Mediaboss Marketing

With more Americans expressing their disapproval of President Joe Biden in recent months, according to the latest polling analysis, why arent the Democrats lining up to challenge him?

Its a question that appears to be on the minds of many observers and punditsand voters, tooamid polling that shows most Americans dont want Biden to run again. Bidens low favorability, coupled with his advanced ageanother point of concern for manymight have been enough to make the case for an intra-party presidential challenge.

But it appears the Democrats are committed to a second Biden presidencyan indication that they might be looking to play it safe and maximize their chance of defeating a resurgent Donald Trump, who remains a popular pick among conservative voters, says Costas Panagopoulos, head of Northeasterns political science department.

Its very risky for a party to challenge its own leader, Panagopoulos says. It has the potential to do lots of damage, especially when its an intra-party challenge to an incumbent president, who should presumably carry the banner forward for the party.

Indeed, history has shown that intra-party challenges to an incumbent president often lead to messy outcomes for the party in question. Ted Kennedys challenge to Jimmy Carter in 1980 did lasting damage to the Democratic Party that culminated in Carters landslide defeat to Ronald Reagan. On the Republican side, intra-party challenges to Gerald Ford in 1976 (Reagan), and to George H. W. Bush in 1992 (Pat Buchanan), resulted in similar outcomes.

The lessons that emerged from those historical examples may well serve the Democrats in the present momentthat even amid low favorability, challenges from within an incumbent presidents own party are fools errands, Panagopoulos says.

In each of those instances, the consensus is that [those intra-party challenges] may have hurt the incumbent[s] and played some role in the fact that they were not re-elected, he says.

The lack of Democratic challengers in 2024 and the resurgence of Trump may also signal a real leadership vacuum in both parties for future leaders, Panagopoulos says. In which case, there could be a real opportunity for some ambitious politicians, who want to raise their national visibility, to start to attract some attention by launching presidential bids. Even if said contenders fall short in 2024, the newfound popularity could set themselves up to be at the head of the pack in a future race. Ron DeSantis expected presidential bid might typify this line of thinking.

But, for aspiring Democrats, such a move risks party fracture on the order of Kennedy-Carter, Panagopoulos says. Of course, for the Dems it would come with the very significant risk of trying to topple a sitting president, he says.

Moreover, Panagopoulos says that measures of presidential popularity should be tempered by the culture of polarization at present, which runs deeper than any one personany one president.

The degree to which [intra-party challenge] is a liability may be changing in an era of polarized politics, where we shouldnt reasonably expect ones popularity to go much higher than Bidens is at present, Panagopoulos says.

There are also examples of [presidents] doing quite well with low favorability ratings overall, because their intra-party popularity is so high, he continues, citing Trump and George W. Bushwho also had limited favorability prior to an upswing in popularity following 9/11as examples.

But Bidens age has become a real sticking point for many voters (the president would be 86 by the end of a second term). The question of how old is too old, fraught though it may be, applies to other prominent Democrats with presidential resumes, including U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vermont, whose previous bids for high office during 2016 and 2020 earned him considerable support among the more liberal side of the base. Concerns about Trumps advanced ageas well as the ages of several senior U.S. lawmakerscontinue to echo as well.

Theres still plenty of time for Biden, whose campaign for re-election is already underway, to reverse course, should the polling suggest that it would be better for another Democrat to take the reins, Panagopoulos says. It also depends, he says, on who emerges at the top of the Republican ticket.

Ultimately, Panagopoulos says, those decisions will come down to several fundamental factors.

A lot still hinges on the economy and what the economy will look like next spring and summer, as well as Bidens favorability, Panagopoulos says. Weve got quite a long way to go before those fundamentals are settled in the psyche of the electorate.

Tanner Stening is a Northeastern Global News reporter. Email him at t.stening@northeastern.edu. Follow him on Twitter @tstening90.

Original post:
Why Aren't Any Democrats Challenging Biden in the 2024 Election? - Northeastern University

Senate Republicans and Democrats held the first formal meeting since the start of a Republican lead quorum-denying walkout that has lasted eight days.

Both parties remained tight-lipped Wednesday about what happened during that meeting. Both released a written statement saying only, "We met, we had a conversation, we are planning on additional conversations.

Senate President Rob Wagner's (D-Lake Oswego) Communications office noted that Wagner was present at the meeting along with Senator Tim Knopp (R-Bend), Senate Majority Leader Kate Lieber (D-Portland), House Speaker, Dan Rayfield (D-Corvallis), House Minority Leader Vikki Breese-Iverson (R-Prineville) and House Majority Leader Julie Fahey (D-Eugene).

Senate Republicans initially claimed the walkout, which happened just as the chamber was set to vote on a controversial reproductive rights measure, was over what they claim to be a violation of a Senate Rule on Bill readability.

They stuck to that claim till Sunday, May 7 at which point Knopp was quoted by local media outlets saying Republicans wanted Democrats to kill 20 bills before ending the walkout. He confirmed those claims to KATU on May 8 but denied any inconsistency in the Republicans' stance.

Lieber has said the party is willing to entertain a "wish list" but not a "kill list."

When asked by KATU reporter Christina Giardinelli what that might look like seeing as how a slew of Republican-led bills never got a committee hearing, she stated some bills are still alive.

"More importantly there is a budget that is still alive," she said.

Pacific University Political Science Professor Jim Moore said based on past walkouts the negotiations are not likely to lead to a compromise.

"When we have seen these in the past, and remember this (walkouts) has been happening for four years there has only been one time when kind of a clear bargain was struck and Republicans got votes on four bills and Democrats then said okay you can get the vote on the bills but we get to do these three things as well," he said.

However, one thing playing out in Democrat's favor this session is voter-approved Ballot Measure 113 which bars lawmakers with 10 or more unexcused absences from running for reelection. Republicans have vowed to challenge the measure's constitutionality if it gets to that.

Four Republicans have racked up eight unexcused absences so far, six have racked up five, two have zero unexcused absences with one being excused for medical reasons since before the walkout, and one has three unexcused absences. The four Senators with eight absences are set to reach 10 by Friday, Moore says this could speed up the negotiation process. He said he expects a decision will be made by the end of the week.

He said that may look like both parties agreeing to come to the table just to pass the budget with other bills either dying or perhaps being revived last minute.

Read more:
Democrats, Republicans tight lipped after first meeting over walkout - KPIC News

Logan County Democrats and their guests socialize before the meal at the Call to Action Dinner April 29, 2023. (Sara Waite/Journal-Advocate)

Some special guests attended the Logan County Democrats Call to Action Dinner at Jake Uhrig VFW Post #3541 on April 29.

In addition to the keynote speaker, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, the event also welcomed a team of officers from the state party, including newly elected state chair Shad Murib.

Murib noted that he, first vice chair Indira Duggirala and vice chair of party operations Jarrod Munger, had spent the day on the Eastern Plains, with stops in Fort Morgan, Sedgwick and Yuma prior to their visit to Sterling.

Its extremely important for the state party to be involved in rural politics, Murib said, adding that for too long, the party had focused solely on the Front Range.

He vowed to help build programs that have you in mind and to coordinate efforts in elections at every level.

Were going to find ways to succeed and send a message to (Congressional District 4 representative) Ken Buck, he said.

To that end, the guest list also included two Democrat candidates vying for Bucks seat in 2024: Ike McCorkle and John Padora. Both candidates briefly introduced themselves and spoke about their reasons for running.

After enjoying dinner, Griswold stepped up to the podium and spoke about the right to vote, which she called the foundational freedom that allows us to have a society where Americans can live the lives that they want.

Where you can hopefully achieve your American dream, whatever that means work hard, create what you want for your life. Where you can love who you love. Where you can have control over your body. Where you can decide when to have kids for yourself.

She recalled coming to Logan County as a young, first-time candidate for a fundraiser, and her impression that it is a place where people across the political spectrum can come together to find solutions, and thats what democracy really is all about.

She noted her efforts during her first term to pass the largest democracy reform package in the nation.

We added more access, we added more security, we passed automatic voter registration, we increased drop boxes by over 65 percent. We passed parolee re-enfranchisement, and started to shine light on the dark money that I really think corrodes our democracy and our politics, she said. And all of those improvements continue. Last year, I worked with the county clerks and the clerks association to pass protection for election workers against doxxing, threats and retaliation.

Griswold said that while democracy has been under attack from extremists and election deniers who have filed hundreds of bills over the last several years to suppress voting rights, she remains optimistic about the future.

Although we see the effects of extremism on womens bodies, on the questions of marriage equality, on the attack on democracy itself, why Im so optimistic is that theres good people like you guys, Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliateds, who are coming together across the nation to defeat it, she said.

She suspects the effects of extremism will continue over the next few years, but Im so confident that Americans will continue to come together to reject it, and well get through this phase in American history, she said.

Griswold said shes honored to serve as Secretary of State.

Its a wonderful honor every single day to think about how are we making the right to vote more accessible to every single Coloradans, and its an honor to fight for all of our fundamental freedoms as Secretary of State, she said.

While she noted that she was the first Democrat to win the Secretary of State seat in 60 years, her speech had a non-partisan tilt.

What were up against, it isnt our Republican neighbors. It is not that, she said. Republicans and Democrats and unaffiliateds, its ok if we have different policy thoughts; thats how this country is set up. We have different policy disagreements, but we come together, we cast our ballots, when the elections are over we come together as Americans. So as we look to the next two years, next four years, remember to be kind to our neighbors. Remember that if someone disagrees with you, it doesnt mean theyre a bad person, and remember that fundamentally, were all Americans working hopefully to preserve this great country we have.

Visit link:
Griswold decries attacks on voting rights at Logan County Democrats Call to Action Dinner - Journal Advocate

If you buy a car, the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, explained the other day, you are expected to pay the monthly payment. Its that simple.

Is it? Now, obviously, those who argue that the president can cancel millions of student loans by decree arent in a position to offer lessons on personal responsibility.

The deeper problem with Ms. Jean-Pierres analogy, though, is that there isnt a bank on Earth thats going to keep lines of credit open when a person is compounding unsustainable debt year after year.

Speaking of which, the federal government has already hit the debt limit. The Treasury Department is now relying on extraordinary measures that will sputter out by June, at which time we will all be forced to forage for food and barter for medicine.

The only thing that can save us from this dystopian hellscape, Ms. Jean-Pierre explains, is for Congress to do its job and return to regular order.

The White House press secretary is apparently unaware that regular order would entail Senate Democrats passing a bill and then negotiating with House Republicans, who have already passed a bill raising the debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion into 2024.

Until this week, Democrats wouldnt even talk to Republicans on the matter. In the old days, this kind of absolutist position would have every newspaper wringing its hands about GOP obstructionism and the dysfunction of the political system.

Today, outlets like the New York Times simply pretend Republican bills are apparitions. Are Republicans Willing to Raise the Debt Ceiling? asks the editorial board this week.

Does the Times not know that the GOP has already agreed to lift the ceiling? They do. They pretend it isnt real because it includes deep cuts in federal spending (by which they mean a return to last years discretionary spending levels, with no cuts moving forward), the reversal of investments in tax enforcement (some 80,000 new IRS cops monitoring, among other things, Venmo accounts with more than $600), a rollback of some green energy boondoggles, and so on.

And anyway, the Times notes, President Biden has offered Republicans a reasonable path to resolve the standoff in which the GOP raises the ceiling without any conditions as Democrats demand, and then Biden will separately negotiate measures to slow the growth of the federal debt.

Dear Lord, can you imagine the Times editorial board urging Democrats to table their policy concerns and simply trust that a Republican president will negotiate in good faith at some undetermined, future time? And not any president, but one who claims a $3.5 trillion inflation-inducing bill costs zero dollars. So, not exactly a whiz with numbers.

Yet thats not even the most ridiculous sentence in the editorial. The Times also contends that the debt ceiling is not a useful mechanism for preventing the federal government from living beyond its means, when thats exactly why the law exists in the first place.

If the debt ceiling is mechanically lifted without any debate over spending, then it doesnt really exist. If you want to spend without any limit, just say so. But even the Times concedes that Washington is living beyond its means.

So, then, why is it more reasonable to negotiate the slowing of spending now, when the ceiling is in view, than a month from now or a year from now when there is no incentive to do anything?

Senator Schumer, who for weeks was sending out snarky tweets demanding Speaker McCarthy show the country his plan on the debt ceiling, wont negotiate.

And its clear that Mr. Biden is now pondering invoking the 14th Amendment and simply ignoring the debt ceiling much in the way he ignores the law on a slew of other issues. Such a move would almost surely be overturned by the Supreme Court because, as Ilya Shapiro succinctly put it, a constitutional provision that prevents repudiation of debt doesnt also somehow authorize limitless new debt.

Democrats spend their time blaming the GOP administration for the preponderance of our debt most of which Mr. Biden has voted for as a senator or helped shepherd through in the executive branch.

No one is innocent on that front, of course, but most of our debt is propelled by constantly expanding entitlement programs, which are treated with a reverence by the left that the Constitution can never attain.

Even if the GOP were culpable for every single dollar of debt and were engaged in blatant hypocrisy, it wouldnt change the fact that they are objectively correct today in arguing that we need to slow spending and mitigate debt.

The arguments used to oppose even a modicum of responsible budgeting do not make any sense.

Creators.com

The rest is here:
Democrats Loath To Accept Reality on the Debt Ceiling - The New York Sun

Dive Brief:

Student success advocates have long bemoaned SNAPs rules as counterproductive for college students. They argue that working 20 hours a week hurts students ability to focus on their studies, and research has backed up concerns that it could impede their ability to stay enrolled.

Food insecurity is also prevalent on college campuses.

In fall 2020, 38% of college students attending two-year institutions and 29% of those enrolled in four-year institutions reported experiencing food insecurity in the past month, according to a 2021 report from The Hope Center for College, Community and Justice. That includes worrying they would run out of food before they next got paid and skipping meals because they couldnt afford them.

Lawmakers approved the temporary expansion of the program in 2020 in response to the pandemic. It allowed college students to access SNAP benefits if they either qualified for the Federal Work-Study program or came from families who werent expected to be able to contribute to their college costs. Student advocates have lauded the changes and pushed to make them permanent.

However, the temporary measure is slated to expire June 11, a month after President Joe Biden officially lifted the public health emergency tied to COVID-19.

With emergency COVID-19 SNAP benefits for college students set to expire next month, we need to simplify eligibility for critical SNAP benefits to combat food insecurity plaguing low-income college students across New York State and the country, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who introduced the bill in the Senate, said in a statement.

The bill has also been introduced in the House, where it has more than 120 cosponsors. No Republicans have signed onto the proposal.

If passed, the bill could greatly expand how many college students are eligible for SNAP. In New York alone, 290,000 additional college students would qualify, according to a recent announcement.

Democratic lawmakers have continually tried to expand SNAP to more college students.

Rep. Jimmy Gomez, from California, has introduced a version of the proposal each year since 2019, though it has failed to gain traction. The bill may face an uphill battle in a divided Congress, where Republicans control the House and Democrats have a razor-thin majority in the Senate.

Read the original:
Democrats again aim to expand SNAP for college students as end of ... - Higher Ed Dive