Category Archives: Democrat

WASHINGTON In a crucial moment for Democrats, party leaders are hunting for a sweet spot that would satisfy their rival moderate and progressive wings on legislation to finance President Joe Bidens multitrillion-dollar agenda of bolstering the economy and helping families.

With virtually no votes to spare and saber rattling by both Democratic factions, leaders are finding their search for middle ground arduous even though the presidents push for infrastructure projects and family-centered initiatives is his top domestic priority.

With Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, winning the spotlight this year for pulling his party rightward by issuing demands on crucial issues, plenty of centrists and liberals are now using that same playbook. In a procession of meetings with White House officials and congressional budget writers, progressives have insisted that the emerging measures be big and aggressive, while moderates want them to be far more modest.

Were all Joe Manchin right now, said House Budget Committee Chair John Yarmuth of Kentucky.

The leverage every Democrat has flows from simple arithmetic. Expecting unanimous Republican opposition to much of Bidens package, they need total unity in the 50-50 Senate plus Vice President Kamala Harris tie-breaking vote and can lose only a very few House votes.

With trillions in spending at their disposal, Democratic leaders have plenty of options for designing programs that appeal to lawmakers hometown interests to win votes. More broadly, however, the intraparty fight pits two ideologies against each other progressives eagerness to help needy families, moderates seeking to do so but with fiscal constraints and their differences are real.

Senate Budget Committee Chair Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, recently floated an enormous $6 trillion proposal for infrastructure, climate change, health care and other programs that many progressives love. It goes well beyond Bidens vision of spending roughly $4 trillion on similar projects. Manchin has said he wants to pare it back further, a view many moderate Democrats endorse but that progressives say would eviscerate the presidents agenda.

Sanders is now immersed in talks with his panels Democrats on finding a compromise on spending and offsetting revenues.

The party is hoping he can craft a budget resolution the first step in Congress creaky process for churning out spending and tax bills that Democrats can push through the Senate and House this month. Lawmakers would likely work on detailed bills actually providing the funds and revenue this fall.

Lawmakers, aides and lobbyists say Sanders is running into resistance from moderates and will be lucky to come close to even Bidens $4 trillion. And while moderates and progressives have generally refrained from sniping and publicly drawing lines in the sand, theyre not bashful about voicing their views.

Among centrists, Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Oregon, has said hell oppose his partys budget and subsequent progressive-backed legislation financing programs aimed at families, telling the Capitol Hill publication Roll Call that hes concerned about excessive spending. Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-New Jersey, a leader of the Houses bipartisan Problem Solvers group, calls Sanders $6 trillion very aggressive. And Rep. Brad Schneider, D-Illinois, a leader of the moderate New Democrat Coalition, said he wants to help families and businesses without building castles in the sky.

Progressives are just as assertive. To maintain leverage, theyre demanding that Congress not approve a bipartisan Senate compromise providing $1.2 trillion for roads, pipelines and other infrastructure projects until theres also a second bill providing additional money for health care, housing and other programs, which is unlikely to win GOP votes.

That strategy has won support from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, with Biden also favoring the two-track approach. But moderates anxious to notch an infrastructure win and less wedded to a huge, separate bill expanding family-centered programs are pushing back, saying they want Congress to pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill as soon as this month.

Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Florida, co-chair of House Democrats centrist Blue Dog Coalition, says she thinks there will be enough votes to quickly approve the infrastructure measure. And when you have the votes you should take the vote, she said.

Countering that, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Washington, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said dozens of her groups nearly 100 members say they wont vote for the bipartisan infrastructure bill unless the separate package of health care and other family-oriented programs also moves.

Our leverage is saying were not going to be able to pass a piece of legislation unless you do the other one for families, said Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minnesota, the progressive groups vote counter.

The progressive caucus has said it wants five priorities included in the legislation: health care, housing, child care and other family benefits, climate change and helping millions of immigrants become citizens.

Moderates have voiced general support for health care, family benefits and other progressive priorities. But some have suggested, often without detail, downsizing liberals costly proposals like expanding Medicare coverage to people as young as age 60. They cite concerns about higher prices that some say federal spending could ignite.

Theres this I word out there thats called inflation, said Rep. Lou Correa, D-California, a member of House Democrats Blue Dogs.

Besides setting spending and revenue targets, a budget will be make-or-break for Democrats because under congressional rules, it would let them prevent Republicans from using Senate filibusters to kill later legislation actually providing the money for Bidens plans. Filibusters, or endless procedural delays, take 60 votes to overcome, a nearly insurmountable obstacle in todays hyper-partisan Congress.

Democrats control the House 220-211 with four vacancies and can lose no more than four of their votes to pass bills. That number will shrink to just three after a Texas runoff late this month in which both remaining candidates are Republicans.

Everybody needs to advocate as clear as possible for their priorities, said Yarmuth, the House budget chair. But everybody ultimately has to vote for whatever comes up, or we get nothing.

Story by Alan Fram.

More articles from the BDN

Read the rest here:

In hunt for infrastructure deal, every Democrat has leverage - Bangor Daily News

The Senate's bipartisan infrastructuregang is expanding, with Sen. Jacky RosenJacklyn (Jacky) Sheryl RosenTime for Biden to issue executive order on antisemitism Senate passes resolution condemning recent rise in antisemitic attacks Progressives want to tighten screws beyond Manchin and Sinema MORE (D-Nev.) becomingits 22nd member.

Sen. Kyrsten SinemaKyrsten SinemaMcConnell vows 'hell of a fight' over Biden infrastructure plan The Hill's Morning Report - 2024 GOPers goal: Tread carefully, don't upset Trump Sinema emerges as Senate dealmaker amid progressive angst MORE's (D-Ariz.) indicated during an interview this week with Arizona radio station KTAR that the group, which she leads with GOP Sen. Rob PortmanRobert (Rob) Jones PortmanMcConnell vows 'hell of a fight' over Biden infrastructure plan Biden's high-wire political challenge: Deliver infrastructure and please the base The Hill's Morning Report - 2024 GOPers goal: Tread carefully, don't upset Trump MORE (Ohio), had gained a new member since mid-June, when 21 senators came out in support of the framework.

"We worked really hard ...to build a coalition that is half Democrat, half Republican. We now have 22 senators who are supporting this framework," Sinema said.

Rosen's office confirmed to The Hill that the Democratic senator, who is focused on thebroadband and airport components of the negotiations, had joined the group.

With Rosen joining the Senate gang isnow evenly split between 11 Democratic senators and 11 Republican senators.

In addition to Rosen, the House Problem Solvers Caucus also came out in support of the deal this week.

The core members of the Senate bipartisan group joined President BidenJoe BidenUS imposes air travel restriction to Belarus after arrest of opposition journalist TikTok names longtime Microsoft worker as top US lawyer Biden appeals for unity six months after Capitol riot MORE at the White House late last month to announce that they had reached a deal on a $1.2-trillion, over eight-year framework.

They are now working with the administration and a broader coalition of Senate colleagues to turn the framework into the legislation as they try to lock down the 60 votes needed for the bill to pass the Senate.

Sinema, during her interview with KTAR, said the bill focused on the "most dire needs" on infrastructure.

"We are working to craft this into legislation that is lean and effective," she said.

The group still faces hurdles to getting the bill to Biden's desk later this year.

Senate Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerPride Month concludes without Equality Act vote in Senate Republicans should hit the reset button on Biden infrastructure deal The world is no longer fit for Sept. 11 war authorizations MORE (D-N.Y.) wants to vote this month on both the bipartisan plan and a budget resolution that paves the way for a separate, larger Democratic-only infrastructureplan.

But the bipartisan plan is facing skepticism from both Democrats and Republicans outside of the negotiating group about some of the suggested ways to pay for the spending.

"If that's credibly paid for, as opposed to adding it to the debt, I think there's a way forward on that portion of it," Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellOn The Money: McConnell vows 'hell of a fight' over Biden infrastructure plan | Democrats raise concerns with bipartisan bill Overnight Health Care: White House signals new COVID-19 strategy as delta variant spreads | McConnell urges vaccinations | Maryland says all COVID-19 deaths last month were among unvaccinated McConnell vows 'hell of a fight' over Biden infrastructure plan MORE (R-Ky.) said in Kentucky this week. "Maybe we'll get there."

But McConnell also pledged a "hell of a fight" over the larger Democratic only bill, which is expected to be multiple trillions of dollars.

Senate Republicans can't prevent Democrats from passing a larger bill on their own if Schumer has unity from all of his members. But they've also sent warning signs over threats by Democrats, particularly in the House, to hold up the bipartisan deal until they are able to pass the Democratic-only bill.

"There is a process by which they could pass this without a single Republican. But we're going to make it hard for them. And there are a few Democrats left in rural American and some others who would like to be more in the political center who may find this offensive," McConnell added about the Democratic-only bill.

Updated at 2:30 p.m.

See original here:

Democrat Jacky Rosen becomes 22nd senator to back bipartisan infrastructure deal | TheHill - The Hill

Lucas Kunce is putting on a clinic for his fellow Democrats.

A political outsider, Kunce has embarked on a quixotic journey to become a U.S. senator from Missouri, running for the seat that will be vacated in 2022 by retiring Senator Roy Blunt. The guy started with virtually no name identification, record in office or blessing from the Democratic Party establishment. He's an ex-Marine with a fine rsum, but that's about it, on paper.

Even if Kunce were able to overcome all odds against more established politicians in the Democratic primary, he would certainly find himself a huge longshot when squared off against some better-known, slavish Trump devotee in Trump country. Suffice it to say Missouri is labeled "solid Republican" on every conventional political war map for 2022.

Despite all that, there is something that sets Lucas Kunce apart.

Catch up on Ray Hartmann's latest columns

Unlike any statewide Democrat in memory, Kunce has come out of the gate with fire in his eyes and a forceful style made for the moment of the digital age. He has a swagger, campaigning as if he's already won the Democratic primary. When he goes after Republicans vying to replace Blunt, he acts as if they had already won the GOP nomination.

Kunce calls disgraced ex-Governor Eric Greitens "a flat-out criminal who should be in prison." He describes vigilante lawyer Mark McCloskey as a "clown" and a "criminal" and "Mansion Man." Last month, Kunce posted a hilarious video a spot-on parody of Greitens' famous assault-rifle campaign ad of 2016 offering McCloskey free Marine-led firearms training if he'll only apologize to those Black Lives Matter protesters who he menaced last June. It went viral.

Kunce has unveiled a dramatically populist campaign, attacking "massive corporations and corrupt bureaucrats." He describes the national group where he has his day job the American Economic Liberties Project as "a nonprofit fighting large corporations who use their monopoly power to stick it to the middle class."

That's the sort of message that can resonate with everyday voters the Democrats have lost in droves for the past decade or two, especially in rural areas. And Kunce is willing to call out his own party's politicians, as well as the Republicans, for having become beholden to corporate money. He even includes Facebook while railing against the monopolists, presently a Republican talking point. The man is different.

It's not every day that you see a Missouri Democrat's Twitter feed referring to "weed" while demanding an end to the drug war. Or throwing down on behalf of someone as controversial as Olympic sensation Sha'Carri Richardson, who lost her spot in the upcoming Tokyo games over an insanely stupid drug test. Or crusading for a pardon for Kevin Strickland, the Black man "convicted by an all-white jury for a crime he didn't commit," as Kunce notes bluntly.

This is not the customary soundtrack of Missouri Democrats, who are more comfortable sticking to soft language about racial justice and paying homage to Juneteenth. Few prominent Democrats would touch lightning rods like Richardson and Strickland as Kunce did.

But guess what? Running to win as opposed to running not to lose isn't working out so badly for Kunce. Less than four months into the race, he's gaining support far beyond what would normally be expected from an unknown candidate.

Like it or not, the scoreboard that matters early in a big race is the one maintained by the Federal Election Commission that shows the quarterly campaign fundraising reports of the candidates. So far, Kunce is blowing it up.

Kunce reports that he raised some $630,000 with no corporate PAC money and with 99 percent of his more than 20,000 donors giving less than $200. That comes on the heels of a stunning first-quarter report showing he had received $280,000 in less than a month without holding a campaign event.

Topping $900,000 in less than four months is no small feat for a first-time candidate. The total amount is but a small fraction of what a Senate candidate would need to compete in Missouri, but it's the number of small donations that Kunce has been able to raise in such short order that has to get one's attention.

Kunce's populism might be popular. The fact that he could garner thousands of small-ticket donors without having held office or previously waged a major campaign defies expectations.

Now, before Kunce could test-drive his populism against an actual Republican foe, he would have to defeat his Democratic primary opposition. The leader now is former state Senator Scott Sifton of south St. Louis County. Sifton slightly outraised Kunce in the first quarter and has until July 15 to disclose his second-quarter results.

It's an interesting contrast, to put it mildly. Sifton was a highly respected state senator well liked among his colleagues and a lawyer widely regarded as one of the smartest members of the legislature. He'd be a fine U.S. senator.

But he's a classic example of a Democrat running to the soft center, adverse to taking risks. He's great on the issues, but not so much on the headlines.

If Sifton were the party's nominee, he'd be a dramatically better choice than any member of the tragic Republican field. But it's hard to see him breaking the Democrats' recent losing streak in big races without showing more fire.

There's a common misconception in Missouri politics that the state transformed into "deep red" almost overnight after having been dominated by statewide Democratic officeholders as recently as 2012. That's not true. The simple reality is that Democrats have over a period of many years stopped connecting with the very voters especially those blue-collar, middle-class and rural who constituted much of their base for many decades.

This started happening long before ex-President Voldemort came along. Let's not forget that he didn't have an ideological bone in his body. He won because he made that connection with people who felt they have been left behind by elites of both political parties, especially Democrats. This wasn't "Trumpism": It was a masterful exploitation of fear and grievance that only a world-class conman could pull off.

Everyday Missourians vote their emotions, not their ideas. The Democrats lost touch with them in the past few statewide election cycles because they forgot how to talk to them. Now, with Republicans poised to field a ghastly candidate next year, there's an opening that would not have existed against Blunt.

It's far too early to know if Democrats can pull an upset in this race, but any of the present GOP hopefuls looks far more beatable than Blunt would have been. For his part, Kunce must prove he can withstand the test of time.

But the one thing he has shown is that a Democrat can buck the culture war. For too long, the party's candidates have caricatured the elites so roundly resented in the heartland. Kunce's populist appeal offers a visceral connection along with a swagger and early on, it's working.

His party might want to pay attention.

Ray Hartmann founded the Riverfront Times in 1977. Contact him at rhartmann1952@gmail.com or catch him on Donnybrook at 7 p.m. on Thursdays on the Nine Network and St. Louis In the Know With Ray Hartmann from 9 to 11 p.m. Monday thru Friday on KTRS (550 AM).

Go here to see the original:

Hartmann: Finally, a Missouri Democrat Who Brings the Heat - Riverfront Times

Illinois Rep. Jess Garca (D) said Tuesday he will support a budget reconciliation package only if it includes provisions to grant a pathway to citizenship to a broad spectrum of the country's undocumented population.

Garca's position is notable because Democrats have a slim majority in the House and can afford only a few defections if they are to get a reconciliation package to President BidenJoe BidenUS imposes air travel restriction to Belarus after arrest of opposition journalist TikTok names longtime Microsoft worker as top US lawyer Biden appeals for unity six months after Capitol riot MORE's desk.

"A robust and equitable budget reconciliation deal must include a pathway to citizenship forimmigrants our country cant make a full recovery without it, and I cant support any deal thatleaves so many people in my district behind," said Garca in a statement.

"We must seize this historic opportunity to bring compassion and dignity to our immigration system and provide the certainty that comes with having the legal status that millions of immigrants and their families deserve," he added.

Although other Democrats have said they support including immigration provisions in the reconciliation package, Garca is the first to make an official statement drawing what will likely become a progressive red line for the upcoming bill.

The reconciliation bill will package Democratic economic priorities that were left off the bipartisan infrastructure bill that Biden negotiated with Republican senators.

It's expected to include a host of provisions that Democrats call "human infrastructure,"including child care, and the back-and-forth between progressives and moderates has so far beenabout the overall cost of the bill rather than its substantial content.

Progressive immigration advocates have been increasingly confident that their main ask essentially a legalization of millions of undocumented immigrants will be included in the bill.

Garca did not call for a blanket legalization, instead focusing on groups that have been included in other legislation,including beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, beneficiaries of the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program, farmworkers and undocumented immigrants deemed essential workers during the pandemic.

Such a move could provide legal status to anywhere between5 million and10 million people.

"For decades, I have heard the plight of family, friends, and people in my community from the Chicago region whose lives have been put on hold. We cannot wait any longer to fix our immigration system and we need to use any opportunity available to do so, including budget reconciliation for DACA youth, TPS holders, farmworkers, and other essential workers," said Garca.

Bills to legalize DACA beneficiaries, other undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as minors, TPS beneficiaries and farmworkers have already cleared the House with some bipartisan support.

And Democrats have made clear their supporttoinclude essential workers,such asmeat processing plant workers, in any legalization effort.

"This is crucial for thousands of undocumented essential workers I represent. They sacrificed themselves to keep this country running during the worst of the pandemic and frequently had no access to relief or medical assistance for fear of being deported. We owe it to them," said Garca.

Garca's positioning follows public calls in slightly more hushed tones by other progressives looking to include immigration provisions in a reconciliation effort.

Congressional Progressive Caucus Chairwoman Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalExclusive: Democrat Garca will not back reconciliation without immigration Progressives ramp up Medicare expansion push in Congress Court ruling sets up ever more bruising fight over tech MORE (D-Wash.) last week tweeted her list of priorities for the bill, including a pathway to citizenship, and Rep. Joaquin CastroJoaquin CastroExclusive: Democrat Garca will not back reconciliation without immigration House Democrats call on McCarthy to take 'immediate action' on Rep. Greene Texas walkout sets up epic battle over voting rights MORE (D-Texas) said immigration reform "should be included" in reconciliation.

But Garca took the next step, linking his support of the broad effort to inclusion of immigration provisions.

Immigration provisions are unlikely to be particularly expensive, especially comparedwith some of the other Democratic priorities in the bill, and most outside observers have noted they would have a positive economic impact.

But immigration has been a political sticking point for decades, and Democrats will need unanimous support in the Senate and can afford to drop only a handful of votes in the House to pass any reconciliation measure.

Republicans have vowed to make passage of reconciliation as politically painful as possible for Democrats, and the GOP is ready to attack a bill that liberalizes immigration.

Still, progressives and immigration advocates believe they have the clout to draw a red line and will make the case for the urgency to pass overdue immigration reform.

A reconciliation bill will likely not allow for the modification of underlying immigration laws but could allow Congress to grant benefits to undocumented immigrants, something that hasn't happened since 1986.

"This would potentially be the first meaningful legislative action on this matter in 35 years," said Garca.

Read more from the original source:

Exclusive: Democrat Garca will not back reconciliation without immigration | TheHill - The Hill

Now that a date has been set for a highly anticipated recall election against Gov. Gavin Newsom, his often starkly divided supporters and critics appear to agree on one thing: Californias very future is at stake in the election.

Pro- and anti-recall teams paint very different pictures of the states direction if Newsom is ousted in the September 14 election.

If the governor loses, Democrats warn that California will forfeit progress made on housing access, protections for immigrants and securing broad voting rights.

This Republican recall effort is powered by the same Republican forces who still refuse to accept results of the presidential election in 2020, and are pushing voter suppression efforts in statehouse after statehouse across the country, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla said at a press conference held by Democratic officials Friday.

Padilla was appointed by Newsom to fill the Senate seat left by Vice President Kamala Harris.

It threatens our values and seeks to undo important progress made in California under Gov. Newsom, he added.

The day after the recall was set for mid-September, the message of urgency from Democrats was clear as they sought to tie the recall to right-wing extremists and Donald Trumps supporters.

Do we want to go on the dark path put forward by supporters of former President Trump? Or with Gov. Gavin Newsom, toward a brighter future? asked Assemblymember David Chiu, a San Francisco Democrat.

On the flip side, Newsoms critics are pitching the recall as a chance to start fresh with new leadership at the top.

Anne Dunsmore, campaign manager for the pro-recall group Rescue California, says Newsom hasnt delivered on solutions for homelessness, crime and the states high cost of living.

Those three things are just going to really, really come home to roost and he cant fix those between now and September, she said in an interview.

Dunsmore said Newsom is also out of touch with Californians outside the states political elite. Its a symptom she called the dome zone.

When people are in the Capitol dome, they tend to hear themselves and pretty much nothing else. And I think thats what were looking at here with Gavin Newsom, she said.

Polls have shown Republicans are much more energized by the recall than Democrats and independent voters. A May survey by the UC Berkeley Institute for Governmental Studies found 75% of Republicans reported a high level of interest in the recall, compared to just 36% of Democrats and 35% of No Party Preference voters.

Theyre not going to come out in the numbers Republicans will, Dunsmore said. I think [Newsom] knows that. I think thats why he scheduled the election sooner rather than later.

Democratic leaders brushed off the numbers.

Every day there are more and more Californians who are fired up about the fact that this is an incredible waste of time and effort, Chiu said. But we cant take anything for granted. We have to get the word out.

If Newsom is recalled and replaced by a Republican, that new governor would likely face stiff resistance for new proposals from the Legislature, which is held by a Democratic supermajority. They would also have to begin campaigning almost immediately, as the office is up for election again in 2022.

The high-stakes, everything-is-on-the-line message could be seen as a way to energize voters to turn out for a special election in an off year. But Mark Baldasare, president of the Public Policy Institute of California, said he agrees the consequences are significant.

You're gonna hear it from me too, that our future is at stake, he said, adding that hes more concerned about voter engagement than candidate results.

Baldassare said turnout in the 2003 recall of former Gov. Gray Davis, also a Democrat, boasted higher turnout than the previous election the year prior.

Whether [voters] participate in this process is going to be very important to the future of our democracy and California, he said. Im going to be looking at it from the standpoint of, Do we have a participation level? Is it representative of the state's electorate? And will all sides view this as legitimate, particularly in this time in which we are recognizing just how fragile democracy is?

CapRadio provides a trusted source of news because of you. As a nonprofit organization, donations from people like you sustain the journalism that allows us to discover stories that are important to our audience. If you believe in what we do and support our mission, please donate today.

Read more:

Republicans And Democrats Agree: California's Future Is At Stake In The Recall Election - Capital Public Radio News

As we saw in 2016 and again in 2020, traditional survey research is finding it harder than it once was to assess presidential elections accurately. Pre-election polls systemically misjudge who is likely to vote, and exit polls conducted as voters leave the voting booths get it wrong as well.

Now, using a massive sample of validated voters whose participation has been independently verified, the Pew Research Center has published a detailed analysis of the 2020 presidential election. It helps us understand how Joe Biden was able to accomplish what Hillary Clinton did notand why President Trump came closer to getting reelected than the pre-election surveys had predicted.

How Joe Biden won

Five main factors account for Bidens success.

How Trump kept it close

Despite (or perhaps because of) non-stop controversy about his policies and personal conduct, President Trump managed to raise his share of the popular vote from 46% in 2016 to 47% in 2020. His core coalition held together, and he made a few new friends.

Longer-term prospects

With electoral mobilization at a peak for supporters of both political parties, turnout surged to its highest level in a century. The Democratic vote total increased by 15.4 million over 2016; the Republican total, by 11.2 million. In future elections, much will depend on whether mobilization is symmetrical, as it was in 2020, or asymmetrical, as it is when one party is enthusiastic while the other is discouraged or complacent.

This said, Republicans are facing a structural dilemma. For the most part, their coalition depends on groupsnotably whites and voters without college degreeswhose share of the electorate is declining. Moreover, as elderly Americans, who now tend to be supportive of Republican candidates, leave the electorate, they will be replaced by younger cohorts whose views of the Republican Party are far less favorable. Among voters under age 30, Joe Biden enjoyed a margin of 24 points over Donald Trump, and political scientists have found the voting patterns formed in this cohort tend to persist.

There are potential countervailing forces, however. If the Democratic Party is regarded as going beyond what the center of the electorate expects and wants, Democrats gains among suburban voters and moderate Republicans could evaporate. And if Democrats continue to misread the sentiments of Hispanics, who now constitute the countrys largest non-white group, their shift toward Republicans could continue. There is evidence that among Hispanics as well as whites, a distinctive working-class consciousness is more powerful than ethnic identity.

As my colleague Elaine Kamarck has observed, Hispanics could turn out to be the Italians of the 21st centuryfamily-oriented, hardworking, culturally conservative. If they follow the normal intergenerational immigrant trajectory rather than the distinctive African American path, the multi-ethnic coalition on which Democrats are depending for their partys future could lose an essential component.

Despite these possibilities, Republicans have made scant progress at the presidential level over the past two decades, during which they gained a popular vote majority only once. In the four most recent elections, their share of the popular vote has varied in a narrow range from a high of 47.2% in 2012 to a low of 45.7% in 2008. Despite labelling Mitt Romney a loser, Donald Trump failed to match Romneys share of the popular vote in either 2016 or 2020. Trumps gains in some portions of the electorate have been counterbalanced by losses in others. If Republicans cannot move from their current politics of coalition replacement to a new politics of coalition expansion, their prospects of becoming the countrys governing majority are not brightunless Democrats badly overplay their hand.

Originally posted here:

New 2020 voter data: How Biden won, how Trump kept the race close, and what it tells us about the future - Brookings Institution

Early voting in the open primary for Ohio's 11th congressional district began this week in Summit and Cuyahoga counties.

The partisan contests, at least on the Democratic side, will likely determine the winner of the general election in this gerrymandered district that leans far to the left. In the 2020 general election, Rep. Marcia Fudge beat her Republican opponent with more than 80% of the vote. No candidate from either party in any of Ohio's 16 congressional districts won by as much.

After 13 years serving the minority-majority district, Fudge left Congress this year to become Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, prompting Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine to schedule a special election that's drawn national attention and money.

But the same rules that almost guarantee Democrats retain Fudge's seat in the fall do not apply in this special primary especially with 13 Democrats vying for the party nomination.

"In a multi-candidate race, it's important to be everywhere in the district, because a candidate is not going to win with a majority of the votes," said Dave Cohen,professor of political science and interim director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at theUniversity of Akron. "A candidate is going to win with just a plurality."

That means the winner of the Aug. 3 Democratic primary, a non-incumbent who will still have a sizable advantage over either of the Republicans battling for a spot on the Nov. 2 ballot, could walk away with less than half the votes. That, Cohen said, elevates the importance of campaigning everywhere, even in the portions of the districtthat stretch south along the I-77 corridor into West Akron.

"Being everywhere in the district, especially in a place like Akron where you have a lot of concentrated votes, its an advantage if youre the only campaign out there organizing," said Cohen. "One of the big complaints about the way the 11th district is composed and about Marcia Fudges representation in the district is that often times Akron was ignored."

In Fudge's reelection last year, 68,771 Democrats from Cuyahoga County and 9,025 from Summit County voted in the primary. Summit County Democrats accounted for 12% of voters in the primary and 14% in the general election.

Fundraising totals and polling point to a two-woman race. Shontel Brown, a councilwoman and party chair in Cuyahoga County, has gobbled up endorsements from party establishment figures, including Hillary Clinton, while former state Senator Nina Turner leads the left wing of the party with the backing of progressives, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Some political pundits have framed the race as a look back at the 2016 presidential primary. But the numbers in this congressional race strongly favor one candidate over the other.

As of the first quarter fundraising reports released in April, Turner had raised about $2.2 million to Brown's $680,000. Turner's campaign said last week that it raised another $930,000 in June alone. Brown's campaign, while not giving a monthly total, touted $162,808 in donations raised 24 hours after receiving a late-June endorsement from Rep. James Clyburn. The South Carolina Democrat helped President Joe Biden pull ahead with his endorsement in the 2020 presidential primary.

The lion's share of Turner's early fundraising support came from California donors (2.2 times what she raised from Ohio donors, according to the Federal Election Commission) as progressives across the nation look to Ohio's special election to swing the political pendulum within the Democratic Party. Brown raised more from Ohio donors than anywhere else, and 13.4 times more than she raised from California donors, according to the early FEC reporting.

Regardless of where it's coming from, spending in the Ohio race is shaping up to be the most of any special election for Congress in 2021, outpacing spending in earlier races in Texas and New Mexico, according to reporting by Politico. That's of note becauseOhio's race, unlike the contests in New Mexico and Texas, is not considered to be competitive this fall. All the attention, and money, is on the primary.

Turner's campaign released a poll June 1 that showed her with about 50% support among primary voters. The next candidate in the poll her campaign commissioned had 15% support.

Former Ohio Rep. Bryan Flannery of Bath Township was in third place in fundraising before dropping out of the race, which now has no candidate from Summit County.

Turner lives in Cleveland. She's endorsed by Akron Council Members Tara Samples (who worked with Turner on the Sanders presidential campaigns), Shammas Malik and Phil Lombardi, as well as the Black Elected Officials of Summit County. She's also spent more time campaigning in Akron, where Mayor Dan Horrigan, Council President Margo Sommerville, Vice President Jeff Fusco, At-Large Member Ginger Baylor and several Black clergy have endorsed Brown, who lives in Warrensville Heights.

"I think Shontel Brown, just recently, has been active in Akron. But Turners been here for months," Cohen told the Beacon Journal last week. "If youre a resident of West Akron and youve been ignored for a decade by the incumbent member of Congress and all of the sudden you have a candidate thats running for that district that pays attention, thats impactful.

"And so, at least in terms of this campaign, the Turner folks have actively sought votes in Akron," he said.

Absentee voting began Tuesday. The ballots can be requested no less than three days before the election and must be postmarked by the day before the election (or delivered in person before the polls close on Election Day). Instructions on absentee balloting and forms to request an absentee ballot can be downloaded athttps://www.ohiosos.gov/elections/voters/how-to-request-your-absentee-ballot/ or by calling the Summit County Board of Elections at 330-643-5422.

These 13 Democrats and two Republicans are running in the Aug. 3 primary for a chance to represent Ohio's 11th district in Congress. If available, links to campaign websites or social media accounts are provided.

Democrats

Martin Alexander

John E. Barnes Jr., https://www.votebarnes.com/

James Jerome Bell, https://bellinternational.weebly.com/about.html

Shontel Brown, https://shontelbrown.com/meet-shontel/

Seth J. Corey, https://twitter.com/sethcorey?lang=en

Jeff Johnson, https://jeffjohnsonforcongress.com/

Will Knight, https://www.willknightforcongress.com/about

Pamela M. Pinkney, https://www.facebook.com/Rev-Pamela-M-Pinkney-Butts-for-President-ess-110242030312010/

Isaac Powell,

Lateek Shabazz, https://voteshabazz.com/

Tariq Shabazz, https://www.shabazzforcongress.com/

Shirley Smith, https://www.shirleysmithforcongress.com/

Nina Turner, https://ninaturner.com/

Republicans

Laverne Gore, https://lavernegore4congress.org/about-laverne-2/

Felicia Washington Ross

Reach Doug Livingston at dlivingston@thebeaconjournal.com or 330-996-3792.

Link:

Big money and endorsements shaping a two-way Democratic race in gerrymandered 11th District - Akron Beacon Journal

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

Outnumbered and virtually powerless to block conservative priorities they oppose, Democrats in the Texas Legislature say they are keeping their options open as they prepare for a special session that is expected to revive the GOP elections bill they killed last month.

The line coming from Democrats across the spectrum: Everything is on the table. That includes another walkout like the one that doomed Senate Bill 7 in the final hours of the regular legislative session when Democrats broke quorum. But this time, such a move could now imperil the pay of their staffers, since Gov. Greg Abbott vetoed the funding for the legislative branch while telling lawmakers they could restore it in the special session that starts in less than a week.

From a caucus perspective, since were going into the unknown, we have to keep every option open, which includes denying quorum, said Rep. Jessica Gonzlez of Dallas, vice chair of the House Elections Committee. I think a lot of folks want to see what would be in [the elections bill] before making a decision.

She said House Democrats are trying to get a sense of where the majority of our caucus is, but that consensus is to be determined. Similarly, Rep. Nicole Collier of Fort Worth said during a Texas Tribune event Tuesday that right now, there has not been any type of resolution or concerted efforts.

Everything is on the table, Collier said. Were not going to remove any options at this point.

There are still a number of unknowns before Democrats can settle on a strategy, including what the full agenda will be for the special session, how Abbott will structure it and what the elections bill will look like. Abbott announced June 22 that the special session will begin July 8 but offered no other details, only saying the agenda would be announced before the session starts.

Democrats will also have to consider Abbotts veto of funding for the Legislature for the two-year budget cycle starting Sept. 1. That gives lawmakers an incentive to participate in the special session or potentially sacrifice their staffers pay. Abbotts veto was in retribution for the Democrats walk out, but it affects more than 2,100 legislative staffers and individuals working at legislative agencies. (Abbott has acknowledged the lawmakers salaries are protected by the state Constitution.)

Last week, Democrats and staffers sued over Abbotts veto, asking the state Supreme Court to reverse it. Abbotts office faces a Monday deadline to respond to the lawsuit.

The elections bill is unlikely to be the only proposal that Democrats will have to strategize against in the special session. In addition to vowing to bring back the voting legislation, Abbott has also said he would resurrect Republican priority proposals to crack down on critical race theory in Texas classrooms and punish social media companies for allegedly censoring Texans for their political views.

House Democrats sought to regroup for the coming battles during a meeting Monday at the Hotel Van Zandt in Austin. Roughly half of the 67-member caucus attended, according to three people who were present.

The head of the caucus, Rep. Chris Turner of Grand Prairie, said members had a productive meeting, discussing our litigation challenging Gov. Abbotts unconstitutional veto of the Legislature, as well as the upcoming special session.

House Democrats are united and prepared to fight for all Texans, especially when it comes to defending the sacred right to vote, Turner said in a statement.

SB 7, the bill that Democrats derailed in the regular session, would have put new limits on early voting hours, local voting options and mail ballots. Critics of the bill have called it an attempt at voter suppression that disproportionately affects Texans of color.

Whatever Democrats decide to do, it could only cause another temporary delay in consideration of the election bill given that they remain in the minority at the Legislature and only one Republican Rep. Lyle Larson of San Antonio has shown interest in splitting with his party.

Abbotts veto only further backed them into a corner.

Rep. Armando Mando Martinez of Weslaco, one of the Democrats who walked out, said in an interview Wednesday that Abbotts veto was extremely juvenile but that the potential loss of staff pay was absolutely weighing on him as July 8 nears. Still, he expressed optimism that Democrats would be able to navigate the conundrum.

I think Democrats have always been resilient in the way that we use the rules to our benefit, Martinez said, adding that he was very confident that Democrats would ultimately coalesce around a strategy.

The special session also presents potentially tough choices for some Republicans, namely House Speaker Dade Phelan. After the walkout, he drew the wrath of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who charged Phelan with mismanaging the House calendar and allowing Democrats the opportunity to break quorum. Phelan has denied that.

At the same time, Phelan has said he will not resort to the most drastic of measures locking the chambers doors and dispatching state police if Democrats seek to abandon the chamber again. His office is nonetheless emphasizing its commitment to finishing the job on the voting legislation.

If it takes a hundred special sessions, the Texas Legislature will pass an election integrity bill that instills further confidence in the accuracy of our elections, Phelan spokesperson Enrique Marquez said in a statement for this story.

Both Texas Republicans and Democrats will have to deal with more national attention than they did during the regular session. That is particularly true as voting rights battles shift even more to the states after Republicans in the U.S. Senate blocked Democrats far-ranging elections overhaul last week. Democratic state lawmakers in Texas had tried to leverage their walkout to force a breakthrough on the federal legislation, known as the For the People Act.

Among Democrats organizing outside the Texas Capitol, there has been virtually unanimous deference to lawmakers in the special session beyond voicing support for their everything-on-the-table approach. Beto ORourke, who spent weeks touring the state about voting rights after the walkout, said during a recent interview that Democratic legislators have done so much so far, and Im confident theyre gonna do whatever it takes in any special session.

Theres nothing that they shouldnt consider, said Glenn Smith, senior strategist for Progress Texas, the Austin-based Democratic group.

One question for Democrats is how much they should work with Republicans on the elections legislation, especially after they were largely cut out of negotiations over the final version of SB 7 at the end of the regular session. Those talks produced a bill that GOP negotiators later admitted was flawed, saying they made mistakes with regard to the early voting window for Sundays and a process for overturning elections.

Building that trust back would be a hard thing, Smith said, adding that he thinks Democrats will talk [with Republicans], but I think well be very wary of what theyre saying.

To be clear, House Democrats were not unanimous in their decision to break quorum over SB 7, and several appeared to stay behind, including a group of border-area representatives.

One of them, Rep. Eddie Morales of Eagle Pass, said in a text message Tuesday that he supported and will continue to support fellow Democrats who walked out, but in his case, he felt it was best to remain on the floor with other Democrats from the border region and argue against the bill in person.

As far as this special session goes, Morales said, I need to visit with the rest of my colleagues and leadership to see what strategies we plan on using.

Disclosure: Progress Texas 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.

See original here:

"Everything is on the table": Democrats mull options for special session, including another walkout - The Texas Tribune

AUSTIN Ahead of the special legislative session that starts Thursday, most House Democrats on Monday sent Speaker Dade Phelan a list of discussion points, including requests that there be full transparency and public hearings on an election bill that is bitterly contested and has put Texas in the national spotlight.

The Democrats letter also sought a pledge by Phelan, a Beaumont Republican, to not move anything on the agenda through the House until legislative-branch funding that was vetoed by Gov. Greg Abbott is restored.

The letter, drafted by San Antonio Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer and signed by 36 of the chambers 67 Democrats, affords the first glimpse at tactics for the special session.

Its not clear, though, that House Democrats are eager to deny the Legislatures ruling Republicans a quorum, as required by the Texas Constitution for either chamber to conduct business.

The regular sessions final version of a proposed election-law rewrite, muscled through by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and the Senate, is anathema to Democrats, who say it amounts to voter suppression, aimed especially at minorities.

But because Abbott has vetoed funding after Sept. 1 for more than 2,000 legislative-branch employees, a repeat of the quorum break House Democrats pulled off in late May would lead to their staff members not being paid. Some have discussed raising money nationally. But raising enough to pay salaries and benefits even for a subset of their employees for two years would be costly.

Democratic leaders, such as party caucus chief Chris Turner of Grand Prairie and letter author Martinez Fischer, did not respond to queries about whether, if Phelan doesnt grant the requested assurances, Democrats wont show up Thursday.

Eight-term Austin Rep. Donna Howard, who signed the letter, said late Monday, Im not being led to believe by anyone at this point in time that folks are not going to show up.

The letter, signed by Turner and at least four other of Phelans committee chairmen, rehearsed the turbulent end-of-session battle over the election bill, Senate Bill 7.

Democrats, even those on the conference committee negotiating a final version, claimed to have been excluded from final talks. New language not in either chambers bill appeared. Talk of typographical errors that would inadvertently have outlawed Black churches from conducting early-vote drives on Sunday mornings called souls to the polls made national news. So did a provision making it easier for judges to overturn an election. House Democrats late-night quorum break, hours before a bill-passing deadline, derailed the measure at least, temporarily.

Democrats reminded Phelan that although they had disliked the House-passed version, they worked with his lieutenants to make it more palatable.

The stakes are high, they wrote.

We are meddling with the very core of our democracy and with the most fundamental rights of our constituents, the letter says. We cannot deliberate on these issues through a process that is at best a blundering mess and at worst a deceptive, hyperpartisan sham.

Venting wrath at Patrick, the House Democrats pleaded with Phelan to defend their chamber.

It is a time-honored tradition for the Speaker to defend the position of the House and not bow in deference, especially when the policy in question was cultivated by leaders from both sides of the aisle as specified by you and your leadership team, the letter says. It is important that you communicate in no uncertain terms your intention to continue to stand up for the House and not allow the Lieutenant Governor to set the tone and the pace for the session, as he attempted to do in the final days of the 87th Regular Session.

A Patrick spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Asked for Phelans reaction, the speakers spokesman, Enrique Marquez, texted: We look forward to seeing everyone on the 8th.

The Democrats requested that committee substitutes of election bills be laid out for at least 24 hours before votes are taken; votes be taken at regularly scheduled meetings, not hurry-up formal meetings called with little notice; public testimony be taken virtually; and hearings be held on weekends if possible, to allow our constituents with full-time jobs and family obligations to participate in the process.

They also asked Phelan not to retaliate against members who broke quorum in late May, and to admonish House members to show decorum and respect toward colleagues, including on their social media. Noting the House this year rebuffed three Patrick priority bills on transgender sports, preemption of local ordinances on paid sick leave and a ban of taxpayer-paid lobbying Democrats urged the speaker to defend the chambers position on these issues over the next 30 days.

In the past, state troopers have been sent to try to intercept quorum-breaking lawmakers.

The Democrats pleaded for Phelan to pledge to not recognize a motion for a Call of the House to secure a quorum proactively, which presumably would require use of law enforcement to be effective. He should only do so, they wrote, if quorum is not present meaning members already would have exited the chamber, or would not have shown up.

With the special session upon us in mere days, we look forward to your expeditious response, the Democrats concluded.

Howard and Austin Rep. Celia Israel, who headed the House Democratic Campaign Committee last year, said they wouldnt read too much into the absence of 31 Democrats signatures from the letter.

Some people are out of town and may not be looking at their messages, Howard said.

Added Israel, Maybe the holiday weekend slowed responses?

Martinez Fischer, a lawyer and veteran of redistricting and voter-ID law battles of the past two decades, is known for his impassioned rhetoric.

Its possible the letters tone was too confrontational for some. Missing were key Phelan Democratic allies such as Speaker Pro Tem Joe Moody of El Paso, Licensing & Administrative Procedures Committee Chairwoman Senfronia Thompson of Houston, Appropriations Committee Vice Chairwoman Mary Gonzlez of Clint and Transportation Committee chief Terry Canales of Edinburg.

The ask here is legitimate and honors the traditions of the House, and recognizes the work that the House already did, said Howard, who said Abbott, Patrick and House GOP leaders are the ones feuding, not House Democrats.

On Abbotts veto of the next state budgets two-year appropriation of $410.4 million for the Legislature and its support agencies, Democrats said Phelan must demand the money be restored before House members conduct any other business this summer.

All but one of the 67 House Democrats have joined a lawsuit, filed late last month, challenging Abbotts authority to wipe out funding for a coequal, separate branch of state government. Other plaintiffs include the Texas AFL-CIO and legislative staffers. The suit is pending before the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court, on which Abbott formerly served.

On Monday, two former high-ranking Republican state leaders, former Speaker Joe Straus of San Antonio and former Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff of Mount Pleasant, and former Democratic Speaker Pete Laney of Hale Center filed a friend of the court brief supporting House Democrats position that Abbotts erasure of Article X in the budget, which funds the Legislature, is unconstitutional.

The Governors veto of Article X of SB 1 is an attempt to intimidate members of the Legislature and circumvent democracy by vetoing the appropriations that fund operations of a separate branch of government, the three former leaders wrote. This action should be rebuked by people of all political persuasions. By constitutional design, Members of the Legislature are not controlled by any Governor Republican or Democrat.

In a reply brief filed by Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is defending Abbott, state lawyers said the governor can put a check on lawmakers because the Legislature abdicated its governing duties. Also, no harm has occurred yet, so the suit isnt ripe, Paxton said. He said lawmakers, whose $7,200 annual salaries are set in the state Constitution, are unaffected and lack standing to sue.

Here is the original post:

Texas House Democrats ask for public hearings on election bills in preview of special session tactic - The Dallas Morning News

GREENWICH Democrats in the 36th Senate District officially placed their faith in first-time candidate Alexis Gevanter as the party seeks to hold onto the seat in next months hotly contested special election.

I will spend every day between now and the election working to win this seat because we must continue to focus on prosperity and progress, Gevanter said Tuesday night at the partys virtual nominating convention. This approach is what will allow our state to recover from the pandemic even stronger than before.

If elected, she pledged to lower taxes and champion our businesses, families and schools.

I will fight to protect our essential rights with respect to voting, equality, the environment and keeping our children safe, Gevanter said. I will do this by listening, finding common ground and building coalitions to produce results.

Alex Kasser, a Democrat, unexpectedly resigned from the seat last month, just six month into her second term. Democrats quickly began to coalesce support around Gevanter, an attorney and the former leader of the Connecticut chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, after she gained Kassers endorsement.

Gevanter was approved by acclimation at the convention, with all 48 delegates voting in her favor, to become the official candidate. No other candidates were considered, and Gevanter accepted the nomination with great respect, sincerity and enthusiasm.

The 36th District covers all of Greenwich as well as portions of Stamford and New Canaan. Republicans had held the seat for decades until Kasser, in her first competitive political race, won in 2018 and was reelected in 2020.

In the Aug. 17 special election, Democrats will seek to hold onto the seat while Republicans will look to flip it back into their control and narrow the Democratic majority in Hartford by one.

Republicans want this seat back and they believe theyre entitled to it, state Rep. Stephen Meskers, D-150, said at the convention. The race is about continuing the tremendous progress on the way that has Connecticut emerging from the pandemic stronger.

Meskers said he met Gevanter when she volunteered for his campaign and said they have worked together to pass common sense gun safety laws that keep our community safer. He said he had seen her in action in Hartford and called her a force to be reckoned with.

Alexis is driven to transform policy and institutions by working within organizations to bring about change, Meskers said. She has proven herself as a leader who delivers results by bringing people together.

John Blankley was not mentioned at the convention. He had initially sought the Democratic nomination but withdrew over the weekend and said he will collect signatures to run an independent campaign, making it a three-way race.

According to the Connecticut Secretary of the States Office, Blankley must gather 568 signatures on his petition by 4 p.m. July 12. That number represents 1 percent of the total votes cast in the 2020 election and can be from any registered voter in the district.

Blankley could siphon votes away from Gevanter, improving the Republican chances in the special election, according to Greenwich Democratic Town Committee Chair Joe Angland.

In an email sent to members after the convention, Angland said, While John is a friend to many of us and has received our support in several prior campaigns, at this point he would be running against the Democratic Party candidate, and he urged Democrats to focus their efforts on electing Gevanter.

Any effort to assist John e.g., helping him obtain petition signatures to get on the ballot is likely to siphon some votes from Alexis, Anglands email said. Given how tight the race for this seat has been the last few years, even shifting 1 or 2 percent of the vote away from Alexis could put a Republican in office. We cannot afford that.

Blankley dismissed the idea that his candidacy could push the seat to the Republicans and said, I am going to win this election.

I have my own team of people who will do phone banking and do mailing, Blankley said. This is a mailing campaign. This is not a door-to-door campaign. I will get the votes I get because I have name recognition. I will take votes from Democrats. I will take votes from Republicans. And I will get votes in the middle. I am the one candidate with real business and government experience who can make a difference for the district and the state.

In a joint statement, Angland, Stamford Democratic City Committee Josh Fedeli and Lisa Hannich, chair of the New Canaan DTC, praised Gevanter and said they were thrilled to have a candidate of Alexis caliber running to fill this critical seat.

She has already demonstrated a steely determination to win and the willingness to put in the hard work needed to make it happen, the statement said.

The Republicans are expected to hold their nominating convention on Saturday, but did not announce a time and location. Three Greenwich Republicans are seeking party endorsement to run for the seat: State Rep. Harry Arora, R-151, Representative Town Meeting member Ryan Fazio and Leora Levy, a high-ranking official in the Republican National Committee.

kborsuk@greenwichtime.com

More here:

A force to be reckoned with: Gevanter gets Democratic nod to run for Kassers seat in state Senate - Greenwich Time