#Rural Caucus of the Michigan Democratic Party

[upnorthprogressive]

Up North Progressive at the Michigan Rural Democratic Summit

  The first Michigan Rural Democratic Summit is taking place April 13 through 15, 2023, at the Kewadin Hotel in Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, and Up North Progressive will be there!The Summit is the first of its kind. The Purpose of the Summit is to bring together all stakeholders working to turn rural Michigan blue/bluer to coordinate and collaborate on their work for the 2023-2024 cycle and…

[robertreich]

THE STATE OF THE DIS-UNION

An impeached president who was on trial and is up for re-election will be delivering a state of the union address to the most divided union in living memory. He will be giving his address to both his jurors and prosecutors, and most importantly, to the voters that will decide his fate in November.

It’s not unprecedented for an impeached president to give a state of the union address. Bill Clinton delivered his State of the Union in 1999 while in the middle of his Senate trial. But that’s where the similarities end. Clinton was not up for re-election when he gave his speech, so he didn’t need to employ any campaign-style rhetoric. Trump is a polarizing, divisive president who is addressing an America that has never been so divided. But this begs the question: why are we so divided? We’re not fighting a hugely unpopular war on the scale of Vietnam. We’re not in a deep economic crisis like the Great Depression. Yes, we disagree about guns, abortion, and immigration, but we’ve disagreed about them for decades. So why are we so divided now? Ferocious partisanship is not new. Newt Gingrich, the Republican Speaker of the House who led the House’s impeachment investigation into Clinton, pioneered the combative partisanship we’re used to today. But today’s divisions are far deeper than they were then. Part of the answer is Trump himself. The Great Divider knows how to pit native-born Americans against immigrants, the working class against the poor, whites against blacks and Latinos, evangelicals against secularists — keeping everyone stirred up by vilifying, disparaging, denouncing, defaming, and accusing others of the worst. Trump thrives off disruption and division. But that begs another question: Why have we been so ready to be divided by Trump? One theory is the underlying tension that an older, whiter, and less educated America, concentrated in rural areas, is losing out to a “new” America that’s younger, more diverse, more educated, and concentrated in urban areas. These trends, while much more prominent these days, have been going on since the start of the 20th century. Why are they causing so much anger now? Another hypothesis is that we are geographically sorting ourselves into Republican and Democratic regions of the country, surrounding ourselves with like-minded neighbors and friends so we no longer talk to people with opposing views. But why are we doing this? The rise of social media sensationalizing our differences in order to attract eyeballs and advertisers, plays a crucial role in exacerbating the demographic and geographic trends I just mentioned. But it alone isn’t responsible for our polarized nation. Together, all of these factors contribute to the political schism we’re experiencing today. But none of them alone point to any large, significant change in the structure of our society that can account for what’s happened. Let me have a go. In the fall of 2015, I visited Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Missouri, and North Carolina for a research project I was doing on the changing nature of work. I spoke with many of the same people I had met twenty years before when I was secretary of labor, as well as with some of their grown children. What I heard surprised me. Twenty years ago, many said they’d been working hard and were frustrated they weren’t doing better. Now, that frustration had been replaced by full-blown anger — anger towards their employers, the government, Wall Street. Many had lost jobs, savings, or homes in the Great Recession following the financial crisis of 2008, or knew others who had. By the time I spoke with them, most were back in jobs but the jobs paid no more than they had two decades before in terms of purchasing power. I heard the term “rigged system” so often I began asking people what they meant by it. They spoke about flat wages, shrinking benefits, and growing job insecurity. They talked about the bailout of Wall Street, political payoffs, insider deals, soaring CEO pay, and “crony capitalism.” These complaints came from people who identified as Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. A few had joined the Tea Party, while a few others had been involved in the Occupy movement. With the 2016 political primaries looming, I asked them which candidates they found most attractive. At the time, Democratic Party insiders favored Hillary Clinton and Republican insiders favored Jeb Bush. Yet no one I spoke with mentioned Clinton or Bush. They talked instead about Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. When I asked why, they said Sanders or Trump would “shake things up” or “make the system work again” or “stop the corruption” or “end the rigging.” In the following year, Sanders – a seventy-four-year old Jew from Vermont who described himself as a democratic socialist and wasn’t a registered Democrat until the 2016 presidential primaries – came within a whisker of beating Clinton in the Iowa caucus, routed her in the New Hampshire primary, and ended up with 46 percent of the pledged delegates from Democratic primaries and caucuses. Trump – a sixty-nine-year-old ego-maniacal billionaire reality-TV star who had never held elective office or had anything to do with the Republican Party and who lied compulsively about everything – won the Republican primaries and then went on to beat Clinton, one of the most experienced and well-connected politicians in modern America (although he didn’t win the popular vote, and had some help from the Kremlin). Something very big had happened, and it wasn’t due to Sanders’s magnetism or Trump’s likeability. It was a rebellion against the establishment. That rebellion is still going on, although much of the establishment still denies it. They have come up with myriad explanations for Trump’s ascendance, some with validity; some without: It was hatred of Obama, it was hatred of Hillary, it was people voting third party, it was racism and xenophobia. It’s important to note that although racism and xenophobia in America date to before the founding of the Republic, they have never before been so central to a candidate’s appeal and message as they’ve been with Trump. Aided by Fox News and an army of right-wing outlets, Trump used the underlying frustrations of the working class and channeled them into bigotry, but this was hardly the first time in history a demagogue has used this cynical ploy. Trump convinced many blue-collar workers feeling ignored by the powers that be that he was their champion. Hillary Clinton did not convince them that she was. Her decades of public service ended up being a negative, not a positive: She was indubitably part of the establishment, the epitome of decades of policies that had left these blue-collar workers in the dust. (It’s notable that during the primaries, Bernie Sanders did far better than Clinton with blue-collar voters.) A direct line connects the four-decade stagnation of wages with the bailout of Wall Street, the rise of the Tea Party (and, briefly, Occupy), and the successes of Sanders and Trump in 2016. By 2016, Americans understood that wealth and power had moved to the top. Big money had rigged our politics. This was the premise of Sanders’s 2016 campaign. It was also central to Trump’s appeal (“I’m so rich I can’t be bought off”), which he quickly reneged on once elected, delivering everything big money could have imagined. The most powerful force in American politics today continues to be anti-establishment fury at a rigged system. Vicious partisanship, record-breaking economic inequality, and the resurgence of white supremacy are all byproducts of this rigged system. The biggest political battle today isn’t between left, right, or center: it’s between Trump’s authoritarian populism  and democratic (small “d”) populism. Democrats cannot defeat authoritarian populism without an agenda of radical democratic reform, an anti-establishment movement that tackles runaway inequality and heals the racial wounds Trump has inflicted. Even though he’s a Trojan Horse for big corporations and the rich – giving them all the  tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks they’ve ever wanted – he still has large swaths of the working class convinced  he’s on their side. Democrats must stand squarely on the side of democracy against oligarchy. We must form a unified coalition of people of all races, genders, sexualities, and classes, and band together to unrig the system. Trump is not the cause of our divided nation; he is the symptom of a rigged system that was already dividing us. It’s not enough to defeat him. We must reform the system that got us here in the first place to ensure that no future politician will ever again imitate Trump’s authoritarian demagoguery. For now, let’s boycott the State of the Union and show the ratings-obsessed demagogue that the American people refuse to watch an impeached president continue to divide us.

[go-redgirl]

Ron Johnson, Mitt Romney, Donald Trump and Joe Biden Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images

People tend to think of "activists" as left-wingers who march in the streets against wars or organize rallies for civil rights and social justice. And there is a great tradition in America and around the world for such liberal activism. But it's not just the left that has an activist tradition. The right has one too — and it's often extremely effective.

In the post-WWII years, the right in the U.S. was focused on anti-communism and far-right groups like the John Birch Society attracted middle-class men and women to join clubs and meet to discuss how to fight the onslaught from inside their suburban cul de sacs. In the New Republic some years back, historian Rick Perlstein recounted a hilarious quote from a Dallas housewife in Time Magazine in 1961 saying, "I just don't have time for anything. I'm fighting Communism three nights a week." From the Goldwater campaign in 1964 on, right-wing activists focused much of their energy on getting Republicans elected to office, from school boards to the presidency, and were quite successful at it.

The right-wing grassroots has always organized itself around the idea that they are under siege and unless they pull together to defend themselves, everything they value will be destroyed. Whether it was fighting communism, secularism, terrorism, civil rights or whatever social justice movement that was supposedly threatening their way of life, the right has always been convinced that they are in imminent danger. And when they find themselves at odds with their own fellow Americans, as they so often do, this sense of victimization and martyrdom is what fuels the culture war at the heart of their complaints. As Perlstein wrote in that 2006 piece:

Conservative culture itself is radically diverse, infinitely resourceful in uniting opposites: highbrow and lowbrow; sacred and profane; sublime and, of course, ridiculous. It is the core cultural dynamic--the constant staging and re-staging of acts of "courage" in the face of liberal "marginalization"--that manages to unite all the opposites. It keeps conservatives from one another's throats--and keeps them more or less always pulling in the same political direction.

Donald Trump, however, has upended that longstanding dynamic — and the party establishment has no idea what to do about it.

Igor Bobick of the Huffington Post recently reported that Republican officials are anxiously awaiting a resurgence of the Tea Party, which they have been expecting to reconstitute in the face of Joe Biden's ambitious agenda. It was, after all, a smashing success back in 2009 and 2010 in opposing President Barack Obama's health care plan. You'd certainly assume that they'd be getting the band back together. But so far, it isn't happening. And there's a reason for it: people like what they are seeing.

Bobic quotes deficit hawk Republican Sen. Mike Braun saying, "even my counties back in Indiana are happy, which is a very conservative area. They're asking, 'How can I spend $15 million in a rural county?'" Braun ruefully admits that Biden's agenda is a smart political move and he's right. Biden and the Democrats are betting that people are hungry for some positive government action and they are determined to deliver it.

But there's more to it than that.

The Tea Party was a grassroots movement but it was also heavily subsidized by some of the wealthiest activists in the country. The Koch brothers' operation and other wealthy interests spent quite a bit of money to make the Tea Party a reality because their libertarian ideology really was on the line. But when you think about it, it was a bizarre set of issues for grassroots activists who usually organize themselves around a sense of victimization. And it didn't really fit their usual modus operandi. The "threat" was a total abstraction. How were they "victims" of other people getting health care?

Sure, the right has always opposed government programs if it would benefit those they believe don't deserve them (and I think you know who those people might be). But the outrage against Obamacare was really all about Obama. They had to sublimate their racist backlash into something and that was on the menu but the war the Tea Party was really fighting was against the election of America's first Black president.

Yet some Republicans in Congress are still operating under the illusion that their voters really did care about deficits and will be moved to protest despite the fact that they still adore Donald Trump, a man who didn't care about any of that. In fact, right-wing grassroots activists are already engaged in a battle that is far more energizing and interesting to them than any of that egghead economic stuff ever was: Donald Trump's Big Lie.

According to a new CNN poll, 70% of Republicans believe the election was stolen. And they are taking action. We all know about the flurry of restrictive voting laws that are quickly being enacted all over the country and the preposterous "audit" taking place down in Arizona by a bunch of Trump fanatics and conspiracy theorists is probably just the beginning. The explosion of GOP grassroots activity in the states isn't just about Joe Biden or the events happening in Washington. They are also working night and day to punish Republicans who dared to disagree with Trump's version of events and ensure that Trump will be able to win the next election.

The Washington Post took a look at some of the grassroots action taking place around the country. They interviewed one Michigan organizer who is trying to censure and remove a Republican Party executive who accepted the results of the election. She said, "I think I speak for many people in that Trump has never actually been wrong, and so we've learned to trust when he says something, that he's not just going to spew something out there that's wrong and not verified." That sort of cultish delusion is forcing official rebukes and purges of Trump apostates all across the country.

The motion to censure the former GOP presidential nominee failed 711-798, which I'm sure softened the humiliating blow. But it's bubbling up to Washington as well. The House GOP caucus thought they had successfully managed the "Liz Cheney problem" but it's coming back. Axios reported that there may be another vote to remove her and from the behavior of the leadership, it seems as though the worm has turned, no doubt because these Representatives are getting an earful from their activist base. The party is now eating its own.

Republicans counting on the Tea Party zombie to rise again had better come up with a Plan B. The activists the GOP in Washington wants to organize against Joe Biden's program are already booked. They're busy fighting other Republicans three nights a week.  

[newstfionline]

Thursday, November 19, 2020

Most expensive cities (CNBC) Zurich and Paris have displaced Singapore and Osaka in a recent report on the world’s most expensive cities. The two Asian cities previously joined Hong Kong at the top of the rankings. That’s based on The Economist Intelligence Unit’s latest Worldwide Cost of Living index which shows how the coronavirus pandemic has affected the prices of goods and services in more than 130 cities as of September 2020. According to the report, Zurich and Paris’ jump to first place was due to the strengthening of the Swiss franc and the euro. “The Covid-19 pandemic has caused the weakening of the U.S. dollar while western European and north Asian currencies have strengthened against it, which in turn has shifted prices for goods and services,” said Upasana Dutt, head of Worldwide Cost of Living at The EIU. New York City is used as the base city in the index. The top ten: Zurich, Paris, Hong Kong, Singapore, Tel Aviv, Osaka, Geneva, New York, Copenhagen, Los Angeles.

U.S., Canada, Mexico to extend border restrictions until late December (AP) U.S. land borders with Canada and Mexico are expected to remain closed to non-essential travel until Dec. 21 at the earliest amid a rising number of U.S. coronavirus cases, officials in Washington and Ottawa told Reuters on Wednesday. Mexico’s Foreign Ministry confirmed the decision later on Wednesday in a post on Twitter. The restrictions were first put in place in March to control the spread of the virus and have been extended on a monthly basis ever since. In Ottawa, a Canadian government source said the travel restrictions in place at the Canada-U.S. land border would remain in effect for at least another month.

Recession With a Difference: Women Face Special Burden (NYT) For millions of working women, the coronavirus pandemic has delivered a rare and ruinous one-two-three punch. First, the parts of the economy that were smacked hardest and earliest by job losses were ones where women dominate—restaurants, retail businesses and health care. Then a second wave began taking out local and state government jobs, another area where women outnumber men. The third blow has, for many, been the knockout: the closing of child care centers and the shift to remote schooling. That has saddled working mothers, much more than fathers, with overwhelming household responsibilities. “We’ve never seen this before,” said Betsey Stevenson, a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan and the mother of a second grader and a sixth grader. Recessions usually start by gutting the manufacturing and construction industries, where men hold most of the jobs, she said. The triple punch is not just pushing women out of jobs they held, but also preventing many from seeking new ones.

U.S. to Drop Case Against Mexican Ex-Official to Allow Inquiry in Mexico (NYT) The Justice Department has asked a federal judge to drop drug trafficking and corruption charges against a former Mexican defense minister to allow Mexican officials to investigate him, Attorney General William P. Barr announced Tuesday in an abrupt reversal a month after the official was arrested in Los Angeles. The official, Gen. Salvador Cienfuegos Zepeda, had been Mexico’s defense minister from 2012 to 2018 and was accused of taking bribes in exchange for protecting cartel leaders. But Mr. Barr and Mexico’s attorney general, Alejandro Gertz Manero, stopped short in a statement of promising any charges in Mexico. In a court filing, prosecutors acknowledged that the Trump administration had determined that preserving its relationship with Mexico prevailed over pursuing the case. “The United States has determined that sensitive and important foreign policy considerations outweigh the government’s interest in pursuing the prosecution of the defendant, under the totality of the circumstances, and therefore require dismissal of the case,” they wrote in asking a judge to dismiss the charges.

Biden’s DIY transition proceeds without Trump assistance (AP) President Donald Trump’s refusal to cooperate with his successor is forcing President-elect Joe Biden to seek unusual workarounds to prepare for the exploding public health threat and evolving national security challenges he will inherit in just nine weeks. Blocked from the official intelligence briefing traditionally afforded to incoming presidents, Biden gathered virtually on Tuesday with a collection of intelligence, defense and diplomatic experts. And as the worst pandemic in a century bears down on the U.S. with renewed ferocity, the current administration is blocking Biden from collaborating with its response team. Biden’s representatives instead plan to meet directly with pharmaceutical companies this week to determine how best to distribute at least two promising vaccines to hundreds of millions of Americans, the biggest logistical challenge to face a new president in generations. The moves reflect how Biden is adjusting to a historically tense transition. With no sign that Trump is prepared to facilitate soon a peaceful transfer of power, Biden and his team are instead working through a series of backup options to do the best they can to prepare for the challenges he will face as soon as he takes office in January.

When Trump Goes, Can the Democrats Hold It Together? (NYT) The Democratic Party is struggling with internal contradictions, as its mixed performance on Election Day makes clear. Analysts and insiders are already talking—sometimes in apocalyptic terms—about how hard it will be for Joe Biden to hold together the coalition that elected him as the 46th president. The intraparty dispute burst out full force on Nov. 5 during a three-hour House Democratic Caucus telephone meeting. Moderates angrily lashed out at liberals, accusing them of allowing divisive rhetoric such as “defund the police” and calls for socialism to go largely unchallenged. Those on the left pushed right back, accusing centrists of seeking to downgrade the demands of minorities, including those voiced at Black Lives Matter protests. Abigail Spanberger, who represents the 7th Congressional District in Virginia—which runs from the suburbs of Richmond through the exurban and rural counties in the center of the state—voiced her instantly famous critique of the liberal wing of her party during the phone call: “We have to be pretty clear about the fact that Tuesday—Nov. 3—from a congressional standpoint, was a failure,” she told her Democratic colleagues. “The number one concern that people brought to me” during the campaign “was defunding the police.” And “We need to not ever use the words ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ ever again because while people think it doesn’t matter, it does matter. And we lost good members because of that.” Representative Rashida Tlaib, whose Michigan district is among the poorest in the country, and who is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America—directly countered Spanberger and other moderates: “To be real, it sounds like you are saying stop pushing for what Black folks want.” Other Democrats who describe themselves as democratic socialists, including the former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, have become a substantial Democratic constituency.

Pandemic media syndrome? (Scientific American) According to Claudia Wallis, of Scientific American, recent studies have shown that the pandemic’s toll on mental health has been even worse than experts expected, especially among young adults. Roxane Cohen Silver, a psychologist at the University of California, Irvine, found that “increased engagement with media coverage of the outbreak” is a major driver of anxiety among people of all ages. “If people are engaged with a great deal of media, they are more likely to exhibit and report distress, but that distress seems to draw them further into the media,” Silver says. “It’s a cyclical pattern from which it is difficult to extricate oneself.”

Sweden’s coronavirus strategy (Washington Post) Even Sweden appears to be abandoning the Swedish model. On Monday, the country’s authorities banned gatherings of more than eight people as they grappled with the second coronavirus wave surging through much of Europe. The new restrictions followed other protocols coming into effect this week, including protective measures around nursing homes and bans on alcohol sales at restaurants and bars after 10 p.m. The shift in tone is noteworthy given Sweden’s notorious light-touch approach to the pandemic. “It is a clear and sharp signal to every person in our country as to what applies in the future,” Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said during a news conference Monday. “Don’t go to the gym, don’t go the library, don’t have dinner out, don’t have parties—cancel!” Hospitalizations are rising faster in Sweden than any other European country, and Sweden’s per capita death rate is several times higher than those of its Nordic neighbors Finland, Denmark and Norway.

Amid pandemic, Belgrade street kids find comfort at refuge (AP) In a small, brightly-colored backstreet house in Belgrade a teenage girl is drying her hair, while two others eat lunch in the kitchen. A group of boys are having their temperatures checked at the entrance as a precaution against coronavirus. It’s another busy day for Svratiste, or Roadhouse, Belgrade’s first daily drop-in center for street kids that for years has been a rare oasis of warmth and comfort for the Serbian capital’s most vulnerable inhabitants. Since opening in 2007, Svratiste has welcomed hundreds of children—some as young as five—who have come here to warm up, wash or eat. With social isolation growing and the economic situation worsening in the pandemic, the center’s role has become even more significant. Apart from providing food and clothes, the Svratiste team has also sought to help the children socialize and get to know their town by visiting playgrounds, cinemas and theaters. A key effort has been to include them in the education system and make sure they stay. During the pandemic, the center helped with online classes that most children have no means of following. One of their success stories has been Bosko Markovic, now 18, who first came to Svratiste five years ago. With the center’s help, Markovic has finished high school and now has his eyes set on becoming a policeman, he told the Associated Press. “They (Svratiste) have made me a better person,” he said proudly.

Pompeo To Visit Israeli West Bank Settlements During Farewell Tour (Foreign Policy) U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is in Israel today as he continues his whistle-stop tour of U.S. allies. Before he heads to the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, he is planning on making history. Pompeo will visit two Israeli settlements both considered in violation of international law, one in the Golan Heights and one in the West Bank. By doing so, he becomes the first U.S. Secretary of State to visit either site. His de facto endorsement of the Israeli occupation stands in contrast to the outgoing Obama administration’s moves in 2016, allowing passage of a United Nations Security Council resolution declaring Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory illegal by abstaining from (rather than vetoing) the vote. His visit also comes as Israel plans to expand a settlement in East Jerusalem, despite outcry from the United Nations and European Union.

Reassured by Biden Win, Palestinians Will Resume Cooperation With Israel (NYT) The Palestinian Authority said Tuesday that it was resuming its cooperation with Israel, ending six months of financial hardship for tens of thousands of West Bank residents and signaling relief over the election of Joseph R. Biden Jr. It was one of the first clear signs that anticipation of a new administration in Washington is having an effect on international relations. The Palestinian announcement undid a set of stringent measures imposed by Mahmoud Abbas, the authority’s president, in May in a desperate protest against plans by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to unilaterally annex large portions of the occupied West Bank. The Trump administration had indicated it would support some form of annexation, which would have imposed Israeli sovereignty over land that the Palestinians have counted on for a future state. Mr. Abbas cut off security coordination with Israel, raising fears that attacks might go unprevented. He also severed civilian ties, including those that help Palestinians travel into Israel for work or medical treatment. Most painful of all to his own people, Mr. Abbas stopped accepting routine transfers of more than $100 million a month in taxes that Israel collects on the Palestinians’ behalf, funds that account for more than 60 percent of the authority’s budget. The lack of funds forced salary cuts for tens of thousands of public-sector employees, compounding what was already a devastating economic crisis because of the pandemic. “Praise God, I feel so relieved,” Rami Kitaneh, 35, a nurse at the Hugo Chavez Ophthalmic Hospital in the central West Bank, said Tuesday night. “I gave up so much since the start of the crisis, but now I can breathe.”

Security officials worry Israel and Saudi Arabia may see the end of Trump as their last chance to go to war with Iran (Business Insider) European intelligence officials are alarmed about the possibility of military action towards Iran in the waning days of the Trump administration. Concern that Trump—who has pushed for maximum pressure on Iran—or a combination of Israel or Saudi Arabia creating a military confrontation in the waning days of the administration has been a concern for over a week, according to three European intelligence officials who spoke with Insider. The news that last week the president requested a list of military options from his military and diplomatic advisors has sent these concerns into overdrive. One fear is of unilateral action by the US to force a military clash that might make it impossible for the incoming Biden administration to return to the 2015 joint nuclear agreement that traded sanctions relief on Iran for an end to its nuclear weapon programs, all three officials said. They declined to speak on the record in exchange for their candid views on the situation.

People go hungry in Ethiopia’s Tigray as conflict marches on (AP) People are going hungry in Ethiopia’s rebellious northern Tigray region as roads are blocked, airports are closed and the federal government marches on its capital in a final push to win a two-week war. “At this stage there is simply very little left, even if you have money,” according to an internal assessment by one humanitarian group, seen by The Associated Press. The assessment, based on a colleague who managed to get out, said people “will stay where they are, there is no place in Tigray where the situation is any different and they cannot cross over into the other regions of Ethiopia because of fear of what would be done to them.” For more than a week, the United Nations and other aid organizations have been warning of disaster. Long lines formed outside shops within days of the Nov. 4 announcement by Ethiopia’s Nobel Peace Prize-winning Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed that a military offensive had begun in response to an attack by Tigray regional forces on a military base. Trucks laden with food, fuel and medical supplies have been stuck outside the region’s borders. Banks in Tigray were closed for days, cutting off humanitarian cash transfers to some 1 million people. And even before the fighting, a locust outbreak had been destroying crops. Over 27,000 Ethiopians have fled into neighboring Sudan, burdening villages that have been praised for their generosity, though they have little to give.

[schraubd]

Election 2018: Post-Mortem

We're not 100% "post-" yet, as there are still a decent number of races outstanding. Here in California, the mail vote could yet push around some House race numbers (though Montana just was called for Jon Tester!). Nonetheless, we've got enough of a picture to give a pretty solid account of yesterday's events. Here are my takeaways: * * * Dems winning the House is huge: This was not something to take for granted. Let's not forget, there was a good chunk of time where people thought GOP gerrymandering had placed the House out of Democratic reach. And control of the House doesn't just prevent Congress from ramming through far-right pieces of the Trump agenda. It also gives Democrats a key fulcrum from which to launch investigations into the deep cesspool of corruption that characterizes the Trump administration. On that score, I actually don't recommend starting with Trump necessarily. There are so many targets to choose from, and if there's one thing I think we learned from how the GOP handled the Benghazi (non-)story, it's that a steady and constant drip-drip-drip of scandal is far more powerful than blowing everything in one shot. Start with easy marks like Zinke, and the noose will slowly begin to tighten around the inner circle. This was a continuation, not a reversal, of 2016's trend: One theory about 2016 was that it was a fit of temporary insanity, whereby good-hearted Americans had a bout of temporary insanity or rage or anti-Clinton derangement and chose a President whom they didn't really endorse or even like. Under this view, 2018 would be a "snapback" election, where these voters would revert to form and go back to supporting sensible candidates while repudiating Trump's extremism. Another theory about 2016 takes Trump voters more seriously. It posits that in certain very conservative parts of the country -- generally more rural, generally less-educated, concentrated in Appalachia and the American southeast -- they liked Trump, and they continue to like Trump. All the lying and racism and extremism and utter off-the-wall demagoguery -- the love it. Meanwhile, other parts of the country -- more suburban, more diverse, and especially in the southwest -- were moving away from Trump and Trumpism. Last night, I think, decisively ratifies the second theory. By and large, the people who like Trump still like Trump. Rick Scott's numbers in Florida were almost perfectly correlated with the 2016 presidential race. And at the same time, we saw a more decisive shift away from the GOP in the sort of districts where people already didn't like Trump. From what I saw, Democrats did better in Romney-Clinton districts than Obama-Trump ones, which verifies this instinct. And Democrats are continuing to make big strides in Nevada and (yes, even in defeat) Arizona and Texas. The partial exception to this view is the midwest (where Democrats won governorships in Wisconsin and Michigan, and a decent clutch of House seats as well). But even here, the news was mixed: Democrats lost the Senate races in Indiana and Missouri, the governorship in Iowa (albeit while winning 3 of 4 House seats) and Ohio, and their two pickups in Minnesota House races were offset by at least one and probably two GOP flips (which were some of the only such GOP wins nationwide). There is a truth that is important for pundits to get through their head: conservative Americans like Trump. He's not an aberration. He's not deus ex machina. He's not someone they begrudgingly tolerate. American conservativism, right now, is Donald Trump. If that's a scary thought -- and it is -- start reporting it like something scary rather than pretending that most Republicans basically pine for Gerald Ford but somehow got sucked into an authoritarian nightmare they wish they could escape from. State Races Matter The national focus also has somewhat obscured how Democrats did on the state level. A bucket of governor's mansions have just turned blue -- Maine, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, and Kansas -- and there were no blue-to-red flips (solid holds in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Oregon, and Colorado). And it looks like they've turned over at least six state legislative chambers too -- not bad! Priority #1 in any state with Democratic majority: lock in voting rights. It's embarrassing that a state like New York has a train wreck of a voting system, and it needs to end immediately. Republicans really did overperform Senate side Yes, it was a brutally tough map for the Democrats. But Republicans nonetheless exceeded at least gameday expectations. Democrats taking back the Senate was always a longshot, but if the GOP holds onto their leads in Arizona and Florida (likely), then they'll have come close to running the table on their best realistic Senate scenario (with only Montana and Nevada as the blemishes). That's legitimate GOP ammo for the spin cycle. And, of course, it does give Trump the ability to continue to pack the courts with right-wing ideologues, which is substantively terrifying. The Democratic Party Neither Needs To Pivot Left Nor Pivot Center The favored post-election parlor of any pundit after an election is to explain why the results decisively demonstrate why a given party needs to adopt the political positions they already supported. Among Democrats, this has typically shaken out along the Bernie/Establishment divide that we're apparently doomed to relive forever because this is The Bad Place. But the fact is, there was no clear trend in which sort of Democrats were winning and losing last night. A bunch of more conservative voices went down in the Senate, but in states which were already punishing turf. And some progressive darlings -- like Ben Jealous in Maryland and Andrew Gillum in Florida -- lost too. On the other side, some establishment picks did their job and won their race (think Jacky Rosen in Nevada, or Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan). But progressives had their stars too -- Beto O'Rourke's campaign in Texas certainly performed better than Texas's red tint should've allowed, and there were a bunch of more progressive challengers who are among the entering House class. Which is to say: different races are different, and different candidates are good fits for different districts. The Party isn't the enemy here. What I think has been shown is that the more extreme "Bernie" accusation -- that there were a bunch of winnable races that Democrats were quasi-deliberately letting go Republican because something-something-corporate-money, and if we only ran Real Democrats they'd be ours -- has been decisively refuted (I don't think Ben Jealous necessarily did worse than Rushern Baker would have done in Maryland, but he certainly didn't do better). But that was a colossally stupid take anyway. Which probably means it still won't die the death it deserves. Briefly on Beto -- Yes, He Deserves Praise This isn't even a hot take anymore but obviously O'Rourke deserves a ton of credit for how he performed in his race against Ted Cruz. I'm seeing some mockery from the usual conservative suspects on this, since he lost, but that's a dumb take. Yes a loss is a loss, and yes everyone hates Ted Cruz, and yes Texas has been slowly purpling. But a sub-three point victory in a statewide race in Texas (by contrast, Governor Greg Abbott -- no political superstar -- won reelection by 13 points) is a monster performance. And his tailwind likely carried a few House races over the finish line as well. The New Redemption is (Sort of) Upon Us I'm by no means the first to come up with the idea that we're going through a "second redemption" to undo the "second reconstruction" that was the civil rights era. But I think there is something to be said about the re-energizing of White racist attitudes that's occurred in America over the last few years. People have talked a lot about Trump and, before him, the Tea Party, not so much creating prejudice as "activating" it. I think that in places like Georgia or Florida, there was some demoralization among the White racist crowd where they had basically given up on the possibility that open racism was something they could "do" anymore. Now, they're downright jazzed -- and from that we get both Kemp and DeSantis likely entering a governor's mansion. That said, the story does seem too pat in some ways -- especially with the passage of Amendment 4 (felon re-enfranchisement) in Florida. It's no exaggeration to say this might put Democrats firmly in the driver's seat in a state as evenly divided as Florida (a full 40% of Black male adults in the state regained their right to vote through this measure), which makes it all the more surprising that it managed to clear the 60% threshold. And to be fair, some amount of credit thus has to be given to those voters who punched a ballot for both Amendment 4 and DeSantis/Scott (there must be a lot of them). One-State Wave! With Rashida Tlaib's victory in Michigan, we not only have our first Palestinian-American Congresswomen, we also will have the first Democratic Representative to openly support a one-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. She will join approximately 2/3 of the House Republican Caucus in taking this view (and if you're a pro-Israel type who's about to respond "that's not fair -- Republicans only support a one-state solution where Palestinians aren't allowed to vote!" stop and listen to yourself). Mixed Results for Anti-Semites Tablet did a whole bit on "antisemites running for Congress", but I found their list far too restrictive (or in a few cases -- most notably Rep. Andrew Carson and GOP challenger Lena Epstein -- too expansive). Overall, it seems like the worst-of-the-worst antisemites -- the open Holocaust denier sorts -- lost, but some more "moderate" cases did fine. I may do a more in-depth exploration of this later. Early Frustration is Misleading There did seem to be an extent which last night felt like a letdown for Democrats. Obviously, the Senate is a clear case where that sentiment is justified. At the same time, it seemed like the night got better for Democrats as it went on -- a couple of races which seemed to be slipping away (Wisconsin, Connecticut) broke blue late, and some of our biggest victories (Nevada) were also well into the evening. On net, there's no question this was a big night for the good guys. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2AQsRAy

[patriotsnet]

What Republicans Voted To Impeach The President

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-republicans-voted-to-impeach-the-president/

What Republicans Voted To Impeach The President

Ohio Rep Anthony Gonzalez

Here are the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach President Donald Trump

The two-term lawmaker said in a statement released as the vote was underway that he had concluded that the President of the United States helped organize and incite a mob that attacked the United States Congress in an attempt to prevent us from completing our solemn duties. 

Gonzalez represents the states 16th District, a mostly rural stretch that also includes the suburbs of Cleveland and Canton and which Trump carried by 14 points in 2020, according to Daily Kos Elections. During his tenure on Capitol Hill, Gonzalez has voted to support Trumps position on legislation nearly 90 percent of the time, but the former professional football player couldnt stick with Trump over the riot. When I consider the full scope of events leading up to January 6th including the Presidents lack of response as the United States Capitol was under attack, I am compelled to support impeachment, he added in his Wednesday statement. 

Process For Impeachment And Conviction

The following two charts show the process for impeachment, which begins in the U.S. House with the introduction of an impeachment resolution and a committee inquiry conducted by the United States House Committee on the Judiciary. If the committee adopts articles of impeachment against the official, the articles will go to a full floor vote in the U.S. House.

When articles of impeachment are adopted by the U.S. House, the process moves to the U.S. Senate where senators will either acquit or convict the official following a trial.

Trump Senate Republicans No Chief Justice: What To Watch For During The Impeachment Trial

WASHINGTON The impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump begins this week, returning the recently departed leader to the limelight.

As in his first impeachment trial a year ago, it will be difficult for Democrats to muster the two-thirds Senate majority required to convict him. But the trial is still expected to absorb the nations attention.

The case rests on a single charge approved by the Democratic-led House, with the support of 10 Republicans: that Trump incited the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Even though Trump was defeated for re-election last year, the stakes of the trial are high for the country and for a Republican Party that is tethered to him as long as he remains popular among its core voters and has the option to run for president again.

As of Sunday evening, the structure of the trial and possible witnesses hadnt yet been announced.

Here are five things to watch for when it begins:

‘a Win Is A Win’: Trump’s Defense Team Makes Remarks After Senate Votes To Acquit

Despite the acquittal, President Joe Biden said in a statement that “substance of the charge” against Trump is “not in dispute.”

“Even those opposed to the conviction, like Senate Minority Leader McConnell, believe Donald Trump was guilty of a ‘disgraceful dereliction of duty’ and ‘practically and morally responsible for provoking’ the violence unleashed on the Capitol,” Biden’s statement read in part.

The president added that “this sad chapter in our history has reminded us that democracy is fragile. That it must always be defended. That we must be ever vigilant. That violence and extremism has no place in America. And that each of us has a duty and responsibility as Americans, and especially as leaders, to defend the truth and to defeat the lies.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called Saturday’s vote the largest and most bipartisan vote in any impeachment trial in history,” but noted it wasn’t enough to secure a conviction.

The trial “was about choosing country over Donald Trump, and 43 Republican members chose Trump. They chose Trump. It should be a weight on their conscience today, and it shall be a weight on their conscience in the future,” he said in a speech on the Senate floor.

With control of the Senate split 50-50, the House managers always had an uphill battle when it came to convincing enough Republicans to cross party lines and convict a former president who is still very popular with a large part of the GOP base.

Republican Senators To Watch

The Times reported that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell believes the president committed impeachable offenses and is “pleased” at the prospect of his impeachment.

“I have not made a final decision on how I will vote and I intend to listen to the legal arguments when they are presented to the Senate,” McConnell said on Wednesday. 

Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey also said publicly that Trump violated his oath of office.

“I do think the president committed impeachable offenses,” Toomey told Fox News. “I’m not sure it’s desirable to attempt to force him out, what, a day or two or three prior to the day on which he’s going to be finished anyway so I’m not clear that’s the best path forward.”

Read more: How the Senate could vote to bar Trump from ever holding federal office again and kill any chances of a 2024 run now that the House has impeached him

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski  and said if the GOP couldn’t separate itself from Trump, she may leave the party. Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse also said he would seriously consider any articles of impeachment against the president in the wake of the violence.

Other GOP Senators including Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah, and John Thune of South Dakota have openly criticized the president’s attempts to overturn the election. 

Insider will continue updating this list.

The Gop Impeachment 10 Try To Navigate Cheneys Demise And Their Own Futures

When 10 Republicans voted to impeach President Donald Trump on Jan. 13, it marked a historic milestone: It was the most House members from a presidents party to vote to remove him from office.

But since that vote, the 10 lawmakers have cut different paths in grappling with the fallout as they consider their political futures in a party still beholden to Trump.

Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger have made their votes career-defining, arguing that pushing back against Trumps false assertions that the 2020 election was stolen is about protecting democracy and the soul of the Republican Party.

Others, such as Reps. Anthony Gonzalez , Jaime Herrera Beutler and Peter Meijer , have vocally defended their votes and Cheney amid a caucuswide push to oust her from leadership, though they have not sought to make it a marquee issue.

The rest have moved on, even if they stand by their decision, seemingly in line with House GOP leaderships argument that what is important now is opposing President Bidens agenda and regaining the majority in the 2022 midterms, not what happened after the 2020 election.

In a letter sent to his Republican colleagues on Monday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said it was time for Cheney to go.

What The 10 Republicans Who Voted To Impeach Donald Trump Have Said About Their Decision

PoliticsDonald TrumpHouse RepublicansGOPImpeachment

Just 10 Republican members of the House broke with their party on Wednesday and voted to impeach President Donald Trump following the riots at the Capitol on January 6.

The most senior was Wyoming Congresswoman Liz Cheney, who serves as House Republican Conference Chair and had previously urged her caucus not to vote to reject the Electoral College results.

She was joined by nine of her colleagues, including some unexpected names, who explained their decision either before the vote was taken or after the president had been formally impeached for the second time.

“The president of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the president,” Cheney said in a statement on Tuesday.

“The president could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not,” Cheney added.

New York Congressman John Katko was the first House Republican to announce his intention to vote in favor of impeachment, which he duly did.

“To allow the president of the United States to incite this attack without consequence is a direct threat to the future of our democracy,” Katko said in a statement on Tuesday. “For that reason, I cannot sit by without taking action. I will vote to impeach this president.”

Here Are All The House Republicans Who Voted To Impeach Trump:

Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming’s At-Large Congressional District.

Rep. Jaime Herrera-Beutler of Washington’s 3rd District. 

Rep. Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio’s 16th District.

Rep. John Katko of New York’s 24th District. 

Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois’s 16th District. 

Rep. Peter Meijer of Michigan’s 3rd District.

Rep. Dan Newhouse of Washington’s 4th District.

Rep. Tom Rice of South Carolina’s 7th District.

Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan’s 6th District. 

Rep. David Valadao of California’s 21st District.

What Happened In The House Vote

SC Republican votes to impeach President Trump

For two hours, members of the Democratic-controlled House made statements for and against the vote on impeachment while National Guard troops kept watch inside and outside the Capitol.

Most Republicans did not seek to defend Mr Trump, but instead argued that the impeachment had bypassed the customary hearings and called on Democrats to drop it for the sake of national unity.

“Impeaching the president in such a short time frame would be a mistake,” said Kevin McCarthy, the House’s top Republican. “That doesn’t mean the president’s free from fault. The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters.”

Michigan Rep Peter Meijer

The freshman Republican, who won a primary last summer in the 3rd District with the backing of House GOP leaders such as Kevin McCarthy, already is cutting an image for himself independent of his party after two weeks on the job. Its less surprising considering that former Rep. Justin Amash, the Republican-turned-independent-turned-Libertarian who split with Trump, held the seat before Meijer. Amash voted to impeach Trump in 2019. 

The scion of the Meijer family, which founded the grocery store chain of the same name, is a veteran of the Iraq War. Trump won the 3rd District, which includes Grand Rapids and Battle Creek, with 51 percent of the vote. Meijer, who turned his campaign operation into a grocery delivery service in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, outperformed Trump in November, taking 53 percent of the vote. 

Who Are The 10

Here they are in order of the most pro-Trump districts:

1. Rep. Liz Cheney, Wyoming’s at-large district: Trump won Wyoming 70% to 27%, and she’s the third-ranking leader in the House. So for her not just to vote in favor of impeachment but also issue a stinging rebuke is quite the step. Cheney was unequivocal in her statement, saying Trump “summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.” She called what Trump did the “greatest betrayal” of a U.S. president ever.

2. Rep. Tom Rice, South Carolina’s 7th Congressional District: This is one no one saw coming. The congressman, who has served since 2013, comes from a pretty pro-Trump district , and there was no indication he would do so beforehand. Even during his vote, Twitter was alight with speculation that Rice had cast the wrong vote. Turns out, he cast it exactly as he wanted to. Later Wednesday, Rice explained: “I have backed this President through thick and thin for four years. I campaigned for him and voted for him twice. But, this utter failure is inexcusable.”

I have backed this President through thick and thin for four years. I campaigned for him and voted for him twice. But, this utter failure is inexcusable.https://t.co/SCWylYEER0

Congressman Tom Rice January 13, 2021

Adam Kinzinger January 14, 2021

Trump Calls For ‘no Violence’ As Congress Moves To Impeach Him For Role In Riot

This time, there will be more. Some Republican senators have called on Trump to resign, and even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he is undecided at this point.

Trump’s impeachment won’t lead to his removal even if he is convicted because of the timeline. The Senate is adjourned until Tuesday. The next day, Biden will be sworn in as the 46th president. But there’s another penalty the Constitution allows for as a result of a Senate conviction that could be appealing to some Republican senators banning Trump from holding “office” again.

While there is some debate as to the definition of “office” in the Constitution and whether that would apply to running for president or even Congress, that kind of public rebuke would send a strong message that Republicans are ready to move on from Trumpism.

Susan Collins Of Maine

Ms. Collins, 68, a senator since 1997, was just re-elected to a fifth term. She has long been critical of Mr. Trumps actions, extending to the Capitol riot.

That attack was not a spontaneous outbreak of violence, Ms. Collins said on the Senate floor after the vote. Rather it was the culmination of a steady stream of provocations by President Trump that were aimed at overturning the results of the presidential election.

Constitutionality Of Senate Trial Of Former President

The question of whether the Senate can hold a trial for and convict a former president is unsettled. Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution

Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution, also states the following:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, of the U.S. Constitution

J. Michael Luttig, who served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for 25 years, said that such a trial would be unconstitutional. He interpreted the language of Section 4 to refer to an official in office.

Luttig said, “The very concept of constitutional impeachment presupposes the impeachment, conviction and removal of a president who is, at the time of his impeachment, an incumbent in the office from which he is removed. Indeed, that was the purpose of the impeachment power, to remove from office a president or other ‘civil official’ before he could further harm the nation from the office he then occupies.”

Here Are The 7 Republicans Who Voted To Convict Trump

Seven Republican senators voted to convict former President Trump on the charge of incitement to insurrection, joining Democrats to make it it a far more bipartisan vote than Mr. Trump’s first impeachment trial. But the final vote of 57-43 fell short of the 67 votes that would have been needed for conviction. 

The Republicans voting to convict were Senators Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Romney’s vote was all but a given, and the votes from Collins and Murkowski weren’t unexpected. Perhaps the most surprising vote came from Burr.

But something distinguishes most of the Republicans who voted to convict Mr. Trump most of them aren’t up for reelection soon. Murkowski is the only one of the group facing reelection in 2022. Burr and Toomey aren’t running for another term.

Collins and Murkowski asked some of the most probing questions on Friday when senators had the chance to pose questions to the defense and to the House impeachment managers. 

Collins, Murkowski, Romney and Sasse also joined Democrats in voting to call witnesses Saturday, as did Repubilcan Senator Lindsey Graham. But Democrats ultimately backed off on calling witnesses. 

Several of the senators released statements explaining their decisions following the vote Saturday.

South Carolina Rep Tom Rice

Rices vote for impeachment stunned those familiar with the South Carolina lawmakers record as a staunch Trump defender, especially during his first impeachment. 

I have backed this President through thick and thin for four years. I campaigned for him and voted for him twice, Rice said in a statement Wednesday evening. But, this utter failure is inexcusable.

Rice voted for motions to object to certifying Bidens Electoral College victories in Arizona and Pennsylvania last week, votes that came after security teams cleared the building of rioters and members returned from a secure location. Rice told local media he waited until the last minute to cast those votes because he was extremely disappointed in the president after the riots and that Trump needed to concede the election. He also said last week that he did not support impeaching the president or invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office. 

Rice, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, has supported the Trump administrations position 94 percent of the time over the past four years. He represents a solidly Republican district in the Myrtle Beach area that Trump carried by 19 points in November. Rice, who has had little difficulty holding his seat since his first 2012 victory, won his race by 24 points in November. 

House Votes To Impeach Trump But Senate Trial Unlikely Before Bidens Inauguration

10 house Republicans voted to impeach Trump

9. Rep. John Katko, New Yorks 24th: Katko is a moderate from an evenly divided moderate district. A former federal prosecutor, he said of Trump: It cannot be ignored that President Trump encouraged this insurrection. He also noted that as the riot was happening, Trump refused to call it off, putting countless lives in danger.

10. Rep. David Valadao, Californias 21st: The Southern California congressman represents a majority-Latino district Biden won 54% to 44%. Valadao won election to this seat in 2012 before losing it in 2018 and winning it back in the fall. Hes the rare case of a member of Congress who touts his willingness to work with the other party. Of his vote for impeachment, he said: President Trump was, without question, a driving force in the catastrophic events that took place on January 6. He added, His inciting rhetoric was un-American, abhorrent, and absolutely an impeachable offense.

Bill Cassidy Of Louisiana

Mr. Cassidy, 63, a senator since 2015, was just re-elected. Weeks ago, he voted against moving forward with the trial, but said he was persuaded by the House impeachment managers.

Our Constitution and our country is more important than any one person, Mr. Cassidy said. I voted to convict President Trump because he is guilty.

Rep Dan Newhouse Washington

Rep. Dan Newhouse of Washingtons 4th Congressional District on Wednesday voted to impeach Trump shortly after announcing his decision to do so on the House floor.

These articles of impeachment are flawed, but I will not use process as an excuse for President Trumps actions, Newhouse said.

The president took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Last week there was a domestic threat at the door of the Capitol and he did nothing to stop it.

In a separate statement released the same day, Newhouse said Trump did not strongly condemn the attack nor did he call in reinforcements when our officers were overwhelmed. Our country needed a leader, and President Trump failed to fulfill his oath of office.

Who Are The 7 Republican Senators That Voted To Convict Trump In Second Impeachment Trial

WASHINGTON Seven Republicans voted Saturday to convict former President Donald Trump in his Senate impeachment trial, easily the largest number of lawmakers to ever vote to find a president of their own party guilty at impeachment proceedings.

While lawmakers voted 57-43 to find Trump guilty, the evenly divided Senate fell well short of the two-thirds majority required to convict an impeached president, acquitting Trump of inciting an insurrection for riling up a crowd of his supporters before they attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

Voting to find Trump guilty were GOP Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Susan Collins

The Maine centrist was the only Republican senator re-elected in 2020 in a state also won by Biden. She said Trump had incited the Jan. 6 riot.

President Trump subordinating the interests of the country to his own selfish interests bears significant responsibility for the invasion of the Capitol, Collins said on the Senate floor shortly after Former President Donald Trumps acquittal.

LISA MURKOWSKI

BILL CASSIDY

The Trump legal team responded to Cassidys question by saying, Directly no, but I dispute the premise of your facts.

RICHARD BURR

BEN SASSE

Report: 9 Of The 10 Republicans Who Voted To Impeach Trump Facing Primary Challengers

Nine out of the 10 Republican lawmakers who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump are facing primary challenges for their congressional seats.

Fox News reports that a majority of those who joined Democrats and the media circus during the second impeachment trial are facing a barrage of pro-Trump primary challengers.

Some of them, like Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger , according to Fox, may have a very hard time holding on to their seats.

The former President has vowed to back challengers to any Republicans who voted in favor of impeachment as they gear up for a fight in 2022.

Republicans who voted for impeachment face barrage of pro-Trump primary challengershttps://t.co/YsVrRwhYGj

Will The Stimulus Bill Boost Democrats Electoral Prospects

But is this opposition real or just noise? After all, were still a long way from the 2022 primaries, which leaves plenty of time for anger surrounding their votes to impeach Trump to fade.

related:Sometimes Senators Just Retire. Dont Read Too Much Into The Recent GOP Exodus. Read more. »

At first glance, the seriousness of the primary challengers does vary quite a bit, ranging from the very serious that is, other elected officials, who tend to be stronger candidates to political newcomers like a conservative activist best known for getting married in a MAGA dress. Yet, in most cases, these representatives should all have at least some reason to be concerned about winning renomination in 2022 especially those who hail from more Republican-leaning districts.

Republicans who voted to impeach face primary challenges

The 10 House Republicans who backed impeachment, including whether they were publicly admonished by state or local Republican Party committees and whether they have a primary challenger

Representative -10.9

*Valadao lost reelection in Californias 21st Congressional District in 2018 but won the seat back in 2020.

Admonishment includes a censure or public rebuke by a Republican Party committee at the state, district or county level.

related:Why Republicans Dont Fear An Electoral Backlash For Opposing Really Popular Parts Of Bidens Agenda Read more. »

related:Confidence Interval: Republicans Will Win Back Congress In 2022 Read more. »

Washington Rep Jaime Herrera Beutler

Herrera Beutler, a member of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus who has been in office since 2011, has bucked her party before. She is also the top Republican on the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, which oversees funding for the Capitol Police.

Despite being targeted by Democrats in 2020, Herrera Beutler defeated Democratic political science professor Carolyn Long by 13 points in November. Trump carried the district, Washingtons 3rd, by 4 points, according to Daily Kos Elections. 

She was one of 20 Republicans who voted in 2017 against the GOPs effort to replace the 2010 health care law, and she joined Republicans who rejected Trump after the infamous Access Hollywood tape was released during the 2016 presidential campaign. Her presidential support score during the Trump years was 78 percent, according to CQ Vote Watch.

In a statement Tuesday night, Herrera Beutler said there is indisputable evidence to support impeachment. I understand the argument that the best course is not to further inflame the country or alienate Republican voters, she said. But I am a Republican voter. She elaborated on the House floor Wednesday.

My vote to impeach our sitting president is not a fear-based decision, she said, in a word choice that begged comparison to reports that some Republicans had stopped short of supporting impeachment because of lingering fear of the president. Im not choosing a side, Im choosing truth. It is the only way to defeat fear. 

[illionoisprelawland-blog]

Modern Context of the Black Bill of Rights

By Hannah Holmes, University Of Chicago Class of 2023

August 25, 2020

The 116th United States Congress is the most diverse assembly to date;  22% of current members of Congress are nonwhite.  Of these members, 56% are Black, 43% are Hispanic, 17% are Asian, and 4% are Native American [i].  When the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) was established in 1971 with just thirteen members, its founding members had one simple, but as yet unattainable goal: to “create a forum where they could discuss common political challenges and interests”[ii].  At the time of the caucus’s founding, the thirteen black members of Congress were the largest group of black congresspeople yet elected.  These members included Shirley Chisholm (New York), William Clay, Sr. (Missouri), and Charles Diggs, Jr. (Michigan).  The group’s first major act was to boycott President Nixon’s 1971 State of the Union Address after he refused to meet with them. When the CBC finally did meet with the president, they presented him with 61 recommendations intended to eliminate systemic racism in the United States and achieve racial equality.  These recommendations were compressed into the Black Declaration of Independence and the Black Bill of Rights, unveiled in 1972. The Bill of Rights includes twelve sections, spanning topics including foreign policy, education, and the military. The list of demands is certainly ambitious; most of the recommendations have not been met, though many remain topics of modern political discussion.  Each section and its modern context is explored below.

Jobs and Income

In this section, the CBC notes the disproportionate unemployment rates for Black and white laborers, which remains a problem today: “While the national unemployment average is about 6%, Black unemployment is an intolerable 10.6%” [iii].  A disparity persists; the unemployment rate for white Americans in the second quarter of 2019 was 3.1% and the rate for Black Americans was  6.1% [iv]. Interestingly, the CBC also suggested an idea that is still considered radical today: universal basic income. The concept was most recently popularized by 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who proposed instituting a $1,000 monthly payment to all American adults [v]  The adoption of universal basic income seems unlikely, as only 43% of Americans “support a universal basic income program as a way to help people in the U.S. who lose their jobs because of advances in artificial intelligence” [vi].

Foreign Policy

The main idea presented in this section is an end to foreign involvement (excluding financial aid). Though the U.S. continues to be involved in foreign military activities, it has met the recommendation to “[withdraw] all economic or political support from African countries that practice suppression and perpetuate inequality and apartheid” [iii].  The Anti-Apartheid Act (1985-1986) “declares that it is U.S. policy to impose additional measures against South Africa if substantial progress has not been made within 12 months of enactment of this Act in ending apartheid and establishing a nonracial democracy” [vii].

Education

Concerning education, the CBC advocates for “federal, state, and local authorities to comply fully with the Supreme Court’s recent school desegregation decision that busing will be employed as a suitable means to ensure quality education for all American children” [iii].  It also notes that forced integration does not solve all problems within the education system, encouraging conversations to “[move beyond] the sterile issue of ‘busing’ to the basic issue of the redistribution of educational wealth and control.”   Today, “approximately 77 percent of Hispanic students and 73 percent of Black students attend schools that are majority students of color… and approximately 88 percent of white students attend schools that are at least half white,” [viii] indicating that unofficial segregation is an issue.  American public schools are funded by a combination of local, state, and federal sources but almost half of these funds are from local property taxes [ix].  A report published by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights notes, “the majority of students enrolled in public schools in the U.S. come from low-income households. Poverty is strongly linked with racial and ethnic minority enrollment in schools, and the higher this minority enrollment, the higher the enrollment of students coming from high-poverty households” [viii].  Furthermore, “Given that school resources are so closely tied to the wealth of a community, low-income students and students of color are more likely to attend a neighborhood school that spends less on them and can provide fewer quality resources compared to a wealthier school that serves white students that would be able to provide more spending per-pupil and more quality resources” [viii].

Housing and Urban Problems

This section addresses familiar problems such as a lack of affordable urban housing and gentrification. It also recommends the establishment of a new Homestead Act in an effort “to make use of the billions of dollars worth of land now owned by federal, state, and local governments” [iii].  There have been several modern iterations of the Homestead Act, inspired by the original version enacted in 1862.  The New Homestead Act of 2007, which did not pass into law, focused on rural revitalization and sought “to reward the hard work and risk of individuals who choose to live in and help preserve America’s small, rural towns…” [x].  In 2019, the Great Democracy Initiative, a progressive-oriented coalition, released a plan for implementing a Homestead Act that would address abandoned urban areas. “Homestead cities” would be chosen based on several factors, including employment opportunities, land availability, community involvement, and environmental impact [xi].

Health

The accessibility of healthcare in America is a popular political topic, particularly with the upcoming 2020 presidential election.  The CBC also recognized lack of healthcare availability as a major problem, writing, “The current inaccessibility of adequate health delivery to all Americans, lack of adequate or comprehensive health coverage, and seemingly uncontrollable rises in health cost combine to relegate countless Americans to a state of insufficient medical care” [iii].  This insufficiency has been further defined as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Minorities are disproportionately affected by the virus; according to the CDC, American Indian or Alaska Native persons have an infection rate 2.8 times higher than that of white persons, Asian persons have a rate 1.1 times higher, Black persons have a rate 2.6 times higher, and Hispanic or Latino persons have a rate 2.8 times higher.  These groups also have higher rates of hospitalization and death (excluding the rate of death for Asian persons, which showed no increase over that of white persons) [xii].  An analysis by FiveThrityEight showed that minorities also have less access to testing: “Our analysis revealed that, in many cities, testing sites in and near predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods are likely to serve far more patients than those near predominantly white areas” [xiii].  This indicates that COVID-19 has had a greater impact upon minority communities and that people in these communities are likely to experience longer waits for testing and results and perhaps even testing shortages.  This disparity is caused at least in part by a reluctance on the part of businesses to open in heavily minority areas, which tend to be lower-income, choosing instead to open in higher income (often majority white) areas.

Minority Enterprise

This section contains familiar calls for an increase in the number of Black-owned businesses, to be achieved via federal grants and loans and creating government contracts exclusively for Black-owned businesses.  No such federal programs are currently in place, but the number of minority-owned firms is on the rise; the number of such firms in the U.S. grew to 8.0 million in 2012, compared to 5.8 million in 2007.  In the same period, the number of total U.S. firms only grew from 27.1 million to 27.6 million [xiv].

Drugs

In this section, the CBC recognizes the devastating impact of drugs but advocates against the practice of imprisoning drug addicts as criminals, going directly against President Nixon’s “war on drugs.”  The federal push against drug use was characterized by actions such as “increasing anti-drug enforcement spending, creating a federal drug task force, and helping to foster a culture that demonized drug use and drug users” [xv].  In contrast, the CBC urged the Democratic Party to treat addicts as people with “serious health problems” [iii].  According to Pew Research Center, imprisonment for drug offenses may not be as effective as it is assumed to be: “The analysis found no statistically significant relationship between state drug imprisonment rates and three indicators of state drug problems: self-reported drug use, drug overdose deaths, and drug arrests” [xvi].  The idea of drug addiction treatment as an alternative to imprisonment is not new, but it is supported by an increasing body of research.  According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, “In 2015, an estimated 21.7 million people aged 12 or older needed substance use treatment, or about 1 in 12 people…in 2015, 10.8 percent of people aged 12 or older (2.3 million people) who needed substance use treatment received treatment at a specialty facility in the past year” (xvii). The National Institute of Health reports that drug addiction treatment works to reduce criminal activity and drug use and improve social, psychological, and occupational functioning. Furthermore, drug treatments such as methadone are significantly less expensive than imprisonment [xviii].

Penal Reform

In this section, the CBC calls for several prison reforms including, “(C) The systematic inclusion of such aids to rehabilitation as halfway houses for men, home furloughs for married men and women, privacy…and to the full restoration of civil rights including the right to vote upon completion of a sentence,” and “(E) The revamping of first offender programs, methods of bail release, and parole and probation systems so as to encourage and assist the prison resident in readapting to society” [iii].  Rehabilitation after imprisonment is certainly not easy in the U.S.   Formerly incarcerated individuals face consequences even after imprisonment; Renew Democracy Initiative reported that “nearly half of ex-prisoners report no earnings in the first year after leaving prison” and “nearly 45% of released convicts return to prison within a year” [xix].In 2016, approximately 6.1 million people were without voting rights as a result of a felony conviction [xx]. Although the CBC recommends “revamping” bail release methods, cash bail has recently been heavily criticized for its disproportionate effect on low-income offenders.  According to a guide published by Harvard Law School, “The practice of making the payment of a money bond a requirement for pretrial release discriminates based on wealth, exacerbates racial disparities, results in over-incarceration, and imposes unnecessary costs on individuals and society at large” [xxi].  Lower-income individuals are incarcerated not because they have committed worse crimes than higher-income individuals, but because they are unable to pay for their own release.  Judges determining cash bail amounts may also exhibit racial biases: “Recent empirical research finds that judges over predict the risk of Black defendants committing crimes on pretrial release and under predict the risk of white defendants committing crimes on pretrial release.  Accordingly, money bail is imposed more often on Black defendants than white defendants, and Black defendants receive higher bail amounts than white defendants” [xxi].

Democratic Administration Appointments

This section recommends that the Democratic Party call for Black Americans to be properly represented in all appointed positions, including the Cabinet of the President. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. population is 13.4% Black/African American, 18.5% Hispanic/Latino, 5.9% Asian, .2% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 1.3% American Indian/Alaska Native. and 2.8% two or more races [xxii].  Currently, of the voting members of Congress, 10.1% are Black/African American, 9.2% are Hispanic/Latino, 3.2% are Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and .7% are American Indian/Alaska Native [i].  President Trump’s Cabinet currently has one Black member and one Asian member.

Justice and Civil Rights

This section tackles strengthening voting rights and increasing Black appointments to positions within the Justice Department.  Most Americans today can agree that diversity in workplaces and in the government is important and, according to Pew Research Center, 64% of white Democratic-leaning Americans do not think we have gone far enough in giving Black people equal rights with white people [xxiii].  However, FiveThirtyEight created a compilation of polls that show that though diversity is wanted, methods of actually implementing it have inconsistent support among Black and white Democratic-leaning Americans.  For example, a Gallup poll found that only 32% of white Democrats support reparations compared to 80% of Black Democrats, 65% of white Democrats support federal involvement in school integration compared to 83% of Black Democrats, and 33% of white Democrats think that police officers generally cannot be trusted compared to 71% of Black Democrats.  Both white and Black Democrats, though, are wary of considering race in college admissions and job applications [xxiv].

Self-Determination for the District of Columbia

In this section, the CBC calls for full congressional representation for Washington, D.C., “the Last Colony,” noting that the city is mostly Black [iii].  The nation’s capital is still without full congressional representation, having only a non-voting representative in the House (Eleanor Holmes Norton).  Washington D.C. currently has around 702,000 residents, more than Vermont and Wyoming. On June 26, H.R. 51 passed with a 232 - 180 vote.  It states: “The bill provides for the admission into the United States of the state of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, composed of most of the territory of the District of Columbia.  The commonwealth shall be admitted to the Union on an equal footing with the other states” [xxv].  It is not expected to pass through the Senate.

The Military

In this section, the CBC advocates for equality within the military, noting that “this nation cannot be secure as long as the forces are more concerned with protecting themselves against their fellow servicemen than they are with fighting the external enemy” [iii].  They also call for the removal of the judicial system from the military, instead recommending the use of civilian federal courts.  Modern discussions about race in the military have shifted from unequal treatment to aggressive recruitment of low-income Americans.  In 2017, 57% of service members were white, 16% were Black, 16% were Hispanic, 6% were “other”, and 4% were Asian [xxvi]. The “No Child Left Behind” Act (2001-2002) stipulates that “each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide, on a request made by military recruiters or an institution of higher education, access to secondary school students’s names, addresses, and telephone listings” [xxvii].  This leads to more intense recruitment of low-income, minority students. For youth ages 16-21, 49% reported that their main reason for joining the U.S. military was to pay for future education [xxviii].  Separating the judicial system from the military has received heightened attention recently, partially due to high reports of sexual assault within the military. According to the Sexual Assault Training Oversight and Prevention Act (or STOP Act, 2013-2014), “The military atmosphere is not conducive to resolving issues of sexual assault and harassment, and sexual violence continues to infect the Armed Forces” [xxix]. This lack of accountability is attributed to the Uniform Code of  Military Justice, which allows military commanders to decide which cases move forward in the military judicial system.  This presents an obvious conflict of interest, as commanders may be responsible for both the victim and the offender in sexual assault cases. The act did not pass and military judicial system remains unchanged.

________________________________________________________________

[i] Manning, J. E. (2020, July 22). Membership of the 116th Congress: A Profile. Retrieved August 1, 2020, from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45583.pdf

[ii] Congressional Black Caucus. (n.d.). Retrieved August 1, 2020, from https://cbc.house.gov/history/

[iii] Extension of Remarks: Congressional Black Caucus Presents the Black Declaration of Independence and the Black Bill of Rights. (n.d.). Retrieved July 31, 2020, from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1972-pt15/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1972-pt15-7-3.pdf

[iv] E-16. Unemployment rates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. (2020, July 02). Retrieved August 2, 2020, from https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpsee_e16.htm

[v] Yang, A. (n.d.). The Freedom Dividend. Retrieved August 2, 2020, from https://www.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/

[vi] Reinhart, R. (2019, September 30). Universal Basic Income Favored in Canada, U.K. but Not in U.S. Retrieved August 2, 2020, from https://news.gallup.com/poll/267143/universal-basic-income-favored-canada-not.aspx

[vii] Gray, W. H., III. (n.d.). H.R.4868 - Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986. Retrieved August 2, 2020, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/4868

[viii] Public Education Funding Inequity in an Era of Increasing Concentration of Poverty and Resegregation. (2018, January). Retrieved August 2, 2020, from https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/2018-01-10-Education-Inequity.pdf

[ix] Biddle, B. J., & Berliner, D. C. (n.d.). A Research Synthesis / Unequal School Funding in the United States. Retrieved August 2, 2020, from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/may02/vol59/num08/Unequal-School-Funding-in-the-United-States.aspx

[x] Dorgan, B. L. (n.d.). S.1093 - New Homestead Act of 2007. Retrieved August 4, 2020, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/1093

[xi] Baradaran, M. (2019, May). A Homestead Act for the 21st Century. Retrieved August 4, 2020, from https://greatdemocracyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Homestead-Act-050719.pdf

[xii] COVID-19 Hospitalization and Death by Race/Ethnicity. (2020, August 10). Retrieved August 4, 2020, from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-race-ethnicity.html

[xiii] Kim, S., Vann, M., Bronner, L., & Manthey, G. (2020, July 22). Which Cities Have The Biggest Racial Gaps In COVID-19 Testing Access? Retrieved August 4, 2020, from https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/white-neighborhoods-have-more-access-to-covid-19-testing-sites/

[xiv] Survey of Business Owners - Survey Results: 2012. (2016, February 23). Retrieved August 5, 2020, from https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2012/econ/2012-sbo.html

[xv] Cooper, H. L. (2016, March 21). War on Drugs Policing and Police Brutality. Retrieved August 18, 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4800748/

[xvi] More Imprisonment Does Not Reduce State Drug Problems. (2018, March 8). Retrieved August 6, 2020, from https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2018/03/more-imprisonment-does-not-reduce-state-drug-problems

[xvii] Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. (2016). Retrieved August 6, 2020, from https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-FFR1-2015/NSDUH-FFR1-2015/NSDUH-FFR1-2015.pdf

[xviii] National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2020, June 03). How Effective Is Drug Addiction Treatment? Retrieved August 7, 2020, from https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition/frequently-asked-questions/how-effective-drug-addiction-treatment

[xix] Renew Democracy Initiative. (2020, July 02). Defining Democracy: Criminal Justice Reform. Retrieved August 7, 2020, from https://www.rdi.org/defining-democracy/2020/5/22/defining-democracy-criminal-justice-reform

[xx] 6 Million Lost Voters: State-Level Estimates of Felony Disenfranchisement, 2016. (2016). Retrieved August 8, 2020, from https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/6-Million-Lost-Voters.pdf

[xxi] Doyle, C., Bains, C., & Hopkins, B. (2019, February). Bail Reform: A Guide for State and Local Policymakers. Retrieved August 9, 2020, from http://cjpp.law.harvard.edu/assets/BailReform_WEB.pdf

[xxii] U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States. (n.d.). Retrieved August 8, 2020, from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219

[xxiii] Horowitz, J. M., Brown, A., & Cox, K. (2019, April 9). Views on Race in America 2019. Retrieved August 10, 2020, from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/04/09/race-in-america-2019/

[xxiv] Conroy, M., & Bacon, P., Jr. (2020, July 14). White Democrats Are Wary Of Big Ideas To Address Racial Inequality. Retrieved August 11, 2020, from https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/white-democrats-are-wary-of-big-ideas-to-address-racial-inequality/

[xxv] Holmes Norton, E. (2019). H.R.51 - Washington, D.C. Admission Act. Retrieved August 10, 2020, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/51

[xxvi] Barroso, A. (2019, September 10). The Changing Profile of the U.S. Military: Smaller in size, more diverse, more women in leadership. Retrieved August 11, 2020, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/09/10/the-changing-profile-of-the-u-s-military/

[xxvii] Boehner, J. A. (n.d.). H.R.1 - No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved August 11, 2020, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/1

[xxviii] Spring 2017 Propensity Update. (2018). Retrieved August 12, 2020, from https://jamrs.defense.gov/Portals/20/Futures-Survey-Spring-2017.pdf

[xxix] Speier, J. (n.d.). Text - H.R.1593 STOP Act. Retrieved August 12, 2020, from https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1593/text

[radarbrow2-blog]

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar announces 2020 presidential campaign

MINNEAPOLIS --

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar on Sunday joined the growing group of Democrats jostling to be president and positioned herself as the most prominent Midwestern candidate in the field, as her party tries to win back voters in a region that helped put Donald Trump in the White House.

"For every American, I'm running for you," she told an exuberant crowd gathered on a freezing, snowy afternoon at a park along the Mississippi River with the Minneapolis skyline in the background.

"And I promise you this: As your president, I will look you in the eye. I will tell you what I think. I will focus on getting things done. That's what I've done my whole life. And no matter what, I'll lead from the heart," the three-term senator said.

Klobuchar, who has prided herself for achieving results through bipartisan cooperation, did not utter Trump's name during her kickoff speech, though she did bemoan the conduct of "foreign policy by tweet." She instead spoke of the need to "heal the heart of our democracy and renew our commitment to the common good."

Amy Klobuchar: What to know about Minnesota senator, 2020 candidate

Asserting Midwestern values, she told a crowd warmed by hot chocolate, apple cider, heat lamps and bonfires: "I don't have a political machine. I don't come from money. But what I do have is this: I have grit."

Klobuchar, who easily won a third term last year, has pointed to her broad appeal across Minnesota as she has discussed a 2020 run. She has drawn support from voters in urban, suburban and rural areas, including in dozens of counties Trump won in 2016.

She has said that success could translate to other Midwestern states such as Michigan and Wisconsin, reliably Democratic in presidential races for decades until Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton.

She said the country's "sense of community is fracturing" today, "worn down by the petty and vicious nature of our politics. We are all tired of the shutdowns and the showdowns, the gridlock and the grandstanding."

The list of Democrats already in the race features several better-known senators with the ability to raise huge amounts of money - Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.

SEE ALSO: Who's running for president in 2020? List of Democratic candidates

The field soon could expand to include prominent Democrats such as former Vice President Joe Biden of Delaware and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

A Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom poll conducted by Selzer & Company in December found that Klobuchar was largely unfamiliar to likely Iowa caucus-goers, with 54 percent saying they didn't know enough about her to have an opinion, while 38 percent had a favorable opinion and 8 percent had an unfavorable opinion.

"She starts out perhaps with a better understanding of Midwestern voters, but I think she faces the same hurdles every one of them face, which is: Are Iowans going to find them either the best candidate to defeat Donald Trump or the candidate that most aligns with their ideologies and issues?" said John Norris, a longtime Iowa-based Democratic strategist. "I don't know that coming from Minnesota gives her any advantage with Iowans."

Klobuchar, 58, is known as a straight-shooting, pragmatist willing to work with Republicans, making her one of the Senate's most productive members at passing legislation.

The backdrop for her rally was the Interstate 35 bridge over the Mississippi. The span was built after the previous bridge collapsed in 2007, killing 13 people. Klobuchar had worked with then Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., to help fund the new bridge and get it completed at a faster-than-usual pace.

"We worked across the aisle to get the federal funding and we rebuilt that I-35W bridge - in just over a year. That's community. That's a shared story. That's ordinary people doing extraordinary things," she said.

Klobuchar's focus in recent months has included prescription drug prices, a new farm bill and election security. She supports the "Green New Deal," a Democratic plan proposed this past week to combat climate change and create thousands of jobs in renewable energy.

But her legislative record has drawn criticism from both the GOP and some fellow Democrats. Some Republicans say Klobuchar is able to get things done because she pushes smaller issues. Some progressives say she lacks the kind of fire and bold ideas needed to bring significant change and excite voters.

Klobuchar, a lawyer and the former prosecutor in Minnesota's largest county, raised her national profile during a Senate Judiciary Committee last fall for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, who was accused of sexually assaulting a woman when they were both in high school.

When Klobuchar asked Kavanaugh whether he ever had had so much to drink that he didn't remember what happened, he turned the question around. He asked Klobuchar, "Have you?"

Unruffled, Klobuchar continued as Kavanaugh asked again. Kavanaugh later apologized to Klobuchar, whose father is an alcoholic.

"When you have a parent who's an alcoholic, you're pretty careful about drinking," she said. "I was truly trying to get to the bottom of the facts and the evidence."

Among the other Midwestern lawmakers who could also seek the nomination are Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who has been visiting early voting states, and Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who established an exploratory committee last month.

Klobuchar campaigned with Democrats in Iowa last fall, and in December spoke to progressive farmers and activists about the importance of bridging the divide between urban and rural areas. She said the lesson learned after the 2016 election was "we are not going to leave the Midwest behind."

"This is the moment for the Midwest," she said, "and we don't want to be forgotten again in a national election."

(Copyright ©2019 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Source: https://6abc.com/politics/amy-klobuchar-announces-2020-campaign-ill-lead-from-the-heart/5131093/

[go-redgirl]

How Donald Trump is helping Joe Biden build back better

People tend to think of "activists" as left-wingers who march in the streets against wars or organize rallies for civil rights and social justice. And there is a great tradition in America and around the world for such liberal activism. But it's not just the left that has an activist tradition. The right has one too — and it's often extremely effective.

In the post-WWII years, the right in the U.S. was focused on anti-communism and far-right groups like the John Birch Society attracted middle-class men and women to join clubs and meet to discuss how to fight the onslaught from inside their suburban cul de sacs. In the New Republic some years back, historian Rick Perlstein recounted a hilarious quote from a Dallas housewife in Time Magazine in 1961 saying, "I just don't have time for anything. I'm fighting Communism three nights a week." From the Goldwater campaign in 1964 on, right-wing activists focused much of their energy on getting Republicans elected to office, from school boards to the presidency, and were quite successful at it.

The right-wing grassroots has always organized itself around the idea that they are under siege and unless they pull together to defend themselves, everything they value will be destroyed. Whether it was fighting communism, secularism, terrorism, civil rights or whatever social justice movement that was supposedly threatening their way of life, the right has always been convinced that they are in imminent danger. And when they find themselves at odds with their own fellow Americans, as they so often do, this sense of victimization and martyrdom is what fuels the culture war at the heart of their complaints. As Perlstein wrote in that 2006 piece:

Conservative culture itself is radically diverse, infinitely resourceful in uniting opposites: highbrow and lowbrow; sacred and profane; sublime and, of course, ridiculous. It is the core cultural dynamic--the constant staging and re-staging of acts of "courage" in the face of liberal "marginalization"--that manages to unite all the opposites. It keeps conservatives from one another's throats--and keeps them more or less always pulling in the same political direction.

Donald Trump, however, has upended that longstanding dynamic — and the party establishment has no idea what to do about it.

Igor Bobick of the Huffington Post recently reported that Republican officials are anxiously awaiting a resurgence of the Tea Party, which they have been expecting to reconstitute in the face of Joe Biden's ambitious agenda. It was, after all, a smashing success back in 2009 and 2010 in opposing President Barack Obama's health care plan. You'd certainly assume that they'd be getting the band back together. But so far, it isn't happening. And there's a reason for it: people like what they are seeing.

Bobic quotes deficit hawk Republican Sen. Mike Braun saying, "even my counties back in Indiana are happy, which is a very conservative area. They're asking, 'How can I spend $15 million in a rural county?'" Braun ruefully admits that Biden's agenda is a smart political move and he's right. Biden and the Democrats are betting that people are hungry for some positive government action and they are determined to deliver it.

But there's more to it than that.

The Tea Party was a grassroots movement but it was also heavily subsidized by some of the wealthiest activists in the country. The Koch brothers' operation and other wealthy interests spent quite a bit of money to make the Tea Party a reality because their libertarian ideology really was on the line. But when you think about it, it was a bizarre set of issues for grassroots activists who usually organize themselves around a sense of victimization. And it didn't really fit their usual modus operandi. The "threat" was a total abstraction. How were they "victims" of other people getting health care?

Sure, the right has always opposed government programs if it would benefit those they believe don't deserve them (and I think you know who those people might be). But the outrage against Obamacare was really all about Obama. They had to sublimate their racist backlash into something and that was on the menu but the war the Tea Party was really fighting was against the election of America's first Black president.

Yet some Republicans in Congress are still operating under the illusion that their voters really did care about deficits and will be moved to protest despite the fact that they still adore Donald Trump, a man who didn't care about any of that. In fact, right-wing grassroots activists are already engaged in a battle that is far more energizing and interesting to them than any of that egghead economic stuff ever was: Donald Trump's Big Lie.

According to a new CNN poll, 70% of Republicans believe the election was stolen. And they are taking action. We all know about the flurry of restrictive voting laws that are quickly being enacted all over the country and the preposterous "audit" taking place down in Arizona by a bunch of Trump fanatics and conspiracy theorists is probably just the beginning. The explosion of GOP grassroots activity in the states isn't just about Joe Biden or the events happening in Washington. They are also working night and day to punish Republicans who dared to disagree with Trump's version of events and ensure that Trump will be able to win the next election.

The Washington Post took a look at some of the grassroots action taking place around the country. They interviewed one Michigan organizer who is trying to censure and remove a Republican Party executive who accepted the results of the election. She said, "I think I speak for many people in that Trump has never actually been wrong, and so we've learned to trust when he says something, that he's not just going to spew something out there that's wrong and not verified." That sort of cultish delusion is forcing official rebukes and purges of Trump apostates all across the country.

And then this happened to Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Ut., over the weekend:

The motion to censure the former GOP presidential nominee failed 711-798, which I'm sure softened the humiliating blow. But it's bubbling up to Washington as well. The House GOP caucus thought they had successfully managed the "Liz Cheney problem" but it's coming back. Axios reported that there may be another vote to remove her and from the behavior of the leadership, it seems as though the worm has turned, no doubt because these Representatives are getting an earful from their activist base. The party is now eating its own.

Republicans counting on the Tea Party zombie to rise again had better come up with a Plan B. The activists the GOP in Washington wants to organize against Joe Biden's program are already booked. They're busy fighting other Republicans three nights a week.  

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

This Tuesday may not be as “super” as some, but we’ll still get Democratic primary results from six states worth 352 pledged delegates.1 We’ve already walked you through what the FiveThirtyEight forecast says in Michigan, where Sen. Bernie Sanders hopes to defy the odds once again. Now let’s take a tour of the three Western states that could wind up as the closest contests of the day.

Demographically, Washington should be one of Sanders’s best remaining states, but it is actually a pure toss-up. According to our primary forecast,2 Sanders and Biden each has a 1 in 2 (50 percent) chance to win the Evergreen State. It’s an extremely close race in terms of vote share, too: Sanders and Biden are each expected to receive 42 percent of the statewide vote, on average. (Even though New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren have dropped out, we still expect them to get 4 percent of the vote each as Washington is a vote-by-mail state, and lots of votes were cast before they dropped out. Indeed, as of March 3 — before either dropped out — almost 1 million ballots had already been returned.)

Thirty-one of Washington’s 89 pledged delegates are awarded based on those statewide results, while the remaining 58 hinge on the results in the state’s 10 congressional districts. However, we’re forecasting those results to hew closely to the statewide numbers, which means Sanders and Biden are likely to split the district-level delegates just as they will the statewide ones.

A close race across Washington

Average forecasted vote share for the top two Democratic presidential candidates in Washington congressional districts, according to the FiveThirtyEight model as of 11:20 a.m. on March 9

District Sanders Biden WA-01 43% 41% WA-02 42 42 WA-03 43 42 WA-04 43 42 WA-05 42 43 WA-06 41 43 WA-07 43 42 WA-08 42 42 WA-09 41 44 WA-10 42 43 State 42 42

Biden figures to do best in the thickly settled 9th District, which stretches from Bellevue and downtown Seattle in the north to Tacoma in the south. It is Washington’s lone majority-minority district, featuring the state’s largest black population (11 percent of the district) and Asian population (23 percent). We are also forecasting Biden to win the 6th District, which covers the Olympic and Kitsap peninsulas. It’s a relatively white, working-class district with a traditionally timber-based economy — not dissimilar to Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, which was Biden’s stronger of the two districts in that state.

Meanwhile, we expect Sanders’s best district to be the 4th District, a predominantly rural district in Central Washington. More than 38 percent of its population is Latino, a voting bloc with which Sanders has excelled so far this year. It and the 3rd District (which we also forecast Sanders to carry on Tuesday) were also Sanders’s two best districts in Washington in the state’s 2016 caucuses.

Finally, the 7th District is important for being worth a whopping 11 pledged delegates — a huge haul for just one congressional district. We think Sanders has a slight edge over Biden in this cosmopolitan, white-collar district in the heart of Seattle. But as with all these districts, the final results will probably be close enough to mean the two candidates get about the same number of delegates.

A note of caution: If you watch Washington report results live on Tuesday night, don’t be surprised if the initial returns look different from our forecasts. Because of vote-by-mail, we won’t get final results in Washington for several days, as late-arriving mail ballots are added to the election-night tallies.

Meanwhile, our forecast gives Biden a 3 in 5 (57 percent) chance of carrying Idaho and Sanders a 2 in 5 (43 percent) chance. On average, we forecast Biden to get 47 percent and Sanders 44 percent of the statewide vote, which will determine the allocation of seven pledged delegates. Seven more will come out of the state’s 2nd Congressional District, while six will be awarded based on the results in the 1st Congressional District. But as was the case in Washington, we anticipate that the district-level results will largely mirror the statewide results.

Both of Idaho’s districts are close

Average forecasted vote share for the top two Democratic presidential candidates in Idaho congressional districts, according to the FiveThirtyEight model as of 11:20 a.m. on March 9

District Biden Sanders ID-01 47% 44% ID-02 47 44 State 47 44

The 2nd District, which covers eastern Idaho but also reaches into the state capital of Boise, is a tad more college-educated and less white than the 1st District, which covers western Idaho and the Panhandle. But in the big picture, Idaho is a pretty uniform state, and we’re expecting Biden and Sanders to be closely competitive in each individual district as well.

Finally, North Dakota is shaping up to be a close race as well, but our forecast has identified a (slight) front-runner. We give Biden a 3 in 5 (63 percent) chance of winning North Dakota, while Sanders has a 2 in 5 (37 percent) shot. In the average model run, 48 percent of the state opts for Biden, while 41 percent chooses Sanders.

Because North Dakota has just one congressional district, all 14 of its pledged delegates will be awarded based on those statewide results. It would be hard to track the results by region anyway, however. North Dakota is the first state this year to hold a party-run (as opposed to state-run) primary, known locally as “firehouse caucuses.” Instead of an all-day election at voters’ normal precincts, voting in North Dakota will be open only between noon and 8 p.m. Eastern at just 14 polling places across the state.3 (Despite the name, none is a firehouse, nor do voters have to stick around to realign like in a traditional caucus.) And no matter where they live in the state, voters can choose to vote at any location.

Given how close these three states are, if Sanders is going to flex the muscle necessary to make a national comeback, it will probably start by winning these three contests. However, unfortunately for him, Idaho and North Dakota are worth precious few delegates — and even Washington seems likely to be a delegate wash unless Sanders defeats Biden decisively there. Still, it’s been a primary of twists and turns, so it’s certainly possible it continues to surprise us.

[phroyd]

Lansing — They’re fed up with the establishment, they believe a key election was rigged and they’re plotting to reshape their party from the grassroots up.

No, they’re not tea party Republicans. They’re liberal Democrats, and they’re planning a show of force Saturday at the Michigan Democratic Party’s state convention in Detroit, where activists and elites alike will try to chart a new course for a party reeling from electoral losses.

Two separate groups inspired by Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a 2016 presidential candidate and self-described democratic socialist, have spent months organizing ahead of the convention, where Democrats will elect officials to congressional district and statewide party posts.

One youth-powered group, Michigan for Revolution, is working to bus in Democrats from around the state in hopes of electing a slate of candidates to caucus positions and the central committee, the party’s main leadership and decision-making board.

“The Democratic Party doesn’t really listen to anyone but the establishment, and I think that’s the biggest problem,” said organizer Kelly Collison, 28, of Bath. “They don’t pay attention to the rural areas. They think they’ve already won over people of color because they’re Democrats.”

Sanders, who focused on closing income and wealth gaps in his bid for the White House, scored a surprise win in Michigan’s primary but ultimately lost the Democratic nomination to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Collison and other Sanders supporters argue hacked emails released by WikiLeaks prove the Democratic National Committee inappropriately aided Clinton.

Continue ...

Burn The Status Quo Clinton Democrats.  Burn Them To Ash!

Phroyd

[patriotsnet]

How Many Republicans Are Currently In The House

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-many-republicans-are-currently-in-the-house/

How Many Republicans Are Currently In The House

Why The Number Of House Members Hasn’t Changed Since 1913

Republicans register their fury as House holds historic first proxy vote

There are still 435 members of the House of Representatives a century later because of the;Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, which set that number in stone.

The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 was the result of a battle between rural and urban areas of the United States following the 1920 Census. The formula for distributing seats in the House based on population favored “urbanized states” and penalized smaller rural states at the time, and Congress could not agree on a reapportionment plan.

“After the 1910 census, when the House grew from 391 members to 433 , the growth stopped. Thats because the 1920 census indicated that the majority of Americans were concentrating in cities, and nativists, worried about of the power of ‘foreigners,’ blocked efforts to give them more representatives,” wrote Dalton Conley, a professor of sociology, medicine and public policy at New York University, and Jacqueline Stevens, a professor of political science at Northwestern University.

So, instead, Congress passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 and sealed the number of House members at the level established after the 1910 census, 435.

Theres Never Been A Better Time For Civic Engagement

Youve cast your vote. Now what? Join 10 million other Americans using GovTrack to learn about and contact your representative and senators and track what Congress is doing each day.

And starting in 2019 well be tracking Congresss oversight investigations of the executive branch.

Youre more than a vote, so support GovTrack today with a tip of any amount:

Or keep using GovTrack for free! Our public interest mission means we will never put our service behind a paywall.

Its Not All Bad News For Democrats

While it was unquestionably a good night for Republicans, Democrats still held onto most of the seats they won in 2018 and will continue to be the majority party in the House. Thats in part because they retained most of the suburban districts they picked up in 2018.

Of the 233 seats that Democrats held coming into the election,2 186 of them were in districts that were predominantly or partly suburban in nature, according to density categorizations by Bloombergs CityLab. Thus far, Democrats have lost seven of those seats, but they captured one GOP-held suburban seat around Atlanta. And thanks to redistricting, theyve also won two formerly Republican seats around Greensboro and Raleigh in North Carolina, which reflect the partys strength in more populous areas.

Because of their relative success in the suburbs, Democrats kept many seats in places President Trump won in 2016. Coming into the election, Democrats held 30 seats in districts Trump carried in 2016, and they wouldve lost their majority if theyd lost more than half of them . But theyve won 18 of them so far and picked up one from the GOP . In fact, more than half of Republicans gains have come in seats representing places that Trump won by a pretty sizable margin in 2016. Well have to wait a bit before data can tell us how congressional districts voted in 2020,3 but for now it seems many Republican gains were made by picking off the lowest-hanging fruit.

Don’t Miss: Tim Kaine Lapel Pin Debate

Who Controls State Legislatures In States With Changes

Thirteen states were affected by the 2020 Census’ shift in congressional seats.;

States are given the task of redrawing districts when;they gain;or lose;seats.;

Michael Li, senior counsel for the non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice’s Democracy Program,;said;the country could be poised for a battle over;gerrymandering, the practice of redrawing district lines to favor one party over the other or to suppress the vote of communities of color.

In some states, the process is fairer than others, he said, because they are not controlled by just one political party or they have instituted an independent redistricting committee, such as in Michigan. But for other states, the party in power stands to control the map.

Red Surge Democrats Stunned As Gop Gains House Seats Expected To Hold Control Of The Senate

More than a week after the election, a small number of House and Senate races are still undecided, but all signs are pointing to something like a red surge that few had predicted for Congress. Thats a shock because media pundits and Democrats had predicted a blue wave that never materialized. The Associated Press is reporting Democrats have been blindsided.;

As of Wednesday, Republicans appear to have secured 50 seats in the next Senate as theyre now expected to win in Alaska and North Carolina. Plus, they have a strong chance of winning two more in Senate runoff elections in Georgia in January. Democrats are believed to have won 48 Senate seats.;

And even though Democrats say theyve won the 218 seats needed for a majority in the House of Representatives, their margin of control is much smaller than it was before this election, and it could be razor-thin.;

Democrats went into the election with a 232-197 House advantage. There were also five open seats, plus one independent lawmaker. The AP says Republicans have won 202 seats so far. But there are more than a dozen races still undecided in states like California, Utah, and New York, and Republican candidates are currently leading in most of those races.

The Republican coalition is bigger, more diverse, more energetic than ever before, said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy .

AS BIBLICAL VIEWS ARE SILENCED MORE AND MORE ON SOCIAL MEDIA, BE SURE;TO STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FREE CBN NEWS APP;

Did you know?

Don’t Miss: How Many Democrats Are In The House

Republicans Suddenly Sweating Falling Deep Into House Minority

GOP leaders tout their chances to win back the majority, but falling poll numbers for Trump have some worried they could lose seats in November.

07/29/2020 04:30 AM EDT

Link Copied

A slew of dismal summer polls and a persistent fundraising gap have left some Republicans fretting about a nightmare scenarioin November: Thatthey will fall further into the House minority.

Publicly, House GOP leaders are declaring they can still net the 17 seats needed to flip the chamber. But privately, some party strategists concede its a much grimmer picture, with as many as 20 Republican seats at risk of falling into Democratic hands.

Far from going on offense, the GOP could be forced to retrench in order to limit its losses.Theres a growing fear that President Donald Trumps plummeting popularity in the suburbs could threaten GOP candidates in traditionally favorable districts, and that their partys eagerness to go on offense might leave some underfunded incumbents and open GOP-held seats unprotected.

Internal Democratic surveys in recent weeks have shown tight races in once-solid GOPseats in Indiana, Texas, Michigan, Ohio and Montana that Trump carried handily 2016 data that suggest the battleground is veering in a dangerous direction for the GOP.

And should the environment worsen, other seats in North Carolina, Minnesota, Missouri, Washington state, central Virginia and Michigan could be at risk.

Gop Women Made Big Gains

While the majority of the Republican caucus will still be men come 2021, there will be far more Republican women in Congress than there were this year. So far, it looks like at least 26 GOP women will be in the House next year, surpassing the record of 25 from the 109th Congress. Thats thanks in part to the record number of non-incumbent Republican women 15 whove won House contests. And its also because of how well Republican women did in tight races. The table below shows the Republican women who ran in Democratic-held House districts that were at least potentially competitive,1 according to FiveThirtyEights forecast. As of this writing, seven of them have won.

GOP women have flipped several Democratic seats

Republican women running for potentially competitive Democratic-held House seats and the status of their race as of 4:30 p.m Eastern on Nov. 11

District D+22.1

Results are unofficial. Races are counted as projected only if the projection comes from ABC News. Excludes races in which the Republican candidate has either a less than 1 in 100 chance or greater than 99 in 100 chance of winning.

Don’t Miss: How Are Republicans Doing In Midterms

United States House Of Representatives

United States House of Representatives Flag of the U.S. House of Representatives Type Plurality voting in 46 statesVaries in 4 states

The United States House of Representatives is the lower house of the United States Congress, with the Senate being the upper house. Together they compose the national bicameral legislature of the United States.

The House’s composition is established by Article One of the United States Constitution. The House is composed of representatives who sit in congressional districts allocated to each state on a basis of population as measured by the U.S. Census, with each district having one representative, provided that each state is entitled to at least one. Since its inception in 1789, all representatives have been directly elected. The number of voting representatives is fixed by law at 435. If enacted, the DC Admission Act would permanently increase the number of representatives to 436. In addition, there are currently six non-voting members, bringing the total membership of the House of Representatives to 441 or fewer with vacancies. As of the 2010 Census, the largest delegation is that of California, with 53 representatives. Seven states have only one representative: Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.

Rising Violent Crime Is Likely To Present A Political Challenge For Democrats In 2022

Rep. Schiff: Only Question Is How Many In GOP Will Support Impeachment | Morning Joe | MSNBC

But there are roadblocks to fully enacting Democrats agenda. Their thin majorities in both chambers of Congress mean nearly all Democrats have to get on board with every agenda item in order to push through major legislative priorities. And without adjusting or eliminating the legislative filibuster in the Senate, Democrats need 10 Republicans to join them for various legislation a near-impossible task.

Don’t Miss: Can Republicans Vote In The Democratic Primary In South Carolina

Numerous Freshman Democrats Lost Reelection

The vulnerable first-term Democrats who Decision Desk HQ projects to lose reelection are Reps. TJ Cox, Gil Cisneros, and Harley Rouda of California, Reps. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell and Donna Shalala of Florida, Rep. Abby Finkenauer of Iowa, Rep. Xochitl Torres Small of New Mexico, Rep. Max Rose of New York, Rep. Kendra Horn of Oklahoma, Rep. Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, and Rep. Ben McAdams of Utah.;

Rep. Collin Peterson, a long-serving Democratic representative in a Minnesota district that Trump won by 30 points, also lost reelection.

Some House Democrats who flipped Republican suburban and exurban seats in 2018 did win reelection, however, including Rep. Lucy McBath of Georgia, Rep. Katie Porter of California, Reps. Elaine Luria, Abigail Spanberger, and Jennifer Wexton of Virginia, and Rep. Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey.

A Candid Conversation With Eight Women Of Color Running For Congress This Year

Gore is running against Democratic incumbent Rep. Marcia Fudge, who has represented Ohios solidly blue 11th Congressional District since 2008 a majority Black urban area.

Maybe the candidacies arent taken seriously because typically we dont get the Black vote. And sometimes we dont get the white vote, you know? So were kind of in a bit of a quagmire, Gore said, reflecting on her challenges to fundraise.

Klacik, a former Democrat who voted for Barack Obama, faces an incredibly steep climb in a reliably blue urban district, which includes parts of Baltimore. She is running against incumbent Democratic Rep. Kweisi Mfume, who was sworn in earlier this year after the death of Rep. Elijah Cummings in October 2019. Cummings held that seat since 1996.

I get called names all the time for being a Black Republican. Meanwhile, my whole push is to make it better in the Black community, Klacik said, criticizing Democratic politicians for a lack of investment in the inner cities.

Asked what advice she has for other Republicans of color who face similar backlash, Klacik urged them not to be discouraged.

People are always gonna either love you or hate you, she said. Youve got to fight for whats right.

The primary is our biggest place of hurt

Compared to an expansive network of Democratic organizations built over the last few decades to support female candidates, there are only a few Republican groups working specifically to boost the campaigns of Republican women.

You May Like: Who Won The Baseball Game Between The Democrats And Republicans

Changes To House Rules

After Democrats took control of the House in the 116th Congress, they voted to change some rules from the previous session of Congress when Republicans were in control. Some of the changes appear below.

PAYGO: Democrats approved PAYGO, a provision that requires legislation that would increase the deficit to be offset by spending cuts or revenue increases.

Ethics: Democrats made changes to House ethics rules that required all House members to take ethics training, not just new members. The rules also required members to reimburse taxpayers for settlements that that result from a members discrimination of someone based on race, religion, sex, national origin, or disability, among other things. Lawmakers were also prohibited from sitting on corporate boards.

Climate change committee: Democrats created a new climate change committee to address the issue. The committee was not given subpoena power or the ability to bring bills to the floor.

A full explanation of the rules changes can be viewed here.

Were Also On Social Media

GovTrack.us is an independent website tracking the status of legislation in the United States Congress and helping you participate in government. Now were on Instagram too!

Follow on Instagram for new 60-second summary videos of legislation in Congress.

Follow on Twitter for posts about legislative activity and other information were tracking, and some commentary.

And please consider supporting our work by becoming a monthly backer on Patreon or leaving a tip.

Read Also: What Do Democratic Republicans Believe In

Opinion: House Republicans Have Two Critical Advantages In 2022

Democrats hold the balance of power in Washington, D.C., but their margin is wafer-thin: Joe Biden is president, and the party controls both houses of Congress only very narrowly. Theyve already enacted $1.9 trillion of economic stimulus. Theyre haggling with Republicans over the size of a bipartisan infrastructure bill. And theyre keen to pass a new voting rights law, although moderate Sen. Joe Manchin III might scuttle the effort.

Still, their time in the majority might be limited. We live in an era of bitter, closely divided elections. And in 2022, Republicans have two advantages that might soon give them the edge in the House.

The Republicans first advantage: The other party holds the White House. If Biden follows the path of other recent presidents, hell spend political capital, navigate crises and lose supporters in the process.

Barack Obama summarized this dynamic two years into his presidency: In the rush of activity, sometimes we lose track of the ways that we connected with folks that got us here in the first place. This is true of nearly every recent president. Ronald Reagan lost supporters as the 1981-82 recession tore through the economy. Obama alienated swing voters and energized tea party activists as he tried to advance the Affordable Care Act in Congress. And Bill Clinton lost voters when he attempted to pass a health-care reform bill of his own.

The GOPs second advantage: It draws the lines.

Read more:

Democrats Keep House Majority But Republicans Defied The Odds

The Democrats could wind up with the slimmest House majority in 20 years.

Nancy Pelosi praises Democrats for retaining the House majority

The Democrats will keep their majority in the House of Representatives, but after all the votes are counted, they could wind up with the slimmest House majority in 20 years.

The Democrats gained a majority in the House following the 2018 election in which they won 41 seats. This was the largest gain for the political party since the 1974 election, in which they gained 49.

Some of the popular freshman Democrats who came into office in 2018, including New Yorks Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Minnesotas Ilhan Omar, have been elected for a second term.

But Republicans appear set to make some gains, winning nearly every tossup and picking up at least six seats based on calls of races by The Associated Press.

House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy tweeted Wednesday morning, Republicans defied the odds and grew our party last night.

He also tweeted to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Youve been put on notice.

Among the Republican victories is , who won Georgias conservative 14th Congressional District after publicly supporting the fringe conspiracy theory known as QAnon.

In videos unearthed by POLITICO, Greene is also heard spouting racist, Islamophobic and sexist views.

ABC News Quinn Scanlan and Mariam Khan contributed to this report.

You May Like: Is The Media Biased Against Republicans

Bipartisan Bromance Blossoms As 2 Texas Congressmen Make Dc Road Trip

Hurd was also one of just four House Republicans who voted for a resolution to condemn Trumps racist tweets last month attacking four freshman Democratic women of color. His positions and willingness to speak out against Trump made sense, given the political and demographic makeup of his district. The 23rd District is almost 70% Latino, and Hillary Clinton won it by about 3.5 percentage points in 2016. Last years midterm elections left Hurd as one of just three House Republicans to sit in a district carried by Clinton, not Trump.

But Hurd only barely survived in 2018 to win reelection by just 926 votes over Democrat Gina Ortiz Jones, an Air Force veteran who had already announced she was seeking a rematch in 2020. Without Hurd, who was seen by Republicans and Democrats alike as an unusually strong GOP incumbent, the Cook Political Report has moved its rating for this seat from Toss Up to Lean Democratic.

You May Like: How Many Registered Democrats And Republicans In The Us

[supersportsnewsblog]

(Bloomberg) -- Democratic leaders and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said they’re close an an agreement to top up funds for a loan program aimed at helping small businesses stay afloat during the coronavirus pandemic, and to provide funds for hospitals. Mnuchin said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that he’s hopeful the deal can be passed in the Senate on Monday and the House on Tuesday. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered no specific timetable but said the sides are “close.”While the Senate has a pro forma session scheduled for Monday, passage of any measure then is unlikely. Leaders of both parties must check with all senators to ensure they would agree to approve something by unanimous consent, and text of legislation is usually provided first. The Senate’s next scheduled session is currently set for Thursday.Discussions are focused on adding an additional $300 billion to the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, designed to help small businesses keep workers on their payrolls as much of the country remains under stay-at-home orders, Mnuchin said.He also proposed $50 billion more for a separate Economic Injury Disaster Loan program, or EIDL, that provides financing and advances as grants of as much as $10,000.Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell hosted a call for his members Sunday afternoon to discuss the package, said a senior Republican leadership aide. President Donald Trump, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Mnuchin were among those on the call.McConnell and Mnuchin reiterated that state and local government funding and food-stamp demands from Democrats would not be part of the package now under review. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, also on CNN, said he was hopeful the framework of the small-business deal could be reached on Sunday night or early Monday, including tweaks to the program designed to make money more available to the smallest of businesses. Congress is “very close” to a bipartisan deal, Pelosi said on ABC’s “This Week,” adding that the Democratic caucus backed her approach to dig in and demand additional money for hospitals and other segments in the current round.“We’re close. We have common ground,” Pelosi said. “I think we’re very close to an agreement.”On CNN, Mnuchin said all sides were “making a lot of progress” on another $300 billion in small business funding. The deal will include $75 billion of the $100 billion Democrats have demanded for hospitals, and $25 billion for virus testing, he said. Separately, two senators on Sunday proposed a $500 billion fund for state and local governments as part of the next, comprehensive rescue package from Congress.House Republicans have scheduled an 8 p.m. conference call for Sunday to get an update from the their leaders on the status of negotiations on replenishing the tapped-out PPP, according to multiple party officials.One Republican lawmaker familiar with the situation said there’s been no official whipping or vote counting on a possible deal. The call Sunday is being billed as catching members up on the status of talks, the lawmaker said.Read more: Democrats Make Offer to Mnuchin in Effort to Break Aid DeadlockDemocratic insistence that the Congress do more than simply “top up” the PPP funds stalled action on the measure last week as funds dwindled, drawing criticism from Republicans and President Donald Trump.“Overwhelmingly, my caucus, and we’re working closely with the Senate Democrats, know that we have an opportunity, and an urgency, to do something for our hospitals, our teachers and firefighters and the rest, right now,” Pelosi said.Pelosi on Saturday penned a progress report to Democrats -- a “Dear Colleague” letter -- that praised the “brilliant leadership of our Chairs and the overwhelming support of our Members to strengthen” and broaden the availability of the PPP.Compromise Offer“It is very urgent though that we support our police and fire, first responders, teachers,” Pelosi said in a “Fox News Sunday” interview. “Everything we’re doing is about the coronavirus. Not going afield into anything else.”Congressional Democrats on Friday night outlined a compromise offer to Mnuchin, a senior Democratic aide said on Saturday.Terms of the offer included allocating an already-requested $150 billion in state and local funding based on need, but also designating additional money for cities, counties and towns, the senior aide said.Key swing states including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin -- all won by Trump in 2016 -- would receive billions of dollars in new aid under the Democrats’ proposal.The Small Business Association’s $349 billion PPP program, which was intended to help mom-and-pop businesses, ran out of funds in less than two weeks.It’s come under fire for payouts made to certain operations like large chain restaurants. More than a dozen publicly traded companies with revenue of more than $100 million, including Shake Shack Inc., Potbelly Corp. and a Tex-Mex restaurant chain with more than 10,000 employees, received loans.The National Federation of Independent Business, the largest group representing small businesses in the country, is calling on Congress to reserve $200 billion in the next tranche of funds for firms that have 20 or fewer employees.In an interview on CNN Saturday and on Twitter, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers said the types of businesses that can apply for funds “is too broad.”“Most of the money now is going to people who have hundreds of people working for them, and millions of dollars in their accounts,” Summers said. “We need to change the rules.”The industries that received the largest share of loans were construction; professional, scientific and technical services; manufacturing; and health care and social assistance, according to a report from the SBA.The PPP offers loans of as much as $10 million that convert to grants if proceeds are used to keep workers on the payroll and cover rent and other approved expenses for about two months, a stopgap designed to help businesses get by until the economy reopens.Schumer said on CNN that “from one end to the country to the other, we have been hearing that people can’t get the loans -- the local restaurant, the local barbershop, the local drugstore, or even startup businesses.”Democrats “want to put some more money in, but let’s set aside some money to make sure it goes to the rural areas, to the minority areas, to the unbanked,” he said.Mnuchin conceded that “some big businesses” were getting money from the PPP. “That was in the bill. But let me say, the majority of these are going to small businesses.”(Updates with McConnell-led call in sixth paragraph.)For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8260727 https://ift.tt/2wQkt4N

[clobov]

(Bloomberg) -- Democratic leaders and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said they’re close an an agreement to top up funds for a loan program aimed at helping small businesses stay afloat during the coronavirus pandemic, and to provide funds for hospitals. Mnuchin said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that he’s hopeful the deal can be passed in the Senate on Monday and the House on Tuesday. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered no specific timetable but said the sides are “close.”While the Senate has a pro forma session scheduled for Monday, passage of any measure then is unlikely. Leaders of both parties must check with all senators to ensure they would agree to approve something by unanimous consent, and text of legislation is usually provided first. The Senate’s next scheduled session is currently set for Thursday.Discussions are focused on adding an additional $300 billion to the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, designed to help small businesses keep workers on their payrolls as much of the country remains under stay-at-home orders, Mnuchin said.He also proposed $50 billion more for a separate Economic Injury Disaster Loan program, or EIDL, that provides financing and advances as grants of as much as $10,000.Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell hosted a call for his members Sunday afternoon to discuss the package, said a senior Republican leadership aide. President Donald Trump, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Mnuchin were among those on the call.McConnell and Mnuchin reiterated that state and local government funding and food-stamp demands from Democrats would not be part of the package now under review. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, also on CNN, said he was hopeful the framework of the small-business deal could be reached on Sunday night or early Monday, including tweaks to the program designed to make money more available to the smallest of businesses. Congress is “very close” to a bipartisan deal, Pelosi said on ABC’s “This Week,” adding that the Democratic caucus backed her approach to dig in and demand additional money for hospitals and other segments in the current round.“We’re close. We have common ground,” Pelosi said. “I think we’re very close to an agreement.”On CNN, Mnuchin said all sides were “making a lot of progress” on another $300 billion in small business funding. The deal will include $75 billion of the $100 billion Democrats have demanded for hospitals, and $25 billion for virus testing, he said. Separately, two senators on Sunday proposed a $500 billion fund for state and local governments as part of the next, comprehensive rescue package from Congress.House Republicans have scheduled an 8 p.m. conference call for Sunday to get an update from the their leaders on the status of negotiations on replenishing the tapped-out PPP, according to multiple party officials.One Republican lawmaker familiar with the situation said there’s been no official whipping or vote counting on a possible deal. The call Sunday is being billed as catching members up on the status of talks, the lawmaker said.Read more: Democrats Make Offer to Mnuchin in Effort to Break Aid DeadlockDemocratic insistence that the Congress do more than simply “top up” the PPP funds stalled action on the measure last week as funds dwindled, drawing criticism from Republicans and President Donald Trump.“Overwhelmingly, my caucus, and we’re working closely with the Senate Democrats, know that we have an opportunity, and an urgency, to do something for our hospitals, our teachers and firefighters and the rest, right now,” Pelosi said.Pelosi on Saturday penned a progress report to Democrats -- a “Dear Colleague” letter -- that praised the “brilliant leadership of our Chairs and the overwhelming support of our Members to strengthen” and broaden the availability of the PPP.Compromise Offer“It is very urgent though that we support our police and fire, first responders, teachers,” Pelosi said in a “Fox News Sunday” interview. “Everything we’re doing is about the coronavirus. Not going afield into anything else.”Congressional Democrats on Friday night outlined a compromise offer to Mnuchin, a senior Democratic aide said on Saturday.Terms of the offer included allocating an already-requested $150 billion in state and local funding based on need, but also designating additional money for cities, counties and towns, the senior aide said.Key swing states including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin -- all won by Trump in 2016 -- would receive billions of dollars in new aid under the Democrats’ proposal.The Small Business Association’s $349 billion PPP program, which was intended to help mom-and-pop businesses, ran out of funds in less than two weeks.It’s come under fire for payouts made to certain operations like large chain restaurants. More than a dozen publicly traded companies with revenue of more than $100 million, including Shake Shack Inc., Potbelly Corp. and a Tex-Mex restaurant chain with more than 10,000 employees, received loans.The National Federation of Independent Business, the largest group representing small businesses in the country, is calling on Congress to reserve $200 billion in the next tranche of funds for firms that have 20 or fewer employees.In an interview on CNN Saturday and on Twitter, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers said the types of businesses that can apply for funds “is too broad.”“Most of the money now is going to people who have hundreds of people working for them, and millions of dollars in their accounts,” Summers said. “We need to change the rules.”The industries that received the largest share of loans were construction; professional, scientific and technical services; manufacturing; and health care and social assistance, according to a report from the SBA.The PPP offers loans of as much as $10 million that convert to grants if proceeds are used to keep workers on the payroll and cover rent and other approved expenses for about two months, a stopgap designed to help businesses get by until the economy reopens.Schumer said on CNN that “from one end to the country to the other, we have been hearing that people can’t get the loans -- the local restaurant, the local barbershop, the local drugstore, or even startup businesses.”Democrats “want to put some more money in, but let’s set aside some money to make sure it goes to the rural areas, to the minority areas, to the unbanked,” he said.Mnuchin conceded that “some big businesses” were getting money from the PPP. “That was in the bill. But let me say, the majority of these are going to small businesses.”(Updates with McConnell-led call in sixth paragraph.)For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8870618 https://yhoo.it/2XKXkf5

[truck-fump]

THE STATE OF THE DIS-UNIONAn impeached president who was on...

New Post has been published on https://truckfump.life/2020/02/04/the-state-of-the-dis-unionan-impeached-president-who-was-on/

THE STATE OF THE DIS-UNIONAn impeached president who was on...

THE STATE OF THE DIS-UNION

An impeached president who was on trial and is up for re-election will be delivering a state of the union address to the most divided union in living memory. He will be giving his address to both his jurors and prosecutors, and most importantly, to the voters that will decide his fate in November.

It’s not unprecedented for an impeached president to give a state of the union address. Bill Clinton delivered his State of the Union in 1999 while in the middle of his Senate trial. But that’s where the similarities end.

Clinton was not up for re-election when he gave his speech, so he didn’t need to employ any campaign-style rhetoric. Trump is a polarizing, divisive president who is addressing an America that has never been so divided.

But this begs the question: why are we so divided?

We’re not fighting a hugely unpopular war on the scale of Vietnam. We’re not in a deep economic crisis like the Great Depression. Yes, we disagree about guns, abortion, and immigration, but we’ve disagreed about them for decades. So why are we so divided now?

Ferocious partisanship is not new. Newt Gingrich, the Republican Speaker of the House who led the House’s impeachment investigation into Clinton, pioneered the combative partisanship we’re used to today. But today’s divisions are far deeper than they were then.

Part of the answer is Trump himself. The Great Divider knows how to pit native-born Americans against immigrants, the working class against the poor, whites against blacks and Latinos, evangelicals against secularists — keeping everyone stirred up by vilifying, disparaging, denouncing, defaming, and accusing others of the worst. Trump thrives off disruption and division.

But that begs another question: Why have we been so ready to be divided by Trump?

One theory is the underlying tension that an older, whiter, and less educated America, concentrated in rural areas, is losing out to a “new” America that’s younger, more diverse, more educated, and concentrated in urban areas. These trends, while much more prominent these days, have been going on since the start of the 20th century. Why are they causing so much anger now?

Another hypothesis is that we are geographically sorting ourselves into Republican and Democratic regions of the country, surrounding ourselves with like-minded neighbors and friends so we no longer talk to people with opposing views. But why are we doing this?

The rise of social media sensationalizing our differences in order to attract eyeballs and advertisers, plays a crucial role in exacerbating the demographic and geographic trends I just mentioned. But it alone isn’t responsible for our polarized nation.

Together, all of these factors contribute to the political schism we’re experiencing today. But none of them alone point to any large, significant change in the structure of our society that can account for what’s happened.

Let me have a go.

In the fall of 2015, I visited Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Missouri, and North Carolina for a research project I was doing on the changing nature of work. I spoke with many of the same people I had met twenty years before when I was secretary of labor, as well as with some of their grown children.

What I heard surprised me. Twenty years ago, many said they’d been working hard and were frustrated they weren’t doing better. Now, that frustration had been replaced by full-blown anger — anger towards their employers, the government, Wall Street.

Many had lost jobs, savings, or homes in the Great Recession following the financial crisis of 2008, or knew others who had. By the time I spoke with them, most were back in jobs but the jobs paid no more than they had two decades before in terms of purchasing power.

I heard the term “rigged system” so often I began asking people what they meant by it. They spoke about flat wages, shrinking benefits, and growing job insecurity. They talked about the bailout of Wall Street, political payoffs, insider deals, soaring CEO pay, and “crony capitalism.”

These complaints came from people who identified as Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. A few had joined the Tea Party, while a few others had been involved in the Occupy movement.

With the 2016 political primaries looming, I asked them which candidates they found most attractive. At the time, Democratic Party insiders favored Hillary Clinton and Republican insiders favored Jeb Bush. Yet no one I spoke with mentioned Clinton or Bush.

They talked instead about Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. When I asked why, they said Sanders or Trump would “shake things up” or “make the system work again” or “stop the corruption” or “end the rigging.”

In the following year, Sanders – a seventy-four-year old Jew from Vermont who described himself as a democratic socialist and wasn’t a registered Democrat until the 2016 presidential primaries – came within a whisker of beating Clinton in the Iowa caucus, routed her in the New Hampshire primary, and ended up with 46 percent of the pledged delegates from Democratic primaries and caucuses.

Trump – a sixty-nine-year-old ego-maniacal billionaire reality-TV star who had never held elective office or had anything to do with the Republican Party and who lied compulsively about everything – won the Republican primaries and then went on to beat Clinton, one of the most experienced and well-connected politicians in modern America (although he didn’t win the popular vote, and had some help from the Kremlin).

Something very big had happened, and it wasn’t due to Sanders’s magnetism or Trump’s likeability. It was a rebellion against the establishment.

That rebellion is still going on, although much of the establishment still denies it. They have come up with myriad explanations for Trump’s ascendance, some with validity; some without: It was hatred of Obama, it was hatred of Hillary, it was people voting third party, it was racism and xenophobia.

It’s important to note that although racism and xenophobia in America date to before the founding of the Republic, they have never before been so central to a candidate’s appeal and message as they’ve been with Trump. Aided by Fox News and an army of right-wing outlets, Trump used the underlying frustrations of the working class and channeled them into bigotry, but this was hardly the first time in history a demagogue has used this cynical ploy.

Trump convinced many blue-collar workers feeling ignored by the powers that be that he was their champion. Hillary Clinton did not convince them that she was. Her decades of public service ended up being a negative, not a positive: She was indubitably part of the establishment, the epitome of decades of policies that had left these blue-collar workers in the dust. (It’s notable that during the primaries, Bernie Sanders did far better than Clinton with blue-collar voters.)

A direct line connects the four-decade stagnation of wages with the bailout of Wall Street, the rise of the Tea Party (and, briefly, Occupy), and the successes of Sanders and Trump in 2016. By 2016, Americans understood that wealth and power had moved to the top. Big money had rigged our politics. This was the premise of Sanders’s 2016 campaign. It was also central to Trump’s appeal (“I’m so rich I can’t be bought off”), which he quickly reneged on once elected, delivering everything big money could have imagined.

The most powerful force in American politics today continues to be anti-establishment fury at a rigged system. Vicious partisanship, record-breaking economic inequality, and the resurgence of white supremacy are all byproducts of this rigged system. The biggest political battle today isn’t between left, right, or center: it’s between Trump’s authoritarian populism  and democratic (small “d”) populism.

Democrats cannot defeat authoritarian populism without an agenda of radical democratic reform, an anti-establishment movement that tackles runaway inequality and heals the racial wounds Trump has inflicted. Even though he’s a Trojan Horse for big corporations and the rich – giving them all the  tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks they’ve ever wanted – he still has large swaths of the working class convinced  he’s on their side.

Democrats must stand squarely on the side of democracy against oligarchy. We must form a unified coalition of people of all races, genders, sexualities, and classes, and band together to unrig the system. Trump is not the cause of our divided nation; he is the symptom of a rigged system that was already dividing us. It’s not enough to defeat him. We must reform the system that got us here in the first place to ensure that no future politician will ever again imitate Trump’s authoritarian demagoguery.

For now, let’s boycott the State of the Union and show the ratings-obsessed demagogue that the American people refuse to watch an impeached president continue to divide us.

[myeclecticcollectorblazeus]

Des Moines, Iowa — Even as he warns that the Robot Apocalypse is rapidly descending upon us, Andrew Yang wants his fellow Americans to know that it’s still okay to laugh.While speaking to voters in the rural Iowa town of Grundy Center on Friday, Yang painted a bleak picture, arguing that Donald Trump is not the cause of America’s problems, but the symptom of an economy that has left too many working-class Americans behind.“The numbers tell a very clear and direct story,” he said. “We eliminated 4 million manufacturing jobs in the last several years in this country. And where were those jobs primarily located? Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri, and 40,000 right here in Iowa. After those jobs dried up, the shopping center closed. People left. The school shrank, and that town has never recovered.”What’s more, he argued, in the coming years, things will only get worse as robots eliminate the jobs of millions of American telemarketers, retail clerks, and truck drivers.“How many of you all know a truck driver here in the state? It’s the most common job in 29 states: 3 1/2 million truckers, 94 percent men, average age 49. My friends in California are working on trucks that can drive themselves. They tell me they’re 98 percent of the way there,” Yang says. “A robot truck just transported 20 tons of butter from California to Pennsylvania last month with no human intervention.”“Why did they choose butter for this maiden voyage?” Yang asked. “If you Google, ‘robot-butter truck’ — this is a true story — at the end of the route was a giant stack of pancakes.”The crowd laughed, and Yang admitted that he’d made the last part up before assuring them that “everything else is real.”Yang’s unique policy platform — his signature proposal is a universal basic income of $12,000 a year for every American adult — has been key to his appeal with the small but enthusiastic band of supporters he’s built. At a cost of nearly $3 trillion annually (on par with the cost of Medicare for All), no one should expect UBI to become law anytime soon. But, as Alexandra DeSanctis wrote last April, it’s worth paying attention to Yang because “he has a policy agenda that features genuinely new ideas that, even if unworkable, augur interesting times for the future of American politics.”Yang’s good nature and sense of humor deserve attention too — they help set him apart from his Democratic rivals and also explain his appeal. He pitches himself to Democrats as being the “opposite of Trump” because he is an “Asian man who is good at math.” Even when he can’t make it to the punchline, his laughter can be infectious:> WATCH: @AndrewYang jokes that canvassers should knock unwilling people unconscious, drag them to his corner: "…then you prop them up and make them seem like they are conscious." Doubles up with laughter and his wife Evelyn tries to get him back on track: "Contain yourself." pic.twitter.com/QoDRQp58g4> > -- Ben Pu (@BenPu_nbc) February 3, 2020While Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren spend a fair amount of time denouncing Trump, Yang takes care to emphasize the need to win over those who voted for Trump in 2016.“I don't want to put anyone on the spot here, but if you're willing to share, how many people here in this room voted for Donald Trump?” Yang asked a crowd in Des Moines on Saturday night. A few attendees raised their hands. “Let's give them a round of applause,” he said.It’s not clear how much longer Yang will be in the Democratic primary. He is polling at 3.3 percent in the RealClearPolitics average of Iowa polls, despite the incredible enthusiasm of his supporters. Though only 50 people showed up at Grundy Center on Friday afternoon, he drew a crowd of 1,200 in Des Moines on Saturday night, and a large percentage of those who arrived too late to get in were wearing the Yang Gang’s signature blue hats, emblazoned with the word “math.” Few of those waiting in line were even willing to entertain the notion of getting behind a second choice if Yang proved not to be viable at their caucus location.However long his campaign lasts, though, it’s fair to say that American politics would be better were more politicians from both parties to emulate Yang’s style, if not his policy proposals.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/31n1XM7