Archive for the ‘Republicans’ Category

Hispanic Republicans vie to oust Democrats in diverse districts – Roll Call

For a conservative movement that has embraced tough talk on immigration and made opposition to diversity initiatives a core part of its identity, the effort can be tricky, said Mike Madrid, a Republican political consultant and co-founder of the Lincoln Project.

The Republican Party has become so overwhelmingly,monolithically white in the past couple of decades, and that share of the electorate is rapidly shrinking, Madrid said, so it needs more diverse candidates while suggesting diversity has nothing to do with what theyre doing.

Republicans view the push to recruit Hispanic candidates as essential to the partys effort to maintain the majority in the House, where a net gain of five seats by Democrats next year would give them the speakers gavel.

Republican candidates dont just look like America, their life experiences reflect the daily challenges Americans face, said Will Reinert, spokesman for the National Republican Campaign Committee. By embodying the American dream, Republicans can win anywhere in the Land of Opportunity.

In 2020, Republicans had a net gain of 14 seats in the House, and every seat they flipped from Democrats was captured by a woman, a veteran or a candidate of color. In 2022, the party put forth a historic slate of nearly 70 Black, Hispanic, Asian American and Native American candidates.

See the original post here:
Hispanic Republicans vie to oust Democrats in diverse districts - Roll Call

Opinion | Gov. Chris Sununu: This Is How to Beat Trump – The New York Times

This week, Republican primary candidates for president will have a chance to make their case before a national audience with or without Donald Trump on the debate stage. To win, they must break free of Mr. Trumps drama, step out of his shadow, go on offense, attack, and present their case. Then they need to see if they can catch fire this fall and if they cant, they need to step aside, because winnowing down the field of candidates is the single best chance to stop Mr. Trump. Too much is at stake for us to have wishful candidacies. While the other Republican candidates are running to save America, Mr. Trump is running to save himself.

Candidates on the debate stage should not be afraid to attack Donald Trump. While its true that Mr. Trump has an iron grip on more than 30 percent of the electorate, the other 60 percent or so is open to moving forward with a new nominee. Mr. Trumps shortcomings hardly need reciting. Tim Scott, Ron DeSantis, and Vivek Ramaswamy candidates with compelling stories, records and polling must show voters they are willing to take on Mr. Trump, show a spark, and not just defend him in absentia. Chris Christie, who has done great work exposing Mr. Trumps weaknesses, must broaden his message and show voters that he is more than the anti-Trump candidate.

If Mr. Trump is the Republican nominee for president in 2024, Republicans will lose up and down the ballot. According to a recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll, nearly two-thirds of Americans say they would likely not support Mr. Trump in 2024 not even Jimmy Carter had re-election numbers that bleak. Every candidate with an (R) next to their name, from school board to the statehouse, will be left to answer for the electoral albatross at the top of the ticket. Instead of going on offense and offering an alternative to Joe Bidens failing leadership, Republicans will continue to be consumed with responding to Mr. Trumps constant grievances and lies, turning off every independent suburban voter in America. And Mr. Trump, ever the narcissist, will spend the entire campaign whining about his legal troubles and bilking his supporters of their retirement savings to pay for his lawyers.

Donald Trump is beatable, and it starts in Iowa and New Hampshire. Ignore the national polls that show he is leading they are meaningless. Its a reflection of the national conversation, name ID, and who is top of mind not where the momentum is headed.

The best indicator of Mr. Trumps strength is looking to where the voters are paying attention: in states where candidates are campaigning, television ads are running, and there is a wide range of media attention on every candidate.

In Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two states that will vote in the 2024 Republican primaries, Mr. Trump is struggling. In both Iowa and New Hampshire, he is consistently polling in the low 40 percent range. The floor of his support may be high, but his ceiling is low.

In New Hampshire, more than half of Republican primary voters our partys most ardent voters want someone not named Trump. While he regularly polls above 50 percent nationally, and even closer to 60 percent many times, he has not hit over 50 percent in New Hampshire in the last five months, according to Real Clear Politics.

Having won four statewide elections in New Hampshire and earning more votes in 2020 than any candidate in history (outpacing Mr. Trumps loss by 20 percentage points that year), I know that in New Hampshire, you dont only win on policy: You win face-to-face, person-to-person. Voters have to look you in the eye and sign off on you as a person before they can sign off on you as a candidate. Prepared remarks behind a podium do not work.

Candidates who have gone on to win the New Hampshire primary, best illustrated by former Senator John McCain, become omnipresent in my state. You must listen first, talk second. Talking at voters in New Hampshire does not work.

This is why Mr. Trump must face a smaller field. It is only then that his path to victory shrinks. Leaders within the Republican Party governors, senators, donors and media influencers have an obligation to help narrow the field.

At a minimum, any candidate who does not make the stage for the first two debates must drop out.

Anyone who is polling in the low single digits by Christmas must acknowledge that their efforts have fallen short.

After the results from Iowa come in, it is paramount that the field must shrink, before the New Hampshire primary, to the top three or four.

Candidates who have essentially been running for years, and who have seen little movement in the polls especially in the early states, are particularly in focus. This fall, if their numbers have not improved, tough conversations between donors and their candidates need to happen. Media influencers and leading voices should amplify the Republican message that the longer these candidates stay in the race, the more they are helping Joe Biden and Kamala Harris get four more years.

Provided the field shrinks by Iowa and New Hampshire, Mr. Trump loses. He will always have his die-hard base, but the majority is up for grabs. Candidates who seize on the opportunity and present a clear contrast to the former president will earn the votes.

Candidates cannot continue to let the former president dominate the media like he has for the last six months. They need to be more aggressive about seizing the opportunity to boost their national profiles. There has been positive movement from some candidates, but more needs to be done.

It must be said that candidates who stay in this race when they have no viable path should be called out. They are auditioning for a Trump presidency cabinet that will simply never happen. And even if a Trump administration magically materialized, no public humiliation that great is worth the sacrifice.

As governor of the first-in-the-nation primary state, I will do everything I can to help narrow the field. I plan to endorse and campaign for the best alternative to Mr. Trump. As of now, its anyones for the taking.

For 20 years straight, the winner of the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary has gone on to secure the partys nomination. Once the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire are presented a clear alternative to Mr. Trump, his path forward darkens, and the Republican Partys future begins to take shape. The rest of the country needs to see not just that the emperor has no clothes, but that the Republican Party is able to refocus the conversation where it needs to be, on a nominee dedicated to saving America.

View original post here:
Opinion | Gov. Chris Sununu: This Is How to Beat Trump - The New York Times

Abortion: The Republican plan to trick Americans into voting against it. – Slate

Abortion bans are unpopular. So unpopular that Republican extremists seem to have to invent conspiracy theories to trick Americans into voting for them.

Thats the major takeaway from recent political battles in Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. In all three states, abortion-related ballot initiatives and elections were framed by right-wing groups as the only thing standing between parents and trans ideology in the classroom.

In Ohio, political ads intoned that malicious entities from out of state were arriving to encourage sex changes for kids. In Wisconsin, Republicans distributed a video that claimed a child was transitioned into a boy by school officials without parental consent. And in Michigan, millions of dollars went into ads that warned minors as young as 10 or 11 could be sterilized without their parents even knowing.

All would be resolved, the ads assured, if voters just sided with conservatives at the ballot box. But in reality, parental rights were not on the ballot in any of these states. Instead, all three votes had enormous implications for access to abortion.

This is the new playbook. Using the specter of child corruption and social contagion, Republicans are attempting to manipulate parents, scapegoat trans and queer people, and erode multiple axes of bodily autonomy, all in one fell swoop. It does not appear to be a particularly effective tactic, as the recent right-wing efforts failed in each of the three states that tried it. But initiatives like Promise to Americas Children, a coalition of far-right groups that has advanced anti-trans legislation in states across the country, are putting money behind these fearmongering tactics. These groups believe that by agitating conservatives and uniting voters against a trans boogeyman, they can get people to ignore their own support for (or indifference to) abortion rights and eagerly line up to give those rights away.

This month, Ohioans went to the polls to vote on a ballot measure, known as Issue 1, that was specifically designed by the Republican Party to bulldoze a proposed amendment to the state constitution that residents will vote on this fall. That proposed amendment, if passed in November, will enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution.

Ohio Republicans knew they were at a disadvantage on this issue. Abortion rights are broadly popular in Ohio, as they are in most of the country. In a recent USA TODAY Network/Suffolk Universitypoll of likely Ohio voters, 58 indicated support for the abortion rights amendment while only 32 percent opposed it, with 10 percent undecided. The ranks of the supportive included 85 percent of independent women and a full third of surveyed Republicans.

So conservatives knew they wouldnt be able to thwart the proposed amendment on the merits of their anti-abortion arguments alone. Instead, they scheduled an emergency vote on a ballot initiativein the dead of Augustthat would have made it much easier to defeat the abortion rights amendment on procedural grounds. If Issue 1 had passed this month, it would have required 60 percent of voters to approve any amendment to the state constitution, rather than a simple majority.

It didnt work. Ohioans streamed to the pollsturnout was 38 percent, higher even than any regular primary election since 2016and voters rejected Issue 1 by a resounding margin of 14 points.

In the aftermath, state Republicans lamented that they hadnt enough time to get their message outdespite the fact that they were the ones who tried to rush the vote on Issue 1, and despite the millions of dollars that had gone into trying to make voters fear for their children.

In an ad that circulated before the August vote, funded by a right-wing group called Protect Women Ohio, a parent tucks a young girl into bed. You promised youd keep the bad guys away. Protect her, the voice-over says. Nows your chance. Malicious entities from out of state are arriving in sheeps clothing to encourage sex changes for kids and sneak trans ideology into schoolrooms, it continues. Protect your rights as a parent by voting yes on August 8th.

What do sex changes for kids have to do with a ballot measure about the amendment-making process? Nothing at all. In trying to cloak an unpopular agenda in anti-trans messaging, GOP operatives were hoping to mislead voters and incite them to panicregardless of the fact that Issue 1 would not have protected parental rights at all.

The Ohio special election was not the GOPs first stab at this switcheroo tactic. In the lead-up to a Wisconsin Supreme Court election held in April, Republicans distributed a video that claimed to tell the story of an innocent 12-year-old child who was transitioned into a boy by school officials without parental consent. (In fact, the child had not medically transitioned but requested to use a boys name and he/him pronouns. After the school respected those wishes, the parents sued.)

The outcome of the election will determine if parents still have rights, said the video, which was funded by the American Principles Project, which is part of the coalition of far-right groups pushing anti-trans legislation in multiple states. Dont leave your children in the hands of Janet Protasiewicz, it continued, referring to the liberal candidate on the ballot.

During the campaign, Wisconsin voters got texts from anti-Protasiewicz campaigners, many with links to the American Principles Project ads. Some texts said that the candidate and her woke allies want to TRANS our children without notifying parents. Other texts referred to the trans madness that would overtake Wisconsins children if conservative judicial candidate Daniel Kelly didnt win the race.

In actuality, the election was widely seen as a referendum on abortion rights: It was set to determine the ideological balance of the state court, which was previously right-leaning, in advance of a case that would either uphold or strike down an 1849 abortion ban that had become newly enforceable in Wisconsin after Roe v. Wade was overturned. With money pouring in from across the countryto support both Protasiewicz and Kellythis Wisconsin election became the most expensive state Supreme Court race in U.S. history.

Protasiewicz had never weighed in on the case of the 12-year-old mentioned in the attack ad, and her opposition never presented proof of her supposed opinions on health care for trans kids. But Terry Schilling, the president of the American Principles Project, has said that campaigns to ban gender-affirming treatments for trans people are a political winner. Trans rights are enormous issues for swing voters and moderates and can pull centrists toward conservative candidates, Schilling told the New York Times.

So even in a judicial election with little connection to trans issues, when youre an anti-trans hammer, the race looks like a nail.

Republicans pulled the same trick last year in Michigan, where a right-wing PAC spent millions of dollars on anti-trans ads aimed at defeating an abortion rights amendment on the ballot in November. The amendment, which ended up passing, affirms that every person has the right to make their own decisions related to pregnancy, including prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care. Conservatives spent the months before the election trying to convince voters that the inclusion of the term sterilization was a sneaky admission, by Democrats, that they would be legalizing secret gender-affirming surgeries for children.

One ad that ran in the state focused on puberty blockers, depicting a syringe dripping with fluid. If the abortion rights amendment passed, the voice-over said, minors as young as 10 or 11 will be able to receive this prescription without the consent of their parents or their parents even knowing. The implication was that puberty blockers were somehow part of the amendment and that they would be used to sterilize children. (Puberty blockers do not cause sterilization.)

A constitutional right to sterilization surely includes a right to be sterilized to align ones sex and gender identity, wrote a spokesperson for Citizens to Support MI Women & Children, the PAC that funded the ads, in an email to the Detroit Free Press. The majority of voters do not support a 12-year-old girls right to sterilization without her parents notice or consent.

Legal analysts who responded in the Detroit Free Press said the abortion rights amendment in Michigan was not written to legalize clandestine procedures for children, nor could it be reasonably interpreted as such by a judge. But again, that wasnt the point. Abortion access, though despised by Republican extremists, is quite popular; the right had no chance of blocking the amendment without inventing a conspiracy theory to go with it.

Conservatives are now promoting this same sort of misleading, disingenuous reading of an abortion-related text in Ohio, where just a simple majority of voters may pass the abortion rights amendment in November.

Protect Women Ohio, the main coalition fighting the amendment, maintains that the language the amendment usesevery individual has a right to make and carry out ones own reproductive decisions without burdensome state interferencewill mark the end of the Ohio law requiring a guardians consent for a minors abortion. In its ads, the group also says the amendment would allow a child to undergo sex change surgery without her parents knowledge or involvement.

The reproductive rights amendment, a woman says in one Protect Women Ohio ad, is not just about abortion like they say it is.

Again, nonpartisan legal analysts have refuted this interpretation. But anti-abortion activists arent concerned about the truth of the matter; theyre invested in the long-term maintenance of transphobic anxiety in the electorate as a means to achieve their other political goals. In trans people, they have found the perfect punching bag: members of a tiny minority with little political power who can be made out to represent a fundamental threat to the traditional gender order.

Pursuing an agenda that leans far further right than what constituents want is nothing new for conservative leaders. Due to a combination of aggressive gerrymandering and strong right-wing activism in Ohio, for example, the state has long been a vanguard of anti-abortion policy in spite of its relatively balanced political makeup and broad support for abortion rights. But lately, on abortion, Republicans have been watching their wins come undone by ballot measures and state constitutional amendmentsin other words, by mechanisms that put the power back in the hands of voters.

Its democracy in action. In the wake of the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, every time abortion rights have been put to a popular voteanywhere in the countryvoters have rejected the anti-abortion ballot measures and approved the ones that codify or expand abortion rights. Its no surprise that GOP operatives are trying to divert the focus to literally any other issue where they perceive themselves to have the upper hand, though it is horrifying to see that they believe virulent transphobia is a winning enough position that it may convince voters to sign away their access to legal abortion. The only silver lining, in Ohio as in Wisconsin as in Michigan, is that the bait-and-switch doesnt seem to be working.

Go here to see the original:
Abortion: The Republican plan to trick Americans into voting against it. - Slate

Opinion | Republicans Wont Stop at Banning Abortion – The New York Times

A majority of Ohio voters support the right to an abortion. The Ohio Legislature gerrymandered into a seemingly perpetual Republican majority does not. In many states, this would be the end of the story, but in Ohio, voters have the power to act directly on the state Constitution at the ballot box. With a simple majority, they can protect abortion rights from a legislature that has no interest in honoring the views of most Ohioans on this particular issue.

Eager to pursue their unpopular agenda and uninterested in trying to persuade Ohio voters of the wisdom of their views Republican lawmakers tried to change the rules. Last week, in what its Republican sponsors hoped would be a low-turnout election, Ohioans voted on a ballot initiative that would have raised the threshold for change to the state Constitution from a simple majority to a supermajority. They defeated the measure, clearing the path for a November vote on the future of abortion rights in the state.

In his opinion for the court in Dobbs, Justice Samuel Alito cast the decision to overturn Roe and Casey as a victory for democracy. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the peoples elected representatives, he wrote. Reproductive rights, he continued, quoting Justice Antonin Scalias 1992 dissent in Casey, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.

Citizens can persuade one another, and they can vote. But our political system is not designed to turn the aggregate preferences of a majority into direct political power. (If that were true, neither Alito nor his Republican colleagues, save for Clarence Thomas, would be on the Supreme Court.) More important, Alitos vision of voting and representation works only if that legislative majority, whomever it represents, is interested in fair play.

But as the Ohio example illustrates, the assault on bodily autonomy often includes, even rests on, an assault on other rights and privileges. In Idaho, to give another example, the No Public Funds for Abortion Act, which passed before Dobbs was decided, would punish state employees with the termination of employment, require restitution of public funds and possible prison time for counseling in favor of an abortion or referring someone to an abortion clinic. Other legislatures, such as those in Texas and South Carolina, have pushed similar restrictions on speech in pursuit of near-total abortion bans in their states.

Read the rest here:
Opinion | Republicans Wont Stop at Banning Abortion - The New York Times

Factbox: When is the first Republican primary debate? Who will be there? – Reuters

  1. Factbox: When is the first Republican primary debate? Who will be there?  Reuters
  2. What to know about the 1st Republican presidential primary debate  ABC News
  3. How Many Republicans Have Qualified for the Debate? It's Still Unclear.  The New York Times

Here is the original post:
Factbox: When is the first Republican primary debate? Who will be there? - Reuters