Mediaboss Marketing

Its being called the Great Realignment. Allahpundit mentioned it yesterday at the end of this post. In short, the most recent NY Times polls shows that Democrats have more support among college-educated whites than they do among minorities. In a piece about this phenomenon for Axios, Josh Kraushaar writes:

Shifts in the demographics of the two parties supporters taking place before our eyes are arguably the biggest political story of our time

Democrats are statistically tied with Republicans among Hispanics on the generic congressional ballot, according to a New York Times-Siena Collegepollout this week. Dems held a47-point edge with Hispanics during the 2018 midterms

Democratic strategists say the partys biggest vulnerability is assuming that the priorities of progressive activists are the same as those of working-class voters.

So whats going on here? Over at his Substack site, Ruy Teixeira takes a look at some recent data from Echelon Insights which strongly suggests a small but noisy group of strong progressives who tend to be white and college educated are setting the tone for the Democratic Party, but that tone is turning off a lot of blue collar people including many Hispanic voters. Look at this data and see if you dont recognize the people who make up this strong progressive group:

2.Racism is built into our society, including into its policies and institutions vs. Racism comes from individuals who hold racist views, not from our society and institutions. Strong progressives are very, very sure of Americas systemic racism, endorsing the first statement by an amazing 94-6 margin. But Hispanics disagree, endorsing the second statement that racism comes from individuals by 58-36, as do working class voters by 57-33

4.Transgender athletes should be able to play on sports teams that match their current gender identity vs. Transgender athletes should only be allowed to play on sports teams that match their birth gender. Strong progressives overwhelmingly endorse allowing athletes to play on the sports team that matches their gender identity by 66-19. But Hispanic voters by 64-22 say athletes should only play on teams that match their birth gender; working class voters are almost identical at 63-22.

5.We need to reallocate funding from police departments to social services vs. We need to fully fund the budget for police departments. Strong progressives want to reallocate police funding by 87-12. In contrast, Hispanic voters want full funding of the police by 50-41 and working class voters are even stronger on full funding by 59-31.

Thats just 3 of the 6 questions Teixeira considers but the others are all similar. For instance, the last question is about upward mobility and the value of hard work. The strong progressives overwhelmingly dont believe hard work matters (88%) but a majority of blue collar workers and Hispanics (55% of each group) say it does.

Hopefully from the outlines of all this you recognize the type.These folks are still a small percentage of the electorate (about 10%) but they tend to be highly educated, white and very online. The so-called strong progressives are basically weve come to know as the woke left. They are on the far left of every one of these wedge issues and are probably on Twitter arguing about it. They are also way out of step with the country as a whole. For example, a recent poll of support for defunding the police (transferring money from police budgets to other priorities) showed it was down to 31% overall but in question 5 above the strong progressives support it at 87%.

So the impression you get from all of this is that the white, woke left has become if not the face of the Democratic Party at least its most strident voice. They have emphasized issues with which a majority of blue collar and Hispanic voters just disagree. And thats arguably what is driving the Great Realignment were seeing now.

If you look at what this means for the Democratic Party in any poll taken this year, its clearly a disaster. Democrats are poised to lose the House in a red wave and are still likely to lose the Senate, though thats a closer thing. The woke left probably hurt the party in 2020 election as well. Remember they were expected to gain seats in the House and wound up losing them instead.

Ive been struggling with whether to say it because it has become a clich on the right at this point, but based on the above the phrase get woke, go broke seems to apply. The Democratic Party has emboldened the woke left and now it looks like that has broken, or at least fractured, their long-standing coalition of minority groups. Theres no telling where that will go from here but in the near term it seems like its going to cost Democrats quite substantially.

Note: For those who dont recognize her, thats Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, in the photo above. I think she represents the white, woke movement were talking about here.

Read this article:
The Great Realignment: Woke, white progressives are defining the ...

Given how skeptical many Democrats generally are of empowering law enforcement agencies with more authority or resources, their enthusiasm for spending $80 billion to bolster the Internal Revenue Service as part of the Inflation Reduction Act is odd.

Certainly, it makes sense that progressives would be excited about mobilizing an army of revenuers to make the rich pay their fair share. Nonetheless, such exuberance should at least be tempered given the agencys institutional tendency to target disadvantaged individuals and communities rather than lawyered-up millionaires and billionaires.

Perhaps sensing that an army of 87,000 new IRS agents (more than doubling the current workforce) might not be an inherently popular way to spend money during tough economic times, Democratic leadership has assured the American people that average middle-income Americans have nothing to fear.

Audits, we are told, wont increase in regularity for anyone making less than $400,000 per year.

Such an assurance would be more believable had those very same Democrats not torpedoed an attempt to codify such language in the bill. Ultimately, theres no reason to believe the IRSs expansion wont land more average Americans in the agencys crosshairs other than a few promises made by Democratic politicians facing a potentially brutal midterm election year.

And if we cant trust the word of politicians pandering for votes, what can we trust?

Of course, even tax the rich progressives ought to have enough political cynicism to doubt one of the nations most feared law enforcement agencies will use its new resources to laser focus exclusively on auditing Americas share of billionaires. After all, the Inflation Reduction Act changes none of the institutional or systemic deficiencies of the IRS it merely gives the agency more resources to enforce the same complex web of loophole-riddled tax law currently being gamed by the wealthy.

Indeed, we are now learning that the Joint Committee on Taxation has even estimated the Inflation Reduction Act is likely to increase taxes for households earning between $50,000 and $75,000, while households earning more than $1 million might actually get a tax break. (So much for sticking it to the rich.)

And beyond the potential for new taxes, according to the editors at The Wall Street Journal, the Joint Committee on Taxation also says 78 to 90 percent of the money raised from under-reported income money raised by all those new agents conducting audits will likely come from Americans earning less than $200,000.

None of this is terribly surprising, given the fact that the IRS routinely targets the poorest Americans at a rate similar to that of the top one percent. Lower income individuals, as it turns out, have less ability to contest such audits and are therefore easier targets for a law enforcement agency whose sole mission is to raise revenue.

Moreover, the tactics used by the IRS to recover what it determines to be under-reported income are already brutal and intimidating even when they arent employed against Americans struggling to cope in difficult economic times.

When the IRS determines an individual owes a sum of money, for example, that first dreaded letter in the mail is just the beginning of a nightmarish administrative process. Without a robust and expensive cadre of high-priced attorneys, most middle-and low-income Americans can quickly find liens placed on their property, bank accounts frozen and wages garnished punitive actions that are often taken long before anyone has a chance to substantively contest the charges or defend themselves in court.

And, unfortunately, targeting lower income workers is not likely to stop being a routine part of the IRS policing practice. For example, low-income households receiving certain tax credits or occupations that depend largely on cash tips are routinely investigated by an already ruthless and unresponsive army of revenuers. Its therefore not unreasonable to believe that adding a stadium-full of personnel to the department will merely accelerate the institutionalized methods of harassment and intimidation aimed at vulnerable Americans.

Which is why the progressive lefts applause for expanding such an agency seems like an egregious example of political cognitive dissonance especially given what staunch critics most progressives are of other efforts to bolster law enforcement budgets. Such support for the IRSs budgetary windfall is akin to the kind of blind support conservatives all too often give local police departments that promise to get tough on crime.

As a result, progressives who pride themselves on being skeptical of law enforcement should be just as dubious of the IRS expansion as the most conservative anti-tax crusaders making appearances on Fox News and talk radio. The nations top one percent, after all, will continue to have access to their own army of lawyers and accountants ready to wage war against a newly energized (and funded) IRS but the most disadvantaged among us will continue to be easy prey for the slew of federal agents hired to, quite literally, separate Americans from a portion of their hard-earned money.

Those 87,000 new IRS employees arent going to be sending out larger refunds to working-class Americans or ensuring individuals receive every tax break to which they are entitled. Instead, theyll be doing what the IRS has always done: Performing audits, launching investigations and garnishing wages. And low- and middle-income Americans will not magically be spared simply because a bunch of politicians made some promises while trying to court votes during an election year.

Believing such promises is as foolish as having believed in the 1970s that the war on drugs would only inconvenience cartels, criminals and addicts. Progressives, more than anyone else, should know better.

Michael Schaus is a communications and branding consultant based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and founder of Schaus Creative LLC an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He is the former communications director for Nevada Policy Research Institute and has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary as a columnist, political humorist, and radio talk show host. Follow him at SchausCreative.com or on Twitter at @schausmichael.

Originally posted here:
Yes, progressives also should be worried about 87,000 new IRS agents The Nevada Independent - The Nevada Independent

It took a couple weeks for The Narrative about the Biden era to change from a failed presidency to a consequential restorer of policy ambition. Despite containing about one-ninth of the domestic spending initially envisioned in the Build Back Better bill, the Inflation Reduction Acts $369 billion investment in energy production, climate mitigation and advanced manufacturing, along with the extension of the American Rescue Plans affordability measures for 12 million Affordable Care Act exchange customers and the beginnings of potentially significant prescription drug price reforms for seniors, was enough to rewrite the script.

But theres one more bill left on the table, the result of a side deal between Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and the Democratic leadership. Blandly known as permitting reform, this initiative (which could not go into the IRA because it isnt budgetary in nature and therefore is ineligible for reconciliation) would, according to its supporters, accelerate timelines for energy projects nationwide by effectively shortening the time allotted for reviews. It is scheduled get a vote in the House and Senate by the end of September.

Its an interesting inversion of a dynamic that we saw last year. When Build Back Better was split between infrastructure and social spending, progressives helped pass the infrastructure bill based on a promise of a vote later on the spending package. What they eventually got took nearly a year and was quite watered down. Now its Manchin advancing the spending bill, based on a promise to get permitting reform.

More from David Dayen

With the IRA done in the Senate and set to wrap this week in the House, progressive members have no reason to hold themselves to Manchins deal, and are free to assess whether permitting reform makes sense on the merits. It does not. If Manchin wants another victory for his favored fossil fuel industries, he should either get the Republicans he just backstabbed on board to do it, or give something more to Democrats in exchange.

Some progressive observers have talked themselves into the idea that permitting reform is necessary to speed up renewable energy projects. Such a mindset reflects a core tenet of supply-side progressivismthe idea that overzealous application of laws designed to restrict building need to be recalibrated.

Its a compelling yet misleading theory. Permitting is really about power, and if the entity wanting to build has enough, they can cut through red tape with little resistance. Less than ten years ago there was no such thing as an American oil export industry. Today the U.S. is the biggest oil and gas producer in the world, the sixth-largest exporter of oil, and the second-largest natural gas exporter. The entire architecture for that transformation had to be devised, permitted, approved, and builtand it was, with rapid speed, including thousands of wells, transportation infrastructure like roadways and pipelines, liquefied natural gas export terminals, and much more.

In fact, the sector wildly overbuilt in that decade, with investors losing so much money during the pandemic crash that they simply refuse to produce today, even with the current high prices. There are a lot of problems with the investor-driven oil and gas model, but permitting is not one of them; the industry literally got too much done.

In other words, if theres money to be made, and particularly if you couch it as a national security imperative, permitting problems have a knack for melting away. Ultimately, that is the likely path for renewables: The IRA creates a massive market for the deployment of solar and wind and other innovations, and environmental reviews are unlikely to derail that swiftly moving train. Moreover, the idea that the National Environmental Policy Act will unfairly hold back the green transition is just massively overstated as a problem beyond random anecdotes. Just one out of every 450 NEPA reviews are challenged in court, and federal agencies win at around the same level as they do in other environmental cases.

In the case of a couple of pipelines, its true, residents directly affected in disastrously toxic ways have been able to get the legal system to agree that their lives arent worth sacrificing to oncoming pipelines. That includes the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a Manchin priority that would deliver 2 billion cubic feet of fracked gas per day from West Virginia to Virginia, equivalent to 25 new coal plants. Appalachian residents bitterly oppose the project, in some cases physically blocking the pipelines path.

The permitting reform bill, which we know little about save for a one-page summary courtesy of The Washington Post, could also be called the complete the Mountain Valley Pipeline bill. In fact thats an entire section of the one-pager, which requires immediate action from federal regulators to approve the project and strips future legal jurisdiction away from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appealswhich has consistently blocked the pipeline because of impacts on endangered wildlife, pristine forest, and human healthand shifts it to the D.C. Circuit, which often sides with federal agencies in these matters.

Even this doesnt assure Mountain Valleys completion, as it wouldnt exempt the project from environmental laws. But the venue-shopping for a friendly circuit court should take care of those challenges. And Manchins special pleading for Mountain Valley reinforces how permitting isnt a problem as long as you have powerful friends.

Elsewhere, the one-pager compresses the time allotted to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews to between one and two years, streamlines Clean Water Act reviews and certification, coordinates interagency reviews with a project lead, forces the president to set a list of 25 high-priority infrastructure projects of all types under various criteria (reducing energy costs, expanding energy trade, and potential for decarbonization), and forces agencies to act quickly on court challenges.

The deal gives Democrats who are disinclined to gutthe permitting process some leverage.

All of these things could be done tomorrow with no legislation, and surely would be done (practically every administration talks about faster project approvals) if the resources were made available. If you want to improve permitting, dont weaken the laws, writes Erik Schlenker-Goodrich, executive director of the Western Environmental Law Center. To move with agility, strengthen agency culture to provide for creative, agile decision-making and provide agency staff resources to act.

Instead, this bill creates a countdown for permitting reviews that probably cannot be achieved. While there is some funding for NEPA implementation in the IRA, crashing down the timelines would raise the monetary need to a level that isnt provided. Depending on the language of the permitting reforms, either the timelines will remain exactly the same because of the lack of state capacity, or the timelines will just cut off reviews before theyre adequately completed, force corner-cutting, and heighten the possibility for errors or oversights. That will be exploited, at least at first, by fossil fuel interests. And once that infrastructure is built, it will be supremely difficult to dislodge in future years, weakening the climate benefits by drawing out the green transition timeline.

This is part of what has oil and gas interests pleased with the IRA and its companion. But green groups, which have been enthusiastic about the IRA, arent on board with permitting reforms. The Sierra Club, which has fought to shut down coal plants for years, has savaged the deal, as did Earthjustice.

Other than the one-pager, there is no bill text for something that must be done in the short period when Congress returns in September. Schumer wants to attach it to a continuing resolution to fund the government, to jam it down the throats of Democrats who may not agree with permitting deregulation, but who dont want to see the government shut down.

Thats clever, but also gives Democrats who are disinclined to gutof the permitting process some leverage. If permitting is to be accelerated, it would have to be fully funded, by definition. That should be insisted upon. Or maybe progressives have something else in mind to serve as the price for their vote. Without some concession, there is no need to break environmental laws and threaten communities.

Republicans would presumably be interested in deregulation and could supply enough votes to power this through (it would need 60 votes in the Senate anyway, so Republicans will be critical to the outcome). But as they spent a week holding a temper tantrum over Manchins alleged betrayal on the IRA, they may not be in a forgiving mood. Anyway, we know what they want: Last week, Senate Republicans got Manchin to agree to overturn a rule forcing consideration of climate change in NEPA rulemaking. That rule change wont pass the House on its own, but to get Republican votes for permitting reform, something similar is likely to be the ask.

Progressives generally got rolled in the Build Back Better process, and they were always going to get rolled, because of the need for that final 50th vote from Manchin (and Kyrsten Sinema). The permitting bills dynamic is different. It may pass anyway in a bargain between oil industry-backed Democrats and Republicans. But as they werent party to the deal, theres no reason for progressives to participate in that process. And theres good reason for them to hold out for better terms. The Democratic leadership made the deal, so they can find the votes for it.

Read the original here:
Permitting Reform Bill Flips Leverage to Progressives - The American Prospect

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Go here to read the rest:
OPINION: With Kansas ballot victory, progressives can dare to hope - Lewiston Morning Tribune

OLEAN, N.Y. During his decade-plus in New York politics, Carl Paladino has had no problem making headlines, usually for all the wrong reasons.

The ensuing criticism, however, has had little effect on Mr. Paladino, 75, a die-hard Republican and a Buffalo-area developer, or on his political aspirations: After a fleeting career as a member of the citys school board he was effectively deposed he has now launched a campaign to be the next duly elected representative of the 23rd Congressional District in western New York.

His latest attempt at a comeback involves an ugly primary battle that has caused a deep schism in his own party. His opponent is Nick Langworthy, the state Republican Party chairman.

Mr. Langworthy, a onetime ally of Mr. Paladino, is trying to steer New York Republicans away from the crassest elements fueling former President Donald J. Trumps MAGA following, saying that the party has come too far to be undone by Mr. Paladinos antics.

Crucially, he says, Mr. Paladino could damage the campaign for governor by Representative Lee M. Zeldin, the Long Island Republican who is considered by many to have the partys best chance of winning the governors mansion in two decades.

Carls candidacy is a big reason why I decided to do this, Mr. Langworthy said, calling Mr. Paladino a huge detriment to the Republican ticket in 2022. Weve got the best shot to win in 20 years, and the three-ring circus that he brings to the table, with the way that he handles things and himself, will basically be held against every candidate in the state.

Despite his general outspokenness, Mr. Paladino has waged a largely subdued campaign, preferring to attack Mr. Langworthy via news release and interviews on reliably Trumpian outlets like War Room with Steve Bannon, where he recently promised not only to impeach President Biden on Day 1 but also to bring down the U.S. attorney general, Merrick Garland.

One of his campaign talking points You know me seems keyed into maximizing his name recognition, which he says gives him an undeniable advantage as both a candidate and a potential congressman.

I have a proven track record as a conservative fighter, who will not back down, Mr. Paladino said in a statement, adding that he was an early supporter of Mr. Trump. People here know me and trust me.

Mr. Paladino also has a decided financial edge, having lent his campaign $1.5 million nearly the entirety of his war chest, according to federal disclosure reports. Mr. Langworthy has spent little of the $307,000 raised in campaign donations, the bulk of it from individual contributions.

Still, Mr. Langworthy is hoping that his rivals history of transgressions will outweigh his money.

People know you, Mr. Langworthy said. It doesnt mean that people like you.

The fame or notoriety of Mr. Paladino, and his capacity for campaign spending are not the only obstacles that Mr. Langworthy faces. Representative Elise Stefanik, the ardent upstate devotee of Mr. Trump who is the House of Representatives No. 3 Republican, has backed Mr. Paladino, as have other Trump-world notables like Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, who has had his own share of controversy.

Ms. Stefanik, in particular, has lobbed savage Trump-like bon mots back and forth with Mr. Langworthy and is expected to campaign for Mr. Paladino in the district ahead of the Aug. 23 primary.

Considering Mr. Paladinos record of racist and sexist remarks, Ms. Stefaniks endorsement raised some eyebrows, though she cast it as testament to his career as a business leader.

Carl has dedicated his entire career to creating thousands of jobs in western New York and the Southern Tier, and advocating strongly for this community, Ms. Stefanik said in a statement. I am proud to support Carl, who is a conservative fighter.

Mr. Langworthy and Mr. Paladino are running to represent a highly conservative, sprawling district spanning from the Buffalo suburbs to west of Binghamton. Max Della Pia is the anointed Democratic candidate.

The two Republicans race seems particularly personal: They had a long friendship, each as political luminaries in the Buffalo area. Their relationship was deepened by their close ties with Mr. Trump, whom both men unsuccessfully lobbied to run for governor in 2014.

Indeed, on Monday, after F.B.I. agents raided Mr. Trumps estate in Mar-a-Lago, both men rushed to put out statements condemning the bureaus actions, with Mr. Langworthy saying that Mr. Biden was turning America into a banana republic, while Mr. Paladino said the raid was politically motivated and chilling.

When elected to Congress, I will work to save this nation from these disordered government agencies attacking our citizens rights, Mr. Paladino said.

Both men declared their candidacy shortly after Representative Chris Jacobs a scion of a powerful Buffalo family decided not to seek a new term, abandoning his re-election effort after he announced his support for a series of gun control measures in the wake of a May 14 massacre in a Buffalo supermarket.

Mr. Jacobss stance caused backlash among Republican leaders, including Mr. Langworthy, who began courting voters and supporters in the district even before Mr. Jacobs formally announced his intentions to leave politics.

Michael Caputo, a former Trump administration official who managed Mr. Paladinos campaign for governor in 2010 and is friendly with all three men, said both candidates had notified Mr. Trump of their decision to seek Mr. Jacobss seat. Each hoped to secure Mr. Trumps endorsement, but he has declined to back either so far. But Mr. Caputo says Mr. Trump has been troubled by the Langworthy camps assertions that the former president favors their candidate.

Mr. Langworthys campaign, however, rejected this notion, saying he has never implied that the president has endorsed him for Congress because he has way too much respect for him to do that.

Mr. Paladino declined to be interviewed, agreeing only to provide written replies to a reporters questions. In those, he argued that it is Mr. Langworthy who is the problematic candidate, letting his ego get in the way of his day job as state party chair.

Nick is causing division and is distracted from his duty of electing a Republican governor, and Republican candidates up and down the ballot, Mr. Paladino wrote.

That argument has found some support in the state party, including from Lawrence A. Garvey, the chairman of the Rockland County Republican Party. He said he was outraged by Mr. Langworthys decision, saying that, as party chair, his first job is to help get people elected.

You cant differentiate between what hes doing for the party and what hes doing for his race, Mr. Garvey said. He should be crisscrossing the state right now, he should be barnstorming, to get Lee Zeldin elected.

Mr. Langworthy, 41, discounts that argument Its absolute nonsense, he said saying he and the state party can multitask. To be sure, Mr. Langworthy has been running a more traditional campaign, pressing the flesh at various events in western New York and the Southern Tier, racking up a roster of local endorsements, including from a variety of county-level officials who know him as a state leader.

Nick Langworthy is my friend and was there for me when I first ran for office, said Frank Todaro, an Erie County legislator. His support and guidance meant a lot, and I am proud to support him for Congress.

The race has had little solid polling, though Mr. Paladino has consistently cast himself as the front-runner, saying he has no serious challenger.

But at least in some places, voters are intrigued by the idea of Mr. Langworthys candidacy. During a discussion in July that he attended in the Cattaraugus County town of Olean, Cathy Kelley, 69, said she liked the state party chairs support of the Second Amendment, saying she felt he was someone who would go to bat for us.

As for Mr. Paladino, Ms. Kelley a homemaker from Belfast, N.Y. said she didnt dislike him, but she seemed concerned about his capacity for inflammatory remarks.

Carl Paladino has a very long political history, Ms. Kelley said. And I guess, you know, if you want to go with somebody who goes totally rogue, maybe Carl would be the guy. But Im not in favor.

Aug. 11, 2022

An earlier version of this article misstated the easternmost contours of the newly drawn 23rd Congressional District. It extends to the west of Binghamton, not to the east.

Here is the original post:
Progressives Push Democrats to Make Their Fight About Freedom, Too - The New York Times