NKU - College Democrats 2014 Election
The Northerner gets some perspective on the issues surrounding the 2014 election from the College Democrats.
By: thenorthernermedia
Read the original:
NKU - College Democrats & 2014 Election - Video
Democratic Party Places the Blame on House Democrats Chair for Elections Law Walkout
IndonesiaHighlights.
By: BeritaSatu English
Read the original here:
Democratic Party Places the Blame on House Democrats Chair for Elections Law Walkout - Video
By Jeremy Diamond, CNN
updated 10:05 AM EDT, Tue September 30, 2014
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Washington (CNN) -- Five weeks before the November midterm elections, voters give Democrats an edge over Republicans, according to a CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday.
But the poll also indicates most of Democrats' gains are coming from the Northeast and not from the parts of the country where they're locked in tight contests that could give Republicans control of the Senate.
In a generic ballot among likely voters, Democrats edged out Republicans 47-45%, a 6-point swing from a CNN poll three weeks ago when likely voters favored the Republicans by a 4-point margin. The Democrats' advantage is within the poll's 3.5% margin of error.
The "generic ballot" question which asks Americans to choose between an unnamed Democrat and an unnamed Republican in their vote for U.S. House, suggests a shift toward the Democrats nationally, if not in key races in key states.
The poll comes a week after the U.S. launched airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, and while poll respondents overwhelmingly think the economy is the more important issue, they gave Congress low marks for how it handled the ISIS threat and have more faith in President Barack Obama than GOP leaders to set the military policy to deal with the militant Islamist group.
"That may explain why the Democrats have gained strength on the national "generic ballot" question," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said.
Democrats gained the most ground among men and independent voters, two key groups that could help Democrats in competitive races this November. Men took a 7-point swing toward Democrats from the previous poll, bringing the party within 6 points of Republicans' 49% support.
View post:
CNN Poll: Big swing for Democrats but not where they need it
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 (UPI) -- Support for Democrats in the mid-term elections has jumped 6 points recently, with most of the gain in the party's Northeast stronghold, a new poll finds.
The CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday asked likely voters to choose between generic candidates. Democrats had a slight edge, with 47 percent to 45 percent for Republicans.
Three weeks ago, the results were tilted the other way, with Republicans having an advantage of 4 percentage points. The Democrats gained ground with men and independents, with support among both groups up 7 points.
The findings could make little difference in November since the increase in support comes in a region where the Democrats are already strong and not in states like Louisiana and South Carolina, where Democratic senators are in close races.
About two-thirds of respondents said the economy is the biggest factor in their decision on who to vote for. But CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said President Barack Obama's decision to launch airstrikes against Islamic State in Syria may have helped his party with male voters with Democrats trailing among the group by only 6 points.
"That may be a sign that some men wanted to see aggressive action taken against ISIS and are rewarding the President's party -- or simply that the President's actions have convinced men that they don't need to send more Republicans to Washington in order to get action that they are looking for," Holland said.
ORC International interviewed 1,055 adults by telephone between Sept. 25 and Sept. 28. The margin of error is 3 points for the entire sample and 3.5 points for the 701 likely voters in the group.
2014 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Any reproduction, republication, redistribution and/or modification of any UPI content is expressly prohibited without UPI's prior written consent.
See the original post:
New poll finds swing to the Democrats in party's northeast stronghold
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in an Elle magazineinterview, announced she would not retire because, [Obama] could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see on the court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, theyre misguided.
Several commentators responded to Ginsburgs comment with skepticism. Harry Enten atFive Thirty Eightsaid, Consider me misguided. Chances are the Senate would approve a justice like Ginsburg.Vox.comsEzra Kleininsinuatesthat Ginsburg underestimates Democrats ability to alter Senate rules. These are all interesting pieces you should read if you have not already. But they are missing some critical points in the hypothetical scenario of replacing a Supreme Court justice.
Todays Senate politics are the result of a long, downward procedural spiral. Filibuster scholar Steven Smith calls it theSenate Syndrome. In recent years, minority parties have increasingly used procedural privileges to obstruct business. Majorities (from both parties) summarily responded with hardball tactics that increasingly exclude the minority party.
This is a relatively recent development. The Senates increasingly partisan process can be traced back to the very late 1980s/early 1990s, but really it has only recently begun to fully blossom in the last 15 years. The last decade of Senate politics is arguably the least cooperative, most partisan in its history. That is not to say past policy disagreements were not stark in previous generations. But todays obstruction and procedural hardball is unmatched.
This has several implications for Ginsburg or future Supreme Court nominees. First, the next Supreme Court confirmation fight will not be like the others. While confirmations have been made in this partisan environment (Justices Sotomayer, Kagan, Alito, and to a lesser extent Roberts), more recent nominees have faced morepartisan opposition. Comparing a Ginsburg replacement debate to any confirmation debate in the last 30 years doesnt really work. Very heavy-handed partisan tactics have become commonplace. Maneuvers such as routinely filling the amendment tree to prevent minority-sponsored amendments, using 60-vote thresholds to pass amendments (or better put, block unwanted amendments), and the ubiquity of the filibuster are just a few hallmarks of this very partisan Senate. Understanding the confirmations of past judges is helpful. But in all likelihood the next confirmation debate will be an entirely different animal.
The nuclear option, invoked last November, has complicated future confirmations. Majorities have yet to test the waters on a Supreme Court nomination since last years filibuster reform. It is entirely unclear how the minority will react. Senate Republicans retaliated after cloture was changed but only modestly. Republicans delayed votes, extended debate, and have generally refused to cooperate when Reid has tried to expedite executive and judicial confirmations. These delays have not been devastating; however, they are certainly an indication of how the minority has reacted to the nuclear option. They have slowed the process to the extent that they can. If they remain in the minority (which is not likely), they will not likely back down.
Such a response could have major consequences though. As Klein points out, violently reacting against a well-qualified candidate could spur further filibuster reforms and shut the minority out of all confirmations. He further argues this is a fundamental miscalculation on Ginsburgs part.
Despite the fact a precedent now exists to change the filibuster rules by a majority vote, this drastically oversimplifies the situation. Reforming a rule on the magnitude of cloture is no easy feat. Even if it requires only a majority vote, political support must be garnered and fought for. For example, the nuclear option was not a reform that simply came into being in November of 2013. In fact, some form of the rule change emerged as early as 2005. Rumors of reform again emerged in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. Many were certain filibuster reform would occur on the firstdayof the 113thCongress. However, it wasnt until a year later that the nuclear option was actually used.
Google trends graph of filibuster rules searches.
The nuclear option took years to develop. It was not a simple flip of the switch. Many Democrats such as Sens. Joe Donnelly (D) of Indiana, Dianne Feinstein (D) of California, Mark Pryor (D) of Arkansas, Jack (D) of Rhode Island, and Carl Levin (D) of Michiganwere not convinced that going nuclear was a good idea. Reform-minded members had to convince their colleagues this change was necessary. This tookyears. And finally, even when the caucus was convinced of the need for reform, changes to Supreme Court confirmations wastoo much to stomach for many Democrats. Therefore, it is unlikely Democrats could simply change the rules again. That kind of move was too extreme for the majority to stomach last year and that likely hasnt changed to a significant in the time since.
Read the original here:
Can Democrats replace Justice Ginsburg?