Mediaboss Marketing

Once upon a time, the roles were reversed.

Democrats were, if anything, skeptical of foreign intervention. Many, especially in the liberal and progressive wings of the party, saw war as inhumane, policing the world as folly and the Pentagon as bloated. Humbled by failure in Vietnam, the party that gave us Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern and Jimmy Carter pursued cooperation rather than conflict as the order of the day.

Republicans, on the other hand, were more unabashedly hawkish willing to flex U.S. military muscle and project power in support of an American-led world order. For the most part, they believed that if you gave the Soviets, the Chinese or Islamic State so much as an inch in Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East or elsewhere, dominoes would begin to tumble. Peace through strength was the mantra.

Opinion Columnist

Nicholas Goldberg

Nicholas Goldberg served 11 years as editor of the editorial page and is a former editor of the Op-Ed page and Sunday Opinion section.

But today, that paradigm is being flipped on its head.

Earlier this month, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is expected to announce his candidacy for president, said that further support for Ukraine is not a vital interest of the United States. He brushed off the war between Russia and Ukraine as a mere territorial dispute. Last week he clarified that Russia was in the wrong, but reiterated that he would oppose an escalation of American involvement.

His comments align DeSantis, to one degree or another, with former President Trump, whose isolationist, America first impulses are well known. About Ukraine, Trump has said, That war has to stop, and it has to stop now.

DeSantis also lines up with Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), the new House speaker, who has vowed that Republicans wont agree to a blank check for aid to Ukraine.

And he lines up with plenty of other conservative Republicans, such as Kari Lake (the loser in last years race for Arizona governor), who sounded in a recent speech more like Tom Hayden than Ronald Reagan: We are living on Planet Crazy, where we have hundreds of billions of dollars of our hard-earned American money being sent overseas to start World War III.

Yes, theres been pushback from the Republican establishment. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and former United Nations Ambassador and 2024 presidential candidate Nikki Haley, for example, are among those who support robust aid for Ukraine.

But the reality is that the America-first approach is gaining traction because it has significant backing from Republican voters, 40% of whom believe the U.S. is giving too much aid to Ukraine, compared with only 15% of Democrats who agree, according to the Pew Research Center.

While those changes are rippling through the GOP, President Biden and the Democrats are swinging the other way: Well stick with our Ukrainian allies as long as it takes, Biden says, as he gives them more howitzers, rocket systems and armored vehicles, because nothing less than the American-led international order is at stake.

Biden channeling Ronald Reagan, not Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama describes Ukraine as just one front in a global battle between autocracy versus democracy. Do you want to live in a repressive world led by Russias Vladimir Putin, Chinas Xi Jinping and their allies or in an enlightened liberal democracy of the sort we have in the U.S. and Europe?

As Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, put it: Today it is Russia and Ukraine. Tomorrow it will be other nations.

Its true that the U.S. is not actually fighting a war, just arming its allies in Ukraine. But according to a survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, liberal Democratic voters now support putting boots on the ground around the world more than independents, moderate Democrats or Republicans. More than half of liberal Democrats would support sending U.S. troops to intervene if Russia invaded a NATO ally, or if North Korea invaded South Korea or if China invaded Taiwan.

So whats going on here? Are we witnessing a true ideological realignment that will endure? Or is this merely situational, the result of some combination of Putins invasion, the upcoming presidential election and the Trump phenomenon?

Several experts told me I shouldnt assume a long-term shift is underway. They suggested there was a lot of political posturing and jockeying going on, especially because of Trumps disruptive presence in the 2024 race.

The pendulum is swinging, but Im not sure we have clarity on how far its swinging or exactly in what direction, said Andrew Bacevich, chairman of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

Bacevichs position is that theres not that much difference between the parties in any case. He argues that the party in power whichever it is tends to emphasize the importance of strong American leadership and the minority party generally shows more sensitivity to risks, costs and tradeoffs.

Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, doubts were seeing a true realignment. He argues that plenty of progressive Democrats are unenthusiastic about our involvement in Ukraine. And while its true that GOP voters are growing more skeptical of a muscular foreign policy, hes not sure itll last.

Their leaders are saying what they think they have to say to get the nomination, he said. The interesting question is whether Trumpism, with its isolationist impulse, will dominate in Republican circles after Trump is off the scene. Or will there be a return to 41ism and 43ism?

Haass was referring to the more internationalist policies of President George H.W. Bush and his son. (Remember Iraq?)

For my part, Id like to see less ideology, less rhetoric, less jockeying over 2024 and more pragmatism. In a sane world, Republicans and Democrats would come together in search of a coherent policy that would help the people of Ukraine in their fight against Putins unjustifiable aggression, without letting us drift into a new Cold War or get dragged into an escalating quagmire.

Thats too much to hope for, though, given the sorry state of American politics.

@Nick_Goldberg

The rest is here:
Opinion: Democrats flip red, Republicans flip blue on one major issue. Is it permanent? - Los Angeles Times

Keep up with our political coverage by signing up forour free daily email newsletterand our new weekly political newsletter, West of the Capital.

One of the most contested state Senate races this year is going to be in the Roanoke Valley and part of the New River Valley.

This will be in the newly drawn Senate District 4, a district where mapmakers drew two incumbents Democrat John Edwards of Roanoke and Republican Dave Suetterlein of Roanoke County into the same district. Edwards has since retired, and now theres a lively contest for the Democratic nomination to succeed him. So far there are three candidates: Roanoke council members Luke Priddy and Trish White-Boyd, and community activist DeAnthony DA Pierce.

I have written before about the history of this district how Democrats wanted to unite Democratic-voting Roanoke with Democratic-voting Blacksburg, but the mapmakers opted for a more compact district that put Democratic-voting Roanoke in with Republican-voting Roanoke County, Republican-voting Salem and the Republican-voting part of Montgomery County, not the Democratic-voting part. You can read my previous column for more about that, but for those not inclined, heres the short version: This isnt gerrymandering, this is the opposite of gerrymandering. This is simply what you get when you try to draw more compact districts without regard for where incumbents live.

With the two court-appointed special masters who drew the lines (one Democratic, one Republican) submitted their maps to the Virginia Supreme Court, they also included a report that has served as a go-to guide for the politics of each district. Based on the 2017 election returns, which is what the special masters used, they estimated that this new district is 52% to 54% Republican. In the 2021 governors race, this district voted 54.7% for Republican Glenn Youngkin. Based on that, the Virginia Public Access Project a nonpartisan site that tracks Virginia politics has shaded this district pink, for one that leans Republican.

That said, its close enough that its still considered competitive, so today lets take a deeper dive into just how competitive this district might be. This is a matter of concern beyond voters in that district; this is a district that will help determine whether the next state Senate is controlled by Democrats or Republicans, so this is a rare instance where something that happens in the Roanoke and New River valleys has statewide implications.

One of the Democratic candidates, White-Boyd, said something that caught my eye. Heres what Cardinals Markus Schmidt wrote when he reported on her entry into the race:

White-Boyd said that she isnt worried about the slight Republican advantage in the recently redrawn district.

The majority of the votes come out of the city, and the last city council election was a Democratic sweep, so he has the uphill battle, she said, referring to Suetterlein, the Republican incumbent. We have a very big base here, and he will have the same challenges that I will have in other areas. But I am very confident in my connections in Salem city, and if it wasnt tenable I wouldnt have done it yet.

Now, its not my intention to nitpick everything candidates say, but White-Boyd is wrong on one point. The majority of the votes in that district dont come out of the city the city in Roanoke Valley parlance being Roanoke. A plurality do, but not a majority. Thats an important difference, one that disadvantages Democrats.

Lets look at the numbers.

VPAP has already crunched some of them for us. Heres where the voters in that district are:

Roanoke: 42.6%

Roanoke County (partial): 27.68%

Montgomery County (partial): 18.2%

Salem: 11.5%

Those numbers would seem helpful to Democrats the biggest jurisdiction in the district is strongly Democratic but are they?

Heres one way to look at a campaign, through the margins that each party is able to take out of each locality. In the 2021 governors race, Democrats came out of Roanoke with a 4,713-vote margin. That got quickly wiped out in Roanoke County, where just the portion of Roanoke County thats in this district produced a GOP margin of 6,805 votes. There may be fewer Roanoke County voters than Roanoke voters in this district but they vote overwhelmingly Republican, which accounts for the big margin. After that, Salem produced a Republican margin of 2,700 votes, while the Montgomery County portion of this district had a Republican margin of 3,188 votes. Put another way, the districts sole Democratic locality produced a 4,713-vote margin while the three Republican ones produced a Republican margin of 12,693. We dont have to finish the math to see how that works out but well do it anyway: Overall in the district, Youngkin posted a margin of 8,080 votes over Democrat Terry McAuliffe.

If youre a Democrat looking at this district, the challenge is how do you change that? In some ways, the answer is easy: A Democrat needs a bigger margin out of Roanoke and, ideally, cuts into those Republican margins elsewhere.

How likely is that? Lets try to find out. Are there other elections in recent years where Democrats have produced a bigger margin out of Roanoke? Thats really the threshold question. Turning out your own base ought to be easier than reducing the margins in communities that historically vote against your party, so if Democrats cant generate a bigger margin in Roanoke, nothing else really matters.

So what does history tell us? Here are the Democratic margins in Roanoke over the past five years:

2022 U.S. House: 4,702

2021 governor: 4,713

2020 president: 11,166

2020 U.S. Senate: 13,846

2018 U.S. Senate: 9,640

Youll see the biggest margins came in 2020, when the presidential election drove up voter participation. Turnout in a state legislative election wont come anywhere close to that, so we need to discount those 2020 numbers. That leaves us with the 2022 House election, the 2021 governors race and the 2018 Senate race. Of those, the 2018 Senate race, which pitted Democrat Tim Kaine against Republican Corey Stewart, offers the most hope to Democrats. So, yes, its possible for Democrats to squeeze a 9,640-vote margin out of the city. The problem is that may still not be enough; it wouldnt have been against Youngkins margins in 2021. Kaine also had the advantage of one of the weakest statewide candidates that Republicans have fielded in recent years. Thought experiment: Is Suetterlein as weak as Stewart was? Suetterleins previous electoral performance would suggest otherwise.

These also arent the most applicable turnout numbers. Turnout in an off-year state election will be lower than in a midterm national election. The only true apples-to-apples comparison is to look at previous state legislative elections in the precincts that make up this district.

Heres where we run into our first analytical challenge: In the last state Senate race here, in 2019, Edwards didnt have a Republican challenger, only an independent. Thats not a good comparison. To get a more accurate reading, we need to go back to 2015, when Uptown Funk by Mark Ronson and Bruno Mars was tearing up the pop charts and Edwards faced a strong Republican challenge from Nancy Dye. Even 2015 isnt a perfect comparison because that was actually a three-way race: Don Caldwell, Roanokes Democratic commonwealths attorney, ran as an independent. He took just 6.4% of the vote districtwide, but whose hide did he take it out of? Edwards, because Caldwell had previously run as a Democrat? Or Dyes, because they were both challenging the incumbent? Caldwell was running distinctly to the right of Edwards, so Im inclined to think he hurt Dye more than Edwards, but its possible to argue that one either way.

In any case, if we discount that race, we have to go back to 2011, when Edwards faced just a single Republican challenger, David Nutter. Thats a dozen years ago, though, and a lot of things can change in that time. In 2011, Donald Trump was still just some rich celebrity in New York, not a political phenomenon who has helped remake the Republican Party (or at least certain parts of it).

Just to be on the safe side, though, lets look at both years.

In 2015, Edwards squeezed a 3,590-vote margin out of Roanoke.

In 2011, Edwards pulled a 4,311-vote margin out of Roanoke.

Given what a Democratic candidate would need in the 2023 election, neither of those numbers seems particularly hopeful (well, from a Democratic point of view; Republicans would consider these quite hopeful numbers). These margins are roughly equivalent to what McAuliffe did in 2021 in Roanoke and that wasnt enough to win the district not even close. For comparison, Sutterlein ran up a 6,607-vote margin out of the Roanoke County part of his district four years ago. All but three of those precincts are in this years district; that would have reduced his margin to 5,949; still more than the Democratic margins out of Roanoke in 2015 and 2011. In 2011, Suetterleins margin in Roanoke County was 4,401, which, with those three precincts removed, would be 3,876, still more than Edwards margin in 2015 although lower than 2011. Thats more encouraging for Democrats but we havent taken into account yet the Republican margins in Salem and Montgomery County, which would more than make up the difference.

To satisfy my curiosity, I went back even further. In 1999, Edwards rolled up a 5,625-vote margin in the city. In 1995, he had a 5,361-vote margin. Those margins are better but still would get wiped out by the standard Republican margins in Roanoke County, Salem and Montgomery County. The fact remains: These other localities are a lot more Republican than Roanoke is Democratic.

Case in point, and for this Ill switch to percentages to make it easier. In 2021, the Democratic vote in Roanoke was 57.7%; the Republican vote in Roanoke County was 65.7%, in Salem 64.3%. Montgomery County is harder to compute because not only is it split between districts but some precincts are, too, but some of the precincts fully in the district gave Republicans 81.5% of the vote.

To win, a Democrat first needs to really crank up the margin in Roanoke, and I cant find any historical examples that match what a Democrat would need here. The best Democratic performance in a state Senate race that I can find came 36 years ago when Democrat Granger Macfarlane rolled up a 7,221-vote margin in the city over Republican William Ham Flannagan. Four years later, though, Macfarlane managed just a 532-vote margin in the city against Brandon Bell.

The Democratic candidate in 2023 will need a 1987-style margin out of the city (or better) and then need to figure out how to cut into Republican margins in the rest of the district. Is that possible? Sure. Lots of things are possible. But is it likely?

The problem is that while its theoretically possible for Democrats to rev up that kind of margin out of the city, the trend lines in Roanoke County, Salem and that part of Montgomery County are running against them. The Republican vote share in those districts has been increasing as voting patterns become more polarized, which means the margins often are, too. Is there a Democrat in 2023 who can both mobilize the partys base in the city and win back voters who have been drifting more and more into the Republican column? Thats the strategic challenge for Democrats.

Parties out of power often have more incentive to vote than the parties in power. While Democrats control the state Senate, they are in many ways the party out of power they dont control the governorship. That might help Democrats some in 2023. However, another challenge: Democrats may be unhappy with the governor, but the general public doesnt seem to be. The most recent Roanoke College poll put his favorable rating at 57%. Running against Youngkin may help Democrats increase turnout among their voters, but it seems unlikely to be persuasive with other voters, who generally seem to think Youngkin is an alright guy. True, voters seem to like Youngkin a lot better than they like some of his policies, so that will be the likely Democratic line of attack: If Republicans win control of the state Senate, look at all the terrible things they would be able to do. Can Democrats sufficiently scare voters? Well see.

One more consideration: Theres an open House seat in a district that overlaps part of this Senate district and its considered competitive. Lily Franklin will be the Democratic candidate in House District 41; Chris Obenshain and Lowell Bowman are seeking the Republican nomination. The problem for Democrats is that the Democratic part of that House district (Blacksburg) isnt in this Senate district but the most Republican parts (eastern Montgomery County and western Roanoke County) are. That means in those Republican precincts there will be two legislative candidates working to increase turnout (Suetterlein and whoever the House nominee is). There are also constitutional races on the ballot in Montgomery County and Roanoke County. Again, more candidates working to increase turnout in Republican-voting areas. There are no comparable elections in Democratic-voting Roanoke. That gives another slight structural advantage to the Republicans.

Im not trying to discourage Democrats here, just pointing out the challenging math. Ultimately, though, the math that matters is who votes and who doesnt. Upsets do happen. Nobody expected Bell to win back in 1991 but he did. If you ask me to predict who will win this race, Ill be happy to tell you on election night after the votes have been counted.

Here is the original post:
If Democrats want to win the Roanoke Valley's state Senate seat, here's what they need to do - Cardinal News

Moderate Democrats in Congress, seeking to keep their seats in red states, played a significant role in weakening oversight that led to recent bank failures.

While Democrats often tout their standing with the middle class and common folks, in this case those exhortations ring hollow. The middle class will once again be stuck paying for the mistakes of the privileged interests when it comes to the current banking fiasco.

An in-depth report by the Associated Press shows a handful of Senate Democrats were influenced by some $400 million in lobbying, hundreds of thousands in campaign money and other perks in supportive advertising.

The Democrats sided with Republicans in the Senate on a plan by GOP Sen. Mike Crapo, Idaho to retreat from the Dodd-Frank legislation tighter banking rules and oversight after the financial meltdown of 2008.

By 2017, smaller community banks had lobbied their members of Congress to reduce the size of banks subject to the regulation.

And their arguments did have merit, except in the final compromise bill, the bigger banks had to get something.

Silicon Valley Bank as among the midsized banks that escaped more stringent oversight. Its chairman and others were involved in lobbying the Democrats.

The revelations on lobbying in the Associated Press investigation were some of the most egregious efforts to restrain the oversight that continues to have reverberations in financial markets from bank safety to huge plunges in stocks that affect retirees 401ks.

In all, the Associated Press analysis determined through public records some $400 million was spent in the lobbying campaign to influence the legislation.

Democrat senators who helped pass the legislation gained campaign money from the banking industry.

Story continues below video

Montana Sen. John Tester received $302,770, while Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, of North Dakota, received $357,953 and Joe Donnelly of Indiana pulled in $265,349, according to the nonpartisan watchdog group, Open Secrets.

The American Bankers Association also spent $125,000 on an ad campaign thanking Tester for his work on the bill. The law firm that represented Silicon Valley Bank donated $10,800 to Tester.

In all, 17 Democrats voted with Republicans to reduce regulations, including mandatory stress tests that would likely have prevented the bank failures of the last few weeks. And, to be sure, Republicans share the blame.

Some Democrats, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, vehemently opposed the legislation.

Heitkamp, in an interview with the Associated Press, pushed back on the idea she was part of the problem. She blames the Federal Reserve instead, for lack of oversight.

In the end, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer gave the moderate Senate Democrats permission to vote for the legislation, hoping it would draw votes in their conservative states with the community banks serving small businesses and farmers.

Turns out, only Tester won re-election in 2018 after the weakened rules were passed.

Protecting Americans from larger and powerful institutions that can put profits over people and influence laws that benefit the privileged and put taxpayers at risk should be one of the basic tenets of Congress. And while Republicans have long turned a blind eye to these kind of protections in the name of promoting business, Democrats have often been the firewall protecting consumers.

But in this case, Democrats were the difference on the vote weakening the banking system oversight and they must own it. So far, there is no push to reinstate the rules that cover banks like Silicon Valley, but Democrats could redeem themselves by doing so.

The Mankato (Minnesota) Free Press

See the article here:
Editorial by The Mankato (MInnesota) Free Press | Democrats share ... - New Castle News

Hawthorne school board member Jennifer Ehrentraut will seek the Democratic nomination for State Senate, where State Sen. Kristin Corrado (R-Totowa) wants a third full-term.

Democrats are running Giovanna Irizarry, a Totowa resident who is the director of special education for the Woodland Park school district, and Jennifer Marrinan, a small business owner from Wyckoff, to run for the Assembly. They are expected to face Assemblyman Christopher DePhillips (R-Wyckoff) and Essex County Republican Chairman Al Barlas.

An incumbent Republican, Kevin Rooney (R-Wyckoff), lost his seat when the newly-drawn 40th included enough of Essex County to merit a seat.

The 40th has not elected a Democratic legislator under the new system of 40 legislative districts that began in 1973 it was one of just four districts in the state that elected three Republicans in the Watergate Democratic wave.

View post:
Democrats are running an all-woman ticket in the 40th legislative district - New Jersey Globe | New Jersey Politics

Austin Davis was recently elected as Pennsylvania's first Black lieutenant governor. | Matt Rourke/AP Photo

Theres little glory in being second in command. But a Democratic committee tasked with electing top lieutenants across the country thinks it finally has the right pitch to secure major money investments in those races.

The Democratic Lieutenant Governors Association plans to raise $15 million by 2026 and spend $2 million each in a pair of high profile lieutenant governor races in 2024 and 2025. The organization also wants an internal operation to support communication and fundraising efforts for lieutenant governors as they eye reelection or higher office.

The plans shared first with POLITICO would represent a significant step forward for the committee, which says it has raised about $2 million a year since it was first organized in 2018. But it is one that senior aides and the lieutenant governors themselves say is a long-time coming.

For years, party insiders have stressed that the donor class is too focused on federal races, and the highest profile ones at that. The lack of attention paid to state contests has not only led to more conservative policy outcomes in the states, they warn, but less Democratic talent moving through the ranks.

The DLGAs pitch to donors and other party leaders is a bench-building one: Todays lieutenant governors are tomorrows senators and governors. They also note that Democratic lieutenant governors best represent a party that increasingly relies on the support of non-white and women voters. Of the 25 Democratic second-in-commands, which includes states where the secretary of state fills that role, 14 are women and 12 are people of color.

It is the most diverse organization of elected officials in the country, said Austin Davis, who was recently elected as Pennsylvanias first Black lieutenant governor. If you look at the number of lieutenant governors that elevate whether to the U.S. Senate, whether its governor, whether its Congress this is clearly a bench of folks who are going to be leading our party into the future.

The DLGA is looking to fashion itself as a training ground for up-and-coming Democrats, connecting them with donors and helping them build policy chops as they consider their political futures beyond their current role.

For a long time, I think the role of lieutenant governor was sort of in the background, Peggy Flanagan, the Minnesota lieutenant governor who serves on the organizations executive committee, said in an interview during a meeting of the organization in Washington this week.

Two of Senate Democrats highest profile midterm recruits were lieutenant governors: Mandela Barnes, who narrowly lost in Wisconsin to incumbent Sen. Ron Johnson, and now-Sen. John Fetterman, who won a close contest in Pennsylvania against Trump recruit Mehmet Oz. And overall in 2022, four now-former lieutenant governors won election as their states chief executives, either winning a term outright or winning a full term of their own after previously assuming the governorship following a resignation.

DLGA leadership says that it is eager to foster members future ambitions. Kevin Holst, who was recently named the committees executive director, noted that would-be donors can form relationships early with a future rockstar in the party.

Holst said that, beyond putting LGs forth as key fundraisers, one particular area of focus would be turning the committee into a centralized services hub for current and aspiring lieutenant governors.

Its a unique committee in which we are focused on electing more LGs, but we recognize that LG isnt likely the endpoint for a lot of these elected officials, he said. Can we provide the fundraising support? Can we help with press support? Can we help with profile building in their states?

Republicans also have a party committee focused on lieutenant governors, which is an arm of the Republican State Leadership Committee. The GOP version focuses on all down ballot races in states, including state legislator and secretary of state contests. The RSLC lieutenant governors website notes that these experiences often prepare our lieutenant governors for higher office, and that over a third of the countrys Republican governors were previously lieutenant governors.

Two tests in the upcoming years for the DLGA will be North Carolina in 2024 and Virginia in 2025, states where the lieutenant governor is elected independently of the governor.

The officeholders in both states are currently Republicans and both are considered potential gubernatorial candidates in the upcoming cycle.

Part of the impulse behind getting involved in these races is because Democrats lost an ultimately consequential race in North Carolina in 2020, a race the committee says it spent $1 million on. Now Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, a controversial and bombastic Republican in the state, is a likely candidate as Republicans look to flip the governorship next year.

LG was a race that many people didnt pay attention to in 2020, and now it is biting us in the ass, Holst said.

View post:
Democrats have a diverse bench waiting in the wings. They just ... - POLITICO