Mediaboss Marketing

Wes Moore presses the flesh at the Maryland Association of Counties crab feast last week. Photo by Josh Kurtz.

By Dayvon Love

The writer is director of public policy forLeaders of a Beautiful Strugglein Baltimore.

Black people in Maryland, as is the case around the U.S., are a captured electorate of the Democratic Party. The core of the party, which is dominated by an overwhelmingly white donor class (made up of white corporate and political elites and a multiracial gatekeeper class), has benefited more from Black peoples consistent patronage than Black people have benefited from Democratic Party representation.

Given the latent racist agenda of the Republican Party and the lack of electoral viability of other political parties, Black people generally find themselves in a position where they have nowhere to go. The Democratic Party takes advantage of this reality. It does not have to deliver on policy, particularly for working-class Black people, in order to maintain its electoral hegemony of the Black vote. Furthermore, many working class and poor Black people dont even participate in the electoral process, I would argue, because of how poorly the party delivers material benefits for the masses of Black people.

The Democratic Party voter base in Maryland is largely Black and Brown and has nominated a Black person for governor for a third election cycle in a row. While this is largely symbolic, it says something about supposedly progressive Maryland that Democrats have not been able to elect a Black governor in a state that is 30% Black and 11% Latino.

In light of this challenge, Wes Moore, the 2022 Democratic nominee for governor of Maryland, and his team have a choice to make. He is running in a general election against a Trump-backed Republican, which is unprecedented in Maryland politics.

There are two paths the campaign can take toward the general election. One path is to tack politically toward the right in an attempt to appeal to moderates (Hogan Democrats). This path is an attempt to appeal to a whiter and more suburban base, a base that tends to have less of an appetite for criminal justice reform, investment in Black-led grass-roots organizations, police accountability, and community control of public resources. Additionally, this base tends to have attitudes about Baltimore City (and Prince Georges County, as quiet as that is kept, as evidenced by Del. Mary Ann Lisantis use of a racist epithet to talk about it) that are rooted in notions of inherent Black pathology.

Efforts that are perceived to help Black people specifically trigger these deeply held racist attitudes. A study done in 2014 by Rebecca Hetey and Jennifer Eberhardt observed that, Rather than treating racial disparities as an outcome to be measured, we exposed people to real and extreme racial disparities and observed how this drove their support for harsh criminal-justice policies.

Additionally, they examined the relationship between racial disparities in incarceration and peoples acceptance of punitive policies. For decades, social psychologists have demonstrated an association between race and crime (e.g., Allport & Postman, 1947; Correll, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2002; Duncan, 1976; Eberhardt, Goff, Purdie, & Davies, 2004; Payne, 2001). Not only are Blacks strongly associated with violent crime, but also the more stereotypically Black a persons physical features are perceived to be, the more that person is perceived as criminal (Eberhardt et al, 2004). Even in death-penalty cases, the perceived Blackness of a defendant is related to sentencing: the more Black, the more death-worthy.

The electoral impact of this dynamic is that among a whiter and more suburban base, there are political benefits to co-signing these societal notions of inherent Black pathology and a disadvantage to policies that would seek to truly empower working-class Black people.

The other route that the Maryland Democratic Party can take to the 2022 general election for governor is to invest in going after voters who have been traditionally ignored and taken for granted. There are hundreds of thousands of Black and Brown voters that choose not to participate because they are not offered policies that lead to true empowerment. At best, what we typically get are what I refer to as disaster management policies (I explain this concept more in-depth in When Baltimore Awakes), which are mere sustenance, i.e., public benefits, temporary housing support, and child tax credits.

These are not bad policies, but by themselves, they render Black people primarily as recipients of services, as opposed to a people who can practice sovereignty and self-determination. This would certainly trigger notions of inherent Black pathology mentioned earlier that would likely be perceived negatively by the Hogan Democrats base of voters. In my estimation, there is no electoral strategy that successfully appeals to both of these constituencies.

The Democratic Party will only deliver on meaningful policy to the masses of Black people to the extent that we have an organized power base inside and outside of it. Wes Moore and his campaign have an opportunity to use the general election to organize a meaningful Black power base within the Maryland Democratic Party that is actually accountable to working-class Black people who are typically taken for granted by the party. We should all pay close attention to which path he, his campaign, and the Maryland Democratic Party take to this general election.

More:
Opinion: The Maryland Democratic Party in 2022 - Josh Kurtz

Democrats' new drug pricing law will likely deliver a financial blow to one of the fastest-growing and most lucrative segments of the pharmaceutical industry: cancer drugs.

Why it matters: The drug industry argues that the new law will keep oncology treatments from reaching some patients who need them. But experts say the current system lets companies profit from developing drugs that yield only incremental advances and that cancer drugs will still be valuable enough for companies to pursue.

The big picture: The dispute over how Medicare drug price negotiations affect cancer care is a microcosm of a larger debate, in which the pharmaceutical industry argues that price controls will reduce their incentive to bring new drugs to market.

What theyre saying: Research on cancer drugs after initial approval "will be gutted by this bill," Stephen Ubl, CEO of the industry trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, wrote in an Aug. 4 letter to Congress.

How it works: Cancer drugs are usually launched to target one type of cancer. Companies then do additional research once the drug is on the market to see if it is also effective against other forms of cancer, which can earn approvals for other "indications."

State of play: Under the new law, beginning in 2026, certain older drugs without generic competition will be subject for Medicare negotiations. That means there will be a limited amount of time during which a drug company has monopoly pricing power, even if a competitor hasnt yet materialized.

The other side: Some experts dismiss the industry's concerns as fear mongering, countering that expanding the market for a particular oncology drug will still be more than profitable enough to justify R&D costs.

By the numbers: Nearly half of the drugs in the FDA pipeline were cancer drugs as of January 2021, according to a University of Chicago white paper. The authors argue that means oncology drugs will be significantly impacted by the new law and fewer will come to market.

The intrigue: Research suggests that not all cancer drugs nor all approved indications offer the same value to patients.

The bottom line: Capping the price of a new drug after a certain amount of time certainly does decrease the incentive of a manufacturer to pursue different indications, because functionally they have significantly less revenue per unit, said Avalere Health's Massey Whorley.

Go deeper: The search for next-generation cancer treatments

Here is the original post:
New drug pricing law puts cancer drugs in the spotlight - Axios

Before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade this summer, polls historically showed that Latinos in the United States were generally opposed to abortion.

In 2019, for example, a Public Religion Research Institute survey noted that just 45% of U.S. Latinos favored the legalization of abortion in almost all cases. That same survey concluded that Hispanics are the ethnic group with the most complex and least supportive views on the legality of abortion, adding that Hispanics (23%) are more likely than the general population (15%) to think abortion should be illegal in all cases and less likely (19%) than all Americans (23%) to think it should be legal in all cases.

Polls historically showed that Latinos in the United States were generally opposed to abortion.

That opposition might be waning, if findings from a recent comprehensive poll of Latino voters are any indication. In a UnidosUS/Mi Familia Vota survey of 2,750 eligible Latino voters released Aug. 10, 76% of respondents agreed with the following statement: No matter what my personal beliefs about abortion are, I think it is wrong to make abortion illegal and take that choice away from everyone else. Subgroups of Latino voters also agreed with that statement, including 76% of Catholics, 68% of non-Catholic Christians and 55% of Republicans. Seventy-two percent of Latino men agreed, and 85% of Latina women did.

In addition, the poll noted that 19% of respondents listed abortion as one of the top issues of importance. Abortion ranked as the fifth most important issue, the first time in the polls history that its made it into the top five. In 2020, only 3% of respondents chose abortion as a top issue. Gary Segura, president of BSP Research, one of the polls organizers, called that 16-point shift one of the poll's more stunning findings, Politico reported.

Because of that dramatic shift, this could be the moment for Democrats to take advantage and go all-in on making abortion a mobilizing topic for Latinos as Democrats try to keep the House and the Senate.

UnidosUS and Mi Familia Vota have historically leaned toward positions and views more aligned with the Democratic Party, so some Democrats may want to see other data suggesting a major Latino shift on abortion. Such data exists.

Days before the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe, a poll of U.S. Latinos conducted by Ipsos for Axios and Telemundo found that Seven in ten (71%) Latino Americans oppose making all abortions illegal at any time under any circumstance, compared to just 26% that support such a measure. That poll also found that Half of Latino Americans agree that abortion should be legal, while just a quarter (26%) disagree. According to Axios, the poll showed that Support for abortion rights depended heavily on whether respondents were born in the U.S.: 41% of immigrants said abortion should be legal, jumping to 59% and 62% respectively with second- and third-generation Americans.

In other words, while anti-abortion views in the Latino community are still very real among a population where faith and family play central roles, those views and those concerns may not be dominating the political narrative on this specific issue, especially as the countrys largest ethnic voting cohort continues to politically evolve. A poll from the Public Religion Research Institute conducted right after the June Supreme Court decision found that 75% of Latino Catholics supported the legalization of abortion in most or all cases. In 2010, only 51% showed said the same.

That 24-point shift in about 10 years coincided with a 10-point decline from 2009 to 2019 in the number of Latinos who identify as Catholic and an 8-point increase in Latinos not affiliated with any organized religion. Predictions are that almost 12 million Latinos will vote in the midterms; there are plenty of votes out there that could make a difference for Democrats.

The party would be smart to capitalize on the political moment, especially in states considering legislation to restrict abortions or if it is serious about fighting back in states that have already banned them. Could abortion be a mobilizer for Latino voters in states like Arizona, Texas or Florida, all of which have a growing hostility toward abortion? Can the issue make the difference in states like Ohio, Wisconsin and Georgia, where Latino voters can help swing the state? If the recent vote to keep abortion legal in Kansas proved anything, its that massive turnout in the voting booth can flip any prediction on its head. As Democrats continue to struggle to excite Latino voters, specifically Latina women, abortion can be a galvanizing issue.

The bigger takeaway is that 60% of respondents feel the country is "on the wrong track" and think Democrats and Republicans are ignoring them.

Still, such a strategy might be premature, considering that the bigger takeaway in the UnidosUS/Mi Familia Vota poll is that 60% of respondents feel the country is on the wrong track and think Democrats and Republicans are ignoring them. According to the poll, only 59% said theyll definitely vote in the midterms, suggesting there are many persuadable voters out there who might be moved to participate in the electoral process if they find something to vote for.

Latino voters are not apathetic, they are unconvinced, Clarissa Martnez De Castro, vice president of the UnidosUS Latino Vote Initiative, said in a news release about the latest poll. They are sending a wake-up call to both parties, which remain underwater compared to previous peaks in Hispanic support and persist in their chronic under-engagement and under-investment in these voters.

The issue that engages Latinos could be abortion, but only if Democrats take the time to understand that the tide has finally shifted.

Julio Ricardo Varelais the founder of Latino Rebels, a co-host of the In The Thickpolitical podcast andpresident of Futuro Media.

The rest is here:
Democrats need to ignore history and rally Latinos to vote for abortion rights - MSNBC

After months of missteps, mishaps and misfortune, President Biden and his fellow Democrats are finally enjoying a run of good news.

Landmark climate legislation. A popular plan to lower prescription drug prices. Falling gas prices. Mounting legal problems for Bidens would-be 2024 opponent, Donald Trump. And new polls that show Democratic candidates gaining ground in key races across the country.

But will it be enough to prevent the sort of electoral bloodbath that a presidents party usually suffers in the midterms? Could Democrats actually win in 2022?

Voters cast ballots in Norwalk, Calif., for the Nov. 6, 2018, midterm elections. (Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images)

According to the latest data, the answer is ... possibly. And those are better odds than Biden & Co. had any reason to expect even a few weeks ago.

For decades now, the pattern has been clear. There have been 19 midterms since World War II. In 16 of them, the presidents party lost five or more seats in the House the number that Republicans need to net this year to take control. Historically speaking, that means Democrats have an 84% chance of losing the House in November. Americans almost always vote against the president in midterm elections.

Factor in Bidens anemic approval rating (the worst of any modern president at this stage of his first term) and astronomical inflation numbers (the highest since the early 1980s), and it looks like a recipe for Democratic disaster.

And yet the polls are starting to show otherwise.

Over the last month, Bidens average disapproval rating has fallen more than two points, according to polling aggregator FiveThirtyEight; his average approval rating has risen nearly three points.

Thats not earth-shattering the presidents net approval rating is still negative by more than 16 points but its also not nothing. Any movement toward Biden from Democrats who no longer dismiss him as ineffectual, or from independents encouraged by improving economic indicators is notable.

President Biden at the White House prior to signing an agreement for Finland and Sweden to be included in NATO, Aug. 9. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Likewise, there are signs that presidential popularity which tends to suffer because of ever-increasing partisanship and polarization may no longer be the predictor of midterm performance it once was.

Story continues

Take the crucial generic ballot question, which asks voters which party they would prefer to control Congress. Since November 2021, Democrats have trailed Republicans on the generic ballot. But theyve only trailed by 1 or 2 points, on average not 16.

And even that dynamic appears to be changing. Amid a spate of fresh surveys that put Democrats ahead of Republicans by 3 points, according to Monmouth University; by 4 points, according to Morning Consult; by 6 points, according to YouGov the presidents party just took the lead in FiveThirtyEights generic-ballot average for the first time in nearly a year.

Several caveats apply here. The midterms are still more than two months away. Most voters dont really tune in until after Labor Day. And the pro-Republican impact of gerrymandering redrawing congressional districts to favor one party over the other means that Democrats typically have to win the national popular vote by at least a few percentage points just to avoid losing seats in the House.

To reach that threshold, Democrats still have a long way to go; they currently lead Republicans by half a point, on average. Generic-ballot polls usually underestimate GOP support as well. So unless the gap widens significantly, Republicans still stand a good chance a 77% chance, according to the FiveThirtyEight forecasting model of flipping the closely divided House.

Still, GOP odds have fallen by 10 points over the last month. Time will tell if they keep falling.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. (Jabin Botsford/Washington Post via Getty Images)

Meanwhile, the Senate side of things is trending toward Democrats, too only much more dramatically. Why? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has some thoughts.

I think theres probably a greater likelihood the House flips than the Senate. Senate races are just different theyre statewide, candidate quality has a lot to do with the outcome, McConnell said Thursday in Florence, Ky. Right now, we have a 50-50 Senate and a 50-50 country, but I think when all is said and done this fall, were likely to have an extremely close Senate, either our side up slightly or their side up slightly.

McConnell is right that Senate races are just different. Hes also right that candidate quality is a problem for the GOP right now. To regain control, Republicans only need to net a single Senate seat. And yet in key race after key race, their nominees all of whom were endorsed by Trump seem to be underperforming:

In Ohio, a state Trump won by 10 points in 2020, Republican nominee JD Vance, the Hillbilly Elegy author, is effectively tied with Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan in the latest polls.

In Pennsylvania, Republican Mehmet Oz (famous from his television doctor days) is getting pummeled online over his wealth and New Jersey roots by his Democratic opponent, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, who now leads by more than 11 points, on average.

In Georgia, former football star Herschel Walker, the GOP nominee, has been plagued by policy gaffes, revelations about previously undisclosed children and accusations that Walker repeatedly threatened his ex-wifes life, exaggerated claims of financial success and alarmed business associates with unpredictable behavior, according to the Associated Press. His Democratic rival, incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock, leads by roughly 2 points, on average.

In Arizona, incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, a former astronaut, appears to have rocketed to a sizable polling lead about 8 points, on average now that Republicans have nominated Blake Masters, a 35-year-old Silicon Valley venture capitalist turned hardline MAGA candidate who has called for a federal abortion ban and expressed interest in privatizing Social Security.

And in Wisconsin, two new polls one by Marquette University Law School, and one by Fox News show newly minted Democratic nominee Mandela Barnes ahead of incumbent Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, whose statewide approval rating has plummeted since he emerged as one of Trumps fiercest defenders in the wake of Jan. 6.

None of which means Republicans will lose these races. Johnson in particular has seemed imperiled in the past, only to perform better on Election Day than late-summer polls including Marquettes suggested he would. In recent cycles, pollsters have also had some problems getting enough Republicans especially working-class Republicans in Rust Belt states to respond to their surveys, which can make the GOP look weaker (and the Democrats stronger) than they really are.

Yet for now, at least, Republicans path to a Senate majority looks much narrower than it should be, given the national environment. In fact, as most key primaries have ended and this years general election matchups have been finalized in recent weeks, FiveThirtyEights Senate forecasting model has flipped from slightly favoring the GOP to favoring Democrats by a sizable margin: 63% to 37%.

According to the Cook Political Report, Democrats are currently favored to win back governorships in Maryland and Massachusetts as well (and to retain the office in hard-fought states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania).

Former President Donald Trump leaves Trump Tower to meet with New York Attorney General Letitia James for a civil investigation on Aug. 10. (James Devaney/GC Images)

Again, two months is an eternity in U.S. politics. Anything could happen. But ultimately 2022 may wind up being a contest between the usual forces that tend to decide midterm elections things like inflation and presidential job approval, which clearly benefit Republicans and some of the more unusual forces that appear to be keeping Democrats afloat.

Chief among the latter may be the end of Roe v. Wade. Last month, voters in deep-red Kansas flocked to the polls in record numbers to keep abortion legal there, and pro-choice Democratic candidates have overperformed in recent House special elections in Nebraska and Minnesota.

According to the latest Fox News poll, 55% of Americans disapprove of the Supreme Courts job performance and 60% disapprove of the decision to overturn Roe. Among women, the same survey showed a 7-point shift toward Democrats on the generic-ballot question since the courts ruling. From the day the Supreme Court overturned Roe to the day of the Kansas special election, new women registering to vote in the Sunflower State outnumbered new male registrations by 40%, according to Tom Bonier, CEO of data firm TargetSmart, who has found the same sort of registration gap in Wisconsin (17%), Pennsylvania (12%), Ohio (11%), North Carolina (7%), Georgia (6%) and Florida (5%).

The theory here is straightforward. Typically, the party that doesnt control the presidency tends to pick up seats in the midterms because their supporters are really motivated to vote against the president and the presidents supporters arent particularly motivated to vote for more of the same. But abortion may be leveling the playing field because it gives Democrats a reason to turn out as well: to stop a long-established right from being taken away.

Many [Democrats] feel as though their basic rights are being threatened, something a partys voters ordinarily arent concerned about when it controls both the presidency and Congress, FiveThirtyEights Nate Silver recently explained. The enthusiasm gap often accounts for much of the presidential partys disadvantage at the midterms, but its not clear it exists this year after Roe was overturned.

Then theres Trump to consider. Former presidents usually recede into ceremonial irrelevance. But Trump is teasing a comeback run in 2024 while catapulting candidates onto the 2022 ballot who have vowed to change election laws in his favor.

According to the latest Yahoo News/YouGov poll, thats become another motivating factor for Democrats who might otherwise skip the midterms. A full 72% of them say another Trump term would be the worst thing that could happen to America, and far more say that democracy is the most important issue when thinking about this years election than anything else.

Since World War II, the presidents party has only lost fewer than five seats in the House once, in 1962. Theyve only gained seats twice, in 1998 and 2002. In each case, there were extenuating circumstances some atypical event that boosted the party in power. In 1962, it was the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis. In 1998, it was the first impeachment of a president in 130 years a move many viewed as partisan overreach. In 2002, it was the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Could 2022 be another anomalous year? If things continue to break for Biden and the Democrats if prices continue to stabilize; if Republican candidates continue to stumble; if abortion and Trump continue to remain front and center then its certainly conceivable.

But those are some very big ifs.

Go here to read the rest:
New polls show Democrats could 'win' the 2022 midterms. Should you ...

If you were to tell me that someone in politics is corrupt, criminally corrupt, I'd be open to believing you, but I wouldn't join you in calling for their head without a little something called evidence. Not your thoughts, not your conclusions, your women's intuition, or your Spidey sense tingling, I'd need proof. While there is no lack of haters of former President Donald Trump screaming at the top of their lungs about the former, the latter is where they lose not only me but should lose everyone.

These bogus made-for-TV January 6th Committee hearings are a prime example of how an unthinking group of people can be led down whatever path politicians want to prance them down. What's frightening is how so many Americans, particularly so-called journalists, are happy to goosestep right along with them.

I used goosestep not to shock but to illustrate their tactics. Lavrentiy Beria, the brutal head of Joseph Stalin's secret police, famously said, "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime," basically meaning the state can do whatever the hell it wants because it's the state. The state picks a target, then sets about to manufacture "crimes" to rid itself of said target.

I'm not saying Donald Trump is innocent. I'd no sooner declare a politician innocent as I would guilty. But he is not guilty unless and until he's proven guilty.

It's a quaint notion innocence until proven guilty and it used to be the cornerstone of our justice system. But this army of flying monkeys unleashed by the Wicked Speaker from the West isn't interested in American tradition or any concept of justice you're familiar with. They want to punish Donald Trump for existing to scare the hell out of anyone inclined to reflect fondly upon 1 percent inflation, $2 gas, energy independence, a secure border and affordable food. Those monsters!

I've lived long enough to know that if you're going to go into business with a billionaire, you'd better have damn good lawyers on your side or be prepared to be on the losing end of a deal if things go sideways. My whole life, I've read stories of how Donald Trump is being sued by this person or suing that person, whatever. I honestly don't care, I'm not going into business with him. I've also seen stories of his lack of fidelity in marriage (I've worked in DC for over 20 years, nothing like this shocks me anymore), but I didn't vote for him to be Pope, so I don't really care.

Yet, these things are used by leftists and Trump haters as proof that he must be corrupt. That's not how it works, or at least not how it's supposed to work.

Newsweek ran a piece this week entitled, "Will Trump Do Time? What It Would Take to Convict the Former President." In it, the author does what all of these Trump haters do: fail to even attempt to prove anything. "The mostly likely actions against Trump right now are federal charges stemming from his role in the attack on the Capitol, and both federal and state charges concerning his efforts to convince various officialsincluding then-Vice President Mike Penceto fraudulently position Trump as the winner of the 2020 election," it reads.

There is no proof in it, anywhere. Not even an attempt at proof. It's the column equivalent of sitting around a faculty lounge at UC Berkeley or the staff lounge of the January 6th Committee where someone says something everyone in there wishes to be true, so it's accepted as such. "Damn right," the heads nod. Actual dictators have nothing on these people.

Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Kim, Castro, you name the progressive tyrant, and you'll find a pile of bodies in their wake convicted with the same level of "evidence" the "it just has to be true" standard.

I'm not such a fan of the former president that I think he's incapable of wrongdoing, I just need proof. I won't join in a lynch mob against anyone. But there is no proof. Someone testifying for 10 hours, then Liz Cheney playing 10 seconds of it out of context, isn't proof of anything other than the fact that Liz and the Democrats don't want you to see the other 9 hours, 59 minutes and 50 seconds of what they said.

There's a reason for that.

These people are desperate. They think the American people care, and they really don't. Just not for the reasons they think. We saw what happened on January 6th. A lot of it wasn't good, no doubt idiots fighting with police need to be punished. But that was so few people. A lot more walked in open doors, doors held open by Capitol Police, and asked for directions to locations to get really good selfies. Was our republic threatened by that? Of course not.

But reality doesn't matter. Democrats are so terrified of facing voters this fall on their record that they're scrambling to find something else, anything else so they can point and scream at Republicans that "THEY ARE A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY!!!" They need to charge Donald Trump with something, anything, for that to stand a chance of helping them. Stalin is blushing.

The idea of a campaign run under the banner of "I know we suck, but they're worse" is not exactly something the majority of Americans will rally around. As more and more Democrats come to that realization, expect them to get even crazier. That's why I hope, no matter what Trump decides about 2024, he doesn't announce anything until AFTER the election. The prospect of Trump has them going insane in every direction, the reality of him (either way) would give them focus. When your enemy is destroying themselves, get out of the way and let them.

Derek Hunter is the host of a free daily podcast (subscribe!), host of adaily nationally syndicated radio show, and author of the book,Outrage, INC., which exposes how liberals use fear and hatred to manipulate the masses, and host of the weekly "Week in F***ing Review" podcast where the news is spoken about the way it deserves to be.Follow him on Twitter at @DerekAHunter.

Go here to see the original:
Why Democrats Are Desperate to Charge Trump With Anything - Townhall