Mediaboss Marketing

CORRECTION: Gal Luft was indicted in November 2022 in a filing that was unsealed on Monday. A previous version of this story included incorrect information.

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee are asking the GOP to turn over information detailing its interactions with Gal Luft, a recently charged think tank leader who called himself “patient zero of the Biden family investigation.”

Luft was indicted in November in a filing that was unsealed on Monday on numerous serious charges, including failing to register as a foreign agent when recruiting and paying an unnamed former high-ranking U.S. government official on behalf of China.

He is also accused of brokering illicit arms deals and violating Iran sanctions by setting up meetings between Iranian officials and a Chinese energy company to discuss oil deals. 

Luft has played a central role in Oversight Chair James Comer’s (R-Ky.) investigation into the Biden family’s business dealings as well as a probe into whether President Biden, in connection with son Hunter Biden, accepted a bribe – an assertion both men have flatly denied.

“We are concerned that an official committee of the House of Representatives has been manipulated by an apparent con man who, while a fugitive from justice, attempted to fortify his defense by laundering unfounded and potentially false allegations through Congress,” Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) wrote in a letter alongside Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.).

Luft was arrested Feb. 17 in Cyprus but fled after being released on bail and remains a fugitive, according to court filings from the Justice Department.

“Although Mr. Luft has been on the run for months, you touted him as a ‘potential witness’ and even prepared to interview him as part of your investigation. As recently as Friday, you described Mr. Luft as ‘a very credible witness’ about matters relating to the President’s son’s financial dealings with Chinese companies,” the two Democratic lawmakers wrote.

Read more here:
Democrats demand GOP turn over info on indicted think-tank leader ... - The Hill

Democratic Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont, flanked by Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, addressed concerns about debt limit negotiations during a press conference on Thursday. A group of Senate Democrats sent a letter to President Biden urging him to invoke the 14th Amendment to avoid a debt default if he can't reach a deal with Republicans. Alex Wong/Getty Images hide caption

Democratic Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont, flanked by Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, addressed concerns about debt limit negotiations during a press conference on Thursday. A group of Senate Democrats sent a letter to President Biden urging him to invoke the 14th Amendment to avoid a debt default if he can't reach a deal with Republicans.

Some Democrats on Capitol Hill are growing increasingly worried that President Biden will give into too many demands from House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in continuing talks over a deal to avoid a historic debt default.

After a second White House meeting earlier this week, and staff talks in the last couple of days, Biden and McCarthy both expressed optimism that a deal could get done.

"I see the path that we could come to an agreement. And I think we have a structure now and everybody's working hard," McCarthy told reporters Thursday morning.

But with two weeks before the country runs out of money to pay its bills and negotiations limited to a tight circle of the president's and the speaker's negotiators, many progressive lawmakers are nervous about the lack of details about what is or isn't on the table.

A key issue causing many on the left heartburn is Biden's recent signal that he's considering some changes to federal safety net programs, a central Republican demand.

The fear that Biden is entertaining going further in negotiations than some in his own party are comfortable with is driving a Democratic backup plan to get around having to strike any compromise with McCarthy.

Progressive Democrats are the most vocal about their trepidationand are putting the president on notice that they are keeping a close eye on every morsel of information coming out of the negotiations.

"I'm watchful. I'm always watchful," Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., told reporters Thursday.

Many in her caucus were alarmed by comments Biden made before departing for his trip to the G7 where he suggested the possibility of toughening requirements for federal safety net programs like food stamps a provision included in a bill House Republicans passed last month.

"I'm not going to accept any work requirements that go much beyond what is already what I I voted years ago for the work requirements that exist. But it's possible there could be a few others, but not anything of any consequence," he said when pressed what kind of proposal he was discussing with McCarthy.

Jayapal took note, calling his remarks "a little bit confusing."

"What I've said in the past is, you know, I understand he voted for work requirements in 1996 and some other things in '86 with the crime bill," she said. "But we didn't elect the Joe Biden of 1986 and 1996. We elected the Joe Biden of 2020."

President Biden delivered a brief update of the ongoing negotiations over the debt limit at the White House on Wednesday. Some of his comments about work requirements raised red flags to progressive Democrats. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images hide caption

President Biden delivered a brief update of the ongoing negotiations over the debt limit at the White House on Wednesday. Some of his comments about work requirements raised red flags to progressive Democrats.

The White House has made it clear that any work requirements changes for Medicaid are not acceptable, but that leaves programs like food stamps or cash assistance programs for low-income individuals and families as possible areas negotiators may be reviewing.

Florida freshman Rep. Maxwell Frost says now that the talks have narrowed between the president's team and the speaker's, he wants Biden to hold the line.

"I have trust in the president on this," he told NPR. "But I do want to make sure that him and administration know that we don't want to see any cuts to these essential programs like SNAP," referring to the program that distributes food assistance.

McCarthy wouldn't say what kinds of additional rules to these programs were on the table but he argued there were statistics showing the benefits for putting restrictions on those getting federal benefits.

"Work requirements help people get jobs. It takes them out of poverty," he said.

But Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., told reporters he reached out to the Biden administration to say any deal that could impact anti-poverty programs needs to be rejected.

"The people that I've talked to in the White House have been reassuring from my point of view," he said. "I haven't talked directly to the president about this you know, he's overseas right now. But make no mistake: what they are proposing would adversely impact the most vulnerable people in this country."

He added he'll break with the president if he has to, telling reporters, "I can't support a bill that screws poor people and this would screw poor people."

One senior Democratic aide acknowledged a significant number of House Democrats could oppose a final deal, and that the speaker runs a risk of not getting enough for a bipartisan majority to approve a deal if he pushes too many provisions from the House GOP plan.

Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., says the president has a record of hammering out bipartisan bills, but he suggested the other person at the negotiating table is the problem.

"We know that President Biden can cut deals. We know that he's a man of his word. And I have confidence and faith in the president in these negotiations. But I do not have faith in Speaker McCarthy and right wing Republican House members," Markey said.

The Massachusetts Democrat and 10 other Senate Democrats are pushing for the president to use the 14th amendment to the Constitution - which says the validity of the country's public debt cannot be questioned - and the president can pay its bills even if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling.

"Republicans' unwillingness to consider one penny in new revenue from the wealthy and large corporations, along with their diminishment of the disastrous consequences of default, have made it seemingly impossible to enact a bipartisan budget deal at this time," the group wrote in a letter to Biden on Thursday.

Biden said last week he has been considering invoking the 14th Amendment to keep making payments on the nation's debt but said he doesn't think there's enough time left before a looming deadline to use the untested strategy.

The idea has been raised repeatedly over the years. Recently, Harvard's Laurence Tribe a former adviser to Biden said he thinks it would be a legitimate way to solve the problem.

"The problem is, it would have to be litigated," Biden said May 9, noting a debt limit extension would likely to be needed to avoid economic calamity. "I'm thinking about taking a look at it months down the road," he said. "I don't think that solves our problem now."

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., acknowledged Democrats don't have a lot of detail about what the president and the speaker are discussing. But he says it's better to turn to the 14th amendment than agree to GOP demands.

"We're saying to the president, if the bottom line is that the only deal to be had that McCarthy will sign onto is one in which ordinary families are savaged and in which the economy is flooded with fossil fuels that is unacceptable," Merkley said.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a former Constitutional law professor, has been pressing the case for the president to rely on the 14th amendment for months. He says "it seems perfectly obvious" that the Constitution is the guiding authority.

"It's not an option. It's a requirement," Raskin told reporters on Thursday. "And it hasn't been raised before because no Congress has ever tried to push the president to this point of essentially committing an act of legislative extortion, saying, if you don't accept our legislative agenda, then we're not going to allow you to pay the debts of the country."

While some Democratic lawmakers are publicly saying it's time for a break glass moment like using the 14th Amendment, others are willing to let the process play out a bit longer. They have effusive praise for the top White House negotiators Steve Ricchetti, who has served in multiple Democratic administrations, and Shalanda Young, a veteran Capitol Hill aide with expertise in budget talks. The president and top Democratic leaders admit in divided government Democrats aren't going to like everything in any deal the president negotiates with House Republicans.

Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., says it's important to not jump to any conclusions about where a final debt ceiling bill will end up and whether new work requirements will make it in a deal.

"Negotiating can be conversational and hoping that you might draw a bite based upon something you've said, which means that conceivably is not in the final package," he said. "So who knows? But I do think that giving the president some latitude here is really important."

More here:
Democrats worry Biden might cave to some GOP demands on debt ceiling - NPR

Now, national Democrats are searching for an off-ramp. With a June deadline looming for New Hampshire to make progress on changing its law or get kicked out of the official early voting lineup, Democratic National Committee members are privately considering giving the state more time.

If theres any opportunity for this to get resolved by New Hampshire having more time, all of us will say, Give New Hampshire more time, said labor leader Randi Weingarten, who sits on the DNC committee that approved the changes to the nominating calendar.

Some have also floated the possibility of putting together a party-run primary to get around its state law.

In states where state legislatures have refused to comply with the party rules, the state parties have run primaries that are conducted by the party, said James Roosevelt, Jr., co-chair of the DNCs Rules and Bylaws Committee, adding that New Hampshire Democrats are aware that that is an alternative.

But New Hampshire Democrats, furious that national party leaders upended their prized primary, dont seem to care what the DNC has to offer. They insist theyre going first whether Bidens on the ballot or not.

We cant change our laws and thats that. Were hosting the first primary, said Ray Buckley, chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. The president can decide if he wants to put his name on the ballot.

The relationship between New Hampshire Democrats and national party officials began to deteriorate after Biden moved last year to slide South Carolina to the front of the line and bump New Hampshire back to second on a shared date with Nevada.

But it has hit rock bottom as the DNCs June 3 deadline approaches and as Bidens reelection launch renews questions about whether hell campaign in a rogue state or risk losing the first unofficial contest to the other declared Democratic candidates, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marianne Williamson. Neither pose an actual threat to Bidens renomination, but they could present an embarrassing distraction at the start of the nominating process.

That intraparty iciness was on stark display at New Hampshire Democrats iconic McIntyre-Shaheen dinner this past Friday. In the past, the major fundraiser has drawn dignitaries including former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. This year, state party officials pointedly picked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), one of the only Democrats outside of New Hampshire who has staunchly defended the states primary, as the headliner.

Khanna, who serves on Bidens national advisory board for 2024, called on the president to campaign in New Hampshire, where Williamson and Kennedy have signaled they will compete regardless of potential party sanctions. If he doesnt, Khanna warned, it could harm his general election chances in a small but key swing state.

Let me be very clear: It would be political malpractice to strip New Hampshire of delegates, disenfranchising Granite State Democrats for a decision out of their control, Khanna said to rousing applause. We all know these four electoral votes are going to matter for the presidency.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), another Biden ally, also took sharp aim at the DNC at the event.

We are not going to leave New Hampshire and the primary to the Republicans, she said. I dont care what the Democratic National Committee says.

National Democrats argue theyre not abandoning New Hampshire. For instance, the DNC has launched an embed program in the state to track Republican candidates and deployed its national distributed voter contact program for key New Hampshire elections.

Beyond creating a distraction at the beginning of the 2024 primaries, the potential of a fiasco in New Hampshire risks inflaming party tensions just as the general election kicks off. Its still not clear the severity of the sanctions the DNC might impose against New Hampshire if it goes out of order. But under penalties the DNCs Rules and Bylaws Committee passed last year, the state could lose half its delegates if it breaks with the partys calendar.

In order to stave off such a situation, national Democrats are looking for a fix.

A real possibility that Democrats are considering is extending the deadline so that New Hampshire has more time to meet the partys requirements, according to a person familiar with the process of the DNCs Rules and Bylaws Committee, which revamped the primary calendar.

New Hampshire hasnt requested additional time to come into compliance because, Democrats there said, trying to change their state law is a losing battle. But that didnt stop the DNC from approving the initial extension until June.

Meanwhile, Democrats in the state are shutting down the idea of a party-run primary before theyve even formally been approached about it. Buckley said a party-run primary would be a logistical nightmare and extremely expensive, costing upwards of $7 million.

Absolutely impossible, he said. Where would I rent 2,000 voting machines? Hire 1,500 people to run the polls? Rent 300 accessible voting locations? Hire security? Print 500,000 ballots. Process 30,000 absentee ballots.

The power to set New Hampshires primary date rests with Secretary of State David Scanlan, who said that hes open to holding the primary as early as this year, if necessary, to circumvent both the DNCs preferred calendar and Iowas proposal to let caucus participants select their preferred presidential candidate by mail before other states contests (a move that would make it functionally more like a primary).

New Hampshire will hold the first-in-the-nation primary, Scanlan said. We believe all candidates that want to run for president should put their names on the ballot in New Hampshire, and we expect that there will be plenty of candidates that do in both parties.

Whether Biden would file his name in a rogue New Hampshire primary is unclear. A campaign aide previously said the Biden team hopes the state doesnt jump the line, but is prepared to abide by any sanctions imposed by the DNC if it does.

Still, Biden is facing pressure to compete in a state that hasnt voted for a Republican for president since 2000 but that Democrats cant afford to lose in a close election.

Rep. Annie Kuster (D-N.H.) has publicly and privately urged Biden to be on the primary ballot. And other top New Hampshire Democrats, including Shaheen and Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.), said theyve warned the president his absence could jeopardize not only his general election prospects, but also those of down-ballot Democrats such as Kuster and Pappas. And there could be a competitive gubernatorial race if Republican Gov. Chris Sununu runs for president or doesnt seek reelection.

The recommendation that the delegation has made all along is for the president to come here and campaign, Pappas said. Were hopeful that he will still entertain that as things move forward.

The defiance of New Hampshires Democrats is fueled in part by a belief that the DNC wont have teeth when it comes to sanctioning states that jump the line. They point to how the party eased penalties on Florida and Michigan after they broke party rules and held their primaries too early in 2008.

It would be pretty strange to see the first and second female governors and United States senators [elected in New Hampshire] not seated, said Donna Soucy, New Hampshires DNC committeeperson and state Senate Democratic leader, referring to Shaheen and Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.).

New Hampshire Democrats also argue theyve made a good-faith effort to meet the second part of the partys requirements to stay in the official early-state window expanding voting access by pushing Soucys legislation to create no-excuse absentee voting in the state, albeit to no avail.

But outside of New Hampshire, Democrats have literally laughed off the prospect of Biden flouting his own calendar and campaigning in a rogue state.

That would be awfully weird, rules committee member Elaine Kamarck said, chuckling. While we followed Bidens lead on this, the committee itself was torn about whether [we should let] New Hampshire go first. It was really his decision that tipped the hat on this.

Sure, that means Kennedy or Williamson could carry the state. But national Democrats say that wont matter.

When you then move on to other states, the embarrassment will be to Marianne Williamson and Robert Kennedy, said DNC member Carol Fowler. Biden will just beat them so badly.

See the rest here:
Democrats race to avoid a Biden embarrassment in New Hampshire - POLITICO

Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) repeatedly denied Democrats requests to receive the testimony of one of the GOPs self-described whistleblowers during Thursdays House hearing on the weaponization of the FBI, prompting Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) to confront him with the actual rules.

Needless to say, Jordan was less than pleased.

During this latest hearing pushing the GOP narrative that the FBI is weaponized against conservatives, Jordan told Democrats that youre not getting the testimony of FBI staff operations specialist Marcus Allen, claiming the minority party isnt entitled to all evidence collected from whistleblowers.

These are not whistleblowers, Ranking Member Stacey Plaskett (D-VI) exclaimed. The law has not determined they are whistleblowers. His attorney is just asserting that.

Later in the hearing, after initially being shut down by Jordan, Goldman requested a point of order to state the rules, which he noted required transcripts to be made available to all members of committees.

Where is the whistleblower exception to the rules? Goldman wondered.

An animated Jordan said it was the prerogative of the committee to decide before adding: We have the whistleblower testimony. The whistleblower does not wish it to be made available to the Democrats at this time!

Goldman quickly shot back that the whistleblower doesnt make committee rules before Jordan attempted to move on to another committee member, eventually arguing with Goldman a bit more.

This isnt the first time that Goldman and Jordan have sparred during the subcommittees weaponization hearings. Back in February, the New York congressman questioned the chairmans claims that he had dozens of whistleblowers lined up, pointing out that Democrats had not been provided with any statements from any of these individuals.

Democrats, meanwhile, have questioned the credibility of Allen as a whistleblower, noting that his FBI security clearance was revoked after expressing support for the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection. Besides peddling Jan. 6 conspiracies, the other so-called whistleblowers at Thursdays hearing have also been paid thousands of dollars by Kash Patel, a former Trump administration official.

Read the original here:
Jim Jordan Freaks Out When Dem Confronts Him With House Rules - The Daily Beast

Photo: SOPA Images/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Gett

The 2022 election was strange. Historically, the presidents party tends to suffer large losses in midterms, as its base grows complacent and swing voters indulge their fetish for divided government. And there was little reason to believe that last year would be an exception.

After all, last November, Joe Biden was a historically unpopular president presiding over exceptionally high inflation. Polls showed widespread disapproval of the Democratic administration in general and its economic management in particular. A red wave appeared to be cresting.

And yet that wave ebbed before it touched the nations most highly contested races: Even as Republicans won the two-party national vote for House control by a 51 to 49 percent margin in 2022, Democrats won 40 of the 64 races that were deemed very competitive by the Cook Political Report.

And in the closest Senate and gubernatorial races, the outcomes were even more odd. In the contests that Cook deemed either toss-ups or merely leaning toward one party, Democrats won 51 percent of the two-party vote a higher share than they had secured in such races in 2020 while claiming victories in 13 of 18 elections.

Altogether, this increased the Democratic Partys power in the Senate and at the state level while leaving Republicans with a relatively meager nine-vote majority in the House. Had a few thousand more votes (in very specific places) shifted from Republicans to Democrats, Bidens party would have retained full control of the federal government. As is, it still mounted one of the strongest midterm performances for an in-power party in modern American history.

By now, election analysts have produced plenty of compelling explanations for how this came to be. One is that the Supreme Courts overturning of Roe v. Wade scrambled conventional midterm dynamics. Major policy changes often spur short-term electoral backlashes. This is one reason why the presidents party has often struggled in midterm elections, which frequently follow ambitious legislative sessions. But in 2022, even though a Democrat was in the White House, Republicans delivered the years most disruptive policy change. Thus, in purple states where abortion policy was a live issue, swing voters in general (and women in particular) gave Democrats unusually strong support.

Another explanation for the red ripple was Donald Trumps singularly bad taste in general-election candidates. In various competitive Senate and gubernatorial races, Republican primary voters nominated MAGA extremists at Trumps request. This predictably rendered the party less competitive.

But a new analysis from the Democratic-data firm Catalist points to another critical factor: the political ascendance of millennials and zoomers.

Americas youngest adult generations had been integral to the 2018 blue wave. Millennials saw their turnout rate surge from 22 percent in the 2014 midterm to 42 percent four years later. In 2018, the oldest zoomers became eligible to vote in a midterm for the first time. And they cast ballots at a higher rate than millennials or Gen-Xers had in their respective first midterms. Critically, zoomers and millennials collectively cast more than 60 percent of their votes for Democrats, helping the party win the national House vote by a landslide margin.

This was an ominous development for the GOP. Still, Republican operatives could comfort themselves with a pair of thoughts. First, while Americas rising generations might turn out in historically high numbers to rebuke President Trump, their participation was bound to fall sharply once politics grew more banal. And second, though millennials and zoomers were currently the least Republican generations that America had produced since Lincolns time, they would surely age into a more ordinary partisan distribution.

The 2022 results were not kind to such wishful thinking. As Catalists analysis of voter-file data reveals, millennial and Gen-Z voters collectively comprised 26 percent of the 2022 electorate, up from 23 percent in 2018. This was partly a function of aging. More zoomers were eligible to vote last year than in 2018. But turnout among eligible voters was also a factor. Nationally, millennials and zoomers turned out at a rate comparable to their historically high 2018 mark, and in highly contested races, the two generations actually voted at a higher rate than they had in such races in 2018.

This is a big long-term problem for the Republican Party. With each passing election cycle, zoomers and millennials will become more likely to vote. As this chart from Catalist illustrates, generations tend to grow more and more electorally influential until they reach their mid-70s and then start aging out of the electorate owing to illness or death. Boomers have already passed their political peak. Millennials will be building toward theirs for a long time to come.

It is not surprising that millennials have retained their exceptionally strong Democratic lean even as theyve exited their youth. Although cohorts do tend to grow a bit more conservative when (or if) they have children and buy a home, most voters political affiliations are cemented in adolescence and early adulthood, when myriad other aspects of their identities are forged. Millennials spent their formative years watching George W. Bush preside over catastrophic wars and an economic disaster while his party embraced soon-to-be-discredited social crusades (such as opposition to gay marriage). And millennials were also raised by parents who were markedly more socially liberal than the boomers forebears. It is therefore unsurprising that the generation has proven durably hostile to a Republican Party that refuses to abandon the cultural commitments of Americas white Evangelical minority.

The durability of birth cohorts political leanings means that generational churn by itself can remake our politics. There are many reasons why Barack Obamas first midterm was a political disaster for the Democratic Party while Bidens was a relative success. But one is that boomers constituted 69 percent of the electorate in 2010 but only 48 percent of it in 2022.

To this point, Republicans have managed to weather the rise of millennials and zoomers just fine. This is largely because Americas older generations have all shaded to the right since 2012. As a result, the political divide between millennials and zoomers on the one hand, and their elders on the other, has never been more stark:

Graphic: @williamjordann/Twitter

Further, the GOPs historically high support from non-college-educated white voters combined with the overrepresentation of those voters in the Senate and Electoral College battlegrounds has enabled the party to win power in excess of its popular support.

Both of these factors are likely to attenuate the GOPs millennial problem in the near term. For one thing, Generation X is a right-leaning cohort that came of age during the Reagan recovery and is about to enter its prime voting years.

But Gen X is also a small generation. And the boomers are growing smaller with each passing year. If Republicans do not reconcile themselves to a more modern set of cultural values (and/or less plutocratic set of economic policies), generational churn will eventually make it very difficult for them to compete in national elections.

Here, three other quick takeaways from the Catalist report:

Women were critical to Democratic success. Female voters backed Democrats nationally at levels comparable to 2020, and in highly competitive Senate and gubernatorial elections, Democrats actually won a slightly higher share of womens ballots than they had in similar races two years earlier (winning 57 percent, up from 55 percent in 2020). Resiliently strong support among white college-educated women helped to compensate for a sharp drop in Democratic voting among white college-educated men, who gave Democrats 51 percent of their votes in 2020 but only 44 percent two years later.

In competitive races, education polarization eased. Beyond Americas generational cleavage, a growing diploma divide between college-educated and working-class voters has been one of the defining dynamics of U.S. politics in recent years. This gap remains vast, but in 2022 it declined a bit from its Trump-era peak, particularly in competitive races. In such contests, Democrats gained four points of support among non-college-educated white voters, relative to 2020, while losing two points of support among college-educated ones.

Democrats performance with non-white voters was suboptimal in 2022. In last years midterm, Democrats lost seven points of support among both college-educated and non-college-educated Asian American and Pacific Islander voters relative to 2020. Their performance with Hispanic voters was largely unchanged from the Biden-Trump race with the party winning 62 percent of that demographic. In 2016 and 2012, however, the party had won upwards of 70 percent of Hispanic voters.

Black voters, meanwhile, remained overwhelmingly Democratic. But both their turnout rate and support for Democrats declined slightly from previous midterms. In 2018, Black voters represented 12 percent of the electorate; in 2022, they comprised 10 percent. In 2020, Black voters delivered 91 percent of their votes to Democrats two years later, they gave just 88 percent of them to Bidens party.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice and to receive email correspondence from us.

Read more here:
The Return of the Emerging Democratic Majority? - New York Magazine