Mediaboss Marketing

Across lines of race, education, age, and geography, Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives increasingly represent two distinct nations, with strikingly little crossover.

An Atlantic analysis of the latest census data shows that the House districts represented by the two parties overwhelmingly track the same demographic and economic fissures that guided the fierce presidential race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. This widening chasm between the two sides will shape both the legislative debate over the coming two years and the next competition for control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections.

In many ways, through their House delegations, the two parties now represent mirror-image Americas. Among the key distinctions:

Over four-fifths of House Republicans represent districts where the white share of the population exceeds the national average; over two-thirds of House Democrats represent districts where the non-white share of the population exceeds the national average.

Nearly three-fourths of House Republicans represent districts where the share of white adults with a college degree lags below the national average; nearly two-thirds of House Democrats represent districts where the share of whites with a college degree exceeds the national average.

Almost three-fifths of House Republicans represent districts where the median age is older than the national average; almost exactly the same proportion of Democrats represent districts where the median age is lower than the national average.

Likewise, almost exactly three-fifths of Republicans represent districts with more seniors than the national average, while fully two-thirds of Democrats hold districts with a smaller-than-average share of seniors.

The contrast extends to less obvious comparisons, too. Almost 54 percent of House Republicans represent districts with a higher-than-average share of adults (defined as age 16 and older) employed in manufacturing; almost two-thirds of Democrats represent districts with smaller-than-average manufacturing employment. And in a measure of urban density, nearly two-fifths of House Democrats represent districts where more people than average use public transportation to get to work; fully 97 percent of House Republicans hold districts where fewer people than average use public transportation to commute.

Its perhaps even more revealing to examine how many seats each party controls among the total number of districts above and below the national average on these key measures. Seen from that angle, Republicans now control three-fourths of all the House districts where whites exceed their share of the national population, while Democrats hold three-fourths of the districts where minorities exceed their national population share. Republicans hold just over 70 percent of the districts where there are fewer white college graduates than average, while Democrats hold almost 66 percent of the districts with a greater-than-average proportion of white college graduates.

The structural problem for Democrats is that, because of both partisan gerrymandering and the way the population is distributed, there are significantly more districts in the categories the Republicans dominate than in the ones that favor Democrats. Most important, whites exceed their share of the national population in 259 seats, and Republicans hold fully 196 of thosewhich puts them on the brink of a congressional majority even before they begin to compete for the more diverse seats. And there are 244 districts where the white share of college graduates lags the national average, and Republicans hold 176 of those. (Most of them overlap with the districts where the number of minorities is also fewer than average.)

It is very hard to argue that there isnt a structural Republican advantage in the House, that the sorting of voters along lines of urban versus rural, educated versus non-educated hasnt netted out favorably for Republicans, given the concentration of Democratic voters in a relative handful of districts, said Patrick Ruffini, a GOP consultant who specializes in demographic trends.

Overall, Republicans hold 241 House seats and Democrats 194 in the new Congress, meaning Democrats must recapture 24 seats to regain the majority.

Like the stark divisions in the presidential race, these patterns underscore the shifting class and racial basis of each partys electoral base. From the presidency through lower-ballot races, Republicans rely on a preponderantly white coalition that is strongest among whites without a college degree and those living outside of major metropolitan areas. Democrats depend on a heavily urbanized (and often post-industrial) upstairs-downstairs coalition of minorities, many of them clustered in lower-income inner-city districts. They also rely on more affluent college-educated whites both in cities and inner suburbs.

Tellingly, the analysis found, Democrats hold 30 of the 50 House districts with the highest median incomeand 32 of the 50 with the lowest median income. But Republicans crush them by 203 to 132 in the districts in between those two poles.

In many respects, Trumps victory over Hillary Clinton merely raised to the presidential level the currents of race, education, income, and density that have shaped the House competition in recent years. Trumps victory largely ran through the same smaller places that congressional Republicans earlier captured in the march to their House majoritywhile Clinton performed best in the major metropolitan areas that likely represent the Democrats best chance of overturning that majority in 2018 or beyond.

What we saw in 2012 and 2014 with the demographic realities in congressional districts around the country is now manifesting itself through the Electoral College as well, said Jesse Ferguson, a top communications strategist for Clintons campaign, who previously held the same role for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Democrats still have a popular-vote advantage in this country, but when you allocate political strength by any measure of geographyand not demographyit is not advantageous to Democrats. That started in the House, and via the Electoral College it was true in 2016 [in the presidential race].

To understand the impact of demography on the House, The Atlantic examined congressional district-level data from the Census Bureaus 2015 American Community Survey. (The ACS data for 2015 does not take into account the recent court-ordered redistricting in North Carolina, Florida, and Virginia, so there may be some variation from the numbers reported here in the revised districts in those states.)

The contrast between the two parties demographic bases becomes most apparent by segmenting House districts based on two factors: whether the share of their non-white population exceeds or trails the national average of 38.5 percent, and whether the share of their white population with at least a four-year college degree exceeds or trails the national average of 34.2 percent. The numbers reflect the results for each districts entire population. The analysis focused on the education level among whites, and not the entire population, because education is a more significant dividing line in the political behavior of whites than of minorities.

As weve written before, sorting congressional districts by the two variables of race and education produces what we call the four quadrants of Congress: districts with high levels of racial diversity and high levels of white education (what we call hi-hi districts), districts with high levels of racial diversity and low levels of white education (hi-lo districts), districts with low levels of diversity and high levels of white education (lo-hi districts), and districts with low levels of diversity and low levels of white education (lo-lo districts).

The center of the modern Democratic House caucus is the hi-hi districts that exceed the national average in both share of racial minorities and share of white college graduates: Democrats hold fully 87 of the 108 districts that fit that description. That list divides between minority Democrats in districts with large non-white populationssuch as Georgias John Lewis, Texass Joaquin Castro, and Illinoiss Bobby Rushand primarily white members representing diverse but more affluent districts, such as Nancy Pelosi and Anna Eshoo of California, Diana DeGette of Colorado, and Jim Himes of Connecticut.

Democrats also hold a less lopsided 44-to-24-seat advantage in districts that are high in racial diversity but are below the national average in white college graduates. That roster tilts heavily toward minority Democrats, such as Linda Sanchez and Lucille Roybal-Allard in California, Jos Serrano in New York, and Ral Grijalva in Arizona. But it also includes some white representatives from diverse but middle- and working-class areas, like Dina Titus in Nevada.

In turn, Republicans hold a decisive lead in districts where whites exceed their presence in the national population. The GOP leads by a narrow 44 to 39 margin in the lo-hi districts, where there are relatively fewer minorities but more white college graduates than the national average. This is the most closely contested quadrant. On the Republican side, it includes members representing affluent suburbs, such as Patrick Meehan in Pennsylvania, Kevin Yoder in Kansas, and Barbara Comstock in Virginia. The mostly white Democrats in this lo-hi group tend to represent urban centers or inner suburbs, too, such as John Yarmuth of Kentucky, Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, and Jared Polis of Colorado.

The foundation of the GOP majority is the lo-lo districts, where the shares of minorities and whites with a college degree both trail the national average. In those districts with large populations of blue-collar whites, Republicans now hold a lead that is so lopsided as to be almost incomprehensible: They control 152 of these seats, compared with just 24 for Democrats. This quadrant houses almost all of the Republicans representing rural placessuch as Kentuckys Hal Rogers, Missouris Jason Smith, and Iowas Steve Kingas well as the GOPs growing contingent of members representing smaller metro areas, such as Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania and Jim Jordan of Ohio. Its also the last redoubt for the few Democrats remaining in heavily rural districts, such as Minnesotas Collin Peterson, or those representing largely blue-collar smaller cities, such as Ohios Marcy Kaptur and Tim Ryan or Pennsylvanias Martin Cartwright.

Just as large margins in those rural and small-town communities powered Trumps victory, so, too, have the gains there keyed the Republican House takeover. Compared with the 111th Congress from early 2009 to early 2011when Democrats last controlled the majoritythe Democratic Party has actually widened its advantage in the districts high in both diversity and college-educated whites (from 50 seats then to 66 now). Since then, Democrats have lost ground modestly in the high-diversity districts with fewer-than-average white college graduates (from a 28-seat advantage to a 20-seat edge now). The party has also skidded somewhat more sharply in the districts with low diversity and large numbers of college-educated whites (from an advantage of 19 seats then to a deficit of five now).

The big change, though, has come in the heavily blue-collar, lo-lo districts. Back in 2009, when the Democratic caucus still featured a large number of rural, culturally conservative blue dogslike John Tanner of Tennessee, Ike Skelton of Missouri, and John Spratt of South CarolinaRepublicans held a modest 20-seat advantage in these districts. After the 2010 election, the GOP exploded their lead in the low-diversity, low-education districts to 90 seats. The gap widened again to 125 seats in 2014, and edged up to 128 after 2016. The Republican success in hunting the blue dogs nearly to extinction presaged the big margins Trump marshaled from small places, particularly in interior states, to overcome Clintons advantages in the largest urban centers.

If you look at where the Clinton drop-off was, its consistent with where House Democrats have been having more issues as we go through that Midwestern belt, on through Missouri and Iowa, and back through Western Pennsylvania, said Tom Bonier, chief executive officer of TargetSmart, a Democratic voter-targeting firm.

As these lines of class, race, and density harden, the parties House electoral strategies increasingly focus on the stragglers left, in effect, behind enemy lines. The few Democrats remaining in low-diversity, lower-education districts often top the Republican target lists, while Democrats already planning for 2018 are intently focused on Republicans holding white-collar, largely suburban districts.

The historically sharp divisions surrounding Trumpwho drew near-record support from blue-collar whites, but faced intense opposition from minorities and unusually widespread resistance from white-collar whitesappear certain to push each party further in targeting those opportunities. By no means, Ruffini said, in a view echoed across party lines, are we finished with this process. And that means the powerful electoral sorting that has left the two sides representing such divergent Americas in the House may only accelerate as the tumultuous Trump presidency takes shape.

Originally posted here:
House Republicans and Democrats Represent Divergent Americas - The Atlantic

Retreat is an appropriate description of what took place in Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, this week. Senate Democrats took a break from not confirming President Trumps cabinet to visit this historic city in a state the president won by 40 points. According toPoliticothe assembled were scheduled to hear from associates of the Clinton family and to hold lessons on how to talk to real people. Oh to be a fly on the wall.

I like to imagine Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer nodding sagely as Joe Manchin, the only Democratic senator with a modicum of common sense, asks a group of Trump voters to explain why calling people drug-addled unemployable racist misogynistic fascists is not, in fact, the best way to earn their votes. Its moments like these whenBarbara Boxers absence from the Democratic caucus would be most felt, I think. Faced with Trump supporters, the former California senator likely would respond with a hysterical and barely coherent monologue involving climate change, immigration, abortion rights, and gun control, all the while oblivious to the fact that these were the very issues that brought Trump to office. At least Boxer has pizzazz. These days the role of the clueless liberal proclaimingher moral supremacy over the dclass is left to the nondescript, soporific, DoloresUmbridge-like Patty Murray. Here is yet another example of national decline.

Real people are what the Democratic party is sorely missing. By real I do not mean the members of a specific ethnic or religious or cultural or regional group but simply those men and women who are uninterested in the latest trend embraced by the Left. For the Democratic party to win again, it would need to recapture voters in the Midwest and Appalachia who supported Barack Obama twice but felt so disillusioned and dejected by the end of his second term, so utterly unenthused by the bland and corrupt technological illiterate the party nominated to replace him, that they embraced an outsider who promised to upend the system. The Trump era is just beginning, but so far Democrats have been much more willing to retreat into their ideological cubbyholes, or ascribe the election results to (take your pick) James Comey, fake news, or Russian subversion, than to acknowledge the power of nationalism and populism. Its their loss.

The splintering of the Democrats is rather something to behold. I giggle when I consider the reaction of real people to theDNC candidates forumthe other day. There could be no better display of just how far to the left the party is moving. First the location of the forum was changed aftertheWashington Free Beaconreported on the anti-Israel activism of its original host. Then the festivities opened with a performance by a slam poet that left our correspondent in a state of delirium. The first candidate to speak, a white lady from Idaho, said her job would be to shut other white people down. The evening will be remembered for laundering the word intersectionality, a piece of jargon originating in departments of comparative literature and gender studies, into American political discourse. Do not ask me what it means. We did a poor job of communicating intersectionality, one candidate said. Im a walking intersectionality, said another. Millions of Americans have dropped out of the workforce, families struggle with addiction, crime is rising, and how do the men and women and non-binaries running for DNC chair respond? Let them eat intersectionality!

The DNC candidates might be insane but they know who butters their bread. All but one of themskippedthe Womens March for an elaborate donor conference at the lavish Turnberry Isle Resort in Florida, where they performed for the millionaires and billionaires gathered by skeezy Clinton operative David Brock. He is busily constructing a multimillion-dollar empire of outside groups to antagonize, oppose, and ultimatelyimpeachPresident Trump. Brock says he is a former conservative Republican but I am beginning to think he is actually a GOP mole. His ascent coincideswith the Democratic partys decline.

Other liberals are becoming suspicious. I met with him a couple times, a former Obama administration official said of Brocklast week. Hes fing weird. The former official likened Brock to the villain inZoolander. I dont know what the f [Brocks network] did besides raise a ton of money, the source went on, and I dont think the after-action report on 2016 says we need more David Brock. Probably the opposite is true.

Unfortunately for our anonymous source, more David Brock is exactly what the Democrats are likely to get. Brock was there at the Senate Democratic retreat, along with fellow Clintonites Neera Tanden, who runs the Center for American Progress and its Action Fund, and Guy Cecil, who wasted$190 million dollarsduring the 2016 cycle. Always mimicking conservatives, Democrats appear to have developed a donor class of their own: washed-up D.C. consultants and hangers-on whose only expertise is convincing the well heeled to fund their institutions and campaigns. The members of this class are so busy raising and spending money, so busy theorizing about the Platonic idea of resistance to Trump, that they seem not to mind as the multicultural Left takes over their party. To whom will the American people turn, the America-First president in the White House, or the micro-aggression commissars at the DNC? There will be plenty to discuss at the next retreat.

Matthew Continetti is the editor-in-chief of the Washington Free Beacon, where this column first appeared. 2017All rights reserved

Read the rest here:
The Democrats Retreat from Reality - National Review

Donald Trump is in the White House, and Yahoo News is taking a look at the top stories to watch in his first 100 days. From the unusual role his family members will play as White House advisers, to his promises to aggressively transform U.S. trade policy, and from investigations into Russian interference in the election to his relationship with Paul Ryan, well be rolling out 15 stories over fivedays signposts for the road ahead.

The stakes:Has a major American political party ever been so leaderless? Democrats did not only lose the White House in November and fall short in the House and the Senate. Theyre also bidding adieu to both of their brightest stars: the two Democrats whove sucked up the last decades worth of oxygen; the only two Democrats as famous as Trump. Barack Obama is riding off into the political sunset. Hillary Clinton is already over the horizon. Who has the stature to fill the void to command a spotlight as big as the Donalds? Anybody?

The story:It isnt always imperative for a party to have a new leader waiting in the wings as soon as it loses the presidency. But this time might be different. For one thing, Democratic decimation is near-total. The executive branch belongs to the GOP. So does Capitol Hill. The Supreme Court is about to become a lot more conservative. Republicans now control 33 governors mansions and 32 statehouses; they have complete control in 27 states, which together account for 56 percent of the population. The right hasnt been this dominant since at least 1928. For the next few years, Democrats cant really do much of anything in terms of policy. All they can really do is send a message.

This brings us to the partys second problem. Thanks to technology and celebrity, no messenger in the history of American politics has ever had a megaphone as deafening as Trumps. If Democrats want to compete for voters attention if they dont want Trumps latest tweet to be the only message Americans are hearing, day after day they need to find a way to fight back. Finding someone to fight back is a good place to start.

The players:So who will it be? IndependentSen. Bernie Sandersof Vermont last years primary runner-up is an obvious contender. Hes got the street cred. Hes got the followers. And hes shown that he knows how to tango with Trump. When Sanders displayed a giant printout of an @realDonaldTrump tweet on the Senate floor earlier this month, the image immediately went viral. Ultimately, however, Sanders is a party of one, and he isnt likely to put Democrats interests ahead of his own.

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is just as popular and progressive as Bernie; she also happens to be a Democrat, and shes an even sharper communicator, as she has shown during her ferocious Twitter wars with Trump. The same goes for former Vice President Joe Biden, who clearly relishes an opportunity to beat the incoming president at his own populist game. Both Warren and Biden have hinted at possible White House runs in 2020, even though theyd be septuagenarians; whatever happens four years from now, such speculation could help them position themselves as the partys top anti-Trumps in the weeks and months ahead.

On Capitol Hill, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York has replaced Nevadas Harry Reid as the official head of the legislative opposition, and he may well score some parliamentary points against the Trump agenda. (His recent revisions of an old Mitch McConnell letter proved to be Twitter gold.) But theres a reason why Senate leaders rarely become party leaders. Their aims are narrower and more institutional: protecting vulnerable members, amending bills, striking deals. On top of that, Schumer is much less defiant by nature than Reid. As one senior Democratic Senate aide recently told New York magazine, Chuck will go to the ramparts on an issue when its polling at 60 percent, but as soon as it gets hairy, hes gone. Compromise isnt going to cut it.

In California, pretty much every Democrat of note state Senate President Kevin de Leon, incoming Attorney General Xavier Becerra, gubernatorial wannabe Gavin Newsom has vowed to block the Trump administration from imposing its agenda on the Golden State. But only Gov. Jerry Brown who has been equally defiant has any sort of national profile. If Brown succeeds in making California the center of the resistance, its possible that hell become as a spiritual figurehead of sorts the movements Yoda, if you will.

What about a Luke Skywalker, though? What about the next generation of Democrats? Beltway pundits are already busying themselves with lists of 2020 hopefuls. The same names keep popping up in every outlet: new California Sen. Kamala Harris, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar. All of these pols are still so unfamiliar, however, that its hard to imagine them commanding the same sort of national attention as Trump or wanting to. More likely theyll choose their battles, build their profiles and focus on laying the groundwork for future runs instead.

One last option to consider. Typically, ex-presidents retreat from the political fray. They write books. They build houses. They start foundations. They clear brush. Barack Obama has signaled that he wants to do the same, more or less. But what if he followed Trumps lead and broke all the rules instead? At 55, Obama is one of the youngest ex-presidents in U.S. history. Hes also one of the most popular, with approval ratings currently hovering above 55 percent. He has no obvious Democratic successor. And the man who is replacing him in the Oval Office has vowed to undo his entire legacy. Could Obama step away for a few weeks or months, then reemerge in response to some particularly egregious offense on Trumps part? As Michael Corleone once put it, Just when I thought I was out they pull me back in.

Read more from Yahoo News:

Originally posted here:
Stories to watch: The search for new Democratic leadership - Yahoo News

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) (C), speaks while flanked by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA),(L), and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), during a news conference on Capitol Hill, January 5, 2017 in Washington, DC.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii won his race in November with nearly 74 percent of the vote. He had the biggest margin of victory of any senator on the ballot in 2016, in a state that gave Hillary Clinton her biggest margin. He is ensconced. By all rights he should be, if not a leader, at least a foot soldier in the Democratic resistance to President Trump.

It was perhaps with these things in mind that the Huffington Post interviewed him on Tuesday over his votes in favor of Donald Trumps nomineesfive in all thus far. The Democratic Party, Schatz explained, should work to approve reasonable Trump appointments. The door swings both ways in Washington, he said. At some point were going to want a Democratic president to stand up a Cabinet. So were trying to be reasonable when the nominees are reasonable.

Leave aside for a moment Schatzs evident willingness to support as reasonable the nomination of Mike Pompeo, a man who thinks the CIAs torturers are patriots, as the agencys director. As anyone who has been awake for the past eight years should be well aware, the notion that the Republican Party will reward Democrats in the future for their deference now is utterly laughable.

So just what the hell is going on in the Senate?

One can understand, perhaps, the ease with which Defense Secretary James Mattis won the support of Senate Democrats given the possibility that hell be a moderating influence on Trumps foreign policy. The same is true, for similar reasons, of Nikki Haleys confirmation as ambassador to the United Nations. Wilbur Ross and Elaine Chaos fairly uncontroversial nominations sailed through the Senate Commerce Committee on voice votesone can also understand, perhaps, Democrats having a hard time getting worked up over those two. But 37 Democrats in the Senate voting to confirm John Kelly as secretary of Homeland Security, even though he has pledged to go after sanctuary cities and declined to give a clear answer as to how he would deal with DREAMers? Fourteen Democrats voting to confirm Mike Pompeo, a man who said that Islamic leaders in America were generally complicit in terrorism, as CIA director? All 11 of the Senate Banking Committees Democrats voting unanimouslyunanimouslyto advance the nomination of Ben Grain Silo Carsona man who has stated that he could not, in good conscience, vote for a Muslim president and is, by his own reported admission, unqualified to run any federal agency? What gives? The answer, as always, is the Democratic Party.

Part of the acquiescence may be explained by the electoral calendar. During Carsons hearing, two of the Senates leading progressives, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, grilled Carson on the minimum wage, fair housing, and Trumps conflicts of interest. But both voted for Carson anyway. Jennifer Bendery and Sam Stein of the Huffington Post suggest that Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown did so in part because both face re-election next year. Warren has been criticized back home for being oppositional to Trump, and Brown, like nine other Democrats trying to hang on to their seats in two years, hails from a state that Trump carried in 2016, they wrote. For those members, there is some political upside to demonstrating willingness to work with Trump when the time and conditions allow it.

But that explanation only goes so far, as Schatz demonstrates. The broader truth is this:the Democrats, unlike the Republican Party, havent a clue how to build and wield power. As ThinkProgresss Ned Resinkoff noted recently on Twitter, the GOP realized early on in the Obama administration that obstruction could have a strategically important galvanizing effect:

Trump is unprecedentedly unpopular for an incoming president. The political risks of opposing him are minimal and certainly dwarfed by the risks to weak-willed Democrats of alienating a newly energized base. Kirsten Gillibrand, who has opposed almost all of Trumps nominees, is shrewd enough to see the writing on the wall. She will get a leg up as a leader of the #resistance should she run in 2020 despite her record of wobbly, Clintonesque centrism, simply for doing what should have been elementary for the rest of her colleagues.

Senate Democrats who cant shake the partys narcotizing addiction to civility and process can take comfort in the fact that opposition would not do anything materially to stop Trump from assembling a Cabinet. To oppose is simply to take a moral and strategically important stand against an administration already working around the clock to hurt some of the most vulnerable Americans and challenge the values the Democratic Party purports to stand for. All signs indicate that the party will find a spine when Jeff Sessions, Betsy DeVos, and Scott Pruitt's nominations as Attorney General, Education Secretary, and EPA chief respectively come to a vote. That's all well and good. But resistance to Trump, if it is to be effective, ought not to be a part-time effort.

Here, we have listed the Democrats* who have supported Trumps nominees in roll call votes.

Gen. James Mattis for secretary of defense (full Senate vote)

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto

Nikki Haley for U.N. ambassador (full Senate vote)

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto

John Kelly for Homeland Security secretary (full Senate vote)

U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo for C.I.A. director (full Senate vote)

Not Voting: Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Sen. Chris Murphy

Ben Carson for Housing and Urban Development secretary (Senate Banking Committee vote)

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto

*Senators Bernie Sanders and Angus King are independents who caucus with Democrats.

Go here to see the original:
Here Are the Senate Democrats Who Have Voted for Trump's Nominees - Slate Magazine (blog)

By Adam Jentleson By Adam Jentleson January 27 at 1:43 PM

Adam Jentleson, formerly deputy chief of staff to Sen. Harry Reid, is the senior strategic adviser at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

As a Democratic Senate aide for the past seven years, I had a front-row seat to an impressive show of obstruction. Republicans, under then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, decided they would oppose President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at every turn to limit their power. And it worked: They extorted concessions from Democrats with threats of shutdowns, fiscal cliffs and financial chaos. I know firsthand that Democrats passion for responsible governance can be exploited by Republicans who are willing to blow past all norms and standards.

Now we have a president who exemplifies that willingness in the extreme. Partly, this explains why he faces more questions about his legitimacy than any president in recent history and why he drew three times as many protesters as inauguration attendees last weekend. But in something of a mismatch, Republicans unified control of government means that the most effective tool for popular resistance lies in the Senate the elite, byzantine institution envisioned by the founders as the saucer that cools the teacup of popular opinion.

Senate Democrats have a powerful tool at their disposal, if they choose to use it, for resisting a president who has no mandate and cannot claim to embody the popular will. That tool lies in the simple but fitting act of withholding consent. An organized effort to do so on the Senate floor can bring the body to its knees and block or severely slow down the agenda of a president who does not represent the majority of Americans.

The procedure for withholding consent is straightforward, but deploying it is tricky. For the Senate to move in a timely fashion on any order of business, it must obtain unanimous support from its members. But if a single senator objects to a consent agreement, McConnell, now majority leader, will be forced to resort to time-consuming procedural steps through the cloture process, which takes four days to confirm nominees and seven days to advance any piece of legislation and thats without amendment votes, each of which can be subjected to a several-day cloture process as well.

McConnell can ask for consent at any time, and if no objection is heard, the Senate assumes that consent is granted. So the 48 senators in the Democratic caucus must work together along with any Republicans who arent afraid of being targeted by an angry tweet to ensure that there is always a senator on the floor to withhold consent.

Because every Senate action requires the unanimous consent of members from all parties, everything it does is a leverage point for Democrats. For instance, each of the 1,000-plus nominees requiring Senate confirmation including President Trumps Cabinet choices can be delayed for four days each.

While the tactic works well, as weve seen for the past eight years, there remains the question of strategy. Should Democrats be pragmatic and let Trump have his nominees on a reasonable timetable, so as not to appear obstructionist? So far, this has been their approach to some of Trumps Cabinet picks.

But its also fair to say that, by nominating a poorly qualified and ethically challenged Cabinet, Trump forfeited his right to a speedy confirmation process, and Democrats should therefore slow it down to facilitate the adequate vetting that Trump and Senate Republicans are determined to avoid by rushing the process before all the questionnaires and filings are submitted. Four days of scrutiny on the Senate floor per nominee, even after the committee hearings, is a reasonable standard for fulfilling the Senates constitutional responsibility of advice and consent.

Democrats can also withhold their consent from every piece of objectionable legislation McConnell tries to advance. With 48 senators in their caucus, they have the votes to block most bills. But even when Democrats dont have the votes, they can force McConnell to spend time jumping through procedural hoops. This is the insight McConnell deployed against Reid to manufacture the appearance of gridlock, forcing him to use the cloture process more than 600 times.

Finally, Democrats can withhold their consent from Trump until they feel confident that foreign governments are not interfering in our elections. Credible reports hold that U.S. intelligence agencies are investigating whether Trumps campaign cooperated with the Russian government on Vladimir Putins personally directed meddling. Withholding consent from Trumps agenda until an independent, bipartisan probe provides answers is not just reasonable; its responsible. If Democrats withhold consent from everything the Senate does until such a process is established, they can stall Trumps agenda and confirmation of his nominees indefinitely. Sen. Richard Durbin has been a leader in demanding an independent investigation. But unless Democrats back their calls with the threat of action, McConnell will steamroll them and never look back.

Of course, it would be unwise to deploy this strategy blindly. The kind of universal obstruction pioneered by McConnell during Obamas presidency is not in Democrats nature: They believe in the smooth functioning of government.

But Democrats concern with delivering results for their constituents is also part of who we are and something we should embrace. Even for innately cautious Democrats, some issues demand dramatic action. If Trump wants to put their concerns about his legitimacy to rest, he can reach out with consensus nominees and policies, and come clean about his ties to Russia and his tax returns (which may show whether he has compromising financial debts to Russian interests). Until then, Democrats can stand up for America by withholding their consent.

See the article here:
Senate Democrats have the power to stop Trump. All they have to do is use it. - Washington Post