Mediaboss Marketing

I think we should find out where members stand on this indicted member of Congress, said Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), among those who pushed the caucus to pursue a full House vote to expel Santos. I think we need to definitely make sure that our concerns are registered through a vote.

But other House Democrats took a different view, according to both people who addressed the closed-door meeting on condition of anonymity. Some more senior Democrats, whom both people interviewed declined to name, argued that forcing an expulsion vote could set a bad precedent echoing McCarthys position.

The Democratic split over how to handle the Santos vote illustrates the enduring generational divide within a caucus thats growing younger and more progressive after decades of leadership by an octogenarian trio. Just because House Democrats have new leaders this Congress, however, doesnt mean their senior members counsel doesnt hold weight.

The caucus didnt formally whip the vote on Garcias proposal.

Ultimately, House Republicans stayed unified as they voted to refer the Garcia measure to Ethics. The final tally was 220-202, with seven Democrats voting present. While five of the Democratic present votes came from members of the Ethics panel, two others joined them: swing-seat Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Prez (D-Wash.) and Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.).

Santos told reporters after the vote that he approved of the referral to the Ethics panel.

This is the appropriate way to do this. I think that this was the right decision for all of us and I look forward to continuing to defend myself, he said. Shortly after, he cut off his remarks when progressive Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) started to heckle him, shouting resign!

The spectacle continued, with Bowman getting into an argument with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) before Ocasio-Cortez intervened and pulled Bowman away.

Republicans who serve on the ethics panel did not join their Democratic counterparts in voting present, with some arguing their vote was a referral and not a judgment.

Some of Santos fiercest GOP critics publicly endorsed McCarthys plan to move the matter to the famously slow-moving ethics committee, which is already conducting an investigation into Santos campaign-trail fabrications and finances.

Moving this expulsion resolution to the ethics committee, in an expedited fashion, will get George Santos out of Congress as quickly as possible. And I think that that is necessary, Rep. Marc Molinaro (R-N.Y.) said in an interview. I expect that the Ethics Committee will expedite the hearing.

First-term Rep. Brandon Williams (R-N.Y.), who has called on Santos to resign, sounded a similar note in a statement Wednesday.

To many Democrats, though, sending the matter to the Ethics panel was the effective equivalent of tabling the issue altogether. And they would only need a simple majority of the House to vote down McCarthys efforts to refer the bill to committee a much more plausible ask while ousting Santos would require a two-thirds majority.

Democratic Caucus Chair Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) made the case to his California colleagues in a closed-door meeting Wednesday for voting against sending the measure to the ethics panel. It would be the easy way out for the speaker, he said in an interview after the meeting.

He doesnt have the votes to table, Aguilar said of McCarthy. And so hes trying to send this to Ethics to give his members who have called for George Santos to resign an opportunity to vote with the team.

McCarthy and GOP leaders acted quickly to help dissuade their handful of anti-Santos New York Republicans from any temptation to vote for Garcias expulsion plan. During a private Tuesday meeting first reported by POLITICO, McCarthy laid out the process to the Empire States GOP delegation, arguing that the ethics panel referral makes more sense than tabling the expulsion measure or allowing it to come to the floor for a vote.

Yet, even after McCarthy defeated House Democrats push to expel Santos, his conferences problematic prevaricator is poised to cause more headaches soon.

The speaker told reporters Wednesday that the ethics panel could come back faster than a court case could with recommended Santos sanctions.

I would like to refer this to Ethics. Ill have a conversation with Hakeem. I would like the ethics committee to move rapidly on this, McCarthy said.

Sarah Ferris and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Go here to read the rest:
Democrats spar over Santos strategy as GOP punts on bid to expel ... - POLITICO

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., urges Congress to make child care affordable, pass paid leave, support care infrastructure, and raise the debt ceiling on May 17, 2023 in Washington, D.C.

Paul Morigi | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images

Many workers need to take leave at some point to address their own health needs or to care for a loved one. Yet whether workers have access to those benefits is up to their employer or state.

This week, Democrats in Washington re-upped a push to create a national program to give every worker access to paid family and medical leave.

"After 10 years fighting for paid leave, we are still the only industrialized nation without this essential program," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.

More from Personal Finance:70% of Americans "financially stressed," CNBC survey findsAmid economic uncertainty, recession talk, how to save, investWhen taking out a 401(k) loan actually 'makes sense'

A law that lets workers take unpaid time off to take care of their loved ones or their own health the Family and Medical Leave Act recently reached its 30th anniversary.

Now, Gillibrand and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., are putting forward an updated version of the Family and Medical Insurance Leave, or FAMILY, Act, first introduced in Congress in 2013, which would provide for paid leave.

"Thirty years ago, we broke ground by enshrining the Family and Medical Leave Act into law, providing unpaid family and medical leave for working Americans," DeLauro said in a statement, referencing the law passed under President Bill Clinton.

"Let's break ground again by making itpaid," DeLauro said.

The new version of the proposal comes after Democrats had previously reduced their proposal to four weeks' leave with the hopes of getting it included in a broader package.

The bill now includes partial income for up to 12 weeks' leave. The typical full-time worker would earn about two-thirds of their normal wages, while low-wage workers would be compensated for around 85%.

The plan covers leave for workers' and family members' serious health conditions, or the birth or adoption of a child.

The new version of the bill would provide leave for workers to address the effects of domestic violence or sexual assault.

Other updates to the bill aim to update the definition of the modern family.

That includes a broader range of caregiving relationships, including spouses, domestic or civil union partners, children of any age and their spouses, parents and their spouses, siblings and their spouses, grandparents and their spouses, grandchildren and their spouses, and other individuals related by either blood or kinship.

After 10 years fighting for paid leave, we are still the only industrialized nation without this essential program.

Kirsten Gillibrand

U.S. senator from New York

The bill would cover any worker who has earned at least $2,000 in the past two years, regardless of whether those earnings are covered by Social Security taxes. It would also eliminate an unpaid waiting period for benefits, which previously made it so benefits were not available for the first five days of caregiving.

The proposal would be paid for through a 0.4% payroll tax that would apply to the Medicare taxable wage base.

Workers would still be able to receive paid leave through state programs, as long as the states can demonstrate they are at least as generous as the federal program.

Research has shown that enacting a federal paid family leave program would have positive benefits.

Workers missed out on roughly $28 billion more in wages between March 2020 and February 2022 compared with the previous two years, research from the Urban Institute has found.

But the challenge is getting bipartisan agreement on a plan. Support for the FAMILY Act in both houses has traditionally been from Democrats, noted Kathleen Romig, director of Social Security and disability policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

"To get anything to move in this Congress, you need both Republicans and Democrats," Romig said.

House speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., at an August 2020 Washington, D.C., rally organized by the Paid Leave for All cross-country bus tour.

Anna Moneymaker | Getty Images News | Getty Images

While Republicans have shown interest in implementing paid leave policies, a sticking point between the parties has been how to pay for those plans.

While Democrats have proposed funding paid leave through payroll taxes, Republicans have generally talked about funding such a plan by having people borrow against other benefits, such as Social Security benefits or child tax credits, Romig noted.

Still, there is some reason to be optimistic about paid leave, Romig said.

"While I don't think this particular bill is going to be passed into law this year, I also think there is some real momentum here," Romig said.

Read this article:
As Democrats update their plan for national paid family and medical leave, here's what it could mean for workers - CNBC

Democrats may have to act radically to deny Donald Trump the 2024 Republican nomination. We cannot rely on Republicans to do it. They do not understand the stakes involved.

Take the case of Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett.

Barnett is Americas leading constitutional conservative. He is the originalists originalist.

It was Barnett who almost convinced the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 that Obamacare was unconstitutional.

Barnett is now campaigning against Trump.

That is the good news.

The bad news is that Barnett, and by extension The Federalist Society and its many followers, still do not understand the mortal danger that Trump represents.

Barnett recently penned a series of tweets that amounted to an argument in favor of Floridas Republican Gov. Ron DeSantisor someone much like him for president in 2024.

Barnett wrote that one can believe both that Trump was a far better President than [Hillary] Clinton would have been & the US is better off he won in 2016 and that Trump is unlikely to win in 2024 and would govern badly if he did.

With TV town hall, Trump suckered CNN right into his sewer | Dick Polman

Barnett added that it would be better to nominate someone else who can win, has demonstrated executive skills and character to govern better than Trump would and would be able to serve two terms if elected.

It is not a bad argument, if a little cool and indirect for mainstream politics.

But it demonstrates that Barnett has not yet come to terms with the tragic mistake he made in supporting Trump in 2016.

No, America is not better off that Trump was president.

Barnett is focused on the newly minted conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court he now enjoys, courtesy of Trump.

In considering various policies that Trump pursued as president, Barnett is ignoring the one unforgivable sin Trump committed refusing to peacefully transfer power after the 2020 election.

Instead of conceding defeat, Trump told his supporters that he had actually won, took arguably unlawful actions to try to stay in power, and fomented a riot at the Capitol when he could not convince Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the election result.

Trump left office only because he could not figure out anything else to do.

Pa.s Barletta dumps Trump; calls on DeSantis to run for prez in 24 | Monday Morning Coffee

People forget that the fundamental problem the framers of the Constitution were attempting to solve was the peaceful and continuous transfer of powerthe issue that had led to civil war in Great Britain and throughout world history.

Americas constitutional democracy functioned well in this regard until Trump.

For anyone who loves the Constitution, Trumps actions after the 2020 election disqualify him from ever holding office again.

What makes Barnett think that a President Trump, having resisted once, would yield power after the presidential election of 2028? Trump repeated his big lie about the 2020 election just last week on CNN.

It is true that Trumps first attempt at a coup was clownish and bound to fail.

So was Hitlers first attempt at a coup in 1923.

Because Barnetts campaign against Trump does not point out this danger, it is far too mild to have any effect on Trumps chances.

If Barnett were a patriot, he would write this open letter to the Republican Party faithful:

Donald Trump let us down by attempting to overthrow our Constitution in 2020. He is unfit to be President. If Trump is nominated, I, and many thousands of my fellow constitutional conservatives, will be forced to vote for Joe Biden.

And then Barnett would convince the leadership of The Federalist Society to sign the letter with him.

We Democrats must be willing to match the action I am calling on Barnett to take.

If Trump is still a viable candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination when the Pennsylvania primary comes around, I will change my party affiliation from Democratic to Republican and vote for the Republican candidate with the best chance of defeating Trump for the nomination.

And I hope many of my fellow Democrats will do the same thing, in Pennsylvania and across the country.

Of course, if we do this, we will be hurting Joe Bidens chances of being reelected. If that were the only consideration, Trump would be the easiest Republican to beat.

But Bidens reelection is not the most important consideration.

Any chance that Trump might become president again is a threat to be avoided at all costs.

While I strongly oppose the policies that someone like DeSantis as President would enact, no political loss in our system of government is permanent. If your opponent gains power and executes bad policies, the damage can be undone in the next presidential election.

With DeSantis, and really every Republican with a chance at the 2024 presidential nomination, I can be confident that there will be a next election.

Trump is the lone exception. Trump is the only political figure in America who threatens the end of constitutional democracy.

It is time for Barnett, who helped unleash this threat in the first place, to face that reality and take the necessary steps to prevent it.

But if he will not take that responsibility, then, for the sake of the Constitution, we Democrats will have to step up.

Trump must be defeated. No matter what it takes. The first, and best, chance to do that is a Republican primary.

Read more:
If the GOP won't do it, Democrats will have to block Trump's ... - Pennsylvania Capital-Star

PORTLAND, Ore. An Oregon investigation into political contributions made by an executive at disgraced cryptocurrency firm FTX is being referred for potential criminal charges,the Secretary of State's office announced on Thursday.

The investigation stems from a $500,000 contribution to the Democratic Party of Oregon made in October 2022, just before the midterm election. Though the money came from then-FTX engineering director Nishad Singh, he "incorrectly reported" the funds as coming from a Las Vegas-based crypto company called Prime Trust LLC.

The Oregonian reported earlier this week that Oregon Democrats knew the true source of the funds at the time, a characterization that the Secretary of State's office pushed back against in its statement on Thursday.

"The investigation did not find clear evidence that the Democratic Party of Oregon knew the true donor when they reported the contribution last year," the statement reads. "Instead, the investigation determined that the Party could have taken more care with its compliance."

A final order issued May 11 by the Oregon Elections Division following its investigation suggests that party officials were unsure whether the donation was coming from Singh himself or Prime Trust. While they reached out to Singh to find out, it took several days to hear back. When they did get a response, Singh's representative said that he "prefers Prime Trust (though not strongly) so go w[ith] that," according to the final order.

Party officials obliged, disclosing the contribution under Prime Trust LLC.

State election officials agreed to knock down the fine for this violation from $35,000 to $15,000. Despite the lower fee, the Secretary of State's office said Thursday that the party could pay up to $50,000 if it fails to comply with oversight measures, and the investigation could be reopened if more information comes to light.

Under the settlement between Oregon's elections division and the Democratic Party of Oregon, the party will have to "publicly share steps to prevent future mistakes" and ensure compliance.

"These oversight requirements will serve the public interest through transparency and future compliance with campaign finance laws an outcome that could not have been achieved in court," the Secretary of State's office said.

The decision to refer the investigation to the Oregon Department of Justice for review stems from admissions Singh made in court following the collapse of crypto exchange FTX and related firm Alameda Research.

Nishad Singh admitted under oath in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that he agreed to make political donations in his own name that were funded with money from Sam Bankman-Fried's companies FTX and Alameda, said Alma Whalen, Oregon elections manager.

The U.S. Attorney's office in New York also notified the Oregon Democratic Party that Singh's $500,000 donation was funded with money "wrongfully taken by Sam Bankman-Fried" from FTX and Alameda.

After a 7-month investigation, we believe this is sufficient information to justify a referral to the Oregon Department of Justice to consider prosecuting Mr. Singh under state law for making a contribution in a false name, Whalen said.

The Oregon Secretary of State's office is currently helmed by Deputy Secretary Cheryl Myers after the toppling of erstwhile Secretary of State Shemia Fagan in a scandal over her moonlighting work for an Oregon-based cannabis company that likewise made major contributions to Democratic politics in the state, including Fagan's campaign.

In December, Oregon Elections Director Deborah Scroggin resigned after about six months in the position. In her resignation letter, Scroggin cited a challenging atmosphere for election officials due to misinformation. But Willamette Week later reportedafter speaking with Scroggin that she'd been forced out by Fagan something Fagan's office confirmed.

In January, Fagan appointed her senior adviser, Molly Woon, to be director of the elections division.Despite previously working for the Democratic Party of Oregon, Woon did not recuse herself from the investigation into Singh's donation. She remains elections director in the immediate wake of Fagan's resignation.

Gov. Tina Kotek said that she wanted to wait until after the May 16 special election to appoint a new secretary of state to replace Fagan. As of Thursday, she'd yet to share an update on the search.

Oregon has the dubious distinction of maintaining some of the loosest campaign finance rules in the country, with no limits on the size of contributions and a history of light penalties for wrongdoing. For many years, the state's "limitless" status was backed by wording in the Oregon Constitution and subsequent court rulings, but a sea change began in 2020.

During the November 2020 election, voters approved Measure 107, which amended the Oregon Constitution to allow for limits on campaign contributions. That opened the door for lawmakers to pass campaign finance reform bills something they've since repeatedly failed to do.

In the meantime, Oregon races have become more and more expensive each major election.

RELATED:Oregon Secretary of State disqualifies three campaign finance ballot measures

Hints of FTX-linked influence in Oregon elections first popped up during the 2022 primary, when a relatively unknown candidate, 35-year-old Carrick Flynn, suddenly became the best-funded Democratic candidate for Oregon's new 6th Congressional District.

A PAC funded by FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried poured almost $6 million into Flynn's primary campaign. That helped him emerge as a perceived frontrunner in the race, earning him another $1 million from national Democrats' House Majority PAC.

Flynn was defeated by then-state Rep. Andrea Salinas in the primary. Salinas went on to win the general election.

Originally posted here:
Scrutiny of FTX exec's donation to Oregon Democrats referred for possible criminal investigation - KGW.com

Every year, a few underfunded progressives file to run off-the-line for office in South Jersey. Every year, they get smoked by the South Jersey Democratic machine, one of the most powerful organizations in the state.

Will 2023 be any different?

In next months Democratic primary, more than a dozen off-the-line candidates on at least three distinct slates will appear on the ballot in Camden and Gloucester Counties. At stake are three legislative seats, five countywide offices, and a smattering of local positions, including four seats on the Camden City Council.

Top South Jersey Democrats arent acting particularly concerned about any of the races, with good reason. Their track record is near-flawless outside of nationalized federal races, theyve virtually never lost in recent decades and their opponents have next to no money or prominent supporters to get their message out.

But given the diminishment of the South Jersey Democratic organization in recent years, and with longtime boss George Norcross supposedly stepping back, it will be worth seeing just how strong the organization line is and whether anyone, anywhere, can break through.

The Good Democrats

For decades, Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-West Deptford) had a stranglehold on the 3rd legislative district, in both primary and general elections. But now Sweeney is gone, dispatched by a heretofore unknown truck driver, and a group of off-the-line progressives are trying to take his place.

The leader of the anti-organization 3rd district ticket is Glassboro teacher Mario De Santis, who is running for State Senate. Hes teamed up with fellow teachers Tanzie Youngblood and Robert Fitzpatrick on the Good Democrats slate; three Gloucester County Commissioner candidates and two Glassboro Borough Council candidates are affiliated with the ticket as well.

Theyll go up against the organization slate helmed by former Assemblyman John Burzichelli (D-Paulsboro), who is running for the Senate this year alongside Gloucester County Commissioner Heather Simmons (D-Glassboro) and nonprofit leader Dave Bailey.

Burzichelli and his team are, of course, the heavy favorites to win the Democratic nomination. But De Santis, Youngblood, and Fitzpatrick said that in their conversations with voters, people are tired of the status quo and want new voices on issues like education and affordability.

We believe that direct voter contact is going to make a difference, Youngblood said. The reception that we get from members of the community is just phenomenal.

Burzichelli, for his part, said that he was happy to have the support of all three county parties in the district, and chided his opponents for not participating in the process.

Were unanimously endorsed by all three of the county processes that means a great deal to us, he said. The others, by the way, didnt participate. We didnt see them, dont know them. I know of them, because a couple of them seem to run for something every year.

Indeed, both De Santis and Youngblood have run prior campaigns, without much success. De Santis was booted off the ballot for State Senate in 2021, and lost to Rep. Donald Norcross (D-Camden) 77-23% in 2022 congressional primary; Youngblood, meanwhile, took on then-Democratic State Sen. Jeff Van Drew in a 2018 congressional primary, losing 57%-19%.

According to Burzichelli, the 3rd legislative district, which covers all of Salem County and parts of Gloucester and Cumberland Counties, isnt exactly a hotbed of the kind of progressivism that De Santis and Youngblood have peddled in the past.

I would not brand us as a left-leaning, liberal legislative district, Burzichelli said. [The 2021 elections] clearly tell us that its not a progressive-leaning place.

Team De Santis shot back that it was Burzichellis brand of moderate, establishment politics that lost those 2021 elections to begin with.

Sweeney and Burzichelli and the whole group were too lazy to get out and go see the people and get the vote, Youngblood said. Thats the bottom line. They assumed that theyd get that vote just because they were the established Democrats, and were used to people just voting for them. And what happened? The people voted for Ed Durr. These Democrats were running against are very good at getting Republicans elected.

In order to get that message out, though, the Good Democrats need money or outside support; other than an endorsement from the New Jersey Working Families Party yesterday, they have neither. As of pre-primary fundraising reports, the slates joint fundraising committee had just $981 in it, while De Santis own account was more than $1,000 in debt. (Burzichellis team, by contrast, had around $60,000 on-hand.)

The other off-the-line Gloucester County candidates arent faring any better. The county commissioner team of Denise Brush, Everet Rummel, and Ted Howell raised a total of $91, while Glassboro council candidates Isha Strasser and Jennifer Courtney raised $45.

Despite the lesser resources, its really about working smart, De Santis said of the campaigns fundraising. Its really about targeting your resources in a highly effective way.

But even the smartest possible candidate would struggle to run a campaign on so little money. Unless they can dramatically improve their fundraising in these last few weeks before the primary, the Good Democrats lack of resources probably spells the end of this years campaign.

Still, Burzichelli said that hed be happy to see his opponents join forces with the South Jersey Democratic organization in their future endeavors.

If I get to meet them, Id certainly want to encourage them to become more involved with the operation in general, he said. Were always looking for candidates.

South Jersey Progressive Democrats

One county over, Camden County progressives have their sights set on the board of county commissioners again.

At this point, its routine for Camden County to host a Democratic primary for county commissioner. With the exception of 2020, there has been a contested commissioner (or freeholder) primary every cycle since 2016, a rather remarkable feat; there are probably some New Jersey counties that havent even had one contested commissioner primary in that entire time.

And every year, the off-the-line candidates get crushed. In 2022, for example, Commissioners Edward McDonnell and Carmen Rodriguez got a combined 75% of the vote against two challengers despite the fact that Rodriguez had quietly resigned from the commissioner board four days before the primary.

Even the most optimistic of New Jersey progressives would be foolhardy to think this year will bring anything but more of the same. But two challengers, Kate Delany and Sam Sweet, have stepped up to run anyways against incumbents Louis Cappelli and Jonathan Young.

Delany, the president of South Jersey Progressive Democrats, is probably the most prominent figure in the Camden anti-organization apparatus. Back in 2019, she scored a major upset in the race for Democratic county committee in Collingswood, deposing the party-backed committeemembers and becoming the new municipal Democratic chairwoman.

It was a remarkable high point for South Jersey progressives, and it also didnt last long. In May 2021, Delanys campaign to flip control of the Collingswood Borough Commission fell well short; month after that, the Camden Democratic organization won back the county committee seats they had lost two years earlier.

Delany has been left out in the cold since then, and this year almost certainly wont change that. She and Sweet havent filed any campaign finance reports yet, but theyre most likely broke; Sweet is also hedging his bets and simultaneously aiming for a vacant seat on the Gloucester Township Council, a campaign that has led to the resurfacing of Sweets unfortunate posts on social media.

But the South Jersey Progressive Democrats did manage to snag something important: Column A on the ballot. And unlike in many previous years, there arent any phantom candidates to muddy the ballot and push real contenders off into Ballot Siberia.

While that wont be anywhere near enough to win countywide, it could help Delanys parallel quest to reclaim a spot on the county Democratic committee. She and her allies are contesting nine of Collingswoods 18 county committee spots, and there will also be contested races for county committee in Cherry Hill, Runnemede, and Merchantville.

Progressive Democrats for Camden City

Perhaps the best chance for off-the-line candidates to win anywhere in South Jersey this year is in the city of Camden. (And even there, chances arent great.)

Two years after popular Mayor Vic Carstarphen took office, the citys four ward-based council seats are up this year; all four are being contested by the Progressive Democrats for Camden City slate, which despite its name does not appear to be related to Delanys countywide slate.

The 1st ward race is easily the most prominent of the four races, by virtue of the candidate South Jersey Democrats have chosen for the organizational line: Arthur Barclay, a former state assemblyman who resigned in 2018 after being arrested on domestic violence charges. Barclay has largely stayed out of the limelight since then, but he remains on good terms with the Camden organization, and now has the party line against challenger Jose Javier Ramos.

The 2nd ward features a three-way race among incumbent Councilman Christopher Collins, Progressive Democrats candidate Theo Spencer, and Elton Custis, who got 23% of the vote against Carstarphen in the 2021 mayoral primary.

In the 3rd ward, incumbent Councilwoman Marilyn Torres is running off-the-line after she and two other councilwomen broke with the county organization in early 2022. Neither of Torress two allies are running for re-election, but Torres is forging ahead against party-backed candidate Falio Leyba-Martinez, who is now on his fourth local campaign.

But its the 4th ward that South Jersey Democrats are the most unsure about. There, the party is running Jannette Ramos, a community activist who has never run for office before, making her something of an unknown quantity against challenger Delbert Neal.

One complicating factor is voter turnout. In the 2021 Democratic primary, the city of Camden, population 71,791, cast a total of 4,333 votes. Without a gubernatorial or mayoral election on the ballot this year, turnout could drop even farther, meaning that the four wards may cast fewer than 1,000 votes each.

In that kind of low-turnout environment, neither side needs all that many votes to win. And there are at least some of the ingredients an underdog would need to win all of the citys contests making an upset not likely, but at least possible.

A few other Camden and Gloucester County towns are hosting contested primaries as well. Party-backed candidates in Paulsboro and Brooklawn face challengers, while Lindenwold is hosting what is essentially an open primary, where neither the incumbent mayor and his slate nor their opponents have the party line.

See original here:
Can anti-organization Democrats in South Jersey win something? Anything? - New Jersey Globe | New Jersey Politics