Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Republican lawmakers ‘go negative’ more often than Democrats, according to a first-of-its-kind analysis – Washington Post

Republican U.S. lawmakers are significantly more likely than their Democratic colleagues to "go negative"and attack their political opponents in official statements, according to a first-of-its kind Pew Research Center analysis of congressional press releases and Facebook posts. But whether that negativity is a reflection of a Democratic president during the 16-monthanalysis period beginning in January 2015,or of a more fundamental difference between Republican and Democratic messaging strategies remains unclear.

What's more, voters on either side of the aisle seem to like it when their lawmakers attack the other side. The Pew analysis found that onFacebook, "posts that contained 'indignant disagreement' defined here as a statement of opposition that conveys annoyance, resentment or anger averaged 206 more likes,66 more shares and 54 more comments than those that contained no disagreement at all."

Pew arrived at these numbers by collecting "all official press releases and Facebook posts identifiable via internet and archival sources, issued by members of the 114th Congress between Jan. 1, 2015, and April 30, 2016, prior to either partys 2016 presidential nominating convention." The dataset amounted to more than 94,000 press releases and more than 108,000 Facebook posts.

A team of human "content coders" manually analyzed a subset of 7,000 of the statements to assess whether they expressed disagreement with or opposition to either Democrats or Republicans, or to President Obama. Crucially, the coders only measured disagreement aimed at human political actors -- the parties or individual members thereof. Abstract policy statements were not included in the analysis.

"Thus, criticism of the Affordable Care Act (ACA or 'Obamacare') is not classified as disagreement unless it explicitly blames President Obama or his administration for some negative outcome or associates the policy directly with political opponents," the authors write.

This allows the report to capture "disagreements that are explicitly partisan,"rather than policy-based, said Solomon Messing, Director of Data Labs at the Pew Research Center and a lead author on the report: "There's this kind of partisan dimension that may be independent from policy that we wanted to shed some light on here."

Whilecriticizing the political discourse as "too negative" has become a common practice among voters and politicians alike, the Pew study found that politicians who go on the attack on social media are rewarded with more likes, comments and shares than politicians who stick with bipartisan messages.

Among lawmakers of both parties, for instance, the typical Facebook post with a bipartisan message was liked 166 times, shared 30 times, and commented on 28 times. By contrast, the typical post expressing indignant disagreement with the other side received 468 likes, 111 shares and 78 comments.

Messing cautions that people who follow politicians on Facebook are not a nationally representative sample of voters, so these numbers don't necessarily generalize out to the entire public. Still, the gap between what voters say they want in opinion polls and what people appear to reward on social media is striking.

The report also found that Republicans were much more likely to express partisan disagreement in Facebook posts (22 percent) and press releases (28 percent) than their Democratic colleagues (6 percent and 10 percent, respectively).

What's more, Republican lawmakers were much more likely to be indignant in their disagreement, employing harsh rhetoric to criticize their opponents. Republicans expressed indignant disagreement in 13 percent of Facebook posts and 15 percent of their press releases, compared to only 3 percent and 4 percent, respectively, for Democrats.

But much of this difference may have been a factor of who was in the White House at the time of the study: Barack Obama, who as a Democratic president provided a single point of focus for Republican criticism. While Democrats criticized Republican lawmakers, "for the most part the focus of Republican ire was President Obama," the report found.

"In this asymmetrical relationship with congressional Republicans facing off against a Democratic president Republican legislators came off as more likely to be negative in their press releases and social media posts," according to the report.

It's possible that in the current environment -- with an unpopular Republican occupying the White House -- Democratic lawmakers may be inspired to go on the offensive more often than their Republican colleagues. It may also be the case that Republicans prioritize negative messaging more than Democrats, and that in the absence of a Democratic president, GOP lawmakers will simply shift their ire toward their colleagues across the aisle.

We won't know for sure until Pew conducts the analysis again for the current Congress. "We're interested in continuing to collect and expand the data," Pew's Messing said.

Messing also cautions that, just like with survey research, there's a certain amount of error involved with collecting and quantifying lawmakers' public statements. There may be shades of meaning and nuance that are overlooked by human or machine coders, for instance. "There's a degree of error with everything presented in the report," Messing said. The report concludes an in-depth methodology section that quantifies that error where possible.

See the original post here:
Republican lawmakers 'go negative' more often than Democrats, according to a first-of-its-kind analysis - Washington Post

REVEALED: Democrats Behind Mexico City Demonstration Against Tillerson – Daily Caller

5496831

An official arm of the Democratic party is behinda planned demonstration against Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Thursday outside the U.S. EmbassyinMexico City.

The Mexico chapter of Democrats Abroad the official Democratic Party arm for the millions of Americans living outside the United States, according to the groups website is organizing the demonstration against Tillerson, who arrived in the Mexican capitalon Wednesday.

Advertising for the demonstration on The Action Network, a website for left-wingactivists, says that Democrats Abroad Mexico and other progressive organizations like the Womens March and Bridges to Understanding have created a petition that demands Tillerson meet with U.S. citizens who hold opposing views while he visits Mexico City to talk with Mexican government officials.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson arrives in Mexico City, Mexico February 22, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Jasso

If we are not given a meeting with Secretary Tillerson we will deliver a letter to the U. S. Embassy at 2 pm on Thursday, February 23, and will hold a quiet and respectful demonstration on the public space in front of the embassy. Mark your calendar and be ready to to attend on a moments notice, protesters are instructed.

The petition, posted on liberalwebsite MoveOn.org, has just over1,400 signatures.

A man named Doug Hall is the listed creator of both the event and the MoveOn.org petition. Hall has been identified in Mexican news sources as an employee of Democrats Abroad Mexico. He did not return an email seeking comment.

Indivisible, the anti-Trump groupthat has helped organize protests of Republican town halls across the country, promoted Thursdays demonstration on its website. NBC News reported earlier this month that Indivisible has teamed up with former Obama group Organizing for Action in organizing anti-Trump efforts. (RELATED: In Their Own Words: Anti-Trump Resistance Leaders Say They Want To Make America Ungovernable)

Follow Hasson on Twitter

Excerpt from:
REVEALED: Democrats Behind Mexico City Demonstration Against Tillerson - Daily Caller

Democrats face fierce urgency of 2018 – The Hill

Near a nadir of political power, Democrats across the country say their comeback must begin with key races next year and warn that failure to make big gains in state races in 2018 will doom them to another decade in the minority in Washington.

More than three-dozen states will choose governors in the next two years, while voters pick state legislative candidates in thousands of districts across the country.

In the vast majority of cases, those legislators and governors will draw new political boundaries following the 2020 census that will determine just how competitive the battle for the U.S. House of Representatives will be in the following decade.

The 2018 races are central not only to the individual states, but also to the federal policies in the House of Representatives, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, vice chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, said in an interview. The key that unlocks the governors doors also unlocks the House of Representatives. And weve got to get the national team to understand that.

Republicans control about 4,170 state legislative seats across the country, almost 1,000 more than they held in 2009 when Barack ObamaBarack ObamaHow Democrats can rebuild a winning, multiracial coalition Howard Dean endorses Buttigieg in DNC race Americans should get used to pop culture blending with politics MORE was sworn in. Today, 33 governors are Republican; when Obama took office, just 21 governors were Republican.

Their backs are against the wall, said Matt Walter, who heads the Republican State Leadership Committee, a group that supports GOP candidates in state-level races. In 2018, theyre in full panic mode about it, so were anticipating as a result of that, that theyre going to be throwing everything but the kitchen sink to try to restore the ground that theyve lost.

Those state-level losses took a heavy toll on Democrats at the federal level: After the 2010 midterm elections, when anger over the Affordable Care Act and the tepid economic recovery cost Democrats more than 700 state legislative seats, Republicans drew favorable district lines in such states as Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida and Ohio in the decennial redistricting process.

Now, Democratic governors and groups that support state legislative candidates are sounding the alarm, warning party donors and operatives that their opportunities to win back seats at the redistricting table are growing short.

This is the future of our party, said Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), who has spoken with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) about down-ballot Democratic efforts. I said to Nancy, You cant win the Congress back, I dont care how much money you have, if you dont have lines that are competitive.

The importance of down-ballot races is not lost on Pelosi.

Former Attorney General Eric HolderEric H. HolderEllison holds edge in DNC race Democrats face fierce urgency of 2018 Arianna Huffington meets with Uber CEO in wake of harassment claims MORE has organized the National Democratic Redistricting Committee with the backing of former President Obama and headed by Pelosi lieutenant Kelly Ward, who helmed the House Democratic campaign arm in 2016.

The Democratic Governors Association has commissioned former Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) to raise awareness among top donors and to study election results from recent years to identify future opportunities.

We all woke up over the past few years to the realization that Republicans beat us at the state and local level, and that that had far-reaching consequences for our numbers in the House, Israel said. We whistled past the graveyard in 2008, when Republicans just decided they would focus their money and their field operations on knocking off Democratic governors and legislators and seizing control of redistricting for a decade.

After big wins in 2010 and 2014, Republicans will be on defense in 2017 and 2018. The party will defend open governors seats in 15 states where the incumbent is term limited or retiring, including plum prizes in New Jersey, Florida, Michigan and Ohio. Republican incumbents are seeking re-election in 12 states including Illinois, Texas and Wisconsin, all states where Republican-led redistricting locked in safe GOP majorities.

Democrats are defending open seats in just four states: Virginia in 2017, then California, Colorado and Minnesota in 2018. The party has incumbents running for re-election in six states, including Pennsylvania, where Republicans hold 13 of 18 House seats.

McAuliffe, the only governor in America limited to one term by state law, said the race to replace him will be an early test of the Democratic strategy. Seventeen state legislative districts held by Republicans chose Democratic presidential nominee Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonFederal judge denies watchdog's request to disclose State Dept. records on Clintons emails How Democrats can rebuild a winning, multiracial coalition Howard Dean endorses Buttigieg in DNC race MORE over President Trump in 2016.

Virginias the first opportunity to send a message about what you think of the Trump administration, McAuliffe said. Polls show a tight race between the two Democrats vying for the nomination and Ed Gillespie, the former RNC chairman who leads the race for the GOP nod.

History augers well for Democrats: Traditionally, the party that owns the White House suffers in state legislative and gubernatorial races.

Statistically, well certainly acknowledge that those are the prevailing trend lines, Walter said. However, there are exceptions to that.

McAuliffe is himself an exception: He was the first member of the presidents party to win Virginias governorship since Mills Godwin, a Republican, won in 1973, while Richard Nixon was president.

While races for federal office have become increasingly polarized in recent years, gubernatorial contests are less so. In 2016, five of the 12 gubernatorial races were won by candidates who represented the party that lost the states Electoral College votes. Vermont and New Hampshire elected Republican governors at the same time Clinton won their electoral votes; West Virginia, North Carolina and Montana picked Democratic governors at the same time they voted for Trump.

Israel said he is examining what Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D), West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice (D) and North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) got right, alongside what unsuccessful Democrats got wrong.

We need to study their playbook and apply those lessons to House, Senate and state legislative races across the country, he said.

The rest is here:
Democrats face fierce urgency of 2018 - The Hill

Democrats’ Best Bet for House Control Is Following the Sun – New York Times


New York Times
Democrats' Best Bet for House Control Is Following the Sun
New York Times
There is no guarantee that the Democrats can put the House in play, even if Mr. Trump's approval ratings remain as low as they are now or slip further. The Republicans have so many safe seats that they could even survive a so-called wave election like ...
What are Democrats' chances for a House majority in 2018?American Enterprise Institute
How Democrats can rebuild a winning, multiracial coalitionThe Hill (blog)
Senate Democrats could hit Trump with government shutdownLA Daily News
AlterNet -Daily Kos -Fairfield Daily Republic
all 45 news articles »

See more here:
Democrats' Best Bet for House Control Is Following the Sun - New York Times

Democrats persist with the slippery claim of a ’60-vote standard’ for Supreme Court nominees – Washington Post

One of things I talked with him [Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch] about is the standard which every other Supreme Court nominee has had to meet, and that is earning 60 bipartisan votes in the United States Senate. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), interview with UpFront with Mike Gousha, Feb. 18, 2017

A reader pointed out this statement by Baldwin, noting that it appeared to be a repeat of the misleading Democratic talking point in the battle over President Trumps nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Time for a refresher course!

As we have noted before, there is no Senate standard that a nominee must have 60 votes for confirmation. But, under current Senate rules, it takes 60 votes (three-fifths of the Senate) to end debate on most legislation. Until Democrats changed the rules in 2013, it also took 60 votes to end debate on executive branch and most judicial nominations.

The Democratic rule change did not include Supreme Court nominations. But that would be a rare maneuver.

(A filibuster generally refers to extended debate that delays a vote on a pending matter, while cloture is a device to end debate. Filibusters are used by opponents of a nominee or legislation, while cloture is filed by supporters to end debate.)

The last Supreme Court nominee who faced a cloture vote was Samuel A. Alito Jr. in 2006. He won it handily, 72 to 25. After the cloture vote, senators voted on whether to confirm Alito. The vote was 58 to 42. (He earned the support of four Democrats, but was opposed by one Republican and one Republican-turned-Independent.)

Although the effort to filibuster Alito failed miserably, it served as a vehicle for potential White House contenders (such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden) to demonstrate their liberal credentials. Obama, as president, later regrettedsupporting the filibuster of Alito, what his spokesman called a symbolic vote.

There have been three other cloture votes concerning the Supreme Court, two involving William H. Rehnquist, the late chief justice. In 1971, a motion to invoke cloture for his initial appointment to the court failed by a vote of 52 to 42, but he was nevertheless confirmed later that day, 68 to 26. When Rehnquistwas nominated to become chief justice in 1986, he was confirmed 65 to 33 after cloture was also invoked by a vote of 68 to 31.

The only other cloture vote concerned Lyndon B. Johnsons 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas, at the time an associate justice, to be chief justice. The Fortas nomination eventually ran aground on ethics issues and his close relationship with Johnson, alreadya lame duck, and he eventually withdrew after his nomination failed a cloture vote. At the time, Senate rules required approval of two-thirds of the Senate to end debate and Fortas could achieve only a vote of 45 to 43.

Here are the final votes for the current members of the court. We have noted in bold the two sitting justices who did not receive 60 votes for confirmation.

Elena Kagan: 63 to 37 (2010) Sonia Sotomayor: 68 to 31 (2009) Samuel A. Alito Jr.: 58 to 42 (2006) John G. Roberts Jr.: 78 to 22 (2005) Stephen G. Breyer: 87 to 9 (1994) Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 96 to 3 (1993) Clarence Thomas: 52 to 48 (1991) Anthony M. Kennedy: 97 to 0 (1988)

John Kraus, communications director for Baldwin, said: While it wasnt explicit, she was referring to Supreme Court justices appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, the last six of which earned 60 votes, including the most recent Obama nominees, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.

Democrats such as Baldwin appear to be arguing that because Alito received more than 60 votes on the vote to end debate, he met the 60-vote standard, even though he did not receive 60 votes for confirmation. But Baldwin, in her interview, referred to earning 60 bipartisan votes in the United States Senate, which certainly sounds different from a mere cloture vote.

Democrats continue to be slippery with their language. Sixty votes is not a standard for Supreme Court confirmations, as two of the current justices on the court did not meet that supposed standard to get on the court.

Baldwin earns Two Pinocchios.

(About our rating scale)

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Keep tabs on Trumps promises with our Trump Promise Tracker

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

How would you rate this claim? (The check mark means you think the statement is true, not that you agree with the rating.)

We need to verify that you are an actual person.

This is a non-scientific user poll. Results are not statistically valid and cannot be assumed to reflect the views of Washington Post users as a group or the general population.

Share the Facts

2

5

There "is the standard which every other Supreme Court nominee has had to meet, and that is earning 60 bipartisan votes in the United States Senate.

Tammy Baldwin

Senator (D-Wisc.)

in an interview on "Upfront with Mike Gousha"

Saturday, February 18, 2017

02/18/2017

View post:
Democrats persist with the slippery claim of a '60-vote standard' for Supreme Court nominees - Washington Post