Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Should Democrats Have Picked A Swing State For Their 2024 Convention? – FiveThirtyEight

Democrats recently chose to hold their 2024 convention in Chicago.

Scott Olson / Getty Images

By all accounts, the race for the 2024 Democratic National Convention was down to Atlanta versus Chicago. Electorally, it seemed like an obvious choice: Atlanta is in an emerging swing state, while Chicago is in a state that Democrats will almost certainly win in 2024.

But then, last week, the Democratic Party announced that Chicago would host next Augusts confab. To some Democrats, it seemed to be a missed opportunity especially since Republicans will hold their convention in Milwaukee, the biggest city in a classic battleground state. But heres the thing: It probably wont matter where either party holds its 2024 presidential nominating convention. Contrary to conventional wisdom, holding your convention in a swing state has little to no electoral benefit.

Since 2000, the Democratic or Republican candidate for president won the state that hosted their convention just six out of 12 times.

The site of each Democratic and Republican national convention since 2000 and whether the party won that state in that years presidential election

View more!

Portions of the 2020 conventions were conducted virtually from other locations due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sources: American Presidency Project, Dave Leips Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections

Some of those losses were predictable, like when Republicans held their 2004 convention in New York City and then lost the Empire State by 18 percentage points. But others were bitter disappointments, such as when Democrats hoped the 2012 DNC in Charlotte would help them gain a foothold in North Carolina or when Republicans hoped the 2012 RNC in Tampa would put them over the top in Florida. (The other party won each state.) And even some of the wins were probably just coincidences, like in 2020, when Democrats won Wisconsin and Republicans won North Carolina even though the conventions that year in Milwaukee and Charlotte, respectively, were mostly virtual.

Of course, looking at binary wins and losses alone is a crude instrument; its possible that a convention helped a party in a state even if the party came up just short of winning. But even considering a partys margin in that state, it seems conventions have little effect. On average, since 2000, parties have enjoyed just a 1.0-point boost in the state where they held their convention, according to my analysis.

The simplified partisan lean* of each state (relative to the national popular vote) in the three presidential elections before, during and after the election cycle in which it hosted a Democratic or Republican national convention, since 2000

View more!

*Simplified partisan lean is the difference between a states popular-vote margin and the nations popular-vote margin in the same election.

Average of previous and next election for 2020 uses the states simplified partisan lean in only the 2016 election, since the 2024 election has not yet occurred. Portions of the 2020 conventions were conducted virtually from other locations due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sources: American Presidency Project, Dave Leips Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections

And thats probably overstating things. The most obvious convention boost in the table above is in Massachusetts in 2004, when Boston hosted the DNC. But the Democratic nominee that year was then-Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. Democrats overperformance in the Bay State that year was probably due more to their nominees home-state advantage than their choice of convention site. Its a good reminder that, even when there appears to be a convention boost, it could be due to a million other factors instead.

If you remove the 2004 DNC from the list, the average convention boost is just 0.7 points and only two states saw more than a 2-point boost (California in 2000 for Democrats and Ohio in 2016 for Republicans). Excluding the 2004 DNC, a convention boost has also occurred just seven out of 11 times. Four other times, the party actually did worse than expected in the state hosting its convention.

Given this track record, its less surprising that the 2024 DNC will be in Chicago. The Windy City has a lot of logistical and political points in its favor: tons of hotels, good public transit, a friendly government and a unionized workforce. By contrast, Georgia has enacted policies that the Democratic Party probably doesnt want to be seen as tacitly supporting: It is a right-to-work state, and it has a new, restrictive voting law that even caused Major League Baseball to not hold its 2021 All-Star Game there. So while picking Atlanta wouldve made a strong statement about Democrats plans to compete in the Sun Belt, it would have been purely symbolic.

The best of FiveThirtyEight, delivered to you.

Read the original:
Should Democrats Have Picked A Swing State For Their 2024 Convention? - FiveThirtyEight

Trump or DeSantis? Democrats are unsure who they want Biden to face – NBC News

WASHINGTON Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis? Democrats are torn on which of the two Republican front-runners they would rather face in the 2024 presidential election, according to conversations with a dozen Democratic strategists.

The conventional wisdom among many in the party is that President Joe Biden would have better odds in a rematch against Trump. The former president lost in 2020, he mobilizes the Democratic base and he has a brand thats become toxic to many swing voters. Plus, the thinking goes, DeSantis relative youth presents a tougher contrast for Biden, and the Florida governor's unknowability on the national stage means Democrats cant simply dust off a winning playbook against him.

I would rather see Biden face Trump because we know how to beat him," said Celinda Lake, a veteran pollster who advised Bill Clinton in 1992 and has since counted a long list of prominent Democrats as clients. "We beat him once, we can beat him again. And I think hes definitely further alienated the suburban female vote."

But another group of Democrats sees DeSantis as the easier candidate to beat. Trump has strengths that DeSantis doesnt, they say: Trump is more charismatic, better at retail politics and has a unique ability to stir up GOP voters and get them to the polls that the Florida governor hasnt proved he can do on the big stage.

I think DeSantis comes off as very unlikable. Trump, at least, is good at retail politics; DeSantis isnt. A lot of his act comes off as performative theater, said Michael Starr Hopkins, a Democratic strategist who advised Charlie Crists losing 2022 campaign for Florida governor to DeSantis.

Hopkins predicted that DeSantis wont be as effective nationally as he has been in the Republican-friendly Sunshine State.

Trump has 30% of the base no matter what. And DeSantis doesnt have a built-in base the way that Trump does, Hopkins said. He doesnt have the strength of Trumps base. And so there are a lot of the MAGA coalition that I dont think are going to go along with DeSantis just because they see him as an anti-Trump rather than being an acolyte of Trump.

The debate comes as Democrats rally around Biden, who has made it clear he intends to run for re-election. Facing no serious primary challenger to his renomination, party elites have little to do in the presidential arena but map out how to run against their opponent next fall and ponder which of the two Republican front-runners theyd be more likely to defeat in a general election.

DeSantis has left some Democrats scratching their heads over the past month as he has taken punch after punch from Trump without doing much to respond. He also appears to be dropping further behind Trump in GOP primary polls ahead of an expected announcement.

Based on what Ive seen over the last few weeks, as he inches closer to running, I believe that Gov. DeSantis is weaker, said Jim Manley, a former Senate Democratic leadership aide turned lobbyist. It would be much better for Democrats to run against him than against Trump.

Manley said DeSantis has just stuck to scripted sound bites, adding: I view him as a very weak candidate who has managed to bully his way through the state of Florida, but I dont believe hes ready for the big leagues.

Some Democrats say its too early to know who's stronger.

No one should even pretend to know the answer to that question at this point, said Dan Pfeiffer, a former White House adviser and campaign aide to President Barack Obama.

Trump is a massively flawed nominee who could be running while under multiple indictments and perhaps convictions. Ron DeSantis has not exactly demonstrated the dexterity or charisma necessary to navigate a national campaign, he said. I just think we should all have some humility when the last two presidential elections were decided in total by a number of voters barely larger than the attendance of a Big Ten college football game.

In a country this divided, Biden's re-election is no sure thing against either of his two most likely Republican opponents.

In 2016, Trump won by some 75,000 votes; in 2020, he over-performed polls forecasting a blowout and lost the Electoral College by a similar number. His coalition includes scores of disaffected voters who reliably turn out when Trump is on the ballot but stay home when hes not. That fueled the blue wave in 2018, the historic GOP underperformance in the 2022 midterms and other special elections where flawed Trump protgs and support for abortion rights after the fall of Roe v. Wade sunk Republicans.

Few doubt that Trump will mobilize his voters again, like in 2016 and 2020, if hes the nominee. But would those same MAGA voters turn out for DeSantis, especially after an ugly primary with Trump? Would Trump back DeSantis in the general election if he loses the primary, or seek to burn the party down? And would DeSantis have a better chance with independents who may be souring on Trump over the Jan. 6 attack and the criminal charges he now faces?

Some Democrats say Trump is weaker now than in 2020.

The road map to beating Trump has been deployed and deployed successfully, said Scott Mulhauser, a former Biden aide who said he believes Trump is more beatable than DeSantis. The body blows keep coming to Trump that alienate independents at every turn, and these are the swing voters hed need to overcome his margins last time.

Mulhauser said Democrats have clear avenues to run against either candidate on abortion rights. But on Social Security and Medicare, he noted, Democrats have certainly a stronger case against DeSantis, who called for privatizing those programs and raising the retirement age in the past.

Electoral politics aside, Democrats also disagree on who would be a worse president.

Hopkins said he believes that DeSantis is a more dangerous candidate to be honest, citing a certain intellectual vindictiveness with DeSantis that I dont even think Trump has.

Look at his battle with Disney right now. Whereas Trump is really undisciplined and emotional, DeSantis comes off as vindictive and mean, he said. And I think thats a dangerous combination.

Mulhauser disagreed, citing Trump's attempts to overturn the result of the 2020 election based on fabricated claims of voter fraud.

Although Mulhauser made it clear hes no fan of either Republican, he believes it would be worse for the country if Trump returns to power than if DeSantis becomes president.

Donald Trump, while president, fomented a revolution that attempted to overturn the will of the people, the rule of law and our democracy. That cannot be unseen or undone, he said. Im not sure DeSantis is any better on a host of policies or culture-war dog whistles, but you hope he could at least recognize the country needs to stand.

Sahil Kapur is a senior national political reporter for NBC News.

Here is the original post:
Trump or DeSantis? Democrats are unsure who they want Biden to face - NBC News

Democrats press Homeland Security to prep for end of Title 42 – Axios

Rep. Lou Correa. Photo: CHIP SOMODEVILLA/POOL/AFP via Getty Images.

A trio of Hispanic House Democrats is pushing the Biden administration to do more to prepare for the end of Title 42, a pandemic-era border policy which has allowed for the rapid expulsion of migrants and asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Why it matters: Its another sign of the complicated intra-party dynamics on the topic of immigration, with many Democrats applauding the end of the pandemic policy while also raising concerns about the expected influx in border crossings.

Driving the news: In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Reps. Lou Correa (D-Calif.), Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) and Chuy Garca (D-Ill.) wrote that DHS should be "prepared to expeditiously and humanely process and care for these individuals after Title 42 is terminated."

By the numbers: Border crossings have been at historically high levels for the past two years.

What we're watching: Mayorkas is slated to testify to the House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday about his department's 2024 budget request.

Editors note: This article has been corrected to note Rep. Lou Correa represents a district in California, not Texas.

Visit link:
Democrats press Homeland Security to prep for end of Title 42 - Axios

Democrats will choose Mansfield’s new law director on May 2 – Richland Source

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Follow this link:
Democrats will choose Mansfield's new law director on May 2 - Richland Source

Texas House Approves Local Government ‘Field Preemption’ Bill … – The Texan

Austin, TX, 29 seconds ago A broad local government preemption bill passed the Texas House after hours of debate on the floor Tuesday and a swifter discussion Wednesday.

House Bill (HB) 2127 by Rep. Dustin Burrows (R-Lubbock) lays out nine different sections of code within which municipalities may not establish regulations above what the state permits. This strategy is called field preemption, preempting local actions in whole sections of code proactively rather than responding to individual instances of municipal regulations reactively.

HB 2127 provides the regulatory stability and certainty that enables business owners to expand their businesses to other cities within Texas with more consistency, Burrows said after final passage. Texas thrives and jobs are created when onerous, burdensome regulations are lifted from the shoulders of small business owners.

Under the bill, individuals or associations may sue localities and their officials for abridging the lines set by state code the private cause of action enforcement mechanism that has become increasingly popular among the states Republicans after 2021s Texas Heartbeat Act passed.

The bill passed by a vote of 92 to 55 with eight Democratic members in support: Reps. Terry Canales (D-Edinburg), Harold Dutton (D-Houston), Bobby Guerra (D-Mission), Tracy King (D-Uvalde), Oscar Longoria (D-Mission), Eddie Morales (D-Eagle Pass), Sergio Muoz, Jr. (D-Palmview), and Richard Pea Raymond (D-Laredo).

Rep. Shawn Thierrys (D-Houston) vote did not register but she clarified in the journal that she intended to vote against the bill.

The rest of the House Democratic Caucus spent five hours trying to amend, delay, and kill the bill.

In all, Democrats proposed 36 amendments, none of which passed. The first, offered by Rep. Chris Turner (D-Grand Prairie), tried to strike the bills enacting clause, a maneuver that would have neutered the bill entirely.

The following 35 were a medley of carve-outs for various kinds of policies enacted by municipalities such as soil and water conservation policies, lunch and water break mandates, and prohibitions against wage theft.

Another by Rep. Erin Zwiener (D-Driftwood) attempted to eliminate the liability of elected officials under the proposal.

During the debate over most of these amendments, Democrats peppered Burrows with questions about what the bill would preempt and what it would permit, alleging that various local regulations already in place could be nixed by the state.

Burrows responded to most of those questions by citing sections of code that already permit local regulation; the bill would prohibit localities from exceeding the regulation allowed in those sections.

Two amendments did get adopted, both of which were offered by Republicans.

Burrows amendment reduced the venue scope in which an offending locality may be sued under the bill. The first version of the bill allowed for a suit to be brought in any county in the state, which was then narrowed to the county of origin or an adjacent county in committee, which has now been narrowed to just the county of origin.

A second amendment by Rep. Kronda Thimesch (R-Denton) added language to stipulate that massage establishment regulations would not be affected by the bills preemption measures.

Democrats also called four points of orders procedural maneuvers intended to kill a bill by pointing out some language or process deficiency none of which landed.

Abbott weighed in on the issue shortly after HB 2127 passed.

Predictable Leave it to Unions with an assist by the [Houston] Chronicle, to label reducing regulations as a Death Star, Abbott tweeted. Fact is reducing regulations makes it easier for small businesses to succeed. This law will KEEP Texas #1 for business & create more jobs.

Abbott endorsed Burrows bill at a National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) event in February.

NFIBs Texas State Director Annie Spillman, whose organization has been lobbying in support of the bill profusely, said in a statement, Our small businesses entrepreneurial spirit and resiliency has provided good-paying jobs for Texas families and hardworking men and women across our state.

But the current patchwork of regulations threatens to undermine our economic might. Mandates no matter how well intended make it harder to do business in our state.

Texas Democratic Party Chair Gilberto Hinojosa criticized the bill this week, saying, The millions of voters in counties like Dallas, Harris, Travis, and Bexar did not vote to have Republicans arch-conservative ideologies forced upon them.

But we disagree with this bill on more than just the devastating substantive impacts it would have on some of Texas most economically industrious municipalities we disagree with it on the principle as well.

Burrows frequently said his intention behind the bill was to prevent the Legislature from continuing its game of Whac-A-Mole, slapping down individual instances of excessive regulations passed by municipalities.

Localities, unions, and progressive activists opposed the bill on the grounds that it would prohibit many of the contentious local regulations that big blue cities have passed in recent years exactly the intent of the bill as expressed by Burrows.

The bill will now move to the Senate, having passed the chamber where similar, more tailored preemption bills died twice last session at the hands of Democrats.

Read more from the original source:
Texas House Approves Local Government 'Field Preemption' Bill ... - The Texan