Category Archives: Democrat

Sen. Tom Cotton, Arkansas Republican, on Sunday said he doesnt plan to vote to call witnesses in President Trumps impeachment trial and that theres no sense in prolonging the case.

The House Democrats have had lots of witnesses. We heard from them over and over and over again this week, Mr. Cotton said on CBSs Face the Nation. We dont need to prolong whats already taken five months of the American peoples time.

The House Democrats have not proven their case against Donald Trump we dont need to prolong this matter, he said.

I dont want to forecast the way other senators may vote, but I would just say the last five days have kind of been a microcosm of the last five months, Mr. Cotton said.

Mr. Trumps defense team is expected to make their case in more detail starting on Monday after they spent several hours on Saturday starting to lay things out.

His team says House Democrats case omitted key exculpatory details and that Democrats are looking to essentially overturn the 2016 U.S. presidential election results and influence the 2020 election.

House Democrats had made their case last week over the course of nearly 24 hours. Theyre accusing Mr. Trump of improperly leveraging military aid to Ukraine to try to get the country to open up politically beneficial investigations, and then obstructing Congresss investigation into the conduct.

See the original post:

Tom Cotton: Democrats haven't proven impeachment case, don't need to 'prolong' things - Washington Times

Democrats in Virginia are trying to take away your guns, yet their public statements make it clear they know next to nothing about firearms or the Second Amendment.

Case in point: Virginia Delegate Mark Levine, who represents areas of liberal Northern Virginia, spoke at a town hall on Saturday and when asked to define assault weapon, launched into a six-minute speech that provided nothing but misinformation. He begins by reiterating the Democrat talking point that the 1994 assault weapons ban reduced gun crimes. It didnt by any real margin, as the guns banned werent typically used in gun crimes to begin with. The Department of Justice produced two studies on the ban to measure its effectiveness and concluded in both that it had little to no effect.

Levine then mimics someone holding a rifle used for hunting and claims mass shooters dont want to use weapons like that because someone could hit the rifle butt against their head deer dont do this, elk dont do this, but humans trying to save their lives do this.

He then mimicked what he claimed mass shooters like to use. His body language suggested he was using a fully automatic weapon (he twisted at the hips like he was in some old gangster movie). Fully automatic weapons are not used in mass shootings because theyve been banned since 1986. Democrats and their media allies like to claim semi-automatic is virtually the same as fully automatic, but theyre not. A fully automatic weapon means it reloads and fires repeatedly with one trigger pull. Semi-automatic weapons fire one round per trigger pull.

Next, Levine claims the Dayton, Ohio, shooter was able to shoot some 75 rounds in less than 30 seconds, shooting 40-odd people while the police were right there. The gunman actually fired 41 rounds in that time frame (shooting 75 rounds in less than 30 seconds is impossible for a semi-automatic weapon). Even still, the gunmen was only able to shoot that many because he illegally modified his weapon (meaning he didnt care about gun laws to begin with).

Levine continues on this way, getting every single point about guns wrong and trying to suggest that a pistol grip is a feature of weapons of war. The bill he sponsored, which seeks to ban assault firearms, which he defines in a number of vague, useless, and incorrect ways, actually tries to suggest that a bayonet mount and a weapon weighing 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded are also examples of weapons of war features.

Stephen Gutowski, a reporter for The Washington Free Beacon and one of the few reporters who actually knows about firearms, took Levine to task on Twitter for his disinformation screed.

Delegate Mark Levine (D) just delivered the most utterly uninformed speech on firearms Ive ever seen in my life. How can you be so misinformed on what youre proposing imprisoning Virginians over, @DelegateMark? You dont even have a basic understanding of what you want to ban, Gutowski tweeted.

Delegate Levine (D) is sponsoring HB 961 which would ban the new sales of many kinds of firearms (including AR-15s) and require those already owned to be registered. It would also confiscate millions of magazines which Levine severely misunderstands, he added.

Watch Levines full answer below:

Link:

WATCH: Pistol Grips A 'Weapons Of War' Feature? Virginia Democrat Trying To Ban Guns Gives 6-Minute Speech, Gets EVERYTHING Wrong About Guns - The...

Sen. Tom CottonThomas (Tom) Bryant CottonSunday shows preview: Lawmakers prepare for week two of impeachment trial Schiff closes Dems' impeachment arguments with emotional appeal to remove Trump Commerce Department withdraws Huawei rule after Pentagon pushback: reports MORE (R-Ark.) on Sunday dismissed the idea ofcalling witnesses in the Senates impeachment trial of President TrumpDonald John TrumpKaine: Obama called Trump a 'fascist' during 2016 campaign Kaine: GOP senators should 'at least' treat Trump trial with seriousness of traffic court Louise Linton, wife of Mnuchin, deletes Instagram post in support of Greta Thunberg MORE, although he said he did not know whether any of his Republican colleagues would vote to hear additional testimony.

Im not going to vote to approve witnesses because the House Democrats have had lots of witnesses we listened to [House Intelligence Committee Chair] Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffSunday shows preview: Lawmakers prepare for week two of impeachment trial Trump defense team signals focus on Schiff Schiff pushes back: Defense team knows Trump is guilty MORE drone on for three days and the president's lawyers, in just two hours demolished the case they had made, Cotton said on CBS Face the Nation.

Theyre not upset that they havent had witnesses, theyre upset that their witnesses havent said what they want them to say, he added.

Cotton sparred with CBS Margaret Brennan on Trumps attorney Jay SekulowJay Alan SekulowGeorge Conway: Witness missing from impeachment trial is Trump Trump legal team offers brisk opening defense of president Trump legal team launches impeachment defense MOREs invocation of the conspiracy theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

Thats not a conspiracy theory, Cotton responded, citing individual Ukrainian officials who had expressed support for Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonKaine: Obama called Trump a 'fascist' during 2016 campaign Clinton says Zuckerberg has 'authoritarian' views on misinformation Des Moines Register endorses Elizabeth Warren as Democratic presidential nominee MORE and criticism of then-candidate Trump.

Cotton conceded that Ukraine had not engaged in systematic, top-down interference sanctioned at the highest levels like Russia, prompting Brennan to respond youre being precise in your words and thats not what the presidents lawyers said.

Brennan also pressed Cotton on a recording of Trump instructing Rudy GiulianiRudy GiulianiDemocrats see Mulvaney as smoking gun witness at Trump trial Pompeo lashes out at 'shameful' NPR reporter Trump legal team launches impeachment defense MORE associate Lev Parnas to take out then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie YovanovitchMarie YovanovitchWashington Post: Pompeo 'gaslighting' NPR reporter Pompeo lashes out at 'shameful' NPR reporter Parnas says he has turned over tape of Trump calling for diplomat's firing MORE. Cotton noted that Yovanovitch had been recalled over a year after the recording, indicating that Trump was not hasty, he was not precipitous but did not answer Brennans questions about Trumps claims not to have known Parnas before the recording was revealed.

View original post here:

Cotton: Democrats are 'upset that their witnesses haven't said what they want them to say' | TheHill - The Hill

Rep. Ted LieuTed W. LieuDemocratic lawmaker dismisses GOP lawsuit threat: 'Take your letter and shove it' Democratic lawmaker says Nunes threatened to sue him over criticism Paralysis of nations is empowering cities MORE (D-Calif.) on Friday dismissed what he said was the threat of a lawsuit from fellow Rep. Devin NunesDevin Gerald NunesDemocratic lawmaker dismisses GOP lawsuit threat: 'Take your letter and shove it' House Democrats release second batch of Parnas materials Democratic lawmaker says Nunes threatened to sue him over criticism MORE (R-Calif.), telling a lawyer for Nunes to shove it.

The Democrat shared on Twitter the first page of a letter sent by Nuness counsel and dated Dec. 31 in which the lawyer cited the right to maintainan "unimpaired reputation." The letter was mentioned by Lieuon Twitter earlier this week.

Lieu hinted in his response that the threat centered on his comments tyingNunes to Lev Parnas, a Soviet-born businessman and former associate of President TrumpDonald John TrumpNational Archives says it altered Trump signs, other messages in Women's March photo Dems plan marathon prep for Senate trial, wary of Trump trying to 'game' the process Democratic lawmaker dismisses GOP lawsuit threat: 'Take your letter and shove it' MORE's personal attorney RudyGiulianiwho is at the heart of the impeachment proceedings.

I received your letter dated December 31, 2019 in which you state your client Congressman Devin Nunes will sue me if I dont, among other actions, issue a public apology to Devin Nunes,Lieu wrote in his own letter dated Thursday. It is true that I stated Congressman Nunes worked with Lev Parnas and conspired to undermine our own government.

I welcome any lawsuit from your client and look forward to taking discovery of Congressman Nunes. Or, you can take your letter and shove it.

Attached is the first page of a five page letter in which the lawyer for @DevinNunes threatens that Rep Nunes will sue me.

Attached is my response. pic.twitter.com/bWAqdRhq97

Lieupointed torecent evidence released by the House in its impeachment investigation and Parnas's MSNBC interview earlier this week, noting Parnas and Nunes communicated amid efforts by Trump allies to convince Ukraine to investigate his political rivals.

Neither Lieu nor Nunes immediately responded to requests for comment from The Hill on Friday evening.

Nunes has emerged as one of Trumps top alliesin the House from his perchas the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, maintaining that the president acted appropriately in his dealings with Ukraine despite testimony from several current and former officials that they were alarmed bythe president's efforts topush Kyiv to conduct investigationsdesired by Trump.

Read this article:

Democratic lawmaker dismisses GOP lawsuit threat: 'Take your letter and shove it' | TheHill - The Hill

But some of the Latino political organizers I spoke with described the primary season so far as a master class in political malpracticeas one person phrased itwith candidates struggling to engage Latino voters, address issues beyond immigration reform, and treat Latinos as the influential voting bloc they are. Others reported a lack of candidate interest in working with their organizations, including missed meetings and radio silence on questionnaires. (On top of all that, the only Latino candidate in the race, Julin Castro, dropped out earlier this month, leaving an all-white stage for tonights debate.) Theres a real risk that if Democrats dont sort out these issues soon, they could struggle to attract and mobilize what could be the largest minority voting bloc in 2020.

It feels like every four years theres this clutching of the pearls and head-scratching about why the hell Latinos dont vote, Marisa Franco, a co-founder of the Latino activist network Mijente, told me. I dont think its an absence of interest. Its a hunger for options.

Read: The next populist revolution will be Latino

The only candidate still in the race to receive virtually universal praise from the organizers was Senator Bernie Sanders. Organizers from California to Texas highlighted the Sanders campaigns grassroots engagement, something that seems to be reflected in Latinos consistently strong support for the senator: In poll after poll, Latinos, especially young Latinos, rank Sanders as their top pick among the primary contenders. Chuck Rocha, a top Sanders adviser, told me that the polls reflect the senators priority of expanding the electorate, including young Latinos who have not voted before. Of the record 32 million Latinos eligible to cast a ballot in 2020, 4 million of them turned 18 after the 2016 election, Mara Teresa Kumar, the CEO of the political-advocacy group Voto Latino, told me.

Rocha and Sanderss national political director, Analilia Mejia, said the campaign has aired Spanish-language ads for the past eight months and hired more than 150 Latino staffers around the country. In vote-rich California specifically, the campaign opened most of its 14 field offices in heavily Latino communities, including East Los Angeles, Oxnard, San Jose, and the Central Valley region. On our campaign, were very clear about the rising Latino iceberg of voters, how for years to come there will be a need to deeply motivate and mobilize Latino voters, Mejia said. When you have people who belong to that community [and] you empower those folks, of course youre going to do better within that communityif you have folks who know how to navigate it, folks who come from it, folks who respect it.

Sanders aside, the organizers I spoke with said the first signs of trouble in the 2020 campaign were clear during the two nights of the first Democratic debate, in June.

See the original post here:

Democrats Should Be Worried About the Latino Vote - The Atlantic

Voting tells politicians, and the press if theyre capable of getting the message, what citizens will tolerate and what they wont. The Democrats havent voted yet, but the candidates have been campaigning for more than a year and just had their last debate before the Iowa caucuses.

Thats time enough to learn some useful things. The first is that voters Democratic voters have a limited appetite for free stuff. Many candidates have been promising free college and free health care and offering free Ben & Jerrys ice cream.

Sounds good at first, as when Sen. Elizabeth Warren backed Sen. Bernie Sanders Medicare for All proposal. But the refusal of the I-have-a-plan-for-that candidate to say how shed pay for it didnt fly. And when she did answer that question, that flopped, too, and she fell back on saying it would be delayed till her second two years or second term.

The second thing weve learned is related: As blogger Glenn Reynolds puts it, Go woke, go broke.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, former Rep. Beto ORourke, Sen. Kamala Harris, former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro and Sen. Cory Booker all candidates who have taken some moderate stands chose to emphasize how hip they were. They embraced positions like free medical care for illegal immigrants, reparations for descendants of slaves, abortions for men who have transitioned to be women.

These things sound reasonable to fans of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. To Democratic primary voters, not so much. All five are now ex-candidates.

Third, identity politics has proved to be a loser, too. Harris and Booker got only single-digit percentages from black voters. Castro made zero progress with Hispanics. Things were quite different in 1988, when Jesse Jackson carried blacks, Michael Dukakis white ethnics, Al Gore Southern whites and Dick Gephardt union members.

Identity politics is big on campus, where you get denounced for wearing a serape on Halloween if you dont have Mexican ancestors. But voters dont care so much.

Harris and Booker failed to duplicate the frisson inspired by Barack Obama in 2008, probably because you can only elect the first black president once.

Fourth, the white college graduates gentry liberals who are, for the first time in history, one of the Democratic Partys largest constituencies, are a fickle bunch.

Black and elderly Democrats have consistently given former Vice President Joe Biden large pluralities, and Hispanic and low-income non-college Democrats have shown some affinity for Sanders. That largely accounts for the buoyancy of support for these 77- and 78-year-old candidates.

But gentry liberals have been bouncing around. They were briefly smitten with Harris after she bopped Biden on school busing. They swooned longer for Warren when she kept repeating, I have a plan for that, and then they were charmed by Mayor Pete Buttigiegs crisp and self-assured articulateness.

The gentry liberals fling with Harris didnt last long, and current polling suggests their crushes on Warren and Buttigieg are over. But theres still plenty of room for these voters to swing decisively in Februarys first two contests, for they are numerous among those who bother to attend the Iowa caucuses and demographically a large share of the population of New Hampshire.

Thats what happened in 2008, when high-education Iowans swung to Obama, which convinced black voters that he, unlike Jesse Jackson, could win whites votes and the nomination. But gentry liberals are hard to gauge because what theyre after is not government aid but morally satisfying reassurances.

Finally, Democrats or their many friends in the press and social media have an obsessive yearning for diversity, which turns out to mean racial quotas and preferences. There is moaning about not having any people of color on the latest debate stage, as if the party had a responsibility to somehow field a group of candidates who are demographically identical to the population.

Actually, the six candidates at the last debate come from a wide range of American backgrounds, reasonably appropriate for a party that, in its 188-year history, has always been a coalition of out-groups.

Whats important is not what the field of candidates looks like but who will be the partys nominee, who will inevitably be of one gender and a limited number of ancestries. That is something Democratic voters have not taught us yet.

Continued here:

Woke doesnt win and other big surprises of Democrats 2020 race so far - New York Post

SALEM Tensions simmered over Oregon Democrats priority climate change bill on Friday, as leaders from both parties met with reporters in the Capitol to discuss their priorities for the upcoming 35-day legislative session.

The main undercurrent dividing the parties: Will Republicans walk out, stalling all business in the affected chamber? And who would pay the political price if they did?

With just two weeks to go until lawmakers return to Salem, top Democrats spoke scornfully of the idea that Republicans in either chamber might reprise the Senate GOPs 2019 walkout to block similar carbon legislation.

Its their job to be here, Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, said. Theyre being paid by the taxpayers to be here I would not want to show my face (to constituents) if I did not show up for work.

House Republican Leader Rep. Christine Drazan of Canby, the only GOP member at the press briefing, addressed the idea that Republicans would be shirking their duties if they boycott the Capitol.

We are advocates for our communities, and we are equal advocates for our communities, Drazan said. I dont work for (House Speaker Tina Kotek, a Democrat) and nobody works for me. These folks are independently elected in their communities.

Senate Republican Leader Herman Baertschiger Jr. of Grants Pass, who led the Oregon GOPs headline-grabbing walkouts last year, said in a press conference earlier this week that he was not ruling out a similar boycott this February.

Baertschiger also called for Democrats to allow their climate change plan to be referred to voters, an idea Democratic legislative leaders and Gov. Kate Brown rejected on Friday. He skipped the Friday press briefing, reportedly because of the bad road conditions and deep snow in his district.

The legislative preview briefing was organized by the Associated Press. Senate President Peter Courtney, a Salem Democrat, was also absent on Friday. He was hospitalized recently after injuring his hip during a cycling workout, but is expected to return to the Capitol for the short session.

On Friday, Gov. Kate Brown, a Democrat, initially spoke reservedly when asked about working with Republicans.

I think they need to show up and be in the building and work to improve that concept, Brown said. And if that doesnt work, obviously, (they can) vote against it. I dont think walking out is a productive method.

Brown issued an appeal for Republicans to stick out the session in order to pass bipartisan priorities, such as earthquake and wildfire preparedness projects that she said could help rural areas. When asked by an Associated Press reporter if its an impediment that Baertschiger has stated he does not believe humans caused climate change, Brown said no.

Certainly, he has to spout a particular philosophy, Brown said. I may disagree with that particular philosophy. But lets figure out how we can set aside our differences and get as much as we can done for Oregonians.

Our kids are telling us we cant wait, Brown said. We have to move forward on a bill that caps carbon emissions and tackles climate change.

The governor said it was too early for Democrats to consider asking voters to lower the two-thirds quorum requirement in the state Constitution, which allowed minority Republicans to shut down the Senate twice last year. Senate Democrats have drafted a proposal to do so, Burdick said.

Lets get through this session, Brown said.

Hillary Borrud | hborrud@oregonian.com | 503-294-4034 | @hborrud

Subscribe to Oregonian/OregonLive newsletters and podcasts for the latest news and top stories.

Read more here:

Oregon Democrats, Republican bristle over possibility of another GOP shutdown - OregonLive

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the group that works to elect Democrats to Congress, is touting a fundraising advantage and expanding its battleground map after learning it outraised its GOP counterparts by $40 million in 2019.

The DCCC announced this week it raised $125 million last year, roughly $20 more than it raised in 2017, the last off year between elections. The fundraising was fueled by $59.6 million in grassroots contributions. At the same time, the 42 Democratic "frontline" members in competitive races raked in more than $91 million in 2019.

"We know that this gives them a huge tactical advantage in their districts because they can buy TV time at a significantly lower rate than the committee, than outside groups, than anyone else," said DCCC political director Kory Kozloski in a call with reporters. "They're going to have the resources to tell their stories in a significant way, in a way that incumbents have never had before, in a way that Democratic candidates in many cases have never had before."

Earlier this week, the National Republican Congressional Committee chair Tom Emmer revealed his committee raised $85 million in 2019, $40 million less than the DCCC. Emmer raised alarm bells to Republicans as they seek to take back the House in 2020.

"One red flag that we're going to start hitting in the next two weeks if you read about it, our members need to get their act together and raise more money," Emmer said. "The individual campaigns need to raise more money. They cannot expect somebody else is gonna do it for them."

During his 20-minute remarks, he blasted Democrats as the party of socialists and big government and argued control would be determined by what the parties had to offer referencing the economy and trade as an advantage.

As Democrats seek to defend their House majority and hold onto 30 districts President Trump won in 2016, the DCCC announced on Thursday that it is targeting five more Republican-held districts and one currently vacant seat.

Democrats are now eyeing Don Young of Alaska, Steve Watkins of eastern Kansas, Richard Hudson of central North Carolina, Dan Crenshaw of northern Houston suburbs, and newly-turned Republican Jeff Van Drew of southern New Jersey.

Democrats are also focused on keeping California's 25th district seat, vacated by Democrat Katie Hill, who resigned in October. Hill had flipped the seat in the 2018 midterm elections.

Those six additions are on top of the 39 Republican-held districts where the DCCC announced in November that it would be targeting.

"The bottom line is, House Democrats are on the offensive across the country, prepared to protect and expand the House Majority that fights for the priorities of the American people," said DCCC chair Cheri Bustos in a statement. "Our record fundraising gives us the ability to push deeper into Republican territory and hold Republicans accountable for their attacks on working families' health care."

However, among those six districts, Cook Political Report still rates Hudson's district as solidly Republican. Among the ones Cook Political Report deems competitive, it also rates Van Drew, Watkins, and Young's seats are likely Republican.

"We're going to take a hard look at every single one of these," said Kozloski when asked what resources from the DCCC might look like in the newly added more competitive districts.

Despite record fundraising by the DCCC, the Democratic National Committee trails behind the Republican National Committee in overall fundraising. The DNC announced this week it raised $95 million in 2019, including funds raised through its Democratic Grassroots Victory Fund. According to a spokesperson, it was the DNC's best off-year online fundraising in a decade, and the total raised was $30 more than what the DNC raised in 2015 while Democrats held the White House. But the RNC raised $241 million in 2019.

See the original post:

DCCC: Democrats tout fundraising advantage in 2020 congressional elections - CBS News

To paraphrase Santayana, Democrats who refuse to acknowledge Hillary Clintons failures in the 2016 election were always doomed to repeat them. Why is their primary field littered with the failed bids of woke candidates? Why is #WarrenIsASnake trending on Twitter? Because identity politics remains a political loser.

Thats the takeaway from the rapidly narrowing Democratic field, and smart liberals warned of it after 2016. Mark Lilla, writing in theNew York Times,faulted Mrs. Clinton for molding her campaign around the rhetoric of diversity, calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, LGBT and women voters at every stop. Successful politics, he noted, is always rooted in visions of shared destiny.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

Progressives heaped scorn on Mr. Lillaone compared him to David Dukeand doubled down on identity politics. Nearly every flashpoint in this Democratic race has centered on racism, sexism or classism. Nearly every practitioner of that factionalist strategy has exited the race. Mr. Lilla is surely open to apologies.

Kamala Harris created the first big viral moment when she tore into Joe Biden, absolving him of being a racist even as she accused him of working with segregationists to oppose school busing. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand didnt hold the race card but ran a campaign about womens equality, attacking any Democrat who didnt measure to her standards on abortion, child care and violence against women.

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING KIMBERLEY STRASSEL'S COLUMN IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

See the article here:

Kimberley Strassel: Why is the 2020 Democratic primary field littered with the failed bids of woke candidates? - Fox News

It is quite astonishing to see with what deadpan and neutral a tone our press and television report the open corruption and the flagrantly anti-democratic character of the Iowa caucuses.

I quote the late Christopher Hitchens because I couldnt put it better.

In a primary, eligible voters can show up anytime while polls are open, cast anonymous ballots and go home. In the caucuses, they must show up on a winter night and spend several hours jostling with neighbors and strangers as they show support for one candidate or another.

This setup favors activists who are not deterred by snow, cold and the dark.They tend to be educated and have the luxury of free evening hours. Theyre also aggressive and skilled in working the intricacies of the caucus process.

The caucuses disfavor working people who must juggle two children and three jobs. Add to that anyone who works nights at McDonalds or drives an Uber after hours. Or who depends on a public transportation system that slows down in the evening.

The obvious winners in this unfair setup are candidates with passionate followers. Bernie Sanders has notably been a beneficiary. In 2016, he did better in the caucuses, where his activists could exert control, than in the primaries, where a wider electorate cast simple ballots without pressure.

Caucuses routinely suppress voter participation, according to the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. In 2016, turnout at the Iowa caucuses was under 16%, whereas the New Hampshire primary attracted 52% of eligible voters.

Washington state, which held both a caucus and a primary in 2016, offered a real-world contrast of the two. In March that year, Sanders swept Washingtons Democratic caucus, walking off with 74 delegates to Hillary Clintons 27. When Washington held a primary two months later, Clinton won by 6%.

Only about 26,000 people voted in the Democratic caucuses, while more than 660,000 voted in the primary. The state Democratic Party is switching to a meaningful primary in 2020.

Were caucuses how a conservative state runs a general election, liberals would rightly accuse election officials of practicing voter suppression. The Supreme Court might even strike down its election laws as unconstitutional. But this is a party matter, and it is up to the Democratic National Committee to fix the problem.

In assessing a candidates ability to prevail in a general election, some members of the punditry put great importance on the level of voter enthusiasm. Should that matter? It shouldnt, not in a democracy. Votes are supposed to be equal. A vote cast with mild affection or indifference even with nose held counts every bit as much as a vote made with thumping heart.

Some friends, particularly younger ones, worship the ground Bernie walks on. I back Joe Biden but dont adore him. (I could be happy with another moderate, say, Amy Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg.) To me, Biden is a solid progressive and, more importantly, the Democrat whom President Trump most fears.

What excites me, though in a bad way, is the belief that a Sanders nomination or his trashing of the actual Democratic nominee, as he did in 2016 would deliver another four years to Trump.

Whatever the results in the Iowa caucuses, one can be confident that they will leave an exaggerated impression of the level of Sanders support. They will reveal the preference of a tiny slice of a tiny slice of the electorate and, in the Democrats case, of an electorate more heavily weighted toward the white liberal gentry than the party at large.

Only the Democratic Party can end this undemocratic means of choosing its nominees. And it should.

Froma Harrop is a syndicated columnist.

Read the original here:

Democrats should put an end to caucuses - Boston Herald