Category Archives: Republican

Deeply conservative Oklahoma narrowly approved a ballot initiative Tuesday to expand Medicaid to nearly 200,000 low-income adults, the first state to do so in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.

The vote to expand the Affordable Care Acts reach once again put voters, many of them conservative, at odds with Republican leaders, who have worked to block it or invalidate it. Five states Maine, Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, and now Oklahoma have used ballot initiatives to expand Medicaid after their Republican governors refused to do so.

Oklahoma pushed the G.O.P. over a notable threshold: Most congressional Republicans now represent Medicaid-expansion states. The vote also came at a striking moment, less than a week after the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to overturn the entirety of Obamacare including Medicaid expansion.

What we saw last night was Medicaid expansion triumph over party and ideology, said Jonathan Schleifer, executive director of the Fairness Project, which has helped organize all the Medicaid votes. Oklahoma voted for Medicaid expansion even as Trump is doubling down on repeal.

Medicaid expansion could spread further into Republican-controlled states this year, as they weigh how to cover the many unemployed Americans expected to lose health insurance along with their jobs. Missouri voters will decide on a ballot initiative at the states August primary. If it passes, it will expand Obamacare coverage to 217,000 low-income people.

Some Wyoming legislators recently took a fresh look at the program, too, as they watched job losses mount. Ive voted against it about 10 times, never voted for it, said the states House speaker, Steve Harshman, a Republican. Now Im thinking of our work force. Were a mineral and oil kind of state. Thats a lot of able-bodied adults in a lot of industries who will probably need some coverage.

Mr. Harshman voted in May to have a legislative committee study the topic, but he does not expect any action until the bodys next session begins in January.

Medicaid expansion has proved an especially resilient part of the health care law, despite early challenges. The program, which provides coverage to Americans earning less than 133 percent of the federal poverty line (about $16,970 for an individual), was initially meant to serve all 50 states.

But in a 2012 ruling, the Supreme Court declared that states could decline to participate. The program began in 2014 with about half of the states, mostly run by Democratic governors.

That figure has grown to 37 states and the District of Columbia, as more Republican-controlled states have signed on. Many academic studies have found that the program increases enrollees access to medical care. A more limited body of research shows that the program also reduces mortality rates.

The program still faces threats, most significantly the Trump administration lawsuit to overturn the health law. The Department of Justice, alongside a coalition of 20 Republican-controlled states, submitted briefs to the Supreme Court last week arguing that the recent repeal of the individual mandate, which required all Americans to carry health coverage or pay a fine, made the entire law unconstitutional.

President Trump has found strong support in Oklahoma; he took 65 percent of the vote there in 2016 in a 36-point victory, and recently held a campaign rally in Tulsa, his first since the start of the pandemic.

Still, voters there broke with him on this issue, albeit by the margin of one percentage point. The ballot initiative drew 30,000 more voters than the states Senate primaries, suggesting that some Oklahomans came out specifically to support the insurance expansion.

Oklahoma is an awfully red state, said Adam Searing, an associate professor at Georgetown University who has tracked the states ballot effort. Its very conservative, very rural. To have it pass there is quite significant.

Oklahomas Republican leadership had opposed Medicaid expansion and initially offered more limited alternatives. Gov. Kevin Stitt outlined a program in January in which new low-income enrollees would pay modest premiums and be required to work to gain coverage.

He went on to veto that program, after the legislature secured its funding.

Oklahoma was also the first state to ask the Trump administration for permission to convert its Medicaid program to block grant funding, an idea strongly pushed by Mr. Trumps health appointees. The state would receive a lump-sum payment from the federal government to run the program with additional flexibility. Opponents of that proposal worry that such a funding formula could struggle to keep up with increased enrollment in an economic downturn.

Oklahoma submitted its application in April, and the Trump administration had not issued a decision before the Tuesday vote.

Oklahomas ballot initiative is notable in being the first to add the Medicaid expansion to the states Constitution. That will make it hard for Governor Stitt and the Republican-controlled legislature to tinker with or block the program, as other governors have sought to do in the wake of successful ballot initiatives. Most notably, when Paul LePage was governor of Maine, he declared he would go to jail before implementing the states Medicaid ballot initiative. The situation was resolved when a Democratic governor was elected and set up the coverage expansion.

In Oklahoma, ballot organizers can pursue either statutory or constitutional initiatives. The latter have more staying power but also require gathering twice as many signatures. Amber England, who led the ballot effort, felt the additional work was worth it.

If were going to ask people to get clipboards and pens, and gather signatures, we want to make the policy as strong as possible, she said. It was important that we protect Oklahomans access to health with the Constitution. We didnt want politicians to be able to take that right away.

Missouri will be the next state to vote on Medicaid expansion, in its Aug. 4 primary. The state is a party to the Trump administrations case against Obamacare. Gov. Michael Parson, a Republican, has publicly opposed that ballot initiative, which he argues is too costly in the midst of an economic downturn. Missouri would need to cover 10 percent of new Medicaid enrollees bills, with the federal government paying the other 90 percent.

I dont think its the time to be expanding anything in the state of Missouri right now, Mr. Parson told a local television station in early May. Theres absolutely not going to be any extra money whatsoever.

Here is the original post:

Republican Leaders Want to End Obamacare. Their Voters Are Expanding It. - The New York Times

That's why it's perhaps surprising that Republican voters and lawmakers have been disagreeing with Trump quite a bit lately.

This follows what happened in North Carolina a little more than a week ago. Trump (and Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows) endorsed Lynda Bennett, but she didn't come close to winning. Instead, it was political newcomer Madison Cawthorn who earned the Republican nomination.

Any of these losses on their own wouldn't be noteworthy, and none of the winning candidates were anti-Trump. Still, it's quite unusual for an incumbent president to support three primary losers in about a three-week period. Just being pro-Trump is not enough to survive.

If nothing else, these defeats show a President who is perhaps not as in touch with his constituents as we might have believed.

Republican lawmakers, too, have shown a willingness to buck Trump a number of times over the past few weeks.

These rebukes of the President should not be seen as campaign-altering events for 2020. Trump still enjoys a lot of support from Republicans in and out of Washington.

For a President who will need to squeeze every bit possible out of the Republican base, any defections are damaging. There seems to be more of a willingness for Republicans to do that lately.

More:

Trump's on a losing streak with Republicans - CNN

WASHINGTON (AP) In Republican circles -- with the notable exception of the man who leads the party -- the debate about masks is over: Its time to put one on.

As a surge of infections hammers the South and West, GOP officials are pushing back against the notion that masks are about politics, as President Donald Trump suggests, and telling Americans they can help save lives.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, on Tuesday bluntly called on Trump to start wearing a mask, at least some of the time, to set a good example.

Unfortunately, this simple, lifesaving practice has become part of a political debate that says: If youre for Trump, you dont wear a mask. If youre against Trump, you do, Alexander said.

Its a rare break for Republicans from Trump, who earlier this month told the Wall Street Journal that some people wear masks simply to show that they disapprove of him. And the Republican nudges for the public -- and the president -- to embrace mask-wearing are coming from all corners of Trumps party and even from friendly conservative media.

Both Vice President Mike Pence and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in recent days have urged Americans to wear one when they are unable to maintain social distance. Sen. Mitt Romney, a Utah Republican, told reporters it would be very helpful for Trump to encourage mask usage.

Put on a mask -- its not complicated, McConnell, R-Ky., urged Americans during his weekly news conference Tuesday.

Last week, Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming tweeted a photo of her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, wearing a disposable mask and a cowboy hat. She included the message: Dick Cheney says WEAR A MASK #realmenwearmasks, a hashtag that echoed words spoken earlier by the Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Steve Doocy, co-host of a Trump friendly morning show Fox & Friends, said during an interview with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy that he doesnt see any downside in the president being seen more often wearing it.

McCarthy, R-Calif., responded that, for the upcoming holiday, we could all show our patriotism with a red, white and blue mask.

Jacksonville, the Florida city where Trump is scheduled to accept his renomination as Republicans presidential candidate in August, announced a mask requirement for indoor public spaces this week. The presidents eldest son said the new requirements were no big deal.

You know, I dont think that its too complicated to wear a mask or wash your hands and follow basic hygiene protocols, Donald Trump Jr. told Fox Business on Tuesday.

Trump aides have defended the presidents refusal to wear a mask by noting that he is regularly tested for the coronavirus, as are his aides. Those outside the administration -- including White House visitors and members of the media who are in close proximity to him and Pence -- are also tested.

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany didnt directly address Republican calls for Trump to wear a mask in public more often, but noted that the president has said in the past he has no problem wearing one when necessary.

But even with safeguards, the virus has found its way into the White House. A top aide to Pence, as well as a military valet to Trump, in May tested positive for the virus.

Still, mask usage remains rare in the West Wing, said Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat who attended an intelligence briefing at the White House on Tuesday with senior members of the presidents staff.

At the briefing, which he said included about eight White House staffers, only national security adviser Robert OBrien wore a mask, Sherman said. He added that no one in the secure briefing room was able to maintain 6 feet (1.8 meters) of social distancing, as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

I learned something major, and that is the White House is a mask-free zone, Sherman told The Associated Press. The president is consistent. Hes fine with people not wearing masks.

Polls show how the partisan divide on masks has seeped into public opinion.

The vast majority of Democrats think people in their community should wear a mask when they are near other people in public places at least most of the time, including 63% who say they should always, according to a Pew Research Center poll published in early June. Among Republicans, 29% say masks should be worn always, and 23% say they should be worn most of the time. Another 23% say masks should rarely or never be worn.

Trump has been caught on camera once wearing a mask. But Pence and members of the White House coronavirus task force frequently appear in public wearing masks.

If you want the return of college football this year, wear a face covering. If you want a chance at prom next spring, wear a face covering, Surgeon General Jerome Adams urged Americans.

Over the course of the crisis, the government has sent mixed messages on masks. As the first COVID-19 cases were identified on U.S. soil, top public health officials insisted masks should be reserved for front-line workers.

In early April, the CDC issued a recommendation that people wear cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures were difficult to maintain.

But Trump immediately undercut the CDC guidance by flatly stating that he wouldnt be following it, suggesting it would be unseemly for the commander in chief to wear one as he meets with heads of states.

Other world leaders, including Canadas Justin Trudeau and Frances Emmanuel Macron, have worn masks in public and urged their citizens to do the same when they cant maintain social distance

Lawrence Gostin, a public health expert at Georgetown University, says he worries Republican calls for wearing masks might be too late.

The public has received such mixed messages from the administration, Gostin said. I fear we may be stuck with coronavirus until it burns through the American population and leaves hundreds of thousands dead.

___

Associated Press writers Jill Colvin, Darlene Superville and Hannah Fingerhut in Washington contributed to this report.

Excerpt from:

Republicans, with exception of Trump, now push mask-wearing - The Associated Press

The Republican Party is souring on experienced politicians. It is nominating and electing more and more congressional candidates who have not served in government. And experienced Republicans are more vulnerable than Democrats to challenges from populist outsiders.

Those are conclusions we reach after exploring data on how House candidates with and without prior office-holding experience fared in elections from 1990 to 2016, the most recent presidential election year. We hasten to say that we are not pioneers. The trends we found have been documented by other scholars, such as Sarah Treul and Rachel Porter in both an article and a research paper. We are especially grateful to Danielle Thomsen of the University of California, Irvine, who provided all of the data in this report.

Our dive into the data adds additional texture. It helps explain, we think, the increasingly insurgent, populist bent that the GOP was displaying well before Donald Trumps arrivaland will likely continue to display after he has left the scene.

Politics is a difficult job, and experience matters. It does not ensure competence, and it can breed complacency and corruption, but knowing the ropes in government, building political capital, and learning to navigate political cross-currents take time. For that reason, both partiestheir establishments and voters alikehave traditionally considered prior experience in office a plus when choosing candidates for Congress.

Still, there are lots of political newcomers entering House primaries. We find that 70% to 80% of primary candidates are what we will call inexperienced (or amateurs), meaning they lack prior experience in elective office. We contrast them with what we will call experienced candidates (or office-holders), candidates coming from other elective positions. (Thomsen uses Gary C. Jacobsons measure of candidate quality, indicating whether the candidate has ever held elective public office of any kind.) Over time, there has not been much change in the supply of newcomers in either party

But the demand for newcomers has been higher, in general, among Republicans than Democrats. As Figure 1 shows, amateurs have generally fared better against experienced candidates in Republican primaries than in Democratic primaries, especially during the period of the Republican revolution that swept the House into Republican hands in 1994. And in 2016, with a populist newcomer at the top of the ticket, Republican amateurs fared extraordinarily well, beating experienced nonincumbents in more than half of the primaries where they squared off.

Figure 1

The parties differential receptivity to amateurs flowed through to general elections (where, of course, the candidate pool reflects the results of the primaries). Figure 2 shows the number of Democratic newcomers to the House, including the shares with and without prior political experience. Except in 2006, a wave year for Democrats, office-holders commandingly dominate the Democratic freshman class. Democratic House leaders have been working with a steadily replenished supply of members with political chops.

Figure 2

Figure 3 shows Republican newcomers to the House. The Republican wave elections of 1994 and 2010 are very evident, bringing masses of new faces. Just as significant, Republicans almost always elected more amateurs than Democrats did, both in absolute numbers and as a proportion of each years freshman class.

Figure 3

Republicans predilection for amateurs grew especially pronounced the 2010s, when almost as many Republican freshmen were amateurs as office-holders; and in 2016, more than half of the GOP freshman class was inexperienced. Republican leaders thus found themselves working with a steady inflow of outsiders.

Political scientists have observed a growing gap in the characters of the two parties. The Democrats look more like a traditional coalitional party, promoting talent through its ranks and assembling support from its constellation of interest and identity groups. Republicans look more like an insurgent movement (as our Brookings colleague Thomas E. Mann and the American Enterprise Institutes Norman J. Ornstein argue), or an ideological movement (per Matt Grossman and David A. Hopkins), or elements of both. The data we presenttypical of a variety of indicia we looked atsupport their case. Among Republicans, both the supply of insurgent candidates and the demand for them is high and growing.

It is important to note that, in this century, insurgency has become a more common phenomenon in both parties. After spiking in the early 1990s, that rate was comparatively low, under 30 percent. But it soared in the most recent decade, to the point where half of House incumbents faced a primary challenge.

Within that general trend, however, the parties are again drifting apart. Figure 4 shows the likelihood that an incumbent in a battleground districtan incumbent where the margin in the most recent presidential race was 60-40 or closerwill face a primary challenge. These are the districts where party gatekeeping in primary matters most, because primary challenges could well cost the party the seat in the general election.

Figure 4

As the chart shows, in recent years Republicans have had much more difficulty than Democrats in preventing challenges to incumbents in battleground districts, and the gap has grown over time. In other words, Republicans have lost much of their ability to ward off primary bids by insurgents and outsiders in these key races. That may be because conservative activists have grown more extreme and insurgent, or because the party establishments have weakened, or, as we suspect, both.

Either way, the story all these data seem to tell is that a source of todays polarization is the Republican Partys base. Recent research by Ray La Raja and Zachary Albert likewise suggests that the Republican base is less willing to play ball with its party establishment than is the Democratic base.

All of which suggests that the Republican Party is growing more unruly and disruptiveharder to govern, and harder to govern with.

Read more here:

How inexperienced candidates and primary challenges are making Republicans the protest party - Brookings Institution

A tribal tension had infused downtown, Kuhn observes. Among the tribes were the police, who were anything but New Yorks finest that day. Mostly, they stood aside while the hard hats ran amok; examples of their nonfeasance abound. Some of them even egged on the thuggery. When a group of hard hats moved menacingly toward a Wall Street plaza, a patrolman shouted: Give em hell, boys. Give em one for me! Yet the police were never held accountable for failing to stop the marauding, and few hard hats owned up to the extent of their violence.

Kuhn favors straightforward journalistic prose, with few grand flourishes. In setting scenes, he tends toward a staccato, some of it overdone: One speaker exuded Establishment. The jacket and tie. A WASP face with a Roman nose. The side-swept hair, straight and trim with delicate bangs, a tidy mustache, pinkish skin. Hardly every antiwar protester merits his go-to characterization of them as potty-mouthed hippies.

But over all, this is a compelling narrative about a horrific day. In their fury, the hard hats left more than 100 wounded, the typical victim being a 22-year-old white male collegian, though one in four was a woman; seven police officers were also hurt. Kuhn concludes that while the workers plainly came loaded for bear, their tantrum was essentially spontaneous and not, as some believed, part of a grand conspiracy.

That said, they were just what some conservative strategists were looking for. Patrick Buchanan, then a Nixon aide, said of blue-collar Americans in a memo to the boss, These, quite candidly, are our people now. He wasnt wrong. Republicans have since catered as ever to the rich but they have also curried favor with working-class whites, while Democrats seem more focused on others: racial minorities, gays, immigrants. Thanks in good measure to white blue-collar disaffection, Trump in 2016 narrowly won Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, a hat trick he may yet pull off again in November.

In a way, Vietnam continues to cast its shadow. A short walk from those 1970 streets of chaos, there is a memorial to the 1,741 New Yorkers who died in the war. Its dominant feature is a wall of thick glass etched with reflections on combat, including part of a haunting letter sent home from Vietnam in 1968. One thing worries me will people believe me? The Navy lieutenant Richard W. Strandberg wrote. Will they want to hear about it, or will they want to forget the whole thing ever happened?

Indeed, most Americans forgot about Vietnam long ago. The same has been true about the shameful hard-hat riot of 1970. Until now.

See the original post:

The Day the White Working Class Turned Republican - The New York Times

Rich Lowry, editor of the conservative National Review and author of The Case for Nationalism, said in an interview, No one can dismiss this and say its completely implausible.

There is at the very least a significant faction within the Republican Party that [Carlson] has a huge stake in and arguably leadership over, Lowry, who writes a column for POLITICO, said. If he has political ambitions, he has an opening. He has a following and a taste for controversy. Hes smart, quick on his feet and personable. Political experience matters less than it once did.

Carlson has never run for office and has been dismissive of doing so in the past. In 2012, Nunberg said Republican operative Roger Stone unsuccessfully pushed Carlson to run on the Libertarian ticket. Stone told POLITICO in an email that [i]t is not inconceivable that I may have raised it in jest or in passing as repartee, but have no memory of that.

On his show, Carlson has made it abundantly clear that he thinks Trumps election in 2016 was not a freak accident. Instead, he views it as a righteous repudiation of a morally bankrupt Republican Party that had become obsessed with capital gains tax cuts and foreign wars. This week, he warned his viewers to watch out for vultures [who] wait just off stage to swoop in and claim the GOP for themselves once Donald Trump is gone, name-checking likely 2024 candidate Nikki Haley.

The moment Trump leaves, they will attack him, he said. Theyll tell you that Republicans lost power because they were mean and intolerant just like Donald Trump. ... Its a lie.

It is just one of many exhortations from the past month that have propelled Carlson to new popularity among the GOP base. As Republicans across the country and in Congress have expressed newfound openness to reforming the police and taking down Confederate monuments in the wake of protests, Carlson has denounced the Black Lives Matter movement and derided Republicans who have gone along with it.

This may be a lot of things, this moment we are living through. But it is definitely not about black lives, and remember that when they come for you, Mr. Carlson said in one 25-minute monologue on June 8 that has over 5.4 million views on YouTube. That lost him high-profile advertisers, including Disney, Papa Johns and T-Mobile, whose chief executive tweeted, Bye-bye."

A Fox News spokesperson said that Tuckers warning about when they come for you was clearly referring to Democratic leaders and politicians.

Carlson faced a similar advertiser exodus in 2018 after saying that immigrants make "our own country poorer and dirtier and more divided.

Carlson emerged from the backlash apparently unchastened.

The angry children you watched set fire to Wendy's and topple statues and scream at you on television day after day are truly and utterly stupid, he said on his show last week. And he has repeatedly pushed back on the idea that racism is systemic in the country. Overall, this is the least racist country in the history of the world, he said a few days earlier. Millions of Africans want to move here. Many already have. Our last president was black. What are you talking about?

His audience has rewarded him with blockbuster ratings.

What hes been saying speaks for a lot of people, and its basically not expressed or serviced by most Republican politicians, Lowry said. Theres a lot to be said for being fearless, and he is, while Republican politicians, as a breed, are not.

Carlson has also earned powerful enemies in the party for his regular missives aimed at lawmakers and power brokers attacks that he has kept up for the past month.

After Haley said the killing of George Floyd needs to be personal and painful for everyone in order for the country to heal, Carlson said, What Nikki Haley does best is moral blackmail. A Haley spokesperson declined to respond.

When Republican Sens. Ron Johnson and James Lankford this week proposed making Juneteenth a national holiday and doing away with Columbus Day in order to keep the number of national holidays the same, Tucker mocked the effort. "They describe themselves as conservatives, as improbable as that may seem," he said.

Carlson painted with a wider brush this week, saying Republican Party leaders so-called principles turned out to be bumper stickers they wrote 40 years ago. In a sentiment that drew praise from some conservatives and liberals alike, he added that, Instead of improving the lives of their voters, the party feeds them a steady diet of mindless, symbolic victories partisan junk food designed to make them feel full even as they waste away. Carlson apologized, to the extent this show has participated in it.

Carlson even tore into Trumps top aide and son-in-law Jared Kushner. No one has more contempt for Donald Trump's voters than Jared Kushner does, and no one expresses it more frequently, he said last month. He blamed Kushner for moderating the president on immigration, law enforcement and foreign policy.

The Kushner-bashing made some Trump-aligned Republicans wary of praising Carlson on the record. But several are bullish about a potential candidacy.

I think everybody views Pence the same: What a great guy. But I dont think anybody thinks hes the force of nature that it takes to win the presidency, said one former White House official. I think Day One, Tucker probably starts ahead of those people if he does run.

A Republican strategist close to the White House added: If you are a Republican politician and you want to know where Republican voters are, all you have to do is watch Tucker Carlson every night.

View post:

Tucker Carlson 2024? The GOP is buzzing - POLITICO

Senate Republicans fear President TrumpDonald John TrumpProtesters tear down statue of Christopher Columbus in Baltimore 'Independence Day' star Bill Pullman urges Americans to wear a 'freedom mask' in July 4 PSA Protesters burn American flag outside White House after Trump's July Fourth address MORE is putting them into a political no-win situation by threatening to veto a popular defense policy bill over bipartisan language to rename military bases named after Confederate generals.

GOP lawmakers are trying to wave the president off his veto threat and may end up delaying the bill to avoid a political disaster before Election Day.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellPublic awareness campaigns will protect the public during COVID-19 Democrats: A moment in history, use it wisely 'Comrade' Trump gets 'endorsement' from Putin in new mock ad by Lincoln Project MORE (R-Ky.) on Wednesday urged Trump not to veto the $740.5 billion bill over a provision sponsored by Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenThe Hill's Campaign Report: Biden chips away at Trump's fundraising advantage Warnock raises almost M in Georgia Senate race in second quarter The Hill's Morning Report - Trump lays low as approval hits 18-month low MORE (D-Mass.) mandating the secretary of Defense rename military installations named after Confederate generals.

I would hope the president really wouldn't veto the bill over this issue, McConnell told Fox News. I hope the president will reconsider vetoing the entire defense bill,which includes pay raises for our troops, over a provision in there that could lead to changing the names.

With Trump and several Senate GOP incumbents down in the polls to Democratic opponents, Republican lawmakers are not looking forward to a racially charged debate in Congress over preserving the memories of Confederate generals.

We are now in an era of live grenades lying around. Nobody wants to jump on them, said Sen. Pat RobertsCharles (Pat) Patrick RobertsPeter Thiel sours on Trump's reelection chances: report Republicans fear backlash over Trump's threatened veto on Confederate names Cook Political Report shifts Montana Senate race to 'toss up' MORE (R-Kan.).

A messy partisan fight over bases named after Confederate generals could also further drive away swing suburban voters, who are already dropping away from Trump, according to recent polls.

Trump on Sunday tweeted and then deleted a video of a support at a retirement community in Florida chanting white power, further exacerbating the fears of GOP lawmakers that his style is too divisive.

If Trump doesnt relent on the threatened veto, its likely Republicans will not let the defense policy bill go to the presidents desk before the Nov. 3 general election.

It will probably be November by the time it would be coming to his desk anyway. A lot can happen between now and then, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman James InhofeJames (Jim) Mountain InhofeRepublicans fear backlash over Trump's threatened veto on Confederate names Senate rejects Paul proposal on withdrawing troops from Afghanistan Liberal veterans group urges Biden to name Duckworth VP MORE (R-Okla.) told reporters Wednesday. He said of course it would be a mistake to veto the defense bill and expressed hope the base-naming provision could somehow be removed from the bill, asserting theres lots of pathways to do so.

Sen. Josh HawleyJoshua (Josh) David HawleyRepublicans fear backlash over Trump's threatened veto on Confederate names McConnell: Trump shouldn't veto defense bill over renaming Confederate bases Trump warns of defense bill veto over military base renaming amendment MORE (R-Mo.), a rising conservative star, for example, has an amendment to remove the mandate for the Defense secretary to change the base names.

But others in the GOP, including SenateRepublican Whip John ThuneJohn Randolph ThuneRepublicans fear backlash over Trump's threatened veto on Confederate names McConnell: Trump shouldn't veto defense bill over renaming Confederate bases Senate Republicans defend Trump's response on Russian bounties MORE (S.D.), warn it will be extremely difficult to remove the base-naming language. Doing so on the Senate floor would require 60 votes, and the entire Democratic conference and several Republicans support the provision.

The prospects of taking it out in a Senate-House conference negotiation is also unlikely because the House is expected to add similar, if not stronger, language to its version of the bill.

That means the surest way to avoid a veto before Election Day is to keep the bill off Trumps desk until after Nov. 3 unless the president changes his mind.

Republicans view the defense bill, formally known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), as must-passlegislation. It has been passed annually for 59 consecutive years and is seen as a crucial benchmark of governance.

Republicans are leery about a battle with Democrats over preserving the legacies of Confederate generals at a time when the Black Lives Matter movement and social justice are dominating the national political conversation.

Three Republicans on the Armed Services Committee supported changing the names of military bases during the panel's voice vote last month.The trio included two Republicans in tough reelection races, Sens. Martha McSallyMartha Elizabeth McSallyACLU calls on Congress to approve COVID-19 testing for immigrants Republicans fear backlash over Trump's threatened veto on Confederate names Political establishment takes a hit as chaos reigns supreme MORE (Ariz.) and Joni ErnstJoni Kay ErnstSunday shows preview: Lawmakers to address alarming spike in coronavirus cases Republicans fear backlash over Trump's threatened veto on Confederate names Senate Republicans defend Trump's response on Russian bounties MORE (Iowa), along with Sen. Mike RoundsMarion (Mike) Michael RoundsRepublicans fear backlash over Trump's threatened veto on Confederate names Republican rift opens up over qualified immunity for police GOP divided in fight over renaming bases MORE (S.D.).

Other Republicans such as Sen. Mitt RomneyWillard (Mitt) Mitt RomneyQAnon scores wins, creating GOP problem Republicans fear backlash over Trump's threatened veto on Confederate names Overnight Defense: Lawmakers demand answers on reported Russian bounties for US troops deaths in Afghanistan | Defense bill amendments target Germany withdrawal, Pentagon program giving weapons to police MORE (Utah) also support changing base names.

I would support changing the names of bases that were named in honor of Confederate generals. Those individuals fought against the United States of American and we should instead be honoring people who fought for the United States of America, he told reporters Wednesday.

Senate Minority Leader CharlesSchumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday dared Trump to give Democrats a big gift before the election.

I dare President Trump to veto the bill over Confederate base naming. Its in the bill, it has bipartisan support, it will stay in the bill, he said.

Democrats say that Trump would look completely out of step with changing sentiments on race if he vetoed the defense bill, especially after Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves (R) signed legislation this week to take down the Mississippi state flag, which has the Confederate battle flag embedded within it.

I just think it would be a mistake. I think hes out of sync with the opinion all across the country, said Sen. Jack ReedJohn (Jack) Francis ReedSunday shows preview: Lawmakers to address alarming spike in coronavirus cases Republicans fear backlash over Trump's threatened veto on Confederate names Senate Dems request briefing on Russian bounty wire transfers MORE (R.I.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. He noted that the state of Mississippi is moving to change its flag and NASCAR has banned the Confederate battle flag at races.

Other Republicans agree with McConnell that vetoing the massive defense bill would be a mistake.

I plan on voting for the bill if that provision is in there or if its modified, said Sen. Shelley Moore CapitoShelley Wellons Moore CapitoRepublicans fear backlash over Trump's threatened veto on Confederate names McConnell makes strong call for masks, saying there should be no stigma Ernst sinks vote on Trump EPA nominee MORE (R-W.Va.). I would hope the president wouldnt veto it."

Its a bipartisan effort to arm our military and arm our defenses, she said.

Sen. Marco RubioMarco Antonio RubioCongress eyes tighter restrictions on next round of small business help Trump administration eyes new strategy on COVID-19 tests ACLU calls on Congress to approve COVID-19 testing for immigrants MORE (R-Fla.) said he has some concerns with the details of the Warren provision because it mandates an outcome but told reporters that he "wouldnt vote against the bill because of that provision.

Ultimately, I dont think the name of a facility should be something thats divisive or offensive to people especially if there are better alternatives to it, he said. But it has to be through a process, a considered process.

The Warren amendment, which was adopted during a closed-door committee markup, would require military bases and other property commemorating the Confederate States of America to be renamed after an implementing commission reviews the issue for three years.

I personally dont have any problem with renaming bases. We have plenty of American military heroes that we can rename these things after, Rubio said.

The NDAA is so important and [has] so many important elements in it that I dont believe that alone should be enough reason to either vote against it or veto it, he added.

Sen. Ron JohnsonRonald (Ron) Harold JohnsonCongress eyes tighter restrictions on next round of small business help Republicans fear backlash over Trump's threatened veto on Confederate names GOP senators debate replacing Columbus Day with Juneteenth as a federal holiday MORE (R-Wis.) said hopefully we can get by that.

We obviously need to pass NDAA. It needs to be signed into law, he added.

Link:

Republicans fear backlash over Trump's threatened veto on Confederate names | TheHill - The Hill

ROLLA In 2016, Donald Trump received 70% or more of the vote in most of Missouri's non-urban counties, continuing a trend of the GOP dominating rural areas.

A group of 23 Democrats running in those areas is hoping that working together will reverse that tendency.

To Empower All Missourians includes Democrats running for Congress, statewide office and state legislative seats. The goal is to share resources, volunteers and best practices to improve their odds in the November election.

Kathy Ellis, a Democrat from Festus who is making her second attempt at Missouris 8th Congressional District seat in the southwest part of the state, is leading the effort.

Something like this would have been huge the first time I ran, Ellis said. Its very lonely, and theres not that much financial support. Theres not that many people who are that interested. And so you really need some help from people who have been there.

The group has developed a unified platform, which Ellis called a simpler, more concise version of the state partys platform.

An online launch of the group resulted in 300 new volunteers signing up to help the candidates.

Were looking at how we can get candidates what they need to know, and what things work and what things dont, Ellis said. And I think its going to have a much more educational component.

Ellis said the goal is to eventually have the group take on unified fundraising efforts.

But any plan to change the voting patterns of rural residents is an uphill battle, said Bryant Moy, a doctoral candidate at Washington University and co-author of The Urban-Rural Gulf in American Political Behavior published in the journal Political Behavior.

Our research shows regardless of demographics, education level or any other factor, people who live in less densely populated areas that are not close to a major city overwhelmingly vote Republican, Moy said.

Moy pointed out that most of the congressional districts represented in TEAM havent seen a Democrat win office in decades. He also said that while coordination and better campaigns might help a little, bigger shifts in the political landscape are likely necessary to change voting tendencies in rural areas.

The pandemic and President Trumps historically low approval ratings could make things different. But it would be a radical change from what we have seen for a long time, Moy said.

Ellis said creating TEAM is a long-term plan, not just something that is focusing on the 2020 election.

We want to build something that is sustainable. We might only win a few of the offices we are going for this year, but this is an effort that can pay dividends in the long run, she said.

Follow Jonathan on Twitter: @JonathanAhl

Our priority is you. Support coverage thats reliable, trustworthy and more essential than ever. Donate today.

Send questions and comments about this story to feedback@stlpublicradio.org

Read the original:

Missouri Democrats Are Teaming Up To Try To Break Republicans' Lock On Rural Areas - KBIA

As a general proposition, when the nation is in a state of crisis, things do not go well for the Presidents party. When a war becomes a quagmire (Korea in 52, Vietnam in 68), when the economy craters (1980, 2008), voters look for a different leader. Far from a retreat to safety or a rally round the flag sentiment, there is an instinct to show the people in charge the way to the exit. (George W. Bushs re-election in 2004 may be a counterexample, but it took place in the broad wake of anxiety over the attacks of September 11three years before the electionand before the baleful consequences of the Iraq War were fully clear.)

This trend also has clear consequences for the Senate. When things are going reasonably well, and voters re-elect a President, senators from the other party often feel no impact at all. In 1972, Richard Nixon was returned to office in a historic landslide, winning 49 states and 60 per cent of the popular vote. But there wasnt a corresponding Republican sweep of Congress; in fact, Democrats picked up two Senate seats. In 1988, in a country buoyed by the flush economy of the Reagan years, George H.W. Bush won with an electoral landslide of 442 votesbut again, Democrats gained a Senate seat. In 1996, Bill Clinton glided to an easy re-election, but it was Republicans who picked up two Senate seats.

Those were essentially feel-good elections, where the nation was more or less comfortable with things as they were, and that comfort extended to whichever party held a Congressional majority. In contrast, look at what happened to the Senate the last two times voters were buffeted by economic woes. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter by 10 points, Democrats lost a remarkable 12 Senate seatsand with them, control of the chamber. In 2008, when Barack Obama was elected in the midst of a financial meltdown, Republicans lost eight senate seats, greatly strengthening the Democratic majority. (In the 2012 Obama re-election, only two Senate seats changed, and in the 1984 Reagan re-election 49 state landslide, Democrats picked up two.)

This year, the Senate Republicans hold a majority, again making them vulnerable to any vote to toss out the status quo. But dont voters make different choices when they vote for a President and then a Senator? Once upon a time, yes.

The potentially awful news for Republican Senate candidates is another historical trend: the increasing link between votes cast for a Presidential contender and votes cast for senators, which makes it harder to create distance from an unpopular incumbent.

It wasnt that long ago that ticket-splitting was commonplace. In 1992, 10 Senate candidates were elected from states that had given their electoral votes to the other party. But as party identification became more and more the key indicator of how votes were cast, this impulse all but disappeared. In 2016, every victorious Senate candidate came from a state whose presidential votes had gone to the same party. The days when Republican Al DAmato could retain his New York Senate seat in the wake of a million-vote plurality for Bill Clinton in 1992 seem a distant memory.

Now turn to the Senate map, and its clear how these factors combine to produce a migraine for any strategist looking to hold the Senate for the Republicans. Not that long ago, Republicans were a good bet to hold the Senate even though they held 23 of the 35 contested seats. Only twoCory Gardner of Colorado and Susan Collins of Mainewere in states that Hillary Clinton carried in 2016. Even with Arizona and North Carolina as potential Presidential battlegrounds, that left at most four vulnerable Republicans. And with Alabama Democrat Doug Jones a very likely loser, there was little breathing room for Democrats to pick up the three net seats theyd need to capture the Senate, assuming Biden wins in November.

Nowat least measured by pollsa passel of states now seem within Bidens reach, many of them with incumbent Republican senators up for re-election. Hes even in Georgia, where both incumbent Republican senators will be on the ballot; hes even in Iowa, where Joni Ernst is up for re-election. And if Biden is going to make a real fight in Georgia and Iowa, that means a get-out-the-vote effort that will bring a lot of Democrats to the polls there.

Nor is it necessary for Biden to actually win a state to provide aid to a Senate candidate: In Montana, Democratic Governor Steve Bullock won re-election in 2016 while Trump was winning the state by 20 points. The most recent Presidential poll shows Trump leading in Montana by only five points; a margin that would give Bullock, now the Democrats Senate candidate, a real shot at unseating Steve Daines and flipping that seat to the Dems. A close race in North Carolinawhich Trump carried by 3 1/2 points four years ago, and where he trails by four in the most recent surveyis a clear and present danger to Senator Tom Tillis. (Most recent surveys show Trump falling further behind Biden in the wake of his disastrous leadership in the George Floyd casealthough if job numbers continue this weeks apparent turnaround, Trumps fortunes could improve.)

Now put yourself in the position of one of these endangered incumbents, especially in states where Trump is particularly unpopular, like Colorado or Maine. If youre tempted to create some distance from President Trump, to assert your independence, youre facing one pesky obstacle: The Republican Party is effectively now a wholly owned subsidiary of Trumpworld, and independence from the President is a trait that all but guarantees instant and massive pushback from your own party.

You have only to gaze around the Senate chamber, where ex-Senator Dean Heller, ex-Senator Jeff Flake, and ex-Senator Bob Corker sat, to see what happened to colleagues who did not tug the forelock with sufficient enthusiasm. If youre Gardner, or Collins, the temptation to confront the Presidents behavior has to be weighed against the likely outrage from the party apparatus whose help you need in an election, to say nothing of the populist media that animates your rank-and-file voters.

This election, of course, is taking place with even fewer known knowns than usual. Before the pandemic, before the killing of George Floyd, wed gone from Biden is toast to can Sanders be stopped? to contested convention! to Bidens the nominee in roughly 10 days. Since Trump has broken pretty much every rule about Presidential politics so far, he may well be able to defy history and turn the current crises to his advantage. (Its also possible that if Trump drops further in the polls, GOP incumbents may conclude that their chances for survival are better if they leave the burning ship of stateand discover some safety in numbers.)

But if you are playing the percentages, the odds say that if the President cannot persuade a rattled, fretful electorate to say with him, he will take the Republican Senate down with him.

See the article here:

Is the Crisis Putting the Republican Senate in Jeopardy? - POLITICO

WASHINGTON Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins the ultimate authority on whether a mass gathering can be held during COVID-19 ruled out bringing the Republican National Convention to Dallas, saying Saturday that the event is too big to be safe.

He cited the current code red rating from the countys Public Health Committee. At that risk level, people should stay home and avoid crowds.

President Donald Trump is insisting on a traditional convention that includes 19,000 GOP delegates and officials, plus thousands of news media, donors, security and protesters.

They strongly recommend against that, Jenkins said of the countys epidemiology and infectious disease experts. I made my peace early on to follow the lead of doctors and so I would respect that. And that would be my position on that.

North Carolinas governor, Democrat Roy Cooper, has refused to promise that Republicans can gather as planned in Charlotte, which was picked two years ago.

For the past week, the Republican National Committee has scrambled to find a fallback, naming a half-dozen cities as contenders, including Dallas; Orlando and Jacksonville, Fla.; Phoenix; and Nashville, Tenn.

RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel told the Charlotte host committee on Thursday that the party is turning its focus to cities that have actively courted the massive event.

In fact, Dallas has taken no steps to lure the convention to the city, and local officials express no enthusiasm.

Mayor Eric Johnson said Friday that hes heard nothing from the GOP and isnt mounting a bid. He noted that the county has the ultimate say on approving such an event during a pandemic. The convention and visitors bureau, VisitDallas, is also unaware of any effort to bring the convention to the area, and it coordinated the citys bid for the 2016 GOP convention six years ago.

Jenkins, speaking with journalists Saturday via video as part of the Texas Democratic Partys virtual convention, confirmed that he hasnt discussed the convention with anyone, either, let alone issued an invitation.

I havent had any conversations with anyone planning the convention, he said in response to a question from The Dallas Morning News. What I hope they will do is look at the guidelines. Anyone can go to DallasCountyCovid.org, and you can look at what our local doctors are saying. What theyre saying is that were now at a red color.

The four-day convention is scheduled to start Aug. 24.

Red, the highest level of public health danger under Dallas Countys system, calls for a stay home, stay safe response.

Among the recommendations: Eliminate non-essential travel and group settings. For essential travel, practice strict physical distancing, wear facial coverings. Avoid all group settings or crowded areas at hotels or other facilities. Do not eat in shared dining areas. Avoid travel if over 65 or in a high-risk group.

A convention that big is unwise, Jenkins said, even if we get to an orange or yellow color, which, frankly, given the spike and deaths and things were seeing, is unlikely to happen by the time of the convention, unfortunately.

Excerpt from:

Dallas County judge rules out Republican convention, citing COVID-19 risk of mass event Trump demands - The Dallas Morning News