Mediaboss Marketing

Welcome to FiveThirtyEights politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarah (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): President Biden has had a couple of rough months, but on Wednesday, he was thrown a lifeline with the news that Justice Stephen Breyer plans to retire from the Supreme Court at the end of its current term.

Getting to nominate a Supreme Court justice is a big deal for Democrats, too, as liberal justices havent always left the bench at an opportune time (the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg is just the most recent example). Itll be a history-making appointment, too, because Biden is expected to honor his campaign promise of appointing a Black woman to the court.

So lets discuss the effects we expect Democrats Supreme Court nomination to have:

Lets start with that first question. Democrats can get their Supreme Court nominee through right?

ameliatd (Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, senior writer): If the Democrats cant get this nominee through, they should just pack up and go home.

sarah:

ameliatd: Im serious! Theyve got the votes, theyve got time, theyve been holding together on other judicial nominees. If they cant make this happen, then thats a sign of much bigger dysfunction than what were seeing currently on legislation.

Who knows when theyll be able to get another Democratic nominee onto the court?

alex (Alex Samuels, politics reporter): Well, the good news for Democrats is that Republicans cant block a Supreme Court nomination in the judiciary committee or on the floor as long as all 50 Senate Democrats Im looking at you, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema! hold their ground and back Bidens nominee. Based on Nathaniels recent story, that seems likely, but you really never know.

nrakich (Nathaniel Rakich, senior elections analyst): Yeah, despite Manchins and Sinemas high-profile defections from the party on major votes lately, I found somewhat surprisingly that no Senate Democrat has ever voted against any of Bidens federal-court nominees so far.

The caucus has been remarkably cohesive and unified on the issue of judges:

How often each senator has voted for and against President Bidens district-court and appeals-court nominees, as of Jan. 26, 2022

Excludes votes a senator skipped.

Source: U.S. Senate

alex: Manchin also said last week that hed support a justice who is more liberal than he is which is a good sign that Democrats will be able to get this through. And its also not completely out of the question that a handful of Senate Republicans back Bidens nominee!

I was pretty shocked at House Majority Whip James Clyburns claim that the two Republican senators from South Carolina Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott would potentially back Democrats if Biden tapped J. Michelle Childs for the role.

ameliatd: You found that a couple Republicans might cross the aisle, right, Nathaniel? At least based on how judicial votes have been going so far?

nrakich: Right, Amelia. Sen. Susan Collins has voted for Bidens judicial nominees 86 percent of the time, Sen. Lisa Murkowski has voted for them 85 percent of the time and Graham who is kind of old-fashioned in that he still defers to the president on his nominees, the way senators used to do 30 years ago has voted for them 84 percent of the time.

sarah: But do we think that analysis of federal judicial nominees will be applicable to the Supreme Court? Asking as maybe the biggest thing working against Democrats is that the nomination process for a Supreme Court justice has become increasingly rancorous, meaning they cant really count on any GOP support, right?

ameliatd: Appeals court nominations are also getting more rancorous, though, Sarah. Judicial nominations in general are just getting more acrimonious but this is so high-stakes that it seems unlikely to me that Democrats would fall apart here.

nrakich: I think thats right, Sarah for instance, I doubt Murkowski, who is up for reelection this year, will want to anger the Republican base by casting such a high-profile vote in Bidens favor.

But I also think theres less incentive for Republicans to block this nominee than usual. Control of the court isnt at stake, since this would be going from a liberal judge to a liberal judge, and conservatives majority is pretty secure now at 6-3.

geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): Yeah, this might be the last time Democrats have control of the Senate when a Supreme Court vacancy occurs for some time, so this is a pretty pivotal appointment for them to not screw up. And as Nathaniels analysis found, theres probably a good chance they remain united.

Still, if a Democrat or two breaks from the party line, counting on Republican support could be dicey. If we look back at recent confirmation votes, theyve become increasingly close because fewer and fewer senators cross the aisle to back the other partys nominee.

ameliatd: If Democrats cant get this nomination through and they lose the Senate in November, Breyer doesnt have to leave. He conditioned his retirement on his successor being nominated and confirmed. But hes retiring now for a reason hes in his 80s and who knows when the Democrats will control the White House and the Senate again. Its possible that if Breyer cant retire now, a Republican president will end up replacing him.

Ill never say never politics now is too weird for me to bet the farm on anything. But this really is Democrats seat to lose, and they have to know that.

sarah: OK, weve talked about how important every vote is in the nomination process, but what are some of the other stakes of this process, especially considering Biden has said he plans to uphold his promise to appoint a Black woman to the Supreme Court?

alex: Theres probably a strategic reason behind the White House wasting no time confirming that Biden would follow through on his campaign promise to nominate a Black woman. I wouldnt be surprised if they view this as a motivator for Black voters who are souring on Bidens presidency.

geoffrey.skelley: Black women are the most reliable voting bloc for Democrats, and such an appointment would make history. So politically, on top of Bidens previous campaign promise, this makes a lot of sense.

There have been a lot of ridiculous takes on the right about the nature of this appointment being promised to a Black woman, but that ignores the fact that presidents have historically considered identity when making appointments. President Ronald Reagan promised to appoint a woman, for instance, and chose Sandra Day OConnor; George H.W. Bush appointed Clarence Thomas to succeed another Black man, Thurgood Marshall.

alex: To your point, Geoff, the racial breakdown of Supreme Court members over time is pretty striking: Of the 115 justices who have served, all but seven (Thomas, Marshall, Sonia Sotomayor, OConnor, Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett) have been white men.

ameliatd: A handful of Black women are being floated as possible replacements for Breyer, and three of them Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, whos currently an appeals court judge on the D.C. Circuit; Justice Leondra Kruger, whos a justice on the California Supreme Court; and Judge J. Michelle Childs, whos a district court judge in South Carolina appear to be the top contenders.

But if I had to pick, I would bet on Jackson being the nominee. She has all the right credentials two degrees from Harvard, extensive judicial experience, even a clerkship with Breyer himself! And Biden appeared to be teeing her up for this spot by nominating her to the D.C. Circuit last year its often a feeder to the Supreme Court. (Justices Thomas, John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh all served on the D.C. Circuit before the Supreme Court.)

sarah: Geoffrey raises an interesting point: How much is this appointment meant to play to Democrats base?

As Alex pointed out, Biden and Democrats have taken a hit recently with Black voters. Thinking ahead to the 2022 midterms the timing of when the nomination vote will actually happen is still unclear, but assuming it will be relatively close to the midterms how much does a partys base care about Supreme Court nominations?

I also think one thing thats particularly complicated about this nomination process is that this term has already had a number of high-profile, contentious cases. Will those cases weigh more in voters minds?

alex: Some polling taken over the last few years suggests that the Supreme Court has never been a top priority for either Republican or Democratic voters. In 2020, for instance, shortly after former President Donald Trump released a short list of potential Supreme Court nominees, Morning Consult/Politico found that only 48 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of Republicans said the Supreme Court was very important in deciding their vote that year. I realize 48 percent and 50 percent arent nothing, but at the time, it ranked below issues like the economy, health care, national security, taxes and COVID-19 for members of both parties.

ameliatd: Supreme Court nominations have traditionally been an issue thats mattered more to Republicans. But theres evidence that Democrats are tuning more into the importance of the court, too.

And if the court overturns Roe v. Wade or expands gun rights this term, that will definitely focus negative attention on the justices as both would be out of step with public opinion. Overturning Roe in particular would be highly unpopular. There arent many issues that could plausibly cause a backlash against the court, just because so much of what they do is technical and under-the-radar, but thats one of the big ones.

geoffrey.skelley: I think where the Supreme Court pick matters when looking ahead to the midterms is that its a chance for Biden to make history and receive some positive coverage in the process.

That could help shore up his base, which has been flagging, as Alex mentioned earlier. (Maybe it even helps Biden regain some support among independents, where hes really lost support.) Im not sure its the sort of thing that can dramatically change the trajectory of his approval rating, but it could tick up slightly afterward.

nrakich: I agree with that, Geoffrey. A successful confirmation would also be a concrete win for Biden that could change this narrative of incompetence and failure hes been stuck in.

I dont really think this nomination fight will affect the midterms much, though. If anything, it makes the Supreme Court less relevant for the midterms. As long as Breyer was still on the court, Democrats had an argument for saying, You have to keep us in control of the Senate so we can appoint a liberal justice to replace Breyer! Now, they cant make that argument.

ameliatd: My feeling is that the bigger question here is what the courts conservatives do. If the term ends up to be less headline-making than court watchers are expecting, Im not sure how much people will care. After all, this isnt a liberal replacing a conservative most people dont even know who Breyer is.

sarah: Yeah, thats a good point, Amelia. But if the court is as conservative as court watchers expect, the timing could be an important factor here, too. We did find, after all, that Kavanaughs nomination to the Supreme Court affected the 2018 midterms, especially in Senate races.

alex: We cant rule out the possibility, either, that this motivates Republicans more than Democrats.

The fact that the White House made it clear early on that Biden intended to stick to his word and nominate a Black woman already has some Republicans up in arms, and I think that, especially after the racial reckoning of 2020, there are a lot of white voters who are angry about their perceived loss of power and status. Replacing a white man with a Black woman even if they are similar ideologically could stir up angst among conservatives who already believed they were losing political clout to Black voters. As Geoff mentioned earlier, there have already been a number of racist takes from GOP pundits that Im going to refrain from linking to, but I can only imagine how bad things will get from here

If its not about race (which I doubt), Id expect the GOP to simply attack Bidens appointee as too liberal. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley already tweeted that Biden faces a choice of nominating either someone who loves America and believes in the Constitution or a woke activist.

ameliatd: Yeah, Alex, I think this is going to be a nasty confirmation hearing. There are already people attacking Biden for appointing a less qualified person before hes even named his nominee!

And even though we found that Biden is actually nominating more Ivy League and top law-school grads than previous presidents, this is a familiar trope for women of color in lots of professions, not just law. You have to be the best of the best to make it to the top and people still question your credentials.

alex: Exactly. And Republicans are also already reminding voters that the court should be a factor for voters this fall. Just look at Grahams tweet thread on this from a few days ago.

Id expect that Republicans double down on this argument, particularly in competitive states where Democratic senators are defending their seats.

ameliatd: I guess the flip side of what youre saying, though, Alex, is that a confirmation hearing where the first Black woman to be nominated to the Supreme Court is subjected to a bunch of racist questioning about her qualifications could make Democratic voters pretty angry, too.

geoffrey.skelley: Definitely a potential boost for the GOP, although I wonder how much more energized can Republicans get? Theyre already more likely to turn out in a midterm with a Democrat in the White House, and if the 2021 gubernatorial elections were any indication, turnout will likely be very high again for a midterm this November.

ameliatd: This is a bit of a nerdy point, but Ill be interested to see how the hearings go. Traditionally, nominees studiously avoid saying what they think about any high-profile issue or precedent that comes before the court. And that makes the hearings pretty snoozy for the most part. But in a moment when precedents like Roe v. Wade are actively threatened does that change?

Probably not, but itll be more complex for the nominee to navigate.

geoffrey.skelley: Fair question, Amelia. If the nominee were to make more assertive comments on a topic like Roe, I could imagine that getting a lot of play on the news. Im not sure whether thats good or bad for one party or the other, though maybe it reminds some Democratic voters of the stakes for the court, but it could also, to Alexs point, further energize social conservatives to show up in the midterms.

sarah: On that point, lets talk a little bit more about the overall importance of whomever Biden nominates to the court. As Amelia flagged, the court is currently in the throes of a 6-3 conservative revolution. That isnt going to change with whomever Biden nominates liberal justices will still be in the minority but this justice, whoever she might be, will still play an important role in shaping the court. Lets talk about that a little more and what the consequences of that are.

ameliatd: Breyer was very much an old-school Supreme Court justice. He staked out a place on the courts center-left and tried to compromise with the conservatives on some big issues, like religious liberty. He basically spent the last year trying to convince Americans that the court is nonpartisan. Of course, thats a line weve heard from other justices recently too. But it felt with Breyer that he was trying to operate on a court that no longer existed.

Someone like Jackson, on the other hand, is presumably well aware of the political moment. She was the judge in a case that came out of Democrats investigation into special counsel Robert Muellers report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. (Remember that thing that feels like it happened 75 years ago?) So youd imagine her potentially staking out a position more like Sotomayor, who has been calling out the conservative justices right and left this term.

Theres evidence, too, that diversity makes a difference in cases on issues like affirmative action at least on lower courts. And the court just so happens to have taken an affirmative action case for what will likely be next term. Do I really think that will change the outcome on this Supreme Court? Probably not. The conservative justices have been gunning for affirmative action for years. But having another nonwhite justice could affect how they handle the case.

nrakich: One thing that I always thought was interesting about the Supreme Court is that, historically, whether a justice was appointed by a Republican or Democratic president wasnt super predictive of where theyd end up ideologically. Im curious, Amelia: Do you think that era is over?

In other words, is there any chance for one of the conservative justices to get more liberal over their tenure, or vice versa?

ameliatd: That era is definitely over, Nathaniel. It ended along with the era of unanimous votes for Supreme Court nominees.

Some people say Roberts is getting more liberal. I am not in that camp. I think whats happening is that he cares about institutional credibility, and as the court gets more conservative, its getting increasingly out of step with public opinion. Thats where his breaks with the conservatives (which are few and far between) come from.

nrakich: It does kind of feel like Roberts is standing still and its the other conservative justices who are moving to the right.

ameliatd: The conservative legal movement has spent the past 40 years working to get justices on the court who wont get more liberal. It seems like theyve been extraordinarily successful.

sarah: Yeah, Amelia, its hard to see outcomes on the Supreme Court changing anytime soon. Itll be interesting, though, to see what this means for the three liberal justices and most likely three liberal female justices to be in the minority for years to come.

ameliatd: What it means for the liberals, Sarah, is that they have to figure out how to make being in the minority work for them. Breyers approach (and also Kagans) was to try to stanch the bleeding keep the court from moving to the right too quickly and compromise with conservatives to get not-terrible outcomes.

But that approach actually resulted in some pretty big concessions for the liberal justices, including last terms religious-liberty case. And I dont see a lot of evidence that the conservative justices with the exception of Roberts are interested in compromising with the liberal justices on anything at this point.

So I would suspect were going to see a lot more of dissents like the one we just got from Sotomayor, who said that the courts decision to let Texass highly restrictive abortion law stay in effect was a disaster.

nrakich: Its interesting to me that were seeing basically the same institutional dynamics play out on the Supreme Court that weve seen in Congress over the past decade: the rise of a conservative wing that is totally uninterested in compromise (the Freedom Caucus), and now a more assertive progressive wing, too.

ameliatd: Yeah, Nathaniel, I also wonder if it will lead to a growing perception among Americans that the court is political. I think thats an increasingly unavoidable conclusion. But if Americans start to think that way how does it change their perception of unelected justices who serve for life and rule on some of the countrys most important issues?

alex: Dont Americans already think that, Amelia?

ameliatd: Well, look at Congresss approval rating, though! The Supreme Court is still doing a lot better, relatively speaking.

But it is relevant that more Americans are seeing the court as too conservative. That being said, Gallup found that only 37 percent of Americans have that view.

nrakich: Interestingly, that Gallup poll didnt find a huge partisan split on approval of the Supreme Court; as of September 2021, 45 percent of Republicans approved of the court, while 36 percent of Democrats did. I feel like that is the next frontier for public opinion. Especially if the court overturns Roe v. Wade and delivers other conservative victories this term, I bet youll see its approval skyrocket among Republicans and plummet among Democrats.

ameliatd: The fact that most of the Supreme Courts cases even important ones are highly technical works in their favor here. Its easy for them to do radical things, like diminish the power of federal agencies, without anyone really understanding what theyre doing.

But I think some of that is already happening, Nathaniel. The question for me is whether the court does something so obviously political that public opinion really starts to mirror the polarized nature of the court.

Read this article:
What Will Bidens Supreme Court Nominee Mean For Democrats And The Midterms? - FiveThirtyEight

Amidst endless partisan bickering and with the unpredictability of the pandemic looming in the background the notion of a unified Democratic party seems like a pipe dream. With the advent of social media, what once occurred behind closed doors has become a spectator sport. Flash and virility have replaced good governing. Opinions have replaced facts.

As the newly elected president of the Democratic Mayors Association, Ive been given the privilege to speak on behalf of Democratic Mayors across the country. Weve witnessed the tenets of the Democratic Party being drowned out by a national screaming match and its time to get back to the basics: jobs, housing, education and healthcare.

Im the Mayor of Richmond, Va., the former Capital of the Confederacy where I see firsthand the struggles that everyday Americans are facing. While catchphrases touted by both sides of the aisle make headlines that evoke strong emotional responses, their most lasting legacy is division. Its time we shift our focus away from appeasing party extremists and get back to appealing to our base. This is not reinventing the wheel. This is how countless mayors, including myself, have gotten elected and how weve chosen to lead.

At the end of the day, being a Democrat is about helping folks. We want everyone to have the opportunity to succeed, and if youve fallen on hard times we want there to be a way out.

My upbringing had no silver spoons or picket fences. My mom was 16 when she had me and I was raised paycheck to paycheck by my father and grandmother he was a public school custodian with a felony on his record, and she was a domestic worker. Free school lunches were sometimes the difference between hungry and not.

The reason I bring this up isnt for sympathy. Its because when Democrats talk about helping those in need, I was one of those people. I understand what its like to need help, and how valuable that help can be. In spite of my circumstances, I became the first in my family to graduate high school (and then college) and now Im the twice elected Mayor of Richmond, Virginia. I was lucky.

I got into public service because my story is not unique. Its not an inner-city story, a Black story, or a coming from a broken home story. Its an American story that far too often doesnt get to happily ever after and that is something I will spend my life fighting to change.

Recent elections and the current trajectory of the GOP should serve as a cautionary tale. If we continue to allow them to set the narrative we will continue to lose. Our party was once one of inclusion; a party whose rhetoric was based on hope and growing stronger together. The issues of the Democratic Party are issues that affect peoples everyday lives that should give us a huge advantage.

As we head towards the midterms and future elections, my hope is that our party will unify. We must resist theeye for an eyementality when baited by the Republicans. We must extricate ourselves from the culture war and remind voters, and ourselves, what Democratic leadership means: access to affordable housing, good-paying jobs, and high-quality education and healthcare.

Getting back to the basics isnt just about winning. Its how we help people. In a country as powerful as the United States, the status quo is unacceptable. We can do better. This is a critical moment for our country and our democracy, lets not let it pass by.

LevarStoneyis the 80th mayor of the City of Richmond. He is the youngest mayor in Richmond history and the first millennial African American mayor to serve in the city.

See the original post:
To win in 2022, Democrats must cut the squabbles and get back to basics | TheHill - The Hill

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) expressed openness to lowering the income limits for families to access the expanded child tax credit if it helps win Sen. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinCongress in jeopardy of missing shutdown deadline A strategic pivot to healthcare reform could save the midterms for Democrats Carville says he'd help fundraise for potential Gallego Senate bid MOREs (D-W.Va.) support for the partys sweeping climate and socialspending bill.

Clyburn said in an interview withThe Washington Post on Thursday that he thinks Democrats still have wiggle room with getting Manchin on board with a party-backed expansion to the child tax credit after its recent lapse.

The No. 3 House Democratsaid Manchin has made it very clear that he has concerns about the structure of the expansion, but Clyburn said he doesnt think the West Virginia senator is entirely opposed to the credit.

He wanted to see it means-tested. I'm not opposed to that, Clyburn said, adding he would like to see Manchin come forward with a bill for the child tax credit thats means-tested.

I think it would pass. Hed get it through the Senate. I think we could get it through the House, Clyburn continued, adding he thinks theres a lot in Build Back Better that he says hes for so, lets do that.

Democrats have been working for months to make changes to and scale down the partys Build Back Better Act, in large part to try to get support from Manchin, a key centrist holdout.

Democrats hope to pass the bill,a legislative priority for President BidenJoe BidenCongress in jeopardy of missing shutdown deadline Senate to get Ukraine, Russia briefing on Thursday As Social Security field offices reopen, it's time to expand and revitalize them MORE, using a complex procedure known as budget reconciliation thatwould allow them to greenlight the package in an evenly split Senate with a simple majority.

But, with Republicansuniformly opposed to the bill, Senate Democrats would need total support from their caucus to pass the measure, giving Manchin significant influence over the shaping of the legislation.

In an interview on Thursday morning, Manchinsignaled that he is stillopen to participate in negotiations around the spending plan and the expanded child tax credit, but added he thinks means testing will ensure it is targeted to those most in need.

Everyone thinks the child tax credit has gone away. The child tax credits still there, the $2,000 child tax credit is still there, and we're going to make sure that we can help, continue to help those in need, Manchin toldWest Virginia MetroNews's Hoppy Kercheval.

I want to target West Virginians basically to make $75,000 or less should be the highest priority we have. They have it up to $200,000 for an individual and $400,000 for families. That's a lot of money, headded,after expressing concerns about inflation earlier in the interview.

Read more from the original source:
Top House Democrat open to lower income caps for child tax credit to win over Manchin | TheHill - The Hill

Hello, and happy Thursday,

On Tuesday afternoon, Jim Cooper, a moderate Democrat who has been in Congress for more than three decades, announced he was retiring. The timing was not a coincidence.

Less than 24 hours earlier, the Tennessee legislature had approved a map with new boundaries for the states eight congressional districts. Since 2003, Cooper has represented a district that includes all of Nashville, and it has been reliably Democratic (Joe Biden carried it by 24 points in 2020). But the legislatures new plan erased his district. Republicans sliced up Nashville into three different districts, attaching a sliver of Democratic voters in each to rural and deeply Republican areas. Donald Trump would have easily won all three of the new districts in 2020.

Get the latest updates on voting rights in the Guardians Fight to vote newsletter

Cooper was blunt in his assessment of what had happened. Republicans, he said in a statement, had made it impossible for him to win re-election to Congress. Despite his best efforts, he said, he could not stop Republicans from dismembering Nashville.

The map doesnt just weaken the voice of Democrats, it also dilutes the influence of Black voters and other voters of color in Nashville. In Coopers current district, Black voters make up about a quarter of the voting-age population. They will comprise a much smaller share of the voting age population in the new districts, making it harder for them to make their voices heard.

Andrew Witherspoon, my colleague on our visuals team, and I put together an interactive map that shows exactly how Republicans transformed Coopers district. Its one of the clearest examples of how politicians can essentially rig elections in their favor just by moving district lines. It underscores how gerrymandering is a remarkably powerful and efficient method of voter suppression the influence of certain peoples votes matter less before a single ballot is even cast.

Tennessee isnt the only place this is happening. In Kansas, Republican lawmakers are advancing a plan that would similarly crack Kansas City, making it more difficult for the Democrat Sharice Davids, the first Native American woman elected to Congress, to get re-elected. In North Carolina, Republicans cracked the city of Greensboro in order to dismantle the states sixth congressional district, currently represented by a Democrat.

Democrats have also shown a willingness to engage in this kind of distortion where they have control of the redistricting process, in places such as Illinois, Maryland and probably New York. Democrats will have complete control over drawing 75 congressional districts, compared with 187 for Republicans.

The day before he announced his retirement, I spoke with Cooper about why he thought this was happening and what he thought the consequences would be for Nashville voters. Whats happening now is just raw politics, Cooper said.

In two previous redistricting cycles, none of the politicians in the state knew that I existed as a candidate. That made it easier they werent trying to get Jim Cooper. And then in cycles where they did know I existed, it was either too difficult to rearrange the counties, or they were gentler, he told me. Politico reported recently that after Republicans werent as aggressive as they could have been in states such as Texas and Georgia, there is some pressure to be even more aggressive in places like Tennessee.

The Nashville constituents who are being sliced up into each of the three districts are likely to have much less importance to their new, Republican representatives, Cooper said. Any input they have, at most, it will be tokenism.

This is not a majority-minority community, but it will limit the ability for them to be heard. Because theyll become essentially a rounding error in much larger districts that are dominated by the surrounding towns, he said. The center of gravity will shift.

Also worth watching

A federal court told Alabama to redraw its congressional districts after finding Republican lawmakers had discriminated against Black voters. Alabama is appealing the ruling.

Arizona Republicans are proposing a suite of new voting restrictions after a widely criticized review of the 2020 election results.

Texas continues to face significant problems after implementing sweeping new voting restrictions ahead of its 1 March primary.

Ohio Republicans are redrawing state legislative and congressional maps after the state supreme court struck down earlier efforts as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. There are still concerns the new state legislative maps are severely gerrymandered.

Read this article:
Republicans just wiped out a Democratic district. Heres how - The Guardian

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greenewho has been stripped of her House committee assignments for writing inflammatory social-media posts, thrown off Twitter for spreading COVID-19 misinformation, and fined more than eighty thousand dollars for violating House rules on masksis facing a primary challenge. Three Republicans are running against her for the Party nomination in Georgias Fourteenth Congressional District, in the northwest corner of the state. The most serious of these challengers, it seems, is Jennifer Strahan, a health-care executive who has tried to portray herself as right-wing, just not loony right-wing. Strahan claims to be uniting conservatives who want a congresswoman who can accomplish something other than managing to embarrass the Republican Party and the entire state of Georgia.

A poll released last week suggested that Strahan might have a shot at beating Greeneif, that is, she gets a lot of help. The poll, conducted by a firm called TargetPoint, was designed to test anti-Greene messages. Respondents were asked, for example, whether theyd be more or less likely to vote for Greene after hearing that she had called the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Newtown, Connecticut, and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida, false flag operations. (The Web site Jewish Insider, which first obtained the poll, reported that it was financed not by the Strahan campaign but by a group of anti-Greene Georgia Republicans.) By the time respondents had been informed of some of Greenes most outrageous positions, including her claim that 9/11 was a hoax, she and Strahan were roughly even. Meanwhile, when respondents who said that they were planning to vote in the Democratic primary were asked whether they would consider, instead, voting for Greenes opponent, in order to hold Marjorie Taylor Greene accountable, all of them said yes.

Georgia is an open-primary state, meaning that voters can choose which partys primary they want to participate in. (Voters in Georgia do not register with a party.) Thus, some of Strahans help could come from people who disagree with her and have no intention of casting a ballot for her in November. All of this raises the question: Should it?

Crossover voting, as its known, has an unfortunate reputation. Usually, when its been advocated for, this has been done with the intention of undermining the opposition. In March, 2008, for example, the conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh launched what he called Operation Chaos. At that point, John McCain had already clinched the Republican Presidential nomination, and Barack Obama was leading in the race for the Democratic nomination. Limbaugh urged his listeners to vote for Hillary Clinton, to prolong the Democratic contest. In Indiana, an open-primary state, it seems that Limbaugh was either effective or else served as a convenient excuse, because the Obama campaign blamed crossover voters, at least in part, for Clintons victory in that states May primary.

Twelve years later, in South Carolina, another open-primary state, several G.O.P. politicians urged Republicans to cross over and cast their ballots for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Presidential primary. They, too, dubbed their campaign Operation Chaos. The Greenville News reported that conservative political groups were calling on Republicans to vote for the worst Democrat. We dont see this as in any way improper or underhanded because were being very open about it, Stephen Brown, the former chairman of the Greenville County Republican Party, said at the time. (Whatever the impact of the effort, Joe Biden won the South Carolina primary by a wide margin.)

Voting for the worst candidate in order to sow chaos is, for obvious reasons, a bad idea. Universalized, such conduct wouldor, at least, couldlead both parties to nominate extremists and incompetents. But what about voting for the least worst candidate in an effort to save the Republic? This would seem to fall into a different ethical category. As John Stuart Mill put it, in Utilitarianism, The morality of the action depends entirely upon the intention.

Because Republicans are nominating extremists, Democrats could engage in crossover voting with the very best of intentions. In Greenes district, they could vote for Strahan in the hope of defeating a dangerous conspiracy monger. Were G.O.P. voters in blue-leaning districts to do the sameto engage in what might be called principled crossover votingthey would end up voting for the most centrist candidates in Democratic primaries. If that happened, its hard to see how the country would be worse off than it is now.

The lines for Greenes district have recently been redrawn in such a way as to render it slightly less red. (Greene has blasted the new lines, calling them a fools errand that was led by power-obsessed state legislators.) Still, the district leans heavily Republican, and whoever wins the G.O.P. nomination will, almost certainly, head to Washington. Indeed, Democrats in the district are such a minority that its not even clear they could swing a primary. But, it could be argued, they have an obligation to try.

Why Republicans keep electing politicians like Greene is a question that will occupy historians and political scientists for decades. Part of the reason, though, would seem to be structural. In safe red districts, which sophisticated gerrymandering is producing more and more of, the only campaigns that matter are primary campaigns, and voters who turn out for primaries tend to be the most politically committed. (James Huntwork, a Republican election-law expert, once described the primary-campaign dynamic in a lopsided district as a race between one candidate who says, I am completely crazy! and another who claims, I am even crazier than you!)

In total, fifteen states hold open primaries. These include Michigan, where Representative Peter Meijer, who was one of ten House Republicans to vote for Donald Trumps second impeachment, is facing a primary challenge from a former Trump staffer, John Gibbs, who is perhaps best known for claiming, in 2016, that Hillary Clintons campaign chairman, John Podesta, was a satanist. (Asked whether he regretted his rhetoric, Gibbs said, I regret that its unfortunately become an issue.) Nine other states allow unaffiliated voters to participate in either partys primary. These include Colorado, where Greenes ally Representative Lauren Boebert is facing a primary challenge from State Senator Don Coram, whos considered a moderate. (Boebert has repeatedly been criticized for anti-Muslim remarks; most recently, she is reported to have asked a group of Orthodox Jews visiting the Capitol whether they were there to conduct reconnaissance.) The lines for Boeberts district, too, have been redrawn, and it is considered a safe Republican seat. But unaffiliated voters in the district outnumber both registered Democrats and Republicans, so they, presumably, could decide the races outcome. Lets hope they turn out for the G.O.P. primary, because right now leaving the future of the Republican Party to Republicans seems way too risky.

View original post here:
Should Democratic Primary Voters Help Save the G.O.P. from Itself? - The New Yorker