Mediaboss Marketing

The Catalist report does offer some warning signs for the party, particularly a drop in turnout among Black voters. But it mostly suggests that close, high-turnout elections continue to be the norm since Donald Trumps election in 2016. Both sides are highly activated to participate in both presidential elections and years in between. That means we could be headed to another year of record or near-record voter turnout in 2024, even if both candidates wind up being unpopular.

High turnout was especially evident in the most competitive races, Catalist found. Democrats defiance of a so-called red wave came because Democrats managed to win the lions share of competitive races for Senate, governor and House.

How did they do it, and what does it mean for 2024 and beyond? Here are five takeaways from the Catalist report:

We already know that Democrats overperformed in 2022: They won five of the six Senate races POLITICO rated as toss ups going into Election Day, along with four of five governors races and 20 of 26 House races.

Strategists and analysts have settled on a number of explanations for the results, particularly an examination of candidate quality issues dogging Republican Senate candidates like Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania and Herschel Walker in Georgia.

But the Catalist report offers a new reason from the voter files: higher turnout. Turnout was between 5 and 8 percent above 2018 levels in four of the six Senate races POLITICO classified as toss ups Arizona, Nevada, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania and around 2018 levels in the other two: Georgia and Wisconsin.

Turnout in states without competitive races was 8 percent lower than in highly contested states.

The Catalist report stresses that high turnout doesnt always benefit Democratic candidates, though high turnout seems to have helped them in elections last year.

We may remain in a high turnout era, but voters perceptions of how competitive and salient an election is can change dramatically, the report says.

Americans under 30 made up one-in-10 voters, down slightly from 12 percent in 2018. But branching out to the Millennial and Gen-Z generations, they made up 26 percent of the electorate, up from 23 percent four years earlier.

Whats also notable about young voters is that despite the historical penalty typically paid by the party in power Democrats actually increased their vote share among those under 30, winning 65 percent of them, up from 62 percent in 2020, according to Catalist modeling of voter-file data.

Combined with 2018, its the first time Democrats have exceeded 60 percent among young voters in two consecutive midterms. The Catalist report suggests that young voters may be uniquely turned off by Trumps version of the Republican Party, in an inverse of how voters who came of age during Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagans administrations tended to remain Democrats and Republicans, respectively, throughout their lives.

Nationally, women voters in 2022 shifted slightly to Republicans by about 2 points, about half the margin of the shift among men, 4 points.

A woman votes in the 2022 midterm election on Election Day at a polling location on the Michigan State University campus on Nov. 8, 2022.|Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

But in the most competitive races, Democrats increased their vote share among women by 2 points and 4 points among women without a college degree the Catalist report shows.

It is plausible that Democrats were successful in convincing this segment of voters that choice was on the ballot, leading to marginal gains that secured important wins, the report says.

For much of the past two decades, the phenomenon that has best explained our politics has been the realignment of white voters along educational lines. Trump accelerated the movement of less-educated voters to the GOP, but it was already well under way when George W. Bush and Barack Obama were on the ballot.

But Catalists findings are a bit counterintuitive. They found that Democratic candidates in competitive races won 40 percent of white voters without a college degree, up from 36 percent in 2020. By contrast, Democrats share of white college graduates in those contests dipped from 53 percent in 2020 to 51 percent in 2022.

This was a somewhat surprising result given both the prominent role education polarization has had in recent elections and the lack of such a trend in other data sources, such as the exit poll, the report says, citing precinct election result data showing Democratic candidates in 2022 outperforming Bidens 2020 vote in places with higher numbers of non-college white voters.

Black voters remain the most loyal members of Democrats coalition, but there are signs of fraying. Democratic candidates won 88 percent of Black voters in 2022, down from 91 percent in 2020. Some of the biggest slides came among younger Black voters, a group thats less likely to approve of Bidens job performance than other Democratic-friendly cohorts.

And Black voters made up 10 percent of the midterm electorate, down from 12 percent in the 2020 presidential election.

There were some bright spots for Democrats: Democrats ran stronger among Black voters in Georgia and North Carolina, states where top-of-the-ticket Democratic candidates were African Americans.

The report also finds consistent support for Democrats among Latino voters, who represent a smaller share of the electorate, about 8 percent. Catalist estimates that Democrats won 62 percent of Latino voters in 2022, unchanged from 2020.

Go here to see the original:
That Gen Z midterm boost for Democrats might be real - POLITICO

While 19 states have passed legislation banning or restricting abortion since the Dobbs ruling, other efforts have fallen short. Voters in Kansas last year rejected a proposed amendment that would have said there is no right to abortion under the state constitution, while in Michigan, voters approved an amendment guaranteeing the right to an abortion.

Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin, citing the number of Michigan State University students who registered and voted on Election Day, has credited the Michigan referendum with helping her to win what was expected to be a tight race by more than 5 percentage points.

"One thing we've learned since Dobbs is that abortion is not a partisan issue," said Jessie Hill, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland who specializes in reproductive rights. "Abortion rights are pretty popular even among Republicans, but what tends to happen in states like Ohio is that Republicans tend to win broadly because people don't vote just on that issue. Theres the gerrymandering plus this mismatch between what individual Republican voters think about reproductive choice and how the Republican politicians vote when they get in office.

You might expect some type of compromise position to arise in some of these states, Hill said. I think that some of the Supreme Court justices imagined that was the world we'd end up in and its been just the opposite, especially in red states, where politics has pulled those legislatures toward more and more extreme abortion bans.

Anit-abortion groups aligned with Republicans, such as the Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, have argued that Republicans shouldnt shy away from advocating for their position on abortion. The group is advocating for all Republican presidential candidates to support limiting abortion to the first 15 weeks of pregnancy and to advocate for that standard nationwide.

Read more:
A year after Dobbs leak, Democrats still see abortion driving 2024 ... - Roll Call

I think we should find out where members stand on this indicted member of Congress, said Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), among those who pushed the caucus to pursue a full House vote to expel Santos. I think we need to definitely make sure that our concerns are registered through a vote.

But other House Democrats took a different view, according to both people who addressed the closed-door meeting on condition of anonymity. Some more senior Democrats, whom both people interviewed declined to name, argued that forcing an expulsion vote could set a bad precedent echoing McCarthys position.

The Democratic split over how to handle the Santos vote illustrates the enduring generational divide within a caucus thats growing younger and more progressive after decades of leadership by an octogenarian trio. Just because House Democrats have new leaders this Congress, however, doesnt mean their senior members counsel doesnt hold weight.

The caucus didnt formally whip the vote on Garcias proposal.

Ultimately, House Republicans stayed unified as they voted to refer the Garcia measure to Ethics. The final tally was 220-202, with seven Democrats voting present. While five of the Democratic present votes came from members of the Ethics panel, two others joined them: swing-seat Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Prez (D-Wash.) and Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.).

Santos told reporters after the vote that he approved of the referral to the Ethics panel.

This is the appropriate way to do this. I think that this was the right decision for all of us and I look forward to continuing to defend myself, he said. Shortly after, he cut off his remarks when progressive Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) started to heckle him, shouting resign!

The spectacle continued, with Bowman getting into an argument with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) before Ocasio-Cortez intervened and pulled Bowman away.

Republicans who serve on the ethics panel did not join their Democratic counterparts in voting present, with some arguing their vote was a referral and not a judgment.

Some of Santos fiercest GOP critics publicly endorsed McCarthys plan to move the matter to the famously slow-moving ethics committee, which is already conducting an investigation into Santos campaign-trail fabrications and finances.

Moving this expulsion resolution to the ethics committee, in an expedited fashion, will get George Santos out of Congress as quickly as possible. And I think that that is necessary, Rep. Marc Molinaro (R-N.Y.) said in an interview. I expect that the Ethics Committee will expedite the hearing.

First-term Rep. Brandon Williams (R-N.Y.), who has called on Santos to resign, sounded a similar note in a statement Wednesday.

To many Democrats, though, sending the matter to the Ethics panel was the effective equivalent of tabling the issue altogether. And they would only need a simple majority of the House to vote down McCarthys efforts to refer the bill to committee a much more plausible ask while ousting Santos would require a two-thirds majority.

Democratic Caucus Chair Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) made the case to his California colleagues in a closed-door meeting Wednesday for voting against sending the measure to the ethics panel. It would be the easy way out for the speaker, he said in an interview after the meeting.

He doesnt have the votes to table, Aguilar said of McCarthy. And so hes trying to send this to Ethics to give his members who have called for George Santos to resign an opportunity to vote with the team.

McCarthy and GOP leaders acted quickly to help dissuade their handful of anti-Santos New York Republicans from any temptation to vote for Garcias expulsion plan. During a private Tuesday meeting first reported by POLITICO, McCarthy laid out the process to the Empire States GOP delegation, arguing that the ethics panel referral makes more sense than tabling the expulsion measure or allowing it to come to the floor for a vote.

Yet, even after McCarthy defeated House Democrats push to expel Santos, his conferences problematic prevaricator is poised to cause more headaches soon.

The speaker told reporters Wednesday that the ethics panel could come back faster than a court case could with recommended Santos sanctions.

I would like to refer this to Ethics. Ill have a conversation with Hakeem. I would like the ethics committee to move rapidly on this, McCarthy said.

Sarah Ferris and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Go here to read the rest:
Democrats spar over Santos strategy as GOP punts on bid to expel ... - POLITICO

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., urges Congress to make child care affordable, pass paid leave, support care infrastructure, and raise the debt ceiling on May 17, 2023 in Washington, D.C.

Paul Morigi | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images

Many workers need to take leave at some point to address their own health needs or to care for a loved one. Yet whether workers have access to those benefits is up to their employer or state.

This week, Democrats in Washington re-upped a push to create a national program to give every worker access to paid family and medical leave.

"After 10 years fighting for paid leave, we are still the only industrialized nation without this essential program," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.

More from Personal Finance:70% of Americans "financially stressed," CNBC survey findsAmid economic uncertainty, recession talk, how to save, investWhen taking out a 401(k) loan actually 'makes sense'

A law that lets workers take unpaid time off to take care of their loved ones or their own health the Family and Medical Leave Act recently reached its 30th anniversary.

Now, Gillibrand and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., are putting forward an updated version of the Family and Medical Insurance Leave, or FAMILY, Act, first introduced in Congress in 2013, which would provide for paid leave.

"Thirty years ago, we broke ground by enshrining the Family and Medical Leave Act into law, providing unpaid family and medical leave for working Americans," DeLauro said in a statement, referencing the law passed under President Bill Clinton.

"Let's break ground again by making itpaid," DeLauro said.

The new version of the proposal comes after Democrats had previously reduced their proposal to four weeks' leave with the hopes of getting it included in a broader package.

The bill now includes partial income for up to 12 weeks' leave. The typical full-time worker would earn about two-thirds of their normal wages, while low-wage workers would be compensated for around 85%.

The plan covers leave for workers' and family members' serious health conditions, or the birth or adoption of a child.

The new version of the bill would provide leave for workers to address the effects of domestic violence or sexual assault.

Other updates to the bill aim to update the definition of the modern family.

That includes a broader range of caregiving relationships, including spouses, domestic or civil union partners, children of any age and their spouses, parents and their spouses, siblings and their spouses, grandparents and their spouses, grandchildren and their spouses, and other individuals related by either blood or kinship.

After 10 years fighting for paid leave, we are still the only industrialized nation without this essential program.

Kirsten Gillibrand

U.S. senator from New York

The bill would cover any worker who has earned at least $2,000 in the past two years, regardless of whether those earnings are covered by Social Security taxes. It would also eliminate an unpaid waiting period for benefits, which previously made it so benefits were not available for the first five days of caregiving.

The proposal would be paid for through a 0.4% payroll tax that would apply to the Medicare taxable wage base.

Workers would still be able to receive paid leave through state programs, as long as the states can demonstrate they are at least as generous as the federal program.

Research has shown that enacting a federal paid family leave program would have positive benefits.

Workers missed out on roughly $28 billion more in wages between March 2020 and February 2022 compared with the previous two years, research from the Urban Institute has found.

But the challenge is getting bipartisan agreement on a plan. Support for the FAMILY Act in both houses has traditionally been from Democrats, noted Kathleen Romig, director of Social Security and disability policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

"To get anything to move in this Congress, you need both Republicans and Democrats," Romig said.

House speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., at an August 2020 Washington, D.C., rally organized by the Paid Leave for All cross-country bus tour.

Anna Moneymaker | Getty Images News | Getty Images

While Republicans have shown interest in implementing paid leave policies, a sticking point between the parties has been how to pay for those plans.

While Democrats have proposed funding paid leave through payroll taxes, Republicans have generally talked about funding such a plan by having people borrow against other benefits, such as Social Security benefits or child tax credits, Romig noted.

Still, there is some reason to be optimistic about paid leave, Romig said.

"While I don't think this particular bill is going to be passed into law this year, I also think there is some real momentum here," Romig said.

Read this article:
As Democrats update their plan for national paid family and medical leave, here's what it could mean for workers - CNBC

Democrats may have to act radically to deny Donald Trump the 2024 Republican nomination. We cannot rely on Republicans to do it. They do not understand the stakes involved.

Take the case of Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett.

Barnett is Americas leading constitutional conservative. He is the originalists originalist.

It was Barnett who almost convinced the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 that Obamacare was unconstitutional.

Barnett is now campaigning against Trump.

That is the good news.

The bad news is that Barnett, and by extension The Federalist Society and its many followers, still do not understand the mortal danger that Trump represents.

Barnett recently penned a series of tweets that amounted to an argument in favor of Floridas Republican Gov. Ron DeSantisor someone much like him for president in 2024.

Barnett wrote that one can believe both that Trump was a far better President than [Hillary] Clinton would have been & the US is better off he won in 2016 and that Trump is unlikely to win in 2024 and would govern badly if he did.

With TV town hall, Trump suckered CNN right into his sewer | Dick Polman

Barnett added that it would be better to nominate someone else who can win, has demonstrated executive skills and character to govern better than Trump would and would be able to serve two terms if elected.

It is not a bad argument, if a little cool and indirect for mainstream politics.

But it demonstrates that Barnett has not yet come to terms with the tragic mistake he made in supporting Trump in 2016.

No, America is not better off that Trump was president.

Barnett is focused on the newly minted conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court he now enjoys, courtesy of Trump.

In considering various policies that Trump pursued as president, Barnett is ignoring the one unforgivable sin Trump committed refusing to peacefully transfer power after the 2020 election.

Instead of conceding defeat, Trump told his supporters that he had actually won, took arguably unlawful actions to try to stay in power, and fomented a riot at the Capitol when he could not convince Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the election result.

Trump left office only because he could not figure out anything else to do.

Pa.s Barletta dumps Trump; calls on DeSantis to run for prez in 24 | Monday Morning Coffee

People forget that the fundamental problem the framers of the Constitution were attempting to solve was the peaceful and continuous transfer of powerthe issue that had led to civil war in Great Britain and throughout world history.

Americas constitutional democracy functioned well in this regard until Trump.

For anyone who loves the Constitution, Trumps actions after the 2020 election disqualify him from ever holding office again.

What makes Barnett think that a President Trump, having resisted once, would yield power after the presidential election of 2028? Trump repeated his big lie about the 2020 election just last week on CNN.

It is true that Trumps first attempt at a coup was clownish and bound to fail.

So was Hitlers first attempt at a coup in 1923.

Because Barnetts campaign against Trump does not point out this danger, it is far too mild to have any effect on Trumps chances.

If Barnett were a patriot, he would write this open letter to the Republican Party faithful:

Donald Trump let us down by attempting to overthrow our Constitution in 2020. He is unfit to be President. If Trump is nominated, I, and many thousands of my fellow constitutional conservatives, will be forced to vote for Joe Biden.

And then Barnett would convince the leadership of The Federalist Society to sign the letter with him.

We Democrats must be willing to match the action I am calling on Barnett to take.

If Trump is still a viable candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination when the Pennsylvania primary comes around, I will change my party affiliation from Democratic to Republican and vote for the Republican candidate with the best chance of defeating Trump for the nomination.

And I hope many of my fellow Democrats will do the same thing, in Pennsylvania and across the country.

Of course, if we do this, we will be hurting Joe Bidens chances of being reelected. If that were the only consideration, Trump would be the easiest Republican to beat.

But Bidens reelection is not the most important consideration.

Any chance that Trump might become president again is a threat to be avoided at all costs.

While I strongly oppose the policies that someone like DeSantis as President would enact, no political loss in our system of government is permanent. If your opponent gains power and executes bad policies, the damage can be undone in the next presidential election.

With DeSantis, and really every Republican with a chance at the 2024 presidential nomination, I can be confident that there will be a next election.

Trump is the lone exception. Trump is the only political figure in America who threatens the end of constitutional democracy.

It is time for Barnett, who helped unleash this threat in the first place, to face that reality and take the necessary steps to prevent it.

But if he will not take that responsibility, then, for the sake of the Constitution, we Democrats will have to step up.

Trump must be defeated. No matter what it takes. The first, and best, chance to do that is a Republican primary.

Read more:
If the GOP won't do it, Democrats will have to block Trump's ... - Pennsylvania Capital-Star