Mediaboss Marketing

Like the White Queen in Alice in Wonderland, Republican voters seem capable of believing as many as six impossible things before breakfast. In their looking-glass world, Donald TrumpDonald TrumpTop Hispanic lawmaker urges Biden to expedite reunification of Ukrainians in US Democrats plot strategy to defy expectations, limit midterm losses Overnight Health Care Texas abortion providers dealt critical blow MORE trounced Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election, the worlds scientists are colluding in a climate change hoax and evil epidemiologists pushed mask mandates to deprive Americans of their liberty, not to protect them from a virus thats killed more than six million people.

Democrats are wondering how they could possibly be losing to a defiantly delusional GOP in party preference matchups. One answer is that midterm elections are always tough on the party in power. Another is that Democrats have been falling into rabbit holes too.

Their illusions are explored in The New Politics of Evasion, a new study by two veteran political analysts, Bill Galston and Elaine Kamarck published by the Progressive Policy Institute. Its a timely and incisive exercise in political reality therapy for President BidenJoe BidenTop Hispanic lawmaker urges Biden to expedite reunification of Ukrainians in US Democrats plot strategy to defy expectations, limit midterm losses On The Money US suspending normal trade with Russia MORE and his party, whose public approval has cratered over the past year.

By ignoring defecting swing voters, the authors warn, Democrats could not only take a beating in November but also reopen the door to Trumps return, putting our democracy at risk.

Galston and Kamarck, who served in previous Democratic administrations, dissect three persistent myths that blind their party to todays electoral realities. The first is that people of color are a political monolith welded together by the common experience of discrimination. For decades, party strategists have been predicting that, as their share of the electorate inexorably grows, minorities will combine with white progressive activists to propel Democrats into permanent majority status.

That hasnt happened, for two reasons. First, people of color dont think alike or see themselves as fellow victims of societal oppression. Second, working-class Blacks and Hispanics generally have more moderate views than college-educated and affluent white progressives.

Democrats were shocked in 2020 by Trumps gains among Hispanic voters, and their drift toward Republicans continues. Galston and Kamarck note that Hispanic and Black attitudes diverge across a range of issues, including police reform, critical race theory, foreign policy and governments role in assuring economic opportunity.

They suggest that the Hispanic trajectory in the United States may instead follow that of other immigrants who came here voluntarily. Democrats must consider the possibility that Hispanics will turn out to be the Italians of the 21st century, family-oriented, religious, patriotic, striving to succeed in their adopted country, and supportive of public policies that expand economic opportunity without dictating results.

The second myth is that economics trumps culture. Progressives believe that if only Democrats would champion a truly transformational plan for government action to trammel predatory capitalism and deliver public benefits to working families, voters would tune out the Republicans diversionary cultural war messages and come home to the party of FDR.

But social, cultural and religious values are intrinsically important to U.S. voters of all stripes, whatever their economic circumstances. So simply amping up economic populism isnt going to allay voters qualms about progressive rhetoric on crime, immigration, education, race and gender.

In fact, it works the other way: Democrats will need to embrace cultural moderation if they want to get a hearing on their economic agenda. Even so, working-class voters seem more interested in better jobs and prospects for upward mobility than hand-outs from Washington. Aspiration, not redistribution, seems to matter most to swing voters.

Third is the myth of a progressive ascendancy in the Democratic Party. In fact, the party is about evenly split between self-described liberals and moderates and conservatives. Among U.S. voters generally, Galston and Kamarck note that only 7 percent describe themselves as very liberal and only 9 percent associate themselves with the democratic socialist policies of Sen. Bernie SandersBernie Sanders Sanders calls for end to MLB antitrust exemption Reality therapy for Democrats Former Bernie Sanders press secretary: proposed defense budget includes excessive amount for private contractors MORE (I-Vt.) and the House Squad.

This basic electoral math explains why the lefts base mobilization theory of victory always comes up short. Turnout broke records in 2020, but instead of producing a more progressive electorate, the influx of voters helped Republicans more than Democrats.

In a fascinating discussion of the new structure of U.S. politics, Galston and Kamarck illuminate an extraordinary partisan deadlock. In the nine elections between 1988 and 2020, no candidate has come close to a 10-point victory margin, and five of the past six have been settled by margins of less than 5 percentage points. In five of these elections, the winner failed to secure a majority of the national popular vote"

Until this impasse is broken by a political realignment, swing voters will determine election outcomes. Thats true, the authors note, even though the number of swing states has shrunk dramatically.

Rather than currying favor with progressive activists, Democrats should sharpen their appeal to the persuadable voters in the battleground states of the past two election cycles. They need to replicate Bidens success with college-educated suburbanites, and his modest but significant inroads among white working-class voters. They also need to get a better handle on what working-class Hispanic voters really expect from political leaders, and work to prevent further slippage among blue-collar Black voters.

While leftwing purists may not appreciate it, Galston and Kamarck have done their party a great service by illuminating a pragmatic path toward building durable governing majorities.

This is not their first rodeo. Way back in 1989, they wrote the original Politics of Evasion, which punctured the consoling myths Democrats fell back on to rationalize a long string of presidential defeats. That analysis helped make the case for the New Democrat renovation of the partys agenda and Bill ClintonWilliam (Bill) Jefferson ClintonReality therapy for Democrats LIVE COVERAGE: Biden delivers State of the Union A promise kept: How Biden can come away with a win this SOTU MOREs subsequent success in snapping the Democrats losing streak.

If Democrats want to avoid disaster in November and keep Trump sidelined, theyd be wise to read the sequel.

Will Marshallis president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI).

View post:
Reality therapy for Democrats | TheHill - The Hill

Mai Mala Buni and his co-travellers have been working overtime to sabotage the March 26 national convention of the party, says ex-DG

A former Director-General of the Progressive Governors Forum (PGF), Dr Salihu Lukman, has accused Governors Yahaya Bello, Hope Uzodimma and Dapo Abiodun of colluding with Mai Mala Buni in the destabilization of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

Mai Mala Buni is the embattled Chairman of the Caretaker/Extraordinary Convention Planning Committee (CECPC) of the APC.

But the Governor of Niger State announced taking over from Mai Mala Buni on the ground that the Mai Mala Buni led CECPC has no plans of conducting the March 26 national convention of the APC.

- Advertisement -

READ ALSO

Lagos sacks MC Oluomo, denies giving him appointment

Lukman in a statement issued Friday warned that the APC stands on the path of losing the next election because of the crisis already crippling its capacity to hold a national convention to elect substantive party officials.

Lukman stressed that anyone who loves Mai Mala Buni should be more worried about protecting his honour as a political leader by ensuring that he doesnt become a letdown who stands opposed to the majority decisions of party leaders and members.

He said if Mai Mala Buni shares the vision of all the founding leaders of the party, he would be willing to make every personal sacrifice to demonstrate his support for the decisions of the party.

- Advertisement -

Lukman contrasted Mai Mala Buni to ex-leaders of the APC including Chief Bisi Akande, Dr Ogbonnaya Onu, Chief Tony Momoh of blessed memory, Chief John Oyegun and Adams Oshiomhole

His words: There are known collaborators of His Excellency Mai Mala who have colluded with him to ensure that all attempts to organise the APC National Convention are blocked.

Three Governors who are known and must also be called upon to account for their roles in undermining decisions to organise the APC National Convention are His Excellency Yahaya Bello of Kogi State, His Excellency Hope Uzodinma of Imo State and His Excellency Dapo Abiodun of Ogun State.

There are other party leaders, including Sen Uzo Kalu who have actively supported His Excellency Mai Mala to undermine the decision to organise the National Convention of the party.

Lukman stressed that the National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting scheduled for March 17 should initiate processes of a disciplinary hearing in line with provisions of the APC Constitution to sanction all these leaders if found guilty.

Excerpt from:
Ex-Progressive Forum DG names Uzodimma, Bello, Abiodun as Buni collaborators in the destabilization of APC - The Niche

Once a practice rooted inreligious beliefs, socially responsible investing, or ESG investing in todays lexicon, is about to become a secular practice mandated by the government.

The Biden administrations push to require all publically-traded firms to report their greenhouse gas emissions as a component of new public disclosure requirements is a step toward making ESG investing mandatory. In this new twist, the government will decide which firms deserve access to investment capital. Mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions will lead to government regulations that will curtail new capital investments in companies that produce or consume fossil fuels.

With a United Nationsendorsement, the socially responsible investment fashion of the late 20th century transitioned into the Environmental, Social and Governance movement or ESG. Once a voluntary movement that prioritized investment in companies that adopt policies and practices that promote the progressive lefts environment, labor and human rights causes, ESG investing is about to become a regulatory tool they will use to achieve specific objectives.

Investor interest in voluntarily supporting companies that champion specific nonprofit-oriented practices created incentives for businesses to signal their ESG efforts in public disclosures. The movement spawned an industry to provide ESG ratings that purportedly assess a firms adherence with ESG-related climate change, labor and governance policies. Investment managers use these ratings to identify ESG-friendly companies. More recently, international pressures have been building to standardize and mandate ESG disclosure. Last year, the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) established theInternational Sustainability Standards Board(ISSB) to create standardsfor companies to use when making periodic disclosures on ESG-related issues.

The experience with voluntary ESG disclosures suggests that mandatory disclosures alone are unlikely to produce progress on progressives agenda. Because voluntary company ESG disclosures and ESG rating have not produced the lefts desired outcomes, further government measures will be required.

The incongruence between ESG ratings and the progressive lefts agenda is readily apparent. For example, a recent Bloombergreportanalyzing the ratings produced by MCSI Inc. found that they dont measure a companys impact on the Earth and society. In fact, they gauge the opposite: The potential impact of the world on the company and its shareholders. Similarly,ananalysisof MSCIs large bank ESG ratings found that many large banks received ESG rating upgrades in recognition of their environmental efforts despite the fact that they were among the banks most active in funding the oil and gas industries.

The dissonance between ESG ratings and ESG goals is not limited to one rating agency. According to the Dow Jones North American Sustainability Index, Philips Morris gets ahigh ESG ratingdespite the fact that it sells 700 billion cigarettes a year. The irony is that the crusade todisinvest big tobacco was one of the first organized campaigns of the nascent ESG movement. Similarly, Alphabet, Amazon and Facebook receive favorable ESG ratings while few socially responsible investors would likely consider them good corporate citizens, given their allegedmonopolisticpractices and their history oflabor disputes.

The fuzzy link between ESG disclosures and agency ESG ratings is being used to justify the standardization of ESG disclosures. But the move to standardize and mandate ESG disclosures has another purpose. It is the first step toward creating metrics regulatory agencies can use to penalize public companies involved in politically disfavored industries most immediately, those that extract, refine or use significant amounts of fossil fuels.

In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has jurisdiction over rules regarding mandatory disclosures in securities prospectuses and reoccurring public company reports. Since2010, SEC guidance regarding ESG-related disclosure is that ESG considerations should be discussed when they represent a material factor in the business description, risks, management outlook or legal proceedings facing a company. The SEC is currently revisiting this guidance and seems likely to require public companies and investment funds to report on their ESG-related accomplishments in a standardized format that includes disclosures on their greenhouse gas emissions calculated usingGHG Protocols.

The plan to mandate disclosure of public companies greenhouse gas emissions, while veiled as an initiative to improve public disclosure, serves another policy goal of the Biden administration restricting fossil fuel-intensive industries access to investment capital. The recent Financial Stability Oversight Councilreportfound that climate change poses a systemic risk to the financial sector. Such a declaration empowers financial regulators to useDodd-Frank Actpowers to identify and mitigate systemic threats to the financial system.

Under authorities granted by the Dodd-Frank Act, new regulations can be imposed to discourage investment in firms with high greenhouse gas emissions using the justification that the regulations are needed to reduce financial system systemic risk. Requiring public companies to disclose their emissions is but the first step in a broader policy agenda.

Regulations to discourage investments in high emissions firms could take many forms once public firms are required to report them using standardized methods. Regulators could impose higher bank regulatory capital requirements for investments that fund firms with high emissions. Alternatively, they could use supervisory stress tests with extreme climate-change transition shocks to force banks to categorize such firms as exceptionally large credit risks. They could impose limits on the total greenhouse gas emissions in investment portfolios and require credit rating agencies to downgrade securities linked with high emissions. As Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Institutions Graham Steele haswritten, there are countless ways the data could be used to restrict carbon-emitting firms from accessing investment capital.

Today, the option of investing in companies with ESG-friendly policies is at risk of being transformed into a requirement that companies prioritize the progressive lefts ESG goals over shareholder returns. Not only are periodic ESG disclosures likely to become mandatory, but the standardized data they will be required to provide will allow regulators to penalize public companies involved in disfavored industries including those that invest in, or make heavy use of, fossil fuels.

Paul H.Kupiecis a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he studies systemic risk and the management and regulations of banks and financial markets.

Originally posted here:
Socially responsible investing is turning into a covert war on fossil fuels | TheHill - The Hill

DEVELOPING... Story will be updated as new information can be verified. Updated 4 times

WASHINGTON President Joe Biden is signaling an election year shift to the center, embracing a strategy he hopes will protect fragile Democratic majorities in Congress. But hes risking a revolt from key voices across his partys sprawling coalition.

In his first State of the Union address Tuesday night, the Democratic president embraced Republican calls to strengthen the nations southern border and barely mentioned climate change. He glossed over concerns about voting rights and spent little time heralding his historic decision to nominate the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court. On domestic issues, he was perhaps most blunt in disavowing the push from some Black Lives Matter activists to defund the police.

The calculated messages, threaded through one of the most important speeches of Bidens young presidency, marked a clear effort to reset the political climate for Democrats. Polls suggest the party is losing support from almost every demographic at the outset of the 2022 campaign. But Bidens effort to stabilize the party could alienate the coalition of Black people, young people, progressives and independents who delivered him the presidency in 2020 and will be needed again this year.

His address intensified a debate inside the party about how best to proceed this year, with many veteran lawmakers embracing Bidens tone while younger, more progressive critics on the left warned he wasnt connecting with the Democrats most loyal voters.

There was particular frustration with Bidens declaration that the nations police need more funding, seen by some as a tone-deaf overture to white voters at the expense of millions of Black Americans still waiting for the president to deliver promised policing reforms almost two years after George Floyds murder.

Our party often, we target the white moderate, we target the white independent. And I get it, right. Those are the swing voters and we want to get them. But we continue to underestimate Black and brown people, said Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y. I liked 95% of the speech, maybe even 97%, but he missed an opportunity to bring Black voters in more and voters of color in more.

Beyond Washington, Melina Abdullah, a grassroots director for Black Lives Matter, was more frank in her criticism. Slapping down those on the left wanting to defund the police, Biden three times called for funding as Democrats and Republicans gave him a standing ovation.

Its appalling that he would say it, that he would repeat it, and he would say it with such exuberance, Abdullah said, warning of dire political consequences. They think we dont have a choice. Maybe we wont vote for Republicans, but we will stay home. And thats something that Democrats cant afford to have happen.

For now, the White House is betting that Democrats have more to gain by siding with voters in the middle who are worried about the nations rising crime rates than with those focused on police brutality. And public polling indicates that a significant portion of voters of color do support increased funding for law enforcement.

The third-ranking House Democrat, Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, defended Bidens reach for the center.

I think he knows what the country needs, and he laid out exactly what we need to do to bring this country back together, Clyburn said.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., praised Bidens explicit opposition to calls for defunding the police: I think he spoke for all of us, Hoyer said.

He was trying to dispel what is a false scenario that the Republicans have tried to create since a couple of our members out of 223 or 4 said they were for defunding the police, he added. Democrats are not for defunding the police.

But some of the most prominent progressives in Congress insisted Biden wasnt speaking for them when it comes to policing.

Im not going to change how I feel, Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., said Wednesday. Im not going to stop saying defund the police at all.

Only 34% of Americans say the things Biden has done in office are good for Americans, according to a February AP-NORC poll. Nearly as many 29% say hes been bad for Black Americans. Another 36% say hes been neither good nor bad.

Thats a decline from the first few months of his presidency, when 50% said in a poll in late April and early May that things he was doing were good for Black Americans.

As the midterm campaign begins, such tension within the Democratic Party is unlikely to subside. In a potential preview of whats to come, nine-term incumbent Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar failed to clear the 50% threshold in Tuesdays Democratic primary and will face progressive challenger Jessica Cisneros in a runoff election in May.

Despite an energized progressive wing, Democratic pollster Jeff Pollock suggested Bidens focus on the center is smart politics.

The data shows if there is softening in Bidens numbers, it is coming from the middle: centrist Republicans, centrist Democrats, independents who are in the middle, he said. And theyre also the ones who happen to swing the elections, including the midterms.

If Joe Biden is aiming things at the center, Im all for it, Pollock added.

Even under the best of conditions, history suggests that Bidens party is likely to lose its House and Senate majorities come November. If the Democratic Party cannot unify its disparate factions, the losses could be staggering.

And even as the Democratic strategists applauded Biden, younger African Americans and progressive activists said his strategy left them feeling angry and alienated.

John Paul Mejia, a spokesman for the Sunrise Movement, a national youth organization focused on climate change, criticized Biden for largely ignoring that issue and other priorities for young people including student loan debt.

Biden needs to have some respect for the people and issues that got him into power, he said.

And like other activists, Paul Mejia said he was most disturbed by Bidens call to fund the police. He called it absolutely disgusting.

I understand the messaging tactic there, he said. But I dont think Biden should be stabbing the backs of loads of organizers and activists who participated in the uprisings over the summer and got him into office.

___

Peoples reported from New York. Associated Press writer Hannah Fingerhut contributed to this report.

___

This story was first published on March 2, 2022. It was updated on March 3, 2022, to correct the name of a national youth organization focused on climate change. It is the Sunrise Movement, not the Sunrise Foundation.

More:
Biden risks progressives, Blacks with pivot to the center - Albuquerque Journal

Tuesday night began the long anticipated 2022 midterm cycle, one with huge stakes for Democrats as they hope to hold onto their fleeting majority in the House and the Senate. Results trickled in while President Biden delivered his first formal State of the Union, and many anticipated those returns would serve as a referendum on whats been a bumpy first year in office, one marked by Democrats moderate faction torpedoing the presidents agenda, while seeking open antagonism with the partys progressives.

At first glance, Texass results look like a triumph for progressives, who came away with some major victories, and didnt lose any top-priority races. The biggest breakthrough came by way of Texass 35th Congressional District, a gerrymandered deep-blue seat with pockets in Austin and San Antonio. Austin city councilman Greg Casar won the Democratic nomination outright, crushing the field with over 60 percent of the vote in a four-way contest. Endorsed by seemingly every major progressive group but the Democratic Socialists of America, Casars victory is a huge win for the left in Congress, which after just one round of primaries is already sure to add one more member to the ranks of the Squad.

More from Alexander Sammon

Notably, Casar pushed for cuts to Austins police funding and supported the decriminalization of outdoor camping, putting his victory deeply at odds with national Democrats newly fulsome embrace of police departments and expanding police budgets. Casars victory became clear at the same time Joe Biden delivered a chest-thumping rejection of defund the police movements, one that was met by a standing ovation from congressional Democrats. Also notable was Casars disavowal of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement on the campaign trail, which led to his breakup with DSA, a sign that after Nina Turners loss in Cleveland, progressives are steering clear of confrontation with the deep-pocketed Democratic Majority for Israel PAC. Casar will represent a newly drawn district that features working-class and multiracial parts of metro San Antonio and East Austin.

Progressives also triumphed in Texass 30th District south of Dallas, though in less resounding fashion. Jasmine Crockett, a state lawmaker who built something of a national reputation by leading the opposition to Texass draconian and restrictive new voting laws and was endorsed by some national progressive groups like the Working Families Party, easily won her race for the seat being vacated by the retiring Eddie Bernice Johnson, but fell just short of the 50 percent threshold needed to avoid a May 24 runoff. Crockett was endorsed by Johnson personally.

Meanwhile, in South Texass 28th District, progressive immigration attorney Jessica Cisneros is also headed for a runoff against nine-term incumbent Henry Cuellar, after neither managed to breach the 50 percent threshold needed to secure the Democratic nomination. At last count, Cuellar looked to be slightly ahead, though another progressive candidate, Tannya Benavides, won nearly 5 percent of the vote share, which would have been more than enough to put Cisneros over the top. The runoff will be the third time Cuellar and Cisneros have squared off since 2020; two years ago, Cuellar beat Cisneros by four points.

Cisneross improved result in a district that has more favorable turf for her in Bexar County looks heartening for progressive groups, some of which have already called the runoff a triumph. There are plenty of ways to see in the returns a path to victory, with Benavides out of the race.

For well over a decade, Democrats have claimed to be just one cycle away from becoming a truly competitive force in Texas.

But its hard not to also see some disappointment in the result. The recent FBI raid of Cuellars house and campaign office hangs like a pall over his candidacy. Nearly every national Democratic organization sat out the race after that raid, including the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is notorious for meddling in Democratic primaries. Its a far cry from 2020s contest, which concluded with Nancy Pelosi coming to South Texas to campaign on Cuellars behalf. Pelosis campaign operation donated to Cuellar in the early goings of the 2022 contest, but didnt contribute another cent after the FBI turned up. The only incumbent protection outfits to endorse and stand by Cuellar post-raid were Bold PAC, the Congressional Hispanic Caucuss campaign arm, and Rep. Steny Hoyer personally. Cuellar himself wasnt meaningfully on the trail in the races final weeks.

Yet Cuellars ability to push the race into a runoff is a testament to the power of the local political machine hes built, and its capacity for inertia, as well as his substantial campaign coffers, a multimillion-dollar fundraising advantage. Even the most moderate of Democrats is aware that if Cuellar does triumph as the 28th District Democratic nominee for a tenth time, the general election will be brutal. Already, Republicans believe they have an outside shot in a Rio Grande Valley district that swung wildly away from Joe Biden and toward Donald Trump in 2020. And Republicans have found messaging on Democratic corruption, real or imagined, to be an immensely successful campaign strategy. The footage of the FBI rifling through Cuellars Laredo mansion will make that all the more effective.

Cuellar should face stiff competition to become the Democratic nominee. He was the only House Democrat to vote against a bill codifying Roe v. Wade as law, which died in the Senate just this week. He was the only House Democrat to vote against the PRO Act, which would greatly expand union enrollment. That means that both organized labor and pro-choice groups in the Democratic Party could make a meaningful push for Cisneros down the line. Given the salience of the abortion fight in Texas specifically and nationwide, and with the Court primed to vanquish Roe in this session, its almost impossible to see how national Democrats can accommodate Cuellar going forward.

For well over a decade, Democrats have claimed to be just one cycle away from becoming a truly competitive force in Texas. Those pronouncements have quieted. The states rightward surge continued last night as well. Trump-backed candidates dominated statewide. Gov. Greg Abbott romped in his primary race. Beto ORourke won the basically uncontested Democratic nomination to take him on in November, but his odds look only slightly more hopeful than his presidential aspirations were.

Also yet to be seen is the role of Texass stringent new voter restriction laws. In both Harris and El Paso Counties, nearly 30 percent of mail-in ballots were flagged for disqualification, according to the Guardian USs Sam Levine. Thats a stunningly high number, and gives a sense of just how impactful those laws will ultimately be. In a tightly contested general election, that could be more than enough to swing the outcome.

Still, theres plenty of reason to see progressivism ascendant in Texas after last nights results, at least within the Democratic Party, and no moderate resurgence to match, despite the moderate wings attempt to lay Bidens failures at the feet of progressives. But those progressive successes might be found more readily in open seats than in contested primaries like years prior. As a retirement wave has set in amongst the Democratic caucuss oldest members, thats reason enough to be hopeful about a distant future. If House Democrats are forced into a minority after November, the composition of the House Democratic caucus will continue to grow more progressive and more assertive.

See original here:
Progressives Gain a Foothold in Texas - The American Prospect