Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Sen. Kamala Harris sees a path out of the wilderness for Democrats but can she sell it to them? – Los Angeles Times

During one of the first big meetings Sen. Kamala Harris attended back in California following her swearing in, she said something many of the progressive activists who look to her as an icon were taken aback to hear.

As the Democratic party tries to claw its way back to control of Congress, she wanted them to at least consider rallying behind some of its most conservative and most vulnerable politicians.

It was a room full of people who did not want to hear that, Harris said Thursday in a meeting with reporters and editors in The Times Washington bureau. They were like, What happened? Why are you saying this?

Amid all the self-reflection and infighting among Democrats about how they find their way out of the wilderness, Harris is emerging as a more nuanced political character than many on either side of the political line expected.

Californias freshman senator, a civil rights crusader whose India-born mother and Jamaica-raised father met during political protests in the Bay Area, is so associated with the identity politics of the left that her Twitter feed was a punchline in a recent Saturday Night Live skit. But as she finds her way in Washington, Harris is embracing an approach somewhat at odds with that image. That became clear as she talked about the path back for Democrats, why she wont unconditionally slam the door on working with Trump, and what her mother told her about people like Supreme Court nominee Neil M. Gorsuch.

The pressure on Harris to unwaveringly fly the flag of the resistance is intense. She recalled the event in Los Angeles where she encouraged supporters not to turn their backs on Sens. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia red-state Democrats some liberal activists would like to purge in their upcoming reelection bids.

We cant afford to be purists, Harris said. You have to ask that question of yourself: Are we going to be purists to this resistance to the point that you let these guys go? Or can you understand that you may not agree with 50% of their policy positions, but I can guarantee you will disagree with 100% of their replacements policy positions. So that is part of the question. What do we have to do in this movement to be pragmatic?

Harris hardly aligns herself with the counter-movement inside Democratic ranks that has pushed to reorient the partys focus more exclusively toward white, working-class voters in places like Scranton, Pa., and Lansing, Mich.

There is this conversation that weve got to go back and get him, she said, referring to the prototypical white, male Trump voter. The inference there is that to do that we need to walk away from that Latina or black mom. That is a mistake.

But she suggested the party has too often seized on wedge, identity politics issues that divide voters. What I do know about those two ladies and that guy is when we wake up at 3 in the morning or something is troubling us, it is never through the lens of, am I Democrat or Republican, or on our identity based on what other people have decided is our identity.

Instead, she said, it is economic issues that weigh on people: their bills, their job troubles, their difficulty getting health insurance.

We, as Democrats and progressives, cannot afford to be guilty of putting people in these narrow boxes based on what we have decided is their identity instead of seeing that they have lived full lives. They are full people, as multifaceted as the other people we know.

She pointed to the incident at a bar outside of Kansas City, Kan., in February in which an attacker shot and killed an Indian immigrant he mistakenly believed to be a Muslim. Patrons in the bar risked their lives trying to protect the victim, she said.

I bet you that patrons in that bar voted for Trump, Harris said. But when presented with that situation, at that moment, without reflection, they did the right thing. We cant afford to put people in boxes.

Harris expected to be taking her post in a very different Washington. Up until late on election night, she said, she had been looking forward to pushing a nationwide expansion of the climate-change initiatives that have taken root in California and taking a leadership role in removing restrictions on immigrants. It was during a private family dinner as votes were being counted across the country that what was confronting her became real. She said she saw her 9-year-old nephew in tears at what was intended to be a celebratory event.

That man cant win, the boy cried. Later, in the reception room where she declared her own victory, she saw similar scenes.

But despite pressure from activists on the left, Harris refuses to rule out working with the White House.

Political capital is something that does not gain interest, she said, when asked how she thought Democrats should respond if the White House offers to collaborate on joint priorities, such as federal money to rebuild outdated roads, bridges and airports. When youve got it, youve got to spend it. If the Trump administration puts in place a real, significant and genuine plan for infrastructure, I'll be down with it.

Some things, though, are non-negotiable, Harris said. She is not among the Democrats lamenting that too much political firepower might have been used fighting Gorsuch, whose confirmation moved forward Thursday after Republican leaders made the historic move of changing Senate rules to step around a Democratic filibuster.

If you look at the decisions this guy has written? Harris said. And everyone presents him as a nice guy. My mother had many sayings. One of them was, Just because somebody has good manners, doesnt make them a good person.

evan.halper@latimes.com

Follow me: @evanhalper

ALSO

Trump administration concedes border wall won't be from 'sea to shining sea'

Did Susan Rice act inappropriately when she 'unmasked' names in intelligence reports?

At Trump's EPA, going to work can be an act of defiance

Read more:
Sen. Kamala Harris sees a path out of the wilderness for Democrats but can she sell it to them? - Los Angeles Times

Top Democrats Are Wrong: Trump Supporters Were More Motivated by Racism Than Economic Issues – The Intercept

IT ISNT ONLY Republicans, it seems, who traffic in alternative facts. Since Donald Trumps shock election victory, leading Democrats have worked hard to convince themselves, and the rest of us, that his triumph had less to do with racism and much more to do with economic anxiety despite almost all of the available evidence suggesting otherwise.

Consider Bernie Sanders, de facto leader of the #Resistance. Some people think that the people who voted for Trump are racists and sexists and homophobes and deplorable folks, he said at a rally in Boston on Friday, alongside fellow progressive senator Elizabeth Warren. I dont agree. Writing in the New York Times three days after the election last November, the senator from Vermont claimed Trump voters were expressing their fierce opposition to an economic and political system that puts wealthy and corporate interests over their own.

Warren agrees with him. There were millions of people across this country who voted for [Trump] not because of his bigotry, but in spite of that bigotry because the system is not working for them economically, the Massachusetts senator told MSNBC last year.

Both Sanders and Warren seem much keener to lay the blame at the door of the dysfunctional Democratic Party and an ailing economy than at the feet of racist Republican voters. Their deflection isnt surprising. Nor is their coddling of those who happily embraced an openly xenophobic candidate. Look, I get it. Its difficult to accept that millions of your fellow citizens harbor what political scientists have identified as racial resentment. The reluctance to acknowledge that bigotry, and tolerance of bigotry, is still so widespread in society is understandable. From an electoral perspective too, why would senior members of the Democratic leadership want to alienate millions of voters by dismissing them as racist bigots?

Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren speak at the Our Revolution Massachusetts Rally at the Orpheum Theatre on March 31, 2017 in Boston.

Photo: Scott Eisen/Getty Images

Facts, however, as a rather more illustrious predecessor of President Trump once remarked, are stubborn things. Interestingly, on the very same day that Sanders offered his evidence-free defense of Trump voters in Boston, the latest data from the American National Election Studies (ANES) was released.

Philip Klinkner, a political scientist at Hamilton College and an expert on race relations, has pored over this ANES data and tells me that whether its good politics to say so or not, the evidence from the 2016 election is very clear that attitudes about blacks, immigrants, and Muslims were a key component of Trumps appeal. For example, he says, in 2016 Trump did worse than Mitt Romney among voters with low and moderate levels of racial resentment, but much better among those with high levels of resentment.

The new ANES data only confirms what a plethora of studies have told us since the start of the presidential campaign: the race was about race. Klinkner himself grabbed headlines last summer when he revealed that the best way to identify a Trump supporter in the U.S. was to ask just one simple question: is Barack Obama a Muslim? Because, he said, if they are white and the answer is yes, 89 percent of the time that person will have a higher opinion of Trump than Clinton. This is economic anxiety? Really?

Other surveys and polls of Trump voters found a strong relationship between anti-black attitudes and support for Trump; Trump supporters being more likely to describe African Americans as criminal, unintelligent, lazy and violent; more likely to believe people of color are taking white jobs; and a majority of them rating blacks as less evolved than whites. Sorry, but how can any of these prejudices be blamed on free trade or low wages?

For Sanders, Warren and others on the left, the economy is what matters most and class is everything. Yet the empirical evidence just isnt there to support them. Yes Trump won a (big) majority of non-college-educated whites, but he also won a majority of college-educated whites, too. He won more young white voters than Clinton did and also a majority of white women; he managed to win white votes regardless of age, gender, income or education. Class wasnt everything in 2016. In a recent essay in The Nation, analysts Sean McElwee and Jason McDaniel point out that income predicted support for McCain and Romney, but not Trump. Their conclusion? Racial identity and attitudes have further displaced class as the central battleground of American politics.

Trump supporters take part in a Make America Great Again rally in Salem, Ore., on March 25, 2017.

Photo: Alex Milan Tracy/Sipa USA/AP

Their view is backed by a detailed Gallup analysis of interviews with a whopping 125,000 Americans, which found that Trump supporters, far from being the left behind or the losers of globalization, earn relatively high household incomes and are no less likely to be unemployed or exposed to competition through trade or immigration. The bottom line for Gallups senior economist Jonathan Rothwell? Trumps popularity cannot be neatly linked to economic hardship.

Look, if you still believe that Trumps appeal was rooted in economic, and not racial, anxiety, ask yourself the following questions: Why did a majority of Americans earning less than $50,000 a year vote for Clinton, not Trump, according to the exit polls? Why, in the key Rust Belt swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, did most voters who cited the economy as the most important issue facing the country opt for Hillary over the Donald? And why didnt black or Latino working class voters flock to Trump with the same fervor as white working class voters? Or does their economic insecurity not count?

To be clear, no one is saying there werent any legitimate economic grievances in Trumpland, nor is anyone claiming that the economy played no role whatsoever. The point, however, is that it wasnt the major motivating factor for most Trump voters or, at least, thats what we learn when we bother to study those voters. Race trumped economics.

Defenders of the economy narrative have a gotcha question of their own: how can racial resentment have motivated Trump supporters when so many of them voted for Barack Obama, across the Rust Belt, in 2008 and 2012? Theyre not racists, filmmaker Michael Moore passionately argued last November. They twice voted for a man whose middle name is Hussein.

Klinkner, though, gives short shrift to this argument. First, he tells me, most of them didnt vote for Obama. There werent many vote switchers between 2012 and 2016. Second, working class whites shifted to Trump less because they were working class than because they were white. Klinkner points out that in 2016, Clinton, unlike Obama, faced a Republican candidate who pushed the buttons of race and nativism in open and explicit ways that John McCain and Mitt Romney were unwilling or unable to do.

People hold signs before a campaign rally for Donald Trump on Feb. 12, 2016 in Tampa, Fla.

Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

If Democrats are going to have any chance of winning back the White House in 2020, they have to understand why they lost in 2016, and that understanding has to be based on facts and figures, however inconvenient or awkward. The Sanders/Warren/Moore wing of the party is right to focus on fair trade and income equality; the calls for higher wages and better regulation are morally and economically correct. What they are not, however, is some sort of silver bullet to solve the issue of racism. As the University of Californias Michael Tesler, author of Post-Racial or Most-Racial? Race and Politics in the Obama Era, has pointed out, the evidence suggests that racial resentment is driving economic anxiety, not the other way around.

Always remember: You have to identify the disease before you can begin work on a cure. In the case of support for Donald Trump, the results are in: It isnt the economy. Its the racism, stupid.

Top photo: Donald Trump greets supporters after a rally on Aug. 21, 2015 in Mobile, Ala.

Read more:
Top Democrats Are Wrong: Trump Supporters Were More Motivated by Racism Than Economic Issues - The Intercept

Montana Democrats Vote Against Bill Banning Sharia Law, Call …

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Senate Bill 97, introduced byKeith Regier (R-Kalispell) bans the application of foreign law in Montanas courts, with the debate particularly focused on Sharia Law, a form of Islamic law typically used in the Middle East.

Although the bill passed on party lines by 56-44,Democrats claimed it was designed to target Muslim communities.

I think it sends a dangerous message to minority groups both here living in our state and wanting to come visit our state, just merely on the fact that you may be different, said Rep. Shane Morigeau, D-Missoula, while debating the bill. I truly believe this law is repugnant. I believe this is not who we are as Montanans.

Meanwhile,Rep. Ellie Hill Smith (D-Missoula) proposed a failed amendment to the bill to include a ban on both Sharia Law and the Law of Moses, in order to show the state of Montana that it is not just about Islamic Law.

The courts have said that laws that single out certain religions violate the First Amendment, Smith said, claiming that it was peppered with anti-Muslim bigotry.

Another Democrat,Rep. Laurie Bishop (D-Livingston) urged legislators not to forget the roots of this bill, adding that our children are watching.

Meanwhile, Rep. Brad Tschida (R-Missoula) said the bill was an attempt to push back against a constitution [that] is constantly under assault.

Bills specifically targeting Sharia Law have passed in statessuch as North Carolina, Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Tennessee. The bill will now be passed on to Gov. Steve Bullock (D) for signature or veto.

You can follow Ben Kew on Facebook, on Twitter at @ben_kew,oremail him at bkew@breitbart.com

Visit link:
Montana Democrats Vote Against Bill Banning Sharia Law, Call ...

US|Fist or Glove: California Democrats Debate Response to Trump – New York Times


New York Times
US|Fist or Glove: California Democrats Debate Response to Trump
New York Times
Many Democrats in the state say they want to go to the barricades, but others are urging a more measured diplomacy.

and more »

Here is the original post:
US|Fist or Glove: California Democrats Debate Response to Trump - New York Times

Why Democrats aren’t worried about the ‘nuclear option’ – CNN

They just don't care.

"The filibuster is such a silly, non-intuitive tactic that most people don't even believe it exists," Markos Moulitsas, founder of the liberal blog DailyKos.com, told CNN in an email.

Inside the Senate, some red-state Democrats and longtime institutionalists have fretted that mounting an all-out battle to stop Gorsuch will hurt the party's chances of winning future fights and further degrade the more deliberative chamber of Congress. The 'nuclear option' would lower the bar from 60 senators needed to break a filibuster to 51, and Republicans currently control the chamber with a 52-48 margin.

But off Capitol Hill, Democrats -- from Washington insiders to progressive activists across the country -- are sick of hearing about those precautions.

Fueled by the base's anti-Trump energy, Democrats across the spectrum don't want to hand Trump any easy victories. They are insisting on showing Republicans that blocking Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination in President Barack Obama's final year won't go without retaliation.

And they see the filibuster -- which McConnell could erase at any point -- as a gun with no ammunition.

"The filibuster is effectively gone. If you don't filibuster Gorsuch, McConnell will just get rid of it next time," said Adam Jentleson, a former Harry Reid aide who's now a senior strategic adviser for the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Many Democrats were frustrated by senators' initial openness to supporting Gorsuch, but the nominee bungled the opportunity to win many of them over with what Democratic senators viewed as dismissive answers to questions during his confirmation hearing and to written follow-ups, Jentleson said.

Contrary to some institutionalists' hopes, McConnell would be even more likely to invoke the nuclear option to get the next Supreme Court nominee confirmed, he argued.

"Next time, the balance of the court would be at stake, so the motivation to go nuclear is even stronger. It goes both ways," he said. "It's false to say Democrats don't care. But I think it's just not their choice."

"Reid put up with years and years of incredible amounts of obstruction, and pressure from his base, before he finally went nuclear," Jentleson said. "McConnell, by sort of signaling he's going to do it beforehand -- literally the very first opportunity to go nuclear, he's pulling the trigger."

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Delaware, was the 41st Democrat to pledge to oppose Gorsuch, guaranteeing a filibuster. He told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he is open to negotiating with Republicans to find an agreement on avoiding the nuclear option -- so long as the GOP doesn't invoke it on the next confirmation battle.

"I said, 'I will vote against closure unless the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate can somehow find an agreement that is trustworthy and reliable, where on the next Supreme Court nominee they won't change the rules and we will have input, and a more confirmable, consensus nominee will be put in front of the Senate,'" Coons said. "I'm not saying that I'm insisting that we force the Republican majority to break the rules. That's a choice they're going to have to make."

Like Coons, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, publicly agonized over his decision. But on Monday, he said he would filibuster Gorsuch, saying he "cannot vote solely to protect an institution."

Campaigning Friday in New Jersey, Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez and deputy chair Keith Ellison, a Minnesota congressman, both called for a filibuster of Gorsuch, knowing it would likely lead McConnell to invoke the nuclear option.

"If you do not have enough support, we should not change the rules for you," Ellison told Democrats in Asbury Park. "We should change the nominee."

Perez made the point again in a statement Monday, after it became clear Democrats would filibuster Gorsuch.

"It's plain and simple: Gorsuch has not earned the votes in the Senate to join the Supreme Court," he said. "Republicans can't fix Gorsuch by changing the rules. They need to change the nominee."

Other Democrats directly called for the filibuster's elimination, taking the long view that it could help the party if and when it regains Senate control.

Moulitsas mocked the hand-wringing about the loss of the 60-vote threshold, saying "it's mostly been a tool used by conservatives" and noting that the Heritage Foundation and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas had talked about keeping an eight-seat Supreme Court through the entire tenure of a President Hillary Clinton before the election.

"Majority rule means accountability to the voters," he said. "It also means that elections really do matter, since the losers can't hide behind parliamentary maneuvers. So if McConnell really has the votes to kill it, good riddance."

See the original post:
Why Democrats aren't worried about the 'nuclear option' - CNN