Mediaboss Marketing

The TAKE with Rick Klein

On this they see eye to eye: President Joe Biden says he's not Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Sanders says he's not Biden.

That may be as far as agreements take the Democratic Party for now -- even though the Biden and Sanders wings of the party have been working in lockstep in recent months. Different Democrats see different threats from different foes, both inside and outside their party, with implications for policy or the lack thereof.

In Arizona, the fallout from Sen. Kyrsten Sinema's vote to keep Senate rules intact now includes a formal censure from the state Democratic executive committee. Her fellow Democrats over the weekend approved that move while citing what they call "her failure to do whatever it takes to ensure the health of our democracy."

Sen. Bernie Sanders responds to questions from reporters before a meeting with Democrats at the Capitol in Washington, Jan. 18, 2022.

Sanders says he is fed up as well, telling CNN on Sunday that Sinema and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., "have sabotaged the president's effort to address the needs of working families." Sanders also said that Democrats have "failed politically" over the past six months, and his solution in part is to bring up repeated votes to put his colleagues on the record "and let Manchin and Sinema decide which side they are on."

Biden also has said he wants to break down his Build Back Better bill into "chunks," but his inclination is more toward cutting compromises that all Democratic senators, starting with Manchin, will back. Then there is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is discouraging attacks on fellow Democrats though she is also skeptical of the approach of breaking Build Back Better into component parts.

Toward the end of his news conference last week, Biden said it's clear to him that the public doesn't want a "president-senator": "They want me to be the president and let senators be senators," he said.

Letting the Senate be the Senate hasn't worked of late, though. It has Democrats looking at themselves when it comes to confronting challenges in the second year of Biden's presidency.

The RUNDOWN with Averi Harper

In defense of restrictive voting legislation in Republican-led states, GOP lawmakers often cite even stricter voting procedures in some Democratic states, but the argument is flawed.

On ABC's "This Week," Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, reiterated the talking point when discussing sweeping voting legislation in her home state with co-anchor Martha Raddatz.

"I will also say that even with those changes in [Iowa's] law, our voting election systems are much more liberal than President Joe Biden's home state of Delaware, as well as Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's home state of New York," said Ernst.

Sen. Joni Ernst speaks during a press conference following the weekly Senate Republican policy luncheon in the Russell Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill, Jan. 19, 2022 in Washington, DC.

To properly evaluate if a state is making changes that restrict access to the ballot box, one must look at the history of access in that specific state.

For example, since the passage of the state's sweeping elections law last year, Iowa now only has 20 days of early voting -- down from 29 days. Before the passage of a 2017 voter ID law, the state offered 40 days of early voting. The number of early voting days in other states is a red herring.

The crux of the argument in favor of restrictive voting legislation has been that it makes voting "more secure," though many Republicans have struggled to articulate how exactly these measures do that.

"Well, it is the same level of security," said Ernst when asked by Raddatz how these changes make voting more secure. Ernst later suggested changing the number of early voting days in her home state was part of an effort to keep polling locations staffed.

The TIP with Alisa Wiersema

Rep. Henry Cuellar is continuing with his reelection campaign for Texas' 28th Congressional District against the backdrop of a federal grand jury probe.

As reported by ABC's Mike Levine, federal officials have begun issuing subpoenas, seeking records related to the congressman, his wife and at least one of his campaign staffers. An attorney representing Cuellar, Joshua Berman, told ABC News that "the congressman and his family are fully cooperating" with the investigation. On Wednesday, FBI agents raided Cuellar's home and campaign office.

Rep. Henry Cuellar speaks during a press conference at the southern border at the Humanitarian Respite Center, July 19, 2019, in McAllen, Texas.

Those developments, paired with a competitive primary season, appear to be giving progressives hope of seeing an upset in the south Texas contest. Cuellar's top competitor, Jessica Cisneros, came within four points of winning the Democratic primary in 2020 and is heading into 2022 with the backing of heavyweight progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Cuellar's political success is largely centered on being one of the few lawmakers publicly willing to work across the aisle. But with the nation's first primary election just weeks away, progressives could look at the race as a bellwether for potential primary upsets elsewhere.

THE PLAYLIST

ABC News' "Start Here" Podcast. Monday's Start Here begins with the economy. ABC's Deirdre Bolton breaks down how COVID-19 is affecting the IRS and disrupting the stock market. Then, ABC's Patrick Reevell details the escalating tensions in Ukraine. And, ABC's Sabina Ghebremedhin describes how an investigation into a young Black woman's death has inspired social media outcry. http://apple.co/2HPocUL

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TODAY

Download the ABC News app and select "The Note" as an item of interest to receive the day's sharpest political analysis.

The Note is a daily ABC News feature that highlights the day's top stories in politics. Please check back Tuesday for the latest.

Read the original:
Democrats turn on each other as Biden agenda stalls: The Note - ABC News

Like many scholars of democracy, I have strongly supported both the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act. Both are necessary (though not sufficient) to secure the most precious rights in any democracy the right to vote and the right to have ones vote counted fairly and accurately.

Most supporters of these bills believed the urgent need for them justified lifting the Senate filibuster and passing them on a purely partisan vote. But with the refusal of Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema (or any Republican senators) to vote to suspend the filibuster, its clear that these bills will not pass this Congress.

The only remaining option is to pare back the reform cause to a much narrower agenda that can command bipartisan support. Democrats must recognize that politics is the art of the possible, and democratic responsibility demands that we not sacrifice what is valuable and possible on the altar of the unattainable. That means supporting the bipartisan efforts to reform the Electoral Count Act.

This work is now taking shape in bipartisan negotiations among moderate senators convened by Susan Collins, Republican of Maine. The new bill would fix some of the most dangerous vulnerabilities in the 1887 Electoral Count Act some of which we saw in the 2020 election that could enable a future Congress (or a rogue vice president) to reverse the vote of the Electoral College in certain states or to plunge the process of counting electoral votes into such chaos that there would be no way of determining a legitimate winner. Such a deadlock could precipitate a far larger and more violent assault on the democratic order than what we saw on Jan. 6. Reducing the risk of such a calamity is a democratic imperative.

Senator Collinss group is reportedly considering making it much more difficult for Congress to question properly certified state election results, clearly specifying that the vice presidents role in counting the electoral votes is limited, protecting election officials from harassment and intimidation while they carry out their lawful functions and granting states new funding to improve their voting systems.

As the N.Y.U. election law expert Richard Pildes has written, federal election laws from the 19th century (the Presidential Election Day Act and the Electoral Count Act) contain provisions that could offer troubling opportunities for disruption and abuse during a postelection struggle over the presidential vote. The potential for a state legislature to declare a failed election and appoint its own slate of electors must be closed through a reformed law. The danger that postelection litigation could carry on beyond the meeting of the Electoral College can also be addressed by extending the safe harbor date for reporting a states electoral votes from early December until later that month and then postponing the formal Electoral College vote from December until early January (shortly before the Congress convenes to count the electoral votes on Jan. 6).

Mr. Pildes and three other leading electoral law experts from diverse ideological backgrounds recently proposed a reform of the Electoral Count Act that would prevent Congress from questioning a states electoral votes once the state certified them through policies established in advance of the election. If state authorities could not agree on who won their electoral votes, the reformed law should establish a mechanism like a nonpartisan tribunal to resolve the dispute. (In addition, before the safe harbor deadline, there would still be the option of challenging in the courts any state legislative effort to circumvent rules and steal an election.) Angus King, an independent senator from Maine, has also been leading efforts to reform the Electoral Count Act; one focus is to establish a procedure for judicial review of state results if a state failed to follow the procedures it previously prescribed for choosing its electors. This reform would at least remove one pathway to reversing a states legitimate presidential election result.

So far, the Republican leaders of the Senate and House, Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy, have expressed openness to Electoral Count Act reform. Beyond such a bill, Republican senators such as Mitt Romney have also signaled an openness to considering some reforms on voting rights.

We cant know what might be possible through bipartisan negotiations, but we do know that the Democrats two voting rights bills have not gotten passed this year.

We must embrace the reform we can achieve and continue the fight for the important reform work of the future.

Larry Diamond is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a senior fellow in global democracy at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford. He is the author, most recently, of Ill Winds: Saving Democracy From Russian Rage, Chinese Ambition, and American Complacency.

Continue reading here:
Opinion | Democrats, Want to Defend Democracy? Embrace What Is Possible. - The New York Times

Not that it matters in the slightest, but when Donald Trump refused to commit to accepting the legitimacy of the 2020 election results, he had his reasons.

It wasnt the facts that mattered; it was the ontology of Trumpism the all-consuming persecution complex that characterizes his movement that mattered most.

You know that Ive been complaining very strongly about the ballots, the then-president rambled during a White House news conference, and the ballots are a disaster. Trump advised states to get rid of the ballots, which enterprising reporters translated into a slightly more coherent argument against the absentee and mail-in balloting regimes approved at the state level in response to Covid. Some of the issues Trump raised, like the accusation that the state of New York had mailed out ballots riddled with errors, were valid. Others, like the idea that West Virginians were selling ballots and that whole cases of military votes were thrown in the trash, were not.

All told, however, it wasnt the facts that mattered; it was the ontology of Trumpism the all-consuming persecution complex that characterizes his movement that mattered most. Trumps most stalwart supporters believed that American institutions were set against the president and, by proxy, themselves. To look too deeply into the substance of Trumps allegations was to miss the point.

The former presidents critics correctly surmised that his rhetoric was dangerous. It created a psychological permission structure that would allow his voters to dismiss any evidence that invalidated their fears about a stolen election. Trump was playing with fire. It wouldnt be long before that fire conflagrated into an unprecedented attack on the seat of American government, but that was no ones intention in September 2020. At the time, it was all just talk.

To their credit, Democrats have integrated their hostility toward the rhetorical delegitimization of elections into their political identity. At least, they oppose it when Republicans are doing the delegitimizing. And yet, Democrats dont seem to be above embracing unfounded attacks on the electoral process when it advances their interests. Thats exactly what President Joe Biden did during a news conference on Wednesday, and he seems to be dragging his party with him.

Speaking of voting rights legislation, one reporter asked the president, if this isnt passed, do you still believe the upcoming election will be fairly conducted and its results will be legitimate?

To their credit, Democrats have integrated their hostility toward the rhetorical delegitimization of elections into their political identity.

Biden responded by noting that it all depends on whether his administration can make the case to the American people that the voting rights bill should become law. Bidens contention that this years midterms would only be conditionally valid prompted reporters to follow up on this claim, whereupon Biden made everything worse.

You said that it depends, another reporter remarked. Do you think that they would in any way be illegitimate?

Biden doubled down. Im not going to say its going to be legit, he declared. The increase and the prospect of being illegitimate is in direct proportion to us not being able to get these reforms passed. There was no ambiguity in the presidents remarks. Until and unless Congress passes Bidens preferred electoral reforms into law, the legitimacy of this years elections will be in doubt. And since Bidens preferred electoral reforms are unlikely to become law, the Democratic Partys most faithful will have all the license they need to reject the legitimacy of an electoral outcome that does not favor their partys candidates.

Biden managed to conscript much of his party into a rhetorical assault on the legitimacy of an election that all indications suggest favors the GOP. Are you concerned that without these voting rights bills the election results wont be legitimate? CNNs Kasie Hunt asked House Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., on Thursday. Im absolutely concerned about that, he replied.

Vice President Kamala Harris agreed. When confronted with the similarities between Bidens rhetoric and Trumps, Harris dismissed the claim offhand. We as America cannot afford to allow this blatant erosion of our democracy and, in particular, the right of all Americans who are eligible to vote to have access to the ballot unfettered, she said.

We can expect that talking down the legitimacy of American elections will have a predictable partisan effect. In 2020, Gallup, which has gauged Americans confidence in elections on five occasions since 2004, found that 74 percent of Democrats believed that U.S. elections were valid compared with an abysmal 44 percent of Republicans. This is surely attributable to Republicans receptivity toward Trumps rhetoric and Democrats hostility toward it. Historically, however, it's Democratic voters who have expressed more skepticism in the legitimacy of the American electoral process. That makes sense because, historically, it's Democratic politicians who have called the legitimacy of Americas elections into question.

As late as 2018, a staggering two-thirds of Democrats told YouGov pollsters that Trumps legitimacy was questionable because Russia tampered with vote tallies on Election Day to help the president in 2016.

George W. Bush was selected, not elected in 2000, according to Hillary Clinton. Former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe argued that the Republican-led state of Florida and the Supreme Court tampered with the results to deliver Bush into the White House. He did the same thing again four years later. We actually won the last presidential election, folks, he told a cheering crowd. They stole the last presidential election.

As late as 2018, a staggering two-thirds of Democrats told YouGov pollsters that Trumps legitimacy was questionable because Russia tampered with vote tallies on Election Day to help the president in 2016 a theory for which there is precisely no evidence, but which was bolstered by the likes of Bidens staff secretary, Neera Tanden. Americans, she argued, have intuitive sense Russians did enough damage to affect more than 70k votes in 3 states. No doubt, had Trump won re-election, a healthy number of Democrats would confess to their belief that his victory was a result of the full flowering of a conspiracy to weaponize the U.S. Postal Service an allegation that was lent credence by Senate Democrats who actually held hearings on the issue.

If White House press secretary Jen Psaki's comments are any indication, theres real tension between the political message Democrats are retailing in regard to the legitimacy of American elections and what they know to be the truth. When asked if the president had confidence in Americas elections even if his preferences didnt become law, she said plainly: yes. But Psakis unequivocal rejection of this conspiracy theory was nowhere to be found in her appearance the following day on ABC's The View. Asked why voters should have faith in the legitimacy of the next election in the absence of Democrats preferred reforms, Psaki clarified that Biden wasnt predicting that the elections were not destined to be illegitimate, but that Republicans are actively seeking to undermine their legitimacy, which the presidents reforms would prevent. This statement is many things, but what it isnt is an unqualified expression of confidence in the American electoral process.

Either calling into question the credibility of American elections mortgages the stability of our democratic institutions, or it doesnt. Either stoking paranoia and apprehension is wrong and dangerous, or it isnt. The motives of those who apply these base tactics is immaterial. By flirting with the paranoid revisionism that overtook the GOP in the wake of the 2020 vote, Biden abandoned the moral high ground on the issue and ushered in a dangerous new phase in our collective fight against the paranoid nihilism that has become so fashionable in our politics. If neither party is willing to defend the electoral process unless it delivers outcomes they like, that process isnt long for this world.

Read more from the original source:
Trump's Republicans aren't the only ones questioning election legitimacy - MSNBC

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