Mediaboss Marketing

An onslaught of spending and national attention has led to unprecedented voter turnout for a special runoff election in Fort Bend County where both parties are vying for a win that could forecast whether Texas is ripe for a shift in political power.

Cameos from busy presidential hopefuls and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of political ads have flooded the north Fort Bend County district in an effort to prop up Democrat Elizabeth Eliz Markowitz, an educator, in the longtime Republican district for the Texas House. Gary Gates, a Republican and founder of a property management company, is fighting back against the onslaught with the backing of Gov. Greg Abbott and other high-ranking Republicans along with $1.5 million of his own money added to his campaign.

The attention on the otherwise small legislative race has led to high turnout ahead of Tuesdays special election. Nearly 18,000 voters cast ballots early and by mail during the four-day early voting period last week. The turnout eclipses the number of people who voted early over a 12-day stretch last fall when voters whittled down the original field from seven candidates to two in November.

At stake is a national effort to flip the Republican-led Texas House to Democratic control, shifting key political power ahead of the 2021 legislative session when lawmakers will redraw congressional and state legislative districts that could reshape politics for the state and nation for the next decade.

If Democrats pull off a victory, it would signal to donors across the country that they could win the nine seats needed to take control of the Texas House, said Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University. That could open the spigot of political donations in dozens of targeted races, including 11 in the Houston area and others in north and central Texas.

They really have set it up as a test case of, Do Democrats have a chance of flipping the Texas House in 2020? Jones said.

Voter registration is up across Texas, especially in Fort Bend County where 452,000 people are registered to vote, a 30 percent increase since 2014. That is faster than the population growth, which ballooned by 24 percent during the same time period.

For subscribers: Texas tops 16 million voters as registration deadline looms

Texas is politically in play in a way it has not been in years. Although Republicans control all statewide elected positions and both seats in the U.S. Senate, voter support for the GOP slipped in 2018. Democrats flipped a dozen Republican state House districts that year, and Democrat Beto ORourke won over a slew of counties that long favored Republicans in his failed bid for U.S. Senate.

Republicans have won House District 28 handily in past elections, including 2018 when former Richmond Rep. John Zerwas defeated Democrat Meghan Scoggins by about 8 percentage points. He retired last fall, leaving the seat vacant.

Despite Zerwas final electoral win, Democrats suggest Republicans are losing their grip in the district. ORourke lost by 3 percentage points there to Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, closing a 10 percentage-point gap from the 2016 election when then-candidate Donald Trump carried the district over Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Democrat Markowitz earned her seat in the runoff with 39 percent of the vote, followed by Gates at 28 percent, prompting a runoff. Collectively, the six Republican candidates made up 61 percent of the vote.

Regardless of the outcome of Tuesdays election, the seat is up for election again in November.

The surge in early voting comes after months of political celebrities dropping in Fort Bend to campaign and block walk for Markowitz, including Democratic presidential hopefuls Michael Bloomberg, Julin Castro and ORourke. Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren also have endorsed Markowitz.

A teacher trainer, Markowitz has reported a significant fundraising haul, in part due to the outsize attention from the presidential candidates. She has raised about $583,000 throughout her campaign, with a large chunk coming from outside Texas; she received an additional $144,000 worth of in-kind support from organizations that have provided campaign staff and other services.

Those totals do not account for the scores of out-of-state Democratic groups that have contributed or spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to aid Markowitzs campaign, including two groups that have invested six figures each.

People are paying attention to Texas. This is the biggest battleground state in the country. There are 38 electoral votes on the table. The state Legislature is in play for the first time since 2001, said Odus Evbagharu, campaign manager for Markowitz. For a long time, weve said Texas is on the cusp. People are starting to believe it, and youre seeing it right now reflected in House District 28.

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which supports Democratic candidates nationwide, spent nearly $200,000 on campaign ads supporting Markowitz, while a super PAC called Forward Majority put $200,000 into polling, direct mail and TV ads, including one earlier this month re-upping 20-year-old allegations Gates abused his children. Gates, who adopted 11 children, was accused of child abuse after punishing one of the children by sending him to school with a bag of fig bar wrappers pinned to his shirt. Although his children were taken away for several days amid further allegations of unconventional punishments, the case eventually was dropped. The Texas Democratic Party seized on the episode this month, calling on Abbott to rescind his endorsement of Gates.

On HoustonChronicle.com: Democrats attack Fort Bend state House candidate over 2000 child abuse case

Gates, who has self-funded much of his campaign, is endorsed by the governor and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who argue the extensive attention on the Texas race by outside influences reflects an effort by Democrats to bring socialism to the Legislature.

This is an important special election for a House Seat the Republicans need to hold, Patrick said in a statement Friday. Gary Gates will be a strong conservative voice for that district and I ask all Republicans in House District 28 to get out and vote. Dont let Beto and the socialist Democrats steal this seat.

Republicans have responded with other attacks, including a digital ad run by Abbotts political action committee that links Markowitz to ORourke and his support for a mandatory assault weapon buyback program. The Gates campaigns tracking polls indicate the gun buyback issue has been particularly effective in mobilizing voters, said Craig Murphy, Gates political consultant.

Abbott also has marshaled campaign workers to canvass the district for Gates, and Republicans are busing in block walkers from around the state, according to Quorum Report, a Texas political newsletter.

Democrats have cast the voter enthusiasm as proof the traditionally red-leaning district is in play. They argue the involvement of Abbott and U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, both of whom have endorsed Gates, signals GOP concern about holding the seat.

Murphy, Gates political consultant, said a breakdown of early voters primary voting history indicates far more Republicans than Democrats have turned out so far.

Its super, super clear whats happening in this election, Murphy said. Their path to victory seems nonexistent here. Gary Gates is winning just about every category there is except Democrats independents, Republicans, women, various age groups. So I cant help but be confident.

Rebecca Deen, chair of the department of political science at the University of Texas at Arlington, is skeptical Democrats will win enough seats to take control of the Texas House.

This might be the year, she said. Its hard to tell when the year will be. All things being equal and all turnout being the turnout of previous turnout, Texas is not as purple as Democrats hope it is.

jasper.scherer@chron.com

andrea.zelinski@chron.com

Read more here:
The test: Can Democrats flip the most watched Republican district in Texas? - Houston Chronicle

Scenes from the 47th annual March for Life in Washington, D.C, January 24, 2020(Katie Yoder)The Unsafe Abortion Protection Actwas introduced by Democratic state senatorKatrina Jackson.

The air was warmer than usual and spirits were high at Fridays March for Life in Washington, D.C., as pro-life demonstrators gathered across the National Mall to protest abortion and express support for mothers and their unborn children.

The marchers, many of them teenagers and women with small children who had trekked long distances to be there, had good reason for their smiling enthusiasm. This years 47th annual march followed a year of wins for the pro-life movement, including several court cases that suggest there may be a light at the end of the tunnel for those who hope to punt abortion access back to the states and possibly even overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion nationwide.

One case in particular has sparked hope that abortion access could soon be the prerogative of individual states again. The Supreme Court in March will consider a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic, a credential many abortionists do not have. According to critics of the law, it threatens to shut down all but one abortion clinic in Louisiana,which sees roughly 10,000 abortions every year.

The Unsafe Abortion Protection Actwas introduced by Democratic state senatorKatrina Jackson, who argues her bill is a health standard law that is very common sense.

Its very important for the pro-life movement and for women everywhere in Louisiana because it ensures that the standards of health care are not lower in the area of abortion, Jackson told National Reviewon Thursdayat pro-life group Save the Storkss annualStork Ball in Washington.

Jackson, a Baptist and attorney, has served in the Louisiana House of Representatives since 2012 and was elected unopposed in October to represent a northeast Louisiana state-senate district. In recent years, she has become a standard-bearer for an increasingly rare breed, the pro-life Democrat, and she spoke at this years March for Life.

Imagine this. A woman hemorrhages during the time of her procedure. Who do you want? You want a competent doctor who has access to health care for you at that point, Jackson continued.

Current Louisiana law requires doctors in outpatient surgical centers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital so that if a procedure goes awry the same doctor who knows what went wrong can coordinate with the hospital. That standard does not apply to abortion clinics.

Basically, Louisiana, unknowingly to us, had a lower standard of care for women who elected to have abortions in some places, Jackson said. And so what we did was make sure that that standard of health care that we established in Louisiana for years also applied to abortion.

She went on to add that contrary to popular belief, not all abortionists are OB-GYNs, claiming that inLouisiana, a radiologist and an optometrist were hired to perform abortions.

Jackson also said she has heard horrible stories from women who received abortions from physicians who had no connection with the hospital. When a problem arose, the hemorrhaging patient was sent in an ambulance, there was no call ahead to the hospital, and oftentimes the woman ended up having a hysterectomy, or surgery to remove her uterus.

One decision in a womans life hinders her from ever having a child again, Jackson said.

Its as simple as this. A doctor without admitting privileges cannot call in to a hospital and admit you and tell them what happened, she continued. And so this is becoming very important. We look at competency and we look at the continuity of care.

The Louisiana case will be the first major court battle over abortion since conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed, replacing retired justice Anthony Kennedy, who represented a divided High Courts swing vote on a number of hot-button social issues. The cementing of a conservative majority has elicited a manic response from the nations abortion-rights groups, which now routinely cast the reversal of Roe v. Wadeas an immediate threat to the health of American women.

Access to abortion is hanging by a thread in this country, and this case is what could snap that thread, said Alexis McGill Johnson, acting president and CEO of Planned Parenthood.

But Jackson remains hopeful that the events of the last year have opened up space for national Democrats to begin dissenting from the partys abortion orthodoxy, just as Democrats have done on the state level in her home state.

Were hoping that one day, as far as the pro-life movement is concerned, D.C. will look more like Louisiana, she added. When we see people attacking you because youre a pro-life Democrat, were coming to your aid.

We fight for a place in the party, but what we realize is this is not a party issue, Jackson said. And so we are never going to back down from standing up for life.

Louisianas Democratic governor, John Bel Edwards, has also broken with his party on the abortion issue, last summer signing a separate heartbeat bill, which would ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected at about six weeks of pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, expressed high hopes for the Louisiana case.

Theres a common sense at the core of that that the Supreme Court cant miss, Dannenfelser told National Review at the March for Life. Itll give them an opportunity to overturn what I think was a mistake along the margins of the Hellerstedt case.

That case, Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt, was decided by the Supreme Court in 2016, the majority ruling that Texas cannot require abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges or require abortion clinics to meet surgical-center standards because such requirements force an undue burden on women seeking abortions and thus violate the Constitution. The Louisiana case does not include the stipulation that clinics must meet surgical-center standards.

Dannenfelser, formerly a fervent pro-choice proponent, also agreed with Jackson, saying she believes the Democratic party is slowly heading in a more pro-life direction and expressing hope that the party can come back to where they used to be, which is embracing pro-life candidates and allowing conscience stands on candidates.

I think this is a story yet to be told because it hasnt unfolded completely, but I think whats happening is a crack in the base of the Democratic party on this particular issue, Dannenfelser said. The national party does not reflect the grassroots. The closer you get to the will of the people . . . the more pro-life that group gets.

In fact, over half of Democratic voters, 55 percent, support requiring doctors who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges, according to anNPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll conducted last summer.An eye-popping 41 percent of Democrats also support prohibiting abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy, and 32 percent would even ban abortions after heartbeat activity can be detected in the fetus at about six weeks.

For women suffering from the pain of abortion, Dannenfelser encouraged them to accept the love from the pro-life movement that is behind all the court cases and campaigning.

Reconciliation, conversion of heart, restoration of mind, body, spirit, is at the heart of this movement. You cant miss it when you walk around here, Dannenfelser said, gesturing to the crowd of bundled-up marchers. So any woman who has either themselves had an abortion, come close to an abortion, helped somebody else get one, come back. Listen to your heart. Only love has grown this movement, and we embrace all.

Read the rest here:
Hanging by a Thread: Democrats and the Abortion Case That Could Signal the Beginning of the End - National Review

A Mix of Candor and Evasion on the Obama Years

[See their responses on the Obama years.]

None of the Democratic candidates has shown any appetite for criticizing President Barack Obama. So, we wondered what they would say if we asked whether Barack Obama made any mistakes at all. Some of them responded by dodging the core of the question: Mr. Buttigieg and Ms. Warren, for instance, declined to name anything in particular they thought Mr. Obama did wrong.

But while all of them swathed their answers in lavish praise for the Obama record, several offered revealing hints of criticism. Mr. Bloomberg said the former president should have moved faster to fill vacant judgeships, while Ms. Klobuchar called the failure to take on prescription drug pricing a significant missed opportunity. Mr. Steyer faulted the former president for having spent too much time trying to work with Republican adversaries whom Mr. Steyer said would never compromise.

He trusted the Republicans too much, too long, Mr. Steyer said.

Most interesting of all may have been Mr. Yang, who delivered a big-picture critique of the Obama economic record: When we had a fundamental choice to either recapitalize the banks or keep Americans in their homes, we chose the banks, we bailed out Wall Street, Mr. Yang said. That is a view several other candidates in the race surely share, even if they did not say it out loud.

[See their responses about bad habits, books and celebrity crushes.]

While the interviews were mostly serious, eat-your-vegetables questions, we couldnt resist adding a bit of dessert. And so we asked all of the candidates to name their bad habits, the last book they read and their celebrity crushes.

The bad habits were almost endearingly normal.

I like Cheez-Its, Mr. Bloomberg said, which are probably not good for you.

I bite my nails, said Mr. Buttigieg.

Ms. Klobuchar had perhaps our favorite bad habit: The New York Times crossword puzzle, she said. So, my problem is that I do it at night.

Some candidates were willing to name a celebrity crush, but most were not. Without hesitation, Ms. Warren named The Rock. Just look at that man! she said. Hes eye candy!

Original post:
5 Things We Learned Interviewing 2020 Democrats (Again) - The New York Times

Former Vice President Joe Biden leads national poll after national poll of the Democratic nomination contest. But theres just one teensy problem for him: There is no national primary.

The actual presidential nomination process is lengthy, convoluted, and provides ample opportunities for the frontrunner to stumble. It has unique dynamics that make it far different from a typical election. Its part rollercoaster, part marathon.

And key to everything is the calendar.

Between February 3 and June 6, 57 separate primaries and caucuses will take place. Their outcomes will gradually assign candidates delegates necessary to win the nomination at the July national convention. The ordering and timing of contests is crucial and it breaks down into two separate phases.

Phase one is the four early states in February, which have a paltry number of delegates but an extraordinary impact on the races overall narrative. Phase two is the briefest but the most consequential: It spans March 1 to 17, in which more than half of all delegates will be locked down. And then phase three, if the nomination is still contested, will be a long, slow slog for the remaining delegates until early June (or until someone wins a majority).

As the contest goes on, it shifts from one thats fluid and unpredictable to one thats about cold, hard math. Because once a candidate gets a significant delegate lead, that lead can be quite difficult to dislodge particularly due to Democratic rules that delegates must be allotted proportionally based on results.

And considering how important the calendar is, it may be surprising that no one dictated it from the top down. The DNC does protect the privileged position of the four early states, and it set an overall end date, but beyond that, it was really up to each state to decide when to hold its contest.

Overall, whats resulted is a messy and arguably even bizarre way to pick a nominee. Its a process that ends up privileging certain states over others, and that can be buffeted by sudden volatility, especially early on. But its the system Democrats have. And it will determine who gets to run against Donald Trump in November.

The voting in the Democratic nomination contest starts off quite slowly, with the month of February reserved for the four famous early states.

Now, these states have a paltry amount of the overall delegates just 4 percent when you combine all of them. This makes it impossible for anyone to build up a significant lead in this phase, particularly because Democrats allot their delegates proportionally.

Yet because there are so few other contests happening, they can have enormous impact on perceptions of the overall race solidifying (or damaging) a frontrunners position, giving an underdog a surge of attention, or driving poorly performing contenders out of the race. Often, they effectively settle who the true top two or three candidates are.

Essentially, the political world looks at the early state results and the media coverage of those results, and takes them as cues about which contenders can actually win. Donations can surge or dry up, endorsements can flow in or vanish, and a candidates national poll position can change quite suddenly even though the margins of victories in these contests can be quite small.

For a frontrunner like Biden, this is a period of testing its very rare for a candidate to win every early contest (only Al Gore pulled it off in any contested race from recent decades). And for non-frontrunners, its a period of opportunity to win as Barack Obama did in Iowa in 2008 or even just to perform surprisingly strongly, winning the expectations game as Bill Clinton did with a second-place New Hampshire finish in 1992.

There is, however, a catch: Early voting for some crucial Super Tuesday contests also begins in February with, for instance, mail ballots going out to voters in California the same day as the Iowa caucuses. In previous years, early Super Tuesday voters who are undecided have waited to see what happens in these first four contests before casting their own ballots. But its possible that a significant chunk of those votes will be banked already by the time the South Carolina primary rolls around, which would blunt that states influence on future results.

If February is mostly about perceptions and momentum, March brings a newfound focus on math because, in just over two weeks, more than 60 percent of pledged delegates at stake in the entire contest will be locked down.

First, on March 3, is Super Tuesday itself. About 33 percent of total pledged delegates are at stake in contests held that day (though we should keep in mind, again, that there will be early voting in many of them).

The biggest Super Tuesday delegate hauls will be from California and Texas, but there will be other primaries in the South (Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma), New England (Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont), the West (Colorado, Utah), and the Midwest (Minnesota), and caucuses in American Samoa.

So while its possible for one candidate to essentially lock up the nomination by winning by large margins across the board, a regional split is also a distinct possibility. Democrats also have a rule that any candidate getting more than 15 percent of the vote (either statewide or in congressional districts) qualifies for delegates, meaning that at least two and perhaps more candidates will probably get some. (Candidates who fall short of that threshold, though, will likely be driven out of the race.)

Next, the remaining candidates will have little time to catch their breath because the subsequent two Tuesdays after the super one are also major voting days.

On March 10, contests in Michigan, Washington, Missouri, Mississippi, Idaho, and North Dakota will take place. Voting in the Democrats Abroad primary (a vote among party members living overseas), which begins on Super Tuesday, will also conclude. About 47 percent of pledged delegates will have been locked in after that. (The Northern Mariana Islands will then hold a caucus on March 14.)

On March 17, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, and Arizona have primaries pushing Democrats up to about 61 percent of pledged delegates allotted.

This means that if there is ambiguity in the Super Tuesday results whether due to a vote split among several candidates, or due to infamously slow California vote-counting those two not-quite-as-super Tuesdays could help settle it.

Whats different in 2020? The main change is that California moved from an early June primary late in the process, up to Super Tuesday. That and other changes mean this is a somewhat more frontloaded calendar than Democrats had in 2016 (back then, about 50 percent of pledged delegates were allotted by mid-March, compared to about 61 percent this time).

The nomination could well be settled by mid-March due to candidate dropouts, as was the case for Democrats in 2000 and 2004. But if it is still contested (as it was in 2008 and 2016), the next phase will slow down quite a bit: There will be an almost three-month slog for the final 39 percent or so of pledged delegates.

Generally, election days going forward will feature either a few small contests or one small- or medium-sized contest. Theyll also be spread out more.

For instance, theres Georgia on March 24, Puerto Rico on March 29, Louisiana, Alaska, Hawaii, and Wyoming, on April 4, and Wisconsin on April 7. That takes us up to 70 percent of pledged delegates allocated.

Then theres a three-week gap until April 28, the single most important day remaining in terms of the delegate haul. New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware all vote that day, in a sort of Northeastern or Mid-Atlantic primary. About 17 percent of total pledged delegates will be at stake then meaning 87 percent will have been locked in by that point.

May brings just seven contests that combine for 7 percent of total delegates: Kansas and Guam on May 2, Indiana on May 5, Nebraska and West Virginia on May 12, and Kentucky and Oregon on May 19. That brings Democrats to the 94 percent mark.

Finally, June 2 is the final day of state primary voting, with New Jersey, New Mexico, Montana, South Dakota, and Washington, DC. And if the nomination is still contested after that, the last contest of all is the US Virgin Islands caucuses on June 6.

Finally, at long last, the nominee will officially be chosen at the Democratic convention, which will be held July 13-16, 2020, in Milwaukee. If one candidate has won a majority of pledged delegates at this point, this will be just a formality. However, if no candidate has gotten a majority of pledged delegates well, then things wouldnt actually be settled yet, and Democrats would head into the contested convention scenario. But thats an explainer for another time.

So thats how the calendar works. But its worth pausing on the sheer strangeness of this whole setup. Its an odd hodgepodge combining the old way nominees were chosen through most of American history (by party insider delegates at conventions), and modern reforms (primaries and caucuses intended to give actual voters a chance to weigh in).

In the 1970s, both Democrats and Republicans adopted reforms that (accidentally) resulted in state primaries and caucuses becoming the main event in the nominating process. Traditionally states set their own dates for primaries and caucuses, and that continued to the case after the reforms were adopted. Thats why theres a nomination battle spread out over months, not one national contest on a single day.

So if youre going to have a staggered system, someone is going to have to go first. And two small states, Iowa and New Hampshire, staked their claims very quickly and have successfully gotten the DNC and RNC to defend their positions, by penalizing any other state that tries to jump in front. (After years of criticism that those first two states were overwhelmingly white, the DNC and RNC allowed Nevada and South Carolina to go third and fourth.)

Should a few states get special privileges, though? Defenders of the setup argue that it lets lesser-known candidates make their case in a smaller, more manageable setting (rather than getting swamped by the best-known, best-funded candidate nationally). The early states also perform the function of winnowing the field narrowing down what can be a large and confusing set of options to a few contenders before most of the country votes.

But an enormous amount of hay can get made out of relatively small margins (sometimes a few thousand voters) in states that are small already, and often not representative of the country or the party as a whole. For Republicans in 2016, the difference between first and third place in the Iowa caucuses was about 4 percent (or 8,000 votes). Rather than providing useful information about intrinsic candidate strengths, it can all feel disturbingly arbitrary.

The rest of the calendar is odd and unbalanced as well, with so many of the delegates locked in early March, and the rest over several months.

Democrats have a rule that exacerbates this imbalance they allot all delegates proportionally, with no winner-take-all contests permitted. The lack of winner-take-all prizes can make it more difficult for a Democratic candidate whos leading to technically reach the magic number of delegates until very late in the contest as Hillary Clinton found in 2016. It also makes it more difficult for a trailing candidate to catch up, as Bernie Sanders found. But so long as hope remains alive, a bitter primary can continue, and prevent the likely nominee from pivoting to focus on the general election.

However, this years calendar and rules have two important changes that could conceivably help shorten the primary. First is Californias move to an earlier date. In 2008 and 2016, the Golden States huge delegate haul was totally unallotted until June, making it mathematically difficult for anyone to clinch the nomination earlier. This time, California is voting on Super Tuesday, in early March.

The second thing is a rules change about superdelegates. In previous years, those delegates party officials who could choose whom to support, rather than being yoked to primary or caucus results were technically not locked in. The DNC changed its rules so that superdelegates cant affect the outcome of the first vote held at the July convention. This will also make it easier for a candidate to reach a clear magic number earlier in the primary season.

Of course, whether any candidate manages to do so will depend on how the race shapes up.

Follow this link:
Democratic primary calendar: The strange order of contests from Iowa to the Virgin Islands, explained - Vox.com

The Democratic Partys informational ecosystem combines mainstream sources that seek objectivity, liberal sources that push partiality and even some center-right sources with excellent reputations. On any given question, liberals trust in sources that pull them left and sources that pull them toward the center, in sources oriented toward escalation and sources oriented toward moderation, in sources that root their identity in a political movement and in sources that carefully tend a reputation for being antagonistic toward political movements.

There is no similar diversity in the Republican Partys trusted informational ecosystem, which is heavily built around self-consciously conservative news sources. There should be a check on this sort of epistemic closure. A party that narrows the sources it listens to is also narrowing the voters it can speak to. And political parties ultimately want to win elections. Lose enough of them, enough times, and even the most stubborn ideologues will accept reform. Democracy, in other words, should discipline parties that close their informational ecosystems. But America isnt a democracy.

Republicans control the White House, the Senate, the Supreme Court and a majority of governorships. Only the House is under Democratic control. And yet Democrats havent just won more votes in the House elections. They won more votes over the last three Senate elections, too. They won more votes in both the 2016 and 2000 presidential elections. But Americas political system counts states and districts rather than people, and the G.O.P.s more rural coalition has a geographic advantage that offsets its popular disadvantage.

To win power, Democrats dont just need to appeal to the voter in the middle. They need to appeal to voters to the right of the middle. When Democrats compete for the Senate, they are forced to appeal to an electorate that is far more conservative than the country as a whole. Similarly, gerrymandering and geography means that Democrats need to win a substantial majority in the House popular vote to take the gavel. And a recent study by Michael Geruso, Dean Spears and Ishaana Talesara calculates that the Republican Partys Electoral College advantage means Republicans should be expected to win 65 percent of presidential contests in which they narrowly lose the popular vote.

The Republican Party, by contrast, can run campaigns aimed at a voter well to the right of the median American. Republicans have lost the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections. If theyd also lost six of the last seven presidential elections, they most likely would have overhauled their message and agenda. If Trump had lost in 2016, he and the political style he represents would have been discredited for blowing a winnable election. The Republican moderates whod counseled more outreach to black and Hispanic voters would have been strengthened.

Instead, Republicans are trapped in a dangerous place: They represent a shrinking constituency that holds vast political power. That has injected an almost manic urgency into their strategy. Behind the partys tactical extremism lurks an apocalyptic sense of political stakes. This was popularized in the infamous Flight 93 Election essay arguing that conservatives needed to embrace Trump, because if he failed, death is certain. You could hear its echoes in Attorney General William P. Barrs recent speech, in which he argued that the force, fervor and comprehensiveness of the assault on religion poses a threat unlike any America has faced in the past. This is not decay, he warned, it is organized destruction.

This is why one of the few real hopes for depolarizing American politics is democratization. If Republicans couldnt fall back on the distortions of the Electoral College, the geography of the United States Senate and the gerrymandering of House seats if they had, in other words, to win over a majority of Americans they would become a more moderate and diverse party. This is not a hypothetical: The countrys most popular governors are Charlie Baker in Massachusetts and Larry Hogan in Maryland. Both are Republicans governing, with majority support, in blue states.

The rest is here:
Why Democrats Still Have to Appeal to the Center, but Republicans Dont - The New York Times