#a gop president WILL be taking steps to expand the power of the presidency to become near kinglike/dictatorial. per project 2025.

[riparian-ripuarian]

Elections happen every year for many different levels of government, and project 2025 is such a real threat partly because Democrat messaging and campaigning for local/state positions has been so lackluster compared to Republicans.

The GOP is inching closer to having enough state governments (34 needed, they have 28) to propose and ratify constitutional amendments on the federal level that could undo basically every civil and social rights policy, amendment, and court decision progressives have won.

If you're not happy with Biden, for the love of everything you hold dear still turn out for state and local elections. You can leave POTUS blank on the ballot if you want. But as op said, Trump would be worse for Palestine.

"Biden is funding a literal genocide!"

Yeah - and so will Trump. Like, if you don't vote for Biden, Trump will win, and he will continue to send aid to Israel - in fact, he will likely send MORE aid to Israel. That's the reality of the world we live in.

And, to be honest, any US president will support Israel. Because the USA is Israel's ally. That's how foreign policy works.

So who do you prefer?

Biden, who has helped lgbtq rights, reproductive rights, infrastructure, the environment, lowered medication costs, supported unions, and done MANY good, progressive things,

Or Trump, who we already know is awful. Who we already know will destroy any human rights Biden managed to gain. Who will not help the environment. Who will not help trans people, or immigrants, or women.

Because those are your two choices. And if you think they're the same, you are dangerous to all marginalized people.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Dean Obeidallah at The Dean's Report:

We must make our focus keeping the barbarians outside the gate, not figuring out how to lessen the damage once they are on the inside. That was my immediate thought Sunday when I read NY Times in-depth article, “The Resistance to a New Trump Administration Has Already Started.” The piece featured a wide network of Democratic officials, progressive activists and more who are engaged in “extraordinary steps to prepare for a potential second Trump presidency.”  Examples include Democratic Governor Washington State Jay Inslee’s efforts to make the state a safe haven for women seeking reproductive freedom to an organization hiring a new auditor in case a second term Trump directs the Internal Revenue Service to target them. On one hand, I truly applaud these officials and organizations for grasping that Donald Trump back in the White House poses a unique threat to our freedoms and democratic Republic. Far too many don’t understand this threat.

But on the other hand, the only certain way to prevent Trump from using the government to wage a campaign of retribution, ending civil service protections so that only Trump loyalists will be in key positions in the federal government--as well as ushering in a far right wing agenda being peddled by his allies--is to defeat him this November. Again, we must make our focus keeping the barbarians outside the gate, not figuring out how to lessen the damage once they are on the inside. Trump is telling all who will listen his dark goals for a second term—from mass deportations to building in essence concentration camps for migrants to expanding executive power. There’s also Trump’s deeply concerning vow to “liberate” America from those not loyal to him. We first heard this during his 2023 speech at the conservative gathering CPAC where he promised his supporters to be their “retribution.” He then alarmingly  vowed that if elected to target Democrats, “the fake news media,” Republicans in name only, the globalists and others who oppose him, bellowing, “we will liberate America from these villains and scoundrels once and for all.”

He has repeated this pledge to “liberate” our nation from those who oppose him, including at a rally last month in Wisconsin.  When have you ever heard an American political figure speak about “liberating” America from those who politically oppose him or her?! You can’t find it because we never had an aspiring fascist—who has pledged to be a dictator on “day one”— lead one of the two main political parties. To be blunt, the forms of resistance utilized to stymie some of Trump’s agenda in the first term are unlikely to work against this bitter, angry convicted felon who is hellbent on retribution and purging America from those who won’t bend a knee to him.

[...]

From a legislative point of view, If Trump were able to win and his MAGA GOP were able to also take control of the House and Senate, we can expect him deliver for them on a laundry list of right-wing policy dreams from national abortion and birth control bans to further weakening civil rights protections for LGBTQ and Black Americans and worse. This won’t be like Trump’s first term when some Republicans stood up to him to block his radical agenda—with the most famous example being the late Senator John McCain preventing Trump from repealing the Affordable Care Act with his vote.  The Republicans who have dared to stand up to Trump are almost all out of Congress or now capitulated to his undemocratic goals. Of the ten House Republicans who voted in  January 2021 to impeach Trump for inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection, only two remain in the House. Senator Mitt Romney--a vocal critics of Trump--will be leaving office  this January. Even GOP Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell who slammed Trump on the Senate floor after the Jan. 6 attack with the words, “There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day,” last week met with Trump and dubbed  it “entirely positive.”

[...] If Trump wins, there are few things that can rein him in. That is why diverting efforts at this point to second term resistance strategies is dangerous given the threat Trump poses. Rather, the top and only priority must be utilizing all resources to defeat him. Nothing else matters.

Dean Obeidallah dropping truth nuggets in his latest Dean's Report post on why defeating fascist felon Donald Trump is imperative to save our nation.

See Also:

CNN: Opinion: Don’t focus on bracing for a Trump win

[mariacallous]

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump will possess a sizable prize that very few of his predecessors since Richard Nixon have enjoyed in their first two years in office: united government.

Following his inauguration, Trump will step into the Oval Office with the benefit of having the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate under the control of a loyal GOP. Republicans will have control of 53 Senate seats and 220 House seats. While the Republican majority remains narrow—indeed, the smallest in in the House in American history—Trump will still have a massive window of opportunity.

Although these moments don’t last long, these are the months that offer presidents their most realistic path to legislative achievement of historic significance.

Over the next two years, Trump will have the chance to make consequential changes on a number of key policy fronts with congressional approval, including immigration, taxation, and fossil fuel energy production.

But success, history shows, is anything but automatic.

The contemporary period of congressional-presidential relations started in January 1969, when Nixon—a Republican—succeeded Democratic President Lyndon Johnson, who had withdrawn from the race. As Nixon took office,  Democratic majorities returned to the House and Senate, where the party had been in control since 1955. (Democrats had 248 seats in the House and 57 in the Senate).

Nixon’s victory and the defeat of the Democratic candidate, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, were the start of the modern era of divided government. Now the two branches are frequently under the control of different parties—and with partisan polarization vastly expanding the space separating Democrats from Republicans, many presidents have spent much of their time behind the Resolute Desk facing off against a Congress controlled by an uncooperative opposition.

Even during the so-called honeymoon periods, divided government has made it difficult for presidents to build on perceived mandates, as President Ronald Reagan learned between 1981 and 1983, when House Democrats—with 243 seats—served as a powerful check against his effort to dismantle core elements of the social safety net. For instance, when Reagan attempted to reduce early retirement benefits under Social Security in 1981, Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill, a fighting liberal from Massachusetts, pounced—teaching Republicans what the third rail of U.S. politics looked like.

At times, united government has provided the exception. Most famously, President Barack Obama took office in 2009 and spent his capital aggressively and effectively. Taking power after the dire financial crisis that began in 2008 and amid the ongoing quagmire in Iraq, Obama worked with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to move forward a robust legislative trifecta that included the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a massive economic stimulus, and the Dodd-Frank financial regulations, made possible because Democrats controlled 257 House seats and 59 Senate seats (including two independents who caucused with Senate Democrats).

Republicans, still shell-shocked from the fallen status of their party under former President George W. Bush, initially didn’t put up much of a fight other than voting no on the bills. The stimulus bill helped move the nation out of a severe recession. The Dodd-Frank Act remade the regulatory infrastructure within which financial world operated. The ACA, which has become increasingly popular over time and survived legal and political attacks, vastly expanded access to health care coverage and ended certain kinds of inequitable practices by insurance companies; ACA also resulted in a huge expansion of Medicaid coverage throughout the states, red and blue.

More recently, outgoing President Joe Biden experienced similar success with united government. From 2021 to 2023, the House and Senate were under Democratic control (222-213 in the House; 50-50 in the Senate). Even though the Senate majority was as narrow as could be, with Vice President Kamala Harris forced to serve as the tiebreaking vote, Biden relied on aggressive party leadership on Capitol Hill—as well as procedures such as reconciliation—to push major legislation over fierce Republican resistance.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell could kick and scream as much as he wanted, but Biden, who brought with him extensive legislative experience, tapped into his Lyndon Johnson-like skills to obtain the American Rescue Plan, the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

The success brought instant comparisons to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, masking some of the underlying weaknesses of Biden’s administration—from his deteriorating condition as a result of age and electoral discontent stemming from inflation, immigration, and chronic economic hardship.

Whereas united government can empower a president, as it did with Obama and Biden, success is anything but inevitable. When Jimmy Carter assumed the presidency in January 1977, Democrats were feeling downright giddy. With 61 Senate seats and 292 House seats, the outlook seemed great. The Republican Party had been discredited as a result of Nixon’s dramatic downfall in 1974. Carter seemed to have a wide-open playing field to erase the memories of Nixon and Nixon’s successor, President Gerald Ford, from the history books.

It turned out that there was trouble ahead, however. Carter’s relationship with legislators was rocky from the start. The consummate Washington outsider, Carter continually took steps that angered colleagues on his side of the aisle. In 1977, he killed water projects that powerful members of his party were counting on. He refused to court members with the same kind of enthusiasm and respect that they had become used to. He prioritized issues, such as conservation, that deeply divided his own party. And he spent the first few years fighting for policies—including giving control of the Panama Canal back to the Panamanians—that energized the GOP without providing electoral reward to Democrats.

Although Carter managed to move a large number of bills during his first 100 days, they were not the kind of legacy-making legislation that Obama and Biden later pushed through. Heading into the midterms, Carter admitted in an interview with the New York Times that he might have overestimated the power of the presidency and underestimated the power of Congress. Nor did his initiatives bring any apparent political payback, as became apparent with Reagan’s victory in 1980.

Democratic President Bill Clinton also found that united government is not always an elixir to gridlock. After defeating Republican President George H. W. Bush, Clinton entered Washington hoping to rebuild his party following 12 years of Republican rule in the White House. He would count on 258 House Democrats and 55 Senate Democrats to do his bidding. There were a few instances when he successfully put pressure on everyone in the party to support him in order to push important legislation, such as a progressive tax bill in 1993 that raised taxes on the wealthy and started a long process of deficit reduction. In 1994, Congress passed the largest crime bill in the nation’s history, which dramatically increased federal sentencing for crimes, poured federal funding into the prison system, and increased community-based policing.

Clinton’s ban on assault weapons infuriated gun rights organizations while marking a major success for those seeking more stringent regulation. Over time, the anti-crime bill would become extraordinarily controversial within the Democratic Party as a result of the disproportionate effects felt by Black Americans within the carceral state. At the time, however, many in the party saw this as a significant victory that directed funds toward more effective community-based crime prevention and thus undercut Republicans, who had always claimed that they were the party of “law and order.”

Much of the first two years of Clinton’s administration, however, didn’t go so well politically. Some problematic cabinet nominations tied the administration up. Clinton also decided to invest much of his political capital on a massive health care bill that didn’t go anywhere. In June 1993, the Time magazine cover story featured a picture of a smallish Clinton looking up at the headline: “The Incredible Shrinking Presidency.” The legislative debate on the health care bill dragged on for more than a year, splitting his own party into faction and energizing Republicans. Foreign policy didn’t help matters. When two Black Hawk helicopters were shot down in Somalia that October, resulting in 18 U.S. soldiers being killed, confidence in Clinton fell even further.

As the health care measure consumed much of his focus, other initiatives that might have dealt more directly with the economic revitalization of deindustrialization fell by the wayside. At the same time, his support for the passage of the NAFTA agreement in 1993 seemed to move the economy in the wrong direction for working communities.

When Republicans won control of the House and Senate in the midterms for the first time since Dwight Eisenhower was president, many of Clinton’s Democratic colleagues concluded that his initial two years had been a failure. Speaking to the press a day after the election, Clinton argued that voters “still believe that government is more often the problem than the solution. They don’t want any party to be the party of government. They don’t want the presumption to be that people in Washington know what’s best. … So, I’m saying that to that extent, that message—I got it. I accept responsibility for not delivering.”

The united government that will define Washington in 2025 is a formidable weapon, if Trump doesn’t waste it. Given that Republicans have proven to be extraordinarily united on most policy issues and in their support of the president-elect, he will have a massive window to achieve the kind of transformative legislation that generally eluded him during the first term.

And Trump has made clear throughout the campaign what his key demands will be, and should he obtain congressional legislation entrenching those ideas, he will push certain areas of government sharply to the right in ways that will be difficult to reverse. For all the talk about his toxic rhetoric and unconventional methods, here Trump has the chance to do what few modern presidents have been able to do, which is obtain enduring legislation that changes the country for decades to come.

Yet, he could also easily squander this opportunity. The tumult over his controversial appointments could end up taking valuable time away from a legislative agenda while Trump’s own disinterest in governing could prevent him from putting in the time and work needed to keep his coalition intact through the legislative process. His tendency to move from one issue to the other, sometimes on a whim, will make it hard for congressional Republicans to stay on track and open opportunities for a united Democratic Party to obstruct and delay. If only a few Republicans defect in the House, the majority will evaporate.

In our contemporary age, the schedule remains the same. With each day in national politics, the clock is ticking. The closer the midterm elections, the more difficult it is to keep legislators focused on what the president wants as opposed to their own survival. Even in the age of Trump’s GOP, the two interests are not always the same.

Republicans have one big opportunity to turn two years into transformative years. Democrats have one big opportunity to stop them. The outcome will profoundly influence the direction that the country’s democracy will take for decades to come.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Nick Anderson, RA News

* * * *

The wrong side of history and the electorate.  March 30, 2023

Robert B. Hubbell

         Republicans effectively lost the 2022 midterm elections when they had every hope of achieving a landslide victory. Although it is impossible to pin the GOP’s failure on a single factor, the general lesson is that Republicans lost by adopting extreme positions and candidates. That lesson was lost on Republicans, who have doubled down on extreme positions in the six months following the midterms. Where Republicans have gerrymandered their way to supermajority control of state legislatures, they have wielded that power with vengeance as they force their minority agenda onto an unwilling and increasingly resentful majority.

         The GOP strategy is not a winning one over the long term. In the short term, however, it is dispiriting to be on the receiving end of legislation that is intentionally cruel and gleefully anti-democratic. But Republicans are violating the First Rule of Holes (“Stop digging”). As a result, their campaign of maliciousness is working to the benefit of Democrats in 2024. It is difficult to keep that hopeful fact in mind as we endure a seemingly endless stream of actions that simultaneously limit constitutional liberties, make us less safe, and attack the dignity of LGBTQ Americans.

         How can we know that Republicans are on the wrong side of history and the American electorate? The 2022 midterms are themselves prima facie evidence of that fact. Moreover, there were six ballot initiatives (including Kansas, Montana, and Kentucky) that involved the right to protect reproductive liberty. In all six elections, the voters chose reproductive liberty over state-sponsored interference in private decisions that belong to a woman and her doctor. When the people’s voices can be heard, they favor reproductive liberty. And yet, Republican politicians and legislatures are taking action this week to restrict reproductive liberty—including in Florida.

         This brings us to the “natural experiment” of Ron DeSantis’s effort to turn Florida into a religious dictatorship. DeSantis has staked his presidential hopes on channeling the right-wingiest ideas of right-wing extremism. If banning books and attacking LGBTQ people, and criminalizing abortion is the key to future success for the GOP, Ron DeSantis should be riding high. He is not. He is declining in the polls, despite running to the right of Trump on many social issues—including abortion. But in the last sixty days, Trump has widened his lead over DeSantis significantly.

         There are, of course, many factors that contributed to DeSantis’s stumbling in the polls. But his efforts to ban LGBTQ people, outlaw abortion, and erase Black history negatively correlate to his electoral prospects—as should be expected. Americans broadly support reproductive liberty, LGBTQ rights, banning assault weapons, and being “woke.” DeSantis is adopting extreme positions because he believes they will propel him to the presidency. To date, that calculus is demonstrably wrong.

         As we watch DeSantis deny rights to the citizens of Florida, we are also witnessing his likely demise. That does not ease the pain for the objects of discrimination and abrogation of rights in Florida, but it should give us hope that we will be able to reverse the damage inflicted during this period of GOP-gerrymandered illegitimacy. And that sentiment applies beyond DeSantis and Florida; it applies more broadly to large swaths of America where Republican politicians are badly out-of-step with their constituents.

         And now, for my point: Today’s news brought many disconcerting reports of Republican politicians and legislatures restricting reproductive freedom to the point of forced pregnancy, expanding gun rights to the point of anarchy, and discriminating against transgender people to the point of inhumanity. I list some of those actions below—but not to bemoan our fate. I list them to argue that Republicans are sowing the seeds of their defeat in 2024. Each of the actions is wildly out of step with the sentiments of the American people. So, take heart and remain strong. We are on the right side of history and the American electorate.

Senator Tommy Tuberville has blocked the promotions of dozens of senior military officers because the Department of Defense grants women in the military the ability to travel to a state that permits abortion if they are stationed in a state that prohibits it.

The Florida legislature will vote on Wednesday to impose a six-week abortion ban.

Idaho just passed a law making it a crime to provide travel assistance to a pregnant minor seeking an abortion.

North Carolina just removed the ability of sheriffs to deny gun permits based on criminal background checks, signs of mental illness, domestic abuse incidents, or other indications that a person could be a danger to themselves or others.

After refusing last month to restrict the ability of children to carry guns without a permit or supervision on public property, Missouri legislators are now considering a bill to allow the concealed carry of weapons into places of worship.

The GOP-controlled legislature in Kentucky overrode Democratic Governor Andy Beshear’s veto of a bill that would deny gender-affirming treatment to transgender people.

         As I said, these bills are intentionally cruel and gleefully anti-democratic. Add to that description, “Badly out of step with the sentiments of the American people.” When statewide offices are on the ballot in 2024, Democrats can turn the tide against the GOP onslaught of hate and lawlessness. That trend was strong in 2022 but just missed sweeping Republicans out of national prominence. Let’s not miss our chance in 2024.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[directnewssourc]

Mitch McConnell Urges Action Against Isolationist Trends in GOP

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is taking aim at his party’s isolationist wing — including Donald Trump — faulting them for undermining tough-on-Russia policies and sending mixed signals to allies. Mitch McConnell's Critique of Isolationist Trends The Kentucky Republican delivered a rare critique of the president-elect in a Foreign Affairs essay on Monday, warning against the “right-wing flirtation with isolation and decline.” McConnell, who is stepping down from the Senate GOP’s top spot, urged Trump to reject voices in the party advocating for a retreat from U.S. commitments to Ukraine and NATO and called on the new administration to double down on American military might. “America will not be made great again by those who simply want to manage its decline,” he wrote. McConnell's Stance on U.S. Foreign Policy By criticizing Trump’s missteps on Russia and cautioning against a retreat from global commitments, McConnell staked his claim as a check on isolationist voices in his own party. He’ll chair the Senate Defense Appropriations panel next year, teeing up a potential clash with a White House that could pursue a wholesale revamp of U.S. foreign policy. The article represents McConnell’s most extensive comments about national security and foreign policy since he announced his departure. And they highlight the widening split within the Republican Party as he exits leadership and Trump returns to Washington. Call for American Military Strength McConnell called on the incoming Trump administration to invest more money in the military and not forfeit U.S. involvement in Europe in favor of focusing on Asia, particularly China. He called the two regions “interconnected challenges.” While he jabbed at President Joe Biden’s policies, he also pointedly criticized isolationist strains in the GOP. “The response to four years of weakness must not be four years of isolation,” he wrote. Challenges to U.S. Foreign Policy “Standing up to China will require Trump to reject the myopic advice that he prioritize that challenge by abandoning Ukraine,” McConnell added. “A Russian victory would not only damage the United States’ interest in European security and increase U.S. military requirements in Europe; it would also compound the threats from China, Iran, and North Korea.” The sharp critique focused on Trump’s first-term inconsistencies on Ukraine and global crises. McConnell credited Trump for sending lethal weapons to Ukraine, striking targets in Syria after a suspected chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime, and heightening U.S. energy production to counter Russia. But temporarily withholding $400 million in security assistance to Ukraine undercut those hawkish moves, he said. McConnell's Call for Continued Aid and Defense Budgets McConnell has been a vocal supporter of continued aid to Ukraine and larger Pentagon budgets. He has reprimanded both parties for not taking global threats seriously. But his most notable criticism has been for his own party. His words underscore how he may serve as a foil to Trump and his wing of the GOP from his new post-leadership perch. McConnell's Vision for U.S. Military Power He also endorsed a sweeping push to expand U.S. military power and ensure the country can respond to two global crises at once. He called for investments in munitions stockpiles, the defense industrial base and technical cooperation with allies. McConnell, in line with calls from conservatives to slash spending, wrote that Trump should gut “extravagant” non-defense spending spurred by Democrats to finance increases to the Pentagon budget. He also called for overhauling entitlement programs and government regulations.

[bllsbailey]

Biden caters to 'far-left' dark money groups with Supreme Court 'gimmick,' critics say

President Biden’s push to impose radical changes to the Supreme Court caters to the left-wing base of the Democrat party from an administration that was once billed as a "moderate," critics argue.

On Monday, Biden and Vice President Harris, who is now running at the top of the presidential ticket for Democrats in November, backed drastic measures for Congress to adopt, including term limits, ethics rules and a constitutional amendment to limit presidential immunity.

Biden, in an op-ed published in the Washington Post, said he has "great respect for our institutions and separation of powers" but "what is happening now is not normal, and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions, including those impacting personal freedoms. We now stand in a breach."

The move marks a nearly 180-degree pivot for Biden, who had generally bucked plans even from within his own party to make such changes to the high court. 

President Biden walks down the steps of Air Force One at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware on July 17, 2024. (Susan Walsh/AP)

During the early years of his political career in the Senate, Biden called President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s plans to place term limits on older justices and packing the court "a bonehead idea." Packing the court, or court packing, is a term for increasing the number of justices on a court.

On the campaign trail in 2020, he resisted calls to expand the size of the court, saying that it would undermine its credibility.

With Monday’s announcement, Biden hasn’t said he wants to pack the court. But on his way out the Oval Office door, he’s endorsing plans from the most radical wing of his party.

"The far-left calls to destroy the Supreme Court were answered first by a candidate desperate to save his failing campaign," said Carrie Severino, president of Judicial Crisis Network.

President Biden speaks at a campaign event at Pullman Yards in Atlanta on March 9, 2024. (Megan Varner/Getty Images)

"Now they will be championed by a candidate who needs to cater to dark money groups in the Arabella Advisors network like Demand Justice, Fix the Court and a host of other pop-up groups funded by liberal billionaires," she added.

Arabella Advisors is a dark money fund that feeds various left-wing causes. Notably, Harris’ communications director, Brian Fallon, is the former head of Demand Justice, which is an Arabella-funded group that advocates for court packing.

Fix the Court, another Arabella-connected group, pushes for term limits for Justices.

"[Biden is] trying to gin up his base with this gimmick," said GOP strategist Matt Gorman.

"The idea that Joe Biden would advocate for term limits is laughable. The left can’t stand that they don’t control the court, so they’ll do whatever they can to take it by legislative force," he said.

The ideological swing of the high court shifted when former President Trump appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The conservative block is certainly not always in a lockstep vote, but Democrats in Congress and in the White House have nevertheless claimed that about the Republican-appointed majority.

"President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris want to end-run the Constitution and destroy the Supreme Court because they can't control it," said Severino.

"Biden and Harris are declaring war on the separation of powers with this announcement," she added.

The Harris campaign did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.

White House spokesperson Andrew Bates responded, "As he stands up for the rule of law and the integrity of the Supreme Court, President Biden is grateful for the support these proposals are receiving from bipartisan legal experts, members of Congress, and large majorities of the American people. 

'DANGEROUS' DEMOCRAT JUDICIAL ETHICS BILL WOULD ALLOW ANY 'JACKALOON' TO DEMAND A RECUSAL, SEN. KENNEDY SAYS

"Now, congressional Republicans have a choice to make: will they safeguard conflicts of interests on our nation’s highest court and help presidents remain above the law, or will they side with Joe Biden, conservative former judges, and their own constituents to protect principals that should override any partisanship?" said Bates. 

Notably, the Supreme Court last year adopted a new code of conduct after months of scrutiny from Democrats in Congress. 

"For the most part, these rules and principles are not new: The Court has long had the equivalent of common law ethics rules, that is, a body of rules derived from a variety of sources, including statutory provisions, the code that applies to other members of the federal judiciary, ethics advisory opinions issued by the Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct, and historic practice," a statement signed by all the justices said.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct," it said. 

[qqueenofhades]

so i’ve been following the presidential race closely, and i’ve been a fan of bernie since the start. however, my mom says that he wouldn’t make any big changes, as he’s hard to work with, can’t make the necessary compromises. the example she used was that throughout his senate term, he’s only passed 3 bills, 2 of which were insignificant. i didn’t think of this, as this is my first time closely following an election. what are your thoughts? would a sanders presidency make any real changes?

Oh dear. You really want to get me into trouble this morning, don’t you. Which is 100% not your fault, you are smart to be thinking about all this and asking questions, and by no means do I want you to stop doing that. So I’ll try to explain this as clearly and straightforwardly as I can, and if I get hate for it, alas.

The thing about Bernie is, which certain subsets of his supporters don’t seem to quite appreciate, is that he’s a great candidate, he’s been useful in pushing the public dialogue and political climate of the Democrats further to the left, he obviously inspires a devoted following, and I agree completely with all of his policies. But there’s still a gulf – a very wide gulf – between all that, and actually putting good ideas into political practice in the (very) flawed American system of government as it currently exists. Yes, the system sucks, we know that, and it can feel outrageously frustrating when moderate candidates are offering milquetoast proposals that don’t really get at the underlying structural causes of massive, entrenched inequality, oppression, racism, sexism, etc that these bright young people have rightly identified in the world. That’s why Bernie is appealing as a candidate, and while my primary already happened on Super Tuesday, I would vote for him over Biden if that was my choice right now. But the seeming expectation that we could pick Bernie, he’d win, he’d instantly remake the entire American political system and implement all his changes, and everything would be fine again – and that if we can’t have that option, just not voting is somehow better – is, to say the least, deeply problematic.

I supported Elizabeth Warren for a number of reasons, but one of them was that while she had many progressive policies similar to or almost identical to Bernie’s, she had tangible evidence of being able to get them done (see: the CFPB), to network and form functional relationships with the Democratic establishment, to work within the existing framework of party politics, and to actually do everything she had written her plans for. To certain Bernie supporters, this made her a corporate shill, a heartless witch who wanted to personally kill poor children, an establishment hack, so on and so forth. They attacked her for running in the first place, they attacked her for challenging Bernie in debates, they attacked her for not dropping out before Super Tuesday, they attacked her for dropping out and then not immediately endorsing Sanders, they attacked her supporters, so on and so forth. I’d still vote for Sanders in a heartbeat over Biden, and I will be happy to vote for him if he gets the nomination. But when you’re treating people that way who fundamentally agree with you on all your policies, there’s something wrong. 

And no, it’s not a touchy-feely “we need to hold hands and be nice and listen to each other!” respectabillity politics issue, which also gets used as a straw man. Warren was committed to Medicare for All, but she also recognized there needed to be a transition period and that a public option was a good first step (something which Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the other progressive superstar, has also said). Because she accepted any limitations, because she wanted to work in the system, because she didn’t say she’d burn down global capitalism on day 1, this made her a Very Bad Candidate, and people who otherwise agreed with her didn’t think she’d win, so they didn’t vote for her and turned it into a self-fulfilling prophecy. I’m not saying Warren didn’t have flaws. She did. She’s a politician. There were other reasons people might not have been personally drawn to her. But the flack she got for daring to run as a progressive, while also acknowledging the power of the system and that you cannot uproot these structures immediately (she also planned to use executive power to implement some of her proposals on her first day in office), while challenging Bernie… wow.

Because the thing is, Bernie isn’t going to deliver absolutely everything he promises, and that’s not necessarily his fault. No politician in the history of time ever has. If Bernie somehow does get elected, with a Democratic-controlled House and Senate: great! Then yes, he does have a decent chance of passing some planks of his legislative policy. But there are several things you have to keep in mind here, and this is not “Bernie bashing”:

1. Bernie is not, strictly speaking, a Democrat. He’s an independent, he caucuses and votes often with the Democratic party, and he’s obviously running for their presidential nomination. But he’s not part of the party apparatus, he’s proud of that fact, and this is also a selling point for his supporters: look, he’s not part of the Corrupt Establishment! The DNC obviously has deep and systematic problems and is more committed to the bureaucratic status quo than uprooting inequality in America. That’s not up for debate. But as a candidate and as a nominee for the Democratic Party, Bernie would still need to have the backing of that system. If he doesn’t have it, that makes it harder.

2. “What does that matter?” a certain kind of Bernie supporter might cry. “They’re corrupt and rigging the election for Biden! Voter suppression!”

3. Pause for a deep sigh. Yes. There were long lines in many precincts on Super Tuesday. But voters for all candidates had to stand in them anyway. We’ve already discussed how some Sanders supporters treated Warren and her supporters, the ideologically closest candidate to them in the race. If your entire political ethos involves yelling at people and calling them names on the internet, that’s… not really sustainable as an outreach program and getting them into the hard work of day-to-day coalition building. I say this because I WANT to see progressive politics succeed and actually get put into practice, not just narrowly refined tighter and tighter into a certain tiny subset of Pure Beliefs that never amount to a hill of beans in anyone’s lives. You can have the greatest policies possible, but if you never acknowledge or accept any way to DO SOMETHING about them… really, is that a political ethos based on action and compassion or not? I’m voting for Sanders if he gets the nomination, and I’d vote for him if my primary was still upcoming and my first choice (Warren) was out. But I’m pretty fed up at how some camps on that side have been acting, and I am already a progressive. This… isn’t going to help build support beyond people who are already all in for Bernie. People who you will need to win an election.

4. The usual response here is often to blow off moderates and undecided voters and other people who are apparently just too dumb to see what’s going on. Yes! It is frustrating that half of America still wants to vote for Donald Goddamn Trump! But you’re still not winning an election and getting rid of him that way!

5. Bernie does, in fact, have a thin legislative track record, which may or may not matter if he actually becomes president. America has forgotten that the president is not SUPPOSED to make policy like a king, even though the function of the executive branch has been wildly expanded and bloated since W’s (and honestly, Reagan’s) day. The LEGISLATIVE branch, i.e. the House and Senate, is supposed to make policies, and the president EXECUTES them. That is his/her (ha, if only) JOB. But Bernie doesn’t have the kind of connections in the House/Senate that would help him efficiently mobilize policies, at least on his own initiative. Bills and amendments are slow, boring work. They require committee meetings, drafts, multiple readings, changes, deletions, hearings, final passage, etc. Ironically, the person Bernie could probably most count on in the Senate would be… Elizabeth Warren. And she’d obviously help him out, no matter what the rabid Bernie bros think, but it shows that party establishment politics, no matter how distasteful, are part of getting anything done.

6. Bernie’s plans to pay for some of his big policy proposals, such as student loan debt relief (which I am obviously very into) and Medicare for All, involve, according to him, levying a big new tax on Wall Street and the one percent. Passing a major new tax platform that RAISES taxes is always like pulling teeth. That would require passage in the House and Senate. Cool, let’s say the Democrats control both. Are all of them, especially the moderate ones or senators from red-leaning states, going to vote for it? Probably. But it’s not guaranteed. If you’re funding public policy by raising taxes (the one thing the American public has notably hated since 1773) it’s going to be HARD WORK. Let’s say that takes a year to pass. Let’s also guess that a President Sanders would lose either the House or the Senate in the 2022 midterm elections, because sitting presidents almost invariably do. Obama had two years to enact some of his policy proposals. Then came 2010 and the Tea Party, and it was, as a deliberate and ongoing GOP choice, gridlock central.

7. You think the Republicans obstructed OBAMA? Centrist corporate Democrat Obama, whose policies were solidly in line with the American establishment, but who happened to have brown skin and a funny name? You ain’t seen NOTHING compared to what they would do to a President Sanders. And as we said, even if the Democrats take Congressional control in 2020, they would invariably lose at least one branch in 2022. We are already figuring in at least a year for Bernie to somehow get his tax plan through. The billionaires are mad. They pour money like crazy into GOP candidates. Welp.

8. So this leaves us… maybe 12-16 months for Bernie to try to enact all his policy reforms, while being deliberately outside of the Democratic party establishment, while having to work with the House and Senate in a way he hasn’t really done before, and accepting limitations on his policies and his political ability, also not something he has really shown an aptitude for. 

9. So what? Bernie supporters demand. Are you saying don’t vote for Bernie, it’s hopeless! CORPORATE SHILL!

10. No. Not what I am saying at all. Obviously a Sanders presidency would be light years, LIGHT FUCKING YEARS, better than what we’ve got in there right now. But Sanders (and also Biden) are in their late 70s and have underlying health problems. The likelihood that either of them would serve two full terms is… slim. Obama is two decades younger and we saw how much the presidency aged him. I feel like they’re both flawed candidates in different ways, and my deepest fear is that neither of them can beat Trump, that the Democrats by trying to go for Biden, an Establishment Centrist Old White Man, think they’re playing to a “middle” that doesn’t really exist, and that either progressives or moderates will feel left out in the cold if Biden or Sanders win the nomination. The candidate will have to do the post-convention “pivot,” i.e. trying to appeal to those of their party’s voters who didn’t choose them in the primary, but is Sanders going to do that? His whole platform and the reason his supporters love him is that he doesn’t compromise. Which again, great for ideology, but runs into problems with consistent and actual implementation.

At the end of all this, the takeaway is this: yes, vote for Bernie if you believe in him! But also have a realistic idea of what he will be up against! There is simply no way that he’s going to sweep into office, even if he does get elected, and magically whisk away all the parts of America that we hate. He would have maybe two years to ram through most of his policies, it requires a legislative skill set he hasn’t honed, it rests on passing a major tax package that would be deeply unpopular and cause him to get pummelled in the 2022 midterms, and he has made a career out of operating as the lone wolf. Once again, it’s not a question of whether the current system sucks. We know that it does. But it still exists, and one candidate, no matter how much we agree with him, is not going to change that. He would hopefully manage to pass some of his major policy initiatives. But pretending that there would be no opposition, that it would all be magically fine, and that everyone who DOES raise a note of caution is a cowardly defeatist, a secret capitalist pig, a fake progressive, a secret Trumper (and we’re not the ones threatening to vote for Trump or not at all if our fave doesn’t get the nomination) or whatever else is… not helpful.

Ultimately, if we do get stuck with Biden, we have to hold our noses and vote for him anyway. If we can hold the House and flip the Senate, they can make progressive legislation and Biden is very likely to sign it anyway. The presidential system is not SUPPOSED to rest purely on the personal beliefs of the president, like an absolutist monarch – there was a pretty famous war about it back in the eighteenth century. Biden has displayed no initiative to act like Trump and be a megalomaniacal fascist overlord. We need to take a step AWAY from the insanity that is the current administration, we need to get back to NORMAL, before we can keep going left. Which is what we want! But it happens in stages, if it happens at all, and pretending that it doesn’t, that the only options are the Whole Revolution Now or Nothing, is never, NEVER going to work. And yes, Biden’s positions are generally pretty eye-rolling and I’ll be annoyed if I have to vote for him. But I’ll still do it, because he is NOT equivalent to Trump. Biden got the Violence Against Women Act (which the GOP-controlled Senate notably just failed to reauthorize) funded and passed. Trump has been accused of sexual assault by… what, 22 women? RBG isn’t likely to last another four years. The circuit courts have already been stacked with young, wildly unqualified, hard-right John Birch Society-type judges who will hold their posts for at least 40 years, and this has a direct impact on the kind of cases that are reviewed, confirmed, or struck down even before they get to the Supreme Court. Climate change, the end. There is too much at stake to fuck this up for the sake of Not Getting Everything Now.

As a final note, the Russian propaganda/troll machine has made it clear that they’re posing as Bernie supporters who insist that if Bernie doesn’t win, you shouldn’t vote. They know Bernie supporters are already voicing and disseminating that argument themselves, and they’re going to inflame it as much as possible. So that’s something to keep in mind.

[foreverlogical]

This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis.

While it is refreshing to see a bevy of conservative intellectuals and former Republicans take on Donald Trump with an eye toward electing Joe Biden as president, this mobilization seems bereft of a strategic plan for re-establishing a center-right party that is not rooted in white grievance politics and an insatiable desire to own the libs. Fair enough; there is a serious enough task at hand. But plan beats no plan, and planning can seldom start too early.

Put simply, if they are ever going to extirpate Trumpism from the Republican party or have a conservative party that is not anchored in the politics of race-baiting and xenophobia, never-Trumpers and anyone who cares about creating a vibrant center-right ought to have their eyes on a comprehensive plan for revitalizing American democracy. In fact, they owe it to the country to get behind a plan.

Only structural democracy reform – notably changes to the Senate – can destroy the electoral mathematics of Trumpism and create the conditions for a vibrant center-right to emerge. Within that context, conservatives would have the opportunity to build a new party, or purge Republicanism of its racist, anti-intellectual and anti-science elements. It’s not a short-term task, but the United States cannot do without another great political party in some form.

John Weaver, one of the Republican operatives behind the anti-Trump ad machine The Lincoln Project recently made clear that it would support important changes under a Biden administration. He named automatic voter registration and a renewed Voting Rights Act as two specifics. So far, so good. But never-Trumpers need to throw long when it comes to democracy reform. Nothing less will do, and everyone will have to pitch in.

Another way to think of structural democracy reform is a test of good faith among never-Trump conservatives, and their willingness to go after Trumpism, and not merely the man himself. Are they truly horrified by Trump and his policies, or is he simply too crass and rough to front for things they’d like to see done anyway? If the former is the case, never-Trumpers have to do more than help deny Trump a second term. History will judge them kindly if they do.

The warning signs that Trump is willing to steal the election — the sabotage of the postal service, the fight against mail-in ballots — are unmistakable. After the election, never-Trump activists should turn their fire on the Republicans who enabled Trump, and de-legitimize their influence on the political process. They broke faith with democracy at a critical moment in American history.

Democrats have proposed a set of reforms, H.R. 1, that has three basic pillarsdesigned to protect and expand voting rights (and end gerrymandering) in secure elections, reducing the influence of big money, and fortifying ethics laws. But there are other ideas out there that will be crucial to purging conservatism of Trumpism. Reforming the judiciary, which is now packed with Trump appointees who would gladly poke holes in democratic reforms, is one step. And so is expansion of the U.S. Senate to include the District of Columbia and possibly Puerto Rico, as well as the abolition of the filibuster.

These last parts, the ones that go beyond H.R. 1, are very important. The U.S. Senate is destined to be the last redoubt of Trumpism, just as it harbored to the bitter end other vicious strains of American politics, notably segregationists. It is not accommodating social change. The current Senate majority represents 48 percent of the U.S. population; by 2040, 68 senators could represent 40 percent of the population. Map that onto the country’s changing demographics and the trend is clear: whiter, older people are likely to have an outsized voice in the Senate. It’s where the people vying for Trumpist votes will dig in. More senators from diverse states, and rules that permit the majority to legislate, can ensure a functioning democracy.

Is it any surprise that would-be inheritors of the Trumpist throne are in the Senate? At least three senators (Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, and Tom Cotton) are vying for the conservative-populist presidential mantle. One (Cotton) has boiled down his objections to DC statehood to a flatly racist trope about not giving “those people” a chance to vote alongside “real Americans.” There is a strong case to be made that these guys are more dangerous than Trump himself because they have the discipline and focus that he lacks.

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report has pointed out that 115 of the 241 Republicans in the House have been defeated, resigned, or are retiring, if they have not done-so already. And Trumpist, QAnon-spouting candidates are likely to win election in safe Republican seats. Those folks will then threaten Republican senators from the right, at least the ones who don’t toe the Trumpist line.

If never-Trumpers want a center-right party that is not built around xenophobia and grievance, they have to contribute to building a political system that makes it impossible for a party to win without being firmly anchored in the communities of color that constitute the expanding portion of the American electorate. Otherwise, the lure of racialized politics, built around a strategy of locking in white voters, suppressing black and Latino ones and winning narrow victories, will continue to characterize Republican politics. Un-rigging the system will force Republicans to evolve into a center-right party that can win elections based on its platform, not resentment – or face extinction.

The obvious objection that Trump-opposing Republicans will have to face is not hard to define. “Are you not asking us to destroy the party we once loved?” It is true that democracy reform of the sort on the table now would tip the playing field in Democrats’ direction by ensuring that its traditional constituencies can vote. But there are three basic responses.

First, it’s the right thing to do! Sad that we have to say this obvious part out loud, but that’s where we are in 2020. Second, Republicans are doing  a fine job of pulling themselves out of the equation right now anyway; a long-term path to renaissance is what’s on offer. Take it! Third, never-Trumpers don’t need to sign up for Medicare for All, a wealth tax or other polices to which they may have good-faith objections to be in favor of a vibrant democracy. Democrats, in turn, should welcome converts to democracy reform; a center-right party that’s not intellectually and morally bankrupt will help keep everyone honest.

To be a Trump-opposing conservative and ignore the heavily race-based, structural defects in our democracy requires a concomitant belief that Trump is an aberration, that his emergence and staying power have no relation to the ways in which Republicans built governing coalitions exploited by a decades long white backlash to the civil rights era in the 1960s. In fact, Trump ran a playbook, crudely and ruthlessly, that had plenty of genteel echoes in the recent Republican past. While it’s comforting that some Republicans are willing to face these facts, democracy reform would be a way to make amends.

A reformed American democracy would also be an opportunity to finally test the thesis that conservatives can and should appeal to, for example, devoutly Catholic Latino voters, who have some natural conservative inclinations. Ex-Republican, never-Trump conservatives: Got a strategy for picking off Democratic voters that doesn’t rely on racist appeals? Have at it. Appeal to the better angels of our nature that your beloved Lincoln once called forth.

Clare Malone of FiveThirtyEight wrote a nice distillation of the Republican historyof appealing, or not, to Black and Latino voters, and the question that has long hung in the air on the right:

“Should the party invest in appeals to new voters or pluck racism’s low-hanging electoral fruit?” Without structural reforms to American democracy, that forbidden fruit will continue to exert a strong pull on conservative office-seekers of the future.

Defeating Trump is, heaven knows, an important battle to fight – the electoral fight upon which all the world is fixated. And it can be won. But if conservatives don’t help extinguish Trumpism by protecting that sacred right to vote and promoting other vital reforms, they will have won a pyrrhic victory – for the conservative cause and for American democracy.

Carter Dougherty is a progressive activist and writer based in Washington, DC.

VISIT WEBSITE

[phroyd]

In Nevada, the Trump campaign filed a lawsuit this week seeking images of the signature of every registered voter in Democratic-leaning Clark County — a potential first step toward challenging individual votes on grounds that the signed ballots don’t match the signatures on file.

In Texas, Republican officeholders and candidates sued this week to have more than 100,000 votes invalidated in the Houston area because they were cast at drive-through voting centers the GOP has asked a judge to declare illegal.

And in Minnesota and Pennsylvania, election officials will set aside any mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day — even if they were mailed before the polls closed — to facilitate potential court challenges.

For months, Republicans have pushed largely unsuccessfully to limit new avenues for voting in the midst of the pandemic. But with next week’s election rapidly approaching, they have shifted their legal strategy in recent days to focus on tactics aimed at challenging ballots one by one, in some cases seeking to discard votes already cast during a swell of early voting.

“It’s not just the rules anymore,” said Myrna Pérez, director of the Voting Rights and Elections Program at the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice. “It’s individual voters.”

Republicans said they are just trying to make sure the process runs smoothly and the rules are applied fairly, arguing that Democrats have loosened election rules in ways that could confuse voters and invite fraud.

“We have volunteers, attorneys and staff in place to ensure that election officials are following the law and counting every lawful ballot,” Justin Riemer, chief counsel for the Republican National Committee, said Friday. “If election officials aren’t providing transparency that the law demands or we are unable to resolve disputes over certain ballots or procedures, then we will litigate as necessary.”

But Democrats said there is no evidence that expanded mail balloting and other pandemic-related changes lead to fraud. They accused Republicans of targeting valid votes in Democratic strongholds in a blatant bid to gain an electoral advantage.

“The other side has given every indication that they will challenge every ballot they can, at every step of the process,” said Chad Dunn, general counsel for the Texas Democratic Party and co-founder of the UCLA Voting Rights Project.

“The mask is off. This isn’t about rooting out any mythical voter fraud. It never was,” Dunn said. “This is about raw power and obtaining power by any means necessary.”

The shift in strategy comes after Republicans largely failed to limit expanded access to absentee balloting aimed at ensuring people could vote safely during the pandemic. In late September, a Washington Post review of 90 state and federal voting lawsuits found that judges had been broadly skeptical of GOP claims that the possibility of voter fraud required limits on mail-balloting.

More than 85 million people have already voted, many using mail-in ballots. But President Trump has spent months trying to undermine confidence in mail ballots, and polls have consistently shown that more Republicans plan to vote in person on Election Day while many Democrats have chosen to vote absentee.

That means Republicans stand to gain a significant advantage if they can successfully challenge absentee votes already cast. Trump has telegraphed for months that if the election is close and he is running ahead of former vice president Joe Biden on election night, he will urge states to stop counting absentee ballots, even if they have been correctly cast.

“It would be very, very proper and very nice if a winner were declared on Nov. 3, instead of counting ballots for two weeks, which is totally inappropriate and I don’t believe that that’s by our laws,” Trump told reporters at the White House earlier this week.

Trump also has bluntly stated that he believes the more people vote, the less likely Republicans will prevail — a perspective that appears to have emboldened the GOP to embrace invalidating votes as a political strategy.

Criticizing a proposal by congressional Democrats to encourage absentee voting, Trump said in March, “They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”

Speaking to donors at a closed-door fundraiser in Nashville last week, Trump said his campaign would have his own “team” and law enforcement watching polling places, and that the campaign would probably have to challenge individual ballots. “My biggest risk of losing is probably fraud,” he said, according to one person in the room, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private event.

A senior Trump campaign official said they are most closely watching Nevada’s Clark County, Philadelphia and Milwaukee — all Democratic strongholds in swing states — as well as the entire state of North Carolina. The campaign has 8,500 lawyers prepared to help, as well as local lawyers lined up around the country, he said, adding: “We are prepared to sue if we need to.”

RNC spokesman Mike Reed denied Democratic claims that the party is trying to discourage voters, noting that the GOP has run an expansive get-out-the-vote program. Though last-minute rules changes championed by Democrats invite “fraud and post-election confusion,” he said, “we want every vote that is legally eligible to be cast and counted safely and securely.”

In Texas, two Republican candidates and a member of the Texas House asked the state Supreme Court this week to invalidate more than 100,000 ballots that have already been cast at drive-through centers in Harris County, contending that the creation of the drive-through sites was illegal and thus ballots cast at them should be thrown out.

The court threw out a previous challenge to the drive-through centers. Polls show an unusually close race in the Republican-leaning state, where voters have flocked to vote early in record numbers.

In Pennsylvania and Minnesota, the Trump campaign this week cheered decisions that will result in election officials segregating absentee ballots received after Election Day, a process that would make them easier to challenge should the race prove to be close.

The directive in Pennsylvania came by order of the secretary of state, even though the Supreme Court this week affirmed that ballots can be counted if they arrive within three days after polls close.

In Minnesota, where Democrats and Republicans had agreed to a seven-day grace period for late ballots, a three-judge federal appeals court panel on Thursday ordered all ballots arriving after Election Day to be kept separate, suggesting that a challenge to their validity would be successful.

In a statement, Trump senior counsel Justin Clark called the situation in Pennsylvania a “big victory.” Trump spokeswoman Thea McDonald called the Minnesota opinion a “major victory for voting rights and the rule of law.”

One of the tactics that most concerns Democrats is an apparent campaign to have votes rejected on technical grounds, such as when voter signatures on ballots do not match signatures on file with elections officials.

More than 30 states and the District require signature matching for absentee ballots, though voting rights advocates have long argued that it is an inexact science that leads to the rejection of valid ballots.

In some states, such as Pennsylvania and Michigan, election laws explicitly allow third parties to challenge individual mail-in ballots. Even where the law is less clear, there are signs that Republicans may ask courts to intervene to permit them to contest ballots.

In Florida, where concerns about the signature-matching process in 2018 led state lawmakers to require “formal signature training” for election officials, an attorney acting for the Trump campaign last month sought permission to observe the signature-matching process in Broward County, the state’s Democratic stronghold.

Broward County Democratic Party chairwoman Cynthia Busch said she was concerned that the request was aimed at laying the groundwork for potential litigation. “This is a way to try to scare people, make people mistrust the outcome and take potential legal action to get ballots thrown out,” she said.

The appointed Republican election supervisor denied the request, saying the review could slow the count. But earlier this month, both campaigns were given a one-time chance to watch the process play out for a handful of ballots.

Neither the lawyer nor a spokeswoman for the Trump campaign responded to requests for comment.

In Nevada, a lawsuit filed this week in Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, also appears aimed at laying the groundwork for challenging signatures. That suit asks a judge to force the county to release a massive trove of detailed information, including the names, party affiliations and work schedules of election workers responsible for counting ballots; a copy of every signature that appeared on mail ballots returned to elections officials; and a copy of every signature on file used to authenticate ballots. A hearing will be held Monday.

The suit was the second in a week by the Trump campaign targeting the county. The other case, filed Oct. 23, argues that the county has prevented poll watchers from adequately observing ballot-processing operations. Trump campaign lawyers argued in court that the limitations could allow fraud to go undetected — including by elections workers tempted to assist their favored candidate.

That lawsuit also seeks to prohibit Clark County from using a machine to automatically scan and authenticate ballot signatures, arguing that the law requires the work to be done by humans. A ruling is expected soon.

Nevada is one of several states with Democratic legislatures that dramatically expanded mail-in voting. The Trump campaign sued unsuccessfully to block the state’s decision to distribute ballots to every registered voter. Nearly 1.8 million were mailed out and, as of Thursday, more than 500,000 had been returned. A Washington Post average of polls shows Biden leading Trump by four percentage points in the state.

On Friday, an RNC official said on a call with reporters that the GOP has requested similar information in other places, but declined to say where. He noted that Democrats have made such requests in Arizona. (Democrats sued officials in Maricopa County for information about rejected ballots, hoping to find the voters and help get their ballots accepted. A judge denied the request.)

The official said Clark County was a particular concern for Republicans because the county has “lowered the standard for matching signatures,” making it easier for ballots to be accepted there than in more Republican parts of the state.

But Gregory Zunino, a lawyer with the Nevada attorney general’s office who represents the secretary of state, defended the county’s balloting process. He said at a hearing this week that he believes the lawsuit is an effort by the Trump campaign to reduce the number of votes counted in a blue part of the state.

“They quite frankly would like to exclude as many ballots or signatures as they can,” Zunino said. “They want a high rejection rate in Clark County. It’s all about crunching numbers.”

[Source: WaPo]

Phroyd

[sleepysera]

Mar. 4 Headlines

WORLD NEWS

Myanmar: Crackdown on protests, widely filmed, sparks outrage (AP)

“Footage of a brutal crackdown on protests against a coup in Myanmar unleashed outrage and calls for a stronger international response Thursday, a day after 38 people were killed. Videos showed security forces shooting a person at point-blank range and chasing down and savagely beating demonstrators.”

Hong Kong: 15 of 47 activists granted bail but remain detained (BBC)

“The activists are facing up to life in prison for the charge of conspiring to commit subversion, in the most sweeping application yet of the new national security law. They include veterans of the protest movement like academic Benny Tai and politician Leung Kwok-hung, as well as younger protesters like Gwyneth Ho, Sam Cheung and Lester Shum.”

Germany: Far-right AfD becomes first party put under gov surveillance since Nazi era (CNN)

“Germany's BfV domestic intelligence service has formally placed the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) under surveillance on suspicion of trying to undermine Germany's democratic constitution, a person briefed on the move said on Wednesday. After four years ago becoming the first avowedly anti-immigrant party to enter the German parliament, the AfD now becomes the first party to be monitored in this way since the Nazi era ended in 1945.”

US NEWS

Capitol Hill: Feds on high alert after warnings about potential threats (CNN)

“Federal law enforcement is on high alert Thursday in the wake of an intelligence bulletin issued earlier this week about a group of violent militia extremists having discussed plans to take control of the US Capitol and remove Democratic lawmakers on or around March 4 -- a date when some conspiracy theorists believe former President Donald Trump will be returning to the presidency.”

Voting Rights: House passes sweeping election bill countering GOP efforts at restricting voter access (CNN)

“Republicans, however, argue that the legislation limits political speech and represents an overreach and a federal power grab that Democrats are advancing in an effort to gain an advantage in elections. Acting on former President Donald Trump's false claims of a rigged 2020 election and widespread fraud, Republican-controlled states are advancing state bills that would make it harder to vote by imposing new voter ID requirements and curbing access to early and mail-in voting that several states adopted or expanded last year to prevent the spread of Covid-19.”

Transgender Rights: Mississippi one step closer to banning transgender athletes from women’s sports (CNN)

“Senate Bill 2536, which prohibits transgender athletes from competing on women's sports teams in the state's high schools and universities, passed the Mississippi House by a vote of 81-28. The state's Senate approved the measure last month by a vote of 34-9. The legislation now heads to Republican Gov. Tate Reeves for approval. The governor, who has previously made comments highly critical of transgender athletes, will likely sign the legislation into law, though he has not weighed in on it in recent days.”

[espanadiarywriter]

So. Much. Rage.

I have so much to say and so little time to say it.. For weeks I was honestly too despondent to write a blog post. I thought about it, but just couldn’t muster the energy. (Part of it is that I am still getting non-effective treatment for my back and hip pain that seems to make things worse. But that’s really another story.) Good news though: I’m angry enough to write again.

So what’s happening? In the last week, I’ve flown from a city where people are wearing masks and doing a wide swoop whenever they accidentally come close to a stranger, to a place where apparently COVID doesn’t exist. (Yes, Florida—the land of meth gators and Covid.) Because the governor said it was fine, people congregate inside restaurants as if nothing is wrong. People actively carry masks (but don’t wear them) waiting to be the next “Karen” that someone picks a fight with asking them to be a responsible adult.

Again, I ask, why was this politically beneficial? Why did one political party choose to shun public safety measures that are cheap and easy to implement—they just require people buying into the science of contagion. This willful ignorance just prolongs the economic pain as things get shut down repeatedly. It swamps the already over-burdened, poorly organized health care system in the country. And those of us who are being responsible are like the kids in the class who miss recess because the rest of the kids keep talking. (I get that it was a calculated risk to fly, but we did so following all the precautions we could take. In fact, the doctors we spoke to said we were going above the recommendations to be safe.)

It makes me so mad. Really, this is all because GOP Governors and Congress have to support a narcissistic President who doesn’t want to be told he did a horrific job? I want to move to 7 states simultaneously and vote against their Senators. Could the Democrats do a better job explaining what people should do? When Kamala Harris was asked what is their coronavirus plan, she barely mentioned expanding testing, contact tracing, and getting PPE to health care workers. How about a massive, overwhelming public health education campaign, including messaging from Community Health Workers and other TRUSTED voices in the community that masks are necessary? If no one understands why masks would help, or why and how to social distance, you cannot expect people to change. It took us years to reduce smoking rates, or wear seatbelts, or stop drunk driving. It took a combination of laws and consistent messaging. We need to save people’s lives! (I’m so angry I used an exclamation point. Look what you made me do.)

Which brings me to my next point of rage: the futility of political polarization. Even things that make sense for both parties have been turned partisan (like vote by mail). In Oregon, we have had vote-by-mail for about 20 years and BOTH parties support it. How is this even a thing, the 10-hour long lines to vote? And the gerrymandering, and the “poll watchers” to intimidate voters. We are like a banana republic led by an orange. I made the mistake of watching a little of the banana republic justice confirmation hearings. Senators are just talking, because they know the outcome before the hearing started. (The people thinking there is a chance the outcome will change are cute. Power does everything in its ability to retain power.) Our only hope was that five of the Covid-loving Senators got sick and the hearings were called off. But that didn’t happen.

I need to step back from reading about election coverage, but it’s just so tempting. At the risk of getting ahead of myself, the Democrats are going to have a long road ahead to repair the damage of the past 4 years. And if they don’t win the Senate, Mitch is going to allow exactly nothing to happen. There is so much beyond the two issues of taxes and abortion on the ballot this year. I’m not even talking about specific legislation, but the excessive tribalism. Let’s say you do accomplish all the fantasy items on the progressive wish-list (Puerto Rico statehood, add court seats, abolish the electoral college). Then what? How do you get people fundamentally opposed to changing their way of life, willing to change?

You can’t. You need to stop the ecosystem of fear—the Fox news media cycle feeding frenzy. Our government needs to stop being a night time soap-opera. It occurred to me the other day that I have been overthinking this. Conservatives simply do not want change, of any kind. That’s it. They picture themselves back on the homestead, killing anyone in their way and pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. It’s a myth of course. (I don’t want to digress, but how perfect is it that rally goers were left out in the Omaha cold and had to walk back to their cars. Freedom and independence! You don’t need those socialist busses.) But the myth of American individual freedom is so strong that people won’t wear a tiny piece of cloth on their face. So I think the new Democratic platform should just be, “Hey, you do you, and we will be over here moving the country forward without affecting your way of life. Enjoy the backwater.”

We are now home from the land of humidity and Covid (and family, of course—that’s why we went). Hopefully we did not expose ourselves or others to the virus on our trip. And there’s less than a week left until the big day. I’ve written postcards, donated money, and voted already. Now we wait. Good luck everyone!

[96thdayofrage]

While Roosevelt bemoaned the “host of unemployed citizens fac[ing] the grim problem of existence” and promised that his “greatest primary task is to put people to work,” Obama declined to stress joblessness or what was then called “public works.” While Roosevelt assailed the “money changers” over “their stubbornness and their own incompetence,” Obama attacked “recriminations and worn-out dogmas” while extolling “risk-takers,” “doers,” and “makers of things.” Roosevelt “unhesitatingly” assumed leadership over what he called the “trained and loyal army” of the American people, and threatened to ask Congress for “broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency,” as if it was a foreign power. Obama took a philosophical tack, claiming the “stale political arguments” of the past were over, deciding that the market’s “power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched” and that the only question about government was “whether it works.”

“In the expression of leadership,” the author concludes, “Roosevelt’s speech resembles Trump’s inaugural address in 2017.”

These aren’t the words of a Trump supporter, or even a Republican. Nor do they come from an advocate of some kind of Red-Brown alliance. The author in question is Reed Hundt, a high-level Democratic Party apparatchik — Al Gore’s longtime advisor (and high school classmate), Bill Clinton’s former FCC commissioner, a McKinsey consultant and a member of both the Clinton and Obama transition teams.

Hundt is, in other words, a card-carrying member of the Democratic establishment. And yet he’s written a book witheringly critical of not just the Obama administration’s handling of the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath, but of the Democratic establishment’s response to it — an insider’s step-by-step account of all the mistakes, false assumptions, and timidities that, over Obama’s eight years, helped deliver the electorate into the hands of Trump.

These flaws were baked in. As Hundt makes clear, despite Hillary Clinton’s primary loss, the Obama presidency essentially became the second Clinton administration that she and her family’s entourage had been planning for, with Obama surprising John Podesta by tapping him to lead his transition. Podesta staffed top posts with Clintonite neoliberals, ensuring their ideology predominated in the administration. This was compounded by the thinness of Obama’s own bench of personnel, with a bemused Podesta remarking, “He travels light.”

“Because people are policy, he therefore became a Clinton-style neoliberal,” writes Hundt. “He no longer pursued his own tentatively progressive agenda.”

That agenda had at one point been surprisingly robust compared to what came after. Hundt points to a March 2008 speech Obama delivered at New York’s Cooper Union in which he called for helping homeowners refinance their home loans, changing the law to allow mortgage reductions (known as “cramdown”) as well as increased spending for education, broadband, and college tuition reductions, and having the government “put Americans to work” in green jobs and rebuilding infrastructure. That agenda all but disappeared by the end of the year, with Obama’s Clintonite advisors electing to grant only tepid funding to some of these measures.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, chosen precisely for the Wall Street-friendly credentials that would reassure the finance sector, was almost monomaniacally focused on protecting the interests of banks. Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag was a deficit hawk who wanted to put fiscal policy on a fast track toward a balanced budget. Larry Summers, chair of the National Economic Council, believed too much debt was the country’s economic problem, opposed infrastructure investment, and habitually dialed back proposals based on what he believed could pass Congress. Rahm Emanuel was, well, Rahm Emanuel.

It was they and others like them who systematically scaled down Obama’s ambitions, narrowing the range of possibilities available to the president, and ensuring the road to recovery would be longer, slower, and ultimately incomplete. Expanding unemployment compensation was ruled out. Long-term infrastructure projects were rejected, unless they were smaller, “shovel-ready” ones that could “get into the economic bloodstream as quickly as possible.” Geithner convinced the team the amount of bailout money was nonnegotiable, but the stimulus total was lopped down again and again to the point of just barely being adequate. They wouldn’t pursue a more ambitious size without “supply-side” measures like tax cuts, and that would make it impossible to balance the budget later on. Besides, a stimulus that was too big “could spook markets or the public.”

Sometimes the opposition to robust measures was nakedly ideological. Geithner and Summers opposed cramdown, or allowing bankruptcy judges to reduce the size of a mortgage, on the basis of property rights, worrying that ignoring the sanctity of contracts would undermine confidence in the lending system. When Fannie Mae CEO Herb Allison proposed using eminent domain to condemn and take over fraudulent loans at a fraction of their face value and lowering their interest rates — an idea supported by academics and already successfully trialled with General Motors and Chrysler — the Obama team demurred, afraid to let the government meddle in the private sector in such a major way. As Allison recounts, the thinking was: “We don’t want to appear as though we’re socialists.” This isn’t the only time you’ll read that sentence in Hundt’s book.

It’s ironic that Obama’s defenders point to Republican obstructionism to explain away his administration’s inadequacies, when Hundt makes clear that the primary source of obstructionism was coming from inside the house. Obama’s outsourcing of his administration’s transition process to Clintonites, combined with his lack of commitment to a progressive political vision, hemmed him in and undermined the economic recovery, particularly since his advisors underestimated the scale of the crisis. David Axelrod candidly admits being shocked to hear a second Great Depression was a possibility, believing the first had been simply “something that is part of history” and not “something that could reoccur.”

Hundt doesn’t let Obama off the hook for his response to Republican obstructionism either. He acknowledges the president had limited options due to an obstinate GOP and a host of conservative Democrats. But he faults the cool, calm, collected Obama for not using the bully pulpit more aggressively to sell the public and Congress on his agenda. He chides him for failing to tie the stimulus to any grander overarching program or vision, like fighting climate change or rebuilding infrastructure. When “Blue Dog” Democrat Evan Bayh torpedoed Dick Durbin’s cramdown legislation, he faced no opposition. “Obama did not intervene,” notes Hundt.

What we might consider Obama’s most admirable personal qualities — his preternatural calm, his even temper — ended up being his greatest weaknesses in the field of politics.

In the end, Hundt argues, Obama did just enough, and just in the nick of time, to secure reelection. But the recovery he presided over was lopsided and brittle enough to engender a voter backlash that Trump seized on. It wasn’t so much that Trump won the votes of disillusioned Obama voters (though he did win some of those in strategically crucial places) but rather that Obama’s voters couldn’t muster the enthusiasm to turn out again, a point confirmed by on-the-ground reporting.

Meanwhile, Hundt takes care to show us what a more robust response to the crisis could have looked like. China’s fiscal stimulus, undertaken while Obama officials were afraid of seeming too socialist, amounted to nearly $600 billion, or 15 percent of the country’s economic output over two years. Had Obama tried to match this, his stimulus would have totalled $2 trillion, a number that was never even up for discussion. It’s doubtful Obama would have ever gotten something on this scale though Congress; but the point is, he never tried.

[worldofwardcraft]

How to fix America.

January 20, 2022

It's now obvious that the Republican Party is dominated by a faction which sees Democrats as an internal enemy of the people, views any election a Democrat wins as illegitimate by definition, and therefore believes any means to achieve political power is justified. Aided by a far-flung, dedicated propaganda network, the GOP has launched a multi-pronged attack on our democracy with the undisguised purpose of installing permanent, one-party rule under an authoritarian white Christian minority.

What to do about it? Some on the left believe all it will take is some institutional tinkering around the edges. But as long-time member of the libertarian Cato Institute and recent Republican apostate Jerry Taylor warns,

All the rank choice voting, anti-gerrymandering, jungle primaries, and money-in-politics reforms in the world will not curb the power of extremism in American politics. Only radical structural reforms will do that.

Here are three such radical reforms Taylor says Democrats should make an absolute priority. And to them we've added a fourth.

End the filibuster. This arcane Senate rule, historically used to thwart civil rights laws, has in recent years been weaponized by minority Republicans to block any and all legislation they choose to oppose.

Add states to the Union. One of our biggest problems is the over-representation of white rural America in the Senate. We should take on as many new states as necessary to end this. Including Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.

Abolish the Electoral College. Getting rid of this obsolete vestige of our slave-owning past would embrace the importance of the popular vote and bring about more democratic presidential elections. Doing this earlier would have spared us both Trump and Junior Bush.

Expand the Supreme Court. Years ago, the ultra-conservative Federalist Society made it their mission to create a solid far-right majority on SCOTUS. Under Trump this has finally been achieved. And these judicial ideologues have already begun recklessly demolishing worker safety, voter protection, abortion choice and other long-held American principles. A handful of judges, appointed by one president, should not have that sort of power. Plus, term limits for SCOTUS justices wouldn't be a bad idea, either.

To quote Taylor again, "You [liberals] are nowhere near as close to breaking the GOP and its most toxic elements as many of you think." He's right. Republicans aren't going to come to their senses and flush Trumpism from their party any time soon. Active steps must be taken — and taken immediately — to save our system of democracy from those seeking to destroy it.

[patriotsnet]

Is The House Democrats Or Republicans

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/is-the-house-democrats-or-republicans/

Is The House Democrats Or Republicans

House And Senate Odds Preview

Should Democrats or Republicans be optimistic for midterm elections?

In 2020, the market expectation was a Democratic sweep of the three elected positions, and while it took two months and quite a lot of Georgia-based panic, Democrats did sweep the Presidency, Senate control, and House control, albeit by nowhere close to the margins they were expected to. This time around, the question is whether or not the GOP can gain one or both of those chambers again, and whether or not the PredictIt odds for any of the four possible combinations provides any value.

There are four possible combinations either party to control both chambers or one party to control either chamber.

In theory, if these were independent events, any of those four combinations would be equally as likely as each other, but given politics are correlated, you see thats not really the case. A GOP sweep of both chambers is the favorite at $0.45, which makes sense, given the widespread narrative that the GOP are favorites because of history and the way midterms generally go badly for the party of the Presidency.

However, Donald Trump did win Senate seats in his only midterm, and that same historical argument would have suggested Republicans would romp home easily in Georgia in January.

If you are a Democratic optimist, then the $0.29 on split government a Democratic Senate and a Republican House or the $0.21 on Dem unified control might be appealing.

Poll Finds Startling Difference In Vaccinations Among Us Republicans And Democrats

A Washington Post-ABC News poll has found a startling difference between Democrats and Republicans as it relates to COVID-19;vaccination.;The poll found that while 86% of Democrats have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine shot, only 45% of Republicans;have.

In addition, the survey found;that while;only;6% of Democrats said they would;probably;decline;the vaccine, 47% of Republicans;said they;would;probably not;be inoculated.;

The poll also found that;60% of unvaccinated Americans believe the U.S. is;exaggerating;the dangers of;the;COVID-19;delta variant,;while;18% of the unvaccinated say the government is accurately describing the variants risks.

However, 64% of vaccinated Americans believe the government is accurately describing the dangers of the;delta variant.

Iran fighting COVID 5th wave The variant is having a;global impact.;Irans;President;Hassan Rouhani;has warned that the country is on the brink of a fifth wave of;a COVID-19 outbreak.;The;delta variant of the virus, first;identified;in India, is;largely;responsible;for the;rising number of hospitalizations and deaths in Iran, officials say.

All;non-essential businesses have been ordered;closed;in 275 cities, including Tehran, the capital.;Travel has also been restricted between cities that are;experiencing;high infection rates.

Reports say only about 5% of Iranians have been vaccinated.;

Oregon House Republicans Say Theyre At Impasse Over Democrats Redistricting Plan

Oregon lawmakers, shown here during a January 2021 swearing-in ceremony, are set to meet at the Capitol Monday to approve new legislative and congressional district lines that will determine how voters are represented for the next decade in Salem and Washington, D.C. House Republicans’ leader on Thursday said her caucus would not support Democrats’ plans.Brooke Herbert/The Oregonian

Oregon Democrats congressional and legislative redistricting plans set for a vote in next weeks special session face a roadblock in the state House, where Republican Leader Christine Drazan said on Thursday that her caucus is united in its opposition to Democrats proposed maps.

State lawmakers wrapped up four days of lengthy public hearings on their initial congressional and state legislative district proposals Sept. 13, and they are scheduled to meet Monday for a special session to vote on final plans.

Democrats and Republicans privately discussed potential changes to the Democrats proposed maps over the last couple days. But Democrats, who hold supermajorities in both chambers, had not released any final plans for the public to see until Thursday night.

Under Senate Democrats plans, both chambers would likely continue to have Democratic supermajorities, meaning the party would hold at least 60% of the seats in each chamber, even though Joe Biden only claimed 56% of votes Oregonians cast in the 2020 presidential election.

You May Like: Did Trump Say Republicans Are Stupid

Y Leaders Of The United States House Of Representatives

Party leaders and whips of the United States House of Representatives, also known as floor leaders, are elected by their respective parties in a closed-door caucus by secret ballot. With the Democrats holding a majority of seats and the Republicans holding a minority, the current leaders are Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Minority Whip Steve Scalise.

Balance Of Power: 2022 Senate Races

If Democrats want to win the Senate again, they need to win the four competitive seats they currently hold Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and New Hampshire. That or augment any loss with a gain in any of their three competitive targets Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or North Carolina.

This Senate preview still holds up, but the shorter version is Democrats are easily favored in Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada. They should also win New Hampshire if Chris Sununu doesnt run .

The thing is, theyre also favored to win in Pennsylvania, where they have a strong field of primary candidates and where Joe Biden won.

They have to be no worse than, and admittedly probably better than, a tossup in Wisconsin, where Republicans have candidate issues and Democrats have a strong likely nominee.

So even if New Hampshire goes Republican because of some local candidate factors, Democrats are in a good spot to win the Senate again.

That means if youre trying to make a bet, you can essentially box out two of four combinations where the GOP wins the Senate, and focus your attention on the two remaining options, if youre looking for the values.

Read Also: How Many Seats Do The Republicans Have In Senate

The Party Thats Actually Best For The Economy

Many analyses look at which party is best for the economy. A study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that Democratic presidents since World War II have performed much better than Republicans. On average, Democratic presidents grew the economy 4.4% each year versus 2.5% for Republicans.

A study by Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson found that the economy performs better when the president is a Democrat. They report that by many measures, the performance gap is startlingly large. Between Truman and Obama, growth was 1.8% higher under Democrats than Republicans.

A Hudson Institute study found that the six years with the best growth were evenly split between Republican and Democrat presidents.

Most of these evaluations measure growth during the presidents term in office. But no president has control over the growth added during his first year. The budget for that fiscal year was already set by the previous president, so you should compare the gross domestic product at the end of the presidents last budget to the end of his predecessors last budget.

For Obama, that would be the fiscal year from October 1, 2009, to September 30, 2018. Thats FY 2010 through FY 2017. During that time, GDP increased from $15.6 trillion to $17.7 trillion, or by 14%. Thats 1.7% a year.

The chart below ranks the presidents since 1929 on the average annual increase in GDP.

President

1.4%

A president would have better growth if he had no recession.

The Houses Balance Of Power Is Tipped Toward Democrats

The Democrats;have a narrow six-member margin in the current House of Representatives, meaning if just a handful of seats flip, Republicans can regain control of the House.

Democrats;advantage;will grow to seven when Troy Carter is sworn in;to fill a seat in Louisianas delegation left vacant;by Cedric Richmond, who left the House to join the Biden administration as the director of the White House Office of Public Engagement.;

Read Also: Who Controls The Senate Republicans Or Democrats

Census Data Sets Up Redistricting Fight Over Growing Suburbs

The once-a-decade battle over redistricting is set to be a showdown over the suburbs, as new census data showed rapid growth around some of the nations largest cities and shrinking population in many rural counties.

From Texas to Florida, some of the biggest gains reported Thursday came in states where Republicans will control the redistricting process, but often in and around cities where Democrats have been faring well in recent elections.

The new detailed population data from the 2020 census will serve as the building block to redraw 429 U.S. House districts in 44 states and 7,383 state legislative districts across the U.S. The official goal is to ensure each district has roughly the same number of people.

But many Republicans and Democrats also will be trying to ensure the new lines divide and combine voters in ways that make it more likely for their partys candidates to win future elections, a process called gerrymandering. The parties successes in that effort could determine whether taxes and spending grow, climate-change polices are approved or access to abortion is expanded or curtailed.

Black Democrat Collective To Challenge House Republicans

Democrats take House, Republicans keep Senate in historic midterms

A growing group of Black Democrats mostly men is stepping up to try to unseat Republican House members in California, Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina and Illinois.

Why it matters: Although independent analysts like the Cook Political Report think the members’ districts are friendly GOP territory, a Black political group backing the challengers believes the candidates have a chance because of their local ties and the districts’ changing demographics.

Stay on top of the latest market trends and economic insights with Axios Markets.

The backdrop: So far, nine Black Democrats are running to challenge Republicans in these states, but The Collective PAC tells Axios that number will grow by five or more. All but one is a Black man.

What they’re saying: “Our mission is about building Black political power,” said Kevin Olasanoye, The Collective PAC’s political director. It works to ensure equal Black representation at all levels of government.

Between the lines: These campaigns are still in their early stages and the candidates haven’t even conducted polling to find particular vulnerabilities in their Republican opponents.

What to watch: The Collective said it doesn’t intend to get involved in primary challenges to any sitting CBC members, including the one being mounted by Kina Collins against Rep. Danny Davis in Ill.-7.

That said, the group isn’t ruling out getting involved in other Dem-on-Dem primaries, Olasanoye said.

You May Like: Did Trump Say Republicans Are Stupid

Composition Of The Us House Of Representatives By Political Party Affiliation For The 116th Congress In 2019 By State

Characteristic

You need a Single Account for unlimited access.

Full access to 1m statistics

Incl. source references

Available to download in PNG, PDF, XLS format

You can only download this statistic as a Premium user.

You can only download this statistic as a Premium user.

You can only download this statistic as a Premium user.

As a Premium user you get access to the detailed source references and background information about this statistic.

As a Premium user you get access to background information and details about the release of this statistic.

As soon as this statistic is updated, you will immediately be notified via e-mail.

and make my research life easier.

You need at least a Single Account to use this feature.

The Number Of People Each House Member Represents Will Change

The number of residents represented by each House member will mostly grow;in 2022, though it will decrease per representative in some states.;

Since Montana gained a representative, its two House members will now split the states population currently represented by Rep. Matt Rosendale, a Republican. The addition of another House seat means Montanas House members will represent the least amount of people compared to House members in other states.

Delawares sole House district, currently held by Democratic Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester, will be the largest in terms of population.

Recommended Reading: Did Trump Call Republicans Stupid In 1998

With Control Of White House And Congress Democrats Have 2 Years To Make Big Changes

Sorry, but your browser cannot support embedded video of this type, you can to view it offline.

U.S. Democrats secured unified control of the White House and Congress on Wednesday with the inauguration of President Joe Biden followed by Vice President Kamala Harris swearing in three new Democratic senators.

The three new senators bring the U.S. Senate to a 50-50 Democratic-Republican tie, with Harris as the presiding officer representing the tie-breaking vote.

With the U.S. House continuing under the leadership of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Biden begins his term with the opportunity to work with the two Democrat-controlled chambers to enact significant legislative changes.;

As a result of the shifting political power on Capitol Hill, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York has succeeded Republican Mitch McConnell as Senate majority leader. The Kentucky senator, who served in the top leadership post for six years, was highly skilled at blocking Democratic legislation, as well as advancing former President Donald Trumps judicial and administration nominees through the confirmation process.;

Schumer acknowledged some of those challenges Wednesday in his first speech as majority leader.

This Senate will tackle the perils of the moment: a once-in-a-generation health and economic crisis. And it will strive to make progress on generations-long struggle for racial justice, economic justice, equality of opportunity and equality under the law, Schumer said.

Y Divisions Of United States Congresses

Party divisions of United States Congresses have played a central role in the organization and operations of both chambers of the United States Congressthe Senate and the House of Representativessince its establishment as the bicameral legislature of the Federal government of the United States in 1789. Political parties had not been anticipated when the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787, nor did they exist at the time the first Senate elections and House elections occurred in 1788 and 1789. Organized political parties developed in the U.S. in the 1790s, but political factionsfrom which organized parties evolvedbegan to appear almost immediately after the 1st Congress convened. Those who supported the Washington administration were referred to as “pro-administration” and would eventually form the Federalist Party, while those in opposition joined the emerging Democratic-Republican Party.

You May Like: Did Trump Say Republicans Were Dumb

How The Recall Attempt Made It To The Ballot

Although Gov. Gavin Newsoms critics started their recall attempt because they opposed his stances on the death penalty and immigration, it was the politicization of the pandemic that propelled it onto the ballot as Californians became impatient with shutdowns of businesses and classrooms.

Initiated by a retired Republican sheriffs sergeant in Northern California, Orrin Heatlie, the recall was one of six conservative-led petitions that began circulating within months of Mr. Newsoms inauguration.

Initially, Mr. Heatlies petition had difficulty gaining traction. But it gathered steam as the pandemic swept California and Mr. Newsom struggled to contain it. Californians who at first were supportive of the governors health orders wearied of shutdowns in businesses and classrooms, and public dissatisfaction boiled over in November when Mr. Newsom was spotted mask-free at the French Laundry, an exclusive wine country restaurant, after urging the public to avoid gatherings.

A court order extending the deadline for signature gathering because of pandemic shutdowns allowed recall proponents to capitalize on the outrage and unease.

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.

Recommended Reading: How Many Democrats And Republicans Are In The House

I Do Not Buy That A Social Media Ban Hurts Trumps 2024 Aspirations: Nate Silver

sarah: Yeah, Democrats might not have their worst Senate map in 2022, but it will by no means be easy, and how they fare will have a lot to do with the national environment. And as we touched on earlier, Bidens overall approval rating will also make a big difference in Democrats midterm chances.

nrakich: Yeah, if the national environment is even a bit Republican-leaning, that could be enough to allow solid Republican recruits to flip even Nevada and New Hampshire. And then it wouldnt even matter if Democrats win Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

One thing is for sure, though whichever party wins the Senate will have only a narrow majority, so I think were stuck in this era of moderates like Sens. Joe Manchin and Lisa Murkowski controlling every bills fate for at least a while longer.;

sarah: Lets talk about big picture strategy, then, and where that leaves us moving forward. Its still early and far too easy to prescribe election narratives that arent grounded in anything, but one gambit the Republican Party seems to be making at this point is that attacking the Democratic Party for being too progressive or woke will help them win.

What do we make of that playbook headed into 2022? Likewise, as the party in charge, what are Democrats planning for?

With that being said, the GOPs strategies could still gin up turnout among its base, in particular, but its hard to separate that from general dissatisfaction with Biden.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

[from Robert Scott Horton]

* * * *

Biden is busy doing the people's business

June 5, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, President Biden has been busy doing the people’s business. On Tuesday, he signed an executive order that suspends the asylum process when “encounters” with immigrants illegally crossing the border surpasses 2500 per day. Biden’s effort was born of frustration. Congress was within days of passing a bipartisan immigration and border security bill in May when Convicted Felon Trump ordered the GOP to kill the bill to preserve immigration as an issue in the 2024 election.

In issuing the order, Biden relied on the same theory of executive power that Trump invoked when he sought to ban travel from majority-Muslim nations. The ACLU plans to sue the Biden administration to overturn the executive order.

The details of the order are here: FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces New Actions to Secure the Border | The White House. For a description of how the plan will work in. practice, see How Biden's new order to halt asylum at the US border is supposed to work | AP News.

As expected, the proposal did not satisfy everyone in the Democratic Party. See WaPo, Democrats divided over Biden’s immigration executive order. (Accessible to everyone.)

Biden issued a statement with the executive order, saying, in part,

I would have preferred to address our issues at the border through bipartisan legislation because that’s the only way to actually fix our broken system – But Republicans in Congress have left me no choice. So today, I’m announcing actions that bar migrants who cross our southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum – unless they seek it after entering through established lawful processes.

Biden also listed recent actions to address immigration and border security:

Strengthening the asylum screening process

New docket to address cases and make asylum decisions within 6 months versus 6 years

Revoking visas of CEOs and government officials who profit from the exploitation of vulnerable migrants

Expanding efforts to dismantle human smuggling and support immigration prosecutions

Enhancing immigration enforcement

Seizing fentanyl at our border

As President Biden is trying to solve the challenges at our southern border, he is also actively pressuring both Israel and Hamas to reach a complete cease fire that results in the release of all hostages. See ABC News, Biden takes a big swing at hostage-for-truce deal, puts onus on Israeli, Hamas officials to step up.

As noted in the ABC article, President Biden’s strategy is an aggressive approach to an intractable problem. Per ABC,

White House officials on Monday said Biden's decision to make public what it describes as an Israeli proposal — just one day after it was delivered to Hamas — was driven by a desire to put Hamas on the spot. The move diverged from the U.S. administration's position throughout the conflict to allow the Israelis to speak for themselves about hostage negotiations. [¶] “This wasn't about jamming the prime minister, the war cabinet,” [National Security Advisor Spokesperson John] Kirby said. “This was about laying bare for the public to see how well and how faithfully and how assertively the Israelis came up with a new proposal. It shows how much they really want to get this done."

Finally, Biden sat down with Time Magazine’s Washington Bureau Chief (on 5/28) for an on-the-record, full-transcript interview. See Time Magazine, President Biden on World Leadership, War, and 2024 Election. Overall, the tone of the interview is begrudgingly respectful toward President Biden. But as with most political discussions today, it normalizes Convicted Felon Trump by discussing his policy positions as if they are not the product of a criminal who attempted a coup and incited an insurrection.

Per the Time interview,

Biden’s record in facing these tests is more than just nostalgic talk. He has added two powerful European militaries to NATO, and will soon announce the doubling of the number of countries in the Atlantic alliance that are paying more than the target 2% of their GDP toward defense, the White House says. His Administration has worked to prevent the war in Gaza from igniting a broader regional conflict. He brokered the first trilateral summit with long-distrustful regional partners South Korea and Japan, and coaxed the Philippines to move away from Beijing’s orbit and accept four new U.S. military bases. He has rallied European and Asian countries to curtail China’s economic sway. “We have put together the strongest alliance in the history of the world,” Biden says, so that “we are able to move in a way that recognizes how much the world has changed and still lead.”

While the Time interviewer noted Biden’s “stiff gait” and “fitful syntax” (a product of his lifelong stutter), the sweep of the interview, Biden’s command of the facts, and the breadth of his career clearly impressed the author.  Read the article—all of it. You will be impressed (again) by the remarkable career and accomplishments of Joe Biden.

Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter

[statetalks]

Which 12 Republicans Voted Against Trump

Sen Susan Collins Of Maine

12 Republicans Vote With Democrats In Terminating Trumps National Emergency | Hardball | MSNBC

Collins;co-sponsored the resolution out of concern for the precedent an emergency declaration would set for the powers of executive branch.;The Senate appropriator known for bucking her party, splitting with leadership on efforts to repeal the 2010 health care law in 2017. That independent streak has become part of Collins brand in Maine, where she remains popular.

But the four-term senator is likely to face her toughest re-election next year, with Democrats raising millions of dollars for a yet-to-be-determined challenger after she voted for Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. Collins is a top target in a state Hillary Clinton won in 2016, and Democrats will be arguing that shes voted with her party much more often than not. Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales rates her re-election Tilts Republican.

List Of Republicans Who Opposed The Donald Trump 2016 Presidential Campaign

This article is part of a series about

e

This is a list of Republicans and conservatives who announced their opposition to the election of Donald Trump, the 2016 Republican Party nominee and eventual winner of the election, as the President of the United States. It also includes former Republicans who left the party due to their opposition to Trump and as well as Republicans who endorsed a different candidate. It includes Republican presidential primary election candidates that announced opposition to Trump as the nominee. Some of the Republicans on this list threw their support to Trump after he won the presidential election, while many of them continue to oppose Trump. Offices listed are those held at the time of the 2016 election.

Watch: Sen Susan Collins Explains Just Why 12 Republicans Voted Against Trumps Emergency Declaration

On Thursday, prior to the Senates 59-41 vote against President Trumps emergency declaration for border wall funding, Sen. Susan Collins detailed the reasoning behind her vote :

Collins spoke about the way in which the courts have determined the boundaries of presidential authority, vis-a-vis Congress, using a very specific case regarding presidential seizure of property. That case was Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, which was decided in 1952:

As Justice Robert Jackson explained in his profoundly influential concurrence in that case, the question of whether a Presidents actions are constitutionally valid should be determined by examining the source of the Presidents authority

Collins continued, noting that Trumps National Emergencies Act fails to fulfill a common sense test used by a former president:

Collins also expressed concern that the declaration would take funding from critical military construction projects, although none have been named as of publication.

She concluded with a silent point, saying that this vote is not about whether or not one desires more advanced border security, but whether or not the president should have the power of the purse, which is expressly granted to Congress in Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the Constitution:

The senator from Kentucky also offered his own solution for funding border security: the Border Enforcement, Security, And Funding Enhancement Act.

President Trump vetoed the block on Friday.

You May Like: Who’s Right Democrats Or Republicans

‘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.

Sen Lamar Alexander Of Tennessee

The retiring Tennessee lawmaker said that he supports the president on border security but that the emergency declaration sets a dangerous precedent. His declaration to take an additional $3.6 billion that Congress has appropriated for military hospitals, barracks and schools is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution that I swore an oath to support and defend, Alexander said in a statement Thursday ahead of the vote.

The three-term senator, a member of the Appropriations Committee, announced last December that he would not run for re-election in 2020.

Also Check: How Do Republicans Feel About Climate Change

The 17 Republicans Who Voted To Advance The Senate Infrastructure Bill

Seventeen Republican senators voted with all 50 Democrats on Wednesday to advance a bipartisan infrastructure deal, in a win for President BidenJoe BidenElder pledges to replace Feinstein with Republican if he wins California recall electionOvernight Defense & National Security Out of Afghanistan, but stuck in limboOn The Money Delta variant wallops job marketMORE and the bipartisan group of negotiators.

The vote the first of several steps expected before the Senate decides whether or not to ultimately pass the billcomes one week after all Republicans blocked a similar move, arguing that Senate Majority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerSchumer calls for action on climate after Ida floodingHouse Democrats urge Pelosi to prioritize aid for gymsProgressives launch campaign to exclude gas from Congress’s clean electricity program;MORE was rushing the process as senators tried to finalize their agreement.

But the group announced earlier Wednesday that;it had reached a final agreement with the White House for a $1.2 trillion bill over eight years, with $550 billion in new spending. Because the group is still finalizing text, the Senate is taking up a shell bill that;it will swap the language into once it is complete.

At least 10 Republicans were needed to advance the bill. In the end, Democrats were able to net 17 GOP votes:

Sen Marco Rubio Of Florida

Like many others, Rubio warned of the precedent set by Trumps national emergency.;A member of Senate Appropriations, he said in a February statement that while he agreed there was a crisis at the southern border, a future president may use this exact same tactic to impose the Green New Deal.

Rubio won re-election by 8 points in 2016 after an unsuccessful run for the GOP nomination for president. Trump carried Florida by just;1 point that year.

Read Also: How Many Democratic Presidents Have Republicans Tried To Impeach

Sen Rand Paul Of Kentucky

Paul announced at a GOP Lincoln Day dinner earlier this month that he would support the resolution, noting that Congress did not appropriate the funds Trump was looking to use for the border wall. If we take away those checks and balances, its a dangerous thing, the two-term senator said.

Paul has described his political views as libertarian, and has been known to break with his party on foreign policy and surveillance issues.;He was re-elected to the Senate in 2016 after a failed White House bid, and he will not face voters again until 2022.

House Republicans Join Democrats In Voting To Impeach Trump

2 Times In 2 Days Republicans Vote Against President Donald Trump | The Last Word | MSNBC

Washington Ten Republican members of the House, including one of its highest-ranking leaders, joined Democrats in voting to impeach President Trump for inciting the deadly attack on the Capitol last week by a violent mob of his supporters.;

The final vote was 232 to 197, as the 10 Republicans joined all 222 Democrats in voting in favor of the impeachment resolution.;

The article of impeachment will next be delivered to the Senate, where Mr. Trump will be placed on trial. However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said after the House vote that there is “simply no chance that a fair or serious trial could conclude before President-elect Biden is sworn in next week.”

Mr. Trump is the first president to be impeached twice. When he was;impeached;in 2019 over his attempts to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden, no House Republicans voted in favor of impeaching him. But this time, 10 members of his own party determined his actions warranted impeachment.

Here are the Republicans who voted to impeach Mr. Trump:

Liz Cheney of Wyoming

Tom Rice of South Carolina

Fred Upton of Michigan

David Valadao of California

Cheney, the third-ranking Republican in the House, said in a statement on Tuesday that she would vote to impeach Mr. Trump after he whipped up his supporters Wednesday at a rally not far from the Capitol.

Also Check: Who Said We Are All Republicans We Are All Federalists

Sen Jerry Moran Of Kansas

Moran, a member of Senate Appropriations,; shortly before Thursdays vote that he would support the resolution. I share President Trumps goal of securing our borders, but expanding the powers of the presidency beyond its constitutional limits is something I cannot support, he tweeted.; also attached photos of his handwritten notes outlining his position. Hes up for;a third term;in 2022.

Republicans Oppose Awarding Medals For Capitol Defence

Medals will still be awarded, though Republican no votes draw criticism from across political aisle.

Members of the US Republican party are coming under fire after 21 voted against a bill to award Capitol police officers gold medals for their acts during the that attempted to block the transition of power in the US.

Both the Senate and House agreed to award the medals, but the final vote in the House of Representatives was 406-21. All 21 votes votes against the bill came from Republicans, some of whom aired their differences of opinion about the events of January 6.

The riot was attended largely by supporters of former President Donald Trump who came from myriad far-right and anti-government groups, and the QAnon movement that believes Trump was chosen to defeat a cabal of international Deep State liberal elites who traffic children for their blood to stay young.

They attempted to stop a joint session of Congress from certifying President Joe Bidens electoral victory. Five died after the riot, including Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, infamous for her past support of aspects of the QAnon conspiracy theory movement and previously claiming that a Jewish Laser caused wildfires, voted against the bill.

I wouldnt call it an insurrection, Greene told reporters after the vote.

Greene joined Representative Thomas Massie in saying the Capitol is not a temple.

Don’t Miss: Did Trump Say Republicans Are Stupid

Republicans Who Voted To Acquit Trump Used Questions Of Constitutionality As A Cover

Following the vote, McConnell gave a scathing speech condemning Trumps lies about election fraud as well as his actions on January 6, only moments after he supported acquittal.

That speech was emblematic of how many Republican senators approached the impeachment vote: Although GOP lawmakers were critical of the attack on January 6, they used a process argument about constitutionality in order to evade confronting Trump on his actual actions.

Effectively, because Trump is no longer in office, Republicans say the Senate doesnt have jurisdiction to convict him of the article of impeachment. As Voxs Ian Millhiser explained, theres some debate over that, but most legal scholars maintain that it is constitutional for the Senate to try a former president.

If President Trump were still in office, I would have carefully considered whether the House managers proved their specific charge, McConnell said. McConnell, however, played an integral role in delaying the start of the trial until after Trump was no longer president.

His statement on Saturday was simply a continuation of how Republicans had previously approached Trumps presidency: Theres been an overwhelming hesitation to hold him accountable while he was in office, and that still appears to be the case for many lawmakers.

Republicans Vote Against Honoring Capitol Police For Protecting Congress

House voted 413-12 to award congressional gold medals to all members of Capitol force for their efforts on 6 January

A dozen Republicans voted against a resolution honoring US Capitol police for their efforts to protect members of Congress during the insurrection on 6 January.

The House voted 413-12 on Wednesday to award congressional gold medals, Congresss highest expression of national appreciation, to all members of the Capitol police force.

The Republicans who opposed this honor included Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Matt Gaetz of Florida and Thomas Massie of Kentucky. They and other opposing members said they had problems with the text of the legislation.

Massie told reporters he disagreed with the terms insurrection and temple in the legislation.

The resolution said: On January 6, 2021, a mob of insurrectionists forced its way into the US Capitol building and congressional office buildings and engaged in acts of vandalism, looting, and violently attacked Capitol police officers.

It also named the three officers who responded to the attack and died shortly after Capitol police officers Brian Sicknick and Howard Liebengood and Metropolitan police department officer Jeffrey Smith and said seven other people died and more than 140 law enforcement officers were injured.

Louie Gohmert, a congressman from Texas, said in a statement that the text does not honor anyone, but rather seeks to drive a narrative that isnt substantiated by known facts.

Read Also: How Many Registered Democrats And Republicans Are There

These 12 Republicans Defied Trump And Voted To Overturn His Declaration Of An Emergency At The Border

Twelve Republican senators defied President Trump on Thursday, rebuffing his public and private pleas for GOP unity and voting for a resolution overturning his declaration of a national emergency at the border.

The vote marked congressional Republicans first significant defection from Trump in more than two years. Throughout his presidency, he has enjoyed almost universal support from his party save for a few GOP lawmakers who bucked him in big moments like the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and some foreign policy issues.

But this was a rejection of Trump on his signature campaign promise. Since the day he announced his candidacy for president, Trump spoke about ending illegal immigration and building a wall along the southern border that he originally said would be paid for by Mexico. It is the defining issue among his core supporters. Build the wall is a Trump rallying cry.

The Senate Republicans who voted to block Trumps ability to unilaterally circumvent Congress and shift money to build his wall were swift to point out they still supported the wall, but they were voting to preserve the constitutional separation of powers.

To make clear, a border fence, a border barrier is a policy that I support, wholeheartedly, unequivocally, said Sen. Mike Lee on the Senate floor, in announcing his support for the resolution.

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.1

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. »

Read Also: What Do Republicans Think About Abortion

List Of Republicans Who Opposed The Donald Trump 2020 Presidential Campaign

This article is part of a series about

e

This is a list of Republicans and conservatives who opposed the re-election of incumbent Donald Trump, the 2020 Republican Party nominee for President of the United States. Among them are former Republicans who left the party in 2016 or later due to their opposition to Trump, those who held office as a Republican, Republicans who endorsed a different candidate, and Republican presidential primary election candidates that announced opposition to Trump as the presumptive nominee. Over 70 former senior Republican national security officials and 61 additional senior officials have also signed onto a statement declaring, “We are profoundly concerned about our nation’s security and standing in the world under the leadership of Donald Trump. The President has demonstrated that he is dangerously unfit to serve another term.”

A group of former senior U.S. government officials and conservativesincluding from the Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, and Trump administrations have formed The Republican Political Alliance for Integrity and Reform to, “focus on a return to principles-based governing in the post-Trump era.”

A third group of Republicans, Republican Voters Against Trump was launched in May 2020 has collected over 500 testimonials opposing Donald Trump.

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/which-12-republicans-voted-against-trump/