Mediaboss Marketing

Photo: Erik Pendzich/Shutterstock

Monday night, after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appeared at the Met Gala wearing a dress emblazoned with the slogan Tax the Rich, her critics exploded in indignation. The complaint (mostly, but not exclusively, from the right) assailed AOCs fraud, hypocrisy, and peddling empty political slogans.

But what exactly is the problem here? Should a politician who favors higher taxes on the rich avoid social engagements with them?

To the (very limited) extent to which the critics were able to articulate what they see as the contradiction between her beliefs and her behavior, it appears to be as follows: AOC believes rich people are terrible and should be outlawed or killed, yet she mingles comfortably among them. Our asshat radicals cosplay the revolution, complains cool-kids philosopher Ben Shapiro. Actual revolutionaries eat the rich. They dont eat cake with the rich, then declare their virtue by wearing a shirt saying Eat the rich.

But of course AOC is not, and does not claim to be, an actual revolutionary. She is an advocate of dramatically more egalitarian economic policy, but not an advocate of executing the rich. Her agenda is not based on a moral critique of the rich, but a rather banal observation that rich people can stand to have less money in order to finance social needs for those in greater need.

Indeed, the whole idea that the Democratic Partys rationale for more progressive taxation is based on personal moral condemnation of the rich is almost entirely a canard invented by the right. First conservatives accuse liberals of hating and wishing to punish the rich, and then turn around and accuse them of hypocrisy for violating the belief they never actually held.

The strangest aspect of this little setpiece in political outrage theater is that AOCs stance on taxing the rich is not an answer we need to divine by projecting fantasies onto her appearance. She is an elected official with written, measurable policy proposals, and a key player in a live ongoing debate over what is intended to be the most significant tax increase on the rich in decades.

AOCs glamorous evening hobnobbing with the rich is orders of magnitude less consequential than her intention to tax their fortunes. Whats truly shallow is the fixation with symbolism and cultural association rather than the concrete fiscal transfer taking shape right now. It is bizarre to watch AOC be accused of being a fake class warrior in the midst of a live class war in Washington with trillions of dollars at stake.

Just how we reached such a delusional point merits some reflection. The cause seems to be a trope in political commentary that identifies Democrats as the party of the rich and Republicans as the party of the working class. Millions and millions of words have been spilled probing the thoughts of the lumpenproletariat Trump base in their truck stops. Hardly a day goes by without one columnist or another assailing Democrats as The Billionaires Party (in this case, National Reviews Kevin Williamson, from Sunday). The left bemoans the Democrats alienation from the common folk, while the right gloats over it.

There is some underlying basis for this. Politics throughout the western world have grown increasingly polarized by education. And since education and income are correlated, this has pushed affluent voters increasingly to the left while nonaffluent voters have moved right. Of course, if you disaggregate education and income, you can see that affluence still makes you more Republican, and poverty makes you more Democratic. (High-income voters without a college degree are an extremely Republican constituency.) And the phenomenon is a trend, not a level, which is to say that working-class Democrats and rich Republicans remain very plentiful.

One result of this trend is that Democrats have increased their cultural power. The dominant position progressive ideas have held in academia for decades has spread to entertainment, media, and even many businesses. Conservatives are not just working the refs when they claim to feel marginalized. Holding right-wing beliefs while living in a place like New York, Washington, or Los Angeles has become a genuinely alienating experience.

But the changes in the composition of the two parties voting bases have not altered the long-standing class orientation of their policy agendas. Democrats still vote to redistribute income downward, while Republicans vote to redistribute it upwards. The political medias fixation with the marginal change in the composition of the two parties bases has made it lose touch with the actual purpose to which they use their power.

The class orientation of their programs the important things they actually do with power has not changed. Democrats are pushing through a bill whose intent and effect would be to bring about a historically large downward transfer of resources. The upper-middle-class voters the party has been attracting in greater numbers would face combined tax rates at or around 60 percent, in the highest tax states. The spending these taxes would finance would go to people of modest means.

It surely isnt Met Gala attendees who will make use of expanded Medicaid in red states or free community college. The people dismissing programs like that as undesirable or unaffordable are the conservatives who posture as tribunes of the working people.

Indeed, the two parties are more polarized over redistribution than any other single dynamic. Republicans will routinely abandon their posture against spending, deficits, centralized government control, but they will never waver from their opposition to taxing the rich.

Notably, the recent bipartisan infrastructure bill further revealed that the Republicans are not implacably opposed to taxes per se. They repeatedly floated proposals to finance roads and bridges with regressive user fees. Democrats refused, insisting that taxes must fall exclusively on people earning $400,000 or more, a demand Republicans would not abide. While they papered over the divide by settling on a series of fake funding sources, the dispute revealed how cleanly the partisan divide runs along class lines: Republicans would only accept regressive taxes, while Democrats would only accept progressive taxes.

For all Donald Trumps dclass behavior and political appeal to non-college-educated voters, neither his administration nor his political allies ever challenged the partys plutocratic cast. His administrations signature domestic policy revolved around a giant tax cut for the wealthy and business owners, and a failed effort to throw middle-class people off their health insurance to finance another tax cut for the wealthy.

The Republican Party has spurred a lot of talk about populism, but nothing resembling a serious challenge to its fanatical opposition to redistribution. If J.D. Vance is elected to the Senate, he will vote for the next big capital gains or estate tax cut Republicans put in front of him.

Even a casual familiarity with the contours of the ongoing policy fight would dispel the vulgar Marxist assumption that the Democratic Partys growing support among affluent voters would signify a rightward change in its economic program. Its downright strange to be living through a polarized fight over whether hundreds of billions of dollars will remain in the hands of the wealthy, or instead be used to finance benefits for the downtrodden without the broader debate taking any real note of it.

You would think the class contours of the debate in Joe Bidens Washington would be obvious enough that people clinging to their image of fancy Democrats and downscale Republicans couldnt ignore it anymore. But the human ability to ignore the obvious is strong enough that many of us cant see who wants to tax the rich even when its staring right at us in blazing red letters.

Analysis and commentary on the latest political news from New York columnist Jonathan Chait.

View original post here:
What If We Had a Class War and Nobody Noticed? - New York Magazine

Low-income communities and people of color tend to be especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change because of historic inequities. In recognition of that fact, legislation introduced by Senator Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, both Democrats, would require that at least half the members of a climate corps come from under-resourced communities of need. In addition, at least half the investment would support projects in underserved communities, with at least 10 percent spent in Native American lands.

Their bill, which has support from major environmental groups like the Sunrise Movement, would create the climate corps as part of AmeriCorps.

Tens of thousands of young people are going to be working to future-proof our country, Mr. Markey said. Within five years, he added, a Civilian Climate Corps will become part of the personality of the country in terms of how a whole new generation views climate change.

That has some Republicans worried.

What exactly does that mean? Representative Tom McClintock of California asked at a recent hearing. Does it mean a taxpayer funded community organizing effort? Young climate pioneers in every neighborhood to report on who is watering their lawn, whose fireplace is smoking, who is spreading forbidden climate disinformation?

Others noted that President Franklin Delano Roosevelts conservation corps was created when the United States was suffering from 20 percent unemployment. Thats not the current situation, where the national unemployment rate was 5.2 percent in August and many companies are having difficulty finding workers.

Representative Bruce Westerman of Arkansas, the top Republican on the House Committee on Natural Resources, called the Civilian Climate Corps a make-work program that will compete against American businesses at a time when help wanted signs remain in the windows.

Ultimately, however, Republicans are not in a position to influence the package since the party has already signaled members will unanimously oppose the broader $3.5 trillion budget bill. The fate of the program is up to Democrats and whether they can reach agreement, supporters of the climate corps said.

See the original post:
Democrats Want a Climate Corps. They Just Cant Agree How to Create It. - The New York Times

BRENDEN MOORE

Lee Enterprises' Illinois state government reporter Brenden Moore talks with Illinois redistricting expert Frank Calabrese about the state's new maps.

Plugging in newly available 2020 data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Illinois lawmakers approved an amended state legislative redistricting map last week.

It passed over the strenuous objections of Republicans and good government groups, who decried the process employed by majority Democrats.

Republicans and groups like theMexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund have sued to have it thrown out and may even have a good case.

But, if the maps do stand up in court, as Democrat-drawn maps have the past couple redistricting cycles, their impact will be felt for the next decade.

Illinois State Rep. Lisa Hernandez, D-Cicero, holds her hand over her heart as she is thanked by Illinois State Rep. Jehan Gordon-Booth, D-Peoria, after passage of the Illinois legislative maps proposal on the floor of the Illinois House of Representatives at the Illinois State Capitol in Springfield on Tuesday, Aug. 31, 2021.

To get a better idea of what this map means for representation in Springfield, I spoke with Frank Calabrese, a political consultant who has become the unofficial mapmaker and go-to Illinois redistricting expert this cycle.

Below is a transcription of our conversation, edited lightly for length and clarity:

LEE ENTERPRISES: Give the 40,000-foot view of these new legislative maps. What were the key takeaways and what does it mean for the next decade of legislative elections?

FRANK CALABRESE: The big picture view is this really solidifies Springfield under Democratic control. It's a very aggressive map. Also, it's made to create chaos within the Republican caucus. So, you see all these Republicans having to run against other Republicans.

There's 45 House Republicans. And of that 45, there are seven pairings, so there's 14 members that are affected by this ... So, just imagine that a third of your caucus is going to have to make a decision whether or not they're going to run against another member. That creates a lot of internal chaos.

It's a great map for the Democrats. They're going to be in power with the supermajority for the next 10 years. It would take an extreme realignment nationally to change that.

LEE: Is this map merely about maintaining Democratic majorities or are there opportunities for the party to expand their majorities? If so, whats a realistic number?

CALABRESE: Toward the end of the decade, I think the Democrats will realistically pick up 80 seats (in the House), so a net gain of seven. But that's kind of long term. I think initially, they'll pick up four in the next election. In the Senate, I have them losing seats.

In the House, there's two open seats right now that are Democratic: it's that Bloomington-Normal seat that goes to Bartonville and near Peoria. That's probably a Democratic pickup.

And then you have a seat in the northwest suburbs ... which is parts of Palatine and Arlington Heights. That's pretty Democratic now. Ten or 20 years ago, that used to be very Republican, but a lot of well-educated areas have really swung Democratic because of Trump.

The Republican Party, they're still embracing Trump. And what that means is that Republicans are going to do well in the rural areas and they're going to do bad in suburban areas.

The revised Illinois state legislative districts, as drawn by redistricting expert Frank Calabrese. Lawmakers approved adjustments in late August. The map will be in effect for the next 10 years.

And then you have (Republican Rep. Mark Batinicks) district, which is like Plainfield. It has gotten significantly more Democratic. He could win in the midterm it's probably going to be a Republican midterm. So that's one of those seats where he could win in 2022, but he'll probably lose in 2024 and in the future with these trends becoming worse and the suburbs getting more and more Democratic. And the same thing with Keith Wheeler. He could win I would call it a toss up in his district.

It's really unlikely that Mark Batinick and Keith Wheeler are going to be there for 10 years. They could be there for two years, but much longer than that, I think it's going to be tough.

The other pickup (opportunity is state Rep. Jackie Haas' Kankakee-based district). Her district was a rural white district that had some labor influence, which kind of made it a swing district. Now her district's a quarter Black. They put a lot of the Black population of Kankakee in her district. And so Haas' district, it's a tossup. It was basically 50/50 between Trump and Biden, but it's trending Democratic. She could win in that district in the midterm, but in the future, I think that's a Democratic pickup.

LEE: The maps passed in May, but lawmakers had to go back in August to tweak them. Why was this necessary?

CALABRESE: One of my critiques of the Democrats' map is that they made a map for 2019. And the problem is you're supposed to redistrict for 2020, right? So to no surprise, areas that are shrinking in population, they lost more population. And areas that are growing, especially areas that are growing rapidly, they gained a lot more.

I live in Chicago, and if you build a high-rise and 5,000 people move in, that can happen in a year. So that's what happened the downtown area grew and that wasn't incorporated in the 2019 data. So Lamont Robinson's district was 15% over the mean, (which) is about 108,000 per House district.

What they should have done is they should have made those districts smaller in population anticipating future growth. They should have built the trends into their map.

And now the Republicans have an argument saying that the map that they passed in May is void and they're going to go to court saying that it was a bad map in May, they just can't pass whatever to avoid a (redistricting) commission. They're going to go to court and it adds a degree to uncertainty of whether this map can stand.

Illinois State Rep. Tim Butler, R-Springfield, talks with Illinois State Rep. Lisa Hernandez, D-Cicero, after passage of the Illinois legislative maps proposal on the floor of the Illinois House of Representatives at the Illinois State Capitol in Springfield, Ill., Tuesday, Aug. 31, 2021.

This concept of being void from the beginning is very strong in Illinois. So if the Republicans can convince a state court that this map had problems from the beginning, then there is a legal doctrine in Illinois to kind of throw the whole thing out from the beginning.

In my opinion, this is not a 100% Democratic map yet because they still have a lot of legal obstacles.

Also, I'm really surprised that the Democrats didn't do anything with Latino districts. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, I think, has a meritorious lawsuit.

And they didn't work with these Latino districts at all. You can actually argue that these Latino districts got worse with the revision. So, that's something that they're going to have to litigate in court. And, if I was the Speaker or the Senate President, I would want to avoid that. So I'm a little puzzled why they didn't try to appease a lot of the concerns from these Latino interest groups.

LEE: Expand upon how some of these various communities of interests did in this map. The phrase that the Democrats have used repeatedly is that the map is "a model for the nation" when it comes to diversity. Does this map, especially given some of the legal challenges from some of these Latino groups, stand up to that billing?

CALABRESE: The Democrats ... spoke about that in May, but I have not really heard that from them recently because I think there's an acknowledgement that this is not about increasing community representation of certain interest groups.

So this map helps Black representation as much as you can, but that's kind of almost a byproduct of helping out Democratic incumbents.

The Arab and Palestinian community, they presented their own version of a map, they attended every legislative hearing that I observed, and they got absolutely nothing. Their community, which is based in the southwest suburbs of Cook County, was divided in the four Democratic House seats. And there's really no way for the Palestinian community to elect one of their own They wanted an influence district and they didn't get it.

The reason is because these districts were made to preserve the incumbents. That's first and foremost protecting and enabling Democratic incumbents, and that comes at the expense of a lot of these other minority groups that were advocating for their own districts.

Also, the Orthodox Jewish community, they were advocating for a district that included their community. By and large, they got some of what they wanted, but their community still split among three districts on the far North Side of Chicago.

So I think it's very hard to market this as a model for the nation. What it is is a very good map for political power, and I'm impressed with some of the districts they put together in terms of maintaining power in Springfield. And, at the end of the day, that's what matters for the people that drew these maps.

LEE: Were there any trends you noticed in the drawing of downstate districts?

CALABRESE: So downstate, there was a lot of aggressive packing of Republican incumbents with each other. And then there were some crafty drawing with Bloomington-Normal to make that a Democratic district.

I think Democrats left some on the table, per se, with how they drew Champaign-Urbana. So state Rep. Carol Ammons' district is like 80% Democratic, something crazy. A Republican wouldn't have a prayer winning that district. So Carol Ammons' district is super Democratic, but then there's a Republican district in Danville with Mike Marron in there which is like a 51% Biden district, which means (Marron) win at the local level.

So, the Democrats could have made Carol Ammons' district less Democratic and given those Democrats to the Danville district. They didn't do that. I thought that was kind of odd.

Another significant change is Rock Island that Senate seat is changing drastically, so it goes all the way down to Macomb. It takes in a lot of college towns. So, I think the Democrats are really crafty to change the Rock Island Senate seat ... I think that's going to be a pretty easy Democratic pickup.

The Democrats tried to make a far southern Illinois district more competitive the 118th. They combined Cairo with Carbondale with Marion. That district voted for Trump twice, but also voted for JB Pritzker, I believe. So it's one of those districts that will be competitive in a Democratic year.

LEE: During the last remap, there were still Democrats like Brandon Phelps and Gary Forby that represented some really rural, conservative areas. Whether through retirement or losing reelection, these members have gone away. How has this political realignment impacted the way Democrats drew the map?

CALABRESE: The most rural Democratic district right now is probably (state Rep. Lance Yednock's district), and they acknowledge that he's in trouble and they redistricted him to include DeKalb. And so now it's a bunch of union guys and a bunch of college kids.

So you're not going to see rural Democrats anytime soon, in my opinion. And I think the Democrats kind of gave up on them. But they did try to make the 118th competitive JB Pritzker did win that district. But again, that district is not Democratic because of a bunch of rural farmers who want to vote Democratic, it's Democratic because there's a significant Black population in Cairo and there's a lot of college kids in Carbondale. It's not the Democratic district of Paul Simon and Glen Poshard. Trump really took that out.

And in the suburbs, Lake County, I remember that being a very Republican County. And now, Republicans are really on the retreat. There's Republican areas in Lake County, but there's no countywide Republican officeholders, I believe. DuPage County has one now. But both Lake County and DuPage County, the county boards are Democratic.

So, yeah, there's this realignment. I think the new map reflects that. I'm of the opinion that Republicans can still make up areas in the suburbs. But when it comes to rural areas, I just think Democrats are are largely extinguished. I don't really see that coming back. I just think the cultural divides' too high.

LEE: So an example of this would be the Springfield-Decatur Senate seat, formerly represented by Andy Manar and now by Doris Turner. The new map cuts out rural Macoupin and Montgomery counties and adds more urban parts of Springfield.

CALABRESE: Right. So Manar's district, I get a lot of grief actually from Democrats when I say Manar's district is a likely Republican pickup.

From my experience, appointed incumbents don't do anything for an incumbent advantage. And that district significantly voted for the Republicans in every significant election. So that's going to be a really tough race for Doris Turner. And they tried to help her out. They gave her every urban precinct that she possibly could get, but it's going to be an uphill, uphill battle.

LEE: So, despite being a challenging map, Republicans have some pickup opportunities.

CALABRESE: I think that the Republicans can pick up a DuPage County seat. I think they can pick up Doris Turner's seat and the Metro East district, which is represented by Rochelle Crowe, that voted for Trump twice. It also voted for Erica Harold. It did vote for JB Pritzker, they have a very strong union influence there.

So I think that district is going to be really dependent upon if Crowe runs for reelection. She's on the shortlist to be U.S. Attorney. So if she does get appointed U.S. attorney, I believe that's a very good opportunity for Republican pickup in the Senate.

Republicans, I think, could pick up seats in the Senate just because Democrats are overextended, I mean it's really crazy. They have 41 seats in the Senate. As a translation, that would be 82 seats in the House, where Democrats have 73.

LEE: Any parting thoughts?

CALABRESE: Overall, I would give the map high marks on maintaining Democratic power in Springfield, which obviously was in my opinion one of their highest priorities.

If I was to draw this map with the goal of solidifying a Democratic supermajority, this is the map I would draw. If I was to draw a map to help every community of interest that wanted help, this is not the map.

The Democrat-controlled Illinois General Assembly approved 665 bills this legislative session, with the vast majority awaiting Gov. J.B. Pritzker's signature.

But, Pritzker has signed 42 bills into law. A handful of those will take effect Jan. 1, 2022, but most went into effect immediately upon signing or will take effect this Thursday.

Here are some notable new laws in effect now or on Thursday that Illinoisans should know.

With pandemic-related delays to U.S. Census redistricting numbers, lawmakers moved back the state's 2022 primary election from March 15 to June 28. The legislation also makes Election Day a state holiday, requiresevery county to have at least one universal voting centerand allow people to be added to a permanent vote-by-mail list. (SB825)

Some pandemic-induced changes to voting for the 2020 general election, such as vote-by-mail and curbside drop-off, will now be permanent features of future elections. (House Bill 1871)

As they are tasked with doing every 10 years, lawmakersapproved new district boundaries for the Illinois House and Senate. The Democrat-drawn maps, which utilized the U.S. Census' American Community Survey instead of waiting for the decennial census numbers that will arrive later this year, have been challenged in court by Republicans and some other groups. (HB2777)

The seven-person Illinois Supreme Court's district boundaries were successfully redrawn for the first time since the 1960s. (SB642)

There was no more controversial bill that passed this year than House Bill 3653, also known as the SAFE-T Act, which passed during the lame duck session this January. The provisions ending cash bail and requiring all police to wear body cameras will not take effect until 2023 and 2025, respectively. But starting Thursday, police will be required to render aid to the injured, intervene when a fellow officer is using excessive force and and be limited in use of force. It also offers stricter guidelines for the decertification of officers and would allow people to file anonymous complaints of police misconduct. (HB3653)

Lenders are now prohibited from charging more than 36% annual percentage rate on consumer loans. The average rate in Illinois was nearly 300% prior to the law's signing. (SB1792)

Tucked into the state's fiscal year 2022 budget is $10 million for a "vaccine lottery." All Illinois residents vaccinated by July 1 will be automatically entered into the contest. It includes$7 million in cash prizes to vaccinated adults, ranging from $100,000 to $1 million, and $3 million in scholarship awards to vaccinated youth. (SB2800)

Created guidelines for distributing more than $1 billion in federal stimulus funds for COVID-related housing relief. Alsocreates automatic sealing of evictions during the pandemic. (SB2877)

Victims in personal injury and wrongful death cases will be allowed to collect interest from defendantsfrom the time a lawsuit is filed. It is meant to incentivize settlement of these cases. It was supported by the trial lawyers and opposed by business groups. (SB72)

All casino applicants in Illinois are now required to enter into a project-labor agreement when seeking a new or renewed license. (SB1360)

Provides that a victim's criminal history or felony status shall not automatically prevent compensation to that victim or the victim's family. Extends the applicant's period for submitting requested information to 45 days from 30 days and provides that a final award shall not exceed $45,000, up from $27,000, for a crime committed on or after August 7, 2022. (HB3295)

Provides that a contract, record, or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability simply because it is in electronic form or an electronic record was used in its formation. Provides that if a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies the law. (SB2176)

Brenden Moore is the Illinois state government reporter for Lee Enterprises.

Stay up-to-date on the latest in local and national government and political topics with our newsletter.

Excerpt from:
What an Illinois redistricting expert thinks of Democrats' new maps - Bloomington Pantagraph

Congressional lawmakers are bracing for potential violence at Saturdays Justice for J6 rally at the U.S. Capitol in defense of Donald Trump supporters who stormed the building on Jan. 6 protestingJoe Bidens certification as president.

Dick Durbin, the second-highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate, told reporters he was very concerned about a repeat of Jan. 6-style violence.

Given the violent tendencies of the right-wing extremists who plan to attend, it is obvious that this rally poses a threat to the Capitol, those who work here, and the law enforcement officers charged with protecting our democracy, Reps. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) and Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who oversee U.S. Capitol Police, said in a statement.

Capitol Police on Monday arrested a man from California near the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, not far from the Capitol. He had multiple long knives in his vehicle, which had a swastika and other white supremacist symbols painted on it, police said. Last month, authorities arrested a man who claimed to have bomb near the Capitol.

Law enforcement authorities seem to be taking this weeks planned rally much more seriously than the Jan. 6 Trump rally near the White House that precipitated the violence on Capitol Hill, which resulted in the deaths of five people and the injury of more than 140 police officers.

The fence surrounding the Capitol that stood for months after Jan. 6 is set to return before Saturdays event. The rally will be held at the Union Square plaza on the west lawn of the Capitol a good distance from the building itself.

They seemed very, very well prepared, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Monday after attending a briefing with Capitol Police leaders and other top congressional officials.

The Justice for J6 rally is being organized by Matt Braynard, an ex-campaign employee for Trump. The event is billed as a show of support those arrested in the riot and a demand of justice for Ashli Babbitt, who was shot to death by a police officer as she and other Trump supporters attempted to force her way onto the floor of the House of Representatives, where members of Congress were taking shelter.

Trump and his supporters have attempted to make a martyr out of Babbitt, demanding to know the identity of the officer who shot her.Rep.Madison Cawthorn(R-N.C.) last month falsely referred to Babbitt and those charged with storming the Capitol on Jan. 6 as political hostages and political prisoners. Cawthorn alsopredicted that more bloodshed would follow another stolen presidential election, remarks that were widely criticized for encouraging future violence.

Its unclear whether any Republican lawmakers will attend Saturdays rally. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who along with other Republican lawmakers objected to Bidens electoral victory, told reporters on Monday he didnt believe any members of his conference would be there. The House is currently in recess and isnt scheduled to return until next week.

GOP senators seemed uninterested in discussing the subject when asked about it on Monday.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who famously raised his fist outside the Capitol on Jan. 6 to the gathering Trump mob and led the Senate effort contesting Bidens victory, said he was more focused on the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The country is in a major crisis. This president has desperately failed and hes failed in a shameful way, said Hawley, calling for Bidens resignation. Everything else is a distraction.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said she hoped Saturdays rally would be peaceful.

Any time a crowd gathers theres always a potential for something to go awry but I certainly hope they peacefully protest. Thats what were known for, Capito said.

Calling all HuffPost superfans!

Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter

Read the rest here:
Democrats Fear Jan. 6 Redo In Follow-Up Right-Wing Rally At U.S. Capitol - HuffPost

When voters vote in 2022, will they be thinking about Joe Biden, or something else? Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

The signs are not good for Democrats hoping to hang onto their current Washington trifecta in the 2022 midterms. Actually, midterm prospects are never good for parties controlling the White House, unless the president involved has very high job-approval ratings (like Bill Clinton in 1998 and George W. Bush in 2002) and/or something weird is going on (like a gratuitous Republican impeachment effort in 1998 and the aftermath of 9/11 in 2002). By definition, you never know when something strange is on the horizon, but the trajectory of Joe Bidens job-approval ratings, and the cap placed on them by partisan polarization, suggest it is very unlikely hell roll into 2022 on a wave of adulation. As Amy Walter has pointed out, Bidens job-approval ratio is not only underwater now: The ratio between strong approval and strong disapproval is especially upside down; if translated to enthusiasm levels for the midterms, thats deadly, given the tiny margin of Democratic control in the House, where every seat is up in the midterms.

It might be smart for Democrats to stop worrying about the impossible task of holding on to their trifecta and instead just focus on accomplishing as much of Bidens agenda as they can cram through Congress on party-line votes. In fact, they have a decent chance to hold onto the Senate, given the particular seats up in 2022, and that has considerable value in terms of Bidens ability to get executive and judicial nominees confirmed. But you cannot expect Nancy Pelosi to hand over the Speakers gavel to her despised Golden State rival Kevin McCarthy without a fight, so Democrats need a midterm message that transcends Bidens accomplishments or agenda.

That means changing (or at least trying to change) the subject to make the midterms less of the usual referendum on the sitting presidents job performance. What are the options for a big distraction? Lets go through them:

One obvious option is to do what worked to energize Democratic voters and persuade swing voters in 2018 and 2020: Help the narcissistic 45th president keep himself at the center of attention. Indeed, as the contrast between the results in 2018 and 2020 showed, 2022 could replicate the situation where Trump is on the minds of voters who fear him but not on an actual ballot where voters who love him will feel compelled to go to the polls to express their affection (you saw the same phenomenon with Obama supporters in the 2010 and 2014 midterms where their president was not on the ballot).

What would this look like in an ad or media talking points? Probably something like this:

Without question, Gavin Newsoms likely-to-be-successful campaign to beat a recall effort has been heavily focused on tying recall sponsors and Republican replacement candidates to the more lurid and ongoing of Trumps misdeeds, particularly the January 6 insurrection. And its looking like Democratic turnout for the recall election (which ends on September 14) will be robust despite earlier fears to the contrary.

How much of a Newsom win would be attributable to anti-Trump messaging is hard to say, just as its hard to say whether the fears the MAGA folk aroused on January 6 and in subsequent Big Lie activities like post-election audits will remain powerful right through the midterms. Any plans to deploy an anti-Trump message, moreover, will have to deal with the powerful undertow of sentiment among Democrats that the man will go away if they just refuse to talk about him any longer.

Thats why the effectiveness of a loud anti-Trump midterm effort may depend on how close he is to announcing or renouncing a potential 2024 comeback bid, and how visible and successful he is in 2022 primaries and other tests of his grip on the GOP. At a minimum, its clear progressives and the news media should not underestimate Trump a third time, or pass up opportunities to profit on the special loathing he arouses in the Democratic base and many swing voters as well. Running against Kevin McCarthy or Mitch McConnell while ignoring Trump may simply enhance the impression that the worst is over.

Two big state-driven political trends in 2021 offer Democrats another ripe target that has the additional advantage of offering a unified message relevant to candidates at both the federal and state levels: going after GOP attacks on voting rights and reproductive rights. These are clearly base-energizing topics with significant swing-voter appeal, and can help supplement the depiction of Republicans as right-wing radicals with or without Trumps leadership. There is also almost zero chance Republicans will undercut such a message by abandoning their commitment to voter suppression (a key component of their long-term strategy for surviving demographic change) or to the anti-abortion cause (central to the partnership of the GOP with its cultural conservative base).

Its unclear if the timing will be right for a focus on these GOP threats in the midterms. Perhaps the 2021 voter-suppression wave will abate in Republican-controlled state legislatures next year, and the U.S. Supreme Court will hold off on undermining or even abolishing the right to choose an abortion. At present, though, its a decent bet that the iffy legal situation in Texas will keep pro-choice Americans fearful up to the time the Court is considering a frontal assault on abortion rights in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization. If as expected the hammer falls down on the right to choose in a June decision, it wont be hard for Democrats to make this a midterm election issue from the top to the bottom of the ballot, with Republicans trying to change the subject while counter-mobilizing their own anti-abortion base. Abortion policy could be a big deal in 2022.

Another apparently successful anti-recall message deployed by Gavin Newsom attacked Republican replacement candidates (especially Larry Elder) for hostility to essential COVID-19 measures. Heres an add based on that theme:

As Ron Brownstein points out, this approach takes advantage of the growing anger of vaccinated Americans especially very highly vaccinated seniors, who also tend to vote in higher proportions in non-presidential elections than younger people against those resisting vaccination and the politicians who defend them. This theme will most definitely be central to Democratic messaging in key states like Florida, Georgia, and Texas, where incumbent Republican governors have in varying degrees aligned themselves with anti-vaxxers to the peril of others (including, most recently, school children). But if it can work in California, it can work in other blue and purple states as well.

The big problem, of course, is our inability to know where we will be with COVID-19 in November of 2022, or even a few months earlier when the midterm campaign is in full swing. At this early point, the best thing about abrasively attacking anti-vaxxers is that it could do some good in the real world of public health, which in turn could help Biden and Democrats generally.

A much more traditional midterm approach for the party holding power in Washington would be to single out the party proposals that poll the best with the public or with key target constituencies, and then campaign like hell against the obstructionists in the other party who are denying (or who have tried to deny) these goodies to the American people. This time-tested strategy has the advantage of being party-unifying, while also if its effectively deployed lifting the presidents job-approval rating as well by identifying him with the most popular stuff in his agenda.

Trouble is, public perceptions of what the president and his party are trying to do are baked into his job-approval ratings already, and may be difficult to change given counter-messaging from the other side and from media outlets across the political spectrum. And as Democrats have come to understand over the years, even if voters really like an array of their policy initiatives taken in isolation, many of the same voters may fear they add up to socialism, or too much spending, or too much spending on people other than us.

In the end, Democratic midterm messaging will likely depend on what the party is most seriously trying to achieve: an against-the-odds House victory, or a win in selected Senate races, or victories in key state races, or mere damage mitigation. The worst approach would be to mix it all up or vacillate in order to appease everyone. So the time for donkeys to choose is growing near.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Visit link:
Democrats May Have to Change the Subject From Biden in 2022 - New York Magazine