Mediaboss Marketing

In this issue: A primary rematch in NY-12 and dueling endorsements in MI-11s incumbent-vs.-incumbent primary

New Yorks 12th Congressional District Rep. Carolyn Maloney faces at least seven challengers in the Democratic primary, including one shes faced twice before. Suraj Patel, who Maloney defeated most recently in 2020 43% to 39%, announced his bid this week.

Patel, a former campaign staffer for President Barack Obama, called himself pro-growth, pro-democracy, pro-science and pro-safety and said, This is a new decade, a new district, and as we enter year 3 of a pandemic weve got new challenges, which means we need a government that proactively develops 21st-century solutions to 21st-century problems.

Maloney was first elected in 1992. Maloneys campaign website says her position as a hard-hitting progressive leader is indisputable. When announcing her bid for a 16th term, Maloney said, Now more than ever, our city needs innovative leaders to spearhead our rebuilding from the COVID-19 crisis From securing federal funding to help New Yorkers get vaccinated, pay their rent, and feed their families, I have led efforts that will enable New York City and New York State to build back better.

Jewish Insiders Matthew Kassel said redistricting expanded the 12th District westward into Manhattan, where [Maloney] is likely to pick up a cluster of new voters that will add to a traditional support base in her home neighborhood of the Upper East Side. Meanwhile, the new boundaries cut back on left-leaning enclaves in Brooklyn and Queens, where Maloney has performed poorly in recent elections. The new map is being challenged in court.

Patel said the new district map could benefit him, pointing to parts of the former 10th Districtwhich Rep. Jerry Nadler representsthat became part of the 12th and saying his positions are closer to Nadlers than Maloneys are.

Candidate Rana Abdelhamid launched her campaign last April with support from Justice Democrats. Abdelhamid said, As the pandemic has exacerbated inequities in our communities, this district deserves a representative who fights for renters instead of developers, and small shops instead of big banks A leader who went to New York City public schools, isnt a millionaire, and answers to all of us not just the corporate PACs who fund her reelection campaigns.

According to The Citys Clifford Michel, candidate Maud Maron is looking to promote issues such as public safety and wants to get rid of masking in schools. Her moderate credentials could siphon votes from Maloney while the incumbent tries to fend off a progresive [sic] challenge. Marons campaign website says she rejects ideological purity in favor of practical solutions. She was one of the very first candidates to reject Defund Police proposals because all communities need safe streets, parks and transportation.

The primary is set for June 28.

On Feb. 12 and Feb. 13, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) campaigned in Texas for U.S. House candidates Jessica Cisneros (District 28) and Greg Casar (District 35), including at a rally for the candidates in San Antonio.

Ocasio-Cortez criticized U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, who faces Cisneros in the March 1 primary, for saying last summer that he wouldnt vote for a budget resolution needed to pass the Build Back Better Act unless the House first voted on an infrastructure bill the Senate had passed, as we wrote about two weeks ago. Ocasio-Cortez said, A lot of people say Manchin, Manchin, Manchin . . . But we know its not just Manchin. You know whos helping him? Henry Cuellar. Ocasio-Cortez said, If youre upset about Build Back Better, you can elect Jessica Cisneros.

The Build Back Better Act passed the House, with Cuellars support, in November. The Senate has not yet taken it up.

Before the rally, Cuellar said, The voters will decide this election, not far left celebrities who stand for defunding the police, open borders, eliminating oil & gas jobs, and raising taxes on hard working Texans. Members should take care of their own district before taking failed ideas to South Texas.

On Feb. 14, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) endorsed Cisneros and Casar.

Tannya Benavides is also running in the 28th District primary. Casar faces three other candidates in the open 35th District. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote, the top two vote-getters will advance to a runoff on May 24.

Three major race forecasters consider the 28th District general election either Lean or Likely Democratic. The 35th District is Safe or Solid Democratic.

On Feb. 10, retiring Michigan 14th Congressional District Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D) and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) endorsed different incumbents running in Michigans 11th Congressional District Democratic primary.

Lawrence endorsed Rep. Haley Stevens, saying that no person represents the quality, the compassion, the work ethic better than Haley Stevens. The CPC endorsed Rep. Andy Levin, saying he is a progressive champion driven by a commitment to universal justice and equity, not backroom special-interest agendas.

Both Stevens and Levin were first elected in 2018. According to data from Daily Kos, 45% of the newly drawn 11th Districts population comes from Michigans old 11th District (which Stevens represents), 25% comes from the old 9th District (which Levin represents), and 30% comes from the old 14th District (which Lawrence represents).

Last month, Stevens criticized Levins decision to run in the 11th District, saying she couldnt imagine abandoning over 70% of [her] current constituents in an open and winnable congressional seat to primary a fellow Democrat. Three independent race forecasters rate Michigans new 10th District, which 71% of Levins old district was drawn into, Tilt or Lean Republican. Levin said, No current Member of Congress has represented the new districts as drawn, full stop. I am running in the district drawn around the home where Ive lived for 16 years.

Independent forecasters rate the general election in Michigans 11th Safe or Solid Democratic. The primary is scheduled for Aug. 2.

As of the end of Januarynine months ahead of the general election42 members of the U.S. House had announced they would not seek re-election. At the same time in the 2020 election cycle, 34 representatives had announced they wouldnt seek re-election. That number was 45 in 2018.

On Tuesday, Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.) announced her retirement, bringing the total up to 43 incumbents not seeking re-election this year.

The Brooklyn Democratic Party endorsed Gov. Kathy Hochul in the Democratic gubernatorial primary. The New York Working Families Party endorsed primary challenger Jumaane Williams.

New York Daily News Tim Balk said the Brooklyn Democrats vote dealt a significant but not unexpected blow to city Public Advocate Jumaane Williams bid to unseat the incumbent and that Williams will now officially be running without the support of his local Democratic Party chapter.

The New York Times Nicholas Fandos wrote that Sochie Nnaemeka, director of the New York Working Families Party, said she was concerned that without a robust voice from the left, Democratic leaders were being swayed by other candidates centrists in their own party like Representative Tom Suozzi and Republicans like Representative Lee Zeldin who have sought to stir up public outrage over Ms. Hochuls handling of the virus, the economy and public safety.

U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) also recently endorsed Hochul. And the group Our Revolution endorsed Williams.

Hochul succeeded Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) after he resigned last August. Hochul was elected lieutenant governor in 2014 and re-elected in 2018, defeating Williams in the Democratic primary that year 53% to 47%.

Five candidates are running in the Democratic primary so far. The primary is scheduled for June 28.

Last week, Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White (D) endorsed Elizabeth Rochford, a judge on the 19th Circuit Court, in the state supreme court 2nd District Democratic primary. Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rotering and 16th Circuit Court Judge Ren Cruz are also running in the primary.

Democrats currently hold a 4-3 majority on the court. There are two partisan elections and two retention elections taking place this year against the backdrop of redistricting.

The 2nd District position is open for two reasons.

In 2020, 3rd District Justice Thomas Kilbride (D) became the first justice in Illinois history to lose a retention election. Robert Carter (D) was appointed to fill the vacancy and is not seeking election to a full term.

Last year, the Illinois Legislature redrew the states five court district lines for the first time since they were enacted in 1964. As a result, the current 2nd District justice, Michael Burke (R), was moved to the 3rd District, where he is seeking election to a full term after his appointment in 2020.

According to the Center for Illinois Politics, under its new lines, the 2nd District voted for Joe Biden (D) over Donald Trump (R) 56-42% in 2020. In 2018, J.B. Pritzker (D) defeated then-Gov. Bruce Rauner (R) 48%-46% in the district. As with 2018, Illinois is holding a gubernatorial election this year.

Justices Rita Garman (R) in the states western 4th District and Mary Jane Theis (D) in the 1st District (Cook County) face retention elections.

The primary is scheduled for June 28.

Read the original:
Heart of the Primaries 2022, Democrats-Issue 10 Ballotpedia News - Ballotpedia News

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered remarks at the 2022 New York State Democratic Convention in New York City amid the Special Counsel John Durham probe controversy.

During her speech, Clinton accused Fox News of lying about her in an attempt to spread disinformation regarding the Durham probe.

"We can't get distracted by the latest culture war nonsense or a new right wing lie on Fox or Facebook," the former presidential candidate said. "By the way, they are after me again lately, in case you may have noticed."

HILLARY CLINTON IGNORES QUESTION ABOUT WHY SHE CALLED THE DURHAM CONTROVERSY A 'FAKE SCANDAL'

"It's funny. The more trouble Trump gets into the wilder the charges and conspiracy theories about me seem to get."

Former Secretary State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the 2016 Democrat candidate for U.S. President, attends the New York State Democratic Convention in New York, N.Y., Thursday February, 22, 2022. Photo/Douglas Healey

"Fox leads the charge with accusations against me counting on their audience to fall for it again," she continued.

Clinton went on to claim that Fox News was approaching legal liability for its reports on the Durham probe, saying, "And as an aside, they're getting awfully close to actual malice in their attacks. But as I said, don't get distracted."

In her address, Clinton blasted the Republican Party as divisive, violent, and dangerous to U.S. democracy.

"We are in uncharted territory. And make no mistake, our adversaries around the world are watching," the former Secretary of State said. "Republicans are defending coup plotters. They're curbing voting rights at precisely, the moment when democracy needs champions."

Former Secretary State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the 2016 Democrat candidate for U.S. President, attends the New York State Democratic Convention in New York, N.Y., Thursday February, 22, 2022. Photo/Douglas Healey

She continued, "When we should be standing together against autocracies like Russia and China. January six, last year was a gift to them because they know something we need to remember. America is only as strong as our unity and our democracy allows us to be."

Until now, Clinton campaign alumni been silent following the filing from Durham, who claims that a technology executive accessed servers belonging to Trump Tower and the White House to compile dirt on former President Donald Trump related to Russia.

Former Secretary State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the 2016 Democrat candidate for U.S. President, attends the New York State Democratic Convention in New York, N.Y., Thursday February, 22, 2022. Photo/Douglas Healey

Clinton reacted to Durhams latest filing on Wednesday, criticizing former President Trump and Fox News for "desperately spinning up a fake scandal to distract from his real ones."

HILLARY CLINTON REACTS TO DURHAM FILING, SAYS TRUMP, FOX NEWS 'DESPERATELY SPINNING UP A FAKE SCANDAL'

The former 2016 Democratic presidential nominee tweeted Wednesday, in her first public statement reacting to Durham's Feb. 11 federal court filing, which Fox News first reported Saturday.

This is a developing story, check back for updates.

Read the original here:
Hillary Clinton brushes Durham controversy off as conspiracy theory in speech to NY Dem convention - Fox News

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Parenthood is awesome, but you learn a lot. If you ever had kids in middle school, you know what sustained emotional drama looks like. Everything's fairly placid up until about seventh grade. And then the four horsemen of the adolescent apocalypse arrive: hormones, homework, dating and acne. And things get very volatile, very fast. The main symptom of this period of childhood development, apart from door-slamming, is wild overstatement. No longer is anything okay, or not very good. No. Even the mildest inconvenience is transformed into a horrifying, world-ending disaster. The Titanic meets Vesuvius, plus Y2K. Four minutes late for school is the single worst day of my life ever. Waking up before 9 is like death. A pop quiz in math class? That's the emotional equivalent of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, except much more upsetting.

It's pretty intense. Thankfully, most kids get over middle school, those who don't tend to leave home and not come back. They become interpretive dance majors at small, liberal arts colleges, or they run for Congress. Ever wonder why America's traditional party of the unionized working man suddenly sounds like a van full of eighth grade girls on the way to prom, all breathy and on the verge of tears? Well, it's simple. Because at this point, that's pretty much exactly what the Democratic Party is. You'll really notice it in the way they speak.

REPUBLICANS SEE SIGNS OF MIDTERM RED WAVE IN SF SCHOOL BOARD RECALL: THEYVE IGNORED PARENTS'

For Democrats, there are no more small problems, no challenges minor. Every speed bump is a full-blown catastrophe. Every disagreement? Total war. Losing an election? They can't even talk about it. Close your eyes and try to picture the scariest threat you can imagine. The prowler at the door. The monster under the bed. An IRS audit. Now multiply that scene by a million sweat-covered nightmares, and you are just beginning to approach the level of terror the Democrats feel when they think about giving up power. It's not just a bad outcome, it's the end of democracy. Watch:

DON LEMON: Is the end of our democracy in sight?

AOC: And I believe that the election of Joe Biden essentially paused our descent into just the complete upending of our democracy, but we are not out of it.

MSNBC: So Donald Trump's comeback, it's the end of our democracy

CNN: We might see the end of democracy in the coming years.

WOLF BLITZER: So you're saying it's still possible we could lose our democracy here in the United States?

ADAM SCHIFF: Without a doubt.

SCHUMER: If Americans lose faith in the veracity and honor of our elections, it's the beginning of end of our democracy.

HILLARY CLINTON: I think that could be the end of our democracy, not to be too, you know, appointed about it, but I want people to understand.

ABC ANCHOR: Hillary Clinton said a couple of weeks ago that if he runs and wins, that could be the end of our democracy. Do you share that fear?

MAX BOOT: Well, I don't want to be overly alarmist, but I think we should be alarmed because potentially this could be the end of American democracy. I never thought I'd be saying something like that.

It could be the end of American democracy, and I never thought I'd be saying something like that, says Max Boot. Well, that makes two of us. We always knew that Max Boot loved to kill brown people in impoverished villages, in faraway countries, or precisely send other people's kids to do it for him. But we had no idea that Max Boot was in the middle of a full-blown emotional breakdown. He must be, because how else do you explain a reaction like that?

FLORIDA BOASTS RECORD TOURIST NUMBERS DESPITE MEDIA FEAR-MONGERING ABOUT THE STATE

For a well-adjusted, normal person, unwanted election outcomes are part of life. Voters don't always do what you want them to do. It is frustrating, but that's how it works. In fact, when voters reject you, you get a chance to assess your own behavior. Chances are, there is a reason that people didn't want you in power, and you now have time to think about what that reason might be. That's a healthy process. So when you lose, it is hardly proof that the system is broken. In fact, it's usually evidence that things are working exactly as intended. But people like Max Boot and Liz Cheney do not see it that way. They are too fragile to face their own unpopularity.

To people like that, the prospect of rejection by voters, of losing control of the country, means literally, literally, literally the end of democracy itself. Imagine feeling that way.

If you really believe that your election loss meant the end of America and the beginning of a thousand years of darkness, you might have trouble keeping perspective on politics. Every election would feel like climate change, the most profound existential crisis in the history of the world. And if your side ever lost an election, whoa, how do you describe a disaster that existentially existential?

Honestly, words would fail you. You'd have only animal sounds.

REACTION TO TRUMP VICTORY.

Yes, Democrat, someone you didn't vote for won the presidential election. You know, if you're not a Democrat, it's pretty hard to imagine the pain of a moment like that. For Democrats, it was like being boiled alive in a giant mug of the world's hottest latte, but without the soothing foam. Four years of wrenching agony. The whole experience hurt so much that Democrats inevitably came to the obvious conclusion. Going forward, no voter alive or dead, citizen or illegal, should ever again be asked to show voter ID at the polls. It was a simple, elegant solution that no sensible person could disagree with. Unfortunately, not everyone is sensible. Many people are like Hitler. So they oppose voter fraud. Democrats wasted no time in becoming hysterical about this.

GOP LEADER MCCARTHY BACKS PARENTS, VOTERS WHO TOSSED THREE SAN FRANCISCO SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS OUT

REV. AL SHARPTON, MSNBC: Tonights lead, Jim Crow 2.0.

BIDEN: It is the most pernicious thing, this makes Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle.

AOC: Are remnants of Jim Crow, I shouldnt even say remnants, revivals -- an attempted revival of Jim Crow.

HAKEEM JEFFRIES: A Jim Crow KKK like caucus.

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, MSNBC: Their strategy right now is to pass a bunch of racist voting laws, effectively a new Jim Crow in the south.

ARI BERMAN, MSNBC: And allow Republicans all across the country to implement Jim Crow 2.0.

MICHAELERICDYSON, MSNBC: Jim Crow 2.0? This is Jim, Jane Crow, Sally and every other Crow we can imagine.

DON LEMON, CNN: Its voter suppression, its the new Jim Crow.

That's right. Showing photo ID to vote, says Mr. Michael Eric Dyson, who not only teaches at a college, but has three names, that is both Jim Crow and Jane Crow, and for that matter, very much like their little-known love child, Josephus Crow, who's even more racist than his parents are. That's how immoral voter ID is. So stop it right now, says Michael Eric Dyson. It's the end of democracy.

At this point, a lot of things are the end of democracy, including we are here to tell you, not wearing a mask in an elevator. Yes, that's the end of democracy, too. So says the latest bulletin from, I want to be clear here we're not accusing anyone of hysteria, just reporting the news, from this sitting Democratic congresswoman, who in point of fact rarely sits, but instead leaps around pointing a finger people and accusing them of things. In any case, here she is explaining the latest threat to democracy.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL: This has happened to me where you get on an elevator and people refuse to wear a mask. And your choices are to either get off the elevator or to get on the elevator and to tell them to wear a mask. That should not be a problem in the United States Congress. And I really believe that our colleagues who refuse to even adhere to the basic norms of civility are undermining our democracy. And of course, we're seeing it in all kinds of even more serious ways, like the Jan. 6 insurrection.

So those are your choices when an insurrectionist gets on the elevator without a mask. Of course, the other choice is to seek immediate psychiatric care and behave like an adult, that has not occurred to them. Because democracy is at stake.

It turns out you can destroy our ancient democracy just by forgetting to wear your mask in an elevator. Think about that for a moment, Mr. and Mrs. America. Our democracy is that brittle.

One act of carelessness, and it could shatter into a million pieces like a priceless vase. It's enough to keep you up at night. Adam Kinzinger has not slept since he realized that. The thought that some oaf might trip on a carpet edge and drop democracy onto a hardwood floor, literally, literally makes Adam Kinzinger cry. It's how sensitive he is.

KINZINGER: I never expected today to be quite as emotional for me as it has been. // You know, you talk about the impact of that day. But you guys won. You guys held. You know, democracies are not defined by our bad days, we're defined by how we come back from bad days.

Yes, another seventh grade girl representing you in Congress, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Adam Kinzinger. You've got to wonder if we would all be much better off if Adam Kinzinger had just stuck to interpretive dance. Too late now.

This article is adapted from Tucker Carlson's opening monologue on the February 16, 2022 edition of "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

Read the original here:
Tucker Carlson: Every speed bump for Democrats is a full-blown catastrophe - Fox News

Todays Democrats fancy themselves as the party that trusts the evidence wherever it might lead. This is why they invest heavily in science and technology and set up arms of government to translate that knowledge into action. But despite claiming to prioritize new ways of improving our society, Democrats dont always act in ways that are rooted in research.

In fact, sometimes they actively resist doing what the evidence says especially when it comes to implementing policies that give financial benefits to people low on Americas societal totem pole. Its not always said out loud, but the reality is that some Democrats, and American voters in general, do not think very highly of poor people or people of color there are countless examples of how society is quick to dehumanize them and how politicians struggle to address their needs in a meaningful way. These patterns of thinking and misleading portrayals of marginalized people too often mean that the policies that could help them most are opposed time and time again.

That opposition is, of course, rarely framed in terms of antipathy or animus toward a particular group. Instead, it is often framed as rationality, like adherence to fiscal conservatism, especially among members of the GOP, who have long abided by small-government views. But some Democrats are really no different. Consider President Bidens reluctance to cancel student loan debt, or the federal governments hesitancy to provide free community college, or West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchins recent opposition to including the child tax credit in the Build Back Better plan, reportedly on the grounds that low-income people would use the money on drugs. Indeed, politicians across the political spectrum have found a number of scapegoats to use while arguing against expanding the social safety net, including playing to Americans fears about rising inflation rates. As a result, various programs that would help people namely the poor and people of color have become taboo.

Whats striking, though, is that if you actually look at most social science research, investing in the social safety net is fiscally responsible it pays large dividends for both individuals and our collective society. Economists have studied this for decades, finding that anti-poverty and cash-assistance programs executed both in and outside of the U.S. are linked to increased labor participation in the workforce, while investing in childcare benefits not only children, but the broader economy and society they are raised in. Moreover, newer initiatives like canceling student debt could add up to 1.5 million jobs and lift over 5 million Americans out of poverty in addition to freeing many Americans of the debt trap that is contributing to a lagging housing market and widening racial wealth gap. Other research suggests that those saddled with student loan debt would be more likely to get married or have children if their dues were forgiven.

That is the evidence. Yet, rather than acting on it, there has been a tendency to highlight stories and tropes about people who might waste the resources invested in them. And thats oftentimes enough to undermine public and political support for these policies. So what were seeing from some moderate Democrats today is likely born out of an inherent distrust of what might happen if you just give people money or help them through an expanded social safety net.

But if we look in the not-too-distant past less than a hundred years ago, in fact we quickly see that Democrats didnt always oppose distributing money to support Americans well-being. In fact, former Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt rolled out safety-net programs like Oprah would give away her favorite things. In response to the Great Depression, Roosevelt oversaw a massive expansion of the social safety net during the 1930s and 40s, which included giving grants to states that implemented unemployment compensation, aid to dependent children and funding to business and agriculture communities. Recognizing the importance of a safety net to protect people from the uncertainties brought on by unemployment, illness, disability, death and old age, the federal government also created Social Security, which it deemed vital at the time for economic security. And in the 1960s, long after the Great Depression was over, the government created the Medicare program for similar reasons under former President Lyndon B. Johnson, another Democrat.

What is clear from these examples is that the federal government once understood the importance of a robust safety net for the health, well-being and the broader functioning of our society. The caveat, however, is that this general understanding does not extend to our thinking about all Americans; the government was supportive of these policies when most beneficiaries were white. But when people of color started actively utilizing and benefitting from these same programs, they became harder to attain and, in some cases, overtly racialized.

That was particularly true in the 1970s and 80s when conservative and right-wing political candidates vilified Americans on welfare. During his initial presidential run, Ronald Reagan would tell stories and give numerous stump speeches centered on Linda Taylor, a Black Chicago-area welfare recipient, dubbed a welfare queen. To gin up anti-government and anti-poor resentment among his base, the then-future Republican president villainized Taylor, repeating claims that she had used 80 names, 30 addresses, 15 telephone numbers to collect food stamps, Social Security, veterans benefits for four nonexistent deceased veteran husbands, as well as welfare as a way to signal that certain Americans namely those of color were gaming the system in order to attain certain benefits from the federal government. Reagan wasnt alone, however. In fact, his tough stance on alleged welfare fraud and government spending on social programs encapsulated the conservative critique of big-government liberalism at the time.

Democrats, however, werent that different either. Former Democratic President Bill Clintons promise to end welfare as we know it in the 1990s included stipulations like requiring a certain percentage of welfare recipients to be working or participate in job training. This helped foster, in turn, a belief that there were people who played by the rules and those who didnt (namely Black Americans). And once politicians started worrying about (Black) people taking advantage of the system, the requirements needed to acquire certain societal and financial benefits became even harder to obtain.

But all of this implicit rhetoric about reducing government waste by cracking down on marginalized people does not hold up to scrutiny when examining the evidence. The reality is that fraud among social safety net beneficiaries is extremely rare, and much less costly to society than, say, tax evasion among the richest 1 percent. Yet we spend an incredible amount of money trying to catch and penalize the poor instead of helping them.

Moreover, polls show that Americans particularly Democrats overwhelmingly want to expand the social safety net. According to a 2019 survey from the Pew Research Center, a majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaners (59 percent) and 17 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaners said that the government should provide more assistance to people in need. Even this October, around the time when Democrats were negotiating the size of the omnibus Build Back Better Act, a CNN/SSRS poll found that 75 percent of the partys voters (and 6 percent of Republicans) preferred that Congress pass a bill that expanded the social safety net and enacted climate-change policies.

However, despite many Americans wanting an expansion of the social safety net, it is still often hard to sell voters on these programs especially if theyre wrapped up in large policy packages (i.e. Obamacare) or associated with someone voters dislike (i.e. former Democratic President Barack Obama). Consider that a Politico/Morning Consult survey from late last year found that only 39 percent of Americans who received the child tax credit said it had a major impact on their lives. Moreover, only 38 percent of respondents credited Biden for the implementation of the program.

The fact that many expansions of the social safety net arent initially popular makes it all the easier for Democrats to fall back on the stories people tell themselves about different groups of people and whether they deserve help. And sometimes, those portrayals affect the concerns we have about members of those groups and the explanations we generate for why they experience the outcomes they do in life. As earlier expansions of the social safety net show, the U.S. hasnt always been allergic to giving people money, but there now seems to be this unspoken idea that poor people and people of color cant be trusted to spend free money or government assistance well.

This thinking, though, poses a problem for Democrats because, for years, theyve branded themselves as the party that promotes general welfare by advancing racial, economic and social justice. At the same time, they continue to fall short on campaign promises to expand the social safety net despite many poor people, and people of color, having fought long and hard to put them in office. The fact that so many of todays Democrats are still prisoners to antiquated tropes about who gets or is deserving of government benefits is a dangerous one, because it causes people to push members of those groups outside of their moral circles the circle of people that they think they have a moral obligation to help.

Of course, breaking this chain of thought wont be easy because it would require Democrats to break the long-standing mindset that poor people are in their current situation because of a series of unfortunate choices. It would also probably require them to stop worrying about how Republicans might falsely reframe social safety net programs as dangerous, especially given ongoing concerns regarding inflation and the economy during the COVID-19 pandemic. But at the end of the day, that shouldnt matter: While the politics might not be immediately convenient and the effects of these programs not immediately seen, that is not necessarily a reason to defer implementing them. Focusing solely on the short-term effects is not only short-sighted, but dangerous. And Democrats stand to lose more than the support of their base if they refuse to act.

Continued here:
Democrats Helped Build The Social Safety Net. Why Are Many Now Against Expanding It? - FiveThirtyEight

Redistricting is pitting a number of Democratic incumbents against one another in what will likely be a handful of competitive and grueling House primaries.

The decennial process isnt complete yet some states havent finalized their congressional maps or are caught in litigation over the new lines but lawmakers in at least three states have already started the awkward process of battling a colleague.

Here are the districts where Democrats are battling in a primary:

Georgias 7th Congressional District

Democratic Reps. Lucy McBathLucia (Lucy) Kay McBathThe Hill's Morning Report - World poised for war House races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another On The Money Economy had post-recession growth in 2021 MORE and Carolyn BourdeauxCarolyn BourdeauxThe Hill's Morning Report - World poised for war House races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another Rouda passes on bid for redrawn California seat, avoiding intraparty battle with Porter MORE are gearing up for a fierce primary battle with hopes of representing Georgias newly drawn 7th Congressional District.

The Peach States new congressional map, which was signed into law by Gov. Brian KempBrian KempRepublicans spurned by Trump in primaries still embrace him Raffensperger calls for extra security at Georgia polling sites No 'mass exodus,' but GOP sees Trump grip loosening MORE (R) in December, flipped McBaths 6thCongressional District seat red, handing Republicans a likely victory in Novembers midterm elections and prompting McBath to run in the neighboring district represented by Bourdeaux, which moved even further left.

McBath currently represents 12.1 percent of the new district, while Bourdeaux represents 57 percent in the current 7thdistrict, according toFiveThirtyEight.

Both lawmakers have solid credentials heading into the May primary race. McBath has strong name recognition and a captivating story of how she journeyed to Congress the breast cancer survivor entered the political arena after her 17-year-old son was shot and killed.

Bourdeaux, on the other hand, is in her first term but was the only Democrat to flip a GOP-held seat blue in 2020. She also may receive a boost because she currently represents a larger part of the new district.

The primary in the Atlanta suburbs between the two rising stars is expected to be expensive.

Illinoiss 6th Congressional District

Rep. Marie Newman (D) is taking on Rep. Sean CastenSean CastenThe Hill's Morning Report - World poised for war House races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another Sen. Capito tests positive for COVID-19 MORE (D) in Illinoiss 6th Congressional District after the redistricting process moved her hometown into Rep. Jess Garcias (D) 4th Congressional District. She chose to take on Casten rather than Garcia, who is the second Hispanic lawmaker Illinois residents have sent to Congress.

Newman, however, currently represents a larger swath of the new district than Casten, 41.3 percent to 23.4 percent, respectively, according to FiveThirtyEight.

The primary race, set for the end of June, is shaping up to be a faceoff between the progressive and centrist wings of the Democratic Party. Newman is an outspoken progressive who bested incumbent Rep. Daniel LipinskiDaniel William LipinskiHouse races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another House votes to condemn alleged hysterectomies on migrant women Five things we learned from this year's primaries MORE (D) in the districts 2020 primary race. Lipinski labeled himself a pro-life Democrat because of his opposition to abortion.

Casten, on the other hand, is more in tune with moderates in the party. He flipped the seat blue in 2018 by ousting Rep. Peter Roskam Peter James RoskamHouse races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another Bottom line Postcards become unlikely tool in effort to oust Trump MORE (R-Ill.).

Michigans 11th Congressional District

Democratic Reps. Andy LevinAndrew (Andy) LevinThe Hill's Morning Report - World poised for war House races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another Questions loom over how to form congressional staff union MORE and Haley StevensHaley Maria StevensThe Hill's Morning Report - World poised for war House races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another Overnight Energy & Environment Biden tries to reverse Trump on power plants MORE are set to face off in a primary battle to represent Michigans 11th Congressional District in the U.S. House.

The states new congressional map, drawn by an independent commission and hailed as a win against partisan gerrymandering, wrapped Levin and Stevens into the same district, pitting the two incumbents against one another in a solid Democrat territory.

Levin, who currently sits in the 9th Congressional District, represents 24.8 percent of the district, while Stevens has 45.1 percent of the terrain, according to FiveThirtyEight. Stevens is currently the representative for the11th Congressional District.

Both lawmakers were sent to Congress in 2018 and secured reelection two years later.

Visit link:
House races where redistricting is pitting Democrats against one another | TheHill - The Hill