Mediaboss Marketing

Welcome to Opinions commentary for the Jan. 14 Democratic presidential candidate debate in Des Moines. In this special feature, Times Opinion writers rank the candidates on a scale of 1 to 10: 1 means the candidate probably didnt belong on the stage and should probably drop out; 10 means its on, President Trump. Heres what our columnists and contributors thought about the debate.

Read what our columnists and contributors thought of the December debate.

Elizabeth Warren

Jorge Castaeda (7.5/10) A substantive candidate, even if her position on the trade agreement between the United States and Mexico is not very credible. On Iran and troops abroad she was categorical and honest.

Gail Collins (8/10) It does sound as if she really has a plan for everything, and no one could really take that on. Shes the one the debaters need to focus on the next time around.

Ross Douthat (6/10) The moderators basically took her side in the he said/she said with Sanders and she got to deliver what was no doubt a prepared speech. So a good-enough night, but hard to see a momentum swing for her.

Maureen Dowd (4/10) Her slide continues. Sanders has gotten back the progressive high ground on health care and soaking the rich, even after the Warren forces tried to submarine him this week. She didnt want to push it too hard and that let him off the hook.

Michelle Goldberg (9/10) One of her best debates. She had the most memorable line of the night: The only people on this stage who have won every single election they have been in are the women.

Nicole Hemmer (9/10) Barbara Lee was the clear winner of the debate, repeatedly cheered for her lone vote against authorizing the use of force after 9/11. But Warren was a close second, turning a challenging conflict with Sanders into a forceful case for her candidacy.

Robert Leonard (9/10) Best line of the night on whether a woman can win the presidency the women in the debate were undefeated.

Liz Mair (5/10) Shes lucky no one pressed her on whether Sanders said what her campaign is alleging if she said he had, Im not sure many people would have believed her.

Daniel McCarthy (6/10) Shes especially cogent on trade when defending the new NAFTA against Sanders. Made the case she can threaten Trumps Rust Belt support.

Melanye Price (9/10) She gave an amazing answer to the question about electability and it was her best moment of the entire debate.

Mimi Swartz (7/10) She maneuvered the gender issues handily, kept her cool and didnt take the bait to go to war on Sanders. But we know her brothers were in the military and that shes determined to fight corruption. She needs to refresh her talking points.

Hctor Tobar (8/10) I saw flashes of the conviction that briefly propelled her to the top of the Democratic field. Of the progressive candidates left standing, shes the most credible and presidential.

Pete Wehner (6/10) What she said on policy during the debate wont matter much. Her refusal to shake Sanderss hand after the debate will. My bet is this now intensely personal confrontation shes essentially accusing Sanders of being sexist, hes essentially accusing her of being a liar wont help Warren or Sanders.

Will Wilkinson (8/10) She needed a strong night and delivered. She made a fiery, galvanizing case on womens electability that made Sanders seem less than honest. Shes a fighter and still very much in the hunt.

Bernie Sanders

Jorge Castaeda (8.5/10) His best performance yet: authentic, eloquent and on-message. But will Americans elect a socialist?

Gail Collins (7/10) He isnt the most appealing, but he did have a whole lot of the most rousing moments.

Ross Douthat (6/10) Himself, himself, himself: The most consistent candidate from debate to debate was consistent once again. The Biden-Bernie debates after Super Tuesday will be deliciously grumpy.

Maureen Dowd (8/10) Waving his arms with the flair of a maestro, Sanders dominated the stage, didnt give any ground on his give-away programs and stared down Warren over her claim that he had told her that a woman couldnt win. He said he totally believes a woman could win. He obviously doesnt want one to win this year.

Michelle Goldberg (8/10) Bernie is more or less always the same, which is one thing his fans love about him.

Nicole Hemmer (7/10) He is debate-stage comfort food: You always know exactly what youre going to get.

Robert Leonard (7/10) Bernie is Bernie. But if Elizabeth Warren looked over the top of her glasses at me like she did at him, Id confess. He had different math teachers than I did he needs to show his work on Medicare for All.

Liz Mair (5/10) Let me keep telling you how Im totally not sexist and make you think Im totally sexist.

Daniel McCarthy (7/10) I dont share his faith in multilateralism, but hes the alternative to the foreign-policy status quo and clearest contrast to the G.O.P. all around.

Melanye Price (9/10) He looked like the nominee. His supporters should be ecstatic.

Mimi Swartz (8/10) The Cassandra of the campaign, but circumstances are conspiring to make him look ever more rational.

Hctor Tobar (7/10) He was cornered on health care. What will happen when the G.O.P. cannons are aimed at his campaign?

Pete Wehner (5/10) He was Bernie: curmudgeonly, loud, deeply ideological, a rock star to his base but unattractive to pretty much everyone else. The exchange with Warren that was leaked by her campaign wasnt one he was going to win, and he didnt.

Will Wilkinson (7/10) He burnished his anti-war cred and deftly defused Warrens a woman cant get elected allegation. Despite some shakiness in his hair-splitting opposition to NAFTA 2.0, which is good for Iowa, hes heading toward the caucus with his mojo intact.

Amy Klobuchar

Jorge Castaeda (6.5/10) She was substantive on health care. Yet even by a politicians standard, she talks too much about herself.

Gail Collins (6/10) Since her strong points have been so much about her performance in the debates, this wasnt a help or at least not a step up. Still waiting for the moment where she goes beyond likeability and really rouses the audience.

Ross Douthat (7/10) She forgot the governor of Kansas name, and she sometimes gets lost in Senate procedure, but another solid, personable performance that probably isnt going to be quite enough to lap Buttigieg in Iowa.

Maureen Dowd (6/10) She mined her ore-mining Midwestern roots and whacked Sanders and Warren for their pipe-dream math, their grand ideological sketches that will never see the light of day. But no breakthrough moment to get better traction in Iowa.

Michelle Goldberg (7/10) She was sharp, empathetic and charming. If I were looking for a pragmatic moderate, she might have won me over.

Nicole Hemmer (7/10) She should be the moderates choice, but she sounds senatorial, not presidential shes good on the ins and outs of legislation but often fails to tell a bigger story.

Robert Leonard (9/10) The women won the night. Klobuchar was pragmatic and tough but if you are going to name-drop the Kansas governor, you should remember her name.

Liz Mair (4/10) A weak debate. She often stumbled and sounded uncomfortable. She must be all in on Nevada with all the casino and gambling references.

Daniel McCarthy (4/10) She was the second-tier, standard-issue politician this time and came off as a foreign-policy lightweight.

Melanye Price (6/10) Someone should tell her the center is disappearing and the party has moved to the left.

Mimi Swartz (8/10) Once again, the queen of competence. Good idea to limit the one-liners. Biden-Klobuchar?

Hctor Tobar (8/10) The new centrist hope. Her reasonableness, competency and empathy could carry her to an upset in Iowa, and maybe in New Hampshire, too.

Pete Wehner (8/10) She needed an outstanding debate, and she got it. Shes authentic, informed and persuasive, is able to criticize other candidates without being nasty and (in an increasingly radical Democratic Party) she comes across as fairly moderate.

Will Wilkinson (6/10) She dominated the contest to name-check Iowa municipalities and built on her impressive electability bona fides. Yet every note she hit, like this entire debate, felt like a rerun.

Joe Biden

Jorge Castaeda (7.5/10) Uninspiring but solid on Iraq, Iran and womens issues. This may well be all he has to do to win the nomination.

Gail Collins (5/10) He didnt screw up! But I cant really celebrate the fact that he seemed functional but flat. Fair to mention the many things he did in previous administrations, but you still need a new thought to grab onto.

Ross Douthat (5/10) A very Biden performance he rambled, evaded and courted disaster in multiple answers but somehow always stumbled through. Nobody really attacked him; nothing happened to hurt his lead.

Maureen Dowd (5/10) Bidin his time til South Carolina; as he reminded his competitors, hes strongest among African-American voters. No gaffes but no heat, even though he had more breathing room because the candidates who used to attack him are gone.

Michelle Goldberg (6/10) He seemed sleepy and tripped over his words, at least until his riff on the economy. But none of his fellow candidates hurt him.

Nicole Hemmer (6/10) Biden debated like a candidate whose biggest goal was not to say anything dumb. (He gets an extra point for succeeding).

Robert Leonard (8/10) At times presidential, others a scold, and occasionally forgetful, he nailed it on paying farmers to sequester carbon to help fight global warming and stabilize a crumbling rural economy.

Liz Mair (8/10) Not a great debate, but at least he made people laugh once when the debate otherwise made people cry and tear their hair out.

Daniel McCarthy (5/10) Stumbles havent hurt him before hes almost Trump-like in his resilience. Hes not getting sharper, though.

Melanye Price (7/10) He has done a lot, but not enough to avoid a dumpster fire of political division and bigotry.

Mimi Swartz (7.5/10) He flogged his record during the Obama administration like crazy and held his own for 120 minutes, which was all he had to do.

Hctor Tobar (5/10) Ugh. Hes a shadow of the man who we knew just four or eight years ago. At the most pointed moments of the debate, he seemed to disappear.

Pete Wehner (6/10) He wasnt dominant or terribly impressive, but he didnt make any damaging errors. No one went after him. He used Trumps attacks against him to his advantage.

Will Wilkinson (7/10) Biden hasnt won a single debate, but it clearly doesnt matter. Hes ahead in the race and he capped off the night with energetic authority. The nomination is still his to lose.

Pete Buttigieg

Jorge Castaeda (7/10) Hes strong on education and articulate, but he comes across as scripted at times. He acknowledged that the trade agreement with Mexico and Canada was not perfect, though it seems he half-heartedly supports it.

Gail Collins (7/10) He had some of the best arguments, but worried that he still sounded like a really, really smart high school debater. He knows how to do those As a war veteran ... moments, which would be terrific in a debate with Trump.

Ross Douthat (4/10) Every answer was equally smooth, and at this point thats the problem.

Maureen Dowd (4/10) He continued to emphasize his veteran cred and how he would take down Cadet Bone Spurs. But he still seems canned and comes across as the star of the high school debate team. Hes straining to come up with the Vision Thing.

Michelle Goldberg (6/10) He was, as usual, poised and agile, but in a night with no fireworks, none of his answers stood out.

Nicole Hemmer (6/10) Last debate, everyone attacked him. This debate, they mostly ignored him and his overly rehearsed answers felt less relevant to the actual debate raging around him.

Robert Leonard (8/10) While Biden and Sanders bickered over old wars, Mayor Pete looked to future wars climate, cybersecurity and election security. He was the only one to mention the Poor Peoples March that took place at the debate site.

Liz Mair (7/10) Mayor Pete was one of two people who managed to not mangle the English language. Thank goodness.

Daniel McCarthy (5/10) Hes right that millionaires and billionaires kids shouldnt get free college from taxpayers. So why not means-test all entitlements?

Melanye Price (6/10) He will have to work to get some energy back. But no matter how he performs, pundits will say he was excellent.

Mimi Swartz (6/10) Hes starting to sound over-rehearsed. Nice try answering the question about his lack of black support, but the numbers speak louder.

Hctor Tobar (6/10) Hes the most polished and telegenic guy up there, but his ideas dont inspire me.

Pete Wehner (7/10) Strong but not outstanding. He told some humanizing stories, hes future-oriented and hes the only Democrat who isnt afraid to talk about his faith.

Will Wilkinson (6/10) Mayor Pete felt too much on auto-pilot to extract himself from the depths of the wine cave and reverse his slumping Iowa numbers.

Tom Steyer

Jorge Castaeda (6/10) Decisive on issues like impeaching Trump and climate change. He was unable to break through on other issues.

Gail Collins (2/10) We have a better billionaire.

Ross Douthat (5/10) His best night dont roll your eyes.

Maureen Dowd (3/10) Steyer pressed his case that he is the one to take on corporate America, given that he has already wrung a billion dollars out of the economy. But if we have to listen to a rich guy, lets hear what Mike Bloomberg has to say.

Michelle Goldberg (7/10) He was fine, but why is he there?

Nicole Hemmer (3/10) The guy pointed to his globe-trotting as evidence that hes qualified to be commander in chief. Yes, hes got good answers on climate, but cmon.

Robert Leonard (5/10) Getting stronger, but Cory Booker and Andrew Yang should have been on this debate stage.

Liz Mair (6/10) He also managed to not engage in rampant word salad yet still came off as someone just running a massive vanity exercise.

Daniel McCarthy (2/10) If nothing else, this minor-league candidate shows Democrats that money does have a role in facilitating discussion of big issues.

Melanye Price (5/10) He is paying a ton of money to become the head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mimi Swartz (7/10) Hes growing into his candidacy, but I dont see him breaking out of the pack to become the nominee. Secretary of climate?

Hctor Tobar (4/10) Its shameful that a man can buy his way into the semi-finals of the Democratic primary. Hes a marketing phenomenon, and not a political one.

Pete Wehner (2/10) He spoke less than any candidate and he still spoke too much. For future debates can we trade Steyer for Andrew Yang?

Will Wilkinson (7/10) He delivered a clear, impassioned case for a progressive agenda, especially on climate change. His billions undercut the credibility of his left message, but they bolster his claim to be able to rattle Trump.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

About the authors

Gail Collins, Ross Douthat, Maureen Dowd and Michelle Goldberg are Times columnists. (Ms. Goldberg's husband is consulting for Ms. Warrens campaign.)

Jorge Castaeda (@JorgeGCastaneda), Mexicos foreign minister from 2000 to 2003, is a professor at New York University and the author of Utopia Unarmed: The Latin American Left After the Cold War and a contributing opinion writer.

Nicole Hemmer (@pastpunditry) is an associate research scholar at Columbia University and the author of Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics.

Robert Leonard (@RobertLeonard), the news director for the Iowa radio stations KNIA and KRLS, is the author of Deep Midwest: Midwestern Explorations.

Daniel McCarthy (@ToryAnarchist) is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Quarterly.

Visit link:
Opinion | Winners and Losers of the Democratic Debate - The New York Times

Rep. Jeff Van Drew, D-N.J., who has opposed the impeachment of President Trump for months, is planning to jump to the Republican Party. Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Imag hide caption

Rep. Jeff Van Drew, D-N.J., who has opposed the impeachment of President Trump for months, is planning to jump to the Republican Party.

Updated on Dec. 16 at 9:22 a.m.

A conservative-leaning Democrat from New Jersey who defied his party in opposing the impeachment of President Trump is expected to switch parties and become a Republican.

Rep. Jeff Van Drew, a first-term Blue Dog Democrat who represents a swing district in southern New Jersey, intends to change parties after some of Van Drew's internal polling showed that he was becoming increasingly unpopular in his purple district, according to a senior Democratic aide.

As reports of Van Drew jumping to the GOP began to surface, President Trump thanked him on Twitter, calling Van Drew "very smart." News of the departure prompted several of Van Drew's staff members to resign en masse. In a letter to Van Drew's chief of staff, they said the congressman's decision "to join the ranks of the Republican Party led by Donald Trump does not align with the values we brought to this job when we joined his office."

Van Drew was one of two Democrats who defected from their party in October in voting against formalizing the impeachment inquiry into Trump.

The district he represents, New Jersey's second congressional district, is a battleground section of the state that in 2016 voted for Trump by a slim margin.

Van Drew's decision to join the Republican ranks illustrates the challenging political calculus facing moderate Democrats who represent counties with significant numbers of Trump supporters ahead of next week's House vote to impeach the president. Some Democrats in these swing counties worry that a near party-line vote to impeach Trump could backfire for Democrats in the November election.

The House on Wednesday is expected to vote on two articles of impeachment against Trump for allegedly attempting to enlist Ukraine to help with his 2020 re-election bid. Democrats say they have the votes to approve the charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress over the Ukraine pressure campaign. After passing in the House, the proceedings will move to the Republican-controlled Senate for a trial, where lawmakers are expected to acquit the president of any wrongdoing.

According to a poll conducted by his campaign, only about 24% of likely voters in Van Drew's district said he should be re-elected, with nearly 60% saying they wanted another Democrat in the seat. Those figures raised fears that he was especially vulnerable to a Democratic primary challenger, the senior Democratic aide said.

Support from top Democrats in the state was also collapsing. New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy on Wednesday accused Van Drew of choosing "his political career over our Constitution."

Murphy added: "Despite knowing full well that the President has abused the powers of his office, he's now willing to enable Donald Trump just to try to salvage his own election."

But Republican National Committee spokeswoman Mandi Merritt said Van Drew flipping parties shows the political risk of backing impeachment.

"Even Democrats know this entire impeachment witch hunt is a sham," Merritt tweeted. "It is clear that in today's rabid Democrat Party, moderates need not apply."

Multiple attempts to reach Van Drew and his spokeswoman for comment were not returned.

NPR's Susan Davis contributed to this report.

Go here to see the original:
House Democrat Who Opposed Impeachment Plans To Switch To The Republican Party - NPR

For the past two months, television ads across central Virginia have sounded a lot like President Trumps Twitter feed.

A rigged process. A sham impeachment. No quid pro quo. But Pelosis witch hunt continues, an ad from the Republican nonprofit group America First Policies cried, as images of Abigail Spanberger, who represents the region in Congress, flickered onscreen.

Like many of her fellow freshmen Democratic colleagues, Ms. Spanberger has faced a barrage of attack ads from the Republican National Committee, nonprofit groups and super PACs aligned with President Trump.

During the roughly two months that the impeachment inquiry has been underway, Mr. Trump and his Republican allies have flooded the airwaves, spending more than $16.7 million on ads critical of the impeachment effort. A vast majority of those ads attack House Democrats rather than defend the president, according to Advertising Analytics, an ad tracking firm.

Democratic groups are not fighting back directly and are choosing instead to focus mainly on other issues like health care. They are spending just $5.4 million on television ads specific to impeachment. Instead, the most prominent Democratically-funded message on television at this moment is this: Mike Bloomberg for President.

The former New York mayor is spending more than $109 million, primarily on biographical TV ads across the country and an additional fraction of that on Facebook and Google ads, all without mention of the drama unfolding in Washington this week.

He is investing some resources in impeachment: Mr. Bloomberg pledged a week ago to donate $10 million to the House Majority PAC to help defend House Democrats, which is nearly twice what Democrats have spent already.

Online, the Trump campaign has been dominating the impeachment discussion, with $2.3 million on Facebook alone ranking as the most money invested in digital impeachment advertising, though a coalition of Democratic groups, led largely by Tom Steyers campaign, have come close to matching Mr. Trump online, according to data analysis from Bully Pulpit Interactive, a Democratic consulting firm. Some have gotten creative, however. Mr. Bloombergs campaign, for instance, began advertising off Google searches of the word impeachment this week. The top result on Google was a link to Mr. Bloombergs website.

If all Republicans want to talk about is impeachment, the Democratic advertising effort postures an alternate reality where the only thing on peoples minds in Washington is health care, drug costs and fighting for better wages.

The disparity in ad spending reflects the political dilemma facing so many Democrats. Loath to make impeachment appear anything other than a constitutional principle, Democrats are hesitant to use aggressive persuasion tactics to make their case for supporting impeachment. They are instead revisiting popular themes that succeeded in the midterms.

Aside from Mr. Steyer, the deepest pocketed Democrats right now presidential candidates have barely run any advertisements around impeachment. The Biden campaign announced a new ad on Tuesday to run ahead of impeachment proceedings, but makes no mention of impeachment.

The bulk of Republican ads avoid 2020 entirely. They have been aimed more at pressuring the members themselves to vote against impeachment, and not at furthering an anti-impeachment narrative in key swing states. Still, in the past few days virtually every Democrat who was targeted has come out for impeachment.

For most House Democrats, not even a year removed from expensive midterm campaigns, dipping into their cash reserves this early is a risky move. Running in 2020, during a presidential election, is likely to drive up advertising costs. So they are left without a robust defense against a well-funded coalition of Republican super PACs and the Trump campaign.

For Republicans, you want to get on offense against Democrats, you want to press their issues and define them early, said Matt Gorman, a Republican strategist and former communications director at the National Republican Congressional Committee. He noted that for House races, the ability to attack early can be key in a presidential year. The airwaves get cluttered, put your message in now.

National polling on impeachment has remained largely unchanged in recent weeks, reflecting the deep polarization in the national political arena. Only two Democrats have publicly announced their opposition to impeachment so far (and one, Representative Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, is planning on switching parties after doing so). A third Democrat came out for impeachment on one of the articles but not the other.

There is no evidence at this point that the Republican spending is working, said Meredith Kelly, a Democratic strategist and former senior adviser at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. There really has not been significant movement in support for the impeachment inquiry nationally and within the battlefield, everyone appears to be holding steady in their corners.

The torrent of negative advertising on Democrats breaks down along two key lines of attack: that the impeachment is driven by a far-left conspiracy against the president, and that the new Democrats in Washington traded in their 2018 midterm promises to fight for health care and better jobs for a singular focus on impeachment.

Progressive icons like Senator Bernie Sanders and Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar are often front and center in the negative ads, despite not playing central roles in the impeachment process. The favorite foils of Mr. Trump and the modern Republican Party are depicted, often falsely, as describing the impeachment effort as a means of preventing Mr. Trumps re-election.

For example, 18 different ads from the American Action Network, a Republican nonprofit that has spent $5.4 million on TV ads so far, all begin with an appearance of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez on CNN where she warns of foreign interference in the 2020 election, and hopes for preventing a potentially disastrous outcome from occurring next year.

But the ads clip her words, making it sound like the potentially disastrous outcome is referring to Mr. Trumps re-election, as a narrator intones now its crystal clear, their partisan impeachment is a politically motivated charade.

The Republican National Committee, which has spent $2.3 million on impeachment ads targeting 14 different House Democrats, has decried the impeachment as broken promises by Democrats, who instead of fixing health care and lowering drug prices have abandoned their platform to focus solely on going after Mr. Trump.

Its a message that Republicans were using in the midterm elections, long before impeachment became a reality.

Mr. Gorman, the former Republican congressional committee strategist, said that the strongest performing advertisements in 2018 aside from individual opposition research were about removing the president.

The best uniform hit against Democrats was that they were going to go to Washington and just impeach the president, he said.

The central Democratic response, led by $3.6 million from House Majority Forward has been to rebut those claims, running positive ads about the targeted Democrats and their efforts on health care, drug prices and increasing jobs.

What if you knew the cost of medication before you left the doctors office? one ad from House Majority Forward asks. Elissa Slotkin wrote the bill to do just that, defending the Central Michigan representative who has been a primary target for Republicans.

Ms. Kelly noted that reminding voters of winning topics from 2018 was precisely the message Democrats should use to defend themselves, and that the Republican advertising efforts didnt appear to be persuading any Democrats to change their mind.

They are all able to say that while they may be recognizing that no one is above the law and pushing forward this impeachment inquiry and ultimately voting to impeach, its not stopping them from working on legislation to lower the cost of prescription drugs, or working with President Trump to sign the trade deal, Ms. Kelly said.

One of the biggest Democratic super PACs, Priorities USA, has also chosen to focus its advertising on issues such as health care and drug pricing and not on impeachment. And last week the House delivered on drug pricing, passing ambitious legislation to lower the rising cost of prescription drugs by empowering the federal government to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers.

A few Democratic groups are focusing on the drama in Washington this week. Need to Impeach, the Democratic super PAC founded by Mr. Steyer before he announced his candidacy for president, has spent just under $1 million on television ads targeting Republican Senators Joni Ernst, Susan Collins and Martha McSally. The message, from a Democrat: Put country over party and follow through on impeachment.

Read more:
Republicans Attack House Democrats on Impeachment, and Democrats Change the Subject - The New York Times

They showed that Mr. Trump and his aides and allies linked a sought-after Oval Office meeting for Ukraines new president to the investigations. And they established that the administration had frozen $391 million in military aid to Ukraine an ally under threat from Russia during the period when Mr. Trump was pushing hardest for the investigations.

The risks now, Democrats asserted, rest with Senate Republicans if they fail to give serious consideration to convicting Mr. Trump.

Im stunned by some of the reactions, from their own mouths, from the leaders of the Senate abandoning their oath, in defiance of their oath, in plain view, said Representative Madeleine Dean, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who sits on the Judiciary Committee. I think of it as malpractice, but its much more serious than that.

Still, the political ramifications for House Democrats were evident, especially with the start of what will certainly be a combative election year just days away.

Led by the president and his allies, Republicans promised to make vulnerable Democrats pay for their impeachment votes and said the partisan split combined with the near certainty that the Senate would ultimately, and perhaps quickly, acquit the president would allow them to make the case that this was strictly a political exercise born out of spite against a duly elected president.

Moments after the House voted to impeach Mr. Trump, American Action Network, a conservative advocacy group, announced it would hit Democratic lawmakers who supported impeachment and represent districts won by the president in 2016 with a combined $2.5 million of television and online advertisements. Conservative groups had already flooded those districts with a torrent of advertisements.

Each and every one of these members will have to explain their vote to impeach President Trump, Dan Conston, the president of American Action Network, said in a statement. Folks at home expect their member of Congress to deliver on real issues. Instead, theyve spent every waking moment trying to remove Trump from office for their own partisan political ends.

Go here to see the original:
House Democrats Bet Their Impeachment Votes Are Worth It - The New York Times

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