Mediaboss Marketing

In recent years Florida has voted reliably for Republican candidates at both the national and statewide level, with the 2022 midterm results looking likely to continue that trend until recently. Kevin Fahey writes that new political events including the conflict between the states Governor Ron DeSantis and the Disney corporation, the US Supreme Courts overturning of the right to an abortion, and revelations from the January 6th Commission mean that GOP electoral victories in Florida this November may no longer be a certainty. He writes that the Democratic anger these developments may engender makes predicting the midterm results in the Sunshine State near impossible.

I have an entire article written about the state of the Florida Republican and Democratic parties, about the anti-incumbent headwinds facing President Biden, about Republican advantages in Florida, and demographic issues that would confound the current Democratic coalition. It was a sober analysis that suggested the cost-of-living crisis would demobilize Democrats, while demographic changes in Florida would boost Republican vote share in several swing counties in the state. Inflation ranks as the top priority in most public opinion polls, and the only tool for reducing inflation sharply enough to benefit Congressional Democrats would be to trigger a recession, which would also be detrimental for Democrats political fortunes. In Florida itself, the Republican Party is benefiting from unique demographic advantages due to its aggressive recruitment of seniors, while the Democratic Party is unable to field effective candidates nor offer a coherent alternative message to rural and suburban voters.

And all my previous analysis is irrelevant, because Governor Ron DeSantis has decided to attack the states biggest employer, Justice Samuel Alito has decided to strike down federal abortion protections, and the January 6th Commission has revealed considerable evidence that former President Donald Trump and several prominent Congressional Republicans tried to illegally overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election.

In light of these major simultaneous national stories, I wanted to instead discuss my decision-making process and how I have concluded that predicting Governor DeSantis and Senator Rubios performances in November is simply too difficult.

Political forecasting is based on the idea of predictability. Prediction in the sense of data scientists is not merely about correctly guessing the outcome in any given election, but minimizing the number of incorrect guesses across a number of forecasts. For example, a fair coin flip could have more accurately predicted Donald Trumps win in 2016 than many forecasts due to the randomness of fair coins, but that fair coin would have done very poorly predicting the outcomes of every Gubernatorial race in 2018. A heuristics-based approach say, relying on pundits to predict the future also has a poor track record.

Thus, social scientists create prediction models to improve upon random guesses. For decades, election forecasters have tried to use a combination of polling personal vote choice preference or approval of the incumbent and macro factors the strength of the economy, whether the country was at war, or if the incumbent party has been in office at least two terms to predict which party or candidate would win an election. These models leave things out they do not account for all potential attributes of a society or political campaign but comprise only those data necessary for accurate forecasts in order to predict election outcomes. This is critical, because such models are informed by existing academic theories of voter turnout and vote choice, meaning they are vulnerable to revolutionary political shocks.

These forecasts all point to a Republican sweep of Floridas statewide offices in November barring major changes to American politics. I believe we are seeing those changes now. Republican animosity towards big business may backfire and result in a fragmenting of their tenuous voting coalition, while the elimination of abortion and reproductive rights in many states should trigger substantial voter backlash. Yet the evidence of collective Republican culpability for the Capitol insurrection also suggests that efforts to manipulate the 2022 midterms to benefit Republicans is underway. Thus, the probability of so-called outlier outcomes a building Democratic wave or Republican dominance is substantially higher than prediction models would suggest. My rationale is as follows.

First, for decades, the Republican Party relied on being the party of big business. Republicans could count on large firms, and their top-ranking employees, donating large sums of money to the party and remain reliable voters, and in turn Republicans would offer businesses tax incentives and the opportunity to capture government policymaking bodies. Yet Republicans could not rely on large firms to win elections, largely because the executives of these firms could not constitute a majority in any electorate.

So Republicans also incorporated into their coalition social conservatives, who do not support the business wings laissez-faire approach to government. Instead, social conservatives articulate a vision of rule that involves heavy government involvement in the private lives of individuals. This included eliminating the right to abortion, restricting access to contraception, criminalizing same-sex activity, mandating Christian displays of faith in public spaces, and restrict immigration from non-Christian societies. These ideas were irreconcilable with the interests of the business wing, who saw these unpopular intrusions into government life as a threat largely in that it would keep them.

Republican party leaders had a solution that worked well for a long time: promise major rollbacks of individual rights for the social conservatives, allow the institutions of modern government the courts, legislatures, presidential vetoes to block these rollbacks, and then say that the struggle would continue. This was a game where everyone understood the rules: gin up social conservative votes, promise everything, deliver nothing, rinse and repeat.

But eventually the solution failed. Republican elites were overrun by successive waves of true believers the 1994 Contract with America, the 2009-2010 Tea Party, and finally with Donald Trump in 2016. These individuals did not understand the game, did not know that the goal was to block these proposals, and have now begun to implement radical policy changes. Governor DeSantis has targeted Disney for even tepidly standing up for LGBTQ+ rights in Florida. Samuel Alitos opinion is not nearly as explicit as Clarence Thomas concurrence, which argues that the rights to same-sex marriage, same-sex sexual activity, and even contraception should be rolled back. And the January 6th Committee has demonstrated conclusively despite having not even concluded its work that Republicans worked in concert with Donald Trump to exercise undemocratic means of holding onto power.

What does this have to do with political forecasts? While it is possible the traditional economic model applies, the Supreme Courts decision, Governor DeSantis decisions, and Donald Trumps culpability may encourage significant Democratic anger at the polls this year. These decisions will have lifelong and durable impacts as much so if not more so than inflation on the lives of hundreds of thousands of voting, and persuadable, Floridians. The executives of large corporations, concerned with Republican governance, may finally move with their wallets and their feet to Democratic campaigns. Uncertainty over Disneys future might make conservative Disney employees, and conservative employees of Disney-dependent firms, vote Democratic for the first time. And social conservatives, who have now caught the car, have fewer reasons to vote for the Republican Party and could stay home in November.

This makes forecasting much more difficult polls-based models use likely voter filters, which may miss out on large swathes of the eventual electorate in such an uncertain climate. Conversely, Democratic voters may react to this avalanche of unfavorable policy with apathy, not vote, and thus enshrine social conservative governance for years. And outright Republican manipulation of the election is now a reasonable expectation. The probability of such tail events is higher in 2022 than it was in previous elections.

Normal election forecasts might resemble the purely hypothetical Figure 1 below. In it, a statewide vote share is estimated with a range of uncertainty around it. You might represent this uncertainty in a histogram, showing the proportion of events that fall within a certain range, or the probability of individual outcomes. The most-likely outcomes will be clustered toward the center of a normal distribution, with less-likely outcomes tapering away symmetrically. Such an event would indicate a solid Marco Rubio win of between 5 and 15 percentage points based on current polling, but with a small probability of Democrats winning. I represent this graphic below:

Figure 1 Hypothetical model predicting Marco Rubio wins based on many simulations.

By contrast, what I believe these events point to is a world more closely resembling Figure 2 below. While there remain many outcomes located at our near the normal average outcome of a narrow-but-comfortable Rubio win, there are considerably more tail-end outcomes, including those where the Democrats win by large margins and those where Republicans win by large margins.

Figure 2 Hypothetical model predicting Marco Rubio wins based on many simulations, increased tail events included.

These tail-end outcomes represent added uncertainties as outlined above. Democrats may be energized to vote due to the Supreme Courts decisions, Republicans may splinter as a result of social conservatives attacking business conservatives, and Republican activists may be less motivated after winning policy concessions via the courts. Therefore we have more predictions of a Democratic win that wont manifest in prediction models, particularly polls-based models, for weeks or months. Or they might not at all, given recent Republican recalcitrance to participate in public opinion polling.

At the other end, these recent events may trigger mass Democratic apathy and disenchantment with politics. Republican activists may be emboldened by policy wins. And the January 6th Commission has clearly demonstrated that the Republican Party and its membership view electoral manipulation as acceptable, and recently information suggests election meddling is being institutionalized across the Republican party in its state and local branches. Therefore, we have more predictions of a larger Republican win that may not manifest in polling.

And for these reasons, I do not know whether Ron DeSantis or Marco Rubio will win their races this fall. They might win outright. They might lose, but be emboldened by the absence of an indictment against Donald Trump and therefore overturn a democratic election. They might lose outright and accept the outcome. A decade ago, I would have assigned an incredibly low probability to the latter two outcomes, but today the probability is substantially high enough that I do not have high confidence in any individual outcome.

Please read our comments policy before commenting.

Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP American Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics.

Shortened URL for this post:https://bit.ly/3NGHCbn

Kevin Fahey University of NottinghamKevin Fahey is an Assistant Professor in Politics in the School of Politics & International Studies at the University of Nottingham, having previously worked at Swansea University and Cardiff University. He earned his PhD from Florida State University in 2017. He is interested in applying quantitative research methods to substantive questions, and has ongoing interdisciplinary work in criminology, psychology, and public administration.

Read the original post:
The 2022 Midterms: Why the triumph of Republican true believers means the outcome in Florida may be too hard to call - London School of Economics

On Thursday, four Arizona Republicans duked it out in a gubernatorial debate that can only be described as clowns trying to out-clown each other on live TV.

Candidates Karrin Taylor Robson, Scott Neely, Paola Tulliani Zen, and Kari Lake gathered to make their pitch to voters, who will cast ballots to replace Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, who is term-limited and cannot run again, in the Aug. 2 primary. The only televised debate of the primary election seemed like less of an opportunity to address the concerns of voters and more of an opportunity for the candidates to trash one another.

A highlight reel from Twitter user @endajodwod featured some choice quotes from the candidates, rife with childish interruptions.

"God they talk over me and I'm Italian, that shouldn't happen," Tulliani Zen says. Before she can finish her next sentence, she's interrupted by Neely who replies, "I'm Irish."

Other choice quotes include Lake, a former nightly news anchor for FOX 10 in Arizona, stating that "200,000 ballots were trafficked [into Arizona] by mules," a claim that has been widely debunked by auditors and Maricopa County officials. Later in the video, after arguments about election fraud in 2020, Lake says she "feels like I'm in an SNL skit," which many Arizonans probably wish were the case. Then Neely, who owns a concrete supply business in Mesa, notes "I haven't been on a stage with this many women since I've been to a baby shower." Yikes.

"I don't know how that's gonna go over Scott but I'll let that hang," responded Ted Simons, the debate moderator, who seemed at least moderately self-aware.

Reactions on Twitter ranged from disgust to horror and they came from voices on the left and right.

If there's anything to take away from all this, it's that it could be worse. Did you see Wyoming's Republican primary debate? Actually, on second thought, it is a lot worse.

Read more from the original source:
Twitter reacts to the pure insanity that was Arizona's Republican primary for governor debate - Mashable

Republicans are substantial favorites to take over the U.S. House of Representatives following this Novembers midterm elections, but the U.S. Senate is much more competitive, according to FiveThirtyEights 2022 midterm election forecast, which launched today. Democrats are also favored to hang on to the governorships in a trio of swing states in the Rust Belt Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan although they are significant underdogs to win high-profile gubernatorial races in Georgia and Texas against Republican incumbents.

The split diagnosis reflects the difference between macro- and micro-level conditions. The national environment is quite poor for Democrats. Of course, this is typical for the presidents party, which has lost seats in the House in all but two of the past 21 midterm elections. But Democrats are also saddled with an unpopular President Biden and a series of challenges for the country, including inflation levels that havent been seen in decades, the lingering effects of the still-ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and fraying trust in civic institutions caused, in part, by Republican efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Democrats, as a predominantly urban party, also face a longstanding problem in the Senate, where every state has equal representation regardless of its population, resulting in a substantial built-in bias toward white, rural states. And although Democrats are very slightly better off following the redistricting process in the House than they were under the 2020 maps, there are still more Republican-leaning seats than Democratic-leaning ones.

True, the political environment is dynamic. The Supreme Courts decision last week to overturn Roe v. Wade is too recent to be fully reflected in polls, but there are reasons to think it will help Democrats. Roe, which granted the constitutional right to abortion, was a popular precedent, and Democratic voters are more likely than Republican ones to say the decision will encourage them to vote at the midterms.

Moreover, in striking down Roe and other popular laws like restrictions against the concealed carry of firearms, the Supreme Court has in some ways undermined one of the traditional reasons that the presidents party tends to lose seats at the midterms. Typically, voters like some degree of balance: They do not want one party to have unfettered control of all levers of government. But the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, is a reminder of how much power Republicans have even if they dont control the White House.

The insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 can also serve as a reminder to voters about what might happen if the Electoral College certification process takes place in 2024 amid Republican control of both chambers of Congress. Democrats have had trouble getting the public to treat threats to democracy as a high priority, but polls do show that the public is sympathetic to the Democrats case, especially after the recent congressional hearings on the events of Jan. 6.

So, this is not a typical, low-stakes midterm election. On the contrary, there are strong forces tugging at each side of the rope, some of which are potentially of existential importance.

But Democrats majorities in both chambers of Congress are narrow, the historical precedent toward the presidents party losing seats is strong, and polls so far such as the generic congressional ballot, which asks voters which party they would support in an election suggest that voters slightly prefer Republican control of Congress.

Or at least thats the story in the House, where there are dozens of competitive races and candidates are relatively anonymous. There, big-picture factors tend to prevail. An unusually weak Republican candidate in one district might be counteracted by a strong one in another, for example.

In the Senate and gubernatorial races, by contrast, individual factors can matter more. And the GOP has nominated or is poised to nominate candidates who might significantly underperform a generic Republican based on some combination of inexperience, personal scandals or having articulated unpopular conservative positions. This is not a new problem for Republicans: underqualified or fringy candidates have cost them seats in the Senate in other recent cycles.

So lets briefly run through the models forecast for House, Senate and gubernatorial races. Then Ill describe some changes to the model since 2020 which are modest this year but reflect how congressional races are changing in an increasingly polarized political environment.

Republicans have an 87 percent chance of taking over the House, according to the Deluxe version of our model. Thats far from certain, but Democrats are fighting the odds: Their 13 percent chances are equivalent to tossing a coin and having it come up tails three times in a row.

Thats not to say House control will be a matter of luck, exactly. A change in the political environment could have ripple effects. For instance, sometimes one party wins nearly all the toss-up races, as Republicans did in 2020. However, even if Democrats were to win all 13 races that our model currently designates as toss-ups (meaning that no party has more than a 60 percent chance of winning), plus hold on to all the seats in which theyre favored, they would still wind up with only 208 seats, 10 short of the number they need for a majority.

Instead, Democrats will also have to win some seats where Republican candidates are currently favored, and that requires the national political environment in November to be more favorable for Democrats than our model is currently expecting.

On the one hand, the task isnt that daunting for Democrats. Our model calculates that Democrats would be favored to keep the House if they win the House popular vote or lose it by less than 0.7 percentage points something that Democrats did in both 2018 and 2020.

Moreover, Democrats are down by only about 2 points in our current average of generic-ballot polls. Given the inherent error in polling, and how much time there is between now and November, it isnt hard to turn a 2-point deficit in the polls into a 1-point win.

However, in important ways, that 2-point deficit understates the degree of trouble that Democrats are in. One reason is because many of those polls are conducted among registered voters rather than likely voters, and the electorate that turns out in November is likely to be more Republican than the broader universe of all registered voters. Historically, the patterns in midterm elections are that: 1) Republicans turn out more than Democrats, and 2) voters for whichever party doesnt control the presidency are more enthusiastic and turn out more. In 2018, those factors canceled one another out. Democrats, not controlling the presidency, were the more enthusiastic party, helping to neutralize the Republicans historical turnout advantage. This year, though, they both work in the favor of Republicans.

Thus, the model adjusts those registered-voter polls based on its estimate of what likely-voter polls would show, and when it does that, the Republicans generic-ballot lead is really more like 4 points than 2 points. I should note that this adjustment is not rigid in the model. Although the model uses historical turnout patterns as its baseline assumption, it will override that based on polls. In other words, if polls come out showing Democrats holding their own among likely voters such as because of increased Democratic enthusiasm in the wake of Roe being overturned the model will adjust to reflect that. Put another way, a very strong turnout would give Democrats a fighting chance of keeping the House.

But also, the generic ballot isnt the only input that the model considers, and some of the other factors look worse for Democrats than the generic ballot does. Based on the historical tendency for the presidents party to lose seats in the midterms and Bidens poor approval rating, for instance, the situation is more likely to get worse for Democrats than better. The model also evaluates factors such as polling and fundraising data in individual races.

Overall, the Deluxe forecast expects Democrats to eventually lose the popular vote for the House by closer to 6 points, about the margin that they lost it by in 2014. And it expects Republicans to wind up with 237 seats in an average outcome, a gain of 24 seats from the 213 they had at the start of the current Congress.

As I mentioned, this analysis is based on the Deluxe version of our model, which accounts for polling, fundamentals or factors such as fundraising and incumbency and expert race ratings such as those put out by the Cook Political Report. The Classic version of our model, which leaves out the expert ratings sacrificing the additional accuracy they add but sticking to purely quantitative factors tells a similar story, with Democrats also having a 12 percent chance of keeping the House. The Lite version of our model, meanwhile, which tries to forecast as much as it can based on polls alone, does paint a more optimistic picture for Democrats, giving them a 22 percent chance of keeping the House. But that version leaves out a lot of useful information, especially given that there isnt much polling in a number of competitive House races.

Democratic hopes of keeping the Senate are much more viable, however. Part of this, as I mentioned, is because they appear to have stronger candidates in a handful of key races. Pennsylvania, for instance which is an open seat after the retirement of Republican Sen. Pat Toomey is ordinarily the sort of seat that youd expect Republicans to win since Pennsylvania is a purple state in a Republican year. However, the Democratic candidate, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, is ahead of Republican Mehmet Oz, the doctor and TV personality, in every poll conducted so far. The model, though, is trained to be a bit skeptical given the fundamentals of the race, so it hedges against those polls and, at this point, has determined that Pennsylvania is best thought of as a toss-up. Still, that means Democrats have roughly a 50-50 chance of gaining a GOP-held Senate seat, offsetting potential losses elsewhere.

Indeed, our forecast sees the overall Senate landscape to be about as competitive as it gets. The Deluxe forecast literally has Senate control as a 50-50 tossup. The Classic and Lite forecasts show Democrats as very slight favorites to keep the Senate, meanwhile, with a 59 and a 62 percent chance, respectively.

Part of this is because Senate terms last for six years, and so most of these seats were last contested in 2016, a mediocre year for Democrats in which they lost the popular vote for the House and also lost Senate races in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Arizona. Of the 35 Senate seats up for grabs in November, 21 are currently held by Republicans. True, most of these are not competitive, but in addition to their chances to gain a GOP-held seat in Pennsylvania, Democrats also have credible chances in Wisconsin and North Carolina (and outside chances in Ohio and Florida, although those are a stretch given how GOP-leaning both states have become).

Republicans dont have any surefire pickups, meanwhile. Our model regards their best chances as being in Georgia, but that race is rated as a toss-up. And the races in Arizona and New Hampshire merely lean toward the Democratic incumbent, meaning they are still highly plausible GOP pickup opportunities.

Still, the picture isnt as bad as you might expect for Democrats. If the political environment really deteriorates for them, theyll be in trouble, lose most of the competitive races and even blue states like Colorado could come into play. But if things are merely pretty bad for Democrats instead of catastrophic, the outcome of the Senate will remain uncertain enough that stronger candidates could make the difference for them.

Its hard to talk about gubernatorial races on a systematic basis since theres no particular prize for winning a majority of governorships. But, for the record, our model does run these calculations, and the Deluxe version estimates that theres an 83 percent chance that Republicans end up with a majority of governorships following this Novembers elections, compared with a 7 percent chance for Democrats. (There is an 10 percent chance that neither party has a majority.) However, a lot of these governorships are in smaller, lower-population states, and the model thinks theres a 73 percent chance that the majority of the U.S. population will reside in states run by Democratic governors.

Overall, though, gubernatorial contests take the theme from the Senate a step further: Individual candidates can matter a lot. Indeed, partisanship matters less in gubernatorial races than in races for Congress, even if it matters more than it once did. Consider, for instance, that there are currently Democratic governors in Kansas and Louisiana and Republican ones in Massachusetts and Maryland, although several of those seats could flip parties this year.

However, incumbency is a powerful force in gubernatorial races. For instance, even though Michigan is a slightly red-leaning state, its incumbent Democratic governor, Gretchen Whitmer, is a clear favorite against a Republican field marred by fraudulent attempts to access the ballot and the arrest of a leading candidate for his participation in the Jan. 6 insurrection. Meanwhile, Wisconsins Tony Evers, also a Democratic incumbent, is a favorite against a Republican field where the most likely nominee is Rebecca Kleefisch, the former lieutenant governor. This is the sort of race where abortion could matter: Technically, Wisconsins 173-year-old abortion ban which outlaws all abortions, except in cases to save the life of the mother is now in effect following the Dobbs decision, although the Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul has said he wont enforce the ban. But Kleefisch has said she opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest.

However, Republicans also have some strongly positioned incumbents. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp is an 86 percent favorite to hold on against Democrat Stacey Abrams, and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is a 95 percent favorite against Democrat Beto ORourke. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a co-favorite with former President Donald Trump to be the 2024 Republican presidential nominee, is also a 94 percent favorite to win a second term.

Perhaps the most important gubernatorial race is in Pennsylvania, an open-seat race as the Democratic incumbent governor, Tom Wolf, is term-limited. There, the Republican nominee, Doug Mastriano, was present outside the Capitol during the Jan. 6 insurrection and worked to overturn Bidens win in Pennsylvania, potentially yielding a constitutional crisis if hes governor in Pennsylvania and the election outcome is close again there in 2024. But Mastriano is an underdog against Democrat Josh Shapiro, the Pennsylvania attorney general.

Overall, were happy with our congressional and gubernatorial forecasts, which last underwent a major revision before the 2018 elections. They performed very well in 2018 and fairly well in 2020 (despite a challenging year for the polls in 2020; it helped that our model also considers a number of other factors in addition to the polling). Therefore, the overall methodology is largely the same. However, after assessing the performance of the models, we did make a few changes around the margins:

Finally, a couple pieces of housekeeping. A number of states havent held their primaries yet, so in those cases, we guess at the most likely nominees based on polling, fundraising and other factors. These presumed nominees are designated with an asterisk in the interactive. If you see anything egregiously wrong such as a candidate listed as a presumptive nominee when theyve dropped out of the race please drop us a line.

Were also still thinking about how best to handle Alaska, which has a new system in place this year in which the top-four finishers in the primary advance to the general election regardless of political party, and then the general election outcome is determined by ranked-choice voting (or, as some call it, an instant runoff) if no candidate receives a majority. This is not entirely dissimilar to the way elections are conducted in Louisiana, in which all candidates from all parties appear on the ballot in a blanket nonpartisan primary in November, and then theres a runoff later between the top-two candidates if no candidate gets 50 percent of the vote. In fact, were currently taking a bit of a shortcut by using the Louisiana code for Alaska, essentially treating the instant runoff as though its an actual runoff where voters go to the polls again.

We may revisit this assumption later, but it does avoid one potential pitfall. In Alaskas House, Senate and gubernatorial races, its fairly likely that well end up with one Democratic candidate but two or three Republican candidates following the Aug. 16 primaries. If the Republican vote is divided two or three ways, it may well be that the Democrat initially receives the plurality of the vote. However, this lead is unlikely to survive the instant-runoff process assuming voters for one Republican rank the other Republicans ahead of any Democrat. The process we use for Louisiana assumes that votes mostly tend to stay within the same party in the event of a runoff, and this same assumption is in place in Alaska. Thus, we have Republicans as fairly heavy favorites in the Alaska races, although the new system introduces some uncertainty.

The forecast itself will update continuously whenever new polls or other information are added to our database. Well also publish a written update to the forecast once per week or so, usually on Fridays, to review new data and other changes in the landscape, before upping the frequency as the election draws closer. We hope youll regularly visit FiveThirtyEight as part of your midterms rotation.

Originally posted here:
Why Republicans Are Favored To Win The House, But Not The Senate - FiveThirtyEight

IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

Suburban Moms Weigh In05:54

The Essence Festival and The Birth of The Crown Act06:46

Now Playing

Can The Republican Party Survive Trump and The Jan Six Hearings09:50

UP NEXT

Tragedy Strikes In Akron Ohio06:19

The Fallout from the Supreme Court's Latest Rulings12:11

What Can Congress Do To Help Save Women's Reproductive Rights06:07

Democratic Messaging Matters08:54

The Possible Loss of Physicians in Abortion Care08:01

Trump Planned To Be At The Capitol The Day Of The Insurrection09:55

Voicing an Opinion in the Culture Corner07:35

Interpreting the Constitution06:40

Public Prayer in Schools03:31

What Some Women Currently Face on Abortion Access06:16

Abortion Access Rights in Peril08:19

The Aftermath Of Roe V Wade Supreme Court Decision01:50

The Fourth January Sixth Committee Hearing11:10

The Newest Group to Qualify for the Covid Vaccine06:09

The Case Building Against Donald Trump10:57

Remembering and Celebrating Juneteenth08:14

Symone Sanders hosts a political panel with former Former Rep. Joe Walsh, Michele Goodwin and Danielle Moodie to break down the deadly police shooting in Akron Ohio, the Supreme Court Roe v Wade overturn, the January 6th Committee hearings and the future of the Republican party.July 3, 2022

Suburban Moms Weigh In05:54

The Essence Festival and The Birth of The Crown Act06:46

Now Playing

Can The Republican Party Survive Trump and The Jan Six Hearings09:50

UP NEXT

Tragedy Strikes In Akron Ohio06:19

The Fallout from the Supreme Court's Latest Rulings12:11

What Can Congress Do To Help Save Women's Reproductive Rights06:07

Visit link:
Can The Republican Party Survive Trump and The Jan Six Hearings - MSNBC

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. Play ball! Members of Staten Islands Republican and Democratic political parties will be facing off but this time its only on the softball field. The charity softball game will unite the parties while they raise funds for Eden II Programs.

On Saturday, July 9, at 10 a.m., the boroughs two largest parties will meet at Fr. Macris Field, located at 80-122 Lamberts Lane, to battle for the softball title that has been held by the Islands Republican party since the inaugural game in 2013.

The Staten Island Democratic Party is thrilled to bring back our annual softball game after a three-year hiatus due to the pandemic, said Richmond County Democratic Committee Chairman, Assemblyman Michael Cusick. This game not only brings together both parties for a friendly game, but does so in support of a local program, Eden II, that does such amazing things for our community.

As for which team will win, youll just have to come see the game to find out!

The public is invited to watch the game for free and all are encouraged to donate to Eden II by visiting http://www.eden2.org/donate.

The Staten Island GOP softball team is excited to take the field in support of the great work at Eden II, said Richmond County Republican Committee Chairman, Anthony Reinhart. I can neither confirm nor deny if the GOP has incorporated a softball skills assessment into our candidate recruitment efforts. But, I can say with certainty that we are looking forward to a great game against the best that Democrat Chairman Mike Cusick has to offer.

Eden II strives to support people with autism throughout their lives to achieve their full potential through service, science, and passion. The organization has been supporting the Staten Island community for more than 40 years.

Joanne Gerenser, Executive Director at Eden II, is grateful to all the participants of the upcoming event. Thank you to everyone on both sides of the aisle for playing this game each year and shining a spotlight on the services that Eden II Programs offers to the Staten Island community, she said.

We are so thankful for the support from both party leaders and appreciate their commitment to increasing autism awareness in our community, added Teresa Cirelli, Director of Development at Eden II.

If you would like more information on any of the Eden II programs, visit their website or call 718-816-1422.

Read the original post:
Staten Island Republicans, Democrats to face off in softball game to support Eden II and autism awareness - SILive.com