Category Archives: Democrat

The number of U.S. representatives not seeking reelection is now up to 19. Since our last update, GOP Rep. Anthony Gonzalez bowed out in the face of a Republican revolt in his district over his vote to impeach former President Donald Trump, and Democratic Rep. Karen Bass announced her intention to run for mayor of Los Angeles in 2022. And just on Tuesday, Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth announced he would retire from elected office as well.

House retirements are one metric were watching to give us a clue as to how the 2022 midterms will unfold, but on the surface at least, it doesnt look like either party has an advantage in this regard: 10 Democrats are retiring compared with nine Republicans. However, when you dig into the specific reasons that are likely behind each retirement, it does look like Democrats are more worried than Republicans.

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives not running for reelection in 2022, as of Oct. 12, 2021

District numbers and partisan leans are for current districts, which are not necessarily the ones that will be in use during the 2022 midterms.

Partisan lean is the average margin difference between how a state or district votes and how the country votes overall. This version of partisan lean, meant to be used for congressional and gubernatorial elections, is calculated as 50 percent the state or districts lean relative to the nation in the most recent presidential election, 25 percent its relative lean in the second-most-recent presidential election and 25 percent a custom state-legislative lean.

Sources: Daily Kos Elections, news reports

At this stage, six of the Republicans are leaving the House to run for another office. Of the other three, Gonzalez is probably leaving because he would have a hard time winning his Republican primary, Rep. Tom Reed appeared to retire in response to his sexual harassment scandal, and Rep. Kevin Brady said he is leaving partly because he is term-limited out of his position as top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee. Arguably, Reed and Rep. Lee Zeldin, who is running for governor, also decided to retire given Democrats control of redistricting in their home state of New York (which means they could be running on bluer turf next year). But considering they also had other factors playing into their retirements, one can argue at this point that no Republicans are retiring primarily out of fear of losing their general election next year.

Retiring Democrats, however, appear to be more motivated by electoral concerns. Only five of the 10 retiring Democrats are running for another office, while four currently represent swing seats: Reps. Filemon Vela, Ann Kirkpatrick, Cheri Bustos and Ron Kind. And only Velas seat is likely to be made safely Democratic in redistricting, although he didnt know that when he announced he was retiring. Its reasonable, therefore, to theorize that fear of losing reelection was a key factor in their decisions to retire.

The 10th retiring Democrat is Yarmuth, who currently represents a safely blue seat anchored by Louisville, Kentucky. But he may be retiring out of fear of losing reelection, too. Thats because Republicans, who control the redistricting process in Kentucky, could eliminate his seat by giving slices of his dark-blue 3rd District to neighboring red districts that can absorb more Democratic voters without becoming competitive a gerrymandering technique known as cracking.

Kentucky hasnt begun the redistricting process yet (at least publicly), so we dont yet know with certainty what its new map will look like. Yarmuths retirement, though, could suggest that he expected Republicans to force him out. But even if they hadnt and the 3rd District remained intact, Yarmuth may have still retired for political reasons: He is currently chair of the House Budget Committee, but he stands to lose that considerable power if Republicans take back control of the House in 2022. His retirement may indicate that hes not optimistic about Democrats chances next year. Political science research has found that politicians are more likely to retire when they see a bad political environment for their party on the horizon.

The good news for Democrats is that politicians make bad pundits: There has historically been a weak relationship between which party sees the most retirements and which party does poorly the subsequent election. But the bad news for Democrats is that, whatever the specific motivation of Yarmuths retirement, history is clearly on the side of Republicans having a strong performance in the 2022 midterms.

Go here to see the original:

It Looks Like House Democrats Are Worried About The 2022 Midterms - FiveThirtyEight

Despite party control of Congress and the presidency, Democrats are still struggling to enact their agenda. The ballyhooed bipartisan infrastructure deal is stuck in the House, and the sweeping $3.5 trillion reconciliation package has been the source of bitter disputes among party members.

The Biden administration set out with hopes for big, bold change transformational was the word in the winter and into spring. But in autumn, disarray is ubiquitous.

We are not surprised that one-party control has not enabled Democrats to swiftly or easily move their agenda. Our research shows that parties with unified control in Washington routinely fail to enact many of their highest priorities. They are typically forced to accept significant compromises to pass any of their agenda items.

That has been true in every recent case when a party held unified control of government. In 2017, a Republican failure to reach intraparty consensus resulted in a striking collapse punctuated by John McCains thumbs-down of the partys efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare. Later that year, Republican leaders had to scale back their visions for tax reform to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In 2010, significant disagreements within the Democratic Party undermined and ultimately dashed their plans for a cap-and-trade program to combat climate change. To get the Affordable Care Act across the finish line, many Democrats had to accept a bill that fell short of their aspirations the failure to establish a public insurance option still stings many liberals.

Why do unified majorities in Washington struggle and often fail to enact their agendas? In our research, we tracked the successes and failures of majority parties in Congress on their policy goals from 1985 through 2018 (265 agenda items in total). The study covers the last several periods of unified party government in Washington those that occurred during the presidencies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump.

We find that parties with unified control in Washington since the Clinton years have struggled for two reasons.

The filibuster explains some of the majority parties struggles. Senate rules require most legislation to obtain 60 votes to advance to passage. As a result, minority parties have a chance to either veto or reshape most legislation. Still, even though its a constant source of discussion and debate in todays Washington, we find the filibuster was the cause of only one-third of failed attempts by majority parties to enact their priorities during unified government since 1993.

The second reason is less well appreciated but accounts for the other two-thirds a large majority of failures. Both parties have been, and remain, internally divided on many issues. Parties are often able to hide their disagreements by simply not taking up legislation on issues that evoke significant fissures. But when those issues reflect their campaign promises, majority parties will often forge ahead even in the absence of internal consensus on a plan.

Whether Democratic or Republican, the party with unified control in Washington in recent years has failed on one or more of its highest-priority agenda items because of insufficient unity within its own ranks. In 2017, Republicans failed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act because of the opposition of three Senate Republicans (Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mr. McCain). In 2009-10, Democrats failed to enact a cap-and-trade policy because of spats between coastal Democrats and those representing the interior of the country. In 2005, Republicans failed to reform Social Security despite President Bush making it his top domestic legislative priority because of a lack of consensus in the party about how to proceed. In Mr. Clintons first term, Democrats were never able to unify behind a single plan to enact comprehensive health care reform despite relatively large majorities in both chambers.

What Democrats are trying to do with their Build Back Better effort today is even more difficult than usual. Congress has rarely tried to pass more than one budget reconciliation bill in a two-year session. In March, Democrats used reconciliation to pass the American Rescue Plan on straight party-line votes; theres no precedent for enacting two such ambitious partisan reconciliation bills within a single year. To pass a second sweeping package with razor-thin majorities should be seen as a long shot. The fact that the party is furiously negotiating a pared-down version suggests how much importance it has attached to its success for both electoral and policy reasons.

Parties campaign on ambitious policy proposals. But its much easier to agree to a campaign plank than to rally behind specific legislation. The devil is in the details. If Democrats somehow avoid large-scale agenda failure and pass both the bipartisan infrastructure bill and a sweeping reconciliation bill, they will have done something rare: They will have outdone all their recent predecessors who had single-party control of national government.

James M. Curry, an associate political science professor at the University of Utah, and Frances E. Lee, a professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton, are the authors of The Limits of Party: Congress and Lawmaking in a Polarized Era.

Read the original:

Opinion | Why Democrats Are Having Trouble in Congress - The New York Times

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

Mike Collier is willing to bet Texas voters know his name.

In fact, hes confident that when he last ran for lieutenant governor three years ago and came within 5 percentage points of winning, it was because most of the 3.8 million Texans who checked his name were voting in support of his candidacy, and not just against Republican incumbent Dan Patrick during a watershed year for Democrats.

Theyll only do that if they like the candidate theyre voting for, Collier said. Yes, a lot of people voted against Dan Patrick but theyre not going to vote for just anybody. They looked and they [said], I dont like Dan Patrick, hes bad for the state. I like Mike Collier, I think hes good for the state.

His evidence? In two-thirds of Texas counties, he outperformed Beto ORourke, who led the top of the ticket in 2018 against U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz and sparked a flurry of excitement among Democrats that year.

But several other statewide Democratic candidates with little name recognition and no real campaign funding also outperformed expectations against their GOP counterparts that year, largely on ORourkes coattails. Collier wasnt even the partys second-highest vote-getter statewide. That was Justin Nelson, who came within 295,000 votes of unseating Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Collier, a 60-year-old accountant and auditor from the Houston area, will have his chance to prove his bonafides next year after announcing earlier this month that he is officially running for a rematch against Patrick.

I came very close to beating Dan Patrick. I came within 4.8 points, he said. And I decided that looking at the numbers, that I can beat him.

But first, hell have to get past Matthew Dowd, a former George W. Bush strategist turned Democrat, and any other candidate that joins the race in a Democratic primary. Collier said he looks forward to the contest.

My strategy is to keep talking to every Texan and have a much better team, much more money and a network of surrogates and friends and volunteers and champions and validators all over the state, he said. I think I win the primary.

Colliers knocks on Patrick are many. He fuels the culture wars, hes an impediment to better health care for Texans, hes not focused on funding public schools, hes let property taxes remain high despite touting reform and, perhaps most importantly to Collier, he didnt address the failures that left millions of Texans without power when the states electric grid failed in February.

What Texans want is a lieutenant governor who will solve problems, Collier said. You cant get Dan Patrick to work on the real problems to save his life and he is a hyperpartisan.

Patricks campaign declined comment. This year, Patrick, who presides over the Senate, pressured officials at the Public Utilities Commission to reverse $16 billion in electricity charges racked up during the winter storms. He pushed through legislation in the Senate toward that end, but the proposal died in the House.

He has also called reducing property taxes his No. 1 priority, but Collier says Patricks approach isnt working.

Collier said if he won, public education would be his priority. In close second, hed focus on fixing the damn grid, which has become a campaign motto.

He also would focus on expanding Medicaid in Texas and controlling the increase of property taxes.

But this time, Collier has a formidable primary challenge in Dowd, the former Bush strategist.

Dowd, a 60-year-old Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Democrat who split with Bush in 2007 over his handling of the Iraq War, may benefit from people recognizing him from TV appearances on ABC News, where hes worked as a policy analyst and appeared on shows like Nightline and Good Morning America.

When Dowd jumped into the race, Colliers camp took a jab at his GOP past, welcoming him back to the Democratic party after 20 years working to elect Republicans across the country.

Collier, however, also identified as a Republican before running for office and twice voted against President Barack Obama. The difference, his team said, is that Collier has since worked to elect Democrats in the state, including President Joe Biden.

Mike Collier was Senior Advisor to President Joe Biden who has delivered millions of vaccines, ended a two-decade war, and restored Americas standing on the global stage, deputy campaign manager Ali S. Zaidi, said in a statement. In contrast, Matthew Dowd was Chief Advisor for George W. Bush who started two wars, tanked the global economy, and appointed the deciding Supreme Court vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Collier has worked over the past decade to build the Texas Democratic Party, and Democrats will have a clear choice in 2022.

Dowd pledged not to attack Collier or any other Democrat who jumps in the race.

Our campaign is focused on the cruel Lt. Governor Dan Patrick and restoring common sense with common decency for the common good, Dowd said.

Collier said hes confident that his own track record with Democratic voters will resonate in a primary. Hes spent eight years campaigning for Democrats up and down the state, he said, and hes got the miles on two run-down trucks to prove it.

I always knew that when we got close and were very close that there would be candidates trying to sail in to see if they could land it, he said. So a primary is not a surprise. That doesnt change my strategy.

David Thomason, a political scientist at St. Edwards University, said the Democratic primary could be a good test of whose approach resonates best with voters.

The 3.8 million is not a support of Mike Collier as much as it is a protest or distance from Dan Patrick, Thomason said. In order for him to elevate his status as a legitimate candidate, hes gotta give voters something to get motivated for him rather than just being against Dan Patrick.

In him, Collier said, voters would find the opposite of Patrick: a self-described numbers guy whos focused on the big picture rather than partisan politics.

Solving problems and dealing with complexity bringing people together is what I do as a consultant in the business world, said Collier, who was a top partner at accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Collier said hell need Democrats to turn out in a major way to win in 2022. But he also believes he can win over independents and Republicans because the majority of Texans want the government to focus on the issues hes pushing.

Our point of view, as Democrats, is the majority point of view in the state, he said. Therell be a whole lot of folks that will come that dont consider themselves Democrats, but theyll hear the message and theyll come across and theyll vote for me, just as they did in 2018.

Collier is confident because he was able to engage Democrats, as well as Republicans and independents, during his last election. He did so by campaigning in areas of the state where Democrats dont typically go.

He is out here frequently, said Jon Mark Hogg, founder of the 134 PAC which aims to build Democratic power in rural counties to the west of I-35. Hes become a friend and trusted counselor and resonates with people in rural Texas. I dont know if thats because hes more of a moderate or his personality, but people respond to him.

But Collier will also have to win big in urban areas of the state where the population is more diverse and the cost of campaigning is much higher. There, hell have to win over Black and Latino voters with whom his name recognition is low.

If youre running for statewide office you need to have a statewide strategy and that means you have to be present, said Jeronimo Cortina, a University of Houston political scientist who studies the Latino vote. Latinos are not going to vote for a Democrat just because he or she is a Democrat. [Candidates] need to go and engage Latino voters, go and meet with them, talk to them, listen to them and have answers.

Collier is spending most of October on a 30-day tour that will hit all the major regions of the state. Collier is convinced that more resources, a much better team and a much higher name recognition will help him get over the top in this campaign.

Hes also hoping for some help from ORourke, who Collier said he would like to see run for governor.

I did better than he did in rural Texas. He did better than I did in urban Texas, Collier said. If we compare notes if we get each of the other's numbers, we win.

Disclosure: University of Houston has been a financial supporter 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.

Originally posted here:

Mike Collier wants a rematch against Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. But first he's got to beat fellow Democrat Matthew Dowd. - The Texas Tribune

The Senate and House committees with jurisdiction have been at odds over spending $300 billion or $494 billion, respectively, on the program for a while, a source familiar with the conversations said. A funding level of $300 billion is likely enough to cover three to four weeks of leave, the source said, but not the 12 weeks that President Joe Biden proposed or that House Ways and Means Chair Richard Neal (D-Mass.) put forth.

Specifics are still in flux as Democrats continue to negotiate a topline. But sources said there are a handful of options being floated, including reducing the length of the benefit; capping how much workers take home; phasing in the program; and giving it an expiration date.

Weve seen a strong commitment to maintain the comprehensiveness of the program; maintaining the eligibility criteria that ensures the most marginalized and vulnerable people can access the program, Vicki Shabo, who studies paid leave at the left-leaning New America, said. Those are both very important components that need to stay. And then theres other dials you could turn to try and scale.

Taking these routes will inevitably decrease the programs reach, and possibly its efficacy. But advocates say that enacting any paid leave policy even one that isn't as comprehensive as first envisioned is preferable to cutting the benefit from the package entirely.

They fear that if lawmakers dont capitalize on the momentum created by the pandemic to pass the program now, it may never happen.

The worst case scenario is the status quo, Kathryn Rand, an economist at the RAND Corporation, said. I know that theres so many ways that this can go wrong, but the worst case scenario is the status quo.

Heres what may be on the policy chopping block in the paid leave plan:

Both Bidens American Families Plan and the House Ways and Means Committee plan would provide all workers with 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave for a wide variety of reasons, including illnesses, injuries, births, caregiving, a family members military deployment and more.

The most effective way to cut down the cost of the program would be to shorten the length of the benefit, experts said. Indeed, this is likely one of the only ways to shave hundreds of billions off the cost, and thus the route lawmakers are most likely to take.

Eight weeks would be the minimum amount of time to see the benefits of a paid leave program and deliver on the economic benefits the Biden administration and congressional Democrats are promising, sources familiar with the Hill negotiations said.

But advocates worry that anything less than 12 weeks would weaken the program, reducing its potential health and economic benefits. Most of the evidence used to draft the House Ways and Means text was based on state paid leave programs, which are typically at least three months.

This is driven by data, Paid Leave for All Director Dawn Huckelbridge said. We know theres a reason why we think three months should be a minimum.

On top of that, much of the broader research on how paid leave can boost the economy and reduce infant deaths is based on 12 weeks of leave. Less than that, experts warn, and some of those financial and health benefits could be minimized.

Ive been in Washington long enough to know that a lot of times, numbers are arbitrary, Lelaine Bigelow, vice president for social impact and congressional relations at the National Partnership for Women and Families, said. But there is so much health evidence to back up the reason why we are fighting for 12 weeks.

Another option to cut the cost of the program is to put a lower cap on monthly benefits. The House plan would provide the average worker with two-thirds of their usual pay on a sliding scale, capped at an estimated $5,200 a month.

The Senate language will likely max out that amount at $4,000 a month, one source familiar with the discussions said.

This would likely bring the cost of the program down by about $50 billion, another source said.

One of the reasons the White House justified pegging its program at $225 billion is because the benefits would be phased in over 10 years, rather than going into effect all at once like the House program. If senators wanted to lower the price tag of their bill, they could take a similar approach.

That could prove problematic for states and employers, however. The House draft includes language that would provide grants to states and employers with their own paid leave programs to help them meet the federal standard. But having the legislation phase in over the course of the decade could make it more difficult for them to come into compliance, given that they'd have to meet various standards staggered over the phase-in period and thus, less likely to take part, a source familiar with the discussions said.

A phase-in could also complicate matters for workers, the source pointed out. Americans dealing with an illness or injury could end up putting off treatment until the next stage of the program so they can receive more robust benefits.

Lastly, any phase-in would mean the programs funding would be heavily weighted toward the last year because that's when the full benefits would take effect. An unofficial CBO estimate pegged the last year of Bidens 10-year phase-in at about $90 billion alone, a source familiar with the conversations said. If thats the case, then the nine preceding years would need to be much less robust spending-wise.

Perhaps one of the most straightforward ways to lower the cost of a paid leave program would be to slap on an expiration date either after the 10 years proposed by the Biden administration, or even sooner.

Why not look at a five-year plan? Cut it in half? Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.) said in an interview. All ships sail, and weve gotten the job done.

Temporary isn't always temporary in Washington. Eliminating a benefit like paid leave would be politically difficult, if not impossible, after a decade.

But having a set end-date for the benefit could discourage state and employer participation, one source said, because they would be setting up complex and expensive programs just to lose federal funding if and when it ends.

"For President Bidens legacy, its important to make these longer-term investments and not have short-term cliffs, Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), who leads the centrist New Democrat Coalition, said. "We need to make sure people have certainty."

Read the original post:

House, Senate Democrats at odds over whether to slash paid leave plan - POLITICO

Democrats are worried about another White House bid by former President TrumpDonald TrumpHouse votes to raise debt ceiling Georgia reporter says state will 'continue to be a premier battleground' Elections administrator in Texas county Trump won resigns after campaign to oust her MORE, something that is appearing increasingly likely on the eve of an Iowa rally by the leading potential GOP candidate.

Democrats say Trump cant be taken for granted. While some are confident a new Trump candidacy would bring out a wave of Democratic voters to defeat him, others are worried he could return to power. And thats enough to bring shudders to most in the party.

There's not a strategist or insider that I'm hanging out with who would like to see Donald Trump running again, said Rachel Bitecofer, a Democratic pollster. Nobody should think he would be a weak nominee.

Bitecofer and other Democrats still traumatized by Trumps surprise win in 2016, his four years in office and his near-miss defeat last year say hes proven time and again that he can be competitive, particularly when the odds are stacked against him.

He almost re-won the White House in 2020 even after four years of scandal after scandal, and then the pandemic and the mismanagement of that, she added. That never affected him. And he almost won and his party picked up seats in the House.

No one should underestimate his ability to energize the base with grievance politics, added Mike Morey, the Democratic strategist who served as an aide to Senate Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerGreen group pressures Sinema to spell out climate agenda Biden faces pressure to pass infrastructure bills before climate summit Sunday shows - Scalise won't say if election was stolen under questioning from Fox's Chris Wallace MORE (D-N.Y.). Democrats would be foolish to think he would be easy to take down.

Behind the scenes, Trump, 75, has told associates he is eager to announce another White House bid. But advisers have told him to keep a low profile, preferably until after the midterm elections next years.

Trumps urgency to announce a new bid,GOP strategists say, has been driven by President BidenJoe BidenHouse votes to raise debt ceiling On The Money House kicks debt ceiling standoff to December Overnight Health Care Presented by The National Council for Mental Wellbeing Progressives: Medicare benefit expansions 'not negotiable' MOREs poor polling in recent weeks.Trump frequently sends the media emailed releases touting bad numbers for Biden.

Biden has seen his approval numbers drop following a messy withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, and even Democrats have accused him of mishandling the border and immigration issues.

Independents, who helped catapult Biden into the White House last year, have also soured on him and the gridlock on Capitol Hill, where Democrats control both chambers.

And Trump is ready to pounce.

Were not supposed to be talking about it yet, from the standpoint of campaign finance laws, which frankly are ridiculous, Trump said last month during a stop at a police station to commemorate the Sept. 11 attacks, after he was asked if he was going to launch another bid for the White House. But I think you are going to be happy. Let me put it that way.

Trump also has sought to keep other Republicans including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantisRon DeSantisOvernight Health Care Presented by The National Council for Mental Wellbeing Progressives: Medicare benefit expansions 'not negotiable' Texas governor opens new front on vaccine mandates Florida fines county .5M for violating COVID-19 vaccine passport ban MORE out of the race, clearing the field for a potential run.

If I faced him, Id beat him like I would beat everyone else, Trump said in an interview last week with Yahoo Finance. I think most people would drop out. I think he would drop out.

A Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll survey out last month showed that 58 percent of the GOP voters surveyed would want Trump to be the Republican nominee in 2024, setting up a potential rematch between Biden and his predecessor.

A Des Moines Register-Mediacom Iowa poll out this week showed Trumps favorable rating hitting a new high, with 53 percent of Iowans approving of him.

The survey comes as the former president holds a rally in the Hawkeye State this weekend.

Biden, 78, has told associates that he does plan on running again in 2024. Its very real, one ally said.

But some Democrats who acknowledge his age will be a defining factor in a reelection race suspect he wont.And they worry about what they see as a weak Democratic bench.

The scariest thing about the next election is that weve seen what [Trump] can do and Im not sure we have a candidate who can be competitive, said one Democratic donor. I thought Biden was the only one who could take him out in 2020. And if he doesnt run, a lot of people wonder if Kamala [Harris] can be effective. So who takes on Trump if not Biden? Thats the issue.

To make matters worse, the past couple of months havent been good for Biden, the donor said.

Hes looked weak, hes looked defensive, the fundraiser said. Its right where Trump wants him.

But other Democrats say they would relish another Trump run, pointing to his polarizing nature and his ability to turn off independents and mobilize the Democratic base.

While there is a little angel over my shoulder reminding me of what I thought in 2016, I'm more confident it would be a disaster for him and Republicans up and down the ballot than in 2020, said Democratic strategist Eddie Vale. Another Trump run isn't just the over the hill rock star trying to play his greatest hits again, it's trying to come back on stage for an encore after you've been booed off.

Vale argued that it wouldnt just be Trump hurting himself.

This would help to keep pushing independents, suburban voters and even some Republicans away from the party, he said. And the 2024 Senate map would be really good for Democrats to have Trump driving turnout.

But one Democratic strategist described another Trump run as the worlds biggest nightmare.

Hes shown that hes willing to campaign from the lowest denominator and do anything and everything to win, the strategist said. If that doesnt scare the shit out of every Democrat, were in trouble.

Read the original post:

Democratic anxiety rises as Trump bid appears more likely | TheHill - The Hill

Since taking office, she has made responding to the fallout of the pandemic her top priority, implementing vaccine mandates and expediting coronavirus relief funds for struggling renters and undocumented immigrants. She has also kept a packed schedule of public appearances and moved vigorously to fund-raise in hopes of raising $25 million for her campaign next year.

Indeed, the Marist Institute for Public Opinion poll found that Ms. Hochul is already enjoying the benefits of incumbency: Fifty-five percent of New Yorkers said they had a favorable view of her, while 32 percent said they had an unfavorable impression. Her favorability rating was 70 percent among Democrats and 26 percent among Republicans.

Mr. Williams, a left-wing Democrat from Brooklyn who unsuccessfully ran for lieutenant governor against Ms. Hochul in 2018, announced an exploratory committee for governor last month and is expected to make a decision soon.

Ms. James, another Brooklyn Democrat, is also seriously considering a run for governor. She recently embarked on a campaign-like tour of the state and has been discussing her ambitions with donors and elected officials.

Its an honor and a privilege to be urged to run for the office of governor, Ms. James said at the annual New Yorker Festival on Sunday evening. But at this point in time, one, as a woman of faith, Im still praying on it. Two, Im still considering the options, and three, Im considering where best I can make transformational change in the State of New York.

When Mr. Cuomo resigned, his top aide said Mr. Cuomo had no intention of running again for governor, but he still has a daunting $18 million campaign war chest, leading to speculation that he may decide to jump in or otherwise meddle in the race. His campaign website, which does not mention his resignation, is still active and appears to be accepting donations.

In recent weeks, Mr. Cuomos campaign has sent emails to supporters, including one last week in which he described the report from the attorney generals office as politically and personally motivated.

Here is the original post:

N.Y. Governor Poll Shows Hochul Leading James and Williams - The New York Times

But others said they would rather the money go directly to child care or pre-K because it would help mothers work. Im always very sensitive to policies that even unintentionally discourage mothers labor force participation, said Barbara Risman, a sociologist at the University of Illinois, Chicago. In the long run, those families will have fewer resources if the mothers have lower earning potentials.

It does the most to empower families to do what they think is best for their families. H. Luke Shaefer, professor of social justice and social policy, University of Michigan

We have pretty unambiguous evidence that more financial resources for families with young kids has important and lasting impacts. Maya Rossin-Slater, associate professor of health policy and economics, Stanford

The money can be spent on anything, not just child care, and it will cover children older than the usual age at which child care is used. Claudia Goldin, professor of economics, Harvard

It can reduce child poverty right now, is likely to improve mobility over the long term, and it is unlikely to decrease mothers employment. Joanna Pepin, assistant professor of sociology, University at Buffalo

Families are getting it now, and what a shame it would be to take it away. Jane Waldfogel, professor of social work, Columbia

Three of the experts chose this as the most important. The plan being considered would make child care free for the lowest earners. And it would cost no more than 7 percent of earnings for others, up to a certain income.

It would likely pull more women in the work force, so the overall gains to the family would be more than just the reduced cost of child care, said Jill Yavorsky, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte.

It would help close racial gaps, too, since Black and Hispanic women have disproportionately become unemployed during the pandemic, said Fatima Suarez, a sociologist at Stanford. Child care subsidies is not just a family issue, but an issue of race, class and gender equity, she said.

Others said subsidies alone would not do enough to address other issues with child care, like unavailability, low pay for providers and varying levels of quality. And some preferred a universal benefit rather than a means-tested one it would make the program more popular and improve quality, they said, and child care is unaffordable for many middle-class families.

It would offer the greatest benefit to mothers who do not make enough income to cover the costs of child care. Jill Yavorsky, assistant professor of sociology, University of North Carolina, Charlotte

Essential workers are disproportionately women of color, and they do not earn nearly enough to be able to survive, let alone pay for child care. Fatima Suarez, postdoctoral research fellow, Stanford

Im weighing what would help the largest number of families for the longest time span with the maximum money in parents pockets. Caitlyn Collins, assistant professor of sociology, Washington University in St. Louis

The United States is the only rich country without a federal mandate to offer paid leave for new parents or for medical emergencies. The Democrats plan would give American workers up to 12 weeks. Research has shown that this would particularly benefit the lowest earners and people in unstable jobs, who now risk falling into poverty if they have a caregiving need or illness.

It provides a necessary safety net for lower-income families when they are going through major life events, said Youngjoo Cha, a sociologist at Indiana University Bloomington. It has a strong implication for gender equality at work and at home. It will generate a long-lasting effect of equalizing gender division of work at home as well.

Follow this link:

Which of These 4 Family Policies Deserves Top Priority? - The New York Times

Published on October 13, 2021

Once again, the Rhode Island Democratic Party is trying to deny Democracy to the Rhode Island DemocraticWomens Caucus this time quite literally.

Recently, the state Democratic party sent a letter to the Rhode Island Democratic Womens Caucus, challenging the Caucuss right to call itself Democratic. The state party claims this is to avoid confusion regarding the Womens Caucuss affiliation with the state party, and instructs the Caucus to cease using the word Democratic in your title, and in all communications. The Womens Caucus has been in existence for almost two years now, since November 2019, without the party having raised this issue. There is no valid reason for the state party to do this now. This attack on our identity shows their continued contempt for our members, an active group of women and allies who are proud to call ourselves Democrats.

The letter, sent by Senior Advisor to the Rhode Island Democratic Party Kate Coyne-McCoy, goes on to cite a section of the Rhode Island law, 17-23-7, which limits the use of the word republican or democrat in clubs or associations.

According to this provision, Every member and every officer of any club, society, or association, whether incorporated or not, violating any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor. To that end, wed like to alert over 20 members of the Rhode Island legislature, our congressional delegation, as well several Rhode Island Democratic Party Executive Committee members who are some of the over 600 members of The Rhode Island DemocraticWomensCaucus of this threat.

Given this concern over confusion and legal use of the word democrat or democratic, we look forward to seeing the renaming of several other organizations and PACs also not officially headed by the Rhode Island Democratic Party, including:

However, we suspect these other organizations were not sent similar letters. It is disappointing, yet not surprising, to see this continued pattern of abuse and bullying towards women from the state party. This latest incident showcases exactly why the Caucus had to separate from the party back in 2019. After endorsing a Trump supporter over a sitting female Democratic representative, kicking our group out of party headquarters, denying VAN to female candidates, and ramming through bylaws intended to suppress us and deny our voice, the pattern of needless antagonism continues.

The Rhode Island Democratic Party should not be afraid of the Democratic women of Rhode Island, says chair Samantha Weiser.

In a time when small-d democracy is threatened by a Republican Party that continues to support a former president who instigated an insurrection against the United States, we should expect our own states Democratic Party to fight for Democratic values, not send pointless letters attempting to further sow disunity among its own party members.

We call on the state party to retract its letter, to focus on electing Democrats who will fight hard for Democratic Party values, and to work with all members of the Democratic Party to protect and preserve our democracy.

Democratic women and our allies are always welcome to join theWomens Caucus to help us promote and protect Democratic Party values, and democracy itself.

Click here to read theoriginal letter. Note, we are confused about why the second page was sent to us, but we have included it for full context of our communications.

Follow this link:

RI Democratic Party denies Democracy to the Rhode Island xxxxxxxxxx Women's Caucus Uprise RI - Uprise RI

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched a six-figure television ad campaign Wednesday urging five House Democrats to oppose the partys $3.5 trillion social spending package that would raise taxes on large corporations.

The ads from the nations largest corporate lobbying group argue that Democrats proposal to increase taxes on multinational corporations would make it harder for U.S. companies to compete overseas.

The ad blitz is part of the Chambers effort to pressure Democrats to defeat or water down corporate tax hikes that would pay for a proposed "human" infrastructure plan's huge investments in child care, education and climate change.

This legislation would significantly harm the ability of American businesses to continue to compete internationally by introducing new tax hikes on those who sell overseas, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Suzanne Clark said in a statement. This legislation would disadvantage American businesses who compete in the global economy.

The Chambers ads target Reps. Angie Craig (Minn.), Antonio DelgadoAntonio Ramon DelgadoBusiness groups create new headache for Pelosi Chamber of Commerce warns moderate Democrats against voting for reconciliation Six takeaways: What the FEC reports tell us about the midterm elections MORE (N.Y.), Kathy Manning (N.C.), Deborah Ross (N.C.) and Tom MalinowskiThomas (Tom) MalinowskiJournalist Dave Levinthal discusses 'uptick' in congressional stock trade violations Pandora Papers: 4 takeaways from massive leak of world leaders' finances Pandora Papers prompt lawmakers to push for crackdown on financial 'enablers' MORE (N.J.). Those Democrats had some of the slimmest margins of victory in the 2020 elections. Malinowski won by roughly 1 percentage point, while Craig won by around 2 points.

Its the second round of television ads from the business group targeting moderate Democrats. Last month, the Chamber aired ads targeting Craig, Delgado and three other House Democrats it endorsed in 2020. The group has said that any lawmaker who votes for the reconciliation package will lose its endorsement.

The Business Roundtable, a group of the most powerful corporate CEOs, and the RATE Coalition, which represents dozens of major companies, are also running ads pressuring moderate Democrats to oppose their partys signature spending bill.

Business groups know that they only need to pick off a handful of Democrats to defeat the reconciliation package. Democrats can only afford three defections in the House and none in the Senate.

Excerpt from:

US Chamber targets more House Democrats with ads opposing $3.5T bill | TheHill - The Hill

As the White House tries to try to move forward on agenda items, moderate Democrats Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., have emerged as key players. They have clashed with party leaders and progressive members. The Washington Post via Getty Images hide caption

As the White House tries to try to move forward on agenda items, moderate Democrats Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., have emerged as key players. They have clashed with party leaders and progressive members.

Democrats in Washington are divided.

You've no doubt read and heard news reports that detail the recent infighting, as headline writers for weeks have been digging to find synonyms for discord, disarray, dissent and disagreement.

The party is portrayed as split, on the outs and at odds.

And in the game of Washington power politics, party unity matters. Disunity kills.

In recent months it has hobbled Democrats who are the nominal majority in an almost perfectly divided House and Senate in their efforts on everything from fiscal policy and immigration to climate change and voting rights. President Biden and the progressives who now dominate his party in Congress are struggling to win over or compromise with the last few centrist-moderate colleagues in their ranks. If they fail, they cannot govern.

So their internal battle is unquestionably news.

But it is not, in any sense, new.

In fact, why would anyone expect the Democrats to act in any other way?

Throughout its history, the party has featured dissent and even radical differences of viewpoint. It has been defined by these internal contrasts and conflicts as often as by its achievements.

It has often been easier to understand the Democratic Party as a series of shifting coalitions rather than a cohesive, disciplined unit. That long-term tolerance for turmoil may even help to explain how this party or at least this party label has stuck around so long. At two centuries plus, these Democrats are the oldest political party still functioning, not just in the U.S. but in the world.

The divisions have at times played out in marquee presidential races, as when the liberal Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts challenged the re-nomination of Jimmy Carter, the more centrist Georgia Democrat who happened to be the incumbent president in 1980.

More often, the tensions that permeate the party's past have been part of the ordinary, daily business of Congress. For generations it was understood that in Congress, the Southern Democrats would go their own way when they felt their regional or ideological interests were at stake.

Months after his challenge to the incumbent President Carter had failed, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) makes a belated gesture of unity in the closing moments of the 1980 National Convention. AP hide caption

Months after his challenge to the incumbent President Carter had failed, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) makes a belated gesture of unity in the closing moments of the 1980 National Convention.

So stark was this reality that for decades Congressional Quarterly tallied and reported votes in Congress for three parties: Republicans, Southern Democrats and National Democrats. When a majority of members in each of the first two categories agreed, CQ labeled it "the Conservative Coalition."

The problem for Biden and the Democrats of the current Congress is not that they are so fractious but that there are so few of them. In a 50-50 Senate, even one defector can deal a fatal blow. In a House where the majority's margin of error is three votes, the intraparty balancing act is a high-wire acrobatic trick of the first order.

Activists pressuring Biden to "go big" continually refer to the Democrats' "total control of Washington," when in reality there is no such thing. Given the narrow-to-nonexistent margins, the idea of control assumes every Democrat would vote in lockstep, and that has almost never been the case.

At those fleeting moments in history when the Democrats have united and thrived in Congress, they have done so by uniting urban and rural voters across the regional lines. But these interludes of cooperation, symbolized by alternating House Speakers from Texas and Massachusetts (the "Austin-Boston axis"), have always been highly pragmatic.

It was understood that one side would support the other in exchange for the protection of certain overriding concerns. For Southern Democrats, the paramount concern was segregation.

That bargain worked in the New Deal years of the 1930s, when Franklin D. Roosevelt enjoyed huge majorities in both House and Senate that had votes to spare. It was still the order of the day when Lyndon B. Johnson stepped into the presidency in place of the assassinated John F. Kennedy.

With Republican help, Johnson broke the Dixiecrats' filibuster against the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and then got the Voting Rights Act to his desk for signature the following year. Also in that year, Johnson's big multi-regional majorities had votes to spare in passing Medicare, Medicaid and a host of other social spending programs.

No Democratic president has had such support in Congress since. But when Bill Clinton took office in 1993 he had far wider margins in House and Senate than Biden has now. Yet they were not enough to deliver on much of his agenda, and control of both chambers was lost in the 1994 midterms.

In August 1968, as the Democratic Party met in Chicago for its presidential nominating convention, tens of thousands of protestors swarmed the streets and the turmoil penetrated the convention hall, where delegates opposed to the war in Vietnam disrupted the proceedings. Getty Images hide caption

In August 1968, as the Democratic Party met in Chicago for its presidential nominating convention, tens of thousands of protestors swarmed the streets and the turmoil penetrated the convention hall, where delegates opposed to the war in Vietnam disrupted the proceedings.

Years later, Barack Obama would be inaugurated with restored and even larger majorities in the House and Senate than Clinton's. Those majorities managed to pass the Affordable Care Act. But the bruising first two years cost Obama's party control of the House in the midterms of 2010, and Democrats' waning appeal in the nation's interior cost them control of the Senate in the midterms of 2014.

At their historic high tides, Democrats were not really more united than they are now. They may have been less so. The difference was they had enough votes to abide their disunity and still prevail.

When journalist Jules Witcover penned a 700-page popular history of the Democrats in 2003, he called it Party of the People, using what has long been the party's favorite self description. But he kicked off the narrative with an equally famous joke: "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

That line was first delivered in the wise-cracking twang of Will Rogers, an Oklahoma cowboy who became a popular humorist and movie actor. On occasion, Rogers would elaborate with: "Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they'd be Republicans."

Such lines always got appreciative laughter and applause. Perhaps this loose and accommodating character is fitting, given the party's origins in the sometimes-contradictory convictions of Thomas Jefferson. A Virginia planter of exceptional intellect, Jefferson, declared his "eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man." Yet, like George Washington before, his Virginia plantation ran on the labor of hundreds of slaves.

Jefferson was the first president associated with what became known as the Democratic Party. Before that, he and his confreres were simply the "anti-Federalists" or, for a time, the Democratic-Republicans.

But Jefferson himself was no fan of the party concept. "If I could not go to heaven but with a party," he once confided, "I would not go there at all."

Jefferson prided himself on an agrarian ideal of society, believing it morally superior to life in cities. He was followed in the White House by two more Virginia planters who had enslaved workers, James Madison and James Monroe, making it four of the first five presidents who did so. The seventh, Democrat Andrew Jackson, also relied on slavery.

Soon the Democratic Party would be known as "the party of Jefferson and Jackson," and in some states it continued to call its annual party events "Jefferson-Jackson dinners" well into the 2000s. But by then the party had long since shifted its base to the cities, to which most of the population had moved.

In the 1800s, as the young Republic grew, the arrival of immigrants from Germany and Ireland and elsewhere in Europe introduced a new strain of Democrats who quickly came to matter in the politics of their cities and states. They were especially important to the growth of the cities in the Northeast and Midwest.

The Democratic Party was the place where the nation's E pluribus unum concept was put to the test. And while the party, like the country as whole, idealized the "melting pot" notion in the abstract; in practice the melting was often strained.

In addition to the North-South regional rivalry, the Democrats had to deal with deep and competing devotion to different definitions of Christianity. The party began with ties to the Protestant denominations that were well established in the South and in rural America, but it was soon closely associated as well with Catholicism in the cities. The 20th century political scientist Richard Scammon liked to say that the two most important events in any American election year were the Civil War and the Reformation.

The sectarian intraparty tensions have eased somewhat in recent decades, largely because Southern white voters have absented themselves gravitating to the Republicans, especially in rural precincts. Many departed their ancestral party after it backed the civil rights bills and embraced other movements toward social change. Other older voters in the South brought their GOP habits with them when they migrated from other parts of the country.

But the historic differences have never gone away, and it is still possible to find Democratic politicians working an older Democratic moderate-to-conservative playbook. This may seem mandatory to them in states that have become highly Republican in voting patterns, such as West Virginia.

Once a reliably Democratic bastion, West Virginia twice delivered crushing majorities for Donald Trump and has but one Democrat left in Congress Joe Manchin, who has been the principal stumbling block for party unity in the Senate.

Other Democrats currently at odds with their party leadership have their own constituency stories to tell. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, once considered a liberal activist, has become highly conscious of her state's economic interests and the past success of Arizona senators who billed themselves as independent centrists and party mavericks especially the late Republican John McCain.

Among the House Democrats who have vowed to resist parts of the Biden program are several from Texas and elsewhere with ties to the traditional energy industry in their districts. They have questioned Biden's moves away from fossil fuels and their party's passion for renewables.

Such members may regard the immediate interests of their constituencies, including donors as well as voters, as preeminent. They are willing to bear, as a badge of independence, the irritation and wrath of their party leaders and colleagues in Washington.

Students of party history can only say: Twas ever thus.

See the original post:

Democrats are having a unity problem. That's familiar territory for them - NPR