Mediaboss Marketing

Former President Donald Trump reportedly wants to form a new political party. For the first time in my sentient life, I say: Proceed, Mr. Trump. As he may or may not know, what he would almost certainly accomplish is to ensure that Democrats held the White House and the House of Representatives for as long as his party existed.

As many Americans already know, third parties dont really work in the United States. Mr. Trumps effort brings most readily to mind Theodore Roosevelts effort to re-seek the presidency in 1912, under the banner of his newly formed Progressive Party, better known to us as the Bull Moose Party. Roosevelt was furious with his protg and successor, President William Howard Taft, who had strayed from Roosevelts reform agenda. He and his people formed their party and split the Republican vote enough that the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, won the White House, with about 42 percent of the vote.

So people know they dont work, but not many people know exactly why they dont work. At bottom, it has to do with the way we elect our House of Representatives. We use a system variously called winner-take-all, single-member district or first-past-the-post. It means that states are divided into congressional districts, and each district is represented by one person.

To Americans, this seems as natural as the sun rising in the east. But other countries do things differently. According to the nonprofit group Fair Vote, 90 democratic countries use multimember districts, 54 use single-member districts like ours and 38 use a hybrid.

Maurice Duverger, a French political scientist of the mid-20th century, gave the best explanation for why this matters. In 1951, he wrote an enormous book called Political Parties, in which he surveyed political parties across the world (including those in Communist countries). Out of that work emerged Duvergers Law, which holds that single-member districts tend to produce two-party systems. Duverger wrote that of all the hypotheses in his book, this one approaches the most nearly perhaps to a true sociological law.

Lets say six candidates representing six different parties are running in a winner-take-all legislative district. Parties A, C and E are on the left, and parties B, D and F are on the right. Lets say candidates from A and B lead the way, while candidates from C and D trail somewhat, and candidates from E and F lag behind badly.

After a couple of elections in which their candidates finish dead last, the party leaders from E and F will realize they cant win. Theyll go to the party leaders of A and B and say something like: Look, we disagree on some things, but if you adopt X from our platform, well throw our support to you, because at least we have in common that we hate the other guy.

So E and F will disappear. In time, C and D will come to the same conclusion and cut the same deal. The single-member district will have winnowed six down to two. This doesnt happen in proportional representation systems, where all six parties can get seats in proportion to their share of the vote. But it does happen in winner-take-all systems like ours.

Weve had third parties over the years, and sometimes, at moments of great instability like the 1850s, fourth and fifth and sixth parties. But they dont last. The reason for that is the remorseless logic and inevitable direction of Duvergers Law. Lets say Mr. Trumps Patriot Party or whatever he calls it, since there might be legal issues with that name runs congressional candidates in certain targeted districts. And the party wins, say, 17 seats. Pretty good, for a new party.

But given that Trumpy candidates arent likely to do very well in blue or even most purple districts, the net effect is probably going to be that theyll be unseating 17 Republicans. And whats the effect of that? To ensure that the Democrats the radical left socialists! hold a House majority.

Likewise, lets imagine the Patriot Party running a presidential candidate, most likely Mr. Trump himself, while the Republicans and Democrats run their candidates. Mr. Trump will get a lot of votes. He may even beat the Republican, as indeed Roosevelt bested Taft in 1912. But he will split the center-right vote in two, while the Democrat will get a typical 48 or so percent. Result? The Democrat will carry a lot of states with a plurality and thus win the Electoral College. And in the long run, the inexorable machinery of Duvergers Law will ensure that the Patriot Party is folded back into the Republican Party.

If Mr. Trump were serious about building a third party, one real approach would be to mount a campaign to do away with single-member districts. Our method of electing Congress isnt in the Constitution. Its a matter of law. For our first five or six decades, a number of states elected all their members of Congress on an at-large basis. So Congress can change the law if it wants to but members of Congress are loath to change laws that might affect their own employment.

One should never say never on these matters. The Whigs split in the early 1850s when their internal divisions over slavery became unbridgeable, which helped lead to that decades multiparty mayhem. That mayhem led to the rise of a new two-party system and, in 1860, elected the savior of the Republic. So it has happened. Most recently, about 165 years ago. (The Bull Moose Party, by the way, fizzled out in six years.)

But Mr. Trump would basically be creating a party that would make Democratic dominance much more likely.

He probably doesnt know all this. Or maybe he does, and he still wants to do it. If the latter, it would be what the Republicans so richly deserve for embracing someone who wasnt really one of them to begin with and who practically has shaken our democracy to its core with their acquiescence.

See the rest here:
Opinion | Why a Trump Third Party Would Be a Boon for Democrats - The New York Times

WASHINGTON (NewsNation Now) House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy met late Tuesday with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene as Republicans discussed how to handle a bipartisan outcry over her embrace of conspiracy theories, including suggestions that mass shootings at the nations schools were staged.

Aides to McCarthy and Greene offered no immediate comment after the two spent around 90 minutes together in his Capitol office. Their session came as the GOP faced unrest from opposing ends of the Republican spectrum over Greene and Rep. Liz Cheney, who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump.

Without action by Republicans, Democrats were threatening to force a House vote Wednesday on removing Greene, R-Ga., from her assigned committees. She had been named to the education committee, a decision that drew harsh criticism because of her suggestions that school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, and Parkland, Florida, could be hoaxes.

A spokesperson for House Republican leader KevinMcCarthysaid last week that he was disturbed by Greenes comments and planned to have a conversation with her about them.

The House GOP Steering Committee, a leadership-dominated body that makes committee assignments for the party, also met late Tuesday.

On social media, Greene has also expressed racist views and supported calls for violence against Democratic politicians, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. McCarthy, R-Calif., has stopped short of criticizing the first-term congresswoman, who was dubbed a future Republican Star by Trump last summer and has remained a firm Trump supporter.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and others have boosted pressure this week on the House GOP to act.

In a statement that didnt use Greenes name, he called her loony lies a cancer on the GOP.

In addition, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., whos been trying to combat the GOPs pro-Trump wing, said he favored removing Greene from her committees, saying Republicans must take a stand to disavow her.

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, a Trump critic and the GOP 2012 presidential nominee, said Tuesday that Republicans must separate ourselves from the people that are the wacky weeds.

On the GOPs furthest right wing, lawmakers were pushing to oust Cheney, a traditional conservative and daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, from her post as the No. 3 House Republican after she voted to impeach Trump last month. McConnell praised Cheney, R-Wyo., as a leader with deep convictions and courage, but House GOP lawmakers planned to meet privately Wednesday to decide her political fate.

John Fredericks, who led Trumps Virginia campaigns in 2016 and 2020, warned that there would be party primaries against Cheney defenders.

Weve got millions and millions of woke, motivated, America-first Trump voters that believe in the movement, Fredericks said. If youre going to keep Liz Cheney in leadership, theres no party.

Rep. Matt Rosendale, R-Mont., a leader of the effort to oust Cheney, says he has enough support to succeed.

Shes brought this on herself, Rosendale said. He said Cheney, who was joined by only nine other Republicans in backing impeachment, was wrong to not forewarn colleagues about her decision.

Republicans have said that GOP members would unite against a Democratic move to remove Greene from her committee assignments and that such an effort would help Greene cast herself as a victim of partisan Democrats.

As if to illustrate that point, Greene herself tweeted fundraising appeals Tuesday that said, With your support, the Democrat mob cant cancel me, beneath a picture of herself standing with Trump. She tweeted later Tuesday shed surpassed her fundraising goal and was raising it to $150,000.

They are coming after me because like President Trump, I will always defend conservative values, she said in a statement last week.

McCarthy has said he supports Cheney but also has concerns, leaving his stance on her unclear.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report

Read more:
McCarthy meets with Rep. Greene over conspiracy theories as Democrats push for committee removal - WANE

WASHINGTON (AP) The Democratic push to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour has emerged as an early flashpoint in the fight for a $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package, testing President Joe Bidens ability to bridge Washingtons partisan divides as he pursues his first major legislative victory.

Biden called for a $15 hourly minimum wage during his campaign and has followed through by hitching it to a measure that, among other things, calls for $1,400 stimulus checks and $130 billion to help schools reopen. Biden argues that anyone who holds a full-time job shouldnt live in poverty, echoing progressives in the Democratic Party who are fully on board with the effort.

With the economic divide, I mean, I want to see a $15 minimum wage. It should actually be $20, said Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.

Some Republicans support exploring an increase but are uneasy with $15 an hour. They warn that such an increase could lead to job losses in an economy that has nearly 10 million fewer jobs than it did before the pandemic began. Moderates such as Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rep. Tom Reed of New York are urging Biden to split off the minimum wage hike from COVID-19 talks and deal with it separately.

The more you throw into this bucket of COVID relief thats not really related to the crisis, the more you risk the credibility with the American people that youre really sincere about the crisis, Reed said. Including the wage increase, Murkowski said, complicates politically an initiative that we should all be working together to address.

The resistance from moderates has left Democrats with a stark choice: Wait and build bipartisan support for an increase or move ahead with little to no GOP backing, potentially as part of a package that can pass the Senate with Vice President Kamala Harris tiebreaking vote. Democratic leaders appear to be moving toward the latter option, with no guarantee of success. Even if raising the wage can get past procedural challenges, passage will require the support from every Democrat in the 50-50 Senate, which could be a tall order.

Leading the charge is Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who unveiled $15 wage legislation this week with the backing of 37 Senate Democrats. His bill would gradually raise the wage to $15 over a period of five years. The federal minimum is $7.25 and has not been raised since 2009.

Sanders, the incoming chair of the Senate Budget Committee, said it was fine with him if Republicans were not prepared to come on board. He said the government needed to pump money into the economy to make sure people are not working on starvation wages.

Democrats are moving toward using a tool that allows certain budget-related items to bypass the Senate filibuster a hurdle requiring 60 votes and pass with a simple majority. Sanders is confident that a minimum wage increase fits within the allowed criteria for what is referred to in Washington lingo as budget reconciliation, though the Senate parliamentarian has final say on what qualifies.

As you will recall, my Republican colleagues used reconciliation to give almost $2 trillion in tax breaks to the rich and large corporations in the midst of massive income inequality. They used reconciliation to try to repeal the Affordable Care Act and throw 32 million people off the health care they had. They used reconciliation to allow for drilling in the Arctic wilderness, Sanders said. You know what? I think we can use reconciliation to protect the needs of working families.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the Senate as early as next week will begin taking the first steps toward getting the COVID-19 relief bill passed through the budget reconciliation process. The goal would be passage by March.

The latest sign that a $15 minimum wage is popular with voters came in November, when more than 60% of voters in conservative-leaning Florida approved an amendment to the states Constitution that will raise the minimum wage there from $8.56 an hour to $15 an hour by 2026.

The House passed legislation to gradually increase the minimum wage in the last Congress, but it went nowhere in the GOP-controlled Senate. Opponents argue that a large increase in the minimum wage would lead many employers to cut the number of workers they have on their payrolls.

A 2019 study from the Congressional Budget Office projected that an increase to $15 an hour would boost the wages of 17 million Americans. An additional 10 million workers making more than $15 an hour would see a boost as well. However, about 1.3 million workers would lose their jobs.

Theres no question that raising the minimum wage, especially to $15, will put some small businesses out of business and will cost a lot of low-wage workers their jobs, said Neil Bradley, the chief policy officer at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Bradley said there should be a separate debate on the minimum wage, and while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes $15 an hour, were open to a reasonable increase in the minimum wage and that ought to be a topic of discussion. But, you know, including that in the COVID package just imperils the whole thing.

Mary Kay Henry, international president of the Service Employees International Union, said that increasing the minimum wage would benefit many of the people who have been working on the front lines of the pandemic. Thats why she supports including it in the COVID-19 relief package.

Theyve been called essential, but they all believe theyve been treated as expendable or sacrificial because they dont earn enough to be able to put food on the table and keep themselves and their families safe and healthy, Henry said.

Henry says nursing home workers, janitors, security guards and home health workers are among the unions 2 million members.

The real way to appreciate this work is to raise the minimum wage to $15, she said.

Most states also have minimum wage laws. Employees generally are entitled to the higher of the two minimum wages. Currently, 29 states and Washington, D.C., have minimum wages above the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

Read more:
[AP] Biden, Democrats hit gas on push for $15 minimum wage - The Associated Press

January 14, 2021, 5:21 PM

8 min read

Congressional Democrats have demanded an investigation into what they call "suspicious behavior and access" for some visitors the day before the Capitol assault, alleging that unnamed lawmakers led "an extremely high number of outside groups" through the building on what they say could have been "reconnaissance" tours.

During a Facebook Live on Tuesday, New Jersey Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill claimed that she witnessed unnamed members of Congress lead groups of people through the Capitol on a "reconnaissance" tour on Jan. 5, though it is common for lawmakers to guide constituents through the building.

Sherrill also alleged that Republicans "abetted" President Donald Trumps effort to overturn the results of the election, promising that she would "see they are held accountable, and if necessary, ensure that they don't serve in Congress."

Rep. Mikie Sherrill conducts a news conference with members of the New Democrat Coalition on their 2020 agenda in the Capitol Visitor Center, Feb. 28, 2020.

The New Jersey Democrat, a former U.S. Navy helicopter pilot and former federal prosecutor, joined more than 30 lawmakers signing a letter Wednesday to request an investigation from the acting House sergeant-at-arms, the acting Senate sergeant-at-arms, and the United States Capitol Police.

Protesters interact with Capitol Police inside the U.S. Capitol Building on Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C., after they breached the building while a joint session to certify the electoral college votes was taking place.

The letter does not name any members or make a specific reference to Republicans, nor does it make any specific allegation that members leading the tours were privy to any plans to attack the Capitol the next day. Three senior GOP leadership aides and a public information officer for the U.S. Capitol Police did not respond to a request for comment.

"Many of the Members who signed this letter, including those of us who have served in the military and are trained to recognize suspicious activity, as well as various members of our staff, witnessed an extremely high number of outside groups in the complex on Tuesday, January 5," the lawmakers wrote. "This is unusual for several reasons, including the fact that access to the Capitol Complex has been restricted since public tours ended in March of last year due to the pandemic."

Supporters of President Donald Trump enter the US Capitol as tear gas fills the corridor, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, DC.

It is not uncommon for lawmakers to invite avid supporters on tours of the Capitol, but Democrats have asked congressional law enforcement authorities whether any of the individuals known to visit the Capitol complex on Jan. 5 were being investigated for participating in the assault the next day.

The Democrats who signed the letter collectively contend that the tours being conducted on Jan. 5 "were a noticeable and concerning departure" from procedures put in place as of March 2020 that limit the number of visitors to the Capitol. These tours were so concerning to Democrats that they were reported to the sergeant-at-arms on Jan. 5, they wrote.

"The visitors encountered by some of the Members of Congress on this letter appeared to be associated with the rally at the White House the following day. That group left the White House and marched to the Capitol with the objective of preventing Congress from certifying our election," the letter states without citing specific examples of people charged with engaging in the melee who they believe were on tours on January 5. "Members of the group that attacked the Capitol seemed to have an unusually detailed knowledge of the layout of the Capitol Complex. The presence of these groups within the Capitol Complex was indeed suspicious. Given the events of January 6, the ties between these groups inside the Capitol Complex and the attacks on the Capitol need to be investigated."

Supporters of US President Donald Trump enter the US Capitol's Rotunda on January 6, 2021, in Washington, DC. Demonstrators breeched security and entered the Capitol as Congress debated the a 2020 presidential election Electoral Vote Certification.

As part of the investigation, the lawmakers ask congressional law enforcement authorities whether logs of visitors are inspected and collected, as well as whether members were required to sign in guests to the Capitol on Jan. 5.

They also inquired whether any additional law enforcement agencies have requested access to these logs, and questioned what circumstances would need to occur to deny a visitor from entering the Capitol, whether there are video logs from Jan. 5, and if facial recognition software is used for visitors entering the Capitol complex.

Link:
Democrats demand probe into nature of Capitol tours on day before assault - ABC News

US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, speaks during a press conference at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, January 6, 2021.

Saul Loeb | AFP | Getty Images

With Democrats projected to take back the majority in the Senate, tech bills that have languished in the Republican-controlled chamber during Donald Trump's presidency could see renewed momentum.

While pandemic relief is likely to take center stage for much of the legislative session, the shift in power could still give Democrats the chance to advance their tech policy agenda.

Groups that have long pushed for tech policy reform are hoping to see their efforts bear fruit in the new Congress.

"Democrats have no excuse," Evan Greer, director of nonpartisan digital rights group Fight for the Future, said in a statement on Wednesday. "They need to get to work right away protecting people's basic rights in the digital age. This means quickly confirming a new chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) who will restore net neutrality and ensure everyone has affordable Internet access in the midst of a pandemic."

Greer added that protecting Section 230, banning facial recognition and passing strong national privacy laws should be among the actions Democrats take with their newfound control.

Here are the key ways Democratic control could impact tech policy in the Senate:

One of the more immediate ways this could happen is by quickly confirming President-elect Joe Biden's nominations to important cabinet positions like Attorney General and the Secretary of Labor, as well as new appointments to the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission.

The Biden administration will be tasked with handling the federal lawsuits against Facebook and Google filed by the Trump administration. It will also likely continue ongoing research into other tech industry players through work at the Justice Department and FTC.

The Labor Department will face questions about how gig workers should be classified under federal law, which will affect companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart. And the FCC will be charged with taking a stance on net neutrality and regulating programs that provide broadband access, which has become even more important during remote work and distance learning due to the pandemic.

Discussions about broadband access could be among the first tech policy topics to see the light of day in the new Congress given American's increasing reliance on internet services to deal with stay-at-home orders. Those could naturally lead to a renewed focus on net neutrality, an Obama-era reform that sought to prevent internet service providers from favoring some internet traffic over other. That means users and businesses can't pay for a "fast lane" or to slow down another website's traffic.

The FCC achieved this under Obama by reclassifying ISPs as common carrier services under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, which made them subject to greater regulation than under Title I. Trump's FCC Chairman Ajit Pai undid that rule, though ISPs have not really taken advantage of the rollback. Some analysts say the real fear ISPs have with the FCC imposing net neutrality is that the agency could potentially use the same statute to impose price regulation.

That concern could actually be avoided by writing a more narrow law that enshrines the concept of net neutrality without reclassification. With Democrats in control and net neutrality serving as a popular Democratic issue, the topic could see more discussion this term.

Like antitrust reform, regulating digital political ads could be limited to the least controversial proposals. But one bill that could quickly make a significant impact with a small reform is the Honest Ads Act. First introduced by Klobuchar with Sens. Mark Warner, D-Va., and the late John McCain, R-Ariz., it was reintroduced in 2019 with the support of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

The bill would make digital platforms subject to similar disclosure requirements as traditional forms of media when it comes to digital ads. In an interview last year, Warner told CNBC he'd thought the bill would be "the lowest hanging fruit, the biggest no-brainer just to kind of put points on the board." With majority Democratic control, such reforms may again have the chance to advance to the floor.

Lawmakers have made significant progress in crafting digital privacy legislation but those bills have remained locked up by disagreements over how those bills should be enforced.

Both Democrats and Republicans want strong protections for consumers' digital privacy rights on the national level. But Democrats think states should be able to build on those protections, while Republicans have advocated for the national standard to preempt state law to provide consistency for businesses. Democrats also want consumers to be able to sue companies they believe violated their rights, but Republicans fear that would lead to frivolous lawsuits.

Both sides believe the issue is fairly urgent to protect consumers. Without an election immediately on the horizon, there's a chance lawmakers will be more willing to come to an agreement.

Concerns over facial recognition technology came to the forefront this summer in the wake of concerns over whether and how it might be used to observe the protests for police reform. Democrats in both chambers of Congress backed a push for a moratorium on facial recognition technology for use by law enforcement.

The technology has a spotty track record and has been shown to disproportionately misidentify people of color. In June, Amazon, IBM and Microsoft all voluntarily said they would abstain from selling the technology to varying degrees. But lasting rules would have to come from Congress.

Talks about reforming Section 230 will undoubtedly continue, but bills claiming to crack down on alleged censorship of conservative viewpoints (which social media platforms have denied) will have a harder time breaking through.

Democrats and Republicans largely agree that the decades-old statute protecting tech platforms from being held liable for their users' posts needs to be tweaked. But they still are far apart on possible solutions. Trump tried to get Congress to repeal the law at the end of 2020, but that action seems to have limited support in Congress.

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

WATCH: Big Tech may face even more scrutiny for antitrust and monopoly in 2021Here's why

Read the original post:
Democratic Senate control could breathe new life into net neutrality and other tech regulations - CNBC