Democrats Respond To Obamacare Architect Calling Voters Dumb On The Record
Democrats Respond To Obamacare Architect Calling Voters Dumb - On The Record =========================================== **Please Click Below to SUBSCRIBE for More "NSTP" ...
By: NSTP - Wake The Hell Up America!
More:
Democrats Respond To Obamacare Architect Calling Voters Dumb On The Record - Video
After every battle,you have winners, you have losers, and you have the losers who try very hard to find asilver lining.
In the 2014 election, Republicans claimed victory, Democrats lost the Senate majority andthe Democrats in charge of trying to 300 a midtermcycle where they didn't have much to work withare trying to find a bit of treasure in all the debris.
As House Democratic campaign chairman Steve Israel (N.Y.)told the Hill, it turns out that all the House races that have been called since Election Day have been Democratic victories. Thatdoessound like a silver lining ... if you ignore the context of those wins. All of the races featured Democratic incumbents, and many of themwere expected to have easy paths to re-election.
Last Friday, Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.) declared victory in Maryland's 6th district. Cook Political Report said it was a race Democrats were expected to easily win. Delaney was ahead by less than 2,000 votes when his opponent conceded. In New York's 25th district, meanwhile, Rep. Louise Slaughter(D-N.Y.)barely won. The race was also expected to be an easy win. In California's 24th district, Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) had a narrow victory in a race ... well, you get the idea.
If anything, these hard-to-call wins reinforce the storyline that Democrats are trying to re-imagine. Because of the inclement environment Democrats faced this year, victories that should have been announced immediately en masse needed tobe doled out one-by-one after a careful vote count.
Other House victories, made long after the narrative of a Republican mass-smushing had solidified, were in races that had been considered toss-ups all along. However, when you look at these wins along with the rest of the toss-ups, the Democrats' post-election success rate of 100 percent looks less stunning.
Out of the 22 House races rated toss-ups by Cook Political Report, Democrats have won seven of them. Two races -- Arizona's 2nd district and California's 7th -- remain unresolved and very close. One that Democrats were expected to win easily -- Rep. Jim Costa's (D-Calif.) seat -- is still too close to call. He is in the lead, but only by about 100 votes.
Republicans also won three seats that Democrats were expected to win narrowly. So that kind of undercuts the Democrats' toss-up winning percentage.
As for the GOP, it hasn't lost a non-toss-up. Two House races in Louisiana that Republicans were expected to easily win are headed to a runoff. One of the races might sound vaguely familiar -- former governor Edwin Edwards (D) is running -- but Republicans are expected to win both. The GOPcandidates in both races also have big fundraising advantages.
All of this said, it is true that this late accumulation of wins by House Democrats makes theirtrack record looka lotbetter than it did on election night. Despite the close margins in some races that looked like sure-wins, Democrats mostly won where they were supposed to in House races, and the party could keep its losses in the low-teens. With all those toss-up races -- and the tendency for toss-ups to all fall in one direction -- Democrats were facing losses potentially bigger than they had already bracedthemselves for. When that didn't happen, they were entitled to at least stop holding their breathin fear, even if they weren't allowed a victory dance.
Read the rest here:
The Fix: Democrats search for an elusive silver lining in the House
We keep hearing from pundits, and Republicans and Democrats alike that last weeks electoral outcome shows that the American people just want the parties to work together and make government function again.
But this isnt quite right. Yes, a lot of Americans want more generic compromise. Democrats and independents want compromise. But Republican voters in particular dont want compromise.
A new Allstate/National Journal/Heartland Monitor poll finds that surprisingly few Americans who identify with either party think unified government under their own party would make their lives better. Instead, a majority of Americans thinks they would benefit more from Democrats and Republicans compromising more to solve problems in Washington.
But look at the breakdown, provided by Ron Brownstein:
The belief that more cooperation could produce greater benefits united groups that often diverge on political questions, including 53 percent of whites, 58 percent of non-whites, 66 percent of Democrats, and 53 percent of independents. The big exception: just 42 percent of Republican partisans said they thought they would benefit much from more compromise a reflection both of the resistance to Obama and the demands for ideological purity among many GOP activists.
This also popped up in a recent Pew poll. It found sizable majorities of Americans think Republicans should try to work with President Obama and that Obama should work with them. But here again, theres a stark partisan difference. 52 percent of Democrats and Dem-leaning independents think Obama should find common ground with Republicans, even if it disappoints them. But only 32 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaners say the same on their side, while 66 percent of Republicans say their leaders should stand up to Obama even if less gets done.
Theres an ideological imbalance here, too. Pew found that by 57-39, Republicans say their leaders should move in a more conservative, rather than a more moderate, direction. But Democrats say by 52-41 that their leaders should move in a more moderate, rather than more liberal, direction.
Its true that bipartisan compromise as a goal unto itself is often over-hyped as something the public supposedly wants. Still, this imbalance could have ramifications for the next two years as Congressional Democrats try to figure out the proper opposition posture to strike in the minority. As Brian Beutler explains, Democrats face
structural difficulties that make it harder for Democrats than Republicans to be a united, rejectionist opposition party. Their coalition includes many moderates; isnt overwhelmed by ideological liberals; is in hock to big business; and, unlike Republicans, is invested in the idea that government should function well.
All the above polling suggests the same. And as Beutler notes, this could make it more likely that Democrats, particularly in the Senate, fracture when faced with Republican proposals. On things like the Keystone pipeline, tax reform that lowers rates but doesnt produce any new revenue, or the inevitable GOP effort to roll back Obamas coming executive action shielding millions from deportation, you could see some Democrats peeling off and voting with Republicans. All of which means the presidential veto may become more and more important in guarding liberal priorities.
Originally posted here:
Sargent: Morning Plum: Democrats want compromise. Republicans dont. Thats bad for Democrats.
Thirty-one Democrats broke ranks with the rest of their caucus on Friday to vote in favor of approving the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would shunt a type of oil from Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf Coast.
What's particularly interesting about the votes is how they were distributed. One might expect members of Congress from regions near the construction route (Montana to Nebraska, essentially) to offer their support -- but as you might expect, there aren't a lot of Democrats in that stretch. Instead, it's mostly a mix of Southern Democrats and Democrats in contested districts. (The latter of which shouldn't come as a surprise, given that it's primarily a topic of conversation to try and save embattled Louisiana Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu.)
There are a few safe Democrats in blue states in the mix, like Rep. Albio Sires (D-N.J.). (Sires has supported the pipeline since the beginning.)
A full list of the representatives is at the bottom of this post, along with their districts' Partisan Voting Index scores.
It's not all politics. One of the rationales for approval offered by Landrieu from the floor of the Senate earlier this week was that shipping oil by rail was more environmentally friendly than shipping it by truck or train, given the frequency with which the latter methods can cause spills from accidents or derailments. Earlier this year, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney -- one of the New York Democrats who backed Keystone XL -- introduced a bill focused on railway oil shipments after a series of derailments near his district.
On Thursday, the Energy Information Administration noted that rail shipments of oil were up 13 percent in October of this year versus last. That's largely due to the expansion of drilling in the Montana/North Dakota region. Keystone XL would transport oil from that region, too.
Why, then, do so many Democrats oppose the pipeline? Simply put, because of climate change. The project may be critical to making possible extraction of oil from Alberta's oil sands deposits. That means more oil burned, creating more greenhouse gases. (Tar sands oil is also more carbon-intensive while being produced.)
It's an interesting political calculus, but one that largely doesn't affect the future of the pipeline. As it always has, the final decision will rest with the president. How he balances the considerations at play remains to be determined.
Philip Bump writes about politics for The Fix. He previously wrote for The Wire, the news blog of The Atlantic magazine. He has contributed to The Daily Beast, The Atlantic, The Daily, and the Huffington Post. Philip is based in New York City.
More:
The Fix: The 31 House Democrats that voted for the Keystone XL pipeline, mapped
Democrats promote absentee ballots, early voting and removing barriers and obstacles from the polls -- except in House leadership races apparently.
House Democrats rejected their pregnant colleagues plea to submit proxy votes in the House Democratic Caucuss leadership and committee elections next week. Rep. Tammy Duckworth, a disabled war veteran who is due to have her first child in December, is missing the elections in person next week because her physician advised her not to travel.
While proxy voting is explicitly against caucus rules, Duckworth, who had both of her legs amputated when the helicopter she was flying was shot down in Iraq, wrote a letter from Illinois to request a waiver due to her extraordinary circumstances. Democrats are scheduled to vote on their leadership team via secret ballot next Tuesday and are also expected to decide senior committee assignments next week.
The drama played out at a closed-door meeting Thursday, when Duckworths request was debated before the caucus.
Democrats like Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the co-chair of the Democrat Steering and Policy Committee, cautioned colleagues against setting new precedent for the secret ballot elections.
But Rep. Jan Schakowsky, vice-chair of the steering and policy committee and one of Duckworths colleagues from Illinois, made a motion to permit a concession to Duckworth, whose letter was read to the caucus.
"I write to request your assistance regarding upcoming votes four our Caucus," her letter stated, according to the National Journal, which first broke the story. "As you are aware, I am in the final weeks of my pregnancy, and have been instructed by my physician not to travel. As a result, I will not be attending the upcoming Caucus meetings in person."
"I would like to request a proxy vote on the upcoming leadership and ranking member elections that will come before the Caucus in the coming weeks, she continued.
According to a Democratic aide in the room during the debate, a pivotal moment came when Rep. Gwen Moore spoke out to ask whether she could proxy vote as well because she plans to attend a funeral in Wisconsin next Tuesday.
Moores request soured the mood of the room against Duckworths motion, the aide said, with Members realizing the slippery slope argument that others had made. Schakowsky then pulled her motion for Duckworth.
See the rest here:
House Democrats Deny Pregnant Proxy Vote in Leadership Elections