Mediaboss Marketing

Topline results and crosstabs for the poll can be found at http://www.umass.edu/poll

AMHERST, Mass. As federal law enforcement officials continue to announce charges and arrests related to the invasion of the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, a new nationwide University of Massachusetts Amherst/WCVB poll released today finds that while a plurality of Americans hold former President Trump responsible for the violence and destruction that day, Republicans are more likely to pin the blame for the days events on Democrats.

The new poll of 1,000 respondents conducted April 21-23 found that Trump is viewed as most responsible for the violence at the Capitol, with 45% deeming the former president liable for the hours-long siege of the seat of American government. Trump is blamed by 79% of Democrats and one-third (32%) of independents, as well as solid pluralities or majorities of all races, ages, genders and income and education levels.

The Republicans who responded in the poll have an entirely different view, however. Nearly a third (31%) of Republicans blame the Democratic Party for the violence at the Capitol. Antifa the informal anti-fascist political activist group was blamed by over one-fifth (22%) of Republicans, while 16% blamed the U.S. Capitol Police, who have reported that over 70 officers were injured in the siege.

A little over 100 days since the shocking events that resulted in five deaths, scores of injured police officers, millions of dollars of damage to the U.S. Capitol and the temporary delay in the certification of the presidential election, close to 6-in-10 Americans describe the event as a riot, says Tatishe Nteta, associate professor of political science at UMass Amherst and director of the poll. Partisanship isa lens by which we see the political world, however, and unsurprisingly partisanship plays a central role in the ways that Americans describe the events that took place on January 6th.

Democrats are more likely to employ words such as insurrection, riot and coup, while Republicans describe the events in a more positive light, with 70% using the word protest.

Republicans also use different terms than the rest of the population to describe the participants in the days events. Overall, respondents used terms such as mob, rioters, white nationalists, insurrectionists, and terrorists. Meanwhile, nearly two-thirds (64%) of Republicans described them as protestors.

In the early hours of January 6th, a number of conservative media outlets labeled the participants as patriots, Nteta says.This characterization has seemed to stick as a shocking 35% of Republicans describe the participants as patriots.

The racial differences between how voters understand the January 6th events cannot be understated,says Raymond La Raja, professor of political science at UMass Amherst and associate director of the poll. About half of whites appeared to legitimate the activities by calling them protests compared to just a third of voters who belong to non-white racial groups. Instead, majorities of African Americans and Latinos called the participants white nationalists and rioters.

Alexander Theodoridis, associate professor of political science at UMass Amherst and associate director of the poll, observed, If there was any lingering doubt that Americans see the world through red or blue colored lenses, evaluations of the shocking events at the United States Capitol on January 6 should putit to rest. We all watched the same events, but we somehow saw very different things depending on our party identity.

Four months after the event, a wide majority of Americans want the authorities to continue seeking justice against those who stormed the Capitol that day, according to the poll.

With the assistance of the public, hundreds of participants in the events of January 6th have been arrested and close to two-thirds (65%) of the public supports continuing the efforts to identify, arrest and charge those responsible for damaging the U.S. Capitol building, Nteta says.

One-third of Republicans and 36% of Trump voters polled said that they opposed the ongoing efforts of federal law enforcement agencies to hold the Capitol invaders responsible, however.

Methodology

This University of Massachusetts Amherst / WCVB Poll of 1,000 respondents nationwide was conducted April 21-23 by YouGov. YouGov interviewed 1,151 respondents who were then matched down to a sample of 1,000 to produce the final dataset. The respondents were matched to a sampling frame on gender, age, race and education. The frame was constructed by stratified sampling from the full 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) one-year sample with selection within strata by weighted sampling with replacements, using the person weights on the public use file.

The matched cases were weighted to the sampling frame using propensity scores. The matched cases and the frame were combined and a logistic regression was estimated for inclusion in the frame. The propensity score function included age, gender, race/ethnicity, years of education, and region. The propensity scores were grouped into deciles of the estimated propensity score in the frame and post-stratified according to these deciles.

The weights were then post-stratified on 2016 Presidential vote choice, and a four-way stratification of gender, age (4-categories), race (4-categories) and education (4-categories) to produce the final weight.

The margin of error within this poll is 3.4%.

Topline results and crosstabs for the poll can be found at http://www.umass.edu/poll

See the original post:
Republicans Blame Democrats, Antifa and U.S. Capitol Police for Jan. 6 Mayhem, According to New UMass Amherst/WCVB Poll - UMass News and Media...

SUPPORT THIS INDEPENDENT JOURNALISMThe article youre about to read is from our reporters doing their important work investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers businesses have been impacted. Thats why the SC Times is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insiders program here. Thank you.

JOIN NOW

JERRY DAVIS, San Clemente

It is time to sort out some facts thatthe Party of Trump, formerly known as the Republican Party, is unwilling oruninterested in accepting.

Ballot harvesting has been used by Republicans.

Mitch McConnell, during his tenure as Senate majority leader, has rammed through lower court judges and Supreme Court justices. His anti-democracy moves included not allowing a vote on Merrick Garland.

Lower courtsunder a Republican President and Senatehavepacked the courts; in fact, 234 of Trumps nominees have been confirmed.

Republicans have very effectively used gerrymandering to draw safe districts. That, coupled with the Electoral College, have made it possible for Republicans to win electionswithout attaining the majority of votes, making it possible for America to be governed by a minority.

As far as the legitimacy of our election, 86 judges ruled that the 2020 election was without fraud. Lets not forget that the Republicans gained 10 seats in the House.

Voter rights are now under attack by red state governors and lawmakers. There are now over 300 laws introduced in red states to limit the right to vote. These include limiting the time allowed for voting and reducing the number of voting locations. There is even a law to make it illegal to pass out water and food to people waiting to vote.

I would like to hope that we can live in a community thataccepts facts, not dogma.

Related

BECOME AN INSIDER TODAYTrustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

CONTRIBUTE NOW

The rest is here:
Letter to the Editor: Response to 'Democrats Undermining the Constitution' - San Clemente Times

Six House Democrats on Wednesday called for Attorney General Merrick GarlandMerrick GarlandSix House Democrats ask Garland to review case of lawyer placed under house arrest over Chevron suit DOJ rescinds Trump-era 'sanctuary cities' policy The Hill's Morning Report - Census winners and losers; House GOP huddles MORE to review the case of a lawyer who claims his yearlong house arrest is retaliation for his work against Chevron.

In a letter Wednesday, Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezNYPD cancels use of robotic dog after backlash Trump supporter found guilty of threatening to kill lawmakers Six House Democrats ask Garland to review case of lawyer placed under house arrest over Chevron suit MORE (D-N.Y.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Rashida TlaibRashida Harbi TlaibSix House Democrats ask Garland to review case of lawyer placed under house arrest over Chevron suit OSHA sends draft emergency temporary standard for COVID-19 to OMB review Imperative that Democrats figure out what went wrong in 2020 MORE (D-Mich.), Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Jamie RaskinJamin (Jamie) Ben RaskinSix House Democrats ask Garland to review case of lawyer placed under house arrest over Chevron suit Democrats seek to keep spotlight on Capitol siege Congress and the administration cannot play games with the Congressional Review Act MORE (D-Md.) called on Garland to review the case against Steven Donziger.

Donziger sued the energy company on behalf of Ecuadorian farmers and indigenous people and won $9.5 billion in an Ecuadorian court.

Chevron then took legal action against Donziger in the U.S. under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled in the companys favor, and Donziger has been under house arrest since August 2019 over criminal contempt charges incurred during his appeal.

Kaplan took the unusual step of appointing private counsel to prosecute the case against Donziger after prosecutors with the Southern District of New York refused.

Seward & Kissel, the firm Kaplan named in the case, has at least two clients who have received significant funding from an investment fund whose vice chairman sits on Chevrons board, according to a filing from Donzigers lawyers.

We have deep concerns that the unprecedented nature of Mr. Donzigers pending legal case is tied to his previous work against Chevron. It is vital that attorneys working on behalf of victims of human rights violations and negative environmental impacts of corporations not become criminalized for their work. If these restrictions are permitted, advocates across this country will feel as though tactics of intimidation can succeed in stifling robust representation, the letter states.

The results of this case will have a lasting impact in the legal practice, suggesting that representation and advocacy can then impede ones ability to exercise fundamental protections, it adds.

A spokesperson for Chevron declined to comment.

The Hill has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.

Updated at 8:23 p.m.

Go here to see the original:
Six House Democrats ask Garland to review case of lawyer placed under house arrest over Chevron suit | TheHill - The Hill

Progressive Democrats in Congress will on Thursday introduce the Transform, Heal and Renew by Investing in a Vibrant Economy (THRIVE) Act. The bill, which has been promoted for months, outlines a bold and holistic plan to address racial injustice, the climate crisis, and the economic anxiety and mass unemployment exacerbated by the pandemic. I think that for us the pandemic has sadly just showcased our belief that we need to figure out how to help people thrive and not just survive, says Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), one of the bills sponsors.

Bold may be an understatement. While President Bidens proposed infrastructure plan calls for spending $2 trillion over the next 10 years, the THRIVE Act green-lights the investment of $1 trillion annually. The money would go toward creating an estimated 15 million family-sustaining union jobs, rebuilding the nations physical and social infrastructure, and cutting carbon emissions in half by 2030. The bill gives particular attention to lifting up communities of color that have borne the brunt of racial and environmental injustice. Its putting forth this unified vision for a recovery that is deeply intersectional, that is extremely bold, and that meets the scale of these multiple crises that we face, adds Jayapal.

The THRIVE Act is being led by Ed Markey (D-Mass.) in the Senate and Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) in the House of Representatives. The THRIVE Agenda will guide us as we mobilize on a transformative mission to bring justice and healing to our communities, Rep. Dingell said earlier this year. With a broad coalition of colleagues, advocates, and activists, we will save our environment and achieve the racial and economic equity that our nation demands.

The massive scale of the THRIVE Act means that it exists for now as more of a marker than something with a chance of passing through a Congress that cant even stomach far more moderate reform measures. But the same could be said of Green New Deal legislation, the principles of which are now largely supported by the American people. Lawmakers introducing the THRIVE Act are seeking to capitalize on this momentum, as well as the unique opportunity offered by a devastating year that has emphasized the imperative for equitable change.

I always used to say that if politics is the art of the possible, then its our job as activists to figure out how to move the boundaries of what people see as possible, Jayapal says. Thats what I feel like has happened with how the pandemic has combined with the racial justice movement, the economic justice movement, the climate justice movement, and the labor justice movement. All of those things have kind of come together and really created a different vision.

The allocation of the $1 trillion annual investment called for in the THRIVE Act would be guided by a 20-member board composed with representation from impacted communities, indigenous communities, and labor organizations.

The infrastructure upgrades will be geared around cutting emissions in half by 2030, and involve upgrading and expanding water systems, the electrical grid, wind power, solar power, electric vehicle infrastructure, and public transit. The bill holds that by the end of 2030 the majority of Americans will live within walking distance of clean, affordable, high-frequency public transit.

But the THRIVE Act isnt just a green infrastructure initiative that just tacks on a few racial justice measures. Instead, the bill is very much built around lifting up marginalized communities and righting the wrongs of years of environmental racism. There will be equitable hiring. There will be educational initiatives. There will be equity assessments and guardrails put up to prevent discrimination. Communities of color will be given the tools to sustain themselves on their own terms. The THRIVE Act holds that at least half of the $10 trillion in federal investment over the next 10 years will directly benefit those who have been most affected by systemic racism.

Indigenous communities have been given particular attention. The THRIVE Act was originally introduced as a resolution last September by then-Rep. Deb Haaland, who has since been confirmed as the first Native American secretary of the Interior. The bill is filled with language that centers indigenous people, ensuring they have autonomy over their lands. It also ensures free, prior, and informed consent, which means theyd need to sign off before something like, say, a massive pipeline is built through their lands.

Theres been a total abandonment of this nations duty to engage with each nation on an issue about these projects, Ashley Nicole Engle, the Green New Deal organizer for the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), says of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Tribes are not organizations. Were not special interest groups. Were individual sovereign nations within this larger nation.

The IEN is one of 15 environmental, labor, and justice groups that make up the Green New Deal Network, the progressive coalition that last year put together what it dubbed the THRIVE Agenda. Since Haaland introduced the THRIVE resolution last fall, it amassed over 100 sponsors before the THRIVE Act was announced in March.

The bills introduction on Thursday comes a day after Bidens first address to Congress, but Jayapal doesnt see the THRIVE Act as at odds with the administrations plans, placing them both on the continuum of progress and casting the bill as a blueprint for what is possible. I feel like the progressive movement and the president himself and the people around the president have really moved miles in terms of how they see these crises and what hes put forward between the jobs and the families plan is incredibly progressive and quite far along on the spectrum, she says. However, obviously, we feel like we need even more than we need it faster.

Part of what makes the THRIVE Act unique is its attention to organized labor, and the creation of not just jobs, but family-sustaining jobs. Democrats have long been criticized for glossing over the impact green-economy initiatives like the THRIVE Act will have on those losing their jobs. Remember in 2016 when Hillary told West Virginias that, Were going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business? The comment was taken out of context (Clinton went on to detail her plan for a just transition), but the gaffe fed into the idea that Democrats were treating fossil-fuel workers like disposable pawns, and that reimagining the economy to take on the climate crisis is at odds with sustaining their livelihoods. Its hard enough to believe in promises from a political candidate. Its even harder when it could mean losing your job.

The deindustrialization of the country has created a lot of cynicism about both the role corporations and government played in really creating a transition for those manufacturing workers, says Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which is also part of the Green New Deal Network. Thats why we are so fierce in saying they cant just be any old job. They have to be living wage jobs where workers have the opportunity to form a union.

But there have been some recent signs that the fossil-fuel workers could be coming around to the idea of transitioning to a green economy. Last week, United Mine Workers of America President Cecil E. Roberts told The New York Times that he would be open to a transition so long as there are available jobs in renewable energy and the government provides aid to newly out-of-work miners. Were on the side of job creation, of a future for our people, Roberts said. If that isnt part of the conversation at the end of the day, well be hard pressed to be supportive.

Biden has anchored his climate action in the creation of good jobs that people can actually feed their families on as opposed to creating a green energy sector that is poverty wage, Henry explains. I think thats created a huge shift in the labor movement thinking. Yes, were not going to have the same mining jobs in West Virginia, but what jobs can exist as we rebuild physical infrastructure and open up solar and wind.

The THRIVE Act isnt likely to make it through Congress as a single piece of legislation and cure what ails America, but, as Jayapal puts it, its providing a vision for what the nation can see as possible. A decade ago few in the Democratic establishment would have dreamed of even considering the idea of transitioning to an economy predicated on clean energy. Nevertheless, the ideals put forth in Green New Deal legislation have seeped into the policies of the Biden administration, to the policy preferences of average Americans and, increasingly, into what fossil-fuel workers see as sustainable not just for the country, but for their own livelihoods.

I always remind people that sometimes in organizing and progressive movements it feels like youre not making progress, or its too slow and too slow and too slow, Jayapal says. Then suddenly theres a tipping point. Theres something that happens in the outside environment that wakes people up, which I think the pandemic has done. The movement has been building and building and building, and so its ready for that moment when that tipping point occurs, and it can quickly jump into action. I feel like thats where we are and were always going to want more, but weve moved so dramatically. Its really exciting.

More:
Democrats Are Releasing a Massive Green Jobs and Justice Plan. Heres Whats In It - Rolling Stone

Progressive advocacy groups including Public Citizen, the Center for Popular Democracy and Social Security Works came away from a Friday afternoon virtual meeting with staff of the White Houses Domestic Policy Council without a firm commitment that drug price controls and a Medicare expansion would be included in the forthcoming package, which the administration calls the American Families Plan. The groups pitched the policies as ways Biden could fulfill his promise to address racial disparities in health care.

This is a very live issue. No one knows exactly where theyre going to be, said Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works.

Jennifer Flynn Walker, director of mobilization and advocacy for the Center for Popular Democracy, said while the meeting gave her the impression the Biden administration is an "ally" on these policies, holding the president to his campaign promises wont be easy or a slam dunk, given opposition to the drug pricing measures from powerful pharmaceutical interests.

Meanwhile, lawmakers hoping to force the White Houses hand are forging ahead with health care legislation theyre aiming to wrap in the multitrillion-dollar infrastructure package.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday revived her drug price negotiation bill that the House passed last year, and said in a statement that the policy will be a top priority for House Democrats to be included in the American Families Plan.

Progressives like Senate Budget chair Bernie Sanders are moving forward with bills to expand Medicare coverage as Underwood and many other moderates are hoping to further shore up Obamacare.

But without an explicit endorsement from Biden, some congressional Democrats worry their health care plans, big and small, may not survive legislative haggling over the infrastructure package, widely seen as the last major bill they can pass this year.

Bidens backing is important and perhaps decisive, said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), particularly following the implementation of the president's $1.9 trillion Covid relief package.

This is a very popular president with a lot of wind at his back after the passage of the Rescue Plan, so any policy he gets behind has a lot of instant momentum, Murphy said.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Friday didnt offer further clarity by listing health care as separate from the forthcoming infrastructure pitch as she previewed Biden's address to Congress next week. She demurred when asked directly if the White House is abandoning provisions to lower drug costs and expand health insurance in the plan.

He will definitely talk, in his speech, about his commitment to expanding and increasing access to health care, she said, adding that the American Families Plan will not represent the totality of every priority item for him and every item he wants to move forward as president.

Biden allies outside the administration see the White Houses reticence to wade into the fight in practical terms: The White House doesnt want a big fight with powerful health industry groups to scuttle its chance to deliver on major economic priorities they see as essential to fortifying narrow Democratic majorities in the midterm election.

Health care is complicated politically and substantively, said one outside advisor familiar with the White House deliberations. It seems the White House doesnt want to weigh down issues like preschool or college [aid] with lobbying campaigns from Big Pharma.

The House drug price bill also would face very slim odds in the 50-50 Senate, where even one Democratic defection would likely sink its prospects.

Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, whose state is home to numerous pharmaceutical companies, has already said he doesnt want to treat the drug industry as a piggy bank to fund other priorities, whether its infrastructure or insurance expansion. Others like moderates Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana are on the industrys watchlist as potential allies likely to block government negotiation.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer stressed again this week that he is waiting for the White House to lead the way on health care an issue that is more fraught for his caucus than for Pelosis, particularly on drug pricing.

And yet most Democrats see the infrastructure bill as their best chance to tend to unfinished business while the party maintains full control of Washington.

Last months Covid relief package, with the full backing of the health industry, directed billions of dollars to temporarily boost subsidized health coverage in Obamacare markets and for people who lost their jobs during the pandemic. House Democratic leaders have made it clear they dont want to waste the chance to make the Obamacare subsidies permanent after a decade of pledging to expand the health care law.

The major expenditure, from my perspective, should be to ensure the Affordable Care Act is truly affordable and accessible to all, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on Tuesday.

Progressives led by Sanders, the Senate Budget Committee chair, want to go further, pressing a plan that would add dental, vision and hearing benefits to Medicare and lower its eligibility age to 60 or even 50, even though Democratic leaders are unsure whether Biden supports the idea or if theyll have the money to do so.

Rep. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat who has long stumped for drug pricing reform and sent his own letter to Biden Friday calling for its inclusion, worries Democrats will lose their way if they get bogged down in a debate over how to spend savings from drug pricing reforms without first locking them down.

We have to keep our eye on the urgency of getting those savings, he told POLITICO. Having a debate about how we spend it before we save it could doom our prospects. The risk is that we wont save it at all and Big Pharma will keep it.

For Democrats, getting these major health care changes into the infrastructure package would be more than just a fulfillment of longtime policy priorities now within their reach. Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said hes repeatedly told the administration that the party risks losing voters in the midterm election if it fails to deliver on health care, which Democrats have featured prominently in their campaigns the past two election cycles.

"I have stressed, continually, with my colleagues and with the White House the urgency of this its a priority," Wyden said, adding hes heard all kinds of rumors about the White House abandoning health care in the infrastructure package. Let me wait and see what theyre going to do."

See the rest here:
Democrats worry Biden's hesitation on health care will doom campaign pledges - Politico