Mediaboss Marketing

Democrats may place a greater value on a functioning government than Republicans doand thats commendablebut its putting the Democrats at a disadvantage, and is perversely undermining Congress itself.

By Seth Masket

The minority party in Congress usually doesnt have a whole lot of great options. They can either try to work with the majority and bend signature pieces of legislation a bit more to their liking, or they can stand united against the majority so that voters remember their opposition in case the majoritys plans go awry. Either way, though, theyre usually going to lose. But minority Democrats right now have a chance to do something that would actually help Congress in the long run. What they can do is act unreasonable.

Allow me to explain. As I noted in this earlier piece, Congressparticularly the Senateis an institution governed strongly by longstanding norms. Any effort to represent the views of 50 different states, or 435 congressional districts, and still manage to reach conclusions is necessarily going to be complex, and it will seem chaotic and cacophonous even when its running well. But each chamber of Congress has developed norms over the decades that allow members to speak their piece and serve their constituents while still making decisions and keeping the government functioning. Generally, adherence to such norms can be frustrating in the short run but allows for a more functional chamber in the long run that works better for everyone.

Congressional Republicans have been far more willing than their Democratic colleagues to engage in violations of some of these institutional norms in recent decades. Such norm violations include a presidential impeachment, several government shutdowns over budget disputes, and refusals to raise government borrowing limits, threatening the credit of the United States and actually lowering its credit rating. More recently, the Republican Senate majority refused to consider President Barack Obamas nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court, even though there was nearly a year left in Obamas presidency.

The Democrats, while occasionally playing hardball, have generally responded by operating within longstanding institutional norms. Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to consider impeachment proceedings for President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney. Democrats havent initiated any budget shutdowns or threatened credit defaults. They have, in most cases, sought to protect their institutions and their norms by acting like the adults in the room and refusing to engage in reckless behavior.

This behavior is, in the long run, not only bad for Democrats, but for the institution.

OK, time for some game theory. No, seriously. If youve ever taken any sort of economics or political science class involving game theory, youll probably be familiar with a very simple classroom exercise involving the prisoners dilemma, which is a useful metaphor for most political exchanges. In a prisoners dilemma, two players are competing against each other, and each has just two optionscooperate or defect. If they both cooperate, they both get a nice reward (say, $1 each). However, if Player 1 defects while Player 2 cooperates, Player 1 gets an even bigger reward while Player 2 pays a penalty. (The reverse happens if Player 1 cooperates while Player 2 defects.) If both players defect, neither gets a reward nor pays a penalty. Thus, each player wants the other to cooperate, and both prefer jointly cooperating to both defecting. But since each cant trust the other to cooperate, the usual outcome is for both to defect, leading to no payoff for either player. (The ferryboat scene in Dark Knight remains my favorite example of the prisoners dilemma, but there are plenty of others out there.)

Playing this game many times, though, can lead the players to develop norms of trust. Neither is happy with the low payoff, so reaching some sort of agreement about cooperation can be beneficial to both.

This hasnt been the pattern in Congress. On a range of issues and tactics, Republicans have defected while Democrats have cooperated. This leads to a greater payoff for Republicans, whether were talking about election results or policy preferences. It means that the Congress slowly but steadily becomes less representative of the nation it represents. And, more generally, it means that the institution becomes worse. When institutional norms are repeatedly violated without penalty, it means those norms are functionally impotent; further norm violations become even more likely.

We might perhaps expect voters to exert some discipline over congressional Republicans here. After all, government shutdowns and impeachments generally dont poll well. People dont like to see dysfunction. Yet voters have shown little interest in actually punishing Republicans for this behavior. The government shutdown of 2013, for which voters largely blamed Republicans, was followed a year later by further Republican gains in Congress and state legislatures.

Why have Democrats continued to play this strategy? Clearly, they have a different set of incentives than Republicans here. Perhaps they place a greater value on a functional government than Republicans do. That may be commendable, but it has put the Democrats at a disadvantage, and it is perversely undermining the institution itself. If congressional Republicans are going to pay any price for these transgressions, and if the institution is going to have some chance of becoming more functional, it is congressional Democrats who need to take charge here. But how?

A classic article outlines an alternative version of the prisoners dilemma that spans many iterations. In this game, it may make sense for one player to act irrationally in the short run, forgoing some payoffs, giving that player a reputation of unpredictability or even craziness. This can improve that players negotiating position further down the road. Arguably, Republicans have been pursuing this path for some time now. It could make sense for Democrats to adopt a similar strategy, at least to the point that Republicans believe that Democrats are as willing to damage the institution as they are.

One application of this strategy would be maximal opposition to President Donald Trumps appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. This could take the form of a filibuster, which Republicans do not have the votes to end. Republicans have signaled that they are perfectly fine with the Court shrinking to eight members if they dont get a ninth who satisfies their preferences; Democrats can signal the same thing. They can say, We already have a nominee for this position in Garland. Confirm him and we will be open to considering Gorsuch for the next open seat.

A potential risk of such an action would be that Senate Republicans eliminate the filibuster on Supreme Court Justices. Two thoughts on that. First, if Senate Republicans are prepared to eliminate the filibuster as soon as an important vote comes up, then the filibuster is already functionally dead anyway. Let it go. Second, theres good reason to believe that Republicans arent about to kill the filibuster. Control of the Senate has bounced around a good deal, and Republicans only hold a four-seat majority. Its not unreasonable for Republicans to think theyll be in the minority again soon, and it would be a useful tool to hold onto.

Now, what would happen in the long run? Basically, if presidents are unable to place people on the Supreme Court unless their party controls a supermajority in the Senate, the Court is going to shrink pretty quickly and substantially. Eventually, members of both parties will find the situation unacceptable and work toward an amicable solution. More generally, if Democrats push this strategy on a range of policies and nominations and signal a willingness to put government functionality at stake, it could force Republicans to reassess their position and possibly restore some longstanding norms.

Now, there are certainly risks to this strategy. For one thing, an increasingly dysfunctional Congress could just end up ceding more authority to the presidency. Obama made an aggressive unilateral move on immigration reform in 2014 in large part because Congress couldnt or wouldnt do anything on the subject. Another risk is that, with both parties behaving recklessly toward Congress, some serious long-term damage to the institution could result. But these risks may be worth taking to get a functional Congress and a responsible party system again.

Thanks to John Patty and Sean Gailmard for helpful ideas and feedback.

Read this article:
The Case for Democratic Recklessness - Pacific Standard

State Senate Democratic leader Jay Costa said Monday that while his caucus has been frozen out of its computer network, "Our phones are operating, our offices are open, our members are conducting business as usual."

A Friday-morning "ransomware" cyberattack from an unknown source has left state Senate Democrats unable to access emails, internal working documents and other files.

Ransomware attacks frequently encrypt the contents of a server, making it inaccessible to its owner absent some form of payment, often in online currency.

Mr. Costa, who said he was following the guidance of investigators, would not disclose the terms being set for return of the material. But he added that "Right now we have no intention of dealing with the demand."

Mr. Costa said Democrats are continuing to work with Microsoft and law-enforcement on a forensic audit of the system, which he hoped would be available later Monday. That, he said, should give Democrats a sense of how broad the attack is, and how the Senate Democrats' servers were infiltrated.

This is different than a hack," Mr. Costa said. "As we know right now, theres been no compromise of the data. ... Theyre simply blocking access to us to be able to access our own data."

Mr. Costa said the FBI and the state Attorney General's office were involved in assessing the source and extent of the attack.

At a minimum, the material at issue includes Senator's emails, and working documents like analyses of the state budget currently under discussion in Harrisburg. Also frozen are information in the Democrats' constituent tracking service, which handles feedback from their districts.

Most of that material is backed up nightly, Mr. Costa said, meaning that even if the entire computer network has to be wiped clean, Democrats should eventually have access to material from as recently as Thursday evening. But he noted that would depend on whether the backed-up files had themselves been affected by the attack.

"I believe that wed be able to draw everything back down, provided that it wasnt compromised," Mr. Costa said. "We dont know that yet.

Asked why Democrats had been subject to attack, Mr. Costa said he had reached no conclusions, though he did refer to recent reports "that progressive agencies have been subject to attacks like this." Bloomberg News has reported that hackers, apparently from Russia, have been threatening to divulge information obtained from the networks of left-of-center groups like the Center for American Progress.

Although none of the other caucuses have been affected by a ransomware attack, Mr. Costa said that Senate Democrats "have everything that we should have, based on what Microsoft has told us .. in terms of defensive mechanisms.

He said the inaccessibility of fiscal documents would not affect the course of budget negotiations, but he added, At this point, were trying to ascertain the scope of what we dont have access to."

He said he hoped Microsoft could provide a "side-by-side" email system by Wednesday or Thursday to allow emails to come through. In the meantime, though, "Each of our members are communicating with folks in our district to let the know that a phone call will be preferable."

Chris Potter: cpotter@post-gazette.com

See the rest here:
Cyberattack still affecting computer network of Pa. Senate Democrats - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on Monday is naming 19 membersto the Frontline Program for its most vulnerable incumbents in 2018.

The initial Frontline roster, obtained first by Roll Call,is about half freshman members. Eight members won in districts President Donald Trump carried last fall. And all of them, save for one, are National Republican Congressional Committeeinitial targets.

Seven of the members on this years list were also on the DCCCs initial 2016 Frontline list. Out of the 12 Frontline members on the 2016 list who sought re-election last fall only Nebraska Rep. Brad Ashford lost.

Each of these Democrats knows how to win tough races proven by their success in a difficult national environment in 2016, DCCC Chairman Ben Ray Lujn said in a statement.

The Frontline Program will help these members again build strong campaigns, maximize resources and take advantage of the energy from the grassroots, so that they can continue to fight on behalf of the hardworking people in their districts, Lujn added.

Democrats need to gain 24 seats to win control of the House next year, which makes protecting their incumbents a high priority during a midterm year when turnout is typically less favorable for the party.

The NRCC named 10 members to its incumbent protection program last month.

Here are the 19 members on the Frontline roster, which is subject to change as the cycle develops:

Republicans have identified 36 targets for 2018, a third of which are in Trump districts. But several of those members are absent fromthe initial Frontline roster.

Trump carried Minnesota Rep. Collin C. Petersons 7th District by more than 30 points, which led Peterson to have a closer-than-expected re-election against an underfunded challenger. The same was true for fellow Democratic-Farmer-Labor Rep. Tim Walz, who won re-election by less than one point. Both seats could be strong pick-up opportunities for Republicans if open. ButInside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzalescurrently rates them bothLean Democrat.

Republicans also have their sights set on Pennsylvania Rep. Matt Cartwright, whose 17th District Trump won by 10 points. Inside Elections rates his seat Democrat Favored. Trump more narrowlywon Wisconsin Rep. Ron Kind's district. His seat is also rated Democrat Favoredbut could present a stronger opening for Republicans if Kind runs for governor.

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

Excerpt from:
Democrats Identify Vulnerable Members for 2018 - Roll Call

Progressive rage over the 2016 election, an 18-candidate scramble, and President Donald Trumps underperformance in a suburban Georgia district have Democrats believing they can flip a seat that has been in GOP hands since Jimmy Carters administration.

Ordinarily, the 6th Congressional District would attract little attention outside of Georgia. The Cook Political Report rates it as a Republican +12 district, and Democrats have not closely contested it since 1990, when then-Rep. Newt Gingrich defeated Democrat David Worley by just 978 votes.

When John Lewis says someone is worth backing, thats a signal progressives everywhere have to take seriously. In Ossoffs case, wow, has that meant an insane amount of money.

Tom Price, whose selection as health and human services secretary triggeredthe special election, never faced a tough race and cruised to re-election in November with 61.7 percent of the vote. But Trump beat Democrat Hillary Clinton here by only a little more than 1 percentage point.

Winning the district would be a coup for Democrats looking for evidence of apolitical comeback after a fall that saw the party lose control of both houses of Congress, nearly 1,000 state legislative seats, and the White House.

It could be the Democratic equivalent of Republican Scott Browns January 2010 victory in a special election to replace liberal icon Ted Kennedy as a senatorfrom deep-blue Massachusetts. That win foreshadowed a GOP wave election 10 months later that brought the GOP back to power in the House of Representatives.

Newly minted Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez sees a golden opportunity.

We have got opportunities right here in Atlanta, where I sit today, Congressional 6, which is Cobb County, he told CNN last month. Were going to take the fight there.

Jon Ossoff, a 30-year-old documentary filmmaker who worked as a an aide to Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), came in first in a recent poll, fueling hopes on the Left that the seat can be turned. He has the backing of Johnson and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), as well as the Daily Kos, aleft-wing blog that reportedly helped him raise more than $1 million.

When John Lewis says someone is worth backing, thats a signal progressives everywhere have to take seriously, Daily Kos Political Director David Nir told The Daily Beast. In Ossoffs case, wow, has that meant an insane amount of money.

In a sign of how invested progressives are in the contest, the political action committee End Citizens United has pledged to activate a donor base of 40,000 Atlanta-area residents to support Ossoff.

The 6th District covers the northern part of Fulton County outside Atlanta and takes in parts of eastern Cobb County and northern DeKalb County. Voters will winnow the field to two on April 18. Those candidates will face off in June.

Campaign Leadership Fund, a pro-Republican super PAC, is sufficiently concerned about Ossoff that it announced this month it is dropping $1.1 million into the race on negative ads. One spot features video of Ossoff in college yukking it up with his friends, pretending to be Han Solo and drinking from a keg.

The ad clearly aims to undercut the young filmmaker's claim to be prepared for Congress. But just in case there is any doubt, the it ends with the tagline, "Jon Ossoff: Not honest. Not serious. Not ready."

Corry Bliss, the super PAC's executive director, said in a statement that Ossoff is deceiving voters and noted reports that the candidate lives outside the district. He also teased more embarrassing ads.

"It is sad that the hope of the Democratic Party rests on a 30-year-old frat boy who has spent his adult life living outside of Georgia's 6th District playing dress-up with his drinking buddies," Bliss said in the statement.

GOP Front-Runner Touts Record Former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel, the Republican front-runner, shows little interest in bashingOssoff or her Republican competitors. Instead, she focused during an interview with LifeZette on her own record and vision to fix the nation's big problems. She touted her successful efforts to close a $100 million budget shortfall as chairwoman of the Fulton County Commission in 2004, and endorsements from 31 elected officials.

Georgia 6th District Scramble

Source: Clout Research

As secretary of state, she said, she implemented a photo identification law while working to make sure every eligible voter had proper ID. Handel said she intends to focus on repealing the Affordable Care Act, reforming the tax code and securing America's borders.

"I'm just gonna to focus on my race and what I can offer to the people of the 6th District," Handelsaid. "As I look at this, Republicans, we've had eight years to talk about all the things that we want to do. Now is out opportunity and our obligation to deliver I am the one candidate in this race who has a solid track record of delivering on her commitments time and time again."

In addition to leading all Republicans in the Clout Research survey, she also is the only candidate in the field who has won statewide office.

Republican Bob Gray, who finished third in the poll, said he believes Democratic dreams of capturing the district are unrealistic. A business executive, Gray compared himself to David Perdue, a businessman who won the 2014 GOP U.S. Senate primary against Handel and others and went on to win the general election.

"I am the one candidate in this race who has a solid track record of delivering on her commitments time and time again."

"People are just tired of the insiders and the politicians," he said. "People do want experience, but it's a different kind of experience."

Other Republican contenders include former state Sens. Dan Moody and Judson Hill, and Bruce LeVell, who headed Trump's national diversity coalition.

For his part, Ossoff seems eager to turn the race into a referendum on Trump.

"I think people are embarrassed by him," he told The Washington Post. "People are concerned he's dishonest and not competent."

Republicans and independent observers remain skeptical, however.

"We're not worried at all," said Maddie Anderson, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Campaign Committee. "The underperformance by Trump is the only reason Democrats think they can win here. Basically, they're using the same failed playbook from the last election, which is making it about the top of the ticket."

Anderson attributed the narrow gap between Trump and Clinton in the district to the fact that the GOP nominee appealed to different kinds of voters. But she added that the district has not changed overnight.

Upset Would Be 'Stunning' M.V. Hood III, director of the University of Georgia's Survey Research Center, agreed. He said there are signs of Democrats making inroads in the suburbs. Clinton, for instance, became the first Democratic presidential candidate since 1980 to win Cobb County and the first since 1976 to carry Gwinnett County which is not in the district but is in the Atlanta suburbs.

But Hood said the 6th District remains Republican-leaning. He added that novice candidates like Ossoff rarely win congressional races.

Hood acknowledged that anger at Trump has the Left more energized that normal.

"That's completely different from saying this district is energized," he said. "I'm not willing to go that far."

Charles Bullock, a political science professor at the University of Georgia, said an upset would be "stunning." He said it is risky for Democrats to make the election about Trump when the final voting is still three months away.

"Who knows what Donald Trump will have done by then," he said. "He could be walking on water by then, or he could be sunk."

Julianne Thompson, a Republican strategist and co-chairwoman of the Atlanta Tea Party, said it will not work to make the election about Trump.

"That's going to backfire," she said. "It certainly backfired for them in 2016."

Thompson said she believes two Republicans will make it into the runoff. She said the top Republican campaigns are building sophisticated door-knocking efforts and other efforts that will be crucial in a low-turnout special election, but she warned against overconfidence.

"I don't see the same sort of grassroots ground game from the Democrats," she said. "I do not think any of the Republican candidates in the race need to take it for granted that they're going to win, because the Democrats are going to work hard."

Excerpt from:
Democrats Seek 'Scott Brown Moment' in Red Georgia District - LifeZette

File photo of voting booths in Florida on November 8, 2016. GREGG NEWTON / AFP - Getty Images

If there is one priority that Democrats need to own is to expand access to the voting booth for Latinos and other voters. Automatic voter registration should be a priority for all Democratic lawmakers.

So it's a shame that in New Mexico two Democrats didn't vote for a bill that would have gotten closer to automatic voter registration. Instead, they voted for a second bill that is less "automatic," thus diluting the purpose making voting easier for Latinos and other voter groups.

The lawmakers, State Reps. Daymon Ely and Debbie Rodella

In short, an "opt-in" provision means that a person filling out an online form for a driver's license would also be presented with a box that asks them if they also want to register to vote. The box, however, would not be automatically ticked, meaning the person would need to affirmatively tick the box to register.

An "opt-out" provision is much more effective; it would present the applicant with a box that is already ticked and the registrant would need to affirmatively untick the box if they did not desire to register to vote. The difference is subtle but critically important.

Rep. Ely said in a

More troubling is Rep. Rodella, who

Here's why Rep. Rodella is wrong.

According to a recent study by Wendy Weiser, automatic registration helps millions of Americans who change residences, without it many fall off the voter rolls.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, one in four eligible citizens is not registered to vote, one in eight voter registrations in the United States is invalid or significantly inaccurate, and one in four voters wrongly believes their voter registration is automatically updated when they change their address with the Postal Service. This is shameful.

When the amended bill was presented again, it was presented with the opt-in provision and without the opt-out provision. In other words, it's not really automatic voter registration. The two Democratic lawmakers voted for this bill instead.

Expanding access to the democratic process is an imperative that Democrats at least pretend to want, but the Republican Party has been busy pushing for legislation to stymie this right across the country. From news laws that punish the

The democratic process requires more than just citizen participation, but a government that accepts its share of the responsibility over voter participation. The academic research on this is clear; political participation is not only about citizens going to politics, but about politics going to its citizens.

Automatic voter registration is the law in other democratic countries, such as Australia, Peru, Germany, and others. The research has also shown that automatic voter registration helps boost voter

This is even more important for Latinos. A

Much of the confrontation in democratic governments has been over access to the political process. Historically, voter registration laws have been a hurdle to participation for minorities and politically disaffected groups. Whether it is voter id laws, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, or disenfranchising citizens with a criminal background, registration laws have been precision tool to discriminate against the powerless behind a disingenuous veil of concern over securing our democracy.

The discussion over how the Democrats recover from their stunning loss to Donald Trump has generally focused on what Democrats can do to counter the Republican Party, whether by appealing to working-class white voters or by doubling down with progressive values that may hinder their outreach to rural towns that catapulted the President to an electoral college victory.

But also of immediate concern for Democrats is holding their own representatives accountable for violating the values and interests of their own party at the local level. And pushing for easier access to the voting booth and vigorously supporting automatic voter registration is a must for the party not only because Democrats need Latino voters, but because it is the right thing to do.

If Democrats expect to have a chance at winning back Congress it must start with local officials getting the message that they have to fight for the democratic process. The answer is supporting and better yet, introducing bills to make voting easier, including automatic voter registration. This is their job.

Originally posted here:
Opinion: Democrats Can't Drop the Ball on Automatic Voter Registration - NBCNews.com