also against gerrymandering, so doesnt this make you a hypocrite, as well? I have often written in support of the elementary principle that voters should choose their elected officials and not the other way around. Anti-gerrymandering reforms seemed like the best solution to this problem, and the federal courts had made earnest attempts to remedy them. But five Republican appointees to the Supreme Court closed the federal courts to opponents of partisan gerrymandering in Rucho, and Republicans in Congress arent interested in reopening those doors through federal legislation, despite having been given many opportunities to take yes for an answer.

So Ive come around to the same conclusion as many conservatives: Gerrymandering is an inescapable feature of single-member districts, and it can never be fully extirpated from the redistricting process. Where I part ways with the right is on what comes next. For them, its nothing. This is the way its always been, and this is the way itll always be. National Reviews Kevin D. Williamson recently claimed that gerrymandering is normal and bipartisan and that the solution for Democrats is just to win the election anyway. I suggest he try doing so as a Democrat in Wisconsin, where the GOP wins two-thirds of state legislature seats with just half of the statewide vote.

Continue reading here:

How Democrats Turned the Tables in the Gerrymandering Wars - The New Republic

In modern American politics, there are no eternal winnersonly two unpopular major parties that take turns losing. According to the latest Economist/YouGov polling data, forty-one per cent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party and thirty-six per cent have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party. The ratings for individual politicians are often even worse, particularly for those who have been around for a long time. According to the Economist/YouGov data, only thirty-two per cent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Chuck Schumer, the Senate Majority Leader. Just twenty-one per cent have a favorable opinion of his Republican counterpart, Mitch McConnell.

Arguments can be had about what led to this lamentable situation. Was it social media? Negative advertising? Partisan media coverage? Or are the elected officials responsible? Is the great American public right to suspect that most politicians are irredeemably corruptor, at least, that they are trapped in a broken system?

One thing is clear: in such a poisonous environment, the key to success isnt being overwhelmingly popularfor all but a few transcendent figures, that is an impossibilitybut being less unpopular than your opponent. Joe Bidens 2020 victory is a prime example of someone who succeeded in this strategy. After four years of Trump madness, a majority of voters plumped for a moderate, sane alternative. From January to August of last year, Bidens approval rating remained safely above fifty per cent. Then came the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, Joe Manchins Senate roadblock of Bidens domestic agenda, a resurgent pandemic, and rising inflation. With Trump off Twitter and out of the headlines, Bidens ratings plummeted. Democrats looked fearfully to the midterms. After the November gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey, Republicans looked to them with great anticipation.

Now comes Trump again, speculating about another Presidential bid and reminding people what a monumental threat he representsnot just to American democracy and the rule of law but to the sense of relief that has reigned since he left office. If I run and if I win, we will treat those people from January 6th fairly, he told a crowd in Texas a couple of weeks ago. And, if it requires pardons, we will give them pardons. Days later, he turned on Mike Pence, falsely claiming that the former Vice-President had failed to use his power to abrogate an election result that courts across the country had affirmed. Unfortunately, he didnt exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election, Trump said in a statement that, intentionally or not, confirmed beyond all doubt his own nefarious intent.

Of course, Trumps remergence doesnt relieve the White House and the Democrats of the many policy challenges that they faceincluding inflation, the pandemic, and the Senate filibuster. Ultimately, they will be judged on their record in office, and an anti-Trump message wont necessarily provide a political panacea. Terry McAuliffes defeat in Virginia illustrated the danger for Democrats of overly relying on the spectre of Trump when he is no longer in power. But Trumps return to the headlines is an important development because it shifts some of the focus back to the G.O.P. and highlights the simple but defining question that the Party cannot avoid, as much as the Republican leaders McConnell and Kevin McCarthy, the House Minority Leader, may want to. Does the G.O.P. still support democracy? Or is it now Trumps sock puppetan authoritarian populist movement eager to run roughshod over anyone or anything that gets in its way, including the votes that eighty-one million Americans cast for Biden?

When Pence stood up at a meeting of the conservative Federalist Society, in Florida, on February 4th, and said, President Trump is wrong; I had no right to overturn the election, he was effectively claiming that the old G.O.P. is still alive and well, and so is its commitment to democracy. But, on that very day, at a meeting in Salt Lake City, the Republican National Committee sent the opposite message by passing a resolution that said the January 6th protesters were engaged in legitimate political discourse and censured two G.O.P. Representatives, Liz Cheney, of Wyoming, and Adam Kinzinger, of Illinois, for joining the House Select Committee that is investigating the attack on the Capitol. The formal motion of censure accused Cheney and Kinzinger of participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens.

According to a recent CBS News poll, eighty-three per cent of Americans disapprove of the actions of the Trump supporters who forced their way into the Capitol, and fifty-four per cent think it was an insurrection. In defeating McAuliffe in November, Glenn Youngkin, a leveraged-buyout tycoon who hails from the traditional Wall Street wing of the G.O.P., successfully avoided being dragged into the January 6th morass. He accepted Trumps endorsement but didnt invite the former President to campaign for him. Youngkin called for an audit of Virginias voting machines, but, finally, after repeatedly ducking the issue, said that he would have voted to certify the 2020 election result. He kept Trump at arms length without alienating him or his supporters.

With Trump back on the national stage railing about a stolen election, this straddle will be increasingly difficult for any Republican candidate to maintain. Constitutionally incapable of admitting defeat, he is clearly intent on making fealty to his Big Lie a litmus test, and any Republican who questions any part of it risks incurring his wrath. Last week, he even attacked Lindsey Graham, his longtime toady and golfing partner. After Graham said he didnt favor issuing pardons to the January 6th participants who were being prosecuted, Trump called him a RINO, adding, Lindsey Graham doesnt know what the hell hes talking about if he says that.

Trumps remergence doesnt guarantee anything. The antiquated American political system favors minority rule. Opposition parties usually do well in midterms, and this years electoral map favors Republicans. But the past week has highlighted the cancer that is still eating at the G.O.P. and reminded anti-Trump voters why it is so vital for them to get out and exercise their democratic dutyan important factor in a year in which Democratic strategists fear a decline in turnout. Coming in the same week that Omicron cases kept falling sharply and the January job figures came in unexpectedly strong, this has given Biden and other Democrats reason to hope that they can eventually get their ship back on course.

Read more:

Will Trumps Obsession with His Big Lie Save Biden and the Democrats? - The New Yorker

"Voters should choose their representatives not the other way around." Withthose words late Friday night, President BidenJoe BidenFox News host Brian Kilmeade hits Trump on Arizona election claim: 'That's an outright lie' Putin says proposals made in Macron talks are possible as 'basis' for further steps Biden to appoint son of late Sen. John McCain to Naval Academy board MORE celebrated a decision by North Carolinas supreme court rejecting new state legislative districts that favored Republicans. The ruling was used to support Biden's past portrayals of Republicans as the enemies of democracy, including their use of gerrymandering.

Biden is not alone. Former President ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaWhite House record boxes recovered at Trump's Mar-a-Lago: report 'Dismantling Democracy' to save it: How Democrats rediscovered the joys of rigging elections Lisa Cook is perfect for the Federal Reserve MOREcondemnedRepublican gerrymandering efforts as threatening democracy. The liberal Brennan Center hasdeclaredthat "gerrymandering is deeply undemocratic."Liberal commentators insistthe choice is simple: "Its restricting gerrymandering or being complicit in the dismantling of democracy.

Biden was careful to keep his focus on North Carolina in stating that "for too long, partisan gerrymandering has allowed politicians to rig the political process and draw districts in their favor." Indeed, it required an impressive act of myopia to avoid noting that Democrats have engaged in raw gerrymandering in various states, too.But the North Carolina decision could seriously undermine Democratic plans in other states to rig elections and gain seats in Congress.

For example, in New York Democrats want to add four new seats through gerrymandering, to try to retain control of the U.S. House. One district is designed to guarantee the reelection of Rep. Jerry NadlerJerrold (Jerry) Lewis Nadler'Dismantling Democracy' to save it: How Democrats rediscovered the joys of rigging elections Democrats ask for information on specialized Border Patrol teams Andrew Cuomo attorney says AG investigation was 'shoddy,' outcome was 'predetermined' MORE (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which has heldhearings on the evil of you guessed it gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering is to politics what doping is to sports. It is universally viewed as a cheat, an effort to manipulate districts to guarantee electoral victories. Drafting coherent districts evenly and logically to divide populations is not particularly difficult. School districts usuallyare designed to evenly distribute populations with schools as center points; those school districts often serve as voting locations. Once you depart from such logical divisions, however, political pressures produce a grotesque progeny of malformed districts.

The Nadler district would make Elbridge Gerry blush. In 1812, Gerry a Founding Father, vice president and governor of Massachusetts signed off on a district designed to guarantee a seat for the precursor of today's Democratic Party. The district resembled a salamander, so the Boston Gazette deemed it the Gerry-mander.

Notably, the original gerrymandered district looks a lot like what is now being dubbed the "Jerrymander."

To cite Biden, Rep. Nadler did not simply"choose his voters. His contorted district virtually selects them individually, weaving throughneighborhoodsin search of support.

Nadler's district is not the only monstrous creature dwelling on the map. Republicans currently hold eight of New Yorks 27 seats in Congress. Despite being a state in which roughly 38 percent of voters went for Trump in 2020, Republicans would have an advantage only in four districts under the redrawn map, allowing Democrats to pick up the other four. For example, Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis previously beat an incumbent, Democrat Max RoseMax Rose'Dismantling Democracy' to save it: How Democrats rediscovered the joys of rigging elections De Blasio reportedly considering run for House seat New York redistricting panel surrenders over impasse MORE, in the 11th District. To guarantee that Rose will now win, Democrats stretched the district to include the liberal area of Park Slope in Brooklyn.

This was not supposed to happen.

In 2014, New Yorkers took the extraordinary step of amending Sections 4 and 5 of Article III of their states constitution. They created the New York Independent Redistricting Commission to prohibit drawing maps for the purpose of favoring or disfavoring incumbents or other particular candidates or political parties. (N.Y. Const. art. III, 4(c)(5)).

However, the fix was in. After proclaiming a new day of fair and honest elections, the commission was set at ten members divided evenly. Senate Deputy Majority Leader Michael Gianaris, a Queens Democrat, admitted that the commission was designed to fail: "Of course it was. When you have an equal amount of people from either side, you are inevitably going to get a deadlock or a tie. And thats exactly what happened here. In other words, all the democracy stuff was a lie. When the commission inevitably deadlocked, the Democratic-controlled legislature went on a gerrymandering frenzy.

Nevertheless, President Biden and Democrats like Nadler are seeking to take control over state election laws in the name of democracy. It does not matter if they are using the same anti-democratic measures as they accuse Republicans of wielding, because their motivations are purportedly pure even if their means manifestly are not.

There will be challenges this year to gerrymandered districts by both parties.While the Supreme Court said in 2019 that politicalgerrymandering is constitutionalinRucho v. Common Cause,such changes can be struck down when they result in the dilution or suppression of minority voters. The Supreme Court isexpected to rule soonon one such race-based challenge to new districts in Alabama.A similarchallenge in Illinois faileddespite districts that rival Nadler's infantastical, illogical shapes to gain Democratic seats.

TheNorth Carolina opinioncould complicate things for Democrats, however, if it is applied to other states with anti-gerrymandering laws. The law was notably a gerrymandering case based on partisan rather than racial impacts. The North Carolina court acknowledged the holding inRuchobut voted 4-3 that it could strike down excessive partisan gerrymandering on state constitutional grounds. It found thatRepublican lawmakers drew maps that deprived voters of their substantially equal voting power on the basis of partisan affiliation.

The New York districts also are the subject ofa lawsuitunder the state constitution.

The intent of the voters could not be more clear: While the commission was rigged to fail, voters clearly wanted to end the practice.

Both parties have engaged in gerrymandering this year but the blinkered outrage of President Biden to Republican gerrymandering only highlights the hypocrisy of our times. We are left, yet again, with a gang of arsonists espousing fire safety in our political system. Despite voters calling for an end to gerrymandering, their leaders continue to lie to them and frustrate efforts to end this insidious practice.

While the National Democratic Redistricting Committee called for a Fair Districts Pledge to commit to restoring fairness to our democracy, these politicians have instead followed Oscar Wilde's rule that the only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter@JonathanTurley.

See original here:

'Dismantling Democracy' to save it: How Democrats rediscovered the joys of rigging elections | TheHill - The Hill

Produced by The Argument

With the midterm elections just nine months away, the Democrats face some hefty existential questions that need answers: Who are they in this post- and possibly pre-Trump era of American politics? Are they simply the anti-Trump party? Or are they the party of progress? Who are the voters they need to turn out in November? Should they excite the base by building a coalition united against white supremacy, or should they moderate their message to win over Republican defectors?

This week on The Argument, Jane Coaston brings together two voices that represent the factions in the Democratic Partys existential struggle. Lanae Erickson is the senior vice president of social policy, education and politics at the center-left think tank Third Way. She argues that Democrats need to make their platform as broadly popular as possible in order to bring more voters under the partys big tent. Thats the way to win and then enact progressive policies.

Steve Phillips disagrees. Hes the founder of the political media organization Democracy in Color and author of the book Brown Is the New White: How the Demographic Revolution Has Created a New American Majority. He argues that the Democrats must run and win as the party united around a vision of a multiracial, just society, unapologetically calling out racism on the other side of the ticket.

The two political strategists strongly disagree on what the party needs to do to win in November, but they agree on one thing: Democrats are afraid and need to answer the question of who they are, fast.

Thoughts? Email us at argument@nytimes.com or leave us a voice mail message at (347) 915-4324. We want to hear what youre arguing about with your family, your friends and your frenemies. (We may use excerpts from your message in a future episode.)

By leaving us a message, you are agreeing to be governed by our reader submission terms and agreeing that we may use and allow others to use your name, voice and message.

The Argument is produced by Phoebe Lett, Elisa Gutierrez and Vishakha Darbha, and edited by Anabel Bacon and Alison Bruzek; fact-checking by Mary Marge Locker and Kate Sinclair; music and sound design by Isaac Jones; engineering by Carole Sabouraud; and audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Our executive producer is Irene Noguchi. Special thanks to Kristin Lin, Pat McCusker and Kristina Samulewski.

Read this article:

Opinion | Do Democrats Win When They Talk About Race? - The New York Times