Mediaboss Marketing

National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair Rick Scott said on Sunday that it will be tough for GOP lawmakers to take back the Senate in the upcoming midterm elections.

During an appearance on CBSs Face The Nation, moderator Margaret Brennan asked the Republican senator from Florida if it will get harder for Republicans to take control of the House and Senate chambers in November, citing victories for Democrats such as lower gas prices, the Inflation Reduction Act advancing and the military strike that killed al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri last week.

In response, Scott pointed to critical race theory, the U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, immigration and inflation, adding that his party has good candidates even though Democrats are outracing them at the moment.

I mean, they have to defend inflation, high gas prices, you know, the Afghan withdrawal, an open border, critical race theory, defund the police, thats what they have to defend because thats what Biden is known for, and thats what thats basically what Democrats are known for. Look its an election year. Its going to be a hard year, Scott told Brennan.

We have 21 Republicans up, only 14 Democrats. The Democrats are outracing us, but we have good candidates. And, I believe Joe Biden is going to be our key here.

Brennan also played Scott a clip of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-K.Y.) during a Fox News Sunday appearance saying he believes this years elections for control of the Senate will be very tight.

If things are so bad, then why is it going to be so tight for Republicans? Brennan asked Scott.

Well, first of all, we have very good candidates. I mean, the Democrats are raising good money. So weve got to be able to get our message out, so you know, we have to raise our money. We have to work hard, you know, we went through a lot of primaries, but I believe were gonna I believe were gonna win but its gonna be hard, Scott replied.

We got to raise your money, we got to work really hard for candidates- have to work really hard. Everybody is gonna to help our candidates, but Im optimistic.

Scott also voiced his opposition to the new Inflation Reduction Act, which on Sunday advanced to a vote in the Senate, saying the bill is a war on Medicare.

Visit link:
Rick Scott says it will be tough for Republicans to take Senate in 2022 - The Hill

For Republicans, the hourslong ritual of the vote-a-rama has been a last-ditch effort to inflict political pain over a package they have no intention of supporting.

They railed against the hundreds of billions of dollars in climate spending, tried to siphon funds toward restricting immigration at the southwestern border and repeatedly attacked a $80 billion plan to beef up tax enforcement at the I.R.S.

And it became an opportunity to encourage those watching on C-SPAN, however small, to back Republicans in November.

If youre tired of paying high gas prices, then vote Republican, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, concluded after pushing back against one amendment.

While Democrats have beaten back most of the Republican amendments, they have used a tricky procedural maneuver in some cases that allowed a few Democrats to vote in favor of changes that could help them politically without endangering passage of the final bill. For example, Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia, who is up for re-election in November, proposed a change to close the Medicaid gap in his state. Because Democrats set the bar for passage of the measure at 60 votes, Mr. Warnock could vote yes without any chance the amendment would be adopted.

Only one Republican challenge has prevailed: a move to strip a $35 insulin cap for private insurers as a violation of the strict rules governing the process. An effort to preserve that proposal fell short of the 60-vote threshold.

While Republicans proposed most of the amendments, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, tried to push the bill in a progressive direction and recapture some of the policy items in Mr. Bidens initial package that had been cut during negotiations.

Mr. Sanders forced a series of votes that included a cap on the costs of prescription drugs, extending the child care tax credit and establishing a civilian climate corps.

But his amendments failed by large margins: 1-99, 1-98 or 1-97. Many Democrats had pledged before the vote-a-rama to stick together as a voting bloc to preserve the delicate coalition of progressives and centrists brought together to support the legislation. The amendment votes put his colleagues in an uncomfortable position.

Come on, Bernie, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio could be heard muttering after he explained that he would oppose the inclusion of expanded payments to most families with children a policy he has long championed to protect the broader deal.

Mr. Sanders said he felt he had to push for the policies because Democrats could lose control of Congress in the midterm elections.

We dont know what the election results will be, he said. This could be actually the very last time in a long time that people are going to have the opportunity to vote on child tax care credit.

Stephanie Lai contributed reporting.

See more here:
Democrats Hold Off Republican Amendments, And Some of Their Own - The New York Times

There is no better test this year of whether Republicans are making substantial inroads with Latino voters, once solidly Democratic, than Nevada.

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), the only Latina in the U.S. Senate, is the partys most endangered incumbent. Hispanics comprise as much as 20 percent of the Nevada electorate. She needs to win them almost 2 to 1 to stave off Republican challenger, Adam Laxalt, the former state attorney general and grandson of Nevada political legend, the late Paul Laxalt, who was a governor and a U.S. Senator.

Republicans, including Donald Trump in 2020, have cut into Democrats advantage with Hispanic voters, particularly non-college educated males.

We always thought that if we got more Latinos to vote, the Democratic vote would grow exponentially, notes Ana Iparraguirre, who has studied the data on Latino voting for the Democratic polling firm, GBAO Strategies. In 2020 we got more Latinos to vote, but support for Democrats did not grow.

There is a debate using different data and analyses over how much of a shift there has been to Republicans, and why. The Atlantics Ron Brownstein, who has followed this as closely and carefully as any journalist, concludes: The best evidence in polling and election results suggests the claim of a fundamental shiftamong non-college educated Latino voters is, at best, wildly premature. At a minimum, he suggests, there is a small shift.

Republicans have argued that the patriotism and cultural conservatism of Latinos will redound to the GOPs advantage. Thats questionable. Latinos generally mirror other Democrats in views on social issues like abortion and guns, says Michelle Mayorga, also a GBAO strategist. Many Catholic Hispanics are pro-choice on abortion.

However, Democrats have been hurt when linked, often unfairly, with the slogans pushed by the small left wing of the party, such as defund the police or open borders. In Florida, especially with second- and third-generation voters with roots in South American countries, charges that Democrats are socialistsresonated.

Moreover, Ms. Iparraguirre says, while the big social issues arent hurting, some of the woke stuff, like using gender neutral Latinx may be: This is definitely not something they self-identify as.

The main driver of any change, most exerts venture, is economics. Most working-class Latinos did well during the Trump years, at least before COVID hit. That apparently affected some voting habits.

Republicans are counting on an economy with raging inflation this year. The heaviest concentrations of Latino votes are in large states: California, Texas and Florida, as well as New Mexico. Yet they comprise as much as 4 percent to 5 percent in places like Georgia, North Carolina and Wisconsin and could make the difference in tight races.

The swing states with the largest Latino vote are Arizona and Nevada, both with competitive Senate, gubernatorial and down-ballot contests this November. In Nevada, the GOP is encouraged by voter registration gains that have cut into the Democrats advantage.

Laxalt, predictably, focuses heavily on inflation and high gas prices. These really hurt the sizeable working-class citizens in this geographically large state.

The Republicans also are making a concerted effort to cut into the Democrats support among Latinos by running Spanish language commercials and with a dedicated Latinos for Laxalt organization.

Republicans may have been handed another break with fissures among the Democrats. The Nevada Democratic Party, led by the late Sen. Harry Reid, used to be one of the most effective state parties in the country. Last year, the left-wing Democratic Socialists staged a coup, and they now run the party. The former and more formidable faction has set up a parallel organization.

Abortion may offset some GOP advantages on the economy. Three decades ago, Nevada voters overwhelmingly approved a referendum protecting the right to abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy; after that, it is protected only if the mothers life or health is endangered.

Cortez Masto is strongly pro-choice, while Laxalt, previously an anti-abortion hard liner, is equivocating and squirming. She is making abortion rights a campaign centerpiece, charging that Laxalt, as attorney general, sought to limit birth control access and, as a senator, would vote for a federal abortion ban.

She has been running ads in Spanish targeting Latino voters for more than four months and has held numerous events with the community.

The Democratic Senator according to Jon Ralston, the longtime journalistic sage on state politics with the Nevada Independent is a stronger candidate, has raised a lot more money and is more disciplined. He says Laxalt, a big Trump supporter who has embraced the Big Lie that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, is really a terrible candidate. Hes no Paul Laxalt.

In what could be the tightest Senate race in the country, it comes down to the better candidate versus the more favorable conditions with the outcome in Latino hands.

Al Hunt is the former executive editor of Bloomberg News. He previously served as reporter, bureau chief and Washington editor for The Wall Street Journal. For almost a quarter century he wrote a column on politics for The Wall Street Journal, then The International New York Times and Bloomberg View. He hostsPolitics War Roomwith James Carville. Follow him on Twitter@AlHuntDC.

Go here to see the original:
Republicans, Latino voters and an eye on Nevada - The Hill

President Bidens scaled back Build Back Better agendanot so accurately rebranded as the Inflation Reduction Actis set to arrive on the Senate floor as Republicans may be losing momentum across the country. Senate candidates continue to struggle in states like Georgia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania; and key House races, such as Michigans 3rd District, where John Gibbs defeated Peter Meijer, are shifting toward Democrats. Come November, it may become clear that election denial has consequences. Meanwhile, as Chris Stirewalt argues, the surge of low-propensity voters who turned out in Kansas to vote on abortion hints at trouble for Republicans.

In a weekend session at the end of a bad week, it will be tempting for Republicans to ridicule the tax-and-spend progressive excess in the bill but let Biden have his win and call it a day. Instead, Senate Republicans should use the rules of budget reconciliation, which allow for unlimited amendments, to offer a smart and aggressive amendment strategy. This debate is an important opportunity for Republicans to define not just what they are against, but what they are for when it comes to energy and climate policy.

Senate Democrats are using the playbook they use on every issuegive Republicans a bill theyd never vote for (i.e., one that raises taxes, beefs up the IRS, and expands Obamacare) and demagogue them for not caring about climate change. Republicans should turn the tables. Just as the DCCC recently showed that some Democrats are more interested in protecting Democrats than democracy when they backed election conspiracy theorists in midterm primaries, some Democrats are also more interested in protecting their positions than the planet.

Senate Republicans should start by stripping out the tax increases that would slow the innovation thats required to develop clean energy and ask how spending $80 billion on IRS enforcement and $64 billion on Obamacare subsidies will lower greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of offering a blanket no on the climate provision, Republicans should highlight what theyd consider supporting and then force Democrats to say no to spending offsets rather than tax increases as a means of financing those investments.

Republicans could even offer a planet-saving amendment to deflect the extinction-level climate asteroid some progressive say is coming with big investments in nuclear energy that are paid for by responsibly downsizing the administrative state. In his Nuclear Salvation essay, MITs Kerry Emanuel suggests a shift to nuclear would cost about $100 billion annually, which could be pulled from existing agency budgets. Let Leonardo DiCaprio and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) oppose that.

Republicans also have many constructive ideas on planting trees, permitting reform, and responsible domestic energy production that Democrats should be forced to vote against. Republicans probably cant win any of these amendments, but they can dramatically increase the other sides cost of winning and let Americans know what theyre for in the process.

As our organization recently showed in a June poll in the key swing states of Arizona, Georgia, and Michigan, Democrats are out of step with their own base on climate and energy policy. Republicans have an opportunity to take command of an issue thats increasingly important to Americans, especially younger voters. Consider a few of our key findings.

The everything but fossil fuels progressive dogma lives loudly among Democrat political elites, yet 71 percent of Republicans and 63 percentof Democrats prefer an all of the above approach; 66 percent of Republicans and 68 percent of Democrats support nuclear energy; and 62 percent of Republicans and 49 percent of Democrats support fracking, while only 32 percent of Democrats oppose fracking. Instead of President Biden asking OPEC to produce more oil, regular folks would prefer to use what we have here.

The poll also found that while Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WVirginia) and Chuck Schumer (D-New York) are working to sell their colleagues on a vote over reforms to the permitting process at an undetermined later date (i.e., probably never), voters want Congress to start with permitting reform now. By a 2-to-1 margin, voters prefer deregulation over new spending or tax increases. Two-thirds of voters want Congress to lift or reform outdated regulations to speed up the deployment of new clean energy technology, while only 31 percent are open to new or additional spending that is paid for by tax increases or borrowing.

Voters also want Congress to reduce and recycle government waste instead of creating more. When we asked voters how they want to fund clean energy research, 49 percent favored spending offsets, 29 percent wanted only private sector spending, 13 percent favored federal borrowing, and only 9 percent supported higher taxes. Voters also dont seem to be impressed by Congress decision to restart the earmark favor factory: 39 percent of voters oppose the return of earmarks, while just 21 percent support their return.

The bills authors no doubt understand that while climate change continues to creep up the list of voter priorities, its still dwarfed by overall concerns about inflation and gas prices. Our poll showed that 51 percent of voters view reducing inflation and gas prices as the most important issue while only 9 percent said the same of climate change. And calling a bill inflation reduction doesnt make it so. A Wharton study found that the bill wont reduce inflation, while the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation found it will increase taxes for people earning less than $400,000, thereby violating President Bidens campaign pledge. Democrats claim to be deeply serious about the science yet conveniently ignore math that doesnt advance their ideological goals.

It's true that some polls, such as a recent Pew poll, suggest popular support for corporate tax increases. But a deeper look shows that when voters realize the costs will be passed on to them, they wont be happy. Our poll found that 76 percent of Republicans and Democrats are not willing to pay more than $10 a month to fight climate change.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosis (D-California) Taiwan visit inadvertently boosted the GOPs case by showing the world a belligerent China cant be trusted to care about climate change or its status as the worlds leading greenhouse gas emitter. In fact, China has already said it will no longer engage with the U.S. on climate because of Pelosis visit. Of course, few policymakers except for John Kerry ever thought China was serious.

Republicans should use their floor time to argue that were not going to beat China by becoming like China. Top-down authoritarianism isnt a sound way to reduce emissions. When it comes to forcing Chinas hand, our poll found that voters tend to prefer a Reagan-esque realism approach to more isolationism. A majority of voters (54 percent) do support a more protectionist trade policy toward China, but 62 percent support a NATO of the Pacific and more muscular policy of containment while 69 percent want to beat China with an economic freedom agenda focused on promoting innovation at home and accessing our own critical minerals.

Fortunately, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) has given Senate Republicans a head start on amendment ideas through his energy, climate and conservation task force. The Climate and Freedom Agenda authored by Nick Loris, VP of Public Policy at C3 Solutions, contains enough specifics to keep the Senate floor busy for weeks.

As my former boss, the late Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okloahoma), showed, amendment hardball works. He called these exercises teaching moments. Years of wearing down big-spending senators with creative amendments that exposed agendas and forced hard choices paid off. In 2011, conservatives got an earmark ban that lasted a decade while the Budget Control Act led to the first real year-on-year spending reduction since the end of the Korean War. In Washington, thats like making the river that fills the swamp run backward.

This bill isnt the last word on climate and energy policy. Its one marker in what will be a generational fight and struggle between freedom and authoritarianism and those who favor bottom-up innovation over top-down command and control decision-making. Republicans should use this debate to play offense and offer a teaching moment that contrasts governing styles. Voters, including primary voters, want Republicans to offer climate and energy solutions and prefer those candidates. Science and math are on the side of conservatives and against the deficit deniers. Free economies are twice as clean as less free economies. This is a fight conservatives can win and should run toward, not from.

John Hart is the Executive Director of the Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions Action and the co-founder of C3 Solutions.

Link:
Senate Republicans Need to Define What They're For - The Dispatch

Before the June primaries, I pointed out that party unity could end up being a key factor in determining how well each party does in Maines elections in November.

Since then, both parties seem to have done relatively well in that regard: Theyve successfully moved beyond the primaries and largely united behind their respective gubernatorial nominees an easier task without any serious unenrolled candidates contesting in the fall.

Sure, theres been some signs of grumbling in both parties, but largely its been at the local level and stayed mostly, if not entirely, behind the scenes. Both parties seem to have come to an unspoken agreement to lay aside their internal differences until after the election.

Well, so much for that.

Its no surprise that the first sign of an internal schism comes from legislative Republicans. Recently, it has become apparent that one PAC is far, far ahead of the others on the House side (at least, for now), a group called the Dinner Table PAC. Thats not so unusual: With current House Republican Leader Kathleen Dillingham unable to run again due to term limits, there was bound to be a very competitive race for leadership.

What is unusual here is not only that the Dinner Table PAC is finding success despite not being affiliated with the current leadership, but that the group has used criticism of current leadership as part of its fundraising appeal, and focused on small donors.

Its not unusual for candidates to base a run for leadership on criticism of current leadership. Thats par for the course.

If most legislators are tired of the current regime, sometimes that strategy is quite successful. Sometimes its a spectacular failure. Whats unusual about this situation is that the entire episode has become public, and that its happening so far in advance of the election.

For the most part, legislative leadership races in Maine are quiet, behind-the-scenes affairs: The general public hardly pays any attention to them and only learns the results once they occur.

While leadership candidates frequently raise and spend money on behalf of legislative candidates, normally its only the legislators themselves who are cognizant of which candidates are raising and spending the most. All of this usually happens at the legislative party caucuses after the elections, and usually those results play into that decision. Often, if a party loses the majority or doesnt do as well as expected, a change in leadership is all but inevitable its part of the responsibility that comes with the job.

At least, it used to be. Lately that model has been turned on its head in both parties, as legislative leaders have often kept their jobs despite losing seats. This doesnt make sense. Its political malpractice to give the people who lost the last election the chance to lose yet another one.

It would appear, based on the fracas between the Dinner Table PAC and current House leadership, that a faction of House Republicans are beginning to feel the same way, that holding leadership to account is a good thing.

Its also good to see another source of funding emerge. Too often, legislative leaders can use their ability to fundraise to sway the votes of their caucus toward special interests. By relying more on small donors, the Dinner Table turns that model on its head (at least, a bit) by giving the grassroots more of a say, if an indirect one, in leadership races. Its an interesting model that could upend Maine politics in the future.

Whats unfortunate is that this entire episode has become public. While most voters likely wont know or care about it, it shows that Republican legislators arent forming a united front. It would be a shame if these internal divisions hobble the party so much that it becomes unable to take advantage of a favorable political environment. Hopefully, both factions can take a step back and realize that before its too late.

Jim Fossel, a conservative activist from Gardiner, worked for Sen. Susan Collins.He can be contacted at:[emailprotected]Twitter:@jimfossel

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Next

Read the original post:
Jim Fossel: Legislative Republicans' infighting puts party at risk - Press Herald