Mediaboss Marketing

The Red Room of Doom. Thats the nickname one House Democrat gave the state Senate this past session. Others joked that the chamber with its red wallpaper, carpet and ceiling was where progressive bills went to die.

While Democrats held a near super majority at the Colorado legislature this session, closely divided committees in the state Senate frequently blocked or watered down some of the progressive priorities.

And that inspired one supporter of some of those policies to wonder why why didnt such big Democratic majorities translate into bigger margins on Senate committees in particular?

Alex Nelson, a public school teacher in Denver, is passionate about affordable housing. He visited the state capitol this spring to back several Democratic housing bills and testify in committee.

Nelson sees the impact that the lack of affordable housing has on schools, with students and families being priced out and having to move away, and also people choosing to have fewer children.

Housing costs, costs of living are so high that we see diminishing enrollment every single year, which is leading to closure, consolidation, all sorts of things like that.

The issue also affects teachers.

Friends in the teaching profession have a hard time accessing affordable housing, Nelson said. A couple of my friends have left the state because of housing costs.

Given how many people are struggling with housing, Nelson said he was surprised when measures like a proposal to allow local communities to enact rent control narrowly died in a Senate committee. It failed on a 4-3 vote.

I was thinking just about how many bills in the Colorado Senate came down to a single vote of either passage or failure, said Nelson. The situation led him to wonder, why those committees had only a single vote majority when the members on the floor held almost two thirds (of the seats)? Is that a decision made by leadership?

On seven out of the state Senates ten committees this year, Democrats only had a one-vote advantage. Those narrow margins made it possible for a single moderate member to side with Republicans to vote down a bill, or to demand significant changes in order to win passage.

Nelson was on the right track with his question about who decides the committee makeup; that power rests in the hands of Democratic Senate Majority Leader Dominick Moreno. He appoints lawmakers to committees and decides on each panels size and political split.

The committee makeup is dictated by the political makeup of the chamber as a whole, he said. The rule says that the committee makeup has to be in rough proportion to the number of seats you occupy in the Senate chamber.

But because its only a rough proportion, Moreno still has leeway on each committee. Moreno acknowledges he could have given Democrats a bigger advantage on some committees, but said he doesnt have enough members to pad out all of them and that lawmakers individual expertise played a significant role in his choices.

The situation put a spotlight on several of the Senates more moderate members, like Democrat Dylan Roberts. Roberts, who was the key no vote on the rent control bill, was a swing vote on three different committees.

I reminded bill sponsors who were frustrated at my position that I didn't make the committee assignments, said Roberts. I didn't make the makeup of the committees. I was assigned to those committees, and I'm just doing my job. I got sent here by my district, not by a political party and not by a political philosophy.

Roberts lives in Avon and represents a mountain district where Democrats hold a less than seven point advantage, according to redistricting maps. He said he scrutinizes every piece of legislation.

The goal is collaboration and trying to make bills better. But there were several policies where I just couldn't get there.

Republican lawmakers said they were more than happy the Senate acted as a moderating force.

We haven't killed that many bills, said GOP Sen. Perry Will in the final weeks of session, But some of the bills that need to go away, it went away. I think it's great and I think it's much needed.

On the House side, where committees were much more steeply tilted in Democrats favor, Republicans said they were grateful that the Senate at times blocked policies they lacked the power to stop.

There were Democrats that destroyed bills that would not be good for Colorado. It's a teamwork effort here, said Republican Rep. Ron Weinberg who passed many bipartisan bills this session.

Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen said even though the GOP is at a disadvantage he thinks they are still punching above our weight to kill bad policy ideas. We are actually trying to hold the ideals of freedom for individuals to live the lives they want to live and the way they want to live them.

The narrow committee splits didnt just result in more moderate Senators voting down progressive bills; in many cases, they were able to get concessions and amendments in exchange for their support.

For progressives, the Senate results were a source of frustration throughout the session. They argue that Democrats surprising success last November the party picked up legislative seats in a year many analysts expected them to lose some show that they have a mandate to make big moves.

Voters are wanting something bigger and bolder. And we tried and that's not what's happening, said Democratic Representative Lorena Garcia who is in her first year at the Capitol. Garcia believes voters elected Democrats to do more this year on housing and criminal justice, in particular. But several key bills on those topics were defeated.

However, Moreno defended the committee makeup as a good reflection of the Senates general views. He notes that even when progressive bills did get to the Senate floor, they still didnt have the votes to pass.

For instance, a bill to make it harder for landlords to evict people on month to month leases lingered on the calendar and ultimately ran out of time, in part because it lacked the support to move forward. The Senate also gutted a bill that would have prevented prosecutions of 10 to 12-year-olds, except in homicide cases. And when a proposal to allow local communities to set up supervised sites for safe drug use came up in a Senate committee, three Democrats joined Republicans in voting it down.

All of the policies managed to pass the House before hitting roadblocks in the Senate.

And it wasn't always progressive policies that struggled in the Senate. The governor's Land Use bill, which was sponsored by Moreno, also died in that chamber. The Senate watered down the bill significantly, setting up a showdown with the House, which passed a more robust version. In the end, the bill was dropped in the final hours of session for lack of Senate votes.

Yes, we have a historic majority, said Moreno. It doesn't mean that we have a super majority of progressive members. It means that everyone votes their own conscience in their own district.

Senate defenders also note that some progressive bills didnt even gain traction in the House. A proposed statewide assault weapons ban failed in its first committee after three Democrats joined Republicans to defeat it. The House also handily rejected a measure to mandate more predictable schedules for restaurant and retail workers.

Progressive Democrats say they plan to try again with many of these ideas next session.

And as for Alex Nelson, the teacher who started us looking into this issue he said hes glad to learn more about how the legislature works, and is optimistic some of the housing proposals he supports will see more success down the road.

I tried to remind myself that these things take time and that the first go isn't always gonna be the one that gets you exactly what you want, he said,

Read this article:
Democrats may control the legislature, but the 'Red Room of Doom ... - Colorado Public Radio

FIRST ON FOX A leading conservative advocacy group that backs Republican causes is taking aim at House Democrats over the issue of crime and urging Congress to support a new measure that backs law enforcement.

The news ads bythe American Action Network (AAN), which were shared first with Fox News on Monday, spotlight Democrats who voted against a bill by the House Republican majority that was signed into law earlier this year by President Biden and aimed at nullifying a proposed overhaul by city officials of the District of Columbias criminal code.

And the digital ads, which AAN says its spending $100,000 to run online this week during National Police Week 2023, also urge lawmakers to support the Protect and Serve Act a pro-law enforcement piece of a larger package thats expected to receive a vote on the House floor this week.

"Carjackings, theft, violence. Crime is out of control. When Congress took action to stop it in our nations capital, even Biden signed on. But not liberals in Congress. They voted against cracking down on criminals," the moderator in the ad argues. "Now they have a chance to stand with Americas law enforcement. Critical legislation with tough new penalties for assaulting cops. Standing up to the defund the police movement. Tell liberals in Congress to side with law enforcement, not criminals."

HOUSE GOP CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE CHAIR SAYS DOZENS OF DEMOCRAT SEATS IN PLAY IN 2024

Besides two spots that will run nationally, AAN is targeting with ads six House Democrats who could face challenging re-elections next year. They are Reps. Chris Deluzio (Pennsylvania 17), Emilia Sykes (Ohio 13), Mary Peltola (Alaska at-large), Gabe Vasquez (New Mexico 2), and Abigail Spanberger (Virginia 7).

"Nearly 175 liberals in Congress sided with criminals over law enforcement by voting to lessen penalties for violent offenders in Washington," AAN President Dan Conston charged. "Now, Congress has a chance to instead stand up for our men and women in uniform and support new pragmatic legislation that protects law enforcement. Every Member of Congress should vote to back the blue."

FIRST ON FOX: HOUSE DEMOCRATS' RE-ELECTION COMMITTEE SHATTERS FUNDRAISING RECORD

A Fox News poll conducted earlier this year indicated that nearly nine in 10 Americans were extremely or very concerned about higher crime rates.

Fox News Poll on America's concerns. (Fox News Poll)

Longtime Republican attempts to portray Democrats as "soft on crime" had varying degrees of success in last Novembers midterm elections, as many Democrats in front-line House districts pushed back by spotlighting their support from law enforcement.

And national Democrats pushed back on GOP attacks over the issue by pointing out the no votes by House Republicans for a bill passed by the then-Democratic majority in the chamber and signed into law by Biden that increased funding for police.

"Despite their empty rhetoric, the truth is that House Republicans are the ones who have voted for major cuts to law enforcement and who have failed to condemn Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans calls to defund the FBI and DOJ," Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesperson Courtney Rice argued. "That couldnt stand in clearer contrast to House Democrats who have a proven track record of advocating for public safety. In 2022, Democrats made their commitment to public safety clear on the campaign trail, and they will again in 2024."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Republicans controlled the House majorityfor eight years before the Democrats won back the chamber in the 2018 midterms. Two years later, in the 2020 elections, the GOP defied expectations and took a big bite out of Democrats majority.

The GOP captured the majority in the November 2022 elections, but hopes of a red wave never materialized and the party is holding onto a fragile 222-213 majority. That means Democrats need a net gain of just five seats to win back control of the chamber next year.

See the article here:
Top conservative advocacy group targets House Democrats over crime with new ad blitz - Fox News

As part of its broader roll out of a central location for creator analytics and tools, which is designed to make it easier to manage all aspects of your content in the app, LinkedIn has also now added some new topic and post prompts to help guide creators in building their in-app presence.

LinkedIn has been rolling out its new Analytics and tools dashboard to users that have had Creator Mode switched on over the last few months. Creator Mode provides a full overview of content performance, as well as the creator-specific tools available to you.

As you can see in these screenshots, Analytics and Tools, available on the left side panel of the app (to those with Creator More active), will show you content performance over time, and topics associated with your profile (which you can add to), as well as a full listing of the creator elements available to you in the app (e.g. LinkedIn Live, Newsletters, CTA links).

As noted, LinkedIns been rolling this out to selected users since February. But just recently, it added another element to the Creator Mode dashboard Conversations Happening Now, which includes a new Post Ideas listing.

As per LinkedIn:

In the Conversations happening nowsection, youll see a sample of posts that might be relevant to you and your audience. The posts that appear in this section are based on the content you have previously posted and topics your audience might be interested in. You can click on the post to review in more detail and consider reposting them with your own commentary to join the conversation.

The initiative is part of LinkedIns broader effort to prompt more users to post more often, with LinkedIn also experimenting with AI-generated post prompts to help get you thinking about what you might want to post to maximize engagement with your in-app audience.

Which, in some ways, feels a little inauthentic. The idea is that Creator Mode gives you a means to highlight your expertise and knowledge within your niche. But if LinkedIns doing all the curating for you, that feels like it could help people gain more notoriety with less oversight and insight, and without really understanding the full scope of the industry.

Which, of course, is even worse if you start using AI to create those opinion posts for you. That could see LinkedIn flooded with a lot of empty opinions based on such, as opposed to facilitating genuine insight, and respective interaction with actual experts.

Then again, your posts likely wont get attention if your opinions are rubbish, so there is some need for original thinking on top of these prompts. But it does seem like this could get misused by some to improve their standing without doing the actual research and having the experience required to make it look like you know what youre talking about.

But either way, it will help LinkedIn to increase engagement, which remains at record high levels, as the platform continues to grow.

Maybe, from LinkedIns perspective, thats enough of a win in itself and when coupled with the need for original insight to truly separate yourself from the crowd, itll be hoping that that will be enough to weed out the fakers in the app.

The new Conversations Happening Now element is available to English language users of Creator Mode if its not available in your tools as yet, its coming soon.

Read more here:
LinkedIn Adds New Topic Prompts to Help Creators Build Their ... - Social Media Today

The lifting of a pandemic-era restriction that turned away many migrants at the U.S. border has ignited fierce debates within the Democratic Party over immigration and border security, exposing raw intraparty divisions over an issue that Democrats often find difficult to navigate.

As U.S. officials brace for a rise in illegal crossings at the southern border after the expiration of the measure, known as Title 42, Democrats are grappling with competing political demands, seeking to address the intensification of a long-running humanitarian crisis and in some cases flexing their border security bona fides.

Mayors, members of Congress and other Democrats have demanded more federal support for their cities, districts and states. Some have sharply rebuked the Biden administrations decision to send troops to the border while applauding the end of the Trump-era border policy but worrying about what will replace it. And several moderate Democrats, by contrast, have criticized the White Houses decision to lift Title 42, sometimes pursuing efforts to extend it.

Taken together, the moment underscores the crosscurrents President Biden faces within his party as he slowly begins his re-election campaign and the challenges that await many Democrats in competitive races next year.

Its a tough issue because its a complex issue, said Representative Veronica Escobar, a Democrat from El Paso, a border city that declared a state of emergency before the lifting of Title 42.

For Republicans, it comes down to three words: Build the wall, Ms. Escobar said, faulting Republicans for torpedoing past immigration overhaul proposals. For Democrats, she acknowledged, the messaging is more challenging.

We want to talk about the multifaceted approach that it takes to address this, she said, adding that sometimes, we lose people in the process, because everybody is looking for a quick, easy sound bite.

Republicans have often used border security and the arrivals of immigrants to fire up their base, at times deploying racist conspiracy theories. But that strategy has had inconsistent results in recent general elections.

And the White House has blamed Republicans for opposing Mr. Bidens efforts to pass immigration legislation.

But an array of recent polls illustrate the political dangers for Democrats on immigration. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 60 percent of Americans disapproved of Mr. Bidens handling of immigration; a similar share of registered voters in a Fox News poll said the same. Its also an issue that alarmed Mr. Bidens lead pollster early in his presidency.

It starts with a safe and secure border and communicating what youre doing to ensure theres a safe and secure border, while at the same time providing a humanitarian and responsible way to become a United States citizen, said Dan Sena, a former executive director of the House Democratic campaign arm, the first Hispanic person to have held that position.

Both priorities, he said, from a messaging perspective and from an actual policy perspective, need to move together in unison.

In the days surrounding the lifting of Title 42, some Democrats have sought to strike that balance, arguing that there should be no conflict between supporting border security and demanding compassion for asylum seekers. Title 42, a public health rule, had allowed Border Patrol agents to turn away migrants rapidly, without providing most with the chance to seek asylum and in the immediate aftermath of the lifting of the order, the scenes of chaos some had worried about did not materialize.

But some moderate Democrats running in competitive races like Senator Jon Tester of Montana have argued against lifting Title 42 for now, as they seek to combat Republican attacks that Democrats are weak on border security.

We can have law and order at the border, and still be respectful of immigrants and their rights and treat them with respect and dignity, said Representative Henry Cuellar, a conservative Texas Democrat who offered a mixed assessment of how the Biden administration had handled the rollback.

Janet Napolitano, a homeland security secretary during the Obama administration, recalled the pressures the White House had faced from various factions of the Democratic Party when increased numbers of Central American children crossed the border in 2014.

Democrats have a much broader spectrum to cover, from those that are in what I would call the immigration advocacy community, to those who I would consider the pragmatic moderates and everything in between, Ms. Napolitano said.

Ms. Napolitano, who describes herself a pragmatist on immigration, said she had also confronted these tensions as attorney general and governor of Arizona.

There are those who believe sincerely and honestly that the United States should not deport people, Ms. Napolitano said. And there are those who believe thats not realistic nor does it fully respect the sovereignty of the United States.

Progressive Democrats have previously voiced frustration over Mr. Bidens reliance on Title 42, especially given his criticism during the 2020 campaign of former President Donald J. Trumps aggressive approach to migrants, which included separating families. And some suggest that moderates in their party are mistakenly ceding ground to Republicans on the issue.

We are allowing, in some cases, Republicans to win the conversation about immigration and asylum seekers, said Representative Delia Ramirez, a left-leaning Democrat from Chicago, whose mother crossed the border while pregnant with her.

She urged her party to embrace policies including directing more emergency funding to cities that are absorbing undocumented immigrants, making efforts to keep undocumented families together, and pursuing flexible and expedited work permits that could combat labor shortages.

Many of the people arriving at the border want to work, she stressed.

Latino voters have said to me over and over, neither party has actually delivered, she said. We have an opportunity to deliver.

Mr. Bidens plan to replace Title 42 with a so-called transit ban has also angered some of his fellow Democrats. This new rule would make migrants who fail to apply for protection in a nation on their way to the border ineligible for asylum within the United States.

The transit ban is a problem, said Representative Adriano Espaillat, Democrat of New York. The traditional asylum-seeking model should not be altered or mutilated with these new policies.

Some mayors of major liberal cities have expressed other concerns about managing the flow of migrants into their cities. Mayor Eric Adams of New York has been strikingly critical of the Biden administration.

And Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington, D.C., privately conveyed to the White House that she was much more concerned than she had let on about migrants being dropped off in the city last year, according to a former White House official. A representative for Ms. Bowser did not respond to a request for comment.

Its a prickly, prickly subject, Mr. Sena said.

Read the original:
Democrats Spar Over Immigration as Title 42 Lifts - The New York Times

Back in the late 90s to early 2000s the internet and its artefacts were still in its nascency. Back then the overall impression of the world wide web was filled with intrigue, not fatigue. Back then we waited in agony to download music off illicit websites certain to willingly lace our PCs with the nastiest of viruses; while we prayed on bended knees to any-and-every deity that our dial-up connections survive the errant phone call from nosy-nobodies.

With the turn of the century came a slew of social media sites: Myspace, Hi5, Bebo, Orkut, Facebook, Twitter and the likes. They promised a new world, where long-lost high-school friends could connect with each other across continents. Where your friends and you could find solace in sharing every bit of your life with each other. Where everyone was truly connected to each other, and perhaps happier for it? Such was the allure of social media that even primarily image and video based platforms such as YouTube and Instagram eventually bent over backwards to integrate its features within their platforms.

iStock

As I see it, such sites providing a human connect heralded the era of hyper-socialisation in the digital realm. Finally, those who had long dreamt of harnessing the power of the internet to turn the world into a global village had found their wildest dreams come true. But in hindsight, those were the very hands that creaked open Pandoras box.

Many foresaw the internet boom back then, but no one could have predicted just how ominously omnipresent the digital landscape would become in our day-to-day lives. Nearly 20 years later, we are glued to our mobiles, tablets and laptops. Inseparable from our online avatars. Our devices, just a step away from becoming full-fledged organic appendages. Instant gratification has become the name of the game.

iStock

Much has been said and written about our constant interconnectedness brought about by the online world. Weve come a long way since the halcyon days of sporadic emails, clunky chat messengers, cringe-inducing online avatars and noisy dial-up modems. Were all living our virtual lives in the digital autobahn baby, all without any of the necessary safety measures. What started off as a seemingly innocuous endeavour in global interconnectedness has now become a worryingly vital part of daily life, for many if not all.

There are several reports and research documenting the detrimental impact of social media on our mental health. This one states, Intense use of SNS (Social Networking Sites) including using those in odd hours were found to be significantly associated with depression and anxiety. Another one claims prolonged social media use has been linked to biological and psychological indicators associated with poor physical health.

iStock

While the allure of being constantly online is hard to resist, theres potentially something far more sinister pulling at our strings, like a ventriloquist beneath the hood of our favourite sites. Natasha Schll the author of Addiction by Design claims that several social media sites use methods similar to the gambling industry to keep users on their sites, she adds, In the online economy, revenue is a function of continuous consumer attention which is measured in clicks and time spent. So, dont be too hard on yourself if you find yourself obsessively swiping through an endless rabbit hole of reels, memes and photo dumps. Some of it is by design.

iStock

However, this level of connectivity comes at a steep price. The incessant notifications and perpetual distractions can leave us feeling overwhelmed and disconnected from our immediate surroundings. Not only that, but social networking sites can also present an illusion of perfection that is usually untrue, which in turn can breed a host of body image issues. Moreover, we can often find ourselves caught in a delicate dance between staying connected and yearning for a moment of respite. A futile jig, where neither is achieved in the end.

Experts suggest our time on social media and social networking sites be limited to just 30 minutes. But you and I know that our numbers make for a far poorer reading than that. In my case, my phone usage from a couple of weeks ago shows I spent nearly 3-5 hours online daily. Now, I can try and justify it by chalking it off as a career hazard, but that would just be avoiding the alarmingly-sized elephant in the room: Im chronically online and something needs to be done about it.

From the moment my day begins, till I retire for the day, my mind is hooked on to a world that isnt tethered to the real realm. Beyond research and reports, personally, I find myself increasingly distracted, irritable and exhausted on days when I had to wade through the murky waters of social media. Much to the chagrin of my IRL (in real life) people, who for no fault of their own, found themselves interacting with a husk of a person.

Kavya Film Company

Now, before anyone comes to the conclusion that Im some doomsayer of social media, let me clarify that it is a powerful tool, especially when used for good. A pivotal scene from Jude Anthany Josephs recently released film 2018 recreates a real life instance of the brilliance of social media quite powerfully. During the 2018 Kerala Floods, the government found themselves critically short-staffed to handle a disaster of such magnitude. Lets not forget that it was the worst flood in the states history in nearly a century. Cue, enthusiastic Malayali youngsters who created WhatsApp groups to recruit volunteers for the relief and rescue efforts.

iStock

Naturally, there was a deluge of fake news too, but these WhatsApp groups effectively transformed into mobile control rooms wherein volunteers tried their best to screen out any tips received, before passing on information that was accurate and relevant. Most importantly, rescuers received help from thousands of youngsters at a time when official communications were overwhelmed thanks to the accessibility of WhatsApp and social networking platforms like Facebook and Instagram.

During the Covid19 pandemic, sites like YouTube, Instagram and Facebook became hotspots for virtual gatherings at a time of social distancing. Clubhouse was another app which took off during the lockdown, as it helped thousands, if not millions, of isolated people to interact with other humans.

Missing persons have also been found through the power of social media. Aside from that, these platforms are a great tool to explore ones creative senses, champion activism and even find love (if youre into that). So its not all doom and gloom in the digital realm. So, how do we strike a perfect balance?

At a time when everyone is online, moving offline feels like a privilege, if not an act of rebellion. Due to its overwhelming presence in all factors of life, taking your attention offline often can also seem like a deliberate attempt to move against the grain. But so be it, if thats what it takes to take care of oneself.

I wouldnt call myself a chronically online person, says Ishaan*, a practising lawyer, however, things changed after the pandemic where I had nothing to do but be online, even courtrooms had shifted online. He adds, I dont know (when it began), but I remember getting into constant arguments online, at the slightest hint of a trigger.

iStock

I found myself becoming hypersensitive in real life too. Picking fights and getting into unwarranted arguments. I think thats when I decided to take stock of the impact my digital life was having on my real life he concludes.

Ishaan is one of many who have begun to re-negotiate their relationship with social media. And as expected, like any other addiction, it hasnt been an easy path. It took him several months and numerous ups and downs, to gain some control over his online activities. However, he feels it's all for the better, as he finds himself less irate and more present in the moment. Something that had been a fever dream for him for several years.

Beyond the digital landscape, it is crucial to find anchors in our actual physical world, especially for people of the generation that was raised by the internet. Finding a sense of community, fresh hobbies and a digital detox, are among several suggestions prescribed online (the irony isnt lost on me).

iStock

As for me, I tried a digital detox last year wherein I deleted all social media apps off my phone for 3 months. I had the bright idea of going cold turkey and not too long after I began noticing the physical manifestations of my chronic online behaviour. Like a forlorn lover, my sorry thumbs twiddled away in search of apps that had long been binned. I found the intensity of these physical sensations ceased (though not entirely) after a couple of weeks, during which I took to old hobbies and interests like writing songs and working out. The biggest realisation from the detox was actually finding control of those phantasmal hours that were lost to endless doom scrolling.

iStock

Funnily, after 3 months I reinstalled the apps for work. And no sooner, I returned to my previously wired-self once again. I managed to be mindful of my usage for a grand total of 10 days, after which I was back among my old habits.

For better or for worse, this chronically online world is our fait accompli. And were in for a bumpy ride.

*name changed due to privacy reasons.

Excerpt from:
Beyond The Likes A Struggle To Rediscover Real Life, Away From The Online Hive - MensXP.com