Mediaboss Marketing

The Republican candidates in New Yorks competitive races differ from one another in tone, experience and the local issues that reflect their distinctive districts.

But all of those contests, party officials and strategists say, are shaped by the continued salience of public safety in the minds of voters, discussion of education matters like the gifted and talented program that Mayor Bill de Blasio wants to phase out, and intense feelings over vaccine mandates. Some Republicans even argue that the challenging national environment that Democrats appear to be facing may be evident in a handful of city races, too.

This has a lot of likenesses to 2009, when Obama came in on hope and change and then fell flat, said Nick Langworthy, the chairman of the New York Republican State Committee. In 2009 we had great gains at the local level, and then had a cataclysm in 2010. Are we facing that, or is there going to be flatness all the way around?

Whatever the turnout, Republicans are virtually certain to be shut out of citywide offices. Indeed, by nearly every metric, the Republican Party has been decimated in the nations largest city. They are vastly outnumbered in voter registration and have struggled to field credible candidates for major offices.

At the City Council level, Republican hopes boil down to a matter of margins.

The most optimistic Republican assessment, barring extraordinary developments, is that they could increase their presence to five from three on the 51-seat City Council, as they did in 2009. But even that would require a surprise outcome in a sleeper race and it is possible they retain only one seat (setting aside the candidates who are running on multiple party lines).

Officials on both sides of the aisle believe a more realistic target for the Republicans is three or four seats, a number that could still affect the brewing City Council speakers race and may indicate pockets of discontent with the direction of the city.

What to Know About the 2021 New York Election

The most high-profile of those contests is the last Republican-held seat in Queens.

Ms. Singh, a teacher who is endorsed by the left-wing Working Families Party, is running against Joann Ariola, the chairwoman of the Queens Republican Party. The race has stirred considerable interest from the left and the right and attracted spending from outside groups.

Read the rest here:
The New York City Council Races Where Republicans Still Stand a Chance - The New York Times

Two Black Democratic state legislators from Virginia have accused the state'sRepublican Party of using racist tropes after it sentout flyersdepicting them as puppets hoisted in the air by handheld strings, The Associated Press reported.

The state GOP mailed out flyers targeting eight Democrats currently running for state House seats, five of whom are white and three of whom are Black, according to the AP. All of the candidates are depicted as puppets being held by strings under the phrase "D.C. liberals are pulling the strings in Richmond," while Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiSanders declined to sign statement condemning protests against Sinema: report Pelosi's office denies claims on Trump meeting from Grisham's book Legislative limbo how low can they go? MORE (D-Calif.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezMarkey endorses Michelle Wu in race for Boston mayor Manchin's 'red line' on abortion splits Democrats Far-left bullies resort to harassing, shaming Kyrsten Sinema it won't work MORE (D-N.Y.) can be seen looking on. But only two of the candidates Black lawmakers Del. Josh Cole (D) and Del. Alex Askew (D) are seen dangling over the ground, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

The third Black lawmaker, Del. Roslyn Tyler (D), doesnt appear suspended above the ground, the Times-Dispatchreported.

Both Askew and Cole criticized their depiction in the mailers, suggesting they evoked Virginia's history of lynching. Cole called the mailers a "dog whistle" and accused the state GOP of "using racist tropes to get their voters to come out," according to the AP.

Thestate GOP denied any racist intent, saying the"mailers were sent against eight candidates of all backgrounds," the AP reported.

The party added in its statement that Democrats think their"only path to victory is trying to trick Virginians into thinking its racist for anyone to hold any candidate accountable."

The Virginia Republican Party did not immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment.

Askew, who represents a swing district in Virginia Beach, tweeted that the state GOP party"is depicting me as bound & hanging by rope." He said the flyers follow "an attack mailer that displayed a darkened, burning photo of my face."

Karen -- last month, you sent an attack mailer that displayed a darkened, burning photo of my face. Now, your party is depicting me as bound & hanging by rope.

YET AGAIN: These images rely on some of the laziest, most blatantly racist tropes about Black people in history. https://t.co/3fCQT2HjuD pic.twitter.com/F32KnpMLBX

Askewadded that "depicting any black person as burning or hanging propagates some of the most dangerous, racist tropes in history."

Cole, who is up for reelection against Republican Tara Durant,said that he heard that the mailers were being used in districts that the Republicans were hoping to flip, according to NBC Washington.

This year's election in Virginia is being closely watched as a potential bellwether for the midterms in 2022,when Republicans hope to regain control of both chambers of Congress.

Early voting in Virginia has already begun, with Election Day set for Nov. 2.

Read the original here:
Black Virginia lawmakers criticize Republicans over flyers depicting them as puppets - The Hill

A new ad released by the Murphy campaign holds Ciattarellis claim this summer that the virus poses no risk to children alongside similar comments made by then-President Donald Trump, who lost New Jersey by more than 15 points last year. The 30-second spot echoes a series of advertisements released by California Democrats in the final weeks of the recall in both style and substance: black and red text, urgent phrasing and the looming presence of an unpopular former president.

On the debate stage last week, Murphy compared Ciattarellis positions granting leeway to parents and individuals when it comes to masks and vaccines as akin to supporting drunk driving it impacts both the person driving drunk and all the rest of us.

The Murphy teams renewed focus on Ciattarellis stances around Covid-19 comes even after a recent Monmouth University poll found a majority of voters assign some blame to the governor for failures that caused nursing home deaths to spiral in the early days of the pandemic. Even with New Jerseys leftward slant, Republican leaders had hoped a reassessment of Murphys pandemic response would steer voters into the GOP column in November.

But Covid-19s late summer resurgence scrambled those plans, forcing Ciattarelli a former state lawmaker to defend positions against public health policies that are largely reflective of the CDCs current guidance.

Ciattarelli has been condemned by public health experts, widely, for those types of positions. And we thought it was important to amplify that and that voters know the stakes, Murphy campaign spokesperson Jerrel Harvey said in an interview. We believe that this is a clear and present danger to our state.

The governors allies are also increasingly raising Ciattarellis appearance at an August school board meeting in coastal Toms River, where he encouraged parents to push the board to reject mask requirements at schools.

In the month since schools in Toms River reopened with a mask-optional policy, taking advantage of a loophole Murphys order made for districts to shed face covering requirements during extreme heat, more than 300 cases among students and staff have been reported and hundreds more are in quarantine.

A third grade teacher works with students in a New Jersey classroom. Ciattarellis opposition to school mask mandates complicates some of his more nuanced critiques of Murphys policies. | Seth Wenig/AP Photo

The district has defended its policy it only applied to buildings and classrooms that lacked air conditioning and was only in effect during a period when temperatures in town were at or above 75 degrees arguing many students were infected before the start of the school year.

Given the outbreaks at schools, Ciattarelli, a former member of General Assembly, backtracked on some of the comments regarding childrens risk of contracting Covid-19, telling the debate audience that if I had the chance to say it again, I would say it differently and more perfect.

Even so, Ciattarellis opposition to mask mandates, coupled with his earlier courting of anti-vaccine advocates, complicates some of his more nuanced critiques of Murphys policies.

There are still unresolved questions about how Murphys policies contributed to more than 8,500 Covid-19 deaths across long-term care facilities and state-run veterans homes the latter of which are the subject of state and federal investigations.

As Ciattarelli pointed out during the debate, Murphys vaccine-or-test order for school employees wont take effect until Oct. 18 weeks after the start of the school year. And while the governor has criticized Ciattarelli's positions as offering wiggle room to individuals who have been unwilling to get vaccinated, the Republican counters that Murphy providing unvaccinated workers the option to regularly test serves the same function.

The great fear here in New Jersey, especially since Governor Murphy said he wants to make New Jersey 'the California of the East Coast, is that a Phil Murphy not worried about reelection will only get more aggressive in handing down Trenton mandates that encroach on personal freedom and choice and, ultimately, push us towards another devastating economic lockdown, Ciattarelli spokesperson Stami Williams said in an email. As Governor, Jack will bring the legislature back into the decision-making process and chart a path that saves lives and livelihoods and protects our children.

For now, public polling suggests a majority of New Jerseyans favor Murphys top-down decision making when it comes to the pandemic.

The same Monmouth University poll in which New Jersey voters tagged Murphy on business closures and nursing home deaths found that the governor still has a broad base of support when it comes to Covid-19 prevention strategies, which include requiring students and teachers to mask up. More than half of those surveyed say the states pandemic strategy has been appropriate another 17 percent say it hasnt gone far enough.

Thats in keeping with whats been occurring at the national level. An Axios/Ipsos poll released in late August found that a majority of Americans favored masks in schools and vaccine requirements in the workplace. A Monmouth poll released last month showed national support for vaccine mandates among health care workers, teachers and federal employees and contractors.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference at a school in San Francisco. The state announced this month the nation's first coronavirus vaccine mandate for schoolchildren. | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

One of Newsoms top advisers told POLITICO in September that the main takeaway from Californias recall results was dont be timid on Covid. That was the turning point in this campaign, when Newsom came out and took bold action on vaccine mandates.

Murphys allies are hoping the same holds true in New Jersey.

The majority of people trust the science, New Jersey state Sen. Joseph Vitale (D-Middlesex) said in an interview. The outcome of the Newsom race illustrated that. Period. The same thing applies here. People don't think any differently about the coronavirus in New Jersey as they do in California."

See the original post here:
Republicans think voters hate Covid restrictions. This Democratic governor disagrees. - POLITICO

Republican and Democratic leaders in the United States Senate have reached an agreement on a short-term increase in the debt ceiling.

They are expected to approve it within the next two days, temporarily averting a possible financial catastrophe.

The measure would increase the federal governments borrowing authority by $480 billion, the amount the U.S. Treasury told Congress it would need to get to December 3, when the limit would expire.

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) said he understands why leadership made the deal, but this is another missed opportunity to discuss how to better manage government spending, so that Congress doesnt have to continue lifting the ceiling.

This vote today, again, is just an extension of half $1 trillion in new debt ceiling authority without any debate of how do we manage that, how do we manage deficits, Lankford said in an interview on Thursday. We are trying to avoid a debt collapse, were trying to avoid not keeping up with our payments, I completely understand that but we continue to ignore the reason we even have this vote.

The rest is here:
Democrats, Republicans Agree To Short-Term Increase Of Nation's Debt Limit - News On 6

Late Wednesday night, there was finally the first snippet of good news this year in the never-ending abortion wars.U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman temporarily blocked Texas' near-total ban on abortions.The injunction was in response to a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice against Texas.Attorney General Merrick Garland called the ban on all abortions two weeks after a missed period which are 9out of 10 cases "clearly unconstitutional."

Signed into law by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in May, Texas' abortion bansets up a bounty hunter systemthatallowsany random stranger to claim sovereignty over a woman's body and sue anyone who helped her abort a pregnancy. In his 113-page decision a searing and angrybreath of fresh air for those Americans who believe women are people Judge Pitmancalled the law an "unprecedented and aggressive scheme to deprive its citizens of a significant and well-established constitutional right."

Thisdecision wasn't just a rebuke to the misogynist Texas legislators who passed this law, but to the Supreme Court that upheld it.

Without hearing arguments, the highest court in the nation allowed Texas' ban to go into effect through an unsigned "shadow docket"decision short enough to be written on a postcard. So Pitman put in the work that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court wouldn't do. He listened to arguments, he examined the evidence, and he wrote a decision painstakingly explaining his reasoning. It turns out that banning abortion through the back door is not as easy as Republicans and the partisan hacks they installed on the Supreme Court thought it would be.

And yes, conservatives clearly thought they could quietly overturn Roe v. Wade without the public noticing.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

The entire Texas abortion ban was built on a cloak-and-daggers strategy. The law itself was an effort to get around the problem of the news coverage that flows from clinics and reproductive rights suing the state for passing abortion bans. The "shadow docket" move was more of the same, allowing the Supreme Court to overturn Roe without coming right out and saying that's what they did. As soon as the non-decision decision came down, the conservative propagandists fanned out, insisting that the Supreme Court ruling wasn't really a Roe overturnbut merely a "procedural ruling" that causes "no harm."

But as Pitman's decision demonstrates, that's a flat-out lie.

His ruling cites numerous examples of harm that the Supreme Court ignored in issuing its paragraph-length decision, including to "a Texas minor who had been raped by a family member" and had to drive eight hours for care, and "another woman from Texas who had been raped" and struggled "to take extra time off from work to make the trip to Oklahoma, as well as find childcare for her children."

In one sense, this nonsense about how this is merely a "procedural" decision as if people weren't going to noticethat 90% of abortions were banned in Texas worked. Every time I tune into a cable news show discussion about abortion and the courts, the discussion is over "if" the Supreme Court will overturn Roe in the "future," with little acknowledgment that they already did it through the back door. While the Supreme Court is hearing a more formal case in December Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health that will allow them to legalize abortion bans nationwide,the damage has already been done. And let's face it, even when they do issue a more extensive ruling, they're going to be deceptive about itand try to find some legal reasoning that allows abortion to be banned without coming right out and saying they're overturning Roe.

The reason conservatives want so much camouflage for their Roe overturn is not mysterious.Abortion rights are very popular, and there's a real chance thiscould hurt Republicans electorally. Sexism and still-lingering American puritanism may cause all sorts of chaos in polling people's moral judgments on abortion, but when people are asked point-blank about the right to get one, around three-quarterswant it to stay put. Even 40% of people who call themselves "pro-life" want the right to abortion, because even they know, on some level, that being against abortion is easy until you need one.

So really, it should be no surprise that approvalof the Supreme Court has plummeted to a new low of 40%, down from 58% a mere year ago. Even more detailed polling shows that skepticism of the court has dramatically increased, with more Americans agreeing that Congress should do something to reinthe court in or abolish it altogether.Somehow, however, conservatives seem to be shocked that their efforts to ban abortion under the cover of darkness have not gone unnoticed.

The conservative justices behind the shadow docket abortion ban, for instance, have becomeincredibly whiny in the face of all the completely earned accusations that they are sleazy fundamentalists who are too cowardly to own their rejection of law and custom in their frenzied efforts to turn the U.S. into Gilead. In the past month alone, Amy Coney Barrett gave a protest-too-much speech denying she and other conservative justices are "partisan hacks," Samuel Alito blamed the media and not his own actions for people disliking him, and Clarence Thomas accused peopleof wanting to destroy "our institutions because they don't give us what we want, when we want it," seemingly talking to a bunch of toddlers wanting candy, rather than citizens demanding basic human rights.

Even the Texas anti-choice activists behind this ban seem to be caught flat-footed. As Jill Filipovic writes in the Atlantic, "abortion opponents are claiming to be surprised that the law is being used as writtenand are perhaps realizing, belatedly, that their vigilante strategy comes with more than a few perils."

It appears that the people behind this law thought the mere threat of a lawsuit would cause abortion providers to shut down and that actual enforcement which would end up pitting the kind of repugnant people who would be abortion bounty hunters against sympathetic figures like doctors wouldn't be necessary. At first, that seemed likely, as clinics across the state shut down services and sent patients out of state for help. But then a San Antonio-based physician, Dr. Alan Braid, performed an abortion and wrote a Washington Post op-ed about it, daring anti-choicers to sue him. And sure enough, the situation turned into a circus, with two disbarred attorneys from out of state neither of whom actually oppose abortion rights suing Dr. Braid.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

John Seago, an anti-choice activist who helped pass this law, clearly recognizes the optics are bad here, whining to the New York Timesthat the lawsuits aren't "valid attempts to save innocent human lives" and instead are "self-serving legal stunts."

But here's the thing: There is no other way this law could be enforced but through repulsivepeoplefiling lawsuits. Despite all the self-flatteryabout being "pro-life," anti-choice activists are clearly motivated by misogyny, and don't care about "life."That's been demonstrated in a million ways, most recently in the embrace of anti-vaccine/pro-COVID-19 policies by Republicans. So anyone who would sue, declaring sovereignty over a woman's body and announcing his right to force childbirth on her, is going to be an unpleasant character. Seago knows this, I'm sure. He certainly sees the people who protest abortion clinics and how they don't generally do the best job of concealing how much hate and sexual resentment fuels their politics.

In a certain light, it makes a rough sense that conservatives thought they could get away with banning abortion through subterfuge. Americans have a long history of discomfort with the topic, and with talking about sex generally. Pro-choice activists are mostly women, making it easy for the right, in the past, to convincemost Americans that threats to abortion rights are being overblown by hysterical feminists. And while abortion is common in one sense 18% of pregnancies end in abortion, about 1 in 4 women will have one at some point it'snot something most people deal with on a daily basis. It's why the anti-choice movement has been so successful at gradually making abortion much harder to get without most people noticing. It's just not something most people think about until they or a loved one needs access.

But what conservatives are swiftly learning is Americans aren't the prudes and sexist they thought we were. Attitudes about sex are rapidly liberalizing. For instance, 73% of Americans are fine with sex outside of marriage now, up from 53% twenty years ago. (And those who disapprove are hypocrites, as 95% of Americans reported having had premarital sex in 2006, a number that's surely gone up since then.) And a majority of Americans agree that women have a long way to go to achieve equality, which is a good stand-in measure for whether or not people think sexism is wrong.

In light of these changes, it's not a surprise that people are both outraged about the Texas abortion ban and unafraid to say so publicly. The fight to end abortion rights is, politically at least, going to be much harder than Republicans were clearly betting it would be.

Read more here:
Republicans thought the Supreme Court could stealthily ban abortion. They were wrong - Salon