Archive for the ‘Democrat’ Category

Perseverance when faced with a checkmate | Clergy Corner – Woodland Daily Democrat

By Mike Umbenhaur, Pastor Woodland Presbyterian Church

One of the side-effects of being ordered to shelter-in-place for all this time has to be acquiring a desire to watch television, movies or LIVE-streaming videos. I cannot believe how much I have watched series after series; sometimes spending an entire day binge-watching something! I know that is probably not how a pastor should be spending his time. However, I know that I am NOT alone!

A series that my wife and I watched, as did many others, was Netflixs The Queens Gambit. It is the story of an orphaned girl, who learns the intricacies and finer points and strategies of chess. Her journey is filled with drug and alcohol abuse, as well as her rise to the top in the world of chess in the 1960s. She had the ability to see her opponents options several moves ahead. It allowed her to understand and escape traps that were laid for her and the ability to set traps for her challengers.

Contrary to what so many viewers expected, she did not win every match. But she did learn from her mistakes, and several times was able to see she had at least one more move to make.

That reminds me of a story (I do not know where the story originated) of two men visiting an art museum. They were enjoying a painting entitled, Checkmate. It featured a man playing chess against the devil. The man has only his king left. Hence the title. One of the two men looking at the painting notices something and says, We have to find the artist! Either the picture has to be changed or the title of it has to change! And the other man asks his friend, Why? The man says, Because the king still has one more move!

Friends, that is the story of the Resurrection of Jesus. His followers came to the tomb that morning and all they could see was Checkmate. They had given up dreaming and given up hope. But the angel at the tomb that morning said, He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay (Matthew 28:6).

You may be facing financial loss or marital strife; you may be estranged from your children or your parents. You might be standing at the graveside of a loved one, and it all feels like checkmate.

Whatever you face, today or tomorrow, Jesus promise to everyone who puts their trust in Him is this: There is hope! Even when it feels like checkmate, its not, becauseTHE KING STILL HAS ONE MORE MOVE! He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.

Link:
Perseverance when faced with a checkmate | Clergy Corner - Woodland Daily Democrat

Iowa Democrat Rita Hart drops bid to claim U.S. House seat lost by six votes to Republican Marianette Miller-Meeks – MarketWatch

WASHINGTON (AP) A defeated Democrat abruptly dropped her bid Wednesday to challenge her six-vote loss for a House seat from Iowa, abandoning what loomed as a long legal and political battle in the face of shaky support from her own party.

In a statement, Rita Hart said she was abandoning her effort to have the Democratic-controlled House award her the seat, blaming a toxic campaign of political disinformation that she said had effectively silenced the voices of Iowans. While her campaign said it found 22 uncounted ballots, enough to make her the winner, she said shed made her decision following many conversations with people I trust about the future of this contest, whom she did not identify.

It is a stain on our democracy that the truth has not prevailed and my hope for the future is a return to decency and civility, Hart wrote. Her barbs were aimed at Republicans who strenuously fought her effort to reverse her loss.

Freshman Rep. Marianette Miller-Meeks, the victorious Republican, thanked Hart in a one-paragraph statement. In January, Miller-Meeks was sworn into the southeastern Iowa seat, vacated by a retiring Democrat, while Hart pursued her challenge.

I know how extremely difficult it is to lose an election, but for the people to have faith and confidence in the election system and Iowa laws, it was gracious of her to concede at this time, Miller-Meeks said.

Harts appeal to the House ran smack into reluctance by some within her own party to do what they vehemently opposed doing just months ago reversing Donald Trumps presidential election defeat by overruling state-certified election results.

Rather than pursue her case in Iowa courts, Hart immediately asked the U.S. House to examine the balloting, asserting she lacked adequate time for a court challenge.

It also came as a battle over voting rights is escalating around the country.

Republicans enacted a strict new voting law in Georgia and have pushed other restrictive bills in other states, feeding off Trumps false assertions of rampant election fraud. Congressional Democrats have responded with H.R. 1, a House-passed bill that has stalled in the Senate that would essentially override many state curbs and make voting easier.

See: Voting rights intensify as partisan battleground, with Democrats pushing H.R. 1 and Republicans altering election procedures at state level

Also see: A step backward: Coca-Cola joins fellow top Atlanta employer Delta in blasting new Georgia voting curbs as undemocratic

Miller-Meeks initially won on Election Day by 47 votes, a margin that was trimmed to six in a recount Hart demanded and then officially certified by bipartisan Iowa officials. Citing the 22 uncounted ballots, Hart filed her challenge with the House, which under the Constitution decides such disputes.

Republicans relentlessly battered Hart and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for pursuing the case, arguing that Democrats were trying to steal an election theyd rightfully lost. Most Republicans making that argument including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and a majority of House GOP lawmakers backed Trump when he fought for weeks to undo his own state-certified defeat.

Pelosis attempted power grab failed. And Iowans and America are better off because of it, McCarthy, who appeared with Miller-Meeks in Iowa Wednesday, said in a written statement.

See: Kevin McCarthy becomes poster boy for Republicans walking back their recent Trump criticism as voter base stands by defeated president

Rather than pursuing her case in Iowa courts, Hart immediately asked the U.S. House to examine the balloting, asserting she lacked adequate time for a court challenge.

Though she had the right to do that, Republicans accused her of taking her case to the House because Democratic control there increased her chances of winning.

Democrats said there was no comparison between Trumps unfounded election challenge and Harts, whose team produced sworn affidavits from the voters whose ballots werent counted. And party leaders including Pelosi defended Harts right to have the House re-examine the voting and award her the seat.

But at least seven Democratic lawmakers publicly voiced reluctance to back her, and some party officials said opposition was even more widespread than that.

Those numbers would have been more than enough for Hart to lose a vote of the full House, which her party controls by just 219-211, with five vacancies.

Democratic unease over backing Hart was intensified by the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by Trump supporters who disrupted Congress as it was counting the Electoral College votes that produced now President Joe Bidens victory. That assault resulted in five deaths.

Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., speaking last week to Yahoo News, cited GOP efforts to override Trumps defeat, including by rioters who used violence to stop us from certifying an election. She added, I cant turn around and vote to decertify something thats been stamped and approved in Iowa.

Pelosis office did not immediately issue a statement.

But Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., chairperson of the House Administration Committee, acknowledged Harts withdrawal. That panel had begun examining the case, including collecting legal briefs from both sides, and the wrangling seemed likely to last at least into summer.

There being no contestant, there is no longer a contest, and the Committee will, accordingly, recommend that the whole House dispose of the contest and adopt a dismissal resolution reported out by the Committee, Lofgren said in a statement.

Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, D-N.Y., who leads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said he respected Harts decision but cast it in the broader context of voting-rights battles around the country.

Maloney, whose committee helps run his partys House campaigns, accused Republicans of throwing up roadblocks to the ballot box at every turn and said Democrats will always fight to ensure every American can vote and that every legal vote is counted.

Mike Berg, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Republicans were glad Hart admitted that Miller-Meeks had won and added, We wont let voters forget that Democrats will do whatever they can to subvert democracy if given the opportunity.

Miller-Meekss win was the narrowest House election since the Democratic-led chamber awarded a disputed Indiana seat to a Democrat by four votes after the 1984 election.

See the article here:
Iowa Democrat Rita Hart drops bid to claim U.S. House seat lost by six votes to Republican Marianette Miller-Meeks - MarketWatch

Democrats Look to Smooth the Way for Bidens Infrastructure Plan – The New York Times

WASHINGTON Senior Democrats on Monday proposed a tax increase that could partly finance President Bidens plans to pour trillions of dollars into infrastructure and other new government programs, as party leaders weighed an aggressive strategy to force his spending proposals through Congress over unified Republican opposition.

The moves were the start of a complex effort by Mr. Bidens allies on Capitol Hill to pave the way for another huge tranche of federal spending after the $1.9 trillion stimulus package that was enacted this month. The president is set to announce this week the details of his budget, including his much-anticipated infrastructure plan.

He is scheduled to travel to Pittsburgh on Wednesday to describe the first half of a Build Back Better proposal that aides say will include a total of $3 trillion in new spending and up to an additional $1 trillion in tax credits and other incentives.

Yet with Republicans showing early opposition to such a large plan and some Democrats resisting key details, the proposals will be more difficult to enact than the pandemic aid package, which Democrats muscled through the House and Senate on party-line votes.

In the House, where Mr. Biden can currently afford to lose only three votes, Representative Tom Suozzi, Democrat of New York, warned that he would not support the presidents plan unless it eliminated a rule that prevents taxpayers from deducting more than $10,000 in local and state taxes from their federal income taxes. He is one of a handful of House Democrats who are calling on the president to repeal the provision.

And in the Senate, where most major legislation requires 60 votes to advance, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, was exploring an unusual maneuver that could allow Democrats to once again use reconciliation the fast-track budget process they used for the stimulus plan to steer his spending plans through Congress in the next few months even if Republicans are unanimously opposed.

While an aide to Mr. Schumer said a final decision had not been made to pursue such a strategy, the prospect, discussed on the condition of anonymity, underscored the lengths to which Democrats were willing to go to push through Mr. Bidens agenda.

The presidents initiatives will feature money for traditional infrastructure projects like rebuilding roads, bridges and water systems; spending to advance a transition to a lower-carbon energy system, like electric vehicle charging stations and the construction of energy-efficient buildings; investments in emerging industries like advanced batteries; education efforts like free community college and universal prekindergarten; and measures to help women work and earn more, like increased support for child care.

The proposals are expected to be partly offset by a wide range of tax increases on corporations and high earners.

In Pittsburgh, Mr. Biden will lay out the first of two equally critical packages to rebuild our economy and create better-paying jobs for American workers, Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, told reporters on Monday.

Hell talk this week about investments we need to make in domestic manufacturing, R & D, the caregiving economy and infrastructure, she added. In the coming weeks, the president will lay out his vision for a second package that focuses squarely on creating economic security for the middle class through investments in child care, health care, education and other areas.

Mr. Bidens budget office is also expected this week to release his spending request for the next fiscal year, which is separate from the infrastructure plan. White House officials said it would lay out funding levels agency by agency, so that congressional committees could begin to write appropriations bills for next year. For the first time in a decade, they will not be limited by spending caps imposed by Congress. (Lawmakers have agreed to break those caps in recent years.)

That request will not include Mr. Bidens tax plans, the officials said. The administrations full budget will be presented to Congress this spring.

For now, some Democrats are already jockeying to make sure that their proposals are part of the plan.

Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, and a group of liberal Democrats on Monday proposed scaling back a provision in the tax code that allows wealthy heirs to reduce what they pay on assets they inherit, known as stepped-up basis. The proposal reflects one of Mr. Bidens campaign promises, and officials have suggested that it could be used to fund his infrastructure plans.

Current law reduces the taxes that heirs owe on assets that appreciate over time. Say a person buys $1 million worth of stock, and the value of that stock rises to $10 million before the person dies. If the person sold the stock before death, she would owe taxes on a $9 million gain. But if she died first, and her heirs immediately sold the stocks she gave them, they would not owe any capital gains taxes. Under the new proposal, which exempts $1 million in gains, the heirs would owe taxes on the remaining $8 million gain.

The full exemption reduces federal tax revenues by more than $40 billion a year. It was unclear on Monday how much the Democratic plan would raise in revenues to help Mr. Bidens spending efforts.

Other Democrats pushed the president to include further tax cuts in his plan.

Mr. Suozzi of New York said in an interview on Monday that he would not support changes to the tax code without a full repeal of the so-called SALT cap, which limits the amount of local and state taxes that can be deducted from federal income taxes. That change largely hurt higher-income households in high-tax states like California, Maryland and New York.

House Democrats passed legislation in 2019 that would have temporarily removed the cap, but it stalled in the Senate and attempts to include it in pandemic relief legislation were unsuccessful.

It has to be elevated as part of the conversation, Mr. Suozzi said. Theres a lot of different talk about going big and going bold and making significant changes to the tax code. I want to make SALT part of the conversation.

He is among the Democrats who have requested a meeting with Mr. Biden to discuss repealing the cap, according to a letter obtained by The New York Times.

No SALT, no dice, declared another Democrat, Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey.

Theres plenty of ways, in my opinion, to raise revenue and reinstate SALT, he said in an interview, adding that he wanted to see the full details of the proposal.

Ms. Psaki said on Monday that administration officials look forward to working with a broad coalition of members of Congress to gather their input and ideas, and determine the path forward, create good jobs and make America more competitive.

While members of both parties have said they support a major infrastructure initiative, Republicans have balked at the details of Mr. Bidens opening bid, which includes not only sweeping investments in traditional public works but also more ambitious proposals to tackle climate change and education, and tax increases to help offset the considerable costs.

Unfortunately, it looks like this is not going to head in the direction I had hoped, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, said at an event in his state. My advice to the administration is: If you want to do an infrastructure bill, lets do an infrastructure bill. Lets dont turn it into a massive effort to raise taxes on businesses and individuals.

Id love to do an infrastructure bill, he added. Im not interested in raising taxes across the board on America. I think it will send our economy in the wrong direction.

Should Democratic lawmakers try to move Mr. Bidens plan through the regular legislative process and overcome the 60-vote filibuster threshold, at least 10 Republicans would need to join them.

But the reconciliation process allows a fiscal package included in the budget resolution to be shielded from a filibuster. Mr. Schumer has asked the Senates top rule-enforcer whether Democrats can revisit the budget blueprint that was approved last month to include the infrastructure plan, which would enable them to undertake a second reconciliation process before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30 and pass it with a simple majority.

Because there is no precedent for passing two reconciliation packages in the same budget year with the same blueprint, Elizabeth MacDonough, the parliamentarian, will have to issue guidance on whether doing so is permissible under Senate rules.

If Democrats succeed, they could potentially use the reconciliation maneuver at least two more times this calendar year to push through more of Mr. Bidens agenda.

Read the original here:
Democrats Look to Smooth the Way for Bidens Infrastructure Plan - The New York Times

Democratic Party | History, Definition, & Beliefs | Britannica

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.

Henry Clay, mezzotint by H.S. Sadd, after a painting by J.W. Dodge, 1843.

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).

Andrew Jackson, oil on canvas by Asher B. Durand, 1800. Under Jackson, the Democratic Party held its first national convention in 1832.

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).

(From left) Egyptian Pres. Anwar Sadat, U.S. Pres. Jimmy Carter, and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin signing the Camp David Accords at the White House, Washington, D.C., September 17, 1978.

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.

Hillary Clinton at a campaign rally, 2016.

Despite being conducted during the coronavirus global pandemic, the 2020 federal election generated the largest voter turnout in American history, with more 150 million ballots cast. Democratswho voted early and by mail more often than Republicans didhanded Obamas former vice president, Joe Biden, a victory over the incumbent, Trump, in the presidential election. Biden won the popular vote by some five million votes and triumphed in the electoral college vote by holding on to the states captured by Clinton in the previous presidential contest and winning back the blue wall states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin that had been lost to Trump in 2016. The Democrats attempt to retake control of the Senate hinged on two runoff elections to be held in Georgia in January 2021. The party held on to control of the House of Representatives, but its majority shrank significantly.

Read the original here:
Democratic Party | History, Definition, & Beliefs | Britannica

Democrats Begin Push for Biggest Expansion of Voting Since 1960s – The New York Times

Democrats began pushing on Wednesday for the most substantial expansion of voting rights in a half-century, laying the groundwork in the Senate for what would be a fundamental change to the ways voters get to the polls and elections are run.

At a contentious hearing on Capitol Hill, Democratic leaders made a passionate case for a bill that would mandate automatic voter registration nationwide, expand early and mail-in voting, end gerrymandering that skews congressional districts for maximum partisan advantage and curb the influence of money in politics.

The effort is taking shape as Republicans have introduced more than 250 bills to restrict voting in 43 states and have continued to spread false accusations of fraud and impropriety in the 2020 election. It comes just months after those claims, spread by President Donald J. Trump as he sought to cling to power, fueled a deadly riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6 that showed how deeply his party had come to believe in the myth of a stolen election.

Republicans were unapologetic in their opposition to the measure, with some openly arguing that if Democrats succeeded in making it easier for Americans to vote and in enacting the other changes in the bill, it would most likely place their party permanently in the minority.

Any American who thinks that the fight for a full and fair democracy is over is sadly and sorely mistaken, said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader. Today, in the 21st century, there is a concerted, nationwide effort to limit the rights of citizens to vote and to truly have a voice in their own government.

Mr. Schumers rare appearance at a committee meeting underscored the stakes, not just for the election process but for his partys own political future. He called the proposed voting rollbacks in dozens of states including Georgia, Iowa and Arizona an existential threat to our democracy reminiscent of the Jim Crow segregationist laws of the past.

He chanted Shame! Shame! Shame! at Republicans who were promoting them.

It was the start of an uphill battle by Senate Democrats, who have characterized what they call the For the People Act as the civil rights imperative of modern times, to overcome divisions in their own ranks and steer around Republican opposition to shepherd it into law. Doing so may require them to change Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster, once used by segregationists to block civil rights measures in the 1960s.

Republicans signaled they were ready to fight. Conceding that allowing more people to vote would probably hurt their candidates, they denounced the legislation, passed by the House this month, as a power grab by Democrats intent on federalizing elections to give themselves a permanent political advantage. They insisted that it was the right of states to set their own election laws, including those that make it harder to vote, and warned that Democrats proposal could lead to rampant fraud, which experts say has never been found to be widespread.

This is an attempt by one party to write the rules of our political system, said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, who has spent much of his career opposing such changes.

Talk about shame, he added later.

Some Republicans resorted to lies or distortions to condemn the measure, falsely claiming that Democrats were seeking to cheat by enfranchising undocumented immigrants or encouraging illegal voting. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said the bill aimed to register millions of unauthorized immigrants, though that would remain unlawful under the measure.

The clash laid bare just how sharply the two parties have diverged on the issue of voting rights, which attracted bipartisan support for years after the civil rights movement but more recently has become a bitter partisan battleground. At times, Republicans and Democrats appeared to be wrestling with irreconcilably different views of the problems plaguing the election system.

Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, the top Republican on the Senate Rules Committee, which convened the hearing, said states were taking appropriate steps to restore public confidence after 2020 by imposing laws that require voters to show identification before voting and limiting so-called ballot harvesting, where others collect voters completed absentee ballots and submit them to election officials. He said that if Democrats were allowed to rush through changes on the national level, chaos will reign in the next election and voters will have less confidence than they currently do.

The suggestion piqued Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota and the committee chairwoman, who shot back that it was the current elections system an uneven patchwork of state laws and evolving voting rules that had caused chaos at polling places.

Chaos is what weve seen in the last years five-hour or six-hour lines in states like Arizona to vote. Chaos is purging names of longtime voters from a voter list so they cant go vote in states like Georgia, she said. What this bill tries to do is to simply make it easier for people to vote and take the best practices that what weve seen across the country, and put it into law as we are allowed to do under the Constitution.

With Republicans unified against them, Democrats best hope for enacting the legislation increasingly appears to be to try to leverage its voting protections to justify triggering the Senates so-called nuclear option: the elimination of the filibuster rule requiring 60 votes, rather than a simple majority, to advance most bills.

Even that may be a prohibitively heavy lift, though, at least in the bills current form. Liberal activists who are spending tens of millions of dollars promoting it insist that the package must move as one bill. But Senator Joe Manchin III, a centrist West Virginia Democrat whose support they would need both to change the filibuster rules and to push through the elections bill, said on Wednesday that he would not support it in its current form.

Speaking to reporters in the Capitol, Mr. Manchin said he feared that pushing through partisan changes would create more division that the country could not afford after the Jan. 6 attack, and instead suggested narrowing the bill.

Theres so much good in there, and so many things I think all of us should be able to be united around voting rights, but it should be limited to the voting rights, he said. Were going to have a piece of legislation that might divide us even further on a partisan basis. That shouldnt happen.

But it is unclear whether even major changes could win Republican support in the Senate. As written, the more than 800-page bill, which passed the House 220 to 210 mostly along party lines, is the most ambitious elections overhaul in generations, chock-full of provisions that experts say would drive up turnout, particularly among minorities who tend to vote Democratic. Many of them are anathema to Republicans.

Its voting provisions alone would create minimum standards for states, neutering voter ID laws, restoring voting rights to former felons, and putting in place requirements like automatic voter registration and no-excuse mail-in balloting. Many of the restrictive laws proposed by Republicans in the states would move in the opposite direction.

The bill would also require states to use independent commissions to draw nonpartisan congressional districts, a change that would weaken the advantages of Republicans who control the majority of state legislatures currently in charge of drawing those maps. It would force super PACs to disclose their big donors and create a new public campaign financing system for congressional candidates.

Democrats also said they still planned to advance a separate bill restoring a key enforcement provision in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, after a 2013 Supreme Court ruling gutted it. The ruling paved the way for many of the restrictive state laws Democrats are now fighting.

In the hearing room on Wednesday, Republicans ticked through a long list of provisions they did not like, including a restructuring of the Federal Election Commission to make it more partisan and punitive, a host of election administration changes they predicted would cause mass chaos if carried out and the public campaign financing system.

This bill is the single most dangerous bill this committee has ever considered, Mr. Cruz said. This bill is designed to corrupt the election process permanently, and it is a brazen and shameless power grab by Democrats.

Mr. Cruz falsely claimed that the bill would register undocumented immigrants to vote and accused Democrats of wanting the most violent criminals to cast ballots, too.

In fact, it is illegal for noncitizens to vote, and the bill would do nothing to change that or a requirement that people registering to vote swear they are citizens. It would extend the franchise to millions of former felons, as some states already do, but only after they have served their sentences.

Though few senators mentioned him by name, Mr. Trump and his false claims of election fraud hung heavily over the debate.

To make their case, Republicans turned to two officials who backed an effort to overturn then-President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.s election victory. Mac Warner, the secretary of state of West Virginia, and Todd Rokita, the attorney general of Indiana, both supported a Texas lawsuit late last year asking the Supreme Court to invalidate the election results in key battleground states Mr. Biden won, citing groundless accusations of voting improprieties being spread by Mr. Trump.

On Wednesday, Democrats balked when Mr. Rokita, a former Republican congressman, asserted that their proposed changes would open our elections up to increased voter fraud and irregularities like the ones that he said had caused widespread voter mistrust in the 2020 outcome.

Senator Jon Ossoff, a freshman Democrat from Georgia, chastised the attorney general, saying he was spreading misinformation and conspiracies.

I take exception to the comments that you just made, Mr. Rokita, that public concern regarding the integrity of the recent election is born of anything but a deliberate and sustained misinformation campaign led by a vain former president unwilling to accept his own defeat, Mr. Ossoff said.

Mr. Rokita merely scoffed and repeated an earlier threat to sue to block the legislation from being carried out should it ever become law, a remedy that many Republican-led states would most likely pursue if Democrats were able to win its enactment.

You are entitled to your opinion, as misinformed as it may be, but I share the opinion of Americans, Mr. Rokita said.

Sixty-five percent of voters believe the election was free and fair, according to a Morning Consult poll conducted in late January, but only 32 percent of Republicans believe that.

Follow this link:
Democrats Begin Push for Biggest Expansion of Voting Since 1960s - The New York Times