Mediaboss Marketing

The Great Depression lived up to its name. In the election year of 1932 alone, the U.S. economy lost a quarter of its value. Unsurprisingly, Democrats, under the banner of Franklin Roosevelt, won big that year. Roosevelt took 42 of 48 states, and Democrats picked up nearly 100 seats in the House and 12 in the Senate. An economic rally in 1936 helped produce another big win for Democrats that year. Further economic progress and fears of war garnered a third win for Roosevelt in 1940, and satisfaction with the wars progress brought a fourth in 1944. Harry Trumans come-from-behind victory in 1948 secured five consecutive terms 20 years of Democratic control of the White House, and Democrats held the Congress for 18 of those.

None of that was inevitable. If Al Smith had somehow beaten Herbert Hoover in 1928, the crash would have occurred on the Democrats watch, and they would have likely incurred the blame. If Roosevelt had followed tradition and limited himself to two terms, perhaps Republican Wendell Willkie could have won in 1940, possibly giving his party credit for World War IIs outcome. But the way history panned out, Democrats had a very long stretch of national dominance which had even longer echoes on the Supreme Court.

Another peculiarity of American political history was in play there, as well. White southerners, among the most conservative people in the country on some issues (notably race), were strongly aligned with the Democrats for much of that period, thanks to their longstanding antipathy for the party of Lincoln. This ended up tempering some of the Democrats agenda but also securing large governing majorities for them.

The result was that Democrats almost exclusively named federal judges and Supreme Court justices for decades. Even when Republican Dwight Eisenhower assumed the presidency, many of his court appointees were relatively moderate (owing to Democrats congressional dominance and his own moderation). His administration was followed by another eight years of Democratic dominance. Of the 22 open Supreme Court seats between 1933 and 1968, 17 were filled by Democratic presidents. And Eisenhowers five nominees included Earl Warren and William Brennan, two future progressive icons.

William J. Brennan, nominated by President Dwight Eisenhower to be a Supreme Court justice, sits in a hearing room on Feb. 26, 1957, as the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on his nomination.|AP Photo

Democrats dominance of the courts during this era allowed for the success and duration of the New Deal for decades to come. Most of the progress on social issues that we associate with the Supreme Court emanate from that era. School integration, the right to legal counsel, abortion rights, the right to privacy, access to contraceptives, one-person-one-vote representation, minimum wage laws and more are products of that period of Democratic dominance. And as political scientist Kevin McMahon has written, Roosevelts appointments to the court paved the way for later civil rights advances.

In recent decades, however, those large Democratic majorities have faded. White southerners are overwhelmingly Republican these days. Today, the two parties are fiercely competitive at the national level; there really hasnt been a dominant party in the last three decades. And the fact that smaller states have an outsized influence in the Senate and the Electoral College means that Republicans get a bit of an edge in naming people to the courts. Republicans have filled six of the nine open Supreme Court seats in the 21st century, despite only winning the popular presidential vote once.

And some of that seems the result of chance, as well. A few tens of thousands of votes cast differently or just cast in different states would have meant a different outcome in the 2016 election and a very different court as a result.

The fact that chance played a role in reshaping the law should not minimize the important work political activists did throughout this time. In the mid-20th century, part of the progress Democrats made came from labor unions, civil rights activists, feminist organizations and others who saw the opportunities created by the court and pressed their advantages. Their work did more than just change policy; it changed beliefs about civil rights, womens role in society, the status of LGBTQ people, and more. Many beliefs that would have seemed unthinkably radical 100 years ago are largely taken for granted today in a way that a conservative Supreme Court cant reverse.

And the likely ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade wont be exactly due to chance either it was the result of a long intellectual push by legal thinkers on the right, as well as Mitch McConnells norm-defying decision to prevent hearings on Barack Obamas Supreme Court nominee throughout 2016 and then rush through Donald Trumps final pick in 2020.

Then-President Barack Obama walks with Judge Merrick B. Garland before announcing his nomination to the Supreme Court on March 16, 2016, in Washington, D.C.|Mark Wilson/Getty Images

With that Democratic electoral dominance gone and the judges it produced long since departed from the bench, what weve seen in recent years is an erosion or reversal of many of the achievements of the mid-20th century court. Voting rights have been hollowed out, gerrymandering is permitted and abortion is on track to be curtailed or outlawed in nearly half the states, and this court does not appear to be nearly done with its work.

In many ways, this is a return to a traditional pattern. Through its long history, the Supreme Court has usually been a pretty conservative actor, in several senses of the word. It places limits on government action and a bias toward the status quo, but has also tended to rule in favor of established power. The court of the mid-20th century was an historic aberration, and it took a highly unusual set of circumstances for that to happen.

Its not at all clear where this leads us, but liberals should not assume that history is on their side. If the courts are going to steer things back in the direction charted during the Democratic century, it will take a lot of organizing work and an ability to take advantage of the opportunities that chance provides.

Read this article:
The Supreme Court and the End of the Democratic Century - POLITICO

The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set newsroom policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or onbangordailynews.com.

The outer bounds of our political discourse seem to be stretching further afield. Elon Musk tweeted a cartoonreflecting this at the end of April.

In short, it shows Musk as a center-left, self-described liberal in 2008. Fast forward to 2021, the left flank is so far away that Musk is now center-right, despite not having changed his position. Its a modern take on Ronald Reagans famous quote: I didnt leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.

For political science nerds, the arena of mainstream political debate is called the Overton window. The quips from Musk and Reagan suggest that the Democrats are moving further left and once-mainstream Democrats are now on the right side of the political spectrum.

Anecdotes seem to prove that out. John Martin the Earl of Eagle Lake was once one of the most powerful Democrats in the state. For decades, he led the Maine House as speaker and held a firm grasp on his caucus. If you wanted to get Democrats to do something, the road went through Martin.

Now, he is seemingly retiringfrom service in Augusta. And according to the Bangor Daily News analysis, he was one of the Democrats most likely to buck his party over the past two years.

That is a world of difference.

History is instructive as well. Reading the national Democratic and RepublicanParty platforms from 1996 gives context. Democrats back then stated unequivocally the first responsibility of government is law and order. Their solution? Nothing is more effective in the fight against crime than police officers on the beat, engaged in community policing.

That is a far cry from defund the police.

Democrats in 1996 stated [w]e cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it.

They proclaimed they had worked hard over the last four years to rein in big government, slash burdensome regulations, eliminate wasteful programs, and shift problem-solving out of Washington and back to people and communities who understand their situations best.

This was good stuff.

Polling also hintsthat todays Democrats are further left than their forebears. Pew and Gallup have decades of data to fall back on.

In 1997, 28 percent of Democrats believed abortion should be legal under any circumstance. That number spiked to 49 percent in 2020. Nineteen percent of Republicans believed it should always be illegal back in 1997; that increased to 27 percent in 2020. Meanwhile, 59 percent of 2020s Republicans believed it should be legal in some circumstances.

In 2001, 72 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of Democrats believed taxes were too high. In 2021, 60 percent of Republicans still held that view a 12 percent drop while only 39 percent of Democrats felt the same, a 21 percent decrease.

There are some places the GOP has shifted leftward gay marriage and cannabis, most notably. I cant find any policy where Democrats have, on average, moved rightward.

It creates an interesting dynamic. Departing state Sen. Chloe Maxmin a clear progressive will be hitting the book circuitwith her new tome entitled Dirt Road Revival. Im looking forward to reading it; it is reported to be the handbook for Democrats to recapture rural communities like the majority of Maine.

Whether Maxmins prescription is effective or even heeded is yet to be seen. The recent poll on Maines upcoming election was telling. Diving into the detailsshows voters outside the major parties breaking 39 percent to 32 percent in favor of former Gov. Paul LePage.

The Overton window is about as wide open as it has ever been. Democrats have pushed towards the left flank. Will they extend too far and defenestrate themselves? Or do progressives have a handbook to bring voters along with them?

Well find out. But we are in a world where John Martin is among the most likely to oppose the Democratic Party, so anything can happen.

More articles from the BDN

Read this article:
When John Martin is one of the Democrats most likely to buck the party, you know it has changed - Bangor Daily News

Democrats on Capitol Hill are sounding alarms this week over the possibility that Donald Trump could return to Twitter, warning that providing the former president with such a powerful megaphone could lead to violence on par with last years Capitol riot.

Trumpwas bannedpermanently from Twitter on Jan. 8, 2021, just two days after a mob of his supporters attacked the Capitol in a failed effort to overturn President Bidens election win.

But with billionaire Elon Musk poised to take over the highly influential company, Trump may soon be back on the platform that helped propel his stunning political rise. Indeed, Musk on Tuesdaysaidthe ban was flat-out stupid and would be rescinded if and when his $44 billion takeover offer is finalized.

The would-be reversal has been hailed by Trumps allies and other conservatives, who are characterizing it as a victory for free speech over the woke policies of the nations Big Tech companies.

Trump has said he has no intention of returning to Twitter, though it remains to be seen if the allure of the 80 million followers he had amassed is enough to persuade him. But the prospect of Trumps return to the platform is stirring new fears from Democrats, many of whom were in the Capitol during the riot and fear another violent episode.

Why the concern?

Because he started an insurrection, the f idiot, said Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.). And thats my fear that hed start violence again.

Vargas is hardly alone.

Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) stressed the importance of protecting free speech, but noted that even the First Amendment is not absolute. Because of Trumps history using Twitter to promote disinformation, lies, [and] ignite a very aggressive behavior from the general population, he suggested the 45th president should remain barred from the platform.

Its a tool that is sort of like the backbone of democracy, but you cant yell fire in a crowded theater, Espaillat said. To some degree, [Trump] has been irresponsible with it and dangerous with it. So for him to have access again to that is troubling, because he already has a pattern of behavior that has put democracy in danger. And we all saw what happened on Jan. 6.

Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) delivered a similar message. While Chu predicted that Trumps return to Twitter would inevitably lead to a flood of outrageous statements that might help her own party, she stressed that the threat of violence outweighs all other factors.

If he continues to incite the people towards violence, which he did with Jan. 6, then he should not be on [Twitter], she said. Because I draw the line at violence, hate crimes, things that would do harm to people. And hes shown that he will do that.

If Democrats are virtually united in their opposition to Trumps return to Twitter, however, theres less agreement about Congresss role in determining the outcome. Some lawmakers said that, because Twitter is a private enterprise, theres little the federal government can do to dictate its guidelines and content.

Thats a private company, said Vargas. I dont think we can do that.

Others disagreed, arguing Congress has a crucial role to play in establishing corporate guidelines a role thats particularly vital when it pertains to the massively influential world of technology and social media.

We have to decide in Congress, too, what the rules of the road need to be, said Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), a former Microsoft executive who now heads the New Democrat Coalition.I dont think that it should just be purely an arbitrary decision of a CEO of a company. I think Congress has to set the rules.

Trump leaned heavily on Twitter as a way to promote his unorthodox candidacy and churn countless headlines during his stunning ascension to the White House in 2016. His success on the platform paid enormous dividends, allowing him to build a massive base of supporters drawn to his unvarnished observations on national events and no-holds-barred approach to campaigning.

The gush of tweets continued throughout his time in office until the final weeks.

After the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, Twitter, which like other tech platforms had given world leaders wider latitude than other users, took the remarkable step of barring Trump from its platform, saying the president posed a threat of sparking additional violence.

After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence, the company wrote two days after the riot.

Republicans, already entrenched in a fight against cancel culture, lambasted the decision, accusing Twitter of censoring Trump only because he was a popular conservative voice.

Musk, the libertarian-minded founder of Tesla and the worlds wealthiest man, has long criticized Twitters policies, particularly when it came to culling voices from the platform. On Tuesday, he said the ban on Trump was not correct and that he would reverse it if he succeeds in acquiring Twitter.

Permanent bans should be extremely rare and really reserved for accounts that are bots, or scam, spam accounts, Musk said during a Financial Times summit on the future of automobiles. I think that was a mistake, because it alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice.

Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat who represents much of Silicon Valley, said hes planning to talk to Musk directly on the topic in the coming weeks. His advice, Khanna said, would be for Musk to establish a sturdy system of independent governance that would take the tough decisionmaking like questions of whether to ban certain users out of the hands of any one company leader.

I dont know why anyone would want to be making all the calls on Twitter. Its got to be one of the most controversial jobs in America, Khanna said. So to the extent that he can set up independent structures of governance to make those decisions, I think the better.

Khanna, like DelBene, argued for Congresss role in creating certain federal guidelines to govern powerful tech companies like Twitter. But unlike other Democrats, he also questioned the logic and legality of keeping Trump off of those popular platforms, especially if he runs for the presidency again in 2024.

There have got to be strong guardrails. And if there is further incitement of violence, then there have to be consequences, Khanna said. But I dont see how, if he becomes the nominee of the Republicans in 24 as a serious contender, how you can keep him off some of these public forums.

Link:
Democrats sound alarm about Musk bringing Trump back to Twitter - The Hill

If House Democrats have any hope of saving their flimsy majority in 2022, or even just limiting GOP gains, it will be thanks to candidates like Salas. He is part of a group aiming to win roughly a dozen Republican-held House seats that Joe Biden carried in 2020 perhaps the only GOP districts that are truly vulnerable this fall.

In a midterm political environment leaning so heavily against Democrats, the party will need to win a large chunk of them to have any chance of remaining in power next year. Republicans need a net gain of just five seats to take the majority, and the GOP target list includes more than 10 Democratic districts Donald Trump carried in 2020.

Stiff national headwinds have stifled Democratic recruitment in many places, and some potential contenders opted to wait for a more promising year. But party operatives have landed top-tier Democratic candidates in many Biden-won districts, in part thanks to new favorable district lines. They are state legislators and military veterans and public school educators, among other backgrounds.

Redistricting has been obviously bad for Democrats in Ohio, but its been great in Cincinnati, said Democrat Greg Landsman, an early education advocate-turned-Cincinnati city council member whos taking on GOP Rep. Steve Chabot in 2022.

Chabot was protected over the last decade by a gerrymander that sliced Cincinnati in two. But the newly drawn district unites the city, transforming the seat from one Trump carried by 3 points in 2020 to one Biden won by 9 points. Its probably the best pickup opportunity that Democrats have in 2022. He never had to run in a district remotely this competitive, Landsman said of Chabot.Salas district also became more favorable for his party, by shedding some of Valadaos home base.

House Democratic strategists see Landsman and Salas as among their top eight prospects to flip a district this year. All were won by Biden in 2020 though rising inflation and Bidens plummeting popularity have made national Republicans operatives far less concerned than the 2020 numbers might warrant.

Even so, Democrats insist theyre going on offense. And several of the partys targets are in newly redrawn districts that voted for Biden by double digits, giving the party some hope even in a more hostile environment.

Perhaps Democrats single best target is in central Illinois, where the party transformed GOP Rep. Rodney Davis Springfield-area district into one Biden carried by 11 points. Davis jumped to a neighboring seat and a primary against a fellow Republican incumbent, clearing the way for Democrat Nikki Budzinski, a former adviser to Gov. J.B. Pritzker.

Another top Democratic target is in Western Michigan, where Republican Rep. Peter Meijer is now in a district that voted for Biden by nearly 9 points. And in southern New Mexico, former Las Cruces City Councilor Gabe Vasquez, a former aide to Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), is taking on GOP Rep. Yvette Herrell in a seat redrawn by state Democrats to tilt more to the left.

In Cincinnati, Landsman won his primary last week with no competition, allowing him to devote all his efforts against Chabot, whom he outraised last quarter. Democrats also expect another recruit up this Tuesday, Nebraska state Sen. Tony Vargas, to clear his primary on Tuesday and shift his focus toward GOP Rep. Don Bacon, who represents the Biden-won district in Omaha.

In interviews, many of these recruits insisted they were not discouraged by the ominous political environment because they feel their backgrounds are uniquely suited to their home turf.

Salas, for example, has racked up huge victory margins in his California state Assembly seat elections, attracting crossover voters by bucking his own party on issues including opposing the gas tax and supporting increased funding for police.

And in Nebraska, Vargas, the son of immigrants who became a public school science teacher, lost his father, a machinist, to Covid-19. He was outraged that Bacon voted against a pandemic relief package.

We need people that come from working-class backgrounds that also have experience getting things done, Vargas said.

Bacons last opponent was a self-declared socialist who lost to him in two consecutive elections after the incumbent painted her as too far left for the swing district. In contrast, Vargas touts his bipartisan streak in the state legislature: Ive been able to get a lot done across the aisle.

While some Democrats in the Biden-GOP districts are skating through primaries, others have been more contentious. In the Los Angeles area, Christy Smith is seeking her third matchup against Rep. Mike Garcia (R-Calif.) after losing the first two.

But some national Democrats are pushing for first-time candidate Quaye Quartey, a Navy intelligence officer. He and his supporters argue hes a better contender against Garcia.

He and I are both Naval Academy graduates, former officers even though I outrank him. Were both people of color, were both first generation Americans, Quartey said in an interview, as he compared their bios.

The seat, which Republicans unexpectedly won in a 2020 special election, went for Biden by double digits in 2020, as Garcia held on to the seat by just 333 votes last fall.

The past two cycles, with all due respect to the former candidate, we didnt get it done, Quartey said when asked about running against Smith.

Still, while Biden-won territory isnt solid ground for Republicans, it also means that many of the incumbents have experience winning elections in tougher environments than they may face in 2022. Garcia and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) who was one of just three Republicans in Hillary Clinton-won districts to survive the 2018 Democratic wave each have just under $2 million banked already.

Democrat feels their likely nominee against Fitzpatrick, Ashley Ehasz, has a compelling profile as an Army veteran but her campaign had just $90,000 on hand as of April.

And Democrats are a bit less optimistic about seats that Biden carried by a smaller margin. Democratic physician Asif Mahmood is challenging GOP Rep. Young Kim in an Orange County seat that Biden won by just 2 points. Navy veteran Jay Chen is slightly better positioned in Republican Rep. Michelle Steels neighboring district, which Biden won by 6 points.

In addition to California, Democrats had high hopes for New York where the partys state legislators had drawn a lopsided gerrymander. But the states high court tossed out the map, scrambling plans to turn at least three GOP-held seats into strong Biden districts.

One district in upstate New York, held by retiring GOP Rep. John Katko, is likely to remain a top, Democratic-leaning pickup opportunity. Attorney Josh Riley and veteran Francis Conole are running there.

But an open seat on Long Island and another GOP-held district on Staten Island are likely to be far less Democratic-friendly under the new court-drawn map. Thats bad news for former Rep. Max Rose (D-N.Y.), a Purple Heart-winning combat vet seeking a rematch with GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis on Staten Island.

Rose is one of a handful of Democratic candidates who are making another go this election after a previous failed bid with hope they can pull off a win in a slightly better seat.

Democrats are also throwing support behind Hillary Scholten, a former DOJ attorney, as she prepares to face Meijer in his newly redrawn district.

The freshman Republican once said his vote to impeach former President Donald Trump may have been political suicide but in addition to a GOP primary, he has to contend with a newly competitive district. The new lines, drawn by a nonpartisan commission, take in portions of Grand Rapids that Scholten easily won in 2020 and add voters from other Democratic strongholds, like 20,000-student Grand Valley State University.

Were going to target every last one of those voters and make sure they know they not only have a chance to influence this seat, Scholten said, but also have a nationally important impact on the battle for the House.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this report misstated Gabe Vasquezs title. He is a former Las Cruces city councilor.

View post:
Democrats' chance to save the House majority runs through these districts - POLITICO

Clyburns answer is both condescending and revealing. Ever since Politico reported that the Supreme Court was on the verge of overturning Roe, Democrats have responded with a single message: If you want to protect abortion access, you must vote for Democrats who will vote to codify the right to an abortion by law and add to their current ranks so that such a measure might pass both houses of Congress and survive a GOP filibuster along the way. That urgent project doesnt square with lining up to save the bacon of the Democratic Partys sole anti-choice member. This isnt so much a mixed message as it is a pured one. As Liza Featherstone wrote in Jacobin, House leaderships decision to back Cuellar suggests that it doesnt understand the urgency of the abortion fightnor any of the other pressing issues of our time, for that matter.

Cuellars out-of-step position on abortion isnt his only problem. The FBI raid on Cuellars home and campaign office reportedly focused on the congressmans business deals in Azerbaijan, involving Azeri kleptocrats and a range of Texas-based companies linked directly to his wife, Imelda Cuellar. The congressmans lawyers have insisted that Cuellar is not the focus of the investigation and that he has been fully cooperative. Nevertheless, that raid could haunt him should he secure the nomination. Its not as if the Democratic Party doesnt have very recent experience with FBI inquiries disrupting political campaigns!

Additionally, Cuellar opposed the Protecting the Right to Organize Act and has been labeled Big Oils favorite Democrat. Being a big-tent party is one thingbeing an anti-union, pro-oil, anti-abortion Democrat whos increasingly out of step with the partys priorities and may be connected to illicit goings-on with Eastern European oligarchs is another matter entirely. Besides, Democrats have a choice: They can back Jessica Cisneros, who is plainly an improvement on the status quo and who is close enough to a victory that just having the backing of party elites should wrap this election up with a bow.

Follow this link:
House Democrats Are Backing Abortion Foe Henry Cuellar at the Worst Possible Moment - The New Republic