Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

What Does This Man Know That Other Democrats Dont? – The Atlantic

Polling data reflect those anecdotes. His job-performance numbers were always higher than his vote share, so even people who werent voting for him thought he was doing a good job and was fighting for the right things and had the right priorities, says Marshall Cohen, the DGAs political director, who reviewed polling on Cooper over the course of the 2020 campaign.

Some of Coopers success, he knows, is rooted in his identity as a white man. That may have enabled him to hold on to moderate voters last year who might otherwise have been scared off by trends among Democrats nationally. Cooper, for example, wasnt tied to progressive causes like the Defund the police movement. By contrast, Jaime Harrison, a 44-year-old Black Democrat who ran against Republican Senator Lindsey Graham in South Carolina, was tagged with that causewhich frustrated him, he told me, because he repeatedly distanced himself from it.

Racism exists at all different levels in our society, Cooper told me. It would probably be easier for me to be way out there on [issues of race and racial disparity] than Jaime, because of the racism that exists out there. Voters may have been thinking that he may be a certain way because of his race and thinking that I may be a certain variety because of my race.

Another factor that may have helped Cooper: From the beginning of his first term as governor, hes built up his own fundraising apparatus, which means he didnt have to rely on outside groups to support his reelection and could shape his own public image. Meanwhile, he also established (and largely funded) a political operation through the state Democratic Party that recruited and supported other candidates around North Carolina. Those allies helped him break the legislatures Republican supermajoritywhich, in his first two years as governor, had the power to override his vetoesand gave him centers of political support around the state.

Then theres Coopers aggressive messaging: The governor devoted much of the last campaign to ripping into his Republican opponent, Dan Forest, especially Forests opposition to mask wearing and other COVID-19 restrictions. Cooper and his aides have become famous in Democratic circles for heavily investing in opposition research on Cooper himselfso much so that they record in advance responses to a range of potential attacks. Many of these campaign ads never air, but are ready to go if need be, usually with Cooper speaking directly to the camera.

In last years election, for example, aides told me Cooper knew hed likely be slammed for vetoing a bill that would have required local sheriffs to turn over undocumented arrestees to federal immigration authorities. So he recorded an ad explaining that he thought the measure was unconstitutional and would cost the state money. The ad tested well with focus groups, so the campaign ran with itwhile responding with their own heavily negative ads attacking Forest on several issues. Coopers view on going negative: I think its important to be up front with where you differ with your opponent and be ready to take that on. One of his political aides was more direct about their approach: You may score, but youre going to get bloodied.

Link:
What Does This Man Know That Other Democrats Dont? - The Atlantic

Democrats in Congress appear ready to muscle through massive COVID relief bill – WFMZ Allentown

New administration, new promises. But is it politics as usual in Washington?

Despite President Joe Biden's pledge to reach across the aisle, Democrats appear ready to go it alone to muscle through a massive COVID relief bill. Both chambers of Congress have now passed a budget resolution that will allow Democrats to advance the plan without Republican support.

Reconciliation allows Congress to pass things that have to do with finances with a simple majority, instead of a super majority.

"It's been employed now regularly during the Obama administration and the Trump administration, especially during first few years of the Trump administration when Republicans had complete control," said Muhlenberg College political science professor Chris Borick.

In the current climate Democrats have control of Congress. It's being utilized for the next COVID relief package.

Republican Senator Pat Toomey says it undermines attempts at bipartisanship, which he says Congress has proven it can do.

"I guess those days are behind us," Toomey said.

Democratic Lehigh Valley Congresswoman Susan Wild says this will get things moving at a time when Americans desperately need relief. Congresswoman Chrissy Houlahan, also a Democrat, agreed.

"As much as I believe there is strong unity and bipartisanship and I believe that is active and alive in Congress, I believe there is a time you have to move forward efficiently, and this is one way to do that," Houlahan said.

Toomey also criticized Democrats for trying to attach "liberal wish list items" in the $1.9 trillion package.

"There are a number of us moderates in Congress who are looking very, very hard at this plan to make sure we don't include items on people's wish lists," Wild said.

Read the original here:
Democrats in Congress appear ready to muscle through massive COVID relief bill - WFMZ Allentown

Op-Ed: Hiding Biden How Democrats crafted the first impeachment, helping defeat Trump in 2020 with media help – The Center Square

By the numbers, Joe Biden is president of the United States because he won the swing states of Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin by a combined total of some 43,000 votes.

But he also owes his victory to the groundwork laid by Democrats and their media allies one year before, during the first impeachment of Donald Trump. That first impeachment failed to oust Trump from office, but it helped secure the White House for Biden it shielded him from scrutiny, enabling him and his supporters to cast allegations during the campaign about dubious Biden family business ties as rehashed Trumpian conspiracy theories.

Democratic leaders had bet that Special Counsel Robert Muellers investigation into alleged Trump-Russia collusion would produce a clearly impeachable offense.

They were wrong. After three years of thorough investigation, Muellers final report, issued in March 2019, concluded that the probe [did] not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Then in August 2019, a CIA employee filed a formal whistleblower complaint against President Trump aimed at forcing Congress to address the matter. He alleged that Trump had pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a July phone call to investigate the Bidens for political purposes, and subsequently made aid to Ukraine contingent on the probe.

Trump reportedly raised the issue because he believed there had never been any serious inquiry into why Bidens son Hunter, a lawyer with no experience in the energy sector, had been paid upwards of $80,000 a month to serve on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma. Hunter received the appointment in 2014, shortly after his father was asked to oversee Ukrainian affairs as Barack Obamas vice president. In 2016, Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in aid to Ukraine unless it fired a prosecutor widely considered to be ineffective. The fired prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, testified that he was driven from office because he was investigating Burisma.

However, the allegations regarding the Trump phone call with Zelensky were problematic from the start. The man who brought the complaint was not really a whistleblower as the term is commonly understood. He had no direct knowledge of the phone call but had been leaked details of it by one of the seven American officials who were on the call with the president.

Despite the procedural problems with the whistleblower complaint, it provided a semblance of formal process to buttress an all-new impeachment attempt. Progressives and much of the media cast the call as an abuse of power by Trump who, they claimed, tried to extort a foreign leader to kneecap a political rival.

From the beginning, the impeachment inquiry was rife with episodes suggesting Democrats had a larger strategy. They took an unprecedented amount of control over the process. While the Judiciary Committee, led by Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, was the traditional venue for impeachment, Democrats decided that Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, would guide the impeachment inquiry through the Intelligence Committee.

Democrats shut down Republican attempts to probe the Democratic Partys own connections to Ukraine during impeachment. Schiffs secrecy and tight control over who got to testify allowed House Democrats to sidestep questions about the chairmans role in instigating impeachment, the DNCs involvement with Ukraine, and Bidens potential role in his sons corruption.

Ultimately, the Senate refused to convict Trump and many Republicans believed that it did little to harm him politically.

But if impeachment failed to tarnish Trump as much as Democrats hoped, it appeared successful in delegitimizing valid questions about alleged Biden corruption. After impeachment, the mainstream media showed almost no interest in investigating Biden family business ties, which were largely characterized as a series of unsubstantiated and debunked allegations.

Bidens razor-thin swing state victories might not have materialized if the Trump campaign had been able to gain traction from a series of articles it helped orchestrate in the New York Post that reported information from a laptop owned by Hunter Biden suggesting corrupt foreign business deals that may have involved his father.

As many as 45% of Biden voters said they were unaware of Hunters financial scandals before the election. Thats likely because Democrats and much of the media discredited or did not report the accusations in the campaigns final weeks accusations bolstered after the election when Hunter admitted that he has been the subject of a federal corruption probe since 2018.

Christiane Amanpour of PBS expressed the prevailing view in an interview with Republican National Committee spokesperson Liz Harrington. When Harrington urged journalists to look into the Biden corruption story, Amanpour responded: Were not going to do your work for you.

As the Senate prepares next week to take up a second impeachment of Trump, Republican objections to the Democrats handling of the first go-round loom large. The record of those proceedings shows that they were conducted in a highly unusual manner. In retrospect, it seems clear that they were designed not just to target Trump but to protect Biden.

This article was adapted from a RealClearInvestigations article published Feb. 4.

Read this article:
Op-Ed: Hiding Biden How Democrats crafted the first impeachment, helping defeat Trump in 2020 with media help - The Center Square

Democrats Actually Learned From the Failures of 2009 Ryan Grim – The Intercept

On Wednesday, Sen. Joe Manchin appeared on MSNBCs Morning Joeto talk about the state of negotiations over President Joe Bidens Covid-19 relief package. The network posted the video with a misleading headline: Sen. Manchin calls for bipartisanship on Covid relief plan.

The headline isnt technically inaccurate. Manchin did profess a desire for Republicans to have an opportunity to shape the coming legislation, saying that he would oppose efforts to abolish the filibuster. Ive been in the minority when theyre jammed. Its not the way this place is supposed to work, he said.

But the real messageManchin delivered was a different one. He had recently spoken to Biden about the path forward, he said, and Biden was quite clear. He basically said, I dont want to go down the path we went down in two-oh-nine when we negotiated for eight months and still didnt have a product and had to do what were doing now. I said, Fine, Mr. President, Im happy to start this process.

The process he was referring to is budget reconciliation, the parliamentary avenue through which specific kinds of legislation can travel with a simple majority vote, avoiding the filibuster. And the reasoning behind it that we cant make the same mistakeas in 2009 marks a startling departure from the Democratic Partys long-running inability to learn from failure. Such a take on that years Democratic legislative strategy would have found broad support among the most progressive elements of the party in years past, but to see it endorsed by Manchin and Biden effectively makes the assessment unanimous from left to right arguably the most united the party has been since it was founded.

The 2009-10 term was so traumatizing to Democrats who lived through it that many, including Biden in his conversation with Manchin, have collapsed the staggering varieties of Republican obstruction of a broad range Democratic priorities from the stimulus to Obamacare to judicial nominations to Wall Street reform into one dark memory of an experience never to be repeated.

The 2016 presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders ushered in a new generation to Democratic politics, many of whom experienced the consequences of the 2008 financial crisis and the failure to respond to it adequately but werent following the day-to-day congressional drama that produced it.

Those new to politics may be lucky enough to not even know the name Max Baucus. For those who lived through that year(-plus) on Capitol Hill, his apparition is enough to spike blood pressure to dangerous levels.

Democrats entered the 2009 congressional term with 58 members of their Senate caucus, tantalizingly and, it would turn out, debilitatingly close to the 60 needed to end a GOP filibuster. On April 28, 2009, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter switched to the Democratic Party. That meant 59.

Al Franken had defeated incumbent Republican Norm Coleman in Minnesota but was not sworn in right away; Republicans cleverly litigated the election, dragging the recount out for months, knowing that each day Franken was kept from the upper chamber was worth the price of the legal costs. On July 7, 2009, Franken finally became a senator, giving the party 60.

But Sen. Ted Kennedy died six weeks later. On Feb. 4, 2010, Scott Brown was sworn in as a Republican from Massachusetts, ending the partys super majority.

To seebudget reconciliationendorsed by Manchin and Biden effectively makes the assessment unanimous from left to right.

The first order of business in 2009, as it is in 2021, was a stimulus package to get the economy, losing jobs by the millions, back on its feet. Obama, in his new memoir, A Promised Land, describes the pivotal meeting during the transition in which the wings were clipped off of it. Incoming White House economic adviser Christina Romer suggested a stimulus in the trillion-dollar range.

Theres no fucking way, Obama recalls his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel saying, suggesting something in the $700 billion range instead.

From then on, insider politics drove the number that Democrats would push for. In early February, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., said that he expected the final package to be below $800 billion, claiming that as an economic matter it ought not to be too robust. For me its not symbolism, its an economic matter. At some point its just too big, he said. I asked him if he felt that $800 billion was the point at which economists believed it was too large. Its whatever gets 60 votes, 61 votes, he said, smiling, acknowledging that economics had nothing to do with it.

Emanuels prognostication had become self-fulfilling and Nelson, along with the few Republicans willing to negotiate, knew they held the cards. Budget reconciliation was available to Democrats, but they had chosen not to use it.

In talks with Sens. Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins, the proposal was whittled down, with Collins arbitrarily insisting no funds for school construction or upgrades be included. So that was cut. The resulting $787 billion package was woefully small, leaving unemployment hovering at 10 percent by November 2010.

Obama had known two years earlier that if the economy was still struggling, his party would pay the price yet his team had come up short. Leaving that transition meeting, David Axelrod, a close adviser, told him, Its going to be one hell of a midterm, shaking his head.

Obama writes in his memoir: This time I said nothing, admiring his occasional, almost endearing ability to state the obvious.

In the end, Specter, still a Republican, joined Snowe and Collins in voting for the rescue package on the Senate floor in February.It came at the cost of paring it down severely and extending the pain of the recession.Though the economy eventually began growing slowly, millions were left out of work, and voters threw Democrats out of the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014. The recovery plodded along. Ten years it took, because it wasnt deep enough and strong enough, Majority Leader Chuck Schumertold Rachel Maddowin a recent interview. Ten years. Were not going to make that mistake with Covid.

In the same interview, Schumer blasted his partys approach to the Affordable Care Act. Look at 200[9], where we spent a year and a half trying to get something good done, ACA, Obamacare, and we didnt do all the other things that had to be done. We will not repeat that mistake, he said. We will not repeat that mistake.

Republicans in the Senate have countered by suggesting Democrats lop off more than two-thirds of their proposal, bringing it down to $600 billion. Thats an offer the 2009 Democratic Party would have taken seriously. This time around, Montana Sen. Jon Tester, one of the handful of red-state Democrats remaining, told CNN he was fine with the price tag.I dont think $1.9 trillion, even though it is a boatload of money, is too much money. I think now is not the time to starve the economy, he said.

If its $1.9 trillion, so be it, Manchin told a nonplussedMika Brzezinski.

Max Baucus, a Democrat from Montana, was chair of the Senate Finance Committee in 2009, which, given its role in revenue policy, took the lead in drafting the Affordable Care Act. Baucuss longtime lieutenant, Jim Messina, meanwhile, had gone to the White House as Emanuels deputy chief of staff. As Messina sat down to cut deals with the major stakeholders in the health care industry Big Pharma, hospitals, medical device makers, and insurance companiesBaucus zeroed in on what he considered to be the three most likely Republicans to back what would eventually be known as Obamacare: Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, and Olympia Snowe of Maine. In the spring, together with Democrats Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Kent Conrad of North Dakota, they formed the so-called Gang of Six a half-dozen finance committee members who met regularly to negotiate the bill, collectively representing a population of less than 10 million. Along with much of the rest of the congressional press corps, I spent countless hours standing outside the meeting room they commandeered in the Hart Senate Office Building, collecting tidbits on their crawling backroom talks.

Lets pause to consider whats become of these lead Obamacare architects since. Messina became a political and corporate consultant, working for the Tories in theU.K. as part of the team that advised former Prime Minister David Cameron to put Brexit up for a vote, because it would surely lose (what could go wrong?). From there, he helped run the Yes campaign for the Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi on a referendum on a major parliamentary reorganization. Renzi lost in a landslide and, like Cameron, he resigned. Messina was then hired by new U.K. Prime Minister Theresa Mays reelection campaign, another disaster. Jim Messina is perhaps the worlds most successful political and corporate advisor, reads Messinas bioat The Messina Group, declining to mention his role in blowing up the United Kingdom.

Baucus, meanwhile, did not run for reelection in 2014 and was named ambassador to China by Obama. In one of the most startling jaunts through the revolving door in world history, he followed that by joining the board of the Chinese behemoth Alibaba.

But back to the Hart hallway. With each passing day, Baucus, Snowe, and others would emerge to talk about the genuine progress they were making and their hope for a light at the end of the tunnel. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and White House advisers had warned Obama they werent serious and were just stalling for time. But we decided it was best to let Baucuss process play itself out, Obama writes in his memoir. During an Oval Office meeting, though, I made a point of warning him not to let Grassley string him along.

Trust me, Mr. President, Obama recalls Baucus saying. Chuck [Grassley] and I have already discussed it. Were going to have this thing done by July.

By July, the House had indeed passed health care reform through each of its relevant committees. But the Hart meetings dragged on. Now matter how hard we pressed, though, we couldnt get Baucus to complete his work, Obama writes.

So what was the holdup? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had been instructing his soldiers to drag out the talks as long as possible in hopes of killing the whole thing and bringing Obama down with it. If were able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him, said South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint in July, who went on to lead the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Obama called Baucus to the White House in late July. Times up, Max, Obama says he told him. Youve given it your best shot. Grassleys gone. He just hasnt broken the news to you yet.

I respectfully disagree, Mr. President, Baucus said. I know Chuck. I think were this close to getting him, he added, holding his finger and thumb an inch apart, asking to give him through the summer recess to keep working.

Mitch McConnell had been instructing his soldiers to drag outObamacare talks as long as possible in hopes of killing the whole thing.

A part of me wanted to get up, grab Baucus by the shoulders, and shake him till he came to his senses, Obama writes. I decided that this wouldnt work. Obama gave him until mid-September.

So lawmakers went home. At an Iowa town hall, Grassley, still an active member of the Gang of Six, trashed it, giving credence to the burgeoning conspiracy theory that government-run death panels were part of the bill. You have every right to fear, he said at the town hall, adding that we should not have a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma.

Obama called both Baucus and Grassley into the Oval Office. Grassley, Obama recalled, listed five objections to the bill. Let me ask you a question, Chuck, Obama said. If Max took every one of your latest suggestions, could you support the bill?

Well, said Grassley.

Are there any changes any at all that would get us your vote?

Obama describes an awkward silence before Grassley looked up and met my gaze.

I guess not, Mr. President, Grassley said.

In September, now several weeks past Obamas deadline, Enzi, another charter member of the Gang, told an angry Wyoming town hall he was only in the talks in order to stall it. If I hadnt been involved in this process as long as I have and to the depth as I have, you would already have national health care, he said.

Finally, in mid-October, after three weeks of public hearings and amendments, the whittled-down bill came up for a vote in the Senate Finance Committee. Snowe voted for it, giving Obama and Baucus the bipartisan victory they had been searching for. When it finally came to the floor, on December 24, she voted no, along with every other Senate Republican. McConnell had gotten her back in line.

Then came Scott Browns win on January 19, 2010, and Democrats ended up finishing the legislation using the reconciliation process. Obama signed it into law on March 23, 2010. So that the bill would appear to cost less federal money in its 10-year Congressional Budget Office analysis, however, most of the benefits were delayed. So, on the one hand, voters were warned the bill would kill grandma and that it would mean long wait times and rationed care, and they were frustrated by more than a year of dysfunction. And on the other hand, they had nothing to balance the ledger, feeling none of the upside for several years. Republicans immediately went to the Supreme Court in an effort to have it declared unconstitutional.

For some reason, Democrats would rather try a different route this time around. OnMorning Joe, Manchin suggested a lawmaking process so reasonable that, for Senate Democrats, its downright radical. If they wanna be reasonable and they wanna participate, then we work with them, said Manchin of his GOP colleagues. Lets see if they have an amendment, a reasonable amendment. If they have something zeroed fully stripped from the package it gets no votes. Then the Democrats vote, and we move on.

A legislative body debating an issue, voting, and allowing that vote to determine the outcome: Its so crazy, it just might work.

Go here to see the original:
Democrats Actually Learned From the Failures of 2009 Ryan Grim - The Intercept

His polls are sinking. Democrats are mobilizing. The Newsom recall just got real. – POLITICO

Nearly 18 years ago, California's only gubernatorial recall drew 135 candidates, including several B-list celebrities and one A-lister: Arnold Schwarzenegger, who swept into office on a Republican promise to clean up state government. With just two statewide elections in the U.S. this year governors races in Virginia and New Jersey another California recall would likely become the biggest political event of 2021.

Getting the recall onto the ballot is the first lift; voters would then have to decide in a special election whether to recall Newsom and simultaneously which candidate they would prefer instead.

The recall could still fail to qualify. The deadline to certify is March 17, and the campaign is still operating on a shoestring budget by statewide campaign standards, relying on volunteers and some paid mail to collect the 1.5 million valid signatures they need. Proponents claim they have 1.3 million total signatures, still a ways off the nearly 2 million they will likely need to compensate for invalid signatories.

Still, the campaign had a surprisingly high rate of valid signatures in the last statewide report through early January, hovering around 85 percent. California county registrars have verified about 600,000 signatures so far.

This public report does show a very high validity rate but their ultimate success relies on a few things: what happens to their response rate and what happens to their validity rates as they need to broaden their audiences out past just the hardest-core anti-Newsom audiences? said Ned Wigglesworth, a consultant who is not affiliated with the campaign. This huge flag is, as they work their way through the voter file, have they gotten this low-hanging fruit?

Some supporters are not waiting around to see. The National Union of Healthcare Workers has launched an effort to dissuade people from signing onto the recall, including testimonials from hospital workers about how a Newsom recall would undercut them, after it became clear it might qualify and people wanted to do something about it, union president Sal Rosselli said.

Read more:
His polls are sinking. Democrats are mobilizing. The Newsom recall just got real. - POLITICO