Mediaboss Marketing

Democratic hopes for turning Texas blue hinge heavily on winning the vote of a large majority of the states growing Hispanic population. Democrats often contrast their progressive policies on immigration and border security with the more conservative policies advocated by Republicans as a reason why their share of the Hispanic vote will increase.

And yet, when Texas Hispanics are asked about their opinions on immigration and border policies, their preferences tend to align more with those of Republicans than Democrats.

Many Democrats were convinced that Donald TrumpDonald TrumpFive reasons for Biden, GOP to be thankful this season Giving thanks for Thanksgiving itself Immigration provision in Democrats' reconciliation bill makes no sense MOREs conservative, and at times offensive, policies on immigration and border security would alienate Hispanics to such an extent that they would flock in droves to the Democratic Party in 2020. Instead, according to exit polls, Trump won 32 percent of the Latino vote nationally (up from 28 percent in 2016) and 41 percent of the Latino vote in Texas (up from 34 percent in 2016). In the Rio Grande Valleys two most populous countries (Hidalgo and Cameron; directly across the border from Mexico), where Hispanics account for more than 90 percent of the population, Trump won 41 percent and 43 percent of the vote in 2020 (up from 28 percent and 32 percent, respectively, in 2016).

In late October the Texas Hispanic Policy Foundation conducted a representative public opinion survey of 1,402 Texas registered voters, including 616 Texas Hispanics, who are the focus here.

The survey results reveal that more Texas Hispanics support than oppose four out of five of the border security policies that have been implemented by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott on his own via executive actions or through legislation passed by the Texas Legislature under the leadership of Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Republican House Speaker Dade Phelan.

Twice as many Texas Hispanics support (51 percent) than oppose (25 percent) the Texas policy of having Department of Public Safety (DPS) officers and local law enforcement arrest immigrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally. (The remaining 24 percent neither support nor oppose the policy.)

Far more Hispanics support dispatching DPS officers (48 percent) and Texas National Guard soldiers (46 percent) to patrol along the border than oppose these policies (30 percent and 32 percent).

A narrow plurality of Texas Hispanics even supports spending $1.5 billion of state funds annually on border security, funds that could be used instead to help address documented needs in Texas public schools, where more than half of the students are Hispanic.

The only Texas policy opposed by a plurality of Texas Hispanics is the state building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, which is opposed by 45 percent, but is nonetheless still supported by 38 percent.

The closer one gets to the South Texas-Mexico border, the greater the level of support among Texas Hispanics for Republicans border security policies. This is a problem for congressional Democrats, since under the new Republican-drawn Texas congressional map, only three congressional districts (the 15th, 23rd and 28th) are considered to be competitive, and all three are located either in whole or part in South Texas, with two presently held by Democrats and one by a Republican.

Turning to federal immigration policies, if national Democrats believe creating more open borders and making it easier for immigrants to seek asylum will significantly boost their support among Hispanics, they are likely mistaken, at least in regard to the Lone Star State.

When it comes to increasing the number of immigrants allowed into the United States from Mexico and Central America, Texas Hispanics are evenly split, with 39 percent in opposition and 37 percent in support. This is a policy that has an adverse impact on the Democratic Partys ability to generate support within the Anglo (non-Hispanic white) community. In Texas, 59 percent of whites oppose this policy, compared to 25 percent who support it.

On the related policy of increasing the number of refugees and asylum seekers allowed into the United States, 42 percent of Texas Hispanics oppose this policy compared to 35 percent who support it. And while this policy is at best a breakeven proposition among Texas Hispanics, it is quite unpopular among Anglo Texans, 59 percent of whom oppose it compared to 27 percent who support it.

Both Gov. Abbott and President BidenJoe BidenUS lawmakers arrive in Taiwan to meet with local officials Biden meets with Coast Guard on Thanksgiving Five reasons for Biden, GOP to be thankful this season MORE are underwater in regard to Texas Hispanic approval of their handling of the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border. But Abbott (42 percent approve/48 percent disapprove) is far closer to the surface than Biden (35 percent/55percent).

Texas Hispanics will in large part determine whether Texas remains red or turns purple or even blue this decade. For years commentators have predicted Texas would turn blue as the Hispanic share of the state population increased, to the point where in 2022 it will eclipse the Anglo population.

But that prediction depended on Hispanics voting overwhelmingly for Democrats, something not seen in the Lone Star State, where statewide GOP candidates continue to win between 35 percent and 45 percent of the Hispanic vote.

If current Hispanic support for Republican immigration policies is any signal, we can expect Texas Republicans to maintain the backing of roughly two-fifths of Texas Hispanic voters in the 2022 midterms. This would mean the continuation of the Republican statewide winning streak that dates back to 1996 and a GOP net gain of between one and three U.S. House seats. This advantage could prove pivotal to the Republican effort to retake control of the U.S. House.

Mark P. Jonesis the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policys fellow in political science and the Joseph D. Jamail chair in Latin American Studies at Rice University as well as a co-author of Texas Politics Today. Follow him on Twitter@MarkPJonesTX.

Go here to read the rest:
Hispanic support for Republicans' hardline immigration policies may keep Texas red | TheHill - The Hill

Attorney General Merrick Garland is under fire from Republican lawmakers for allegedly politicizing the Justice Department.

Rep. Jim Jordan spoke to the Washington Examiner about the Garland school boards memo controversy, saying: "My gut tells me that the main focus was this was politics. And that's what the Justice Department has been under Garland."

He added: "Joe Biden criticizes the Georgia election law, a few months later they sue Georgia. Joe Biden criticizes the Texas pro-life law. Eight days later, they sure Texas. Joe Biden's White House is working with the National School Boards Association and, five days later, he issues the memorandum."

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, echoed this theme, telling Garland: "Since your confirmation, in less than a year, the department has moved as far left as it can go" and that "you've politicized the department in ways it shouldn't be."

Garland has repeatedly denied politicizing the DOJ.

GARLAND MISLEADING ON WHETHER FISA USED AGAINST HUNTER BIDEN'S CHINESE BUSINESS ASSOCIATE, GOP SENATORS SAY

When announcing his Garland pick in January, Biden said: "More than anything, we need to restore the honor, the integrity, the independence of the Department of Justice in this nation that has been so badly damaged."

Garland himself vowed in his February opening statementto enforce "policies that protect the independence of the Department from partisan influence in law enforcement Investigations."

Republicans say he isn't living up to that promise.

DOJ targeting protesting parents

Garland's early October directive to the FBI was released a few days after the National School Boards Association argued to Biden that "the classification of these heinous actions could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes" and called upon DOJ to review whether the PATRIOT Act "in regards to domestic terrorism" could be deployed.

Garland revealed DOJ and the White House communicated about the NSBA letter before he issued his memo, and emails from the NSBA showed it was in touch with the White House prior to publishing. NSBA ended up withdrawing and apologizing for the letter.

House Republicans say an FBI whistleblower email shows the agency is using "counterterrorism tools" to monitor threats against school board members and teachers, which the GOP says conflicts with testimony by Garland.

An FBI spokesperson told the Washington Examiner: "The FBI has never been in the business of investigating parents who speak out or policing speech at school board meetings."

GOP lawmakers and concerned parents have also raised concerns about possible conflicts of interest for the attorney general because his son-in-law, Alexander "Xan" Tanner, is the co-founder of the education company Panorama Education.

Helping out Andrew McCabe

Garland said the department continues to stand by the findings of the DOJ watchdog that concluded fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe lied under oath to investigators during a leak investigation despite Garland reversing his firing and settling McCabe's lawsuit against the DOJ with a payout.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz's reportin 2018 detailed multiple instances in which McCabe "lacked candor" with FBI Director James Comey, FBI investigators, and inspector general investigators about his authorization to leak sensitive informationto the media.

Yet, Garland allowed McCabe to win back his full pension last month as part of the settlement in his wrongful termination lawsuit. The agreement allowed McCabe to retire and receive an estimated $200,000 in missed pension payments and $539,000 in attorney's fees for his lawyers.

Garland was questioned by Grassley about this, who called DOJ's actions "beyond incredible."

"The McCabe settlement was the recommendation of the career lawyers litigating that case based on their prospects of success in the case," the attorney general said. "The case did not involve issues about lying. It involved a claim that he was not given the amount of time necessary to respond to allegations. The litigators concluded that they needed to settle the case because of the likelihood of loss on that claim."

Grassley lamented that "you allowed a disgraced former FBI official off the hook."

McCabe has denied wrongdoing, but Horowitz said he stood by his findings.

Trump tax documents

The DOJ ruled in July that Trump's tax records must be released to Congress, with an Office of Legal Counsel opinion stating that the Democrat-led House Ways and Means Committee's request "plainly serves legitimate legislative objectives, even if some individual legislators might have other reasons for wanting access to the information."

House Democratshad sought eight years of the former president's tax returns, though Trump successfully fought back on those efforts during his tenure.

Lawyers for Trump moved to block efforts to obtain his tax returns in August, blasting the push as a politically motivated attempt to harm him.

Contempt of Congress prosecution

Biden was asked in October if he believes the Justice Deparment should prosecute anyone who resists subpoenas from the Capitol riot select committee, which had committed to criminal contempt proceedings against former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, and Biden said, "I do, yes."

In response to his comment, which seemingly clashed with a pledge Biden made to allow the DOJ to remain independent, DOJ spokesman Anthony Coley said, "The Department of Justice will make its own independent decisions in all prosecutions based solely on the facts and the law. Period. Full stop."

When the House voted to hold Bannon in contempt of Congress in October for refusing to testify, the DOJ soon pursued charges against him, with a federal grand jury indicting him in November for two counts of contempt of Congress.

Garland said, "Since my first day in office, I have promised Justice Department employees that together we would show the American people by word and deed that the department adheres to the rule of law, follows the facts and the law, and pursues equal justice under the law. Today's charges reflect the department's steadfast commitment to these principles."

Bannon pleaded not guilty to both counts.

Project Veritas and Ashley Biden's diary

The FBI has conducted searches of at least two New York locations tied to the conservative investigative group Project Veritas and also searched the home of its founder James O'Keefe, reportedly in connection with the alleged theft of a diary belonging to Ashley Biden, the youngest daughter of the president.

A right-wing outlet published dozens of pages of the purported diary in October 2020. O'Keefe said earlier this month it had also been offered to his group, but they declined to publish it, attempted to return it, and provided it to law enforcement.

The Project Veritas founder told Fox News that the FBI took two of his iPhones, which had confidential donor and source information, and called the raids an "attack on the First Amendment."

A judge ordered the New York Times to stop publishing information from internal memos taken from Project Veritas after the outlet published parts of sensitive conversations between Project Veritas operatives and their lawyers which the group said should be protected under attorney-client privilege. The documents surfaced just days after federal authorities raided the home of O'Keefe.

Threatening states that pass voter integrity laws

The DOJ announced a lawsuit against Georgia in June over its new election laws, with Garland alleging the laws could restrict the rights of black Georgians. State officials have defended the measures as commonsense protections against fraud and have condemned claims from Democrats that they are "Jim Crow 2.0."

"Our complaint alleges that recent changes to Georgia's election laws were enacted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right of black Georgians to vote on account of their race or color, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act," Garland said.

Republican Gov. Brian Kemp condemned the Justice Department's actions.

"This lawsuit is born out of the lies and misinformation the Biden administration has pushed against Georgia's Election Integrity Act from the start," Kemp said, adding, "Now, they are weaponizing the U.S. Department of Justice to carry out their far-left agenda that undermines election integrity and empowers federal government overreach in our democracy."

Fighting the Texas abortion law

Garland announced in September that the DOJ filed a lawsuit against Texas in response to a state law banning abortions after six weeks of gestation. Texas's Senate Bill 8, also known as the Texas Heartbeat Act, prohibits abortion after that time frame unless a woman's life is in danger. One provision permits any person to bring a civil action against anyone who performs an abortion procedure or "aids or abets" such a procedure after six weeks.

Garland said S.B. 8 is "clearly unconstitutional under long-standing Supreme Court precedent."

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Biden had directed the DOJ in September "to see what steps the federal government can take to ensure that women in Texas have access to safe and legal abortions."

Original Location: Republicans point to number of times Garland has politicized the Justice Department

Washington Examiner Videos

Read the original:
Republicans point to number of times Garland has politicized the Justice Department - Denver Gazette

The jury acquittal of self-appointed vigilante Kyle Rittenhouse left far-right militias and Republican Trumpers chortling. Seemingly, this win was a trifecta. It vindicates the strategy of enacting self-defense, open-carry, and stand-your-ground laws. It makes a hero of Rittenhouse. It intensifies the racist maneuver of leaving Blacks at the mercy of rogue cops and private militiamen, making it harder for Biden to keep faith with African American demands for justice without scaring off whites.

The right has gone to town with its dog-whistle messages caricaturing AP English classes that assign Toni Morrison as anti-parent; contending that the Democrat Party favors defunding the police; and claiming that the abstruse body of Critical Race Theory is being used to brainwash public school students. Now the Rittenhouse verdict seemingly adds another arrow to the quiver.

When Biden tried to walk the racial tightrope after the Rittenhouse verdict, he issued a tepid statement that seemed to emphasize the importance at keeping protest peaceful more than outrage at the verdict. It began:While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken. I ran on a promise to bring Americans together, because I believe that what unites us is far greater than what divides us. This mild criticism only further enflamed many Blacks without weakening Republican strategy.

But think a little harder. Most Americans do not feel safer with 17-year-old trigger-happy vigilantes patrolling their communities with AR-15s. If Kyle Rittenhouse is the new face of the Republican Party, thats a win for Democrats.

Most of the white American public is less racist than Republicans would like to believe. The murder convictions in the fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery demonstrate that even in the deep south vigilantes are not invariably given impunity.After the police murder of George Floyd, two-thirds of Americans approved of the Movement for Black Lives. That approval has declined some, but has stabilized at around 55 percent. After former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of Floyds murder in May 2021, three-quarters of Americans approved of the verdict.

Early polls show that a majority of Americans were uneasy about the Ritttenhouse acquittal. A YouGov pollfoundthat a large majority of Democrats and a plurality of independents felt Rittenhouse was guilty of murder.

A Morning Consult pollfoundthat 71 percent of Republicans but only 43 percent of all those polled approved of the verdict. A plurality also said the verdict gave them less confidence in the criminal justice system.

The strategy of lionizing vigilantes like Rittenhouse may deepen Republican support in hard-core Trump country. It will be a gift to Democrats in suburban swing districts where the 2022 midterms will be decided.

November 24, 2021

3:00 PM

Link:
The Rittenhouse Verdict Will Backfire on Republicans - The American Prospect

Election Day was Nov. 2, but if you lived in Bucks County, Pa., and you thought you would know the winners by the end of the week, you were in for a disappointment. One week after the fact, the county was still trying to figure out which ballots to count and who won. Not surprisingly, some people sending mail-in ballots were unable to follow simple instructions. Also not surprisingly, the election board was still debating what to count even in the case of unsigned ballots, which are clearly illegal under Pennsylvania law (eventually, these ballots were rejected).

But Bucks County is not the only place where delays and debates occur. Election workers not following instructions, machines jamming, false registrations and voting in the wrong precinct are just some of the various mistakes that occur regularly. Individually, each problem is minor and not likely to result in a change, but the collective weight of mistakes and regularity of occurrence are grating, to say the least.

Worse, tracking who is and who is not eligible to vote is far from assured. When a person dies, their county election department is one of the places that is supposed to get a copy of the death certificate at which point they are removed from the rolls. How efficiently do you think thats working? Not very well in Michigan, where up to 25,000 deceased people are still on the voter rolls.

The same problem exists for changes of address, where your new county election department is tasked to inform the county of your previous residence that you have moved, which takes your name off the rolls. That process is not going too well either, with over 7 million voters registered in more than one jurisdiction and virtually unchanged since 2014, so the problem is not getting better.

None of this proves fraud or vindicates Donald TrumpDonald TrumpFive reasons for Biden, GOP to be thankful this season Giving thanks for Thanksgiving itself Immigration provision in Democrats' reconciliation bill makes no sense MOREs allegations of a stolen election.

If anything, the fact that Trump and his legal team could not find a single vote to overturn in the midst of all these voting roll problems makes his crew so incompetent they dont even qualify to serve as Keystone Kops.

But it does show that the opportunity exists and where there is both opportunity and motive, somebody, somewhere will take advantage.

The problem is not in high-profile, well-funded races, where a combination of media and partisan scrutiny pairs with the resources for poll watchers and lawyers. No, the problem is in low-profile local races where candidates dont have the resources for lawyers and investigators.

Whats the motive? Not only do local governments have their own patronage, contracts, public authorities and finance, but they make land use and permitting decisions that are worth millions. Consider a municipality in an off-year with low turnout, but dozens or even hundreds of non-existent voters on the rolls. With no media coverage, limited partisan interest and low funds, it would be quite tempting for an unscrupulous land developer to nudge the vote in one direction and who would know? Or care to investigate?

We know that elections have been stolen or been subject to fraud: local elections, state elections and national elections; Robert Caro essentially proves Lyndon Johnson stole his 1948 U.S. Senate primary and may have stolen Texas for President Kennedy in 1960. But the scattering of proven stolen elections likely hides many more. After all, why register thousands of fraudulent voters, if you dont intend to use them at some point?

Election fraud has three possible outcomes: 1) You steal enough votes to win, 2) You steal votes, but not enough to win, and 3) You steal votes, but you would have won anyway. In the latter two cases, the election fraud does not change who won. If a candidate wins in a landslide, there is little impetus to investigate. The same holds for a candidate who wins despite an attempt to steal the election. Why dont we hear much about election fraud? Simply because examples #2 and #3 are not investigated. Should criminals be let off the hook just because they are bad at their chosen profession?

Voter fraud and election security is proving to be a potent issue beyond just Republican voters. Lost in all the handwringing over Trumps sore-loser whining and the media hyperventilating over GOP voters acquiescence is that independents are also listening. According to YouGov, 39 percent of independents think President BidenJoe BidenUS lawmakers arrive in Taiwan to meet with local officials Biden meets with Coast Guard on Thanksgiving Five reasons for Biden, GOP to be thankful this season MORE was not legitimately elected even 5 percent of Democrats agree.

When it comes to being a sore loser, Trump has company among Republican and Democratic voters. Only 26 percent of voters think the correct person won each of the last two Presidential elections, according to Rassmussen, with 52 percent of Democrats not thinking Trump legitimately won in 2016 (20 percent of independents) and 66 percent of Republicans thinking likewise about Biden (25 percent Independents). YouGov puts the number of Republicans who think Trump beat Biden at 76 percent. And plenty of Republicans remember Terry McAuliffeTerry McAuliffeFive reasons for Biden, GOP to be thankful this season BBB threatens the role of parents in raising and educating children Virginia's urgent lesson: Democrats' down-ballot enthusiasm gap MORE refusing to accept the results of the 2000 presidential election.

Put together, GOP demands for better election accountability, post-election audits, voter ID and general transparency will prove to be powerful issues going forward. There is surprising public agreement on a series of election integrity questions.

According to Pew Research, 76 percent of voters support requiring a photo ID to vote (61 percent of Democrats, 93 percent of Republicans), 82 percent want a paper backup to electronic voting, and 78 percent support early in-person voting (63 percent of Republicans, 91 percent of Democrats).

Removing people from the voter rolls is less popular (purging the rolls), with just 46 percent support. But that is when the question asks about removing people who have not recently voted. In the past, a voter purge was for those who have not voted in 4-5 years (an automatic purge would remove dead people and duplicate voters). I think it is quite likely if the question included a 5-year time frame, it would garner significant support. Regardless, Republican support for the purge has gone up in three years from 53 percent to 68 percent, and even Democratic support has edged up from 23 percent to 27 percent.

Voting should not be a medieval gauntlet, but it should have appropriate safeguards. Deciding who should run our various governments is a critical act with far-reaching consequences. The priority should be to educate the public and ensure the integrity of the process, not to make it as easy as ordering a pizza.

Keith Naughton, Ph.D., is co-founder of Silent Majority Strategies, a public and regulatory affairs consulting firm. Naughton is a former Pennsylvania political campaign consultant. Follow him on Twitter@KNaughton711.

Read this article:
Election 'irregularities' an issue that concerns more than just Republicans | TheHill - The Hill

Despite opposition from most of our Kansas congressional delegation, new federal dollars are coming to Kansas to expand broadband access.

President Joe Biden recently signed a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, fulfilling a 2020 campaign promise. The bill had moderate bipartisan support, though every Republican in Congress from Kansas opposed it. The only Kansan to support it was Democratic Representative Sharice Davids.

Kansas will receive about $4 billion from the bill, including about $100 million to expand broadband infrastructure and money to help 669,000 working class Kansans get discounted internet through the Affordable Connectivity Benefit.

Broadband means high speed internet access, specifically a minimum of 25 megabits per second download speed. However, many tech experts argue that this definition is outdated, and suggest a 100 Mbps standard.

Broadband is an economic necessity. Businesses without it struggle to grow. Doctors without it struggle to serve patients. Kansans without it struggle through basic online tasks using unreliable and slow connections.

According to BroadbandNow, which tracks internet provider data, 173,000 Kansans lack home broadband service and 307,000 dont have access to connections capable of broadband speed.

Rural communities generally struggle more to get broadband access. Basic capitalism explains why: Its expensive and not necessarily profitable for businesses to build broadband infrastructure in smaller rural communities with lower population densities and often shrinking populations.

BroadbandNow data shows this divide in Kansas. For example, in urban Shawnee County, 95% of residents have access to 25 Mbps speed and 93% have 100 Mbps. Next door in rural Wabaunsee County, those figures are 65% and 55% respectively. In rural Doniphan County, thats 89% and 12%.

The infrastructure bill has odd politics considering that several provisions like broadband disproportionately help Republican-leaning rural communities. Why would our elected Republicans oppose it?

Story continues

Broadband got engulfed in the theater of Beltway partisan politics. In 2016, former President Donald Trump promised a $1 trillion infrastructure bill. Trump didnt keep that promise. He then attacked the Biden bill and acted offended at Republicans who supported it.

Even if our Republican lawmakers secretly supported the infrastructure bill and broadband money for Kansas, politics prevented them from being open about it. Maybe they feared ending their political careers in a primary. But rural Kansans getting internet via dial-up or a slow mobile hotspot with limited data probably dont care which presidents signature helps bring them broadband.

Some of our Kansas Republican lawmakers criticized the cost of the infrastructure bill and its impact on debt. Maybe they forgot that Trumps infrastructure plan cost about the same as Bidens, or that Trumps presidency added $7.8 trillion in national debt, per Federal Reserve data. Politics not money seems the real issue.

Some politicians claim they support broadband but oppose the infrastructure bill. Okay. Words wont fix this problem. What legislation have they sponsored to fund broadband separately? And do they support the House Republican CONNECT Act in this Congress that would ban local governments from creating broadband networks to serve their local citizens?

Of all the parts of the infrastructure bill, broadband seems worth the cost, especially if it helps our struggling rural communities integrate into the modern economy and stop population loss. Its unfortunate that Beltway politics kept average Kansans from getting the greater bipartisan support that they deserved here.

Patrick R. Miller is an associate professor of political science at the University of Kansas.

This article originally appeared on Topeka Capital-Journal: Kansans will get broadband access despite beltway politics from GOP

See original here:
Beltway politics kept Kansas Republicans in Congress from backing broadband access for rural towns - Yahoo News