Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

‘Atrocious’: 188 Democrats Join GOP to Hand Trump $738 Billion Military Budget That Includes ‘Space Force’ – Common Dreams

More than 180 House Democrats joined a nearly united Republican caucus Wednesday night to pass a sweeping $738 billion military spending bill that gives President Donald Trump his long-sought "Space Force," free rein to wage endless wars, and a green light to continue fueling the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen.

"Every member of Congress who voted to give the most corrupt, unhinged, and unstable president in history $738 billion to fight endless wars...must never tell us that we cannot afford Medicare for All or a Green New Deal." Warren Gunnels, Sanders senior adviser

Just 48 members of the House, including 41 Democrats, voted against the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which increases the Pentagon budget by $22 billion. The final vote was 377-48.

"This NDAA is atrocious, and it's very depressing that only 48 members of congress voted against it," tweeted anti-war group CodePink.

In a floor speech ahead of Wednesday's vote, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), the most vocal opponent of the NDAA in the House, said "there are many things you can call the bill, but it's Orwellian to call it progressive." Khanna was standing across the aisle from Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who hailed the measure as "the most progressive defense bill we have passed in decades."

"Let's speak in facts," said Khanna. "This defense budget is $120 billion more than what Obama left us with. That could fund free public college for every American. It could fund access to high-speed, affordable internet for every American. But it's worse. The bipartisan amendment to stop the war in Yemen: stripped by the White House. The bipartisan amendment to stop the war in Iran: stripped by the White House."

My friend @RepRoKhanna is right: it is Orwellian for Congress to hand over billions of dollars worth of weapons and bombs to a president waging a horrific, unconstitutional war in Yemenand call that progressive. pic.twitter.com/6SUmUUhv3q

Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) December 11, 2019

According to the New York Times, Smithchairman of the House Armed Services Committeenegotiated several provisions of the NDAA directly with Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser.

"It was Mr. Kushner who helped broker a deal to create the Space Force, a chief priority of the president's, in exchange for the paid parental leave [for federal employees]," the Times reported Wednesday. "It was also Mr. Kushner who intervened on measures targeting Saudi Arabia that would have prohibited arms sales or military assistance to the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen. He said they were nonstarters for the White House."

Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) foreign policy adviser Matt Duss expressed outrage that Democrats allowed Kushnerwho has close ties to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salmanto kill an amendment that would have helped end U.S. complicity in the world's worst humanitarian crisis.

Congrats to Democratic leadership on getting outnegotiated by JARED KUSHNER. On a provision that was already passed by bipartisan majorities in Congress. To end US support for a war that has created to the world's worst humanitarian catastrophe.

Great goddam job. https://t.co/JmYd57lgds

Matt Duss (@mattduss) December 11, 2019

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who voted against the NDAA, noted in a statement that the final version also stripped out her House-passed amendment that would have repealed the 2002 Iraq Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

"With the release of the Afghanistan Papers, it is especially imperative that we take a hard look at our military spending and authorizations," said Lee, the only member of Congress to vote against the war in Afghanistan in 2001. "I can tell you: it is an appalling, but not shocking read for those of us who have been working to stop endless war. It's past time to end the longest war in United States history, withdraw our troops, and bring our servicemembers home."

The 2020 NDAA now heads to the Republican-controlled Senate, where it is expected to pass. In a tweet ahead of the House vote on Wednesday, Trump praised the bill and said he would sign it into law "immediately."

"New rule: Every member of Congress who voted to give the most corrupt, unhinged, and unstable president in history $738 billion to fight endless wars, fund a bogus space force, and put our troops at risk must never tell us that we cannot afford Medicare for All or a Green New Deal," Warren Gunnels, Sanders' senior adviser, tweeted Wednesday night. "Ever."

See the original post:
'Atrocious': 188 Democrats Join GOP to Hand Trump $738 Billion Military Budget That Includes 'Space Force' - Common Dreams

Democrats Signal Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress Charges Against Trump – The New York Times

Bang the gavel harder still doesnt make it right, said Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

They have talked about everything else, but they have offered not one substantive word in the presidents defense, Mr. Nadler said of the Republicans in his closing remarks. In a letter sent during the hearing, he rejected Republicans requests to call witnesses including Mr. Schiff, Mr. Bidens son Hunter and the anonymous C.I.A. whistle-blower whose complaint helped start the inquiry. Republicans could demand a vote on the matter at a later date.

Republican lawmakers fumed when Mr. Berke, who appeared at a witness table at the start of the hearing to deliver his argument against Mr. Trump, later climbed onto the dais and led the cross-examination of Mr. Castor, who was also representing the Intelligence Committee lawyer. It is highly unusual for House lawyers to testify in hearings, for Mr. Castor to be testifying on behalf of two committees and for one lawyer to question another in that way, but all were allowed under the rules.

Hes badgering the witness, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, shot out as Mr. Berke pressed Mr. Castor.

He is not, Mr. Nadler fired back.

Republicans seized on a small subset of evidence in the report to accuse Democrats of what Mr. Collins called a gratuitous drive-by targeting a conservative journalist and a Republican lawmaker.

At issue were a half-dozen subpoenas issued by Democrats that turned up call records between the journalist, John Solomon of The Hill; Representative Devin Nunes of California, the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee; and subjects of the investigation, including Mr. Giuliani. Mr. Collins said he had no problem with the subpoenas, but demanded to know who decided to name Mr. Nunes and Mr. Solomon in the report.

Folks, you have made Joe McCarthy look like a piker, Mr. Sensenbrenner said.

Mr. Goldman declined to discuss investigative decisions, but said such identifications were typical when examining phone records in an inquiry like this. The calls noted in the report all took place around key events under scrutiny.

Read more here:
Democrats Signal Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress Charges Against Trump - The New York Times

Why a Progressive Democrat Was Dragged Out of the N.J. Senate – The New York Times

TRENTON, N.J. The confrontation was brief but explosive, and it laid bare the deepening fault lines within the Democratic Party in one of Americas bluest states.

New Jersey state troopers singled out Sue Altman, the leader of the left-leaning Working Families Alliance, grabbed her by the arms and forcibly removed her from a standing-room-only State Senate hearing on corporate tax breaks.

She was led past her main political rival, George E. Norcross III, a Democratic power broker who was at the hearing to testify in support of an $11 billion economic incentive program that Ms. Altman had criticized harshly and that is the subject of state investigations and subpoenas.

The imagery and its aftermath have roiled Trenton, exposing a generational and philosophical rift between progressive and mainstream Democrats that is mirrored nationwide.

The clash thrust Ms. Altman into the limelight and offered a vivid example of how the grass-roots energy in New Jersey that helped Democrats flip four seats in Congress last year has spilled into the State House.

It was not fun, Ms. Altman, 37, said of the confrontation. But, she added, it had underscored the current volatility in Trenton a perfect storm that she believes has created an opportunity to reshape New Jerseys political system.

Saily Avelenda, a lawyer from Essex County who worked to elect one of the four new Democrats, Representative Mikie Sherrill, said that New Jerseys progressive activists had deliberately shifted their focus from Washington to the state capital.

We created a conversation that wasnt there before, and, boy, do we need to have it, she said. It culminated in that one picture of Sue.

Images of the clash were shared widely on social media including by Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a Democratic presidential candidate amplifying tensions between the Democratic factions that control the state government: lawmakers aligned with the progressive first-term governor, Philip D. Murphy, and those, including the powerful State Senate president, who are linked to Mr. Norcross.

Mr. Norcross, an insurance executive whose company and business associates benefited significantly from tax breaks passed under Mr. Murphys predecessor, Gov. Chris Christie, is widely regarded as the states most powerful unelected official.

His influence extends well beyond New Jersey. He is a member of both President Trumps Mar-a-Lago club and the Democratic National Committee. His brother, Representative Donald Norcross, is a Democrat who represents a South Jersey district.

Ms. Altmans ejection from the November hearing is being reviewed by the attorney general, and it is coloring the discussion of a range of issues, including the renewal of the corporate tax-break program and the fight for control of the Democratic State Committee.

The whole atmosphere here has changed somewhat, said Senator Loretta Weinberg, a Democrat who initially called Ms. Altmans removal one of the hearings disruptions, but later acknowledged that it was improper and embarrassing.

Ms. Altman became the leader of the Working Families Alliance in May, after the previous director left to help run Senator Bernie Sanderss presidential campaign.

A former prep-school history teacher with an M.B.A. from Oxford University, she speaks in rapid-fire sentences that pivot quickly in tone from policy wonk to street-savvy organizer.

She is at home in front of a power-point presentation, holding forth on what she sees as the ultimate prize: dismantling established political structures to make it viable for outsiders to run and win without the blessing of county bosses who still rule with tight fists in many parts of the state.

I want the whole thing to be rethought, she said in an interview at the rowhouse she rents in Camden.

To some people, Ms. Altmans background makes her an unlikely champion of Camden, one of the poorest cities in the United States. She is an Ivy-League educated former basketball star who was raised in Hunterdon County, an affluent enclave known for its horse farms.

Critics have said that Ms. Altman, who earns $75,000 in her new role, has been reluctant to speak out on issues that might upset the governor.

She was a registered Republican until 2008. My parents were, so I just signed up as them, she said. She later registered without a party affiliation before becoming a Democrat.

Her outspokenness about corporate tax breaks and her decision to live in Camden, a city seen as the Norcross familys inviolable power base, made her a ready target for opponents long before the contentious Senate hearing.

Felisha Reyes-Morton, a Camden councilwoman, said that she was tired of hearing Ms. Altman blame George Norcross and the tax breaks for everything that was wrong with the city.

I think she uses it to her advantage, not that shes a caring Camden resident, Ms. Reyes-Morton said.

Ms. Altman regularly spars with the powers-that-be on Twitter and seems to revel in the role of outside agitator. Barely a week into her job as the alliances director, she participated in a demonstration where protesters stood near an inflatable pig handing out fake million-dollar bills stamped with Mr. Norcrosss face.

She credits her years on the basketball court with making her comfortable in the political scrum. After leading her college team at Columbia University in scoring, she played professionally in Ireland and Germany. She went on to teach and coach at Blair Academy before studying at Oxford, where she also played basketball.

Youre going to get booed, she said. You still have to make your foul shots.

She is flirting with the possibility of making a primary run against Donald Norcross. I havent ruled it out, she said, despite taking no concrete steps toward a campaign.

A spokesman for the congressman declined to comment, but provided a list of re-election endorsements that include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Planned Parenthood.

The alliance, a wing of a national labor-backed umbrella organization, cites New Jerseys adoption of a $15 minimum wage in February as a key victory. The groups legislative agenda syncs closely with the governors, and includes approving drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants, a so-called millionaires tax and the legalization of recreational marijuana.

When the Democratic Party is not fighting for progressive values, were going to fight the Democratic Party, said Kevin Brown, a vice president of the 32BJ Service Employees International Union, an alliance member.

A senior Murphy administration official who was not authorized to speak publicly said that in the past year Ms. Altman had influenced the debate in Trenton more than any other person, calling her a game changer.

A fellow Camden activist described her as fierce.

She doesnt have to stay here, said Ronsha Dickerson, 42, an African-American mother of six who works for an organization that has called for a moratorium on new charter schools in Camden. But shes chosen this space to really be committed to making change.

In college, Ms. Altman took up boxing to stay in shape. She picked it up again this past fall, parrying punches with the ease of a lifelong athlete during a recent workout.

As she left the gym, Wayne Shareef Jr., a boxing coach and trainer, jokingly cautioned her not to get in trouble.

I cant guarantee that, she said, chuckling.

A spokesman for George Norcross, Daniel Fee, bristled at the depiction of Ms. Altman as an independent reformer. He pointed to a $100,000 donation to the Working Families Alliance from New Direction New Jersey, a group aligned with Mr. Murphy, as evidence of her financial dependence on the governor.

The alliance is not required to disclose its donors, but Ms. Altman has been criticized for not doing so voluntarily.

I wouldnt ascribe to them any success other than getting media coverage, Mr. Fee said. The way to make change is to win elections, and so far they havent.

The well-oiled political organizations in New Jerseys 21 counties are skilled at nurturing obedience, in large part by controlling which candidates share the ballot line with incumbents. The structure makes it almost impossible for an insurgent to win a primary, as Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did in New York.

Its a self-fulfilling prophecy, said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute. Once youve got the line, you hold the power to keep the line.

Perhaps nowhere is the schism within the Democratic Party clearer than in the fight over who will lead the state committee. The victor controls the partys purse strings, and the true prize: command over selecting a committee that will redraw the legislative map, a power that can make or break candidates and is a potent bargaining chip.

Ms. Avelenda was hired two weeks ago to be the campaign manager for Mr. Murphys choice, John Currie, the current state party chairman. Mr. Currie is locked in an uphill race against LeRoy Jones, who has the support of George Norcross and the Senate president, Stephen M. Sweeney.

If Mr. Currie loses, the governor will face re-election in 2021 with a party chairman he did not select, or want.

Ms. Altman welcomed the choice of Ms. Avelenda, who may be best known from a 2017 episode involving Rodney Frelinghuysen, to run Mr. Curries campaign.

That year, Mr. Frelinghuysen, New Jerseys most powerful member of Congress at the time, highlighted Ms. Avelendas political activism in a personal note attached to a fund-raising letter sent to a member of the board at the bank where she worked.

She resigned from the bank and devoted herself to electing a Democrat; Mr. Frelinghuysen decided not to seek re-election.

Love seeing the Dems recognize the talents of progressive women, Ms. Altman wrote on Twitter. Plus, we need a win.

Go here to read the rest:
Why a Progressive Democrat Was Dragged Out of the N.J. Senate - The New York Times

Whos Leading The Democratic Primary In The First Four States? – FiveThirtyEight

More than just the four early states will decide the 2020 Democratic primary. After all, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina only make up about 4 percent of the total delegates awarded, whereas the 16 states and territories that vote next on Super Tuesday contribute more than a third. But because these four states vote first, they play an outsized role in winnowing the candidate field and setting the course for the primary. Understanding the state of play in each contest is crucial to understanding where the nomination race stands and where it could go.

Back in early October, I found that the polls varied a fair amount in the early states, but Sen. Elizabeth Warren was on the upswing in Iowa and New Hampshire, with narrow leads over former Vice President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, Biden had a slight edge in Nevada over Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders and a hefty lead in South Carolina. Now, roughly two months later, things have shifted: South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg has supplanted Warren as the leader in Iowa while the four leading candidates are in a very tight race in New Hampshire. Meanwhile, Bidens lead has increased in Nevada and has remained large and stable in South Carolina.

First up, Iowa, where even though Buttigieg has a lead, the top four candidates are within striking distance of one another. In an average of all Iowa polls taken in the last six weeks, Buttigieg leads Warren by about two points, 21 to 19 percent, but the top candidates are all within 5 points of each other. In New Hampshire, Buttigieg and Warren are essentially tied at roughly 18 percent, but the race is even closer as the top four candidates polling averages are within 2 points. For now, at least, the top four are in the same order in both states: Buttigieg, followed by Warren, then Sanders and Biden. (In the table below, we included anyone who made the November debate and is still running as of Dec. 6 although, as you can see, theyve all got some serious catching up to do.)

Polling averages in Iowa and New Hampshire over the past six weeks for candidates who qualified for the November debate and are still running

Averages based on polls of likely Democratic voters conducted between Oct. 28 and Dec. 6, which includes six polls of Iowa and five polls of New Hampshire.

Source: Polls

Buttigiegs rise in Iowa and New Hampshire, which we started to see signs of in September and October, has now created a four-way race at the top of the polls in these states. So whats helped catapult him into the lead? Although there isnt evidence that rigid ideological lanes have developed in the primary so far, Buttigiegs budding support from centrist and center-left Democrats probably has helped him rise to the top in Iowa and New Hampshire. And theres evidence that it has come at the expense of Warren and Biden. In Monmouth Universitys early November survey of likely Iowa caucusgoers, for instance, Buttigieg was tied with Biden for the lead among moderate or conservative Democrats (each with 26 percent) while also leading among somewhat liberal Democrats with 23 percent, ahead of Warrens 20 percent. And in a late November survey of New Hampshire from the Boston Globe and Suffolk University, Buttigieg edged out Biden 17 percent to 16 percent among moderate Democratic primary voters; Buttigieg trailed among liberal voters but still attracted 12 percent of them to Warrens 23 percent and Sanderss 24 percent.

Still, if the actual results in Iowa and New Hampshire ultimately look like recent polls, that would be very unusual: Since 1992, no Democratic primary or caucus in any state has had four candidates win at least 15 percent of the vote statewide. Of course, theres still roughly two months before Iowa votes on Feb. 3, so the field could shift once again; after all, Buttigiegs lead in both states is very small. It would be a little unusual, too, if he or someone else won both Iowa and New Hampshire. Only twice in the past seven Democratic presidential contests has the same candidate carried the two together: Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.

But perhaps its not surprising that Iowa and New Hampshire polls mirror each other. After all, both have electorates that are close to 90 percent white, and the leading candidates save Biden predominantly appeal to white voters. That may help explain why Biden is having some difficulties in these very white states despite leading in the national polls. Ive discussed how, because of their outsized influence early on, losing Iowa and New Hampshire could hamper Bidens campaign, especially if the same person were to win both. However, its possible that a muddled outcome in which the four leading candidates run close together would be survivable, even if Biden does finish third or fourth in the first two states. Of course, the polls in these states are so tight that even if Biden doesnt win, he could still outperform expectations in them, which might position him to roll through the rest of the primary, considering what the polls show in Nevada and South Carolina.

In the polling averages of these two more diverse states, Biden holds a solid 9-point advantage in Nevada and a massive 25-point edge in South Carolina. And should Bidens leads hold up, the two later-voting early states could serve as a nice stepping stone going into Super Tuesday on March 3, when a number of states with sizable nonwhite electorates go to the polls.

Polling averages in Nevada and South Carolina over the past six weeks for candidates who qualified for the November debate and are still running

Averages based on polls of likely Democratic voters conducted between Oct. 28 and Dec. 6, which includes four polls of Nevada and three polls of South Carolina.

Source: Polls

Throughout the primary, Bidens continued support among nonwhite voters has given him a leg up in both Nevada and South Carolina. His strength among nonwhite Democrats is most apparent in South Carolina, where Biden hopes that the majority black primary electorate will serve as a firewall should the earlier elections go badly for him. And so far, so good: A mid-November survey from Quinnipiac University found Biden at 44 percent among black voters in South Carolina, way ahead of Sanderss second-place mark of 10 percent. In Nevada, Biden has the lead among nonwhite voters, too, but it isnt nearly as sizeable. A November poll by Fox News found Biden up just 28 percent to 26 percent over Sanders among nonwhites, which could be due to Sanderss strength among Hispanic voters (Sanders led Biden 31 percent to 24 percent). So part of Bidens strength in Nevada isnt just an advantage among nonwhite voters; hes also got a small advantage among white voters there, too, leading Warren 23 percent to 21 percent.

Unlike Biden, Buttigiegs low to nonexistent support among nonwhite voters might make it tough for him to break through in Nevada and South Carolina. In that South Carolina Quinnipiac poll, Buttigieg polled at 6 percent overall but didnt register any support among black voters. Similarly, that Fox News survey of Nevada found Buttigieg at 8 percent statewide but with only 2 percent support among nonwhite voters. Similarly, Warren has also struggled to win nonwhite support in either state, attracting only 8 percent of black voters in the South Carolina Quinnipiac poll and 12 percent of nonwhite voters in the Nevada Fox News survey.

Polling in the first four states has shifted quite a bit in the last month and a half as Buttigieg has moved up, but polling in Nevada and South Carolina underscores just how difficult it will be to dislodge Biden from the top of the field as long as he maintains strong support among nonwhite voters. And of course, there still could be a few more shifts in the early state polls between now and then. As past campaigns have shown, late surges arent unheard of but neither are late slides. Democrats also arent locked in on who they plan to support. Two polls from November, for instance, found that a majority of Democrats hadnt yet made up their minds. Voting might seem like its just around the corner, but theres still a ways to go.

Original post:
Whos Leading The Democratic Primary In The First Four States? - FiveThirtyEight

Democrats In Love With Big Tax Hikes Might Do Well To Remember Walter Mondale – Forbes

WATERLOO, IOWA, DECEMBER 5, 2019: Presidential candidate Joe Biden addresses supporters.-(Photo ... [+] credit should read Preston Ehrler / Echoes Wire / Barcroft Media via Getty Images)

When I heard that Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden was proposing to raise taxes by $3.2 trillion over 10 years, I flashed back to Walter Mondale and thought: My, how things have changed.

Mondale, like Biden, was a former vice president and political moderate who was looking to gain the Oval Office.Mondale, in what was sadlyfor himthe most memorable phrase of his 1984 campaign against Ronald Reaganexplicitly promised to raise taxes. In what has since been known as the Mondale moment, he said this: Mr. Reagan will raisetaxes, and so will I. He wont tell you. I just did."

Mondale insisted his tax hikes would target the wealthy and Reagans wouldnt. It didnt matter. In the election, Reagan got 525 electoral votes. Mondale got 13. He lost the popular vote by 18 million.

Soft-peddling tax hikes

That was, gulp, nearly 35 years ago. And in the eight campaigns since, no major Democratic presidential candidate was willing to so aggressively promote their tax increases.

Sure, most put forward a mix of relatively modest tax hikes on the wealthy and small tax cuts for everyone else. But on the stump they barely acknowledged these proposals, and never gave them the prominence Mondale did.

Not until this year. Among Democratic presidential candidates, raising taxes on the rich has become a thing. A big, loud, high-profile thing.

Which brings us back to Biden. Hes reportedly proposing a tax hike of $3.2 trillion over 10 years. Most, though not all, of those tax increases would be paid by high-income taxpayers and corporations. While the campaign has not yet released details, multiple published reports say it would, among other things, tax capital gains as ordinary income, raise the top individual income tax rate to its 2017 level of 39.6%, limit itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers, and raise the corporate income tax rate to 28%, backstopped with a 15% minimum tax and a 21% rate on foreign profits.

A massive tax increase

By recent standards, Biden would be proposing a massive tax increase. But, of the three Democratic hopefuls registering double-digit national support in the (still-early) polls, Biden has the most modest tax hike by far. His supporters say raising taxes by about 1.2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is prudent. His critics on the left say it is not nearly enough.

By her own count, his rival Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) would raise taxes by more than $20 trillion over 10 years (7.5% of GDP). Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has proposed his own long list of tax hikes on the wealthy including a wealth tax, a financial transactions tax, and higher individual income tax and capital gains tax ratesto pay for his expansive spending agenda.

Suddenly, raising taxeson the rich at leasthas become a box Democrats feel the need to check. Given the lack of real public interest in controlling the burgeoning budget deficit, Democrats might have gotten away with ignoring the cost of their health care, education, housing, and environmental programs, and not highlighting their proposed tax hikes at all. After all, President Trump and the Republicans ignored the deficit with their $1.5 trillion tax cut in 2017.

Bragging on tax hikes

But, heres the thing: Most Democrats running for president dont seem to want to downplay their proposed tax hikes. Rather, they want to brag on raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Not just as a means to an endfiscal prudencebut as an end in itself.

Public opinion surveys suggest this approach isnt as bad an idea as it was in Mondales day. Most Americans feel the taxes they pay generally are fair, but believe the wealthy and corporations are not paying enough.

President Trump, of course, is unlikely to make fine distinctions about just whose taxes the Democrats would raise. Instead, hell likely propose new tax cuts of his own and blast his opponent for proposing the biggest tax increases in history. (Not true in Bidens case; true for Sanders and Warren, but only if you ignore the taxes the U.S. raised to fight World War II.)

Changing the dynamic

Mondale made his tax vow at the Democratic convention in July 1984, when he already was well behind Reagan in public opinion polls. If it wasnt quite an act of desperation, it was an aggressive effort to change the dynamic of the campaign. It did that, but not in a good way. Instead of the usual postconvention bump, Mondales support sagged.

Of course, the current race is not the same. In December 1983the same point in that election cycle as we are todayReagan was polling at above 50 percent. Trump is mired in the low 40s and facing impeachment. So far, at least, all of the leading Democrats beat him in the popular vote in a head-to-head race.

The question for Democrats will be whether the proposed tax hikes on the rich that play so well among the Democratic base will have legs in a general election. Well soon find out whether 2020 really is so different from 1984.

Read more from the original source:
Democrats In Love With Big Tax Hikes Might Do Well To Remember Walter Mondale - Forbes