Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON The House voted on Thursday to temporarily eliminate a tax increase on some high-earning residents of states like California and New York that was included in President Trumps 2017 tax overhaul, with some Republicans joining Democrats in support.

The bill would repeal a cap on a popular tax break that prevented taxpayers from deducting more than $10,000 in state and local taxes from their federal income taxes. It paired that repeal which would in effect be a tax cut for upper earners in high-tax states with an increase on the highest earners across the country by raising the top income tax rate to 39.6 percent from 37 percent.

In a procedural twist, Democrats agreed to a Republican amendment that would limit the bills benefits for blue-state billionaires. It would maintain the so-called SALT cap on deductions for taxpayers earning more than $100 million per year, and direct the saved money to a $500 tax break for teachers and first responders. Representative Mike Thompson, Democrat of California, said the motion was accepted in the spirit of the holiday season.

The bill, which was approved by a vote of 218 to 206, has no chance of passing the Republican-controlled Senate, and Mr. Trump has threatened to veto it.

But it was hailed as a victory by its Democratic champions, many of whom were elected last year in wealthy, suburban areas where the SALT cap had raised some voters taxes.

Its about fairness, Representative Thomas Suozzi, Democrat of New York and the lead sponsor of the legislation, said in an interview. Do we want people moving away from New York to go to Florida because they lost their state and local tax deduction?

When those residents move out of state, Mr. Suozzi said, the remaining lower- and middle-income families are left holding the bag.

The 2017 Trump tax law limited deductions for state and local taxes paid, like income and property taxes, to $10,000 per household per year. That resulted in net tax increases for a slice of high-earning residents of areas with high income or property taxes, which tend to be concentrated in large metropolitan areas like New York City and high-tax states like New Jersey and California.

The SALT cap was tucked into the 2017 tax overhaul in part to help finance it and reduce its impact on the deficit. The bill passed on Thursday includes some budgetary gymnastics in order to avoid adding to the federal debt. It would repeal the SALT cap for three years while raising the top income tax rate for six years. Because of how Republicans structured the 2017 law, the SALT cap is set to expire and the top rate is set to rise on their own at the end of 2025.

Voter anger toward the SALT cap in certain areas appears to have helped lift Democrats in the 2018 midterms. In the months leading up to the election, the online research platform SurveyMonkey interviewed nearly 30,000 registered voters about their opinions on the tax law, their voting intentions and other topics. A New York Times analysis of that data suggests that the SALT cap may have had a significant effect on voters views of the tax law and perhaps even on how they voted to a degree that could have influenced the narrowest races in those districts.

Efforts to repeal the cap have emerged as a division among Democrats who have long criticized Republicans for cutting taxes to favor the rich.

Many liberal policy analysts oppose raising the SALT cap, because it would mostly benefit high earners and they would rather use the money for spending programs to help the poor and middle class.

Repealing the cap should not be a top priority, Seth Hanlon, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, wrote in an online column this month.

If policymakers are concerned with the effect of the SALT cap on middle-class families, he wrote, there are options to address it without providing enormous windfalls for the wealthy.

At least one leading presidential contender, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., favors eliminating the cap.

This bill truly is a tax cut for the few, said Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee. What Democrats are proposing today is regressive.

Mr. Suozzi said on Thursday that the repeal of the cap would be 100 percent paid for by the wealthiest Americans, by raising the top income tax rate.

Read the rest here:
SALT Tax Increase That Burned Blue States is Targeted by Democrats - The New York Times

The top Democratic candidates will soon take the stage at the next debate, and oh boy, are party leaders squirming. Up until late last week, when Andrew Yang made the cutoff by a hair, all six of those making their pitch were white#debatesowhite, as the hashtag called it. Worse yet, half of those Caucasians are old enough to be carrying Medicare cards. As Frank Bruni wrote in last weeks Sunday column, for a party that celebrates diversity, pitches itself to underdogs and prides itself on being future-minded and youth-oriented, thats a freaky, baffling turn of events.

Some blamed the freaky turn on billionaire money crowding out the merely rich little guys, while others pointed a finger at the DNC for a dysfunctional qualifying system and a primary calendar privileging Iowa and New Hampshire, both largely white states. Also popular is the theory of electabilityif voters top priority is nominating someone who can beat Donald Trump, white old-timers seem like the safest bet. But the facts behind #debatesowhite suggest that, despite the best efforts of progressives and the party establishment to hype 2020 candidates in terms of their race, gender, and LGBTQ status, the Democratic rank-and-file have limited use for identity politics.

Remember that the Dems started the year with a historically diverse field: two blacks, an Asian, a Hispanic, and an out gay man. In the following months, a sizable cluster of women joined the fray. Finally, Americans would see a field that looked like America. Yet 12 months later, all the nonwhite candidatesexcept Yang, who has explicitly disavowed identity politicsare either going or gone. Even Kamala Harris, whose Jamaican father and Indian mother made her intersectionally intersectionalblack, Asian, female, and immigrant to bootwill not be standing in front of a podium.

By the logic of identity politics, this shouldnt have happened. Blacks make up 21 percent of the Democratic party. That should be enough, some might think, to guarantee substantial support for at least one of the black candidates, but it hasnt worked that way. Joe Biden is the favorite among black Dems. In fact, they seem to love the Scranton-born grandfather; with 43 percent of black voters support, he registers 30 points higher than anyone else. The irony wasnt lost on New York magazines lefty politics writer, Eric Levitz: If Joe Biden retains his current standing, then the Democrats 2020 nominee will better reflect the preferences of black Democrats than those of white ones.

True, the former vice presidents strength might well stem from his connection to Barack Obama. And theres some evidence that African-Americans are more likely to come to the polls if there is a black candidateat least if he or she is running as a Democrat. About a third of black Democrats say that they would be more enthusiastic if the nominee were also black. But color preference can easily take a back seat to actual policies, especially now, as the party veers left. Black voters are less likely to call themselves liberal than white voters, suggesting that they will be more moderate on many issues than the black media and advocates assigned to speak for them, as well as the partys white elites.

Latino voters, making up 12 percent of the party, have proved even more indifferent than blacks to the rules of identity politics. Julin Castro, the only Latino in the race, was supposed to be their guy. But a recent Noticias Telemundo poll of Latino voters found him in fifth place, attracting a mere 2 percent of his presumed base. Nor were Hispanic voters particularly interested in other minority candidates; theyre also getting behind Biden (26 percent) and Bernie Sanders (18 percent). According to the New York Times, Sanders has collected more money from Latino voters than any other candidate in the Democratic field; hes raised three times as much from the group as Barack Obama did in 2008.

Harris, who dropped out of the race due to lackluster fundraising and falling poll numbers, is the most striking example of the failure of identity politics to catch fire among the electorate. No one drank from the diversity well more deeply than Harris. The former San Francisco district attorney and now California senator launched her campaign at Frank Ogawa Plaza, named after an Oakland civil rights leader, on Martin Luther King Day, and the anniversary of the beginning of Shirley Chisholms presidential run in 1972. She called herself a child of Oakland, another signal to black voters that she was one of them, and turned the fact that she was bused as a child into a largely white school into a star turn in the first debate.

But in the end, her diverse identity and policy ideas appealed more to political and media elites than the Democratic hoi polloi. She attracted big name Hollywood supporters. The Washington Post Pundit Ranking gave Kamala Harris the best shot at defeating Trump five times in a row before realizing voters were just not that into her. Even at her campaigns peak, polls showed she held more support from white liberals than from black voters, National Journals Josh Kraushaar noted.

And what about the much-hyped womens vote? The Tao of identity politics teaches us that women should feel a sense of solidarity with their sisters, but thats not the way theyve been acting. Kirsten Gillibrand, the campaign seasons star avatar of womens issues, was best known for her fight for paid leave and against sexual abuse in the military and on college campuses. Those efforts didnt help her in a national campaign. Though almost 60 percent of self-identified Democrats are women, Gillibrand could never break 2 percent support, and she failed to meet the donor threshold for Septembers debate. She ran as a white woman of privilege, telling voters, I can talk to those white women in the suburbs and explain to them what white privilege actually is. Evidently, women of color were unimpressed, while white ladies were not amused; her candidacy deflated like an old balloon.

Elizabeth Warren, the highest polling of the Democratic women still standing, is finding a bit more support from women than menabout 2.9 points more. Certainly Warren is saying all the right Democratic things about familiar issues, announcing ambitious plans to undercut restrictive abortion laws, narrow the pay gap for women of color, establish universal child care, and reduce maternal mortality.

This could bring more women on board the Warren train, but she shouldnt count on it. Theres little evidence that women as a group gravitate toward female candidates, though they look like they will in hypothetical matchups. Women are likely to vote Democratic by a considerable margin, but thats true no matter who the nominee. What looks like women voting for women is usually just women voting for Democrats, Kathleen Dolan, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee explained to Nate Silvers 538 blog. The aspiring glass-ceiling breaker Hillary Clinton had a 12-point margin of victory among women, virtually identical to Barack Obamas 13- and 11-point wins with female voters in his two presidential runs. Even women avowing a strong sense of shared gender identity were no more likely to come through for her.

And what about Andrew Yang, the candidate who, in a last-minute save, helped the Dems escape a dreaded optics of white supremacy at the Democratic debate? Ironically, the political establishment has been hellbent on ignoring Yangs impressive candidacy even though he is nonwhite. MSNBC and CNN have forgotten to include the Taiwanese-American in graphics and polls on several occasions, even as he was polling better than other minority candidates who producers were able to remember. Other outlets got his name wrong, an error that would have given competitor networks chyron material for days if he were a black or Latino or female candidate. Does anyone doubt that Yangs invisibility is because he is Asian, an uncomfortably ambiguous status within the metaphysics of identity politics? Because Asians, particularly the Taiwanese, have been immensely successful in America, they cloud any simple narrative of crushing white power and racism.

Finally, we come to Pete Buttigieg, the first openly gay person to make a serious showing in a presidential primary season. That has not been enough to protect him from attacks from progressive Democrats, some gay, who are ordinarily the most vociferous supporters of LGBT causes. Progressives have been enraged with the mayor of South Bend for his stint at McKinsey, the global consultancy firm. They have been equally incensed about a photo of Buttigieg raising money with members of the Salvation Army, in their view a homophobic organization. He has been canceled from some homosexual circles for not being gay enough. Nation contributor David Klion retweeted a thread accusing the mayor of showing off a token black woman at campaign events. Mayor Pete is an exploitative twerp is the sort of description popular in Twitters more progressive precincts.

Its not the first time, and probably wont be the last, that the Democratic political class has failed to heed the message that those who live by identity politics often die by identity politics.

Kay S. Hymowitz is a City Journal contributing editor, the William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and the author of Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys.

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Read more:
The Failure of Democrat's Identity Politics to Catch Fire Among the Electorate - City Journal

Getty

The Liberal Democrats will soon begin the process of electing their third leader in less than a year after Jo Swinson lost her seat in a shock result at this month's general election.

The pro-European Union party secured 11 House of Commons seats last week, one fewer than it won at the 2017 general election. Swinson lost her East Dunbartonshire constituency to Scottish National Party candidate Amy Callaghan.

The next leader of the Liberal Democrats will be tasked with establishing a new raison d'tre for the party after it failed to stop Brexit. Boris Johnson, boosted by an 80-seat majority, is set to take the UK out of the EU in January.

The contest is expected to officially get underway in late January with party figures keen to choose Swinson's successor before the Labour Party chooses its new leader to replace Jeremy Corbyn.

A Liberal Democrat source told Business Insider: "Now more than ever, the country needs a strong opposition. Given the frothing civil war on Labour benches, you can bet it won't be Labour stepping up to the plate."

They added: "The questions the candidates must answer is just how they see the UK's relationship with our European partners, how the party converts support into seats and on what issues the party will carve out as our key fights over the next few years."

Here are the likely candidates in the race to become the new leader of the Liberal Democrats.

WIktor Szymanowicz/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Moran is widely regarded as the favorite to win. One senior party figure told Business Insider: "It's Layla's to lose."

Senior Liberal Democrats including current members of Parliament urged Moran to go for the leadership when the party last held a leadership contest earlier in the year. Swinson and Ed Davey ended up being the only candidates.

At the time, the MP for Oxford West and Abingdon believed it was too soon to go for the top job, having only been elected in 2017. She also wanted to focus on shoring up her majority, after winning her seat with a majority of just 816.

However, last week she was returned to Parliament with a much bigger majority of 8,943, meaning she is in a more secure position to go for the leadership this time around.

Moran, who is the first UK MP of Palestinian descent, is popular with Liberal Democrat members. Her supporters say her pitch is strong because unlike the party's two most recent leaders, she did not serve in coalition with David Cameron's Conservatives, and will not be grilled on her party's record in government like her predecessors were.

Moran has on a number of occasions called on her party to be more lucid in explaining what it represents.

In her last interview with Business Insider, she said the party ought to whittle down its pitch to handful of clear policies, saying: "We are very good at talking about a whole host of things but then people ask 'but what do you actually stand for?'"

Aaron Chown/PA Images via Getty Images

Moran's closest leadership rival is set to be Ed Davey.

The MP for Kingston and Surbiton is the party's co-interim leader along with outgoing party president, Sal Brinton.

Davey ran to be Liberal Democrat leader earlier this year, but lost out to Swinson. He has so far evaded questions on whether he intends to run this time around, but party figures expect him to stand.

Supporters say he'd be best choice for the Liberal Democrats as he has the most developed idea of what the party should be and what it ought to stand for now that the mission to stop Brexit has failed.

A party figure who supported Davey in the last leadership contest said that compared to Swinson, he was more focused on issues other than trying to stay in the EU, and wanted to talk about "the intellectual beating heart of the party."

They said that Davey was best-placed to help the party figure out a new purpose.

"We are a bit bruised, Brexit is almost certainly going to happen, and some of those single-issue supporters are going to peel away," they told Business Insider.

Davey put fighting climate change front and centre of his last leadership campaign.

Speaking in the House of Commons this week as the party's interim leader, he told Speaker Lindsay Hoyle that the Liberal Democrats would prioritise tackling the climate emergency in this new parliament.

Aaron Chown/PA Images via Getty Images

Christine Jardine, the Liberal Democrat MP for Edinburgh West, is said to be considering a leadership bid.

Formerly a prominent journalist in Scotland, Jardine was first elected in 2017 and is a popular figure within the party.

One party figure who intends to support Jardine if she decides to enter the upcoming leadership contest described her as a "live underdog" who "might surprise a few people."

"She'll start as third favorite but she's very good on TV and has not had same exposure as Ed and Layla," they said.

However, while an impressive leadership campaign would likely help Jardine raise her profile, the odds of winning would still be heavily stacked against her.

Lib Dem figures point to the fact that she recently failed to win the contest to become the party's next president, losing out to grassroots party blogger, Mark Pack.

Aaron Chown/PA Images via Getty Images

Daisy Cooper has been only an MP for a matter of days, but has indicated that she could stand to be party leader.

Cooper, who was elected the MP for St Albans last week, told LBC that her lack of parliamentary experience was not a big issue. She unsuccessfully ran for Parliament twice before winning her seat in southeast England this month.

"I've worked in campaigns for a long time," she told the radio station. "I've got big ambitions for what we can achieve in parliament as a small team in the Lib Dems."

Lib Dem figures say that while Cooper has very little chance of winning the upcoming contest, throwing her hat in the ring would help her secure some valuable exposure early in her House of Commons career.

She is highly-rated within the Liberal Democrats and seen as a leading light among its next generation of politicians at a time when the party has lost some of its most seasoned and well-known MPs in Swinson and Sir Vince Cable.

Cooper is close to Swinson and worked on her leadership campaign earlier this year.

See original here:
Who will be the next leader of the Liberal Democrats? - Business Insider

Welcome to FiveThirtyEights weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): The 2020 Democratic field was once hailed as the most diverse ever. But now, even as many candidates try to position themselves as the best person to build on the Obama coalition of young people, women and nonwhite voters, the four front-runners are nevertheless all white, and three are men.

On Tuesday, Kamala Harris dropped out of the race, and candidates like Julin Castro and Cory Booker have all struggled to break out, languishing below 4 percent in the polls nationally. Harris, in particular, had a bruising race, once sitting at 15 percent nationally to only plummet to 3 percent before ending her campaign.

Is this surprising? What are some possible explanations?

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): My somewhat complicated theory is that Booker kind of lost the informal black candidate primary to Harris from 2017 to early 2019. Harris then got all the buzz as the most viable black candidate when she entered the race. But then she struggled. Im not sure if her campaign had the clearest of messages, but I also think she faced electability questions, which dog female candidates in particular.

julia_azari (Julia Azari, political science professor at Marquette University and FiveThirtyEight contributor): I think its pretty surprising that the top of the field is now dominated by white candidates. And I think there are a couple of explanations that dont fall under the usual electability catch-all, although that certainly deserves consideration, too.

One is that Obamas election removed the novelty of a person of color winning the nomination, which means its harder to frame media coverage in a way that doesnt have to tackle really tough questions about minority representation and what it might mean to actually address those inequalities.

Another explanation is because people have changed their views on race to more closely match their political parties, white Democrats have adopted (superficially at least) pretty racially liberal opinions, which means all the candidates can now talk about race and the concerns of black and Latino communities to various degrees. Obviously, with varying levels of success, but still, thats a big change from a few years ago.

geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): Joe Bidens standing in the race has been a big hindrance, too, because hes just so strong among older nonwhite voters, particularly black voters, who might have been a potential base for some of these other candidates.

meredithconroy: (Meredith Conroy, political science professor at California State University and FiveThirtyEight contributor): If I had to give a blanket explanation for why the nonwhite candidates arent polling well among Democrats, my answer is that there was never going to be a lot of room between a former VP (Biden) and former runner-up (Bernie Sanders). Beto ORourke, Elizabeth Warren, Harris and Pete Buttigieg all made inroads at some point, although only Warrens has really been sustainable. Why Castro and Booker havent (yet) is, in my view, related to their race and the electability overcorrection following 2016, or this idea that only a white, moderate male can take on Trump at the ballot box. Because sexism and racism motivated voters choice at the ballot box in 2016, I think Democrats are reluctant to be all-in for a candidate that will make those attitudes more salient in 2020.

julia_azari: Whats interesting to me about that, Meredith, is that this electability message seems to have somehow turned into one about race and less about gender.

sarahf: In other words, it should be equally surprising Warren has continued to do well?

julia_azari: Yeah, and while Amy Klobuchar isnt doing great in the polls, she hasnt really been attacked on her electability credentials (which is not to say that attacks on her havent been gendered). Similarly, Kirsten Gillibrand didnt drop out because of electability critiques. She lacked elite support and did poorly in the polls.

Thats not to say that women are doing great in this field; theyre not, as a group. But the fact that concerns over electability also affect Booker and Castro after Obama won big majorities is interesting to me. Perhaps a message Democrats took away from 2016 is to be generally cautious about demographics, but not ideology. I find that odd, but theres a lot going on.

sarahf: Whats so hard to untangle in all of this, too, is just how much of it is about the individual candidates and the competition they face. Like Meredith said at the outset, with both a former VP and a former runner-up in the race, did that ever really leave that much oxygen in the race for other candidates?

geoffrey.skelley: Sanderss appeal is just so narrow, though. His ceiling of support just isnt as high as some of the other candidates, which is why Bidens relative strength looms large to me. Hes taken hits in the race, but he hasnt really fallen down.

Perry has written about this before, but black voters have a pragmatic streak in the primaries, which means they have traditionally backed establishment candidates, which is one explanation for Bidens continued success.

But in a universe where there is no Biden running, I think someone like Harris or Booker fills that lane better than Sanders or Warren. Considering Harriss appeal earlier in the cycle among white college graduates, she mightve had the best chance, too, to weave together that same sort of coalition that boosted Obama in the 2008 primary. But obviously that didnt happen, and I think you can point to Biden as part of that, for eating up her support among nonwhite voters, and to Warren for grabbing college-educated voters.

perry: Would Stacey Abrams, Michelle Obama or Oprah have done better?

In other words, how big is the electability problem (a candidates gender and race) vs. the Biden problem (he is fairly popular with black people, even setting electability arguments aside)?

sarahf: In a race where a candidates perceived ability to beat Trump has been paramount, thats hard for me to answer. I do think its notable how the conversation around electability has centered less on what characteristics voters think are important for winning vs. what they say they believe their neighbors think is important, and how that limits their choice as a result. For instance, in magic wand polls, where respondents are asked who theyd make president if they had the power to magically bypass the election, Warren has routinely beaten Biden, which stands out to me as a pretty stark example of just how different the race could be if electability wasnt a factor.

julia_azari: I sort of doubt that any of those candidates would have done a lot better, Perry. Thats partly because the field is so crowded, and because there are so many existential questions about what the party should be doing.

meredithconroy: I think Abrams wouldve done fine, depending when she jumped in, because she has political experience. But I think Michelle Obama and Oprah wouldnt have done as well because Democrats are generally more wary than Republicans of outsiders and people without formal governing experience.

julia_azari: Would Abrams have cleared the field, though? I doubt it. Sanders and possibly Warren would probably still have run, and if theyre in, then Biden jumps in, too. And I dont see Buttigieg being put off by Abrams either.

geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, I dont think there was a single field-clearer out there. Someone with Bidens resume, maybe, if he or she were considerably younger and without as many failed presidential runs.

perry: Why Booker hasnt done better is super interesting to me as well. I dont think he actually has an electability problem, considering on the surface hes the most similar to the last Democrat who won black, male and running on a message of hope.

Yet, that hasnt worked for him. Maybe he has been unlucky (people found another Rhodes Scholar mayor). Then again, maybe its because hes been unable to pick a lane.

Buttigieg says Im young; Biden says Im experienced and electable; Warren and Sanders both say theyll bring big structural change.

Booker, on the other hand, says Im kind of left, but not that left, kind of young, but not that young, etc.

sarahf: And so you think its kind of inexplicable, Perry, that Booker hasnt done better given all that?

julia_azari: My hunch is that this is the year of the factional candidate.

perry: Yeah, that is my view as well.

sarahf: Wait, what does the year of the factional candidate mean?!?

perry: Buttigieg and Biden are running as decidedly center-left. Warren and Sanders to the left. Harris and Booker on the other hand have refused to pick a lane, and in my view, fusion is failing.

julia_azari: Yeah, its the year of the candidate who can excite some segment of the party, rather than someone who seems OK to most segments.

perry: Better said.

sarahf: But isnt trying to appeal to a wide swath of the party versus any one specific group kind of Biden and Buttigiegs whole appeal? Hence, the whole Vote for me, I wont rock the boat too much strategy?

Or would you say, no theyve still staked out an ideological lane more explicitly.

julia_azari: Look at the demographic trends. Biden does well mainly with older voters and minority voters, while Buttigieg really only does well with white voters, particularly those with a college degree. Which is similar to Warren, although she does a little bit better than him with nonwhite voters but not by much. Thats factional support!

perry: Additionally, Harris and Booker lost the black left to Sanders and Warren, while black voters who are not-that-left ideologically flocked to Biden. That same kind of ideological split exists among white voters, except Buttigieg has done better with more moderate white voters than Harris and Booker have done with moderate black voters.

I do think, in defense of Harris and Booker, perhaps a black candidate cant run on super-left platform and be seen as viable. Theres a reason why the Jesse Jackson model (a black candidate running on populist platform) has not been replicated and why there is no black Bernie Sanders-style candidate in the race.

sarahf: This theory of the year of the factional candidate is an interesting one and would also help explain to me why someone like Andrew Yang has overperformed expectations as an outsider-y type candidate in a field that has otherwise been not that receptive to candidates of color like Harris and Booker, who have taken a more middle-of-the-road approach. Tulsi Gabbard falls under this category as well I think, given her small-but-loyal fan base.

But this still doesnt explain someone like Castro, right? After all, he did make being super liberal a core part of his campaign at one point remember how he got everyone (except ORourke) to raise their hand at the first debate in support of making it a civil, not criminal, offense to cross the border without the proper documentation?

perry: In my view, Warren and Sanders dont leave a lot of room for other super liberal candidates.

meredithconroy: I mostly agree. But I think Castro was smart to carve out space for a candidate who openly supports issues of social and racial justice. He is championing issues that often get sidelined. Only it hasnt had much impact. Paul Begala, a former adviser to Bill Clinton, said that embracing progressive positions on things like immigration may not have done much to help Castro, given liberal voters loyalty to Sanders and Warren. So Castros poll numbers continue to languish.

sarahf: Thats the thing he missed the last debate and doesnt seem likely to make the next one in December either.

But OK, with Harriss departure from the race, does that mean there really are only four possible front-runners at this stage? Or do people think this could still change?

julia_azari: Klobuchar-mentum!

perry: After every debate, people in the media, myself included, say Booker and Klobuchar did well. Yet they remain stagnant in polls.

Do more donors support Booker now, in part because he would be one of the few minority candidates on the debate stage and is probably more viable than Castro?

Maybe. If I had to bet on a fifth candidate to emerge, I would bet on Booker.

But I am not confident of that bet at all.

julia_azari: I agree with Perry.

meredithconroy: Sanders, Biden and Warren have cemented themselves as front-runners, I think. which I think leaves room for one, maybe two more. I would bet on Buttigieg, Booker or maybe Yang? AM I TOO ONLINE?

geoffrey.skelley: The problem for Booker is he needs four qualifying polls for the December debate by Dec. 12, and he has zero at the moment. Maybe he can take advantage of Harriss exit to pick up some of her support not that there was a ton at this point but the problem is hes running out of time.

Yang, on the other hand, is currently one poll short of qualification and the Yang Gang is a legit financial resource he raised about $10 million in the third quarter, which could keep him going for awhile.

sarahf: How will you think about the race moving forward?

julia_azari: The big question for me is whether Castro or Booker picks up any steam as a result of Harris dropping out. Or Klobuchar.

geoffrey.skelley: Maybe the absence of a nonwhite candidate at the top of the polls causes some people to shift their support, but I think we should keep in mind that many of Harriss supporters will most likely flock to one of the other leading candidates. According to a recent poll from CBS News/YouGov that looked at who voters second-choice candidates would be in the early states, 80 percent of Harris supporters named one of the four leading candidates as their second choice.

julia_azari: Yeah, youre probably right.

Im on Twitter too much.

geoffrey.skelley: That said, I do think that Gabbard and Yang have very committed supporters who will keep them in the race for a while, but if Im trying to figure out if theres a nonwhite candidate who can actually win the Democratic nomination. That list may be empty at this point if Booker doesnt improve substantially.

meredithconroy: Big picture, the lack of nonwhite front-runners signals to me that a vast number of voters are reluctant to support a nonwhite candidate because they are worried about winning swing states. For voters who are more concerned with policy than beating Trump, my thought is they have probably already settled on Sanders or Warren, which leaves a candidate like Castro who also has a progressive agenda out to dry. Long term, it should be a wake-up call for the Democratic party as an organization. They need to continue to build a diverse bench and do more to elevate nonwhite and non-male candidates.

geoffrey.skelley: General election turnout really matters for Democrats. Yes, Hillary Clinton lost for multiple reasons in 2016, but one big reason was lower turnout among black voters. Now, I dont think anyone expected it to be at the same level as in 2008 or 2012 with Obama not on the ballot, but if you look at cities like Detroit, Milwaukee and Philadelphia, which were located in the three states that decided the election, black voter turnout was down in all three. Clinton only lost those states by a combined 78,000 votes or so.

So if youre a Democrat trying to figure out how to win electorally important and fairly white states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, turnout among nonwhite voters is key. The same is true if youre thinking about other potential swing states like Arizona and North Carolina.

Which means it should be at least somewhat concerning for the Democratic Party that there are really no viable nonwhite candidates left in the race two months before Iowa.

See the original post here:
How Did The Democrats End Up With A 2020 Field So White And Male? - FiveThirtyEight

Organized labor is the lifeblood of liberal politics in the United States. Unions backed Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal reforms, gave critical support to the fight for the Great Society and powered Democratic political victories throughout the 20th century. Even now, the Democratic Party is generally strongest in states where organized labor has the most influence.

Despite this clear, partisan incentive for pro-union policies, too many elected Democrats have failed to make labor enough of a priority. This was true under Jimmy Carter, when union membership began its precipitous decline, as well as under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Other levels of government led by Democrats have also drifted away from unions.

Under pressure from moderate Democrats in key swing districts, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to bring the White House-negotiated United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement to the floor before the end of the year. Moderate Democrats believe they can more easily win re-election with a bipartisan accomplishment under their belts. But passing it would hand President Trump a key political victory in the midst of impeachment proceedings, potentially undermining the entire Democratic ticket in 2020.

Theres also the labor question itself. Trump has sold the U.S.M.C.A. as a worker-friendly revision to the North American Free Trade Agreement. But union leaders and their Democratic allies say it needs stronger enforcement for labor rights and environmental protection. Rushing it now may undermine both. Its also not clear that this would actually help moderate Democrats. Passing a bill only validates Trumps oft-made claim that hes an expert deal-maker, and as the presidential election nears, bolstering the president means youre boosting his party.

Pelosis focus on trade comes at the expense of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, a broad package of pro-labor reforms introduced by Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia and co-sponsored by 215 members, which Pelosi has put on the back burner. The PRO ACT would eliminate right-to-work laws, impose new penalties on employers who retaliate against union drives and prevent employers from delaying negotiations on collective bargaining contracts. The bill has already passed out of the House Committee on Education and Labor, and while it wont become law under Trump, its still important it shows the partys commitment to the future of organized labor.

Pelosis narrow focus on the survival of moderate Democrats is understandable. Her majority rests on those moderates, who have followed her on impeachment despite real risks to their political standing. But the opportunity cost of that focus may be a chance to improve the vital relationship between labor and the Democratic Party.

Pelosis actions under a divided government are more defensible than those of Ralph Northam, the governor of Virginia, soon operating for the first time under unified Democratic control. With a liberal majority in the General Assembly, Northam intends to sign new legislation on gun control, voting rights and Confederate monuments (allowing localities to remove them without state authorization). Hell push bipartisan redistricting and fully implement the Affordable Care Act, with a state-based health insurance marketplace. He even wants to explore ways to expand access to preschool education. But on labor, Northam prefers the status quo. Last week, he told a group of lawmakers and business leaders that he could not foresee Virginia taking actions that would include repeal of the right-to-work law.

Right to work is a bit of misnomer. Under closed shop rules, new employees at unionized workplaces must join the union or at least pay dues. The reasoning is straightforward. Under federal labor law, nonunion workers are covered by the union contract. But negotiations arent cheap they take time and money. If everyone benefits, then everyone must contribute. Right-to-work laws essentially outlaw closed shops. Nonunion workers can claim union benefits without paying union dues or joining up, undermining the union in the process. It shouldnt come as a surprise that right-to-work laws are associated with low wages and lower rates of unionization. Virginia, incidentally, was named this summer as the worst state in the country to work.

A 2018 National Bureau of Economic Research study of the political effects of right-to-work laws found that they reduced Democratic vote share in presidential, congressional and state legislative elections, reduced Democratic turnout, dampened labor contributions to Democratic candidates, reduced the number of working-class candidates and moved state policy in a conservative direction. Repealing right to work wouldnt just be good for the states workers including the black Virginians who propelled Northam to the governors mansion and saved him in the midst of a blackface scandal it would strengthen the state Democratic Party and move policymaking to the left. Its in Northams interest as the leading Democrat in Virginia to want to end right to work and open a path for union growth in the state. And yet, as a moderate, business-friendly Democrat, he wont take the plunge.

Pelosi and Northam represent larger trends in Democratic politics: a long-term departure from labor that reflects on itself to undermine both. As unions get weaker, Democrats grow distant from organized labor. They are less likely to act on its behalf, which only makes the erosion worse.

Democratic inaction sits in stark contrast to the Republican Partys ruthless assault on labor. Since 2010, five more states have passed right-to-work laws. In one of them, Michigan, public-sector union membership declined by 34,000. In another, Wisconsin, overall union membership is down 133,000 since the beginning of the decade. Both declines contributed to Republican victories in these states, including the 2016 presidential race. As Tracie Sharp, president of the conservative State Policy Network, told The Wall Street Journal in 2016, When you chip away at one of the power sources that also does a lot of get-out-the-vote, I think that helps for sure.

Republicans and other conservatives know who their enemies are they know that organized labor is a key obstacle to dismantling the social safety net. The question is whether Democrats understand that their fortunes are also bound up in the fate of workers.

Excerpt from:
Do Democrats Really Know Who Their Friends Are? - The New York Times