Mediaboss Marketing

Freshman Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock may have to count on a Trump-generated GOP meltdown in his state. Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Political handicappers looking to the 2022 midterms have naturally focused on House races, mostly because the Democratic margin of control is so small (five seats at present) that the very predictable pattern of midterm House losses by the presidents party makes continuation of a Democratic House a real long shot (and probably a prohibitive long shot unless Joe Bidens job-approval rating shows significant improvement soon). The loss of either chamber, of course, means the governing trifecta that has made enactment of part of Bidens legislative agenda possible will be gone, probably for a good while (at least until 2026, by my reckoning). But there is some independent value in continued Democratic control of the Senate thanks to that chambers role in confirming Bidens executive branch and judicial nominees along with the ability to control committee and floor action in a way that gives Democrats significant leverage and opportunities for conveying their message.

Because only one-third of the Senate is up for reelection every two years, there is not the sort of predictable relationship between Senate outcomes and the general political climate. In other words, a bad year for either party in presidential, House, or gubernatorial contests doesnt mean a bad year in Senate races if the landscape is positive. We saw that most recently in 2018, when Republicans lost 41 net House seats and seven net governorships yet picked up two net Senate seats because the landscape (with 26 Democratic Senate seats and only nine Republican Senate seats at stake) was very positive for the GOP.

The Senate landscape is modestly positive in 2022 for Democrats, who have to defend only 14 seats as compared with 20 seats for Republicans. Moreover, as Amy Walter points out, none of the 14 Democratic seats are in a state carried by Donald Trump in 2020. Meanwhile, Republicans are defending two seats in states carried by Biden in 2020, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

But at the same time, Democrats are defending three Senate seats (in Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada) in states Biden carried very narrowly (he won by 0.30 percent in Arizona, 0.24 percent in Georgia, and a relatively luxurious 2.39 percent in Nevada). Republicans in the two nominally blue states whose Senate seats they control dont have much ground to make up, either (Biden won Pennsylvania by 1.17 percent and Wisconsin by 0.63 percent). They also control an open seat in North Carolina, a state Trump won by only 1.3 percent.

To give you an idea of how much swing Republicans might rationally expect in a midterm, consider that Republicans won the national House popular vote by 1.1 percent in 2016 and Democrats won it by 8.6 percent in 2018. Thats a lot of movement against the party controlling the White House. Anything remotely like that in 2022 again, controlling for state aberrations despite the trend toward straight-ticket voting in recent years and Republicans could pretty easily sweep the six contests mentioned above, all rated as toss-ups by the Cook Political Report, and take control of the Senate by a 53-to-47 margin, assuming neither party breaks serve by winning in a less competitive state.

What may give Democrats better Senate odds is the current nature of Republican intrastate and intraparty dynamics. There are potentially fractious GOP Senate primaries in Arizona, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania that could produce nominees with real weaknesses. Moreover, in these states and others (notably Ohio, a red state that recently reelected a progressive Democratic senator), Trumps insistence on turning GOP primaries into referenda on loyalty to his ludicrous 2020 election claims could interfere with the expected pro-Republican midterm trend.

Potential Trump-generated problems affecting Senate races arent limited to his involvement in just those races. Georgia is a classic example. Freshman Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock, who along with Jon Ossoff won by an eyelash in 2021s unique dual general-election Senate runoff in what has become the ultimate battleground state, ought to be a sitting duck in 2022 with even a minimal midterm swing. But Trump enormously complicated Georgia politics by pushing the man Ossoff beat a year ago, David Perdue, into a primary challenge to the incumbent governor, Brian Kemp, as part of a purge effort aimed at those who didnt support the 45th presidents efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The Perdue-Kemp primary is sure to be an extremely expensive and divisive affair. It could weaken the ultimate winner in a general election against Stacey Abrams and might spill over into the Senate race, where Republican front-runner and Trump favorite Herschel Walker hasnt shaken questions about his background and temperament (or rid himself of primary opposition).

Divisive Republican gubernatorial primaries seem likely in Arizona and Pennsylvania, as well, and could extend to Wisconsin, where incumbent GOP Senator Ron Johnson is struggling with low favorability numbers.

Republicans should be considered the slight favorites to flip the Senate (and much stronger favorites to flip the House) in 2022, assuming Bidens popularity doesnt seriously improve by November. But Mitch McConnell should not be making big plans for 2023. His partys lord and master, Trump, could screw things up yet, and you never know entirely what will happen in a wide array of competitive Senate races.

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

Original post:
Democrats Need Republican Mistakes to Hang On to the Senate - New York Magazine

A law Gov. J.B. Pritzker enacted to create judicial subcircuits in parts of Illinois has been temporarily blocked as some say the partisan measure was rushed through at the detriment of voters.

During their one day in session so far this year, Democrats earlier this month went at it alone, passing new judicial subcircuits. Without fanfare, Gov. J.B. Pritzker enacted the maps on Jan. 7.

State Sen. Jason Plummer, R-Edwardsville, reacted to a Sangamon County judge this week temporarily blocking those new judicial districts from going into effect in Madison County.

It wasnt just the packing of the courts [with Democratic judges], it wasnt trying to set the courts up, it also took away the vote from the vast majority of the people of Madison County to be able to vote for their local judicial elections this cycle, Plummer told The Center Square.

Some of the new districts were to take effect for the 2022 election cycle while others in other parts of the state would take effect in 2024. The new districts in Madison County pitted two sitting judges against each other in elections coming up this year, while creating other judicial subcircuits Plummer said didnt have equal representation. Even being on the Senates redistricting committee, he said there was little to no information about how the maps came about and for what reason they were rushed.

The Madison County Board, in a bipartisan vote, authorized the states attorney to sue to halt the maps. Monday, a Sangamon County judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the maps from being enacted.

Plummer said for him the issue is about transparency, the independence of the judiciary and more.

And the governor was put in a very bad spot, Plummer said. He foolishly signed the legislation and I think hell have egg on his face on this for a long time coming.

At an unrelated event in East St. Louis Wednesday, Pritzker said hell keep an eye on the litigation, but declined to comment further.

I dont have much to say about it, Pritzker said. "Its obviously an ongoing case."

Pritzker questioned why he as governor and the Illinois State Board of Elections were the defendants in the case when there were "many other people ... involved in it," but he did not elaborate.

"Who did this?" Plummer asked. "Who pushed this legislation? Who drew the maps?"

Plummer said the politicization of the court system in a hyper-partisan era should be opposed by both parties.

I think the people in the Metro East with bipartisan opposition to it are going to have a lot of questions for the governor, who said he will not participate in partisan redistricting, Plummer said. This is the epitome of partisan redistricting.

The case continues Feb. 15.

Go here to read the rest:
Sen. Plummer applauds the halting of the Democrats' judicial subcircuits - AdVantageNEWS.com

WASHINGTON It was a testament to the breakdown of the Senates judicial confirmation machinery that the first question posed by many this past week regarding an upcoming Supreme Court vacancy was whether Democrats could install a new justice entirely on their own.

The answer is yes, if the party sticks together. And the prospect of President Bidens eventual nominee receiving only Democratic votes is hardly far-fetched, given the bitter history of recent confirmation fights for the high court.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the last member of the court confirmed by the Senate, did not receive a single Democratic vote. But Republicans held a 53-to-47 advantage and could afford to lose a colleague or two in ramming through her nomination just before the presidential election in 2020.

With their bare-minimum 50-seat majority, Democrats will not have that luxury after Mr. Biden nominates the first Black woman for the court sometime in the next few weeks. Considering the toxic partisan atmosphere surrounding contemporary Supreme Court fights, it is conceivable she could make history not only because of her gender and race, but also as the first person elevated to the court by a tiebreaking vote of the vice president.

It would be a far cry from the simple voice-vote approval of many of her predecessors as recently as the 1960s. Or the 98-to-0 confirmation of Justice Antonin Scalia, a leading judicial conservative, in 1986. Or even the 87-to-9 vote in 1994 for Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a member of the courts liberal wing, who announced on Thursday that he would step down after nearly three decades.

The decline in consensus Supreme Court confirmations has been precipitous, and the escalation of partisan warfare has been sharp.

Deep bitterness lingers over the Democratic assault on Robert H. Bork in 1987; the routine deployment of filibusters against judicial nominees of both parties beginning during the administration of President George W. Bush; the Republican blockade of Judge Merrick B. Garland in 2016; the tumultuous confirmation of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in 2018; and the hardball Republican move to rush Justice Barrett onto the court two years later.

With the Supreme Court deciding so many of the most polarizing issues of the day including abortion rights and affirmative action neither side is willing to cede much ground, and both display their battle scars.

It is a sad commentary on the nomination process that it has so disintegrated over the years, said Senator Susan Collins of Maine, one of the handful of Republicans considered to be in play as potential backers of Mr. Bidens pick. If you look at the incredibly strong vote by which Stephen Breyer was confirmed, you just dont see it nowadays.

Democrats would dearly like to avoid a skin-of-the-teeth party-line vote for whomever Mr. Biden puts forward. One of the first calls made by Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was to Ms. Collins, promising her whatever material and assistance he could provide to help her evaluate the forthcoming nominee.

Democrats also hope the fact that Mr. Bidens pick would replace a liberal justice and not tip the ideological balance of the firmly conservative court and the fact that she will be an African American woman will deter Republicans from a scorched-earth campaign when their odds of winning are low.

But while Republicans are promising an open-minded review of the nominee, hard feelings over the earlier confirmation clashes, such as Justice Kavanaughs fight against sexual assault allegations, are never far from the surface.

Whoever the president nominates will be treated fairly and with the dignity and respect someone of his or her caliber deserves, something not afforded to Justice Kavanaugh and other Republican nominees of the past, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a senior Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, said in response to Justice Breyers retirement.

Besides Ms. Collins, another Republican who will be the focus of Democratic attention is Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a frequent supporter of judicial nominees of Democratic presidents and the only Republican to oppose Justice Kavanaugh.

Ms. Murkowski is running for re-election this year under a new ranked-choice voting system back home. She is already opposed by a hard-right conservative vigorously backed by former President Donald J. Trump, who is furious at Ms. Murkowski for voting to convict him at his impeachment trial following the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Siding with Mr. Bidens choice for the court could help her attract the Democratic and independent voters she could need to prevail under the new election rules in her state.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has also deferred to Democratic presidents in the past and voted for justices and lower-court judges they put forward.

Last year, Mr. Graham, Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski were the only three Republicans to back Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, a front-runner to succeed Justice Breyer, for a seat on the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Supporting someone for a circuit court seat is no guarantee of supporting that same person for the Supreme Court. However, backing someone for the high court after opposing that person for a lower court would be harder to reconcile, making it unlikely that any of the 44 Republicans who opposed Judge Jackson would reverse course and support her now. All were well aware at the time that she was a future high court prospect. Three Republicans were absent.

Mr. Biden could also select Judge J. Michelle Childs of Federal District Court in South Carolina, who has been strongly endorsed by Representative James E. Clyburn, a powerful lawmaker from that state and the No. 3 House Democrat. If Judge Childs is the presidents pick, Mr. Graham and South Carolinas other Republican senator, Tim Scott, could face pressure to back her.

But home-state allegiance is no guarantee. Senator Michael Bennet, Democrat of Colorado, opposed the Supreme Court nomination of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a Colorado native, even though the senator introduced him at his confirmation hearing.

Justice Gorsuchs case is instructive. Though very conservative, he was the sort of highly experienced, pedigreed and qualified candidate a Republican president could have put forward in the past with the expectation that he would receive a strong show of support in the Senate despite ideological differences.

But since Justice Gorsuch was filling the seat held open by the nearly yearlong blockade of Judge Garland and had been nominated by Mr. Trump, most Democrats balked. Just three voted for his confirmation. Only one, Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, remains in the Senate; he was also the sole Democrat to vote for Justice Kavanaugh.

Another potential nominee with a Senate voting history is Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright of Federal District Court in Minnesota, who was confirmed on a 58-to-36 vote in 2016. Thirteen Republicans voted for her, and five of them remain in the Senate today, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader. But a vote for a district court nominee does not equate to a vote to place a person on the highest court.

Even before the nominee is known, it is clear the outcome in the Senate is most likely to be highly partisan, with the candidate receiving a few Republican votes at best and perhaps none at all. For a country torn apart by partisanship and a court struggling with its image and credibility, that is far from an ideal outcome.

I really think it would be harmful to the country to have a repeat of what we saw with the last two nominees being so narrowly confirmed, Ms. Collins said. I just dont think that is good for the country, nor the court.

Originally posted here:
Bitterness From Supreme Court Fights Hangs Over Coming Nomination - The New York Times

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo moved closer to Senate confirmation Wednesday after a tense hearing where Democrats accused the states top doctor of evading questions on his coronavirus policies and stormed out before casting their votes.

Ladapo, appointed in September by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, has drawn national scrutiny over his alignment with the governor in resisting COVID-19 vaccine mandates and other virus polices embraced by the White House and federal health officials.

At the hearing Wednesday before the Senate Committee on Health Policy, Democrats tried to pin Ladapo down with yes or no questions on whether he believed vaccines and masks work against coronavirus and other topics, but were often met with lengthy answers from Ladapo.

What I hear is arrogance and polite avoidance, said Sen. Janet Cruz, a Democrat. So if you wouldnt mind all of this fond rhetoric that you are applying, can we just get straight answers so that more people can hear more information.

In one exchange, Democratic Sen. Lauren Book repeatedly pressed Ladapo on whether he found coronavirus vaccines to be effective. Ladapo responded: yes or no questions are not that easy to find in science.

He continued, The most commonly used vaccines in the United States, which would be the Pfizer product and the product that was developed by Moderna, have been shown to have relatively high effectiveness for the prevention of hospitalization and death, and over time, relatively low protection from infection, he said.

In another exchange, Book grilled the surgeon general on whether he regretted his decision to refuse a face mask when meeting with a Democratic state lawmaker in October who told him she had a serious medical issue and later revealed a breast cancer diagnosis. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says cancer patients are at a higher risk to get severely ill from COVID-19 and may not build the same immunity to vaccines.

Consistent with my approach to clinical care and my approach to health policy issues, I think its very important to respect peoples personal preferences and I think thats a mutual issue, Ladapo said. So its important to respect peoples preferences and I think that when peoples preferences may differ, the goal ought to be to find a way where those individuals can achieve whatever outcome theyre aiming to achieve in a way that leaves everyone mutually comfortable.

After several more rounds of back and forth, Book told the committee we dont feel that were getting any answers and said Democrats would leave the room, refusing to vote on Ladapos confirmation.

After the walkout, Republicans, who control the committee, quickly voted to move the surgeon generals confirmation forward. Ladapo must receive an additional approval from a separate committee and the full Senate before he is officially confirmed.

See original here:
Democrats walk out of hearing with Florida's top doctor - Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) Voting legislation that Democrats and civil rights leaders say is vital to protecting democracy collapsed when two senators refused to join their own party in changing Senate rules to overcome a Republican filibuster after a raw, emotional debate.

The outcome Wednesday night was a stinging defeat for President Joe Biden and his party, coming at the tumultuous close to his first year in office.

Despite a day of piercing debate and speeches that often carried echoes of an earlier era when the Senate filibuster was deployed by opponents of civil rights legislation, Democrats could not persuade holdout senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia to change the Senate procedures on this one bill and allow a simple majority to advance it.

I am profoundly disappointed, Biden said in a statement after the vote.

However, the president said he is not deterred and vowed to explore every measure and use every tool at our disposal to stand up for democracy.

Voting rights advocates are warning that Republican-led states nationwide are passing laws making it more difficult for Black Americans and others to vote by consolidating polling locations, requiring certain types of identification and ordering other changes.

Vice President Kamala Harris briefly presided over the Senate, able to break a tie in the 50-50 Senate if needed, but she left before the final vote. The rules change was rejected 52-48, with Manchin and Sinema joining the Republicans in opposition.

The nighttime voting brought an end, for now, to legislation that has been a top Democratic priority since the party took control of Congress and the White House.

This is a moral moment, said Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga.

The Democrats bill, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, would make Election Day a national holiday, ensure access to early voting and mail-in ballots which have become especially popular during the COVID-19 pandemic and enable the Justice Department to intervene in states with a history of voter interference, among other changes. It has passed the House.

Both Manchin and Sinema say they support the legislation, but Democrats fell far short of the 60 votes needed to push the bill over the Republican filibuster. It failed to advance 51-49 on a largely party-line vote. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., cast a procedural vote against so the bill could be considered later.

Next, Schumer put forward a rules change for a talking filibuster on this one bill. It would require senators to stand at their desks and exhaust the debate before holding a simple majority vote, rather than the current practice that simply allows senators to privately signal their objections.

But that, too, failed because Manchin and Sinema were unwilling to change the Senate rules a party-line vote by Democrats alone.

Emotions were on display during the floor debate.

When Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., asked Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky whether he would pause for a question, McConnell left the chamber, refusing to respond.

Durbin said he would have asked McConnell, Does he really believe that theres no evidence of voter suppression?

The No. 2 Republican, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, said at one point, I am not a racist.

McConnell, who led his party in doing away with the filibusters 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees during Donald Trumps presidency, warned against changing the rules again.

McConnell derided the fake hysteria from Democrats over the states new voting laws and called the pending bill a federal takeover of election systems. He admonished Democrats in a fiery speech and said doing away with filibuster rules would break the Senate.

Manchin drew a roomful of senators for his own speech, upstaging the presidents news conference and defending the filibuster. He said changing to a majority-rule Senate would only add to the dysfunction that is tearing this nation apart.

Several members of the Congressional Black Caucus walked across the Capitol for the proceedings. We want this Senate to act today in a favorable way. But if it dont, we aint giving up, said Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., the highest-ranking Black member of Congress.

Manchin did open the door to a more tailored package of voting law changes, including to the Electoral Count Act, which was tested during the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol. He said senators from both parties are working on that and it could draw Republican support.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said a bipartisan coalition should work on legislation to ensure voter access, particularly in far-flung areas like her state, and to shore up Americans faith in democracy.

We dont need, we do not need a repeat of 2020 when by all accounts our last president, having lost the election, sought to change the results, said Murkowski.

She said the Senate debate had declined to a troubling state: Youre either a racist or a hypocrite. Really, really? Is that where we are?

At one point, senators broke out in applause after a spirited debate between Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, among the more experienced lawmakers, and new Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., over the history of the Voting Rights Act.

Sinema sat in her chair throughout much of the days the debate, largely glued to her phone, but rose to her feet to deliver her vote against the rules change.

In a statement, Sinema said the outcome must not be the end of our work to protect our democracy. But she warned, these challenges cannot be solved by one party or Washington alone.

Schumer contended the fight is not over and he ridiculed Republican claims that the new election laws in the states will not end up hurting voter access and turnout, comparing it to Trumps big lie about the 2020 presidential election.

Democrats decided to press ahead despite the potential for high-stakes defeat as Biden is marking his first year in office with his priorities stalling out in the face of solid Republican opposition and the Democrats inability to unite around their own goals. They wanted to force senators on the record even their own partys holdouts to show voters where they stand.

Once reluctant himself to change Senate rules, Biden has stepped up his pressure on senators to do just that. But the push from the White House, including Bidens blistering speech last week in Atlanta comparing opponents to segregationists, is seen as too late.

___

Associated Press writers Farnoush Amiri and Brian Slodysko contributed to this report.

___

This story has been corrected to show the name of the act tested by Jan. 6 events is the Electoral Count Act, not the Electoral College Act.

See the original post here:
Voting bill collapses, Democrats unable to change filibuster - Associated Press