Category Archives: Democrat

History

The Democratic Party is the oldest political party in the United States and among the oldest political parties in the world. It traces its roots to 1792, when followers of Thomas Jefferson adopted the name Republican to emphasize their anti-monarchical views. The Republican Party, also known as the Jeffersonian Republicans, advocated a decentralized government with limited powers. Another faction to emerge in the early years of the republic, the Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton, favoured a strong central government. Jeffersons faction developed from the group of Anti-Federalists who had agitated in favour of the addition of a Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States. The Federalists called Jeffersons faction the Democratic-Republican Party in an attempt to identify it with the disorder spawned by the radical democrats of the French Revolution of 1789. After the Federalist John Adams was elected president in 1796, the Republican Party served as the countrys first opposition party, and in 1798 the Republicans adopted the derisive Democratic-Republican label as their official name.

In 1800 Adams was defeated by Jefferson, whose victory ushered in a period of prolonged Democratic-Republican dominance. Jefferson won reelection easily in 1804, and Democratic-Republicans James Madison (1808 and 1812) and James Monroe (1816 and 1820) were also subsequently elected. By 1820 the Federalist Party had faded from national politics, leaving the Democratic-Republicans as the countrys sole major party and allowing Monroe to run unopposed in that years presidential election.

During the 1820s new states entered the union, voting laws were relaxed, and several states passed legislation that provided for the direct election of presidential electors by voters (electors had previously been appointed by state legislatures). These changes split the Democratic-Republicans into factions, each of which nominated its own candidate in the presidential election of 1824. The partys congressional caucus nominated William H. Crawford of Georgia, but Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams, the leaders of the partys two largest factions, also sought the presidency; Henry Clay, the speaker of the House of Representatives, was nominated by the Kentucky and Tennessee legislatures. Jackson won the most popular and electoral votes, but no candidate received the necessary majority in the electoral college. When the election went to the House of Representatives (as stipulated in the Constitution), Claywho had finished fourth and was thus eliminated from considerationthrew his support to Adams, who won the House vote and subsequently appointed Clay secretary of state.

Despite Adamss victory, differences between the Adams and the Jackson factions persisted. Adamss supporters, representing Eastern interests, called themselves the National Republicans. Jackson, whose strength lay in the South and West, referred to his followers simply as Democrats (or as Jacksonian Democrats). Jackson defeated Adams in the 1828 presidential election. In 1832 in Baltimore, Maryland, at one of the countrys first national political conventions (the first convention had been held the previous year by the Anti-Masonic Movement), the Democrats nominated Jackson for president, drafted a party platform, and established a rule that required party presidential and vice presidential nominees to receive the votes of at least two-thirds of the national convention delegates. This rule, which was not repealed until 1936, effectively ceded veto power in the selection process to minority factions, and it often required conventions to hold dozens of ballots to determine a presidential nominee. (The partys presidential candidate in 1924, John W. Davis, needed more than 100 ballots to secure the nomination.) Jackson easily won reelection in 1832, but his various opponentswho derisively referred to him as King Andrewjoined with former National Republicans to form the Whig Party, named for the English political faction that had opposed absolute monarchy in the 17th century (see Whig and Tory).

From 1828 to 1856 the Democrats won all but two presidential elections (1840 and 1848). During the 1840s and 50s, however, the Democratic Party, as it officially named itself in 1844, suffered serious internal strains over the issue of extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats, led by Jefferson Davis, wanted to allow slavery in all the territories, while Northern Democrats, led by Stephen A. Douglas, proposed that each territory should decide the question for itself through referendum. The issue split the Democrats at their 1860 presidential convention, where Southern Democrats nominated John C. Breckinridge and Northern Democrats nominated Douglas. The 1860 election also included John Bell, the nominee of the Constitutional Union Party, and Abraham Lincoln, the candidate of the newly established (1854) antislavery Republican Party (which was unrelated to Jeffersons Republican Party of decades earlier). With the Democrats hopelessly split, Lincoln was elected president with only about 40 percent of the national vote; in contrast, Douglas and Breckinridge won 29 percent and 18 percent of the vote, respectively.

The election of 1860 is regarded by most political observers as the first of the countrys three critical electionscontests that produced sharp yet enduring changes in party loyalties across the country. (Some scholars also identify the 1824 election as a critical election.) It established the Democratic and Republican parties as the major parties in what was ostensibly a two-party system. In federal elections from the 1870s to the 1890s, the parties were in rough balanceexcept in the South, where the Democrats dominated because most whites blamed the Republican Party for both the American Civil War (186165) and the Reconstruction (186577) that followed; the two parties controlled Congress for almost equal periods through the rest of the 19th century, though the Democratic Party held the presidency only during the two terms of Grover Cleveland (188589 and 189397). Repressive legislation and physical intimidation designed to prevent newly enfranchised African Americans from votingdespite passage of the Fifteenth Amendmentensured that the South would remain staunchly Democratic for nearly a century (see black code). During Clevelands second term, however, the United States sank into an economic depression. The party at this time was basically conservative and agrarian-oriented, opposing the interests of big business (especially protective tariffs) and favouring cheap-money policies, which were aimed at maintaining low interest rates.

In the countrys second critical election, in 1896, the Democrats split disastrously over the free-silver and Populist program of their presidential candidate, William Jennings Bryan. Bryan lost by a wide margin to Republican William McKinley, a conservative who supported high tariffs and money based only on gold. From 1896 to 1932 the Democrats held the presidency only during the two terms of Woodrow Wilson (191321), and even Wilsons presidency was considered somewhat of a fluke. Wilson won in 1912 because the Republican vote was divided between President William Howard Taft (the official party nominee) and former Republican president Theodore Roosevelt, the candidate of the new Bull Moose Party. Wilson championed various progressive economic reforms, including the breaking up of business monopolies and broader federal regulation of banking and industry. Although he led the United States into World War I to make the world safe for democracy, Wilsons brand of idealism and internationalism proved less attractive to voters during the spectacular prosperity of the 1920s than the Republicans frank embrace of big business. The Democrats lost decisively the presidential elections of 1920, 1924, and 1928.

The countrys third critical election, in 1932, took place in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929 and in the midst of the Great Depression. Led by Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Democrats not only regained the presidency but also replaced the Republicans as the majority party throughout the countryin the North as well as the South. Through his political skills and his sweeping New Deal social programs, such as social security and the statutory minimum wage, Roosevelt forged a broad coalitionincluding small farmers, Northern city dwellers, organized labour, European immigrants, liberals, intellectuals, and reformersthat enabled the Democratic Party to retain the presidency until 1952 and to control both houses of Congress for most of the period from the 1930s to the mid-1990s. Roosevelt was reelected in 1936, 1940, and 1944; he was the only president to be elected to more than two terms. Upon his death in 1945 he was succeeded by his vice president, Harry S. Truman, who was narrowly elected in 1948.

Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, the supreme Allied commander during World War II, won overwhelming victories against Democrat Adlai E. Stevenson in the presidential elections of 1952 and 1956. The Democrats regained the White House in the election of 1960, when John F. Kennedy narrowly defeated Eisenhowers vice president, Richard M. Nixon. The Democrats championing of civil rights and racial desegregation under Truman, Kennedy, and especially Lyndon B. Johnsonwho secured passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965cost the party the traditional allegiance of many of its Southern supporters. Moreover, the pursuit of civil rights legislation dramatically split the partys legislators along regional lines in the 1950s and 60s, with Southern senators famously conducting a protracted filibuster in an ultimately futile attempt to block passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although Johnson defeated Republican Barry M. Goldwater by a landslide in 1964, his national support waned because of bitter opposition to the Vietnam War, and he chose not to run for reelection. Following the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, the party nominated Johnsons vice president, Hubert H. Humphrey, at a fractious convention in Chicago that was marred by violence outside the hall between police and protesters. Meanwhile, many Southern Democrats supported the candidacy of Alabama Governor George C. Wallace, an opponent of federally mandated racial integration. In the 1968 election Humphrey was soundly defeated by Nixon in the electoral college (among Southern states Humphrey carried only Texas), though he lost the popular vote by only a narrow margin.

From 1972 to 1988 the Democrats lost four of five presidential elections. In 1972 the party nominated antiwar candidate George S. McGovern, who lost to Nixon in one of the biggest landslides in U.S. electoral history. Two years later the Watergate scandal forced Nixons resignation, enabling Jimmy Carter, then the Democratic governor of Georgia, to defeat Gerald R. Ford, Nixons successor, in 1976. Although Carter orchestrated the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel, his presidency was plagued by a sluggish economy and by the crisis over the kidnapping and prolonged captivity of U.S. diplomats in Iran following the Islamic revolution there in 1979. Carter was defeated in 1980 by conservative Republican Ronald W. Reagan, who was easily reelected in 1984 against Carters vice president, Walter F. Mondale. Mondales running mate, Geraldine A. Ferraro, was the first female candidate on a major-party ticket. Reagans vice president, George Bush, defeated Massachusetts Governor Michael S. Dukakis in 1988. Despite its losses in the presidential elections of the 1970s and 80s, the Democratic Party continued to control both houses of Congress for most of the period (although the Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981 to 1987).

In 1992 Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton recaptured the White House for the Democrats by defeating Bush and third-party candidate Ross Perot. Clintons support of international trade agreements (e.g., the North American Free Trade Agreement) and his willingness to cut spending on social programs to reduce budget deficits alienated the left wing of his party and many traditional supporters in organized labour. In 1994 the Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress, in part because of public disenchantment with Clintons health care plan. During Clintons second term the country experienced a period of prosperity not seen since the 1920s, but a scandal involving Clintons relationship with a White House intern led to his impeachment by the House of Representatives in 1998; he was acquitted by the Senate in 1999. Al Gore, Clintons vice president, easily won the Democratic presidential nomination in 2000. In the general election, Gore won 500,000 more popular votes than Republican George W. Bush but narrowly lost in the electoral college after the Supreme Court of the United States ordered a halt to the manual recounting of disputed ballots in Florida. The partys nominee in 2004, John Kerry, was narrowly defeated by Bush in the popular and electoral vote.

Aided by the growing opposition to the Iraq War (200311), the Democrats regained control of the Senate and the House following the 2006 midterm elections. This marked the first time in some 12 years that the Democrats held a majority in both houses of Congress. In the general election of 2008 the partys presidential nominee, Barack Obama, defeated Republican John McCain, thereby becoming the first African American to be elected president of the United States. The Democrats also increased their majority in the Senate and the House. The party scored another victory in mid-2009, when an eight-month legal battle over one of Minnesotas Senate seats concluded with the election of Al Franken, a member of the states Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. With Franken in office, Democrats in the Senate (supported by the chambers two independents) would be able to exercise a filibuster-proof 6040 majority. In January 2010 the Democrats lost this filibuster-proof majority when the Democratic candidate lost the special election to fill the unexpired term of Ted Kennedy following his death.

The Democrats dominance of Congress proved short-lived, as a swing of some 60 seats (the largest since 1948) returned control of the House to the Republicans in the 2010 midterm election. The Democrats held on to their majority in the Senate, though that majority also was dramatically reduced. Many of the Democrats who had come into office in the 2006 and 2010 elections were defeated, but so too were a number of longtime officeholders; incumbents felt the sting of an electorate that was anxious about the struggling economy and high unemployment. The election also was widely seen as a referendum on the policies of the Obama administration, which were vehemently opposed by a populist upsurge in and around the Republican Party known as the Tea Party movement.

The Democratic Party fared better in the 2012 general election, with Obama defeating his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney. The 2012 election did not significantly change the distribution of power between the two main parties in Congress. While the Democrats retained their majority in the Senate, they were unable to retake the House of Representatives. The Republicans retook the Senate during the 2014 midterm elections.

In the 2016 presidential race, Democrats selected Hillary Clinton as their nominee, the first time a major party in the United States had a woman at the top of its presidential ticket. Despite winning the popular vote by almost three million ballots, Clinton failed to take enough states in the electoral college, and the presidency was won by Republican Donald J. Trump in one of the largest upsets in U.S. electoral history. Moreover, the Republican Party maintained control of both chambers of Congress in the 2016 election. In the midterms two years later, however, Democrats retook the House in what some described as a blue wave.

View original post here:

Democratic Party | History, Definition, & Beliefs | Britannica

Black neighborhoods in key swing states hold enormous power to reshape politics in November and beyond. But in order to maximize this potential, progressives need to imagine and invest on an unprecedented scale.

Black voters have consistently supported Democratic candidates over Republicans by stunning margins: about 90 percent to 10 percent. No other major demographic comes close to this level of support for either party. For every 10 new black voters, 9 will likely vote for a Democrat and one for a Republican, yielding eight net Democratic votes. In contrast, 10 new Latino voters (who voted 70 percent Democratic and 30 percent Republican in 2018) would produce four net Democratic votes. For white, college-educated women, the figure is two.

Said another way, one new black voter has the same net effect as two new Latino voters or four new white, college-educated female voters. While it is true that there are more eligible but nonvoting people of other important demographics, there are more net Democratic votes available from new black voters because of the huge differential in Democratic support.

What is a new black voter? In the 2016 presidential election, an estimated 3.3 million black people in six key swing states were unregistered, or registered but had never voted, or didnt vote in 2016, despite previously doing so. In those six states (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina and Georgia) the number of eligible but nonvoting black people was at least 2.8 times Hillary Clintons margin of loss. Five of these states also had Senate elections; Democrats lost all five.

In Pennsylvania, for example, Mrs. Clinton lost by about 44,000 votes, while Katie McGinty, the Democratic Senate candidate, lost by about 87,000 votes. But an estimated 350,000 eligible black people didnt vote statewide. Combine this with the fact that half of Pennsylvanias black population lives in Philadelphia, and it becomes clear where there is concentrated, untapped political power. This type of geographic concentration is not unique. Just 14 cities account for over half of the black population in these six crucial states. (There are also large concentrations of black nonvoters in Jacksonville, Tampa and Orlando, Fla.; and in Fayetteville and Winston-Salem, N.C.)

And within these 14 cities, majority-black census blocks (areas usually much smaller than election precincts) account for a vastly disproportionate percentage of the black population. For example, majority-black census blocks account for 80 percent of Milwaukee countys black population, which itself accounts for 70 percent of Wisconsins black population. The upshot is clear: Nonvoting black residents in key places have the potential to swing elections, from the presidency on down, in 2020 and beyond. Republicans have understood these dynamics for years; they long ago decided that they were better off trying to suppress black voters than to compete for their votes.

The argument here is not that Donald Trumps election in 2016 is the fault of black voters. Nobody but the 63 million Americans who voted for him bears responsibility for that. In fact, turnout patterns of black voters are largely similar to whites. Yes, it is true that black voters were slightly underrepresented in 2016 and slightly overrepresented in 2012. And in elections like the 2016 race with razor-thin margins, a small change in turnout can matter.

But by fixating on the small turnout differential from 2012 to 2016, progressives miss the far larger prize: the more than 30 percent of all voters who consistently dont vote in presidential elections. In midterm and municipal elections, that figure is even higher. This is a result of progressives failure to execute a plan ambitious enough to change the status quo.

How can we seize this opportunity? The political scientists Donald Green and Alan Gerber conducted an analysis of hundreds of voter turnout experiments that tested methods like yard signs, mailers, text messages and TV ads. No simple, inexpensive tactic improved turnout more than three percentage points on average in high-turnout elections. Weve been answering the question: Can we get a little by investing a little per targeted voter in the final three weeks before an election? But weve never asked: Can we get a lot by investing a lot far in advance of election season?

Research shows that the most effective voter-turnout technique is person-to-person contact from a trusted source like a family member, friend or neighbor; this is far more successful than impersonal paid communication like TV, digital or radio ads. But most nonvoters or infrequent voters dont get this kind of outreach because campaigns and independent political groups generally ignore people with low turnout scores. And since these scores are developed based on voting history, nonvoters become less and less likely to be contacted. Even worse, people who have recently moved or are unregistered may not even show up in campaign databases. This problem is acute in areas with high transience, like urban, majority-black neighborhoods.

But the opportunity lies precisely with these people. To realize this potential, we must shed cynical assumptions about what is and isnt possible. Here is a proposal to develop a robust organizing infrastructure that can build real relationships with black nonvoters and maximize turnout.

In all the 14 cities, two residents in every micro-geography would be recruited, trained and given a stipend to form a block team. The block teams first step would be to connect with a member of every household on the block going back to every door as many times as necessary to make contact. This introductory interaction would be an unhurried conversation about the block team and its goals of building power and turnout, and it would gather the names of all voting-eligible people living at the residence. This data would then be reconciled with the voter file to categorize every eligible black resident by registration status and voting history. Lets say the block team has 100 black households with 200 eligible voters. Once the team gets good data, it can focus on deep canvassing having meaningful conversations at the doorstep with only the nonvoters or infrequent voters, maybe 80 people in all. In this conversation or future ones, block teams can help them register and make plans to vote, perhaps with a user-friendly tool like Map the Vote.

This is not the only model or necessarily the best one, but it does typify the big thinking required to match the size of the opportunity. There are many questions that need to be answered: How many block teams can a full-time organizer train and support? How large an area can a block team effectively cover? How often should block teams meet? Should they focus on hyperlocal, nonpartisan issues or national partisan issues? We cant definitively answer these questions this year (maybe block teams should focus on 75 black households, instead of 100). But every year, there are two chances to continue refining the infrastructure. The 2021 municipal primary and general elections allow block teams to build on this years lessons. When the 2022 elections for senators and governors are in full swing, block teams will have been able to refine their strategies even further.

The neighborhood team model is not new: Barack Obamas presidential campaigns empowered tens of thousands of ordinary people to achieve extraordinary levels of voter contact in their own neighborhoods. But even the best-resourced political campaigns are hampered by a lack of time. They exist only for a few fleeting months every four years, often building infrastructure from scratch and leaving little behind for the next campaign.

So who should build this permanent organizing infrastructure? Ideally, both state Democratic parties and independent political groups. State parties have a tremendous amount to gain: They could more effectively mobilize voters for priority issues cycle after cycle and have a vastly improved way to listen to marginalized voters and incorporate their ideas and frustrations into the partys platform. Independent groups can build community power apart from a political party, which could more easily hold elected officials accountable.

Some groups are already doing this. Black Leaders Organizing for Communities in Milwaukee, for example, trains community ambassadors to turn their neighborhoods resources into collective power that can be wielded to win. And Color of Change aims to do this on a national scale. But such groups need an order of magnitude more funding, well before election season and on a regular basis, to seize this huge opportunity. Both the breadth and depth of their work are limited by insufficient and unpredictable investment. Genuine community organizing takes months and years, not days and weeks, a truth that is often lost on the donor community.

To be sure, big money on the Democratic side does exist its just not being spent effectively. A majority of the $1 billion that went toward Mrs. Clintons candidacy was spent on paid communication like TV and digital ads not on groups that could best facilitate neighbor-to-neighbor contact.

Enormous investment in organizing can build real power in traditionally marginalized neighborhoods and elect accountable politicians, now and for years to come. Done the right way, this will develop leaders and political power which can be used to achieve whatever people want thats the true essence of democracy. We know black neighborhoods in six key states can get us there. Now we need to make it happen.

Continue reading here:

Democrats Are Ignoring the Voters Who Could Decide This Election - The New York Times

Of the remaining contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, Mike Bloomberg is the only one who openly favors statehood for Puerto Rico. Bernie SandersBernie SandersWinners andlosers from the South Carolina debate Five takeaways from the Democratic debate Sanders most searched, most tweeted about candidate during Democratic debate MORE, Joe BidenJoe BidenWinners andlosers from the South Carolina debate Five takeaways from the Democratic debate Sanders most searched, most tweeted about candidate during Democratic debate MORE, Pete ButtigiegPeter (Pete) Paul ButtigiegWinners andlosers from the South Carolina debate Five takeaways from the Democratic debate Sanders most searched, most tweeted about candidate during Democratic debate MORE, Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenWinners andlosers from the South Carolina debate Five takeaways from the Democratic debate Sanders most searched, most tweeted about candidate during Democratic debate MORE, Amy KlobucharAmy Jean KlobucharWinners andlosers from the South Carolina debate Sanders most searched, most tweeted about candidate during Democratic debate Democrats duke it out in most negative debate so far MORE and Tom SteyerTom Fahr SteyerWinners andlosers from the South Carolina debate Five takeaways from the Democratic debate Sanders most searched, most tweeted about candidate during Democratic debate MORE[1] have all hedged their position, claiming instead that the people of Puerto Rico should decide their political status.

Underlining the position held by the majority of the candidates is a calculated strategy, which aims to straddle the political factions that drive insular politics while avoiding any specific commitment concerning its status. It should be noted that of these candidates, Sanders, Biden, Warren and Klobuchar are, or have been, senators in Congress for many years and have studiously ignored Puerto Ricos status issues throughout their respective tenures.

It is well to remind these senators that it is Congress not the presidency that has plenary powers over the territories under Article IV, Section 3, of the Constitution. Any politician that claims to favor whatever the people of Puerto Rico decide, while failing to take specific actions to address the issue, is just kicking the can down the road.

Even though Puerto Ricans are American citizens, they do not vote in presidential or congressional elections. This is the major constitutional consequence of being an unincorporated territory. We do participate, however, in the national partys respective primaries. This limited participation in the democratic process has led to the inclusion in their respective platforms of language regarding the political future of Puerto Rico, which traditionally has been honored in the breach. Puerto Rico has 58 delegates to the Democratic convention, and 23 delegates to the Republican convention.

With regards to President TrumpDonald John TrumpWinners andlosers from the South Carolina debate Five takeaways from the Democratic debate Democrats duke it out in most negative debate so far MORE and the Republican Party, nothing should be expected on the status issue. In its 2016 platform the GOP declared that it supported the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state. Contrary to this statement, the last four years under Trump and Republican congressional leadership has been, if anything, duplicitous and in opposition to statehood. It remains to been seen what language the Republican Party will include in its platform concerning Puerto Rico.

Given the growing importance of the Hispanic vote and the identity politics that drives much of the current national debate, the Puerto Rican vote has a role to play. The past 2018 midterm election of Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) with the support of the Puerto Rican vote is an indication of its importance in the national stage. It is not accidental that Scott favors statehood for Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans who have settled in Florida in recent years need to take notice of their political weight, particularly in light of the importance of the Electoral College in the presidential election.

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, included in its 2016 platform the bromide that it believes that the people of Puerto Rico should determine their ultimate political status from permanent options that do not conflict with the Constitution, laws, and policies of the United States. Since the Democratic Party regained the House in 2018, the majority under the leadership of Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiOcasio-Cortez: Trump would 'never' say to her face some of the shots he takes at her on Twitter Oversight Committee room to be dedicated to late Rep. Elijah Cummings Lawmakers raise alarms over Trump coronavirus response MORE has deliberately stalled Resident Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzlezs efforts to move a statehood admission bill that would settle the status issue.

It is well known that the political factions in Puerto Rico are driven by the issue of status. Notwithstanding the imploded administration of then Gov. Ricardo Rossell, the Legislative Assembly is still controlled by the New Progressive Party (PNP), which favors statehood. Current Gov. Wanda Vzquez Garcd is identified with the Republican Party, and though claims to favor statehood, does not appear to be too interested in promoting it. Former Resident Commissioner Pedro PierluisiPedro Rafael PierluisiTrump reignites Puerto Rico feud amid Hurricane Dorian The Hill's Morning Report - Trump vows federal response to Ohio, Texas shootings Wanda Vzquez sworn in as new Puerto Rico governor MORE, a member of the Democratic Party who is now a PNP candidate for governor, endorses Mike Bloomberg for president.

Puerto Ricos Legislative Assembly recently submitted legislation for holding a Statehood: yes or no plebiscite. Given the low electoral turnout in the June 2017 plebiscite which statehood opponents in Washington have used as an argument to delegitimize its overwhelming results in favor of statehood it is politically sound to schedule it on the same day as the general election. Although it is unlikely that the Department of Justice will endorse this plebiscite, as provided by Public Law 113-76, statehood leadership should submit the ballot for its approval. No stone should be left unturned.

Given that Mike Bloomberg is the only candidate that favors statehood for Puerto Rico, it behooves pro-statehood Puerto Rican Democrats to vote in favor of his nomination.

Andrs L. Crdova is a law professor at Interamerican University of Puerto Rico, where he teaches contracts and property courses. He is also an occasional columnist on legal and political issues at the Spanish daily El Vocero de Puerto Rico.

Follow this link:

There's only one candidate for Democrats in Puerto Rico | TheHill - The Hill

I was fortunate enough in 2016 to play a small role in the unprecedented political juggernaut that was the Trump campaign. Against a crowded field of senators, governors and names that Americans had known for decades, then-candidate Donald Trump emerged as a force outside the GOP establishment that none of the Washington types the Republicans political geniuses could have ever seen coming.

Primary after primary, caucus after caucus, Trump just kept winning. Before the Republican National Convention in July, he exceed the number of delegates needed to clinch the partys nomination by more than 200.

Becoming the nominee was inevitable even as some in the party didnt want to accept it.

Professional losers at the convention, more concerned with tone than taxpayers, worked the few remaining country club Republicans to try to force a floor fight. If you dont remember this, thats OK: It lasted all of an hour and went basically nowhere.

The Republican base voted for Donald Trump to be the nominee. The party understood this, and that was final. It is, after all, the will of the people that matters in a democracy, right?

Ask the Democrats.

It was a very simple question that NBCs Meet the Press host Chuck ToddCharles (Chuck) David ToddTrailing Democrats tout strength with black voters ahead of South Carolina Clyburn says Democrats spent 'too much time on Bloomberg' in Nevada debate The Democratic nominee won't be democratically chosen MORE posed to the candidates in Wednesdays debate in Las Vegas: Should the candidate with the most delegates at the end of the primary season be the nominee, even if they are short of a majority? Simple. Fair. Topical.

For the first time in many years, we are very likely heading toward a brokered convention for the Democrats. So in a world where theres no clear winner according to the rules of the game, would it be fair to award the nomination to the person who came closest to victory?

In essence, should the winner of the popular vote be the nominee?

Listen to what they said.

Former New York City Mayor Michael BloombergMichael Rubens BloombergWinners andlosers from the South Carolina debate Sanders most searched, most tweeted about candidate during Democratic debate Democrats duke it out in most negative debate so far MORE: Whatever the rules of the Democratic Party are, they should be followed. Chuck Todd clarifies, So you want the convention to work its will? and Bloomberg replies, Yes.

Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenWinners andlosers from the South Carolina debate Five takeaways from the Democratic debate Sanders most searched, most tweeted about candidate during Democratic debate MORE (D-Mass.): The convention working its will means people have the delegates that are pledged to them and they keep those delegates until you come to the convention, all of the people.

Former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenWinners andlosers from the South Carolina debate Five takeaways from the Democratic debate Sanders most searched, most tweeted about candidate during Democratic debate MORE: No, let the process work its way out.

Former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete ButtigiegPeter (Pete) Paul ButtigiegWinners andlosers from the South Carolina debate Five takeaways from the Democratic debate Sanders most searched, most tweeted about candidate during Democratic debate MORE: Not necessarily, not till theres a majority.

Sen. Amy KlobucharAmy Jean KlobucharWinners andlosers from the South Carolina debate Sanders most searched, most tweeted about candidate during Democratic debate Democrats duke it out in most negative debate so far MORE (D-Minn.): Let the process work.

And finally, Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersWinners andlosers from the South Carolina debate Five takeaways from the Democratic debate Sanders most searched, most tweeted about candidate during Democratic debate MORE (I-Vt.): Well, the process includes 500 superdelegates on the second ballot. So I think that the will of the people should prevail. Yes, the person who has the most votes should be the nominee.

This was actually astounding. Mayor Pete, whose platform includes a proposal to eliminate the Electoral College and replace it with a nationwide popular vote, stood onstage, stared down on the American people and argued that the Democratic nominee should not necessarily be chosen by a popular vote.

Warren, in her very lawyerly way of hiding behind allusions to intricacies of convention rules and delegate counts, avoided the simple form of her answer: No, the will of the Democratic voters is irrelevant unless it ends up in a delegate majority.

Bernie, whose 2016 campaign actually inspired the changes to the nominating process that have given the Democratic Party this new, perilous-looking system, was the only one to show any consistency between whats in his platform and what he believes.

And the thing about Bernie is, even if he werent the new front-runner of the race, a fair characterization to make given his lead in delegate counts and enthusiasm to match, I believe he still would have answered the same way. And thats precisely why the Democratic National Committee (DNC) cant stand him.

Make no mistake in a world where Sanders falls short of the majority of delegates, he will have the nomination stolen from him again. And each of the candidates who advocates for the dissolution of the Electoral College will just sit back and say, Sorry, thats how the nominating process works.

Principle doesnt matter here. If it did, every party figure would have been outraged by the candidates insistence that the will of the people expressed by a popular vote is meaningful only if it puts them over the delegate threshold.

This is about winning about letting the DNC establishment chooseits ideal candidate to face off against President TrumpDonald John TrumpWinners andlosers from the South Carolina debate Five takeaways from the Democratic debate Democrats duke it out in most negative debate so far MORE.It knows its going to be a fight;it knows its going to be tough to win. And for some reason, all these facts add up to the conclusion among party leaders the Democrats geniuses that they cant afford to trust the will of their own voters.

Maybe theyre right, for the sake of the general election, as far as they see it. Maybe not. But what I do know is that the desperate rallying cry among Democrats to vote blue no matter who implies that, at the end of the day, you are responsible to your voters.

If I were the DNC, Id treat them with respect. Thinking theyre incompetent usually isnt a good look.

But hey, trust the geniuses, right?

Corey R. Lewandowski is President Trumps former campaign manager and a senior adviser to the Trump-Pence 2020 campaign. He is a senior adviser to the Great America Committee, Vice PresidentMike PenceMichael (Mike) Richard PenceTrump trails Democratic challengers among Catholic voters: poll Sunday shows preview: 2020 candidates look to South Carolina The Democratic nominee won't be democratically chosen MORE's political action committee. He is co-author with David Bossie of the new book, Trumps Enemies, and of Let Trump Be Trump: The Inside Story of His Rise to the Presidency. Follow him on Twitter@CLewandowski_.

Read more from the original source:

The Democratic nominee won't be democratically chosen | TheHill - The Hill

Senate Democrats blocked two abortion-related bills on Tuesday as Republicans look to weaponize the issue ahead of the 2020 elections.

Democrats blocked two measures one from Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamDemocrats duke it out in most negative debate so far Republicans give Barr vote of confidence Overnight Health Care Presented by American Health Care Association Lawmakers raise alarms over Trump coronavirus response | Top official warns virus appears inevitable in US | Democrats block two Senate abortion bills MORE (R-S.C.) and the other from Sen. Ben SasseBenjamin (Ben) Eric SasseOvernight Health Care Presented by American Health Care Association Lawmakers raise alarms over Trump coronavirus response | Top official warns virus appears inevitable in US | Democrats block two Senate abortion bills Democrats block two Senate abortion bills This week: House to vote on legislation to make lynching a federal hate crime MORE (R-Neb.) from getting the 60 votes needed to overcome an initial procedural hurdle.

The legislation from Graham would ban abortions after 20 weeks with exceptions for the life of the mother and victimsof rape or incest. Doctors who violate the bill could face up to five years in prison.

The second bill, from Sasse, would penalize doctors who fail to "exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion."

Graham's bill failed in a 53-44 vote, with Democratic Sens. Bob CaseyRobert (Bob) Patrick CaseyOvernight Health Care Presented by American Health Care Association Lawmakers raise alarms over Trump coronavirus response | Top official warns virus appears inevitable in US | Democrats block two Senate abortion bills Democrats block two Senate abortion bills Pennsylvania Democrat says US Attorney's Office should prioritize opioids rather than 'Russian propaganda' from Giuliani MORE (Pa.) and Joe ManchinJoseph (Joe) ManchinOvernight Health Care Presented by American Health Care Association Lawmakers raise alarms over Trump coronavirus response | Top official warns virus appears inevitable in US | Democrats block two Senate abortion bills Democrats block two Senate abortion bills Where do we go from here? Conservation can show the way MORE (W.Va.) voting for it and GOP Sens. Susan CollinsSusan Margaret CollinsOvernight Health Care Presented by American Health Care Association Lawmakers raise alarms over Trump coronavirus response | Top official warns virus appears inevitable in US | Democrats block two Senate abortion bills Democrats block two Senate abortion bills Trump creates new headaches for GOP with top intelligence pick MORE (Maine) and Lisa MurkowskiLisa Ann MurkowskiOvernight Health Care Presented by American Health Care Association Lawmakers raise alarms over Trump coronavirus response | Top official warns virus appears inevitable in US | Democrats block two Senate abortion bills Overnight Energy: Critics pile on Trump plan to roll back major environmental law | Pick for Interior No. 2 official confirmed | JPMorgan Chase to stop loans for fossil fuel drilling in the Arctic MacGregor confirmed as Interior deputy chief MORE (Alaska) voting against it.

Sasse's bill failed 56-41, with Casey, Manchin and Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) voting for it.

Neither bill was expected to pass despite Republican control of the Senate. But the decision to force the vote allows Republicans to try to put Jones on the record ahead of his tough reelection battle in November, and highlight tensions among Democrats, who are divided on if the party should include anti-abortion members.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellRepublicans give Barr vote of confidence Democrats block two Senate abortion bills VA could lead way for nation on lower drug pricing MORE (R-Ky.) blasted Democrats for opposing the bills, arguing it demonstrates the party moving to the left.

"If my Democratic colleagues block the Senate from even proceeding to debate this legislation later today, the message they send will be chilling and clear: The radical demands of the far left will drown out common sense and the views of most Americans," he said ahead of the vote.

McConnell's staff also blasted out a round up of abortion-related comments from Democrats, including Minority Leader Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerOvernight Health Care Presented by American Health Care Association Lawmakers raise alarms over Trump coronavirus response | Top official warns virus appears inevitable in US | Democrats block two Senate abortion bills Lawmakers raise alarms over Trump coronavirus response Democrats block two Senate abortion bills MORE (D-N.Y.) and Sens. Bernie SandersBernie SandersWinners andlosers from the South Carolina debate Five takeaways from the Democratic debate Sanders most searched, most tweeted about candidate during Democratic debate MORE (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenWinners andlosers from the South Carolina debate Five takeaways from the Democratic debate Sanders most searched, most tweeted about candidate during Democratic debate MORE (D-Mass.), who are both running for the party's presidential nomination.

The votes come days before GOP activists are expected to descend onthe D.C. region for the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

Democrats argue the two bills would curb women's reproductiverights. They blocked similar legislation from Graham in 2018, and Sasse's bill last year.

Schumer called the proposals "divisive anti-choice, anti-women [and] anti-family" measures.

"Republicans have chosen once again to play politics on the Senate floor. Leader McConnell should stop wasting the few votes he does schedule with these shameless political stunts, and instead bring legislation to the floor that would actually improve the health care of the American people, and of American women in particular," he said.

See the original post here:

Democrats block two Senate abortion bills | TheHill - The Hill

Rep. Paul TonkoPaul David TonkoOvernight Health Care Presented by American Health Care Association Lawmakers raise alarms over Trump coronavirus response | Top official warns virus appears inevitable in US | Democrats block two Senate abortion bills The Hill's Morning Report - Can Sanders be stopped? Overnight Health Care Presented by American Health Care Association White House to request emergency coronavirus funds | Trump backs off plan to house virus patients in Alabama | Court sides with Trump in family planning case MORE (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that lawmakers need to start to looking at opioid addiction as a chronic situation in working to combat the crisis plaguing the nation.

When you look at the data, and those data are compelling, they tell us that we do have a crisis at our hands and we have an epidemic, and if were going to utilize those labelings, lets act accordingly, and lets respond in crisis proportion, Tonko, who sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told The Hills editor-in-chief Bob CusackRobert (Bob) CusackThe Hill's Editor-in-Chief: Can Michael Bloomberg erase his terrible debate performance? The Hill's review of John Solomon's columns on Ukraine Hill's Editor-In-Chief: Are Joe Biden donors panicking? MORE at America's Opioid Epidemic: Lessons Learned & A Way Forward, sponsored by Indivior.

I think its important to look at that three-pronged approach that includes prevention, includes treatment, and includes recovery, he continued. There needs to be an acknowledgment by policymakers such as myself, that for many this will be a chronic situation. It will be a lifetime of treatment in order for them to address the illness that impacts them.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declared a public health emergency in response to the opioid epidemic.

Two million people suffered from an opioid use disorder in 2018, while 10.3 million misused opioids, according to HHS.More than 47,000 individuals died from overdosing on opioids in 2018.

Republican David JoyceDavid Patrick JoyceOvernight Health Care Presented by American Health Care Association Lawmakers raise alarms over Trump coronavirus response | Top official warns virus appears inevitable in US | Democrats block two Senate abortion bills The Hill's Morning Report - Can Sanders be stopped? Overnight Health Care Presented by American Health Care Association White House to request emergency coronavirus funds | Trump backs off plan to house virus patients in Alabama | Court sides with Trump in family planning case MORE (Ohio), who was also present at the event, echoed Tonkos sentiment.

This is something that is completely different, Joyce told The Hills editor-at-large Steve Clemons, comparing opioid addiction to alcohol addiction.

The congressman said the the recidivism rates with alcohol addiction was no longer near that of opioids, adding that more resources needed to be put into helping addicts change their lifestyles.

I go around to all of these different community centers and police departments and sheriffs departments, and ask whats working? What hasnt worked? How can we be better? Where can we push more money? Joyce said.

One thing that youll notice thats a common denominator now is the fact that this is not something that is 28 days. This is maybe nine months to two years, and wed really need to extend our programs and help facilitate that change in actual lifestyle, he continued. Returning people to where they came without employment tends to put them right back in the situation that got them there in the first place.

See more here:

Democrat: Lawmakers need to approach opioid crisis as 'a chronic situation' | TheHill - The Hill

Democrats who were initially skeptical of the prospects for a brokered convention now see it as a likelier scenario with eight candidates still battling it out for the nomination.

As the Nevada caucuses approach, strategists say its becoming clear that none of the Democratic candidates are likely to win the majority of the delegates before the convention in July.

Democratic strategist Eddie Vale said he was once extremely skeptical of a brokered convention.

But lately, particularly with the Democratic Party requiring a proportional allocation of delegates, its definitely seeming like it could happen.

One Democrat who worked on two campaigns for former President Obama called a brokered convention the biggest nightmare Democrats can imagine.

If you want to see a complete shit show, tune in to the brokered convention, the Democrat said.

Adam Parkhomenko, who worked on former Secretary of State Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonDemocratic insiders stay on the sidelines in 2020 race Hillicon Valley: Twitter falling short on pledge to verify primary candidates | Barr vows to make surveillance reforms after watchdog report | DHS cyber chief focused on 2020 The Hill's Campaign Report: High stakes at last Democratic debate before Super Tuesday MOREs 2016 presidential campaign, said this is currently heading for a convention fight at this rate.

If the number of candidates scoring in the double-digits that are splitting delegates continue to do so through Super Tuesday and beyond, its just math, unless all of a sudden a number of candidates drop out, he said.

While campaigns say they are focused on the upcoming primaries, they are quietly thinking more about building out their teams in the event that a brokered convention takes shape, according to sources on various campaigns.

The reason? Most candidates seem unlikely to suspend their campaigns before Super Tuesday, mainly because the money continues to flow into their campaign coffers.

Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersWinners andlosers from the South Carolina debate Five takeaways from the Democratic debate Sanders most searched, most tweeted about candidate during Democratic debate MORE (I- Vt.) and former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete ButtigiegPeter (Pete) Paul ButtigiegWinners andlosers from the South Carolina debate Five takeaways from the Democratic debate Sanders most searched, most tweeted about candidate during Democratic debate MORE raised $34 million and $24 million, respectively, in the fourth quarter of 2019. Sen. Amy KlobucharAmy Jean KlobucharWinners andlosers from the South Carolina debate Sanders most searched, most tweeted about candidate during Democratic debate Democrats duke it out in most negative debate so far MORE (D-Minn.) has also benefited from fundraising momentum since her third place finish in New Hampshire.

Even candidates who finished behind the top three in New Hampshire Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenWinners andlosers from the South Carolina debate Five takeaways from the Democratic debate Sanders most searched, most tweeted about candidate during Democratic debate MORE (D-Mass.) and former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenWinners andlosers from the South Carolina debate Five takeaways from the Democratic debate Sanders most searched, most tweeted about candidate during Democratic debate MORE have raked in more than $20 million each. And former New York City Mayor Michael BloombergMichael Rubens BloombergWinners andlosers from the South Carolina debate Sanders most searched, most tweeted about candidate during Democratic debate Democrats duke it out in most negative debate so far MORE, who has been ascending in recent polls, has shown no signs of pulling back on spending with his self-funded campaign.

Another complicating factor is the calendar of nominating contests. The four early-voting states Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina amount for just 6 percent of the overall delegates needed to win an outright nomination.

More than 50 percent of the delegates come in the March contests when states like California and Texas are up for grabs.

"The longer we go without a dominant front-runner, the greater the likelihood of a brokered convention, said Democratic strategist Joel Payne, who served as an aide on Clintons 2016 campaign.

Payne said if the contests are split between three or four candidates, including Bloomberg, the likelihood goes up exponentially.

He added that the numbers game in a brokered convention scenario would work against Sanders in the long run.

If its Bernie or even Warren on one side and three or four moderates on the other side, all with delegates, the odds are that the moderates would have enough delegates to team up and hold off a Sanders nomination, Payne said.

In 2016, Sanders battled Clinton until the very end of the primary and vowed to take the fight to the convention.

"It is virtually impossible for Hillary Clinton to reach a majority of convention delegates by June 14th, which is the last day a primary will be held, with pledged delegates alone. She will need superdelegates to take her over the top at the convention in Philadelphia," he said at the time. "In other words, the convention will be a contested contest."

But in an MSNBC interview last week, Sanders said it would be a "very divisive moment" for the party if the candidate with the most delegates, or a plurality, doesn't get the nomination.

But Sanders was opposed to that idea.

"I think the will of the people should prevail. Yes, the person with the most votes should become the nominee," he said.

A brokered convention would pose a risk to party unity heading into the general election.

That of course would be wrought with a lot of risk of alienating the progressive far-left segment of the party that you would still need engaged to beat Trump in November, he said.

The last time a political party came this close to a brokered convention was in 1976, when the GOP split into two sides one for Gerald Ford and the other for Ronald Reagan. But the tension eased by the summer heading into the convention.

In general, pundits always like to predict a brokered situation. But the primaries and caucuses have worked their magic by nomination time in the post-1960s era, said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, who acknowledged theres a serious possibility of a brokered convention this time around.

To win the party nomination, a candidate needs to secure a majority of pledged delegates: 1,991. But because of a new rule implemented by the Democratic National Committee, reaching that number could be challenging for White House hopefuls.

The rule states that superdelegates including Democratic leaders and lawmakers could vote on the first ballot at the convention, helping to boost candidates who had a plurality of delegates. But because of the new rule, those delegates are not eligible to vote until the second round.

A convention fight would be tough on Democrats, especially with new rules diminishing the power of superdelegates, because it would add to the perception of chaos and heighten already deep tensions within the party right before the general campaign, Zelizer said.

The party could still get over it because antipathy to Trump is so high, Zelizer added. But this would not be the process most Democrats were hoping for in 2020.

Its also not a scenario that many former skeptics were expecting earlier in the race.

With how crazy this cycle has been, I wouldnt be surprised if another crazy plot twist is still to come, Vale said.

Updated at 8:55 a.m.

View original post here:

Former skeptics now warning of brokered convention 'nightmare' for Democrats | TheHill - The Hill

The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday canceled a planned vote to reauthorize a set of controversial government surveillance programs over concerns that a slew of privacy-focused amendments from Rep. Zoe LofgrenZoe Ellen LofgrenTopDemocrats demand answers on DHS plansto deploy elite agents to sanctuary cities Gillibrand proposes creating new digital privacy agency GOP senator proposes overhauling federal agency to confront Big Tech MORE (D-Calif.) would tank the bill in the House, sources confirmed to The Hill.

The eleventh-hour switch-up comes after staff with the Judiciary Committee negotiated with the House Intelligence Committee for months to produce a bill that reformed several expiring surveillance provisions originally spelled out in the Patriot Act. The provisions are set to sunset on March15.

Ultimately, the reforms in the reauthorization bill offered by Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold NadlerJerrold (Jerry) Lewis NadlerThis week: House to vote on legislation to make lynching a federal hate crime Congress set for clash over surveillance reforms Trump adviser presses House investigators to make Bezos testify MORE (D-N.Y.) and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffOcasio-Cortez: Trump would 'never' say to her face some of the shots he takes at her on Twitter John Ratcliffe back under consideration by Trump for top intel job Trump says he wants 'no help from any country' in 2020 election MORE (D-Calif.) did not go far enough to satisfy key civil liberties advocates and privacy hawks in Congress, who were hoping for more sweeping changes to the government's spying authorities.

Lofgren, a longtime proponent of overhauling the country's intelligence-gathering efforts to better protect privacy, told the Judiciary Committee staff on Tuesday that she would offer amendments to reformthe court created by the Foreign Intelligence SurveillanceAct (FISA), which has faced bipartisan scrutiny over its role in the FBI's surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.

Lofgren originally planned to introduce seven amendments but cutthem down to five after negotiations, a Democratic aide told The Hill.

Multiple civil liberties groups were expected to support the bill only after Lofgren's amendments.

But another Democratic aide called the amendments a "poison pill" that could undermine months of tenuous negotiations between the Judiciary and Intelligence committees and ultimately kill the bill's ability to get through the House.

An Intelligence Committee official said the two panels have "worked collaboratively with each other and outside stakeholders to reauthorize necessary FISA provisions that are crucial to national security and make significant reforms to enhance civil liberties and privacy protections."

"The draft bill does both, implementing a variety of progressive reforms while ensuring we can continue to protect our national security," the official said. "Were going to continue to work with all parties towards that goal."

It's unclear what will happen to the bill next, but the clock is ticking toward next months deadline.

Rep. Pramila JayapalPramila Jayapal22 studies agree: 'Medicare for All' saves money Band Portugal. The Man to join Sanders at campaign event in Tacoma Bloomberg builds momentum on Capitol Hill with new endorsements MORE (D-Wash.), a progressive leader who has previously called for significant reforms to the USA Freedom Act, told The Hill on Wednesday that she's continuing to work with the committee leaders to encourage them to include more privacy reforms in the bill.

"We have been trying to get a set of reforms in and trying to get to that place where we can have these tools for the intelligence community but also have some very strong protections," said Jayapal, who was planning to vote for Lofgren's amendments.

Nadler and Schiff's bill would have extended all of the expiring counterintelligence investigation powers until 2023. But it also would have ended the government's authority to gain information about Americans' phone calls, which was enabled under a provision called Section 215.

Section 215 enables the government to collect business records without a warrant and surveil targets across multiple communications devices during terrorism investigations.

The National Security Agency shuttered the phone records program, but the Trump administration is pushing for Congress to reauthorize its ability to reopen it at any point.

Olivia Beavers contributed.

Continue reading here:

Democrats cancel surveillance vote over pushback to amendments | TheHill - The Hill

By Bill Libby, Opinion guest column February 26, 2020 1:05 pm

Ive spent 43 years of my adult life serving our nation and state beginning with my commissioning from the ROTC Program at the University of Maine, serving in Vietnam and concluding as the adjutant general of the Maine National Guard.

It has been eight years since my retirement, and I now feel I have an obligation to serve again.

Simply put, Donald Trump must be denied a second term. It is time for those of us who care deeply about the future of our country to speak out, and do what we can to ensure that our current president, who I regard as reckless and corrupt, does not get another four years in office.

I am supporting Mike Bloomberg for president. In my judgment, he is the only candidate who can beat Trump. The president represents an existential threat to our country. Trump has made political decisions regarding our military and security that have weakened this country at home and abroad.

Ive considered all of the candidates running and come back to one thing who can win on Election Day. Bloomberg has the proven ability to govern as he did as mayor of New York City, to bring us back from the brink from a potential crisis that will take decades to recover from.

Bloomberg isnt a partisan; he is a data driven guy who will pursue the right answer for America, not the partisan answer. As he wrote in a 2018 column supporting Democrats in their attempt to win control of the United States House of Representatives, I have always believed that we should put the country before the party. Too many politicians practice the reverse, with terrible consequences for the American people. In a state where 33 percent of registered voters identify as Democrats, 27 percent as Republicans and 35 percent as unenrolled, Bloombergs beliefs of country over party will resonate.

I was a student at Lewiston High School when John F. Kennendy came to town, campaigning for the 1960 presidential election. I often dig back into his legacy for inspiration and often use a quote that seems appropriate for this time: Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer but the right answer. Most people forget what followed in that speech, given in 1958 at a Loyola College alumni banquet: Let us not seek to fix blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.

I accept my responsibility for the future during this election cycle to deny Trump a second term by supporting the only Democrat who can defeat him in November, Mike Bloomberg.

Major General John Bill Libby served as head of the Maine National Guard and commissioner of the state Department of Defense, Veterans and Emergency Management from 2003 to 2012. He served in Vietnam and joined the Maine Army National Guard in 1976. He was awarded the Bronze Star, a Meritorious Service Medal and the Legion of Merit.

Read the original post:

Mike Bloomberg is the best Democratic candidate to beat Trump - Bangor Daily News

Candidates participated in the Democratic presidential primary debate at St. Anselm College on Feb. 7 in Manchester, New Hampshire. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Democratic registered voters in the United States have a positive view of the field of candidates vying for their partys presidential nomination, and they generally agree with each other on issues ranging from gun laws to climate change, according to a January Pew Research Center survey.

But as the race for the nomination heads to New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, supporters of the major Democratic candidates stand apart from one another in notable ways. Below is a snapshot of some of these differences, based on the recent national survey of more than 10,000 U.S. registered voters, including nearly 5,900 Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents.

All findings in this analysis are based on the views of registered voters who are Democrats or lean to the party. Some candidates are not included due to sample size limitations.

This post analyzes the views of Democratic registered voters in the United States toward several candidates for the partys presidential nomination. The analysis is based on a survey of 12,638 U.S. adults, including 10,491 registered voters (5,861 of whom are Democratic and Democratic leaners) in January 2020. Everyone who took part is a member of Pew Research Centers American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. For more details, see the methodology for this report. Read more about Pew Research Centers ATP here.

Note: Here are the questions used for this report, along with responses, and its methodology.

Read the original:

A snapshot of the top 2020 Democratic presidential candidates' supporters - Pew Research Center