Mediaboss Marketing

Kevin Paffrath, Kevin Paffrath smiles for a selfie in front of the California State Capitol in Sacramento on Friday, July 16, 2021.

Kevin Paffrath via AP

Last year at this time, Kevin Paffrath was focused on his YouTube channel, where his half-million-plus followers could tune in for daily commentary on housing, stocks and stimulus checks. It earned him nearly $10 million over the last 12 months.

Now, the 29-year-old former real estate broker is following Gov. Gavin Newsom around his home state. It's the best way he can think of to draw attention to his unlikely effort to replace Newsom in the upcoming recall election on Sept. 14.

Paffrath is a registered Democrat and self-declared centrist who voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election. While he's highly critical of Newsom and says he's been a "failed leader," Paffrath is equally concerned that the Democratic Party has no emergency plan.

Should more than half of California voters support the recall on their ballots, the next governor would be whichever of the 46 successor candidates gets the most votes, making it much easier for an outsider to win. Paffrath is one of the nine candidates listed as a Democrat, but party leaders are urging a "No" vote to the recall effort and saying voters should skip the second question asking who should be governor if the recall succeeds.

"It was mind-blowing to us that they didn't put at least somebody in, so that way, worst case, they had a hail mary," Paffrath said in an interview on Friday over a coffee, after attending a Newsom press event in San Francisco.

In an early August poll by Survey USA, Paffrath had the most votes in the field of replacements, with 27%. The next six candidates are all Republicans, including conservative talk show host Larry Elder and reality TV star and former Olympic athlete Caitlyn Jenner.

"We think in the last two weeks of this campaign if the recall looks more and more likely, the Democratic party will be forced to pick a Hail Mary back-up candidate," Paffrath said. "Given that we're No. 1 in the polls, we hope that's us."

California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks with media at a long-standing encampment along Highway 80 in Berkeley, California, August 9, 2021.

John G. Mabanglo | Pool | Reuters

Democrats are right to be nervous.

A poll conducted by the University of California, Berkeley, and the Los Angeles Times in late July showed 51% of registered voters opposed the recall, with 36% in favor. But among likely voters, the gap favoring Newsom's retention narrowed to three percentage points.

The anti-recall movement has raised about $51 million, almost eight times as much as the side trying to oust Newsom. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has contributed $3 million in support of the governor.

Donors can contribute an unlimited amount for or against the recall, but only up to $32,400 in support of any specific replacement candidate. Paffrath said he's raised close to $400,000 and has put in about $200,000 of his own money. The average donation is $70, he said.

"We don't have the war chest that Newsom does, so we have to do everything in our power with grassroots and social media," Paffrath said.

For example, Paffrath paid his brother-in-law, an app developer, to build his "Meet Kevin" app. And he's trying to get in front of the media as much as possible. Most of his ad spending is via text message to let voters know there's a Democratic alternative.

On Friday, Paffrath hung out outside Manny's restaurant in San Francisco as Newsom spoke inside to the press. Dressed in a navy suit with a purple tie, Paffrath made himself easy to spot for reporters. He said he's careful not to be disruptive at the events.

"We have to combat, this 'Oh yeah he's a YouTuber, he's a prankster,'" Paffrath said. "We stand there very respectfully and reporters recognize us. They talk to us."

From San Francisco, he's following Newsom to Los Angeles and San Diego, and possibly beyond.

The recall effort picked up momentum during the pandemic as frustration mounted about the state's shutdown of schools and small businesses, and the slow pace of the reopening even as Covid-19 cases and hospitalizations plummeted.

Newsom critics pounced at the opportunity to highlight the worsening homeless problem and increasing crime rates while taxes and living costs remained among the highest in the country. Paffrath said he wasn't an initial proponent of the recall and didn't get involved until it was well underway.

"The reason I think folks are frustrated is we pay our taxes, then we look up to see what our government is doing for us with the services we're paying for," he said. "And we see people dying on the street. We see blight. That's why people are leaving."

Paffrath, who lives with his wife and two young sons in Ventura, about 70 miles from Los Angeles, has made addressing the homeless issue his top agenda item. His proposal is to build new emergency facilities and lease commercial and office buildings, including many that have been vacated during the pandemic, to set up mass spaces with cots and small rooms, supported by staffing from the National Guard.

His aim is to get all of California's 160,000 homeless people off the streets in 60 days at an eventual cost of $10 per person per day, covering food, medical support and bathrooms.

Paffrath has equally ambitious some may say outlandish goals for new types of "future" schools, a system of underground tunnels to alleviate traffic problems and the building of Las Vegas-style casinos as part of a plan to fully legalize gambling.

He also recognizes the existential threat posed by fires and droughts. He advocates spending on controlled burns and a pipeline from the Mississippi River to double water flow to the Colorado River. When it comes to solar plants, he wants to incentivize companies to stay in California rather than going elsewhere.

"I'm tired of hearing about Tesla building solar panels in New York and Nevada," he said. "Those should be in California."

Paffrath's fans are used to hearing him opine on such matters. He now has almost 150,000 Twitter followers and 1.7 million on YouTube. Regular topics include interest rates, the crypto economy and politics.

Paffrath got his start in real estate a little over a decade ago by teaching people how to invest in the market. He became a broker and started buying property, then took his teaching experience and market knowledge to YouTube. By 2018 was making enough money a couple thousand dollars a day to let his broker license expire and to get out of sales.

At the coffee shop on Friday, he pulled out his phone and navigated to his YouTube earnings dashboard. Over the past year, the page showed, his ad revenue on the site topped $3.5 million. Affiliate revenue and money he makes from courses on building wealth brought in an additional $6 million or so, he said.

Kevin Paffrath on the campaign trail

Ari Levy | CNBC

But his focus now is on politics. Paffrath said he'll run in 2022 even the recall is unsuccessful or if another replacement candidate wins. That's as far out as he's projecting.

"I don't want to be a career politician," he said. "I want to fix California."

He also wants to assure Democrats that he's not just using their party label because it gives him the best chance to win. With a legislature that's three-quarters Democratic, he said it's important to start on things that the majority cares deeply about, like the homeless problem.

Control of the U.S. Senate could also be at stake. Dianne Feinstein, the state's senior senator, is the oldest member of the chamber at 88. She's not up for reelection until 2024, and questions have been swirling around whether she'll retire before then.

If so, the governor would get to pick her temporary successor. The Senate is currently at a 50-50 split, with Vice President Kamala Harris in position to cast deciding votes when needed.

Paffrath made it clear he would pick a Democrat.

"I'm not going to burn the party," he said. "I don't want people to think that just because I'm a recall candidate I'm going to go in there and do what Republicans say they want to do, start cutting things and throwing around the furniture. It's not going to work. You've got to respect the legislature."

WATCH: California Gov. Newsom faces recall

Link:
This 29-year-old YouTube millionaire has a good chance to be the next governor of California - CNBC

Texass Republican governor, Greg Abbott, has vowed to arrest Democrat lawmakers who have fled the state in an attempt to stop an overhaul of election laws that they say damages the right to vote, especially for communities of color.

Private planes carrying more than 50 Democrats left Austin for Washington DC on Monday, skipping town just days before the Texas house of representatives was expected to give early approval to sweeping new voting restrictions in a special legislative session.

The move denied the Republican-led legislature a quorum, leaving it with too few lawmakers in attendance to conduct business. That means it could not, at least for now, vote on the bill.

Even though Democrats cannot stop the Republican legislation, bringing the legislature to a halt might give them some kind of leverage in negotiating over the bills, as the Guardian previously reported. Walking out also signals to constituents how far Democrats are willing to go to try to stop Republican efforts to make it harder to vote.

In response Abbott told an Austin television station he would simply keep calling special sessions of the legislature through next year if necessary, and raised the possibility of Democrats facing arrest upon returning home.

As soon as they come back in the state of Texas, they will be arrested, they will be cabined inside the Texas capitol until they get their job done, Abbott said.

The cross-country exodus was the second time that Democratic lawmakers have staged a walkout on the voting overhaul, a measure of their fierce opposition to proposals they say will make it harder for young people, people of color and people with disabilities to vote.

But like last months effort, there remains no clear path for Democrats to permanently block the voting measures, or a list of other contentious GOP-backed proposals up for debate.

The Texas bills would outlaw 24-hour polling places, ban ballot drop boxes used to deposit mail ballots and empower partisan poll watchers.

The measures are part of a Republican drive across America rush to enact new voting restrictions in response to former president Donald Trumps false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. More than a dozen states this year have passed tougher election laws but only in Texas have Democrats put up this kind of fight.

Texas Democrats, shut out of power in the state capitol for decades, last fled the state in 2003 to thwart a redistricting plan. They ultimately lost that fight.

Trump won Texas easily in 2020 and it is already one of the hardest places to vote in the US. It does not have online voter registration nor allow everyone to vote by mail. Texas was also among the states with the lowest turnout in 2020.

But it has been trending Democratic in recent election cycles, pushed in part by changing demographics, and the Republican effort is seen by many as a way of seeking to offset that change by making it harder to vote for groups who traditionally vote Democrat.

Here is the original post:
Governor vows to arrest Democrats who fled Texas to block voting restrictions - The Guardian

A growing number of Democrats are ringing the alarm that their party sounds and acts too judgmental, too sensitive, too "woke" to large swaths of America.

Why it matters: These Democrats warn that by jamming politically correct terms or new norms down the throats of voters, they risk exacerbating the cultural wars and inadvertently helping Trumpian candidates.

Top Democrats confide that they're very aware of the danger. Already, we've seen a widespread pullback in the "defund the police" rhetoric.

Democratic strategist James Carville has been warning his party about this for months, telling Vox in an April interview:

Conservative columnist Peggy Noonan wrote this week in the Wall Street Journal that she believes the left is misreading its position and "overplaying its hand."

On the flip side, "How to Be an Antiracist" author Ibram X. Kendi, who directs Boston University's Center for Antiracist Research, wrote in The Atlantic on Friday that Republican operatives "have conjured an imagined monster to scare the American people and project themselves as the nations defenders from that fictional monster."

What we're hearing: Moderate and swing-district lawmakers and aides tell Axios' Margaret Talev and Alayna Treene that the party could suffer massive losses in next year's midterms if Democrats run like Sen. Elizabeth Warren is president.

Between the lines: The big question is how different the midterms will be from 2020. People voted for Democrats in November when the same talking points and ideas were being discussed. The presidency was at stake, but the other cultural or social issues were the same.

What to watch: This tension is a huge test for President Biden. He knows that the rising left in his party, while great for fundraising and media coverage, could be electorally disastrous.

Axios' Kim Hart and Alayna Treene contributed reporting.

Go here to read the rest:
Rise of the anti-"woke" Democrat - Axios

Some House moderates are urging party leaders to focus squarely on the bipartisan bill, while many liberals remain skeptical it will happen at all and Speaker Nancy Pelosi has threatened to sideline it without an accompanying Democratic package. A failed bipartisan result would force Democrats to write one huge spending bill marrying all their priorities.

Taken together, Democrats decisions in the coming days will define what may be the largest spending bill in history, offering their best chance at reshaping the federal government for years to come. Bidens party has a rare opportunity with full control over Congress and the White House, but its majorities are so slim that even attempting the two-part move will be a daredevil act.

If you add the two plans together, it would be the biggest bill in the history of the country, said House Budget Chair John Yarmuth (D-Ky.). There's no way its going to be easy."

House Budget Committee Chair John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) pauses for reporters after meeting with the House Democratic Caucus and Biden administration officials to discuss progress on an infrastructure bill at the Capitol. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

After three months of plodding negotiations, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has laid out an aggressive timetable that envisions passage of both a budget resolution to allow a huge Democrats-only tax and spending package plus a vote on a deal with Republican centrists to plow nearly $600 billion into roads, bridges and broadband. Schumer will reiterate the timetable in a Dear Colleague letter to Democrats on Friday, according to a Democratic aide, and warn of the possibility of working long nights, weekends and into the August recess to finish that work.

The majority leader has been constantly dialing up White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain, as well as his members in the bipartisan group and committee chairs in charge of a party-line spending bill, whose work will run into the trillions.

Every Democrat knows that the partisan legislation could be this years last big train to which they can hitch their long-sought priorities, and demand is high. Budget Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wants Medicare expansion, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is pressing for immigration reform and Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) is pushing her colleagues on child care spending. A whole slate of progressives want a major climate focus. And there will be restraints on spending from moderates and from the Senate parliamentarian on what can pass muster and avoid a GOP filibuster.

While Sanders initially suggested spending $6 trillion to complement the bipartisan deal, more moderate members are likely to tamp that down to $4 trillion or even lower depending in large part what moderate Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) agree to. Asked if she had a number in mind, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) replied: "Yeah, $6 trillion."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) responds to questions from reporters as Mass. Attorney General Maura Healey, left, and U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), right, look on during a news conference in Boston. | AP Photo/Steven Senne

In the House a band of centrists already anxious about their fragile majority are fretting over the party-line bill. And the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus are flexing their muscle and laying out demands, which will cause consternation among the party's moderates.

With that policy maelstrom still churning, leadership may have to threaten cutting some of Congress beloved August recess to drive hard decisions and get bills on track to meet Schumers aggressive timetable.

It will be used as a way for us to get the job done, the threat of losing August recess when we can go home, Duckworth said. Maybe that will be used as a carrot on the end of a very big stick.

Lawmakers will likely receive more clarity on the details of both the bipartisan plan and its financing as well as the contours of the partisan budget reconciliation spending bill early next week. While both Budget Committee Democrats and the bipartisan group have been aiming to wrap their work by then, no one is setting hard deadlines yet.

We are really working hard to try to get something that can get to the floor in the next couple of weeks, said Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), one of more than 20 senators working on the bipartisan bill. But I don't want to be too specific. Because in my experience, deadlines always slip a little bit.

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) listens to testimony on Capitol Hill in Washington. | Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo

Theres also the question of whether Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell might end up opposing the package, which could scuttle any effort to get 10 GOP senators on board. McConnell spent the July 4 break barnstorming Kentucky, saying he thought the bipartisan bill had a "decent chance" but also asking that it be credibly financed. The plan is currently to use increased IRS enforcement, unspent coronavirus aid and infrastructure privatization to cover the bills price tag.

Financing some of the trillions in spending on Democratic-only priorities will be even trickier, considering the party wants to raise taxes on both large companies and capital gains for wealthy people. Manchin has suggested more modest increases than Biden, but his support for both the spending plan and rolling back some of the 2017 tax cuts law is a breakthrough in and of itself.

The Senate Dems should look at each other and say: We're committed to doing a reconciliation bill. And I know Manchin is, said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who has suggested the $4 trillion number.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., speaks during a Senate committee hearing. | Susan Walsh/AP Photo

A successful July and August will require intense coordination by Schumer, Pelosi and committee leaders. Theyll need to make sure the bipartisan bill can pass both the Senate and the House and that its paired reconciliation bill has lockstep support in both chambers, a more complex dance than Democrats' swift passage of the $1.9 trillion coronavirus aid law in March.

Already theres been plenty of infighting, so much so that before the July Fourth recess Yarmuth and other party leaders pleaded with their members to stop making policy demands and drawing red lines or theyd never find the support to pass it.

Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), who has already declared he will vote against the Houses budget resolution, said it's time to stop spending after the massive Covid package. At the moment, House leaders can only afford to lose a couple more Democrats.

"When I was talking to the White House legislative team the other day, they said, 'Oh, I bet you lie awake at night counting dollars on this,'" Yarmuth said. "I said, 'No, I lie awake counting votes.'"

Laura Barrn-Lpez, Marianne LeVine and Lisa Kashinsky contributed to this report.

View post:
Democrats wrestle over control of the infrastructure throttle - POLITICO

A senior aide to President Joe Biden misleadingly claimed that congressional Republicans defunded the police when they voted against the American Rescue Plan Act. House and Senate Republicans didnt support the legislation, but it wasnt a vote to cut or eliminate federal funding for law enforcement, as the claim may have led viewers to believe.

Cedric Richmond, a senior adviser to the president and director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, made the claim during a June 27 interview on Fox News Sunday. He was asked to respond to Republican Sen. Lindsey Grahams statement that Bidens proposed plan to address rising crime across the country would not work because a declared war on the police was backfiring on those who have done it.

Senator Graham doesnt have a clue. And lets talk about who defunded the police, Richmond said, referring to the controversial concept of terminating or shifting funds away from police budgets that some Democrats and activists embraced in 2020 after a Black man, George Floyd, was killed by a white police officer.

When we were in Congress last year trying to pass a rescue plan an emergency relief plan for cities that were cash-strapped and laying off police and firefighters, it was the Republicans who objected to it. And in fact, they didnt get funding until the American Rescue Plan, which our plan allowed state and local governments to replenish their police departments and do the other things that are needed.

So, look, Republicans are very good at staying on talking points of who says defund the police. But the truth is, they defunded the police. We funded crime intervention and a whole bunch of other things, Richmond continued.

Richmond was referencing the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package that Biden signed into law on March 11, as the U.S. economy continued to rebound from the coronavirus pandemic. That bill passed in both houses of Congress with only Democratic support. It provided additional recovery money to lower-level governments, which could spend some of the money for law enforcement. But there was no requirement to do so.

Richmonds claim suggested that Republicans voted to cut or reduce existing federal funding to police departments which is what some who truly want to defund the police advocate. Thats not what happened.

The American Rescue Plan included hundreds of billions in additional economic relief for individuals and small businesses, including direct stimulus payments and expanded unemployment benefits. Among other things, it also provided over $350 billion in emergency funds to help state, county, city and tribal governments make up for revenue that was lost during pandemic-related shutdowns.

When the bill passed in a 50-49 Senate vote on March 6, Biden said it meant that states and local governments that have lost tens of thousands of essential workers because of layoffs would now have the resources they need available to them, to those laid-off police officers, firefighters, teachers and nurses they can rehire. And after Biden signed the bill into law on March 11, national police organizations also touted the emergency funding available to lower governments to maintain public safety services.

However, the section of the bill outlining the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds did not stipulate that the relief funding had to be used on police officers or for other law enforcement initiatives.

This is how a March 18 Treasury Department fact sheet summarized the recovery fund: The Rescue Plan will provide needed relief to state, local, and Tribal governments to enable them to continue to support the public health response and lay the foundation for a strong and equitable economic recovery. In addition to helping these governments address the revenue losses they have experienced as a result of the crisis, it will help them cover the costs incurred due responding to the public health emergency and provide support for a recovery including through assistance to households, small businesses and nonprofits, aid to impacted industries, and support for essential workers. It will also provide resources for state, local, and Tribal governments to invest in infrastructure, including water, sewer, and broadband services.

Even the May 10 fact sheet on the Treasurys proposed interim final rule on how to use the recovery funds noted that recipients have broad flexibility to decide how best to use this funding to meet the needs of their communities.

Also, Republicans in Congress did not say they opposed the legislation because some of the relief funds would potentially go to police departments.

At least one consistent GOP criticism of the overall bill which we wrote about was that only a small percentage of it was specifically earmarked for health spending related to COVID-19.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy also criticized the total cost of the legislation and said that many states actually had budget surpluses and didnt really need additional emergency funds.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell similarly denounced the COVID-19 relief bill for including completely unrelated left-wing pet priorities, as well as sending $350 billion to bail out long-mismanaged state and local governments. He also argued that the bill at a total cost of nearly $2 trillion was about the same size as the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, which was signed into law near the start of the pandemic in March 2020 and provided about $150 billion in direct assistance to state and local governments.

And when White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was pressed in a June 30 press briefing to name a single Republican who had opposed the bill because of the additional funding for police, she didnt identify one. Instead, Psaki said: So if you oppose funding for the COPS program something that was dramatically cut by the prior administration and many Republicans supported and then you vote against a bill that has funding for the COPS program, we can let other people evaluate what that means. It doesnt require them to speak to it or to shout it out; their actions speak for themselves.

Psaki was talking about the Community Oriented Policing Services program, which provides federal funding for hiring police officers, as well as nonhiring initiatives such as law enforcement training. As president, Donald Trump did propose cutting COPS funding, but Congress ultimately increased funding for the program throughout his presidency. And while the American Rescue Plan included funding that could be used to rehire or compensate police officers, it wasnt specifically tied to the COPS program.

When we asked the White House about Richmonds defunding claim as well as Psakis defense of it in press briefings an official directed us to a June 29 statement that White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates issued to a Fox News congressional correspondent. That statement also pointed to the American Rescue Plan funding to state and local governments, and the COPS program.

The President ran and won decisively on a platform of increasing funding for law enforcement, against an opponent who not only spent his entire term attempting to cut the COPS program with the support of congressional Republicans but who also blocked critical resources needed to prevent the laying off of police officers at a time of rising crime, Bates said in the statement, which was published in a tweet.

The President, with the backing of leading law enforcement groups, secured the money that his predecessor opposed to keep cops on the beat and every single Republican member of Congress voted against it. They continue to oppose the American Rescue Plan even as it delivers the rehiring of police in their districts. The President is also fulfilling his campaign promise of fighting for hundreds of millions of dollars in additional funding for the COPS program, as a central element of a comprehensive approach to the higher crime rates he inherited, alongside addressing gun violence directly, implementing prevention programs and dealing with root causes.

The White House official also told us that some Republicans in Congress have suggested that unspent funding authorized for state and local governments could be rescinded or reallocated to pay for other proposals, such as Republican-supported infrastructure plans.

To that point, a June 29 blog post on the website of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi which carried the headline House Republicans Vote to Defund Police Again emphasized that Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee that day voted in favor of an amendment to a funding bill that would stop local governments from receiving the second portion of American Rescue Plan money that is scheduled to be released in 2022.

What we are talking about is an extremely large amount of money that local governments didnt ask for, that in many respects dont need, and to this moment in time dont even know how they would effectively spend this kind of money, said Republican Rep. Steve Womack of Arkansas, who proposed the amendment, which failed in a 23-34 vote. He argued that because were on the tail end of COVID, it would be irresponsible for members of the committee to continue to shovel money out the door because of the disease.

The two parties clearly disagree on how much money state and local governments need to recover from the pandemic. However, voting against a bill that includes additional money that may be used to bolster police departments is not the same thing as reducing or redistributing existing federal funding for police, as Richmonds remarks suggested.

Editors note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made throughour Donate page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104.

See the article here:
Democrat Makes Misleading 'Defund the Police' Claim - FactCheck.org