Mediaboss Marketing

Supporters of Italys centre-left Democratic party (PD) breathed a sigh of relief on Sunday evening as their candidate in Emilia-Romagna saw-off competition from Matteo Salvinis far-right League to win the regional elections. That defeat here was even a prospect, though, shows just how much Italys political geography has changed.

Historically Emilia-Romagna, in the north of the country, is a bedrock of communism and has had an unbroken string of leftist governments since the second world war. But the left has been losing ground since the financial crisis of 2008 as in so much of the continent with austerity-stricken rural communities and provincial towns in particular drifting rightwards. Winning in the region would have been a real coup for Salvini, who took personal control of the local campaign.

His plans may have been thwarted, but there is little to suggest that Salvini is losing momentum. While the League may have failed to win over the region as a whole, it has consolidated support in some of Emilias major cities. Similarly, at a national level the polls still suggest Salvinis party is well-positioned to form a majority government in coalition with other rightwing parties, including the far-right Brothers of Italy and Silvio Berlusconis Forza Italia when the opportunity arises. Such a scenario was reinforced by the results of another vote on Sunday in the poor southern region of Calabria: while the League won just 12%, it also oversaw collaboration among the other rightwing parties to snatch the territory from the incumbent PD governor.

If the left has been able to weather the storm at all, this is despite rather than because of the PDs own campaigning. Instead, it was up to an autonomous social movement called the Sardines to secure the result. Formed last November by a group of twentysomethings in Emilia-Romagnas capital Bologna, the independent initiative called on citizens to congregate in their local piazzas with homemade placards of the eponymous fish, to symbolise solidarity, pacifism and opposition to divisive and violent politics. It might sound gimmicky, but the Sardines struck a chord. In just three months, the movement succeeded in organising demonstrations in 90 cities, the largest mobilisation of civil society in the history of the Italian republic. Their efforts were vindicated. In 2014 turnout in Emilia-Romagnas regional election was 37.7%. This year it jumped to 67.7%. This spike is almost certainly down to the Sardines, without whom the PD may well have lost control.

The most immediate implication of Sundays result will be to prop-up the current government, which now looks set to endure for the foreseeable future. Again, this has less to do with the virtues of the PD itself than the comparatively dire straits of their lead coalition partners, the Five Star Movement (M5S) which was happily partnered with the League before Salvini broke ranks in a botched attempt to grab power for his own party last August.

In the 2018 national elections, the self-styled anti-establishment populists M5S won 33% of the vote, making it the countrys largest single political force. Since that peak, however, its support has been in freefall. On Sunday the M5S won 7.4% of the vote in Calabria, and a meagre 3.5% in Emilia-Romagna. Its attempt to court both left- and rightwing voters, and failure to deliver on key policy pledges, has seen a steady haemorrhage of its largely liberal base. Even before the weekends vote the partys leader, Luigi Di Maio, stepped down from his position, recognising the need for the movement to adopt a more consistent ideological stance this is most likely to mean a move to the left.

With the M5S in chaos, and left-leaning voters swinging to PD, Sundays elections have confirmed a shift in the power balance inside the coalition government. Having picked up leftwing swing voters from its senior partners, the PD, the junior partners, will now dictate the political agenda. In a potential sign of the changes ahead, government ministers have already suggested abolishing the security decree, a piece of legislation passed by the League-M5S coalition to criminalise NGOs and individuals who aid refugees. Overturning this law is one of very few explicit policy proposals supported by participants in the Sardines movement the PD is trying to send a message to the congregations in the piazzas that the party is taking their concerns seriously. Meanwhile, the M5S remains the only Italian party that consistently emphasises the climate emergency, and is still working towards some kind of green new deal for Italy. Committing to this in more concrete terms now seems its best chance at avoiding a further collapse in support.

Whats most interesting about these elections, then, is the extent of the Sardines sudden influence. By manipulating the main parties fears of Salvini this makeshift movement has not only blocked the right: it has effectively made the ruling coalition dependent on their endorsement. For now, the organisers are playing down the possibility of forming their own party. This seems wise. While being outsiders has its drawbacks, it has enabled them to avoid self-defeating echo chambers and foster a remarkable pluralism that has been key to their success.

The Sardines are not here to save the old left. Instead their task is more foundational: to rebuild a culture of political participation, and demonstrate to Italys sceptical population that grassroots politics and activism can yield results especially so soon after the M5Ss own failed experiment in direct democracy. That theyve succeeded in this to some degree, in a country where pessimism has become so deeply ingrained is already a minor miracle. If this belief in collective action can be maintained, the Leagues road to power may not be as smooth as the pollsters would have it.

Jamie Mackay is a writer and translator based in Florence

Read this article:
Italys progressives had lost hope. The Sardines movement is starting to restore it - The Guardian

T

he first Novomatic linked progressive jackpots have been installed in Cambodia with local distributor Indo Pacific Gaming IPG.

From the start, the machines have created an instant impact amongst players with a variety of linked games including special versions of Novomatic titles as well as new games. With large signage that creates a big impression on the casino floors, the linked progressive jackpot has been introduced on the latest Panthera Curve 1.43 cabinet that features compelling graphics on a 43 curve screen. The games feature titles from the Fortunes series such as Asian Fortunes, Voodoo Fortunes, as well as leading games Book of Ra Mystic Fortunes and Goddess Rising.

Loren Stout, VP of Operations and Sales IPG, said: "Our customers and partners are very pleased with the new Novomatic installations thus far. Comments are positive, and we are continually impressed with the performance of the machines. We look forward to future additional placements and working with our partners to provide the very best machines and equipment we can fit to each specific market."

Sonya Nikolova, VP Sales Asia & Africa, added: "The new game concepts and latest range of slot machines introduced to the markets in South-East Asia have been designed with the aim to respond to customer demand, but also to prove the strategic approach of Novomatic to strengthen the brand recognition and customer satisfaction in the region. The efforts of our partners in supporting our mission are highly appreciated."

See the original post:
Novomatic and IPG roll out Linked Progressives in Cambodia - Yogonet International

Advertiser Disclosure

Progressive and State Farm have both been around for almost 100 years, and each has plenty of happy car insurance customers. But which one is the best choice for you?

In this article, we will compare Progressive vs State Farm to see which provider comes out ahead. We can tell you already that, in a competitive insurance market, both have great discounts and financial strength to fulfill claims. So, will Jake from State Farm bring it home for the red team, or will Flo steal it for the blue team?

In this article:

*Market share statistics are from a 2018 report by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). J.D. Power statistics are from the 2019 U.S. Insurance Shopping Study and the 2019 U.S. Auto Claims Satisfaction Study.

Progressive has been in the insurance business since 1937. Since then, the company has introduced a number of innovations. For example, Progressive was the first major auto insurance company to launch a website, the first to sell premiums online, and the first to offer usage-based insurance. The company is the third largest auto insurer in the United States and wrote $27 billion in premiums in 2018, according to the NAIC.

When comparing Progressive vs State Farm, keep in mind that Progressive has a strong app that lets drivers request roadside assistance, initiate claims, and manage their policy. You can also chat with the company or call a representative 24/7 not all insurance companies offer 24/7 customer support, believe it or not.

With Progressive, you can get car insurance that satisfies your states minimum requirements or goes beyond them. Here are the standard options that Progressive offers:

When shopping for insurance, youll see liability limits written as three numbers, like this: 100/300/100. In this example, the limits provide $100,000 bodily injury per person, $300,000 bodily injury per accident, and $100,000 property damage liability. That might sound excessive, but its actually a good coverage level to have to avoid lawsuits with other drivers.

You can get a few other coverage options from Progressive:

Progressives customer service track record is average, which is an important thing to know when comparing Progressive vs State Farm. Its not the best, but its not the worst. On J.D. Powers Auto Claims Satisfaction Study, Progressive ranked in the middle of the pack. However, on the Insurance Shopping Study, Progressive came in second-to-last place, with 18 other companies faring better.

Buying insurance can be confusing. You might be looking at a policy with 10 or more types of coverages, and each of those affects your total price. Finding a combination under your budget takes time, but the Name Your Price Tool can speed that up.

The Name Your Price Tool lets you plug in your desired budget first. Then it shows you policy options that fit under your budget. It cuts out a good chunk of busy work, and you can still tweak your plan after you get recommendations.

Comparing Progressive vs State Farm, the number of discounts available from each company is the same, but the actual discount offerings vary. With Progressive, you may qualify for the following discounts:

Even if you dont end up buying a policy from Progressive, it could be a good idea to get a quote from the company. Thats because you can compare quotes from other popular providers right on Progressives website at the same time. We think comparing multiple quotes at once is easier than filling out multiple online forms.

Also, Progressive wouldnt offer a price comparison tool unless it offered competitive prices. In fact, many people find cheap car insurance through Progressive. Certain things can help you find a better rate, like having good credit scores, a clean driving record, and being a safe driver. The type of car you drive can also influence your premiums.

As of 2020, State Farm will have been in business for 98 years. Its not quite the oldest car insurance company, but it is the largest in the United States it wrote $48 billion in premiums in 2018 according to the NAIC. The State Farm website says that the company had 43.7 million auto policies in force at the end of 2018. Thats a lot. Chances are, if you dont have State Farm, you know someone who does. So, lets compare Progressive vs State Farm and see if the latter is worthy of that many customers.

Like most car insurance companies, State Farm offers standard coverage. You can also get a few more options, including:

Comparing customer service between Progressive vs State Farm doesnt really tip the balance in either direction. State Farm scores high ratings in some areas but average ones in others. For example, State Farm was ranked in fifth place on J.D. Powers Auto Claims Satisfaction Study 11 places ahead of Progressive. However, it didnt impress on J.D. Powers Insurance Shopping Study.

The company has an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau (BBB). Also, it has fewer complaints on its BBB page than Progressive does, even though it has many more customers than Progressive.

You could qualify for the following discounts with State Farm auto insurance:

For some drivers, State Farm offers better discounts than Progressive. For example, if youre a student, you could get 25 percent off with State Farms good student discount and another 15 percent off by completing the Steer Clear program. However, the quotes you see between Progressive vs State Farm can vary you might find Progressive to be cheaper even after those discounts.

Neither State Farm nor Progressive provides discounts to seniors or members of the military. However, that doesnt mean seniors or military personnel cant find good rates from these companies.

Progressives Snapshot program and State Farms Drive Safe and Save both provide usage-based discounts to good drivers, but whats the difference?

If youre thinking about joining Progressives Snapshot, consider yourself warned: Not everyone is a good driver, and not everyone gets discounts. In fact, about 20 percent of Snapshot program participants actually see their rates increase, according to Progressive. Rates can increase because of high-risk driving habits, not just by losing the introductory discount.

If you drive late at night and tend to take corners fast, Snapshot wont be worth it. However, if you really are a good driver, it could pay off. You can save about $25 on your first policy and about $145 on average after that.

State Farms website says that drivers can save up to 30 percent with Drive Safe and Save. Drivers get a 5 percent discount for signing up. Drive Safe and Save tracks speeding, fast corners, hard braking, acceleration, and distracted driving. The good thing about this program is that it cant raise your rate because of high-risk driving. Now, your rate might increase if you become ineligible for a low-mileage discount you previously had, but thats different.

Considering all the evidence, we think both of these companies would make a great choice for auto insurance. If youre a student, it would be unwise to pass up a quote from State Farm. If youre looking for affordable car insurance after college, Progressive is a great option. Plus, with Progressives comparison tool, you can also check out a few other companies at the same time.

We recommend getting free quotes from both providers to ensure that you are getting the best rate and coverage possible.

Great for Discount Bundles

Compare Policies

Offers a number of ways to get a discount, including the Snapshot tool or bundle options.

Most Popular Car Insurer in the U.S.

Compare Policies

Most popular auto insurance company that services over 83 million policies.

Speaking of getting multiple quotes, there are a few other great providers out there. We recently reviewed the best auto insurance companies in the industry, and along with Progressive and State Farm, USAA and Geico rounded out our top four choices.

You should check out USAA car insurance if you or your family have any military affiliations. USAA tends to be an affordable option for those who qualify and can be cheaper than State Farm or Progressive. After comparing multiple insurance companies, USAA was the only provider that we gave five stars for its prices and reputation for great customer service.

Its also a good idea to include Geico auto insurance in your search. Geico has affordable coverage and is one of the better options if you have a speeding ticket on your driving record. The point is to look at multiple rates so you dont just pick the first quote you see, whether thats from Progressive, State Farm, or another insurance company.

Read the rest here:
Progressive Vs State Farm: Cost, Coverage, And Reviews - Motor1

Political Report

Boudin eliminated cash bail and restricted pretrial detention in San Francisco. He also reaffirmed a flawed quest to predict who should be jailed for what they might do.

Last week, San Franciscos newly elected district attorney, Chesa Boudin, released his offices new bail policy. Following his campaign promise, the new policy forbids prosecutors from requesting money bail under any circumstances. In addition, it allows them to request pretrial jail time only for people who face certain violent charges and who prosecutors believe pose a high risk of violence or flight.

With these provisions, Boudin has adopted what is easily the most progressive prosecutor bail policy in the country. His reforms are more comprehensive and transparent than those adopted by other leading progressive prosecutors, such as Bostons Rachael Rollins and Philadelphias Larry Krasner, let alone those of DAs elsewhere in the country.

But the policy also reveals how tough-on-crime norms limit the contemporary vision of progressive prosecution. Boudins office will continue the practice of assessing risk to justify incarcerating legally innocent people for their future crimes. It has defended this approach with unproven appeals to public safety and predictive accuracy, that in a prior era of bail reform would have been seen as an intrusion on fundamental civil rights.

For decades, activists and some legal scholars have denounced the practice of incarcerating people pretrial as a violation of the presumption of innocence, unlikely to improve public safety, destructive to communities, and racially discriminatory. Awaiting trial from a jail cell, people suffer worse case outcomes and risk losing their jobs, their homes, and custody of their children.

Money bail has been the primary mechanism for pretrial incarceration: A judge conditions the release of a person upon the person posting a money bond, often on the recommendation of the prosecutor. Amounts are often set beyond what the person can afford. On any given day in the United States, hundreds of thousands of people are detained pretrial because they are unable to post bail.

In recent years, some progressives have won DA elections on promises to transform this bail system. Boudin, Krasner, and Rollins have released three of the most emblematic prosecutor policies on the issue so far. Each expands the circumstances under which people not yet convicted of a crime will be released from jail without financial conditions.

Only Boudins reform outright eliminates money bail, though.

According to the policy he set, prosecutors in his office can never request money bail, and they can never defend someones incarceration on money bail. Thats a big shift in policy that should enable many people to avoid jail pretrial.

On the other side of the country, prosecutors in Rollins office can still request money bail in situations where they believe there is a flight risk. In Philadelphia, Krasners prosecutors face looser restrictions. Krasner instructed his prosecutors to not request cash bail for certain low-level offenses (misdemeanors and some felonies classified as nonviolent). Otherwise, prosecutors there are free to request money bail.

So even in jurisdictions with progressive prosecutors, incarceration on unaffordable money bonds continues to be a problem. Through extensive court-watching efforts, the Philadelphia Bail Fund has found that, although the pretrial jail population has declined, Krasners prosecutors continue to request unaffordable bail amounts that result in pretrial incarceration, as The Appeal reported in the summer of 2019.

By contrast, prosecutors in San Francisco will no longer be able to ask judges to detain people by imposing financial conditions on their release, at least if Boudins directive is properly implemented. In San Francisco, peoples freedom will not depend on their ability to post bail.

The second aspect of Boudins policy is that it limits when someone can be detained pretrial. If a jurisdiction only eliminates money bail, theres always the risk that, instead of facilitating peoples release, courts and prosecutors will turn to other methods of pretrial incarceration. This is the trade-off that critics say was made with Californias 2018 bail reform law (Senate Bill 10), which is currently pending a 2020 public referendum.

That is because money bail is not the only mechanism for jailing people pretrial. In many states, including California, a judge often acting on a prosecutors recommendation can determine that a person is dangerous or is a flight risk and order that person to be jailed until the criminal case is over.

Boudins policy restricts when this can happen. It sets a presumption against it, and enables prosecutors to recommend pretrial detention only for people facing charges for certain violent felonies. And they can do that only if the prosecutor is convinced that the person has a substantial likelihood of committing great bodily harm or fleeing the jurisdiction if released. These are narrower circumstances than SB 10 would allow. They are also somewhat narrower than Rollinss policy, which enables prosecutors to request pretrial incarceration for all statutorily eligible offenses in Massachusetts mostly violent felonies and gun charges if there is a clear safety risk to an identifiable victim or witness.

But in defining the circumstances where pretrial detention ought not to occur, Boudin, like Rollins and supporters of SB 10, is also endorsing the premise that it sometimes should.

These policies affirm that pretrial incarceration is justified based on predictions of future dangerousness. This conception of pretrial justice reflects the limits not just of particular policies but of the current horizon of progressive prosecution. Rollinss office has made use of such dangerousness holds, The Appeal reported in October, though she has requested these hearings with significantly less frequency than other Massachusetts DAs who use reform rhetoric.

Pretrial incarceration based on dangerousness assessments, a policy first proposed as legislation by the Nixon administration, swept the country in the 1970s and 80s. It permitted courts, for the first time in American history, to legally jail people awaiting trial based on a public safety rationale. These new laws were a turn away from the conclusions of the Johnson administrations seminal 1967 report The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, which had considered pretrial detention as way to reform bail but had determined that it might well create more of a problem than the imposition of money bail, in the light of the difficulty of predicting dangerousness.

In a 1987 opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Supreme Court found the federal governments new preventive detention scheme to be constitutionally permissible. In dissent, Justice Thurgood Marshall chastised the court for disregard[ing] basic principles of justice. He warned of the coercive power of authority to imprison upon prediction and the dangers which the almost inevitable abuses pose to the cherished liberties of a free society.

Boudins bail policy sides with Nixon and Rehnquist over Johnson and Marshall. The policy assumes that prediction can save us from the harms of pretrial incarceration.

Like recent reforms around the country, the plan is to develop better ways to identify the right people to detain pretrial. The press release accompanying Boudins policy promises that the office will release people who are safe and detain those who pose a serious threat to public safety.

But whether that determination is made through prosecutors judgment or actuarial risk assessment tools, the project cannot succeed. Neither prosecutors nor algorithms can know in advance who will commit violent crime.

It turns out that predicting violence is really hard. The information prosecutors see and the judgments they make are racially skewed. And although risk assessment tools are often touted as a solution to implicit bias, a perspective that the press release endorses by evoking the equitable decisions born of objective data, the data used to build actuarial assessments is itself deeply flawed and biased. Even the best actuarial risk assessments predictions of pretrial violence are frighteningly poor. Data from jurisdictions that use the Public Safety Assessment (PSA), a risk assessment tool that Boudins policy includes as a factor in bail decisions, show that 86 to 99 percent of the people that the algorithm flags for potential pretrial violence will not get arrested for a violent crime if released. Arnold Ventures, the company behind the PSA tool, has cautioned that the tool should not be used as the basis for detaining someone. Largely because pretrial violence is so rare, it is also hard to predict.

Even high-risk people are unlikely to commit a violent crime while awaiting trial, so a preventive detention system involves incarcerating thousands of legally innocent people for what a fraction of people might do. The fallout of these policies disproportionately impacts poor communities and communities of color especially Black communities.

Boudin himself has researched the shortcomings of risk assessment tools. In a paper released last week, he and his co-authors show that, by overcharging cases, prosecutors can inflate a defendants risk score, leading to a recommendation for a harsher pretrial outcome, even if the charges are eventually dropped. Such outputs are a far cry from the objective data promised by his office press release.

Boudins policy prevents prosecutors from recommending pretrial detention without supervisor approval, in an effort to foster the presumption against it. But this only moves the problems with making reliable predictions up the hierarchy. Acknowledging the gravity of pretrial incarceration does not by itself make the decisions sounder.

By eliminating financial conditions for release and restricting when prosecutors can request to jail people pretrial, Boudin took more progressive action on bail policy than his contemporaries.

But Boudins policy also upholds a pretrial incarceration scheme justified by tough-on-crime conventions. Todays bail policies expect prosecutors and algorithms to know in advance who will commit crimes and who wont. But no one can know that. At its core, a preventive detention scheme endorses the view that with good enough math or intuition we can overcome the moral stain of incarcerating people not for what they have done but for what they might do.

Colin Doyle is a staff attorney at the Criminal Justice Policy Program at Harvard Law School. He works on bail and pretrial reform across the country at the local and state levels.

See more here:
Chesa Boudin's New Bail Policy is Nation's Most Progressive. It Also Reveals Persistence of Tough-on-Crime Norms. - The Appeal

A decade ago, Donald Trump was a registered Democrat. When he joined the presidential race as a Republican in 2015, party leaders scorned him as a gatecrasher and sought to stop his rise.

The same Republican establishment now has rescued Trumps presidency.

After a vote Friday that blocked new witnesses, the Republican-controlled Senate is all but certain to acquit him Wednesday, formally ending the nations third and shortest presidential impeachment trial. That will let Trump remain in office and become the first impeached president to run for reelection.

The acquittal will not only cement Trumps reputation for surviving an onslaught of political perils. It also highlights how the former political neophyte has come to utterly dominate the GOP, with Republican lawmakers bowed by his overwhelming popularity with the partys base.

He has taken over the party in very short order, said Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster. It was almost immediate after he won the election. Hes a force of nature among Republicans.

If the Senate threw Trump overboard, there might be a revolt from Republican voters, he said.

Trumps acquittal was never really in doubt in the Republican-controlled Senate. Even Republicans who disapproved of his dealings with Ukraine, the heart of the House impeachment charges, said it did not merit making him the first president ever removed from office.

Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a president from office, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said Friday.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), whose decision late Thursday to oppose calling witnesses was a turning point in the trial, conceded that Democrats had proved their case that Trump pressured Ukraine last year to investigate a political rival by withholding $391 million in security aid.

But Alexander said the charges did not warrant removing Trump from office. Among other reasons, he said, the process was too partisan, with no Republicans joining the House Democrats who impeached Trump on Dec. 18.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), left, voted to hear from witnesses in the impeachment trial, while Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) cast one of the decisive votes against it.

(Shawn Thew / EPA/Shutterstock )

The partisan split was by design. Trump has demanded a kind of political and personal loyalty that his predecessors could not envision, lashing out on Twitter when even loyal defenders step out of line, and claiming unmitigated victories when they stick by his side.

At recent rallies, he claimed he won the House impeachment vote unanimously, citing the 196 Republicans who voted against articles of impeachment without mentioning the 228 Democrats and one independent former Republican Rep. Justin Amash who voted in favor in both articles.

Alexanders political mentor, the late Sen. Howard Baker, helped seal President Nixons fate in 1974 during Watergate, asking famously, What did the president know and when did he know it? Republicans ultimately concluded they had a duty to tell Nixon he faced certain impeachment and removal by Congress if he did not step down.

I hit him as hard and as directly as I could, Sen. Barry Goldwater, the Arizona Republican, wrote in his memoir, describing how he told the Republican president he would get no more than 15 Republican votes if his case reached the Senate. Nixon announced his resignation the next day.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), by contrast, appeared on Fox News with Trumps favorite media figure, Sean Hannity, just as the impeachment trial was reaching the Senate and all but pledged his fealty to the White House.

Im going to take my cues from the presidents lawyers, McConnell said.

It wasnt always thus. Many of the senators who backed Trump at the trial had denounced him bitterly during the 2016 campaign.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), now one of Trumps closest allies, called him a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot who doesnt represent my party.

The president was viewed as a novelty who was going to, at best, bring more interest to the party and, at worst, tear it down in glorious fashion, said Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign advisor.

Al Cardenas, a former chairman of the American Conservative Union, said Trump doubled down on the intense anger that swept the GOP after the 2007-09 financial crisis and Barack Obamas election in 2008, spawning the tea party movement on the right. Republicans fed off that frustration to take power on Capitol Hill after 2010, thwarting much of President Obamas legislative agenda.

Two years after Trump was elected, Democrats retook the House, allowing for his impeachment.

Under Trump, Republican lawmakers have jettisoned at least for now long-held views on the danger of deficit spending, the need for comprehensive immigration reform and the threat from Russia, among other issues. But they also have stocked federal courts with young, conservative judges and passed a tax cut bill, both hugely popular with Republican voters.

Lawmakers who disapprove of Trumps conduct have decided to swallow hard and accept it, Cardenas said, rather than risk losing his support and maybe even control of the Senate.

They believe that you support the Republican Party no matter what, said Cardenas, who is a Trump critic.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), arriving at the U.S. Capitol on Friday, told Fox News before the trial, Im going to take my cues from the presidents lawyers.

(Mario Tama / Getty Images)

Many Republicans compared the impeachment to the bitter Senate fight over Brett M. Kavanaughs nomination to the Supreme Court in 2018. Though a respected judge, Kavanaugh nearly lost his confirmation vote over allegations of a sexual assault of a girl when they were both high school students decades ago, which he vehemently denied.

Though Kavanaugh ultimately prevailed, the grueling experience convinced many Republicans that they needed to unite to withstand bruising fights with liberals, whom they accuse of a systematic effort to tar conservatives.

Republican lawmakers contend that they are acting in the interests of their constituents and their party, and not out of fear of Trumps wrath on Twitter.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), the lead House manager in the impeachment trial, outraged some Republican senators when he cited a media report that claimed a White House aide had warned Republicans that your head will be on a pike if they crossed the president.

But days later, Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor who backed Trump in 2016, publicly suggested that Trump might encourage primary challenges as political revenge against Republicans who failed to support him at the trial.

Trump has already shown his power to cast out dissident Republicans. Two senators, Bob Corker of Tennessee and Jeff Flake of Arizona, both decided not to run for reelection rather than face voters after clashing with Trump.

John Bolton, an archconservative who served 17 months as Trumps national security advisor, is the latest example.

He reportedly wrote in an unpublished memoir that Trump directly tied resumption of military aid for Ukraine with his demand for investigations of Democratic rival Joe Biden, the heart of the impeachment case. Trump has denied any linkage between the two.

Bolton offered to testify under oath to the Senate, but Senate Republicans rallied to prevent him from testifying. Only two broke ranks.

Republicans feared Boltons prospective testimony could potentially blow up, and cause another shoe to drop and lead to pandemonium, said Ken Gormley, president of Duquesne University in Pittsburgh and the author of a book about the Watergate scandal. They didnt want to take that risk.

Instead, Trump and his allies turned on Bolton with a fury, calling the longtime party stalwart a deep state tool, a turncoat and worse. The White House also vowed to block publication of his book, saying it contained classified material.

The Republican Party is a cult of personality at this point, said Sen. Christopher S. Murphy (D-Conn.). I wish Republicans remembered what they all said during the campaign, when they previewed how reckless and irresponsible it would be to make him their nominee.

Whether Trumps impeachment and trial will help or hurt him in November is unknown. Some suggest it will do neither, becoming just another scandal for a president who seems to thrive on them.

Weve gotten to a point where presidential elections are decided by very small percentage points, said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a vocal Trump supporter. If you look at where everybody is on this issue, its pretty much where we were in 2016. I dont know that thats going to change greatly.

Times staff writer Jennifer Haberkorn contributed to this report.

Follow this link:
Republicans who wanted to stop Trump's presidency have now saved it - Los Angeles Times