Independent News

This post was originally published on this site

NY Times:

Jan. 6 Panel Has Evidence for Criminal Referral of Trump, but Splits on Sending

The shift in the committee’s perspective on making a referral was prompted in part by a ruling two weeks ago by Judge David O. Carter of the Federal District Court for Central California. Deciding a civil case in which the committee had sought access to more than 100 emails written by John C. Eastman, a lawyer who advised Mr. Trump on efforts to derail certification of the Electoral College outcome, Judge Carter found that it was “more likely than not” that Mr. Trump and Mr. Eastman had committed federal crimes.

The ruling led some committee and staff members to argue that even though they felt they had amassed enough evidence to justify calling for a prosecution for obstructing a congressional proceeding and conspiring to defraud the American people, the judge’s decision would carry far greater weight with Mr. Garland than any referral letter they could write, according to people with knowledge of the conversations.

FT:

An exiled Russian journalist’s diary: ‘How can I help, here and now?’

The Kremlin has cracked down on independent media — but far from Moscow, their work continues

What can I do? How can I help personally? These questions have been on my mind since Putin announced on the fourth day of the war that he was preparing Russian nuclear weapons, and it became clear that this would definitely not end quickly and things would only get worse.During the first week of the war, Russian society was not yet cut off from the rest of the world, locked up voluntarily-compulsorily in the largest cage on earth. Because Putin presented the war as a “special operation”, and didn’t warn the public or even those close to him what he was about to do, the state propaganda machine was caught unawares.

…
But I’ve lived my entire adult life under Putin — I turned 30 this year — so I knew that the authorities would very quickly put a stop to all this, silencing and punishing those who spoke out. I knew that in a matter of days the independent media would be quashed, my friends would (at best) be out of work, and society would be left to consume only propaganda.

Paul Post/twitter:

The UN Security Council has been completely ineffective during the 🇷🇺-🇺🇦 war.
That’s not new, nor unexpected,…nor a problem.

Just to make sure that we’re on the same page: the UN Security Council is the key governing body of the United Nations. The mission of the UN Security Council is described in Article 24 of the UN Charter.

Art 24 says, “In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the UN, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.” 

Be “Prompt and Effective” at maintaining peace?
During the Ukraine-Russia War, the Security Council has been viewed as neither.

…

On the other hand, the failure of the UN Security Council to consent to an action doesn’t prevent a state (major power or not) from taking an action.
That’s been seen clearly in the case of the Ukraine-Russia War.

Bill Scher/Washington Monthly:

In the Judiciary Wars, Republicans Like Lindsey Graham Play Dirtier Than Democrats

The South Carolina senator whined about Democratic tactics all through Ketanji Brown Jackson’s hearings. Oh, please.

Graham’s monologue summed up the prevailing Republican view that in the battle for the judiciary, craven Democrats destroy lives with personal attacks while Republicans battle honorably by sticking to the nominee’s record.

That narrative ignores that it is possible to destroy someone’s life by smearing their record, such as falsely accusing someone of being soft on child porn traffickers.

Further, there are other ways to be indecent toward judicial nominees beyond savaging their work. Ask Merrick Garland. In 2016, when he was a Supreme Court nominee, he wasn’t asked any “hard questions,” as Graham suggested. Garland wasn’t asked any questions at all, because Senate Republicans refused to give him a hearing to fill the seat of Justice Antonin Scalia.

By focusing on an allegation of attempted sexual assault when a teenage Kavanaugh was supposedly drunk at a party, Democrats might have looked like political dumpster divers. But after the powerful testimony of Kavanaugh’s accuser Christine Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh’s petulant defense—which included asking a U.S. senator (and daughter of an alcoholic) if she was drunk—polls showed that more Americans believed Ford than Kavanaugh, and most opposed his confirmation. Moreover, what outraged Republicans overlook is that when Democrats focus on sexual misconduct charges during a judicial nomination process—as they did with Kavanaugh in 2018 and, back in 1991, with Clarence Thomas—they aren’t pursuing a strategy designed to steal a seat away from the president’s party.

John Stoehr/Editorial Board:

The four stages of ‘groomer speech’

We’re used to seeing conservatives accuse the powerless of sex crimes. We’re not used to seeing them accuse the powerful of the same.

Something I’ve been meaning to tell you. My dad is a pedophile. I’m not the victim. As always, though, there’s never just one. The ties that bound my family have largely come undone. Pain is now a feature, not a bug, of our lives.

It’s a story without end, never mind a happy one.

So you can imagine what it felt like to see Republicans in the United States Senate using the word “pedophile” (as well as “child-predator”) during the confirmation hearings of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Their use of it was loose, irrelevant, warped and worse. The purpose was advancing conspiracy theories already spreading. The goal was smearing the new Supreme Court justice with the smell of evil.

Worst of all, by overusing it, they watered down its meaning. They hollowed out its moral vital essence. They created conditions in which my dad and other pedophiles can now plausibly say their crimes weren’t so bad. Just look at what the Democrats are doing.

They’re the real criminals.

They’re the ones who should be eliminated.

Child abuse, predation, child molestation and rape – these are real problems responsible citizens much find humane ways of addressing while serving the often conflicting needs for rehabilitation and justice.

By trivializing them, the Republicans insult us.

They piss on the wounds of real victims.

Garrett Epps/Washington Monthly:

Ketanji Brown Jackson Was a Public Defender. Here’s Why That’s a Great Thing.

Jackson would be the first justice since Thurgood Marshall to represent significant numbers of criminal defendants. I learned firsthand how important that is

About a quarter century ago, when I was a newly minted, untenured assistant law professor in Oregon, the state’s new governor nominated me to join the newly created Criminal Justice Commission. I had worked for the governor’s campaign, drafting position papers that enabled him, a Democrat in a very tough year, to win unexpected endorsements from police groups and rural sheriffs. This panel was tasked to examine state and local criminal justice issues. My appointment was not exactly a reward. It promised a lot of hard work and paid exactly nothing, but I felt proud to have a chance to serve my new home state.

But it was not to be. The new Republican majority in the state senate rejected my nomination out of hand. After my second year of law school, I had spent the summer as a clerk at the Federal Public Defender office in New Mexico. I know the FPD stint was the sole reason for my rejection because no one in the Senate Republican Caucus actually knew who I was. I use my middle name, Garrett, for all professional practice and writing. The Republican senators had boldly announced that they opposed “George Epps.” (In fact, at first, I thought they were opposing my sainted Uncle George, many years in his grave after a fabled career dealing cards at the Richmond, Virginia, Elks Club.)

Whoever the nominee really was, “George Epps” was rejected in a floor vote, and my brief political career ended.

This post was originally published on this site

As Russia continues to mass troops in Ukraine’s east, U.S. military leaders are warning that they expect Russia to launch a “major” offensive from the captured city of Izyum in coming days. What we don’t know, however, is what such an offensive will truly look like.

On one hand, Russia is massing “hundreds” of vehicles in new convoys headed towards Izyum in preparation for such an offensive. On the other hand, many of the forces headed to Russia’s new front are the battered remnants of previous Russian offensives, likely to now be significantly less effective in combat than they once were, traveling down supply lines just as long and tenuous as the ones Russia was forced to abandon north of Kyiv, bogged down by the same command incompetence as before.

Russia continues to use raw numbers to force their way into territory that they may or may not be able to keep, and it’s anybody’s guess as to whether the gamble will pay off. Some of this weekend’s news:

• The challenges of sifting through the fog of war
• Reports say Russia is massing for massive Donbas attack, but can they really?
• Russia’s newest moves seem to mirror the failed tactics that led to Kyiv retreat
• Refugees top 4.5 million; Russian crimes provoke NATO into broader weapons transfers
• Gearing up for a showdown in Kherson
• ‘There just isn’t enough space for the amount of death’
• How Ukraine transformed its military with the help of U.S. Army advisers at a former Soviet base

This post was originally published on this site

Oh, Peter. You petty billionaire who created a Hulk Hogan conspiracy lawsuit to change laws for your own ends; donated millions to pro-Trump groups; backed conservative candidates like Josh Hawley; and rails in favor of libertarian causes. What on Earth have you gotten yourself into now?  Thiel’s newest claim about what is stopping Crypto-currency is a jaw-dropping one, considering the implications.

Peter Thiel is arguing that there is a plot by billionaires Warren Buffett, Jamie Dimon, and Larry Fink to oppress a market tradable item—Bitcoin—and because of their wealth, these men are able to so successfully manipulate the market that they are blocking the advancement of an entirely new form of currency. 

We need to look at his claim:

Thiel accused the trio of using investing practices focused on environmental, social and governance goals as a “hate factory” to undermine Bitcoin and other businesses.

This is interesting. Mr. Thiel is openly proclaiming that three market funds and the CEOs behind them are using “hate factory” practices and are destroying the market for a “revolutionary” product. Now, I have my own feelings about Bitcoin. Admittedly, with no nation-state behind it, and no taxable structure in place that truly governs it, and the fact that the times I see it come up with my friends in IT revolves around ransomware requests demanding payment in Bitcoin, I’m not likely the first investor in Bitcoin. I may have some other issues, too: Producing Bitcoin through mining via ASIC or PC hardware is power intensive and not great for the environment.

Listen and subscribe to Daily Kos’ The Brief podcast with Markos Moulitsas and Kerry Eleveld

Thiel’s argument really boils down to market manipulation. If you have people who are so wealthy they can manipulate the market and control the outcome for all investors, the answer would be to limit their ability to control the market, as Thiel alleges. This is interesting, considering Thiel’s multi-billion-dollar 401k fund, which was used to buy into startups and grow to gargantuan size, as ProPublica discovered:

And thanks to the Roth, Thiel’s fortune is far more vast than even experts in tallying the wealth of the rich believed. In 2019, Forbes put Thiel’s total net worth at just $2.3 billion. That was less than half of what his Roth alone was worth.

The solution to this is simple: If all of the power is concentrated in three organizations, as Thiel seems to allege, and the market is shifted against “the people,” then that would be a call for regulation, and for taxes that make it less lucrative to behave in such a manner. While I believe Thiel, at least in the case of Bitcoin, is just crying sour grapes about a volatile market, the way he is making his case leads to only three possible conclusions: regulate, tax, or both.

He doesn’t really want that, though. He just wants to complain and blame others rather than admit that the market controls itself and that the market needs reform that may or may not be conducive to Bitcoin, in the same way that it would impact all investment instruments. 

While the reality of his policy would impact everyone, what Peter imagines are taxes hitting his “enemies” but he, himself, not being impacted. Just enough to knock down other investors. 

Conservative voters, the overwhelming majority of whom do not own multibillion-dollar stock portfolios, will cheer him on, imagining one day they could be just like him if everything went just perfectly for them. Wake up, suckers.

This post was originally published on this site

Welcome back to the weekly Nuts & Bolts Guide to small campaigns! If you listened to the GOP, you would believe that Republicans themselves have the sole monopoly on churches. In their eyes, Democratic ideas, families, and candidates are not welcome inside of a church and may find themselves being stoned with rocks upon entrance. What a bunch of nonsense. While there is a clear divide between church and state, the Democratic Party message is the story of the New Testament for Christians in many ways: it is the story of acceptance. Many faiths share similar stories.

Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism, as examples, all talk about the good of the community. This common theme is a daily part of the Democratic message: Uplift the poor and the hungry. Feed those in need. Welcome the stranger. Show love to those who need it, and clothe those who are struggling. If I asked how well that message lines up with each party, the difference would be crystal clear. While Republicans talk about “rising socialism,” I have to wonder what they are talking about. With elected Republicans representing mostly the Christian community, I assume they introduced their children to Christ and his teachings and most of their children learned about the loving, kind God that flipped over the money changers’ tables, opposed profiteering, gave shelter to a sex worker, and told a community they had a responsibility to take care of those in need by welcoming refugees. How does any of this line up with the Republican Party? It doesn’t. So, how do we work to make good friends with our local religious community when running for local office?

Show up

I cannot talk enough about the importance of just showing up. Attend a Mass in a local community church and meet with parishioners afterward. Do some service work within the religious community locally that invites one-on-one conversations about how your beliefs matter to you. Maybe you don’t believe everything the church believes, but you do believe in some key things that are meaningful. Are we doing enough to make a better life for everyone in America? Do we help take care of the poor and the sick? Most Christian churches, even lay Christian members, are familiar with Mark 25:

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you? And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

Showing up means a great deal. In the Black Protestant faiths, it often means everything. Pew Research discovered that for 62% of the attendees of Black Protestant churches, having a political message in the homily is important, and for 24% it is “essential.” Hearing the message is one thing, but it is more about someone who shows up in the pews and is willing to have that conversation outside of the church that shows the care taken that day.

If you’ve ever read a book on a good relationship, you know part of the equation is active listening: hearing what is being said, internalizing it, and repeating it back to the original sender. When we do this we acknowledge what is being said and we make the other party feel seen. I’m going to be really honest: I struggle with this. Too often, we think up our response and we just wait for someone else to not talk so we can launch into what we want to say. Showing up is not just a physical place, it is showing up in full with our mind and body, and being an active participant. Don’t try to talk over someone else with what you want to say. Listen to what they are saying, relay it back to them with no changes, and wait for them to invite you to discuss what you care about in the conversation. This is how we honor the participants. The smaller your campaign, the more important this tool becomes.

Connect in a way that is meaningful and has a purpose

A Democratic candidate once said, within my earshot, that he hoped the nearby Democrats would “slip on a patch of ice and all die” because of the perceived lack of value in the room; they were older and they just wanted to talk. He had better things to do, it seems. This does not work in building a winning campaign. When you connect to a religious audience, you have to do so in a way that is meaningful and that shows purpose. 

If your appearance at these events is only perfunctory and designed to check a box, you will not get much out of them. Campaigns have many different elements that are critically important. Time, Message, and Money are some of the items I focus on with everyone who runs. Time, though, is the one item that is the most important because there is absolutely nothing you can do that gets time back. Making every meeting productive and meaningful matters to help your campaign become successful.

If you are “checked out” of a meeting, you are not helping your campaign because people around you will feel used as props and they can sense the disrespect. Religion can be very important to attendees and treating it like a normal campaign stop will never, ever work.

Go back, however, and watch some of the greatest politicians you know. Here’s President Obama singing “Amazing Grace”:

Think about more than the fact that he is singing, and watch the ministers around him, and the feeling that’s in that room. There is a connection that says: I honor tradition, and I honor what this means to this community, and I honor the members here. It is all done within a short period of time. This is a U.S. president utilizing reflective listening and putting more than an appearance back into the community. Instead, he is thoughtfully responding to the emotional state in the room.

It doesn’t need to be prompted by a tragedy. It can also be about joy and purpose. Utilizing a church only in times of great need and grieving is just waiting on something terrible. Celebrating joy is an even more powerful tool of connection. Delivering meals on wheels is one example.

We cannot abandon those who have faith

There are overwhelming numbers of people who practice a faith who are strong Democratic voters. Black Protestant voters. Jewish voters. Catholic voters have favored Democratic candidates in most elections. Not taking the step to connect our beliefs to their faith is a loss on our part and it risks losing generations of work.

Be willing to take the time and the interest to go through this process thoughtfully, intentionally, and get to the result you need in order to be successful. Walking away or deciding before you start not to participate in no way helps your campaign.

This post was originally published on this site

The number of refugees who have fled Ukraine after Russia’s invasion has now topped 4.5 million, according to the United Nations, and is expected to grow even more as Ukrainian officials to advise civilians in Luhansk and Donetsk to leave those regions before new Russian attacks.

Getting out, however, remains dangerous. The death toll from a Russian missile strike on a Kramatorsk train platform crowded with evacuating civilians has now risen to 57. That attack has been condemned unequivocally as a war crime; Russian commanders can provide no possible military justification for launching missiles against civilian passenger stations unless their “military” orders include a land-clearing genocide.

Russia’s use of war crimes as alleged military tactics appear to have been the tipping point for NATO nations, which have become increasingly willing to provide the sort of hard-hitting offensive weapons that the coalition had previously been refusing. The United Kingdom is now said to be providing new armored vehicles and possibly anti-ship missiles, though almost certainly not the Harpoon missiles that Ukraine lacks launch capabilities for. Poland is delivering T-72 tanks. Lithuania will reportedly be training Ukrainian troops on the use of Western-produced gear, while the U.S. military is now publicly highlighting their efforts to train Ukrainian soldiers being provided with new Switchblade drones. Top U.S. military leaders have also been discussing new weapons transfers requested by Ukraine.

Ukraine’s success in repelling the attacks on Kyiv, coupled with the subsequent documentation of widespread war crimes in the places where Russian soldiers briefly took control of, may yet prove the turning point of the war. It shocked western nations into providing heavier gear after weeks of waffling—but it also likely demonstrated to western leaders who feared “provoking” Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin that any such weapons transfers would not be in vain. Ukraine’s defenders have proven themselves; now international pressure is not over whether to provide the nation with more firepower, but how to most rapidly deliver it.

This post was originally published on this site

Former California congressman and pretend-cow bête noire Devin Nunes appeared on the Leni Riefenstahl White Power Hour Thursday morning to tell lies so outlandish they would shame Donald Trump. Or, well, maybe not Donald Trump, so much as someone whose jaw doesn’t unhinge when he swallows whole rotisserie chickens.

Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo, who was actually once journalism-adjacent before dedicating herself full time to bigoted bath salts hallucinations, invited Nunes onto Mornings with Maria to respond to grotesquely rich dude Elon Musk’s recent acquisition of a 9.2% stake in Twitter.  

Instead, Nunes took it as a chance to set the record straight about the flailing and failing Trump vanity project Truth Social, for which Nunes left Congress to become CEO.

It was fucking weird, man.

Check it out:

Transcript!

BARTIROMO: “Joining me right now is the CEO of Trump Media and Technology Group. He is former California congressman Devin Nunes. Devin, it’s great to see you. Thanks very much for being here. What is your reaction to Elon Musk taking a 9% stake in one of your competitors, certainly, Twitter?”

NUNES: “Well, I think it’s very interesting, because you know, the goal that President Trump has, and what I have, and our team here at Truth Social, is to open the internet back up so that the American people can get their voice back. So it’s clear that Twitter is kind of a ghost town. They desperately need Elon Musk to be there so, it’s probably something that Elon wants to do.

I think he probably believes in free speech like we do, but at the same time there’s not very much activity over at Twitter right now, especially when you compare it to sites like ours where we’re just in our beginning stages as we continue to test and bring people on day by day. Our interactions are already beating Twitter. And so Elon’s going to have a lot of work to do there, but we want everybody. We see Truth Social as something like a rising tide that lifts all boats. We want people to get their voice back, and at Truth Social we’re doing that, and it’s working.”

Sure, Devin, and Russia has generously rid Kyiv of its “Jewish Nazis,” Nancy Pelosi was primarily responsible for the Jan. 6 insurrection, and carob is just as good as chocolate. That all tracks.

Of course, down here on the reality-based community of Planet Earth, Truth Social is failing hard. It’s like crickets and tumbleweeds got together to create an elite strike force of mutant tumble-crickets that’s swiftly occupying abandoned Jazzercise franchises across the upper Midwest.

In fact, it sucks so profoundly, even Trump isn’t using it.

Insider offered this, just one day before Nunes’ nonsense:

Former President Donald Trump might be joining the conservative social media platform Gettr following the lackluster performance of his Truth Social app.

Trump has “privately fumed” about Truth Social’s failure to attract a sizeable audience since its launch in February, according to The Washington Post, which cited an unnamed source familiar with the matter.

The source also told The Post that the former president is now considering joining Gettr—a competitor to Truth Social that claims it is “founded on the principles of free speech.”

Oh, gawd. That’s too perfect.

Listen and subscribe to Daily Kos’ The Brief podcast with Markos Moulitsas and Kerry Eleveld

Then again, not everyone in Fox-land is as obtuse as Bartiromo. Just six minutes after Nunes fired the gaslight up to 11, he was gainsaid by Lou Basenese, a Wall Street analyst who had previously claimed Truth Social was “dead on arrival.”

“In tech, you have to move fast, break things, and build it,” said Basenese. “You guys are moving slow, there’s no visibility on when it’s going to get built. My question to you is this: If Elon Musk lets Trump back on Twitter, what is the reason for Truth Social at that point? Because he has 88 million followers there … So would President Trump go back on Twitter if allowed, and at that point, what do you do with the business that you’re trying to build?”

After that, Basenese and Nunes had a little bicker about whether Twitter really is the “ghost town” Nunes claims. To be clear, it isn’t (second tweet).

I’d be willing to bet almost anything that Trump told Nunes he has to get better at being on the teevee, and that’s how this Orwellian apologia on behalf of Poof Social—the amazing disappearing Twitter knockoff—ensued. And Bartiromo just sat there, as if the stuff Nunes was saying bore any resemblance to things currently happening in consensus reality.

Of course, most of Fox’s viewers will buy this spin—until they actually try to sign up for Truth Social, that is. The waitlist is looooonnng, and engagement is low, low, low, low, low, low, low. And while Fox viewers regularly gobble up lies like chirping baby birds, it’s likely even they would realize what a disaster Trump’s latest business venture is—if they ever got an up-close look.

Then again, maybe not. 

It made comedian Sarah Silverman say, “THIS IS FUCKING BRILLIANT,” and prompted author Stephen King to shout “Pulitzer Prize!!!” (on Twitter, that is). What is it? The viral letter that launched four hilarious Trump-trolling books. Get them all, including the finale, Goodbye, Asshat: 101 Farewell Letters to Donald Trump, at this link. Or, if you prefer a test drive, you can download the epilogue to Goodbye, Asshat for the low, low price of FREE. 

This post was originally published on this site

This story was originally published at Prism.

by Rohan Zhou-Lee

It was a gray day in New York City’s Chinatown on March 20 when a large group of protesters gathered at the southern tip of Columbus Park. Approximately 2,000 protesters were in attendance, united around a common goal: resisting the world’s tallest mega jail. Led by Neighborhoods United Below Canal, protesters marched in opposition to the demolition of the Manhattan Detention Center prison in Chinatown, commonly known as “the Tombs,” for a new one. Construction on the new $8.3 billion 40-story jail is projected to last until at least 2027.

The sale of the Tombs was signed under former Mayor Bill de Blasio in 2017 and remains intact under Mayor Eric Adams as part of the pact to close Rikers Island and build other “humane” jails in all boroughs except the majority white and conservative Staten Island.

At the Chinatown rally, Grace Lee, a candidate for New York State Assembly, cited environmental concerns with demolition in her speech, emphasizing the release of asbestos.

“Don’t the people of Chinatown have a right to breathe clean air and live in safe places?” she asked.

With the new jail, the government and its leaders are proving that they never will uphold the dignity nor affirm the humanity of Asian Americans. Opponents of the new jail’s construction have pointed out that it will have a negative impact on small businesses, particularly restaurants, which have already been affected by the pandemic and the rise in anti-Asian hate and racism. The jail’s construction noise will also severely impact the health and wellness of the elderly living in the senior center nearby. At a Lunar New Year parade this year, Adams said that he would speak to concerned locals about the construction of the facility. However, what Adams has yet to understand is that Chinatown belongs not only to Chinese residents but also to the Chinese folks who have been displaced by gentrification. For many of the protesters, prisons are a physical reminder of how policing has historically been used as a form of anti-Asian hate and oppression.

Chinatown has long resisted the carceral system, and much of that history is documented by Chinese American photographer Corky Lee. In April 1975, law enforcement beat a Chinese American man named Peter Yew for interfering in a minor traffic incident. He was taken to the precinct, stripped, beaten again, then charged with resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer. In response, Chinatown businesses closed on May 19 with signs reading “Closed To Protest Police Brutality,” and 15,000 people marched on city hall demanding justice. Shortly after, Yew’s charges were dropped. In 1982, Mayor Ed Koch introduced a $101 million plan to build a new jail. This involved the displacement of residents through selling buildings and giving each tenant only $250 to relocate. An estimated 12,000 protestors rallied and blocked entry to the Brooklyn Bridge, ultimately deterring the new jail’s construction.

Currently, the prison system remains a deep threat to Asian Americans. In the Trump administration’s first year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) increased its deportation efforts by 150%. In the 2018 fiscal year, most of the deportees in New York City were Chinese, followed by Indian immigrants. Before ICE was even established, the incarceration of Asian Americans increased by 250% in the 1990s alone. Since 1998, at least 15,000 Lao, Cambodian, and Vietnamese incarcerated immigrants and refugees have received deportation notices—and 80% of those were given based on previous records, not current offenses. This prison-to-deportation pipeline is distinctly anti-Asian.

In the struggle against policing and incarceration, many New York-based Asian American organizing groups like Red Canary Song uplift tragic examples of police overreach and violence. Many remember Yang Song, a Chinese immigrant woman who worked in a spa in Flushing, Queens. Shortly after she confided to her mother that she reported being sexually assaulted by an undercover police officer in 2017, New York Police Deparment officers raided Song’s place of work, and she fell four stories to her death. Others would name Angelo Quinto, who died after a mental health crisis in 2020 when police put a knee to his neck in an incident hauntingly similar to the murder of George Floyd. Some people also remember Christian Hall, who was shot by police last year while experiencing a mental health crisis. Detailed footage of the police shooting has yet to be released to the public.

True safety for our Asian American and Pacific Islander communities means the abolition of prisons and policing everywhere. Jails do not belong in our communities. I don’t want prisons for human beings. I want a center for healing, for restorative justice. There is no such thing as the humane caging of human beings, not when the 13th Amendment subjugates people to involuntary servitude.

Chinatown is also one of the few places I can access the culture of two of my great grandfathers, one deported to Jamaica and the other to the U.S. as a Paper Son during the Chinese Exclusion Act. It is where at a separate Lunar New Year celebration, an elderly woman—a complete stranger—held my hand for a few seconds as we watched the lion dances together. I may not live there, but Chinatown is a home for me, and to see it under systemic racist attacks and policing is simply shameful.

Prism is a BIPOC-led nonprofit news outlet that centers the people, places, and issues currently underreported by national media. We’re committed to producing the kind of journalism that treats Black, Indigenous, and people of color, women, the LGBTQ+ community, and other invisibilized groups as the experts on our own lived experiences, our resilience, and our fights for justice. Sign up for our email list to get our stories in your inbox, and follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

This post was originally published on this site

This is infuriating, and it shows why Republicans so often act in bad faith—because acting in bad faith works. For them, at least.

While it would be nice if voters acted in their best interests by, say, supporting candidates who might measurably improve their lives, they actually appear to respond a lot more readily to fear. Which is somewhat ironic, since my biggest fear is that Donald Trump will be released on our country again like a sack of diarrhetic feral cats on the International Space Station hot bar. And this kind of shit ain’t helpin’, let me tell ya.

Turns out voters really liked President Biden’s expanded child tax credit, which was part of his economy-boosting American Rescue Plan. But those warm, fuzzy feelings appear to have evaporated since Republicans colluded with Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to kneecap Biden’s Build Back Better plan, which would have taken a permanent bite out of child poverty. 

Voters who received expanded child tax credits payments in 2021 ended the year more likely than not to support Democratic candidates for Congress in this year’s midterm elections. But months after that benefit expired, a new Morning Consult/Politico survey shows Republicans have made up that ground. […]

• Among parents or guardians with at least one child under 18 in the household who received the expanded child tax credit payments, 46% said they are most likely to vote for a Republican congressional candidate this year while 43% said they’re inclined to back the Democratic candidate.
• The narrow GOP advantage among this group stands in contrast with Democrats’ lead of 12 percentage points in late December, before the benefit expired. It also continues a trend first captured in a survey conducted in February.

Thanks, Joe Manchin! You really did your party a solid. 

Listen and subscribe to Daily Kos Elections’ The Downballot podcast with David Nir and David Beard

Of course, if you liked the child tax credit and want it back, it would only make sense to elect more Democrats so that two selfish, corporate-aligned quislings would no longer be able to scuttle President Biden’s best-laid plans. The alternative is electing candidates from a party that has vowed never to help parents pay for anything, ever.

But, to be brutally honest, most people don’t think things through that much. All they saw was a vital benefit being taken away and Democrats, who technically control two branches of government, failing to deliver on their most aspirational promises.

So by this time next year, we may very well be stuck with a Republican-controlled Congress, which will gut families’ hopes and dreams for another two years at least.

Oddly, among all voters, Democrats are now tied with Republicans on the generic ballot—which suggests pulling the rug out from under voters hurts you more than never lifting a finger for them in the first place. No wonder Republicans are so giddy about their midterm prospects.

Of course, our message on this should be simple: If you want some breathing room for yourself and other families, you’d be mad to vote for a Republican. Democrats are promising to help you, and Republicans are promising not to. But so much gets lost and distorted in the fog of a congressional campaign. Who/what will be the light that breaks through? 

We need better messaging, people. What say you?

It made comedian Sarah Silverman say, “THIS IS FUCKING BRILLIANT,” and prompted author Stephen King to shout “Pulitzer Prize!!!” (on Twitter, that is). What is it? The viral letter that launched four hilarious Trump-trolling books. Get them all, including the finale, Goodbye, Asshat: 101 Farewell Letters to Donald Trump, at this link. Or, if you prefer a test drive, you can download the epilogue to Goodbye, Asshat for the low, low price of FREE. 

This post was originally published on this site

On this week’s episode of The Downballot, we’re joined by Ali Lapp, the founder of the House Majority PAC—the largest super PAC devoted to helping Democrats win House races nationwide. Lapp discusses HMP’s role in the broader Democratic ecosystem, how the organization decides which districts to target, and promising research showing the positive impacts of a new ad touting Democrats’ record on the economy.

Co-hosts David Nir and David Beard also recap elections this week in California and Wisconsin; explain why Republicans are finally turning on Madison Cawthorn (it’s not really about cocaine and orgies); pick apart a huge blunder that led the first attack ad in Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary for Senate getting yanked off the air the very day it debuted; and provide updates on international elections in Hungary and France.

David Beard:

Hello and welcome. I’m David Beard, contributing editor for Daily Kos Elections.

David Nir:

And I’m David Nir, political director of Daily Kos. The Downballot is a weekly podcast dedicated to the many elections that take place below the presidency, from Senate, to city council. Email us with your thoughts or questions you’d like us to answer at [email protected] or find us on Twitter, @DKElections.

David Beard:

And please subscribe to The Downballot wherever you listen to podcasts and leave us a five star rating and review. But let’s go ahead and jump into today’s episode. What are we going to be covering today?

David Nir:

On today’s show, our guest is Ali Lapp, who is the founder of the House Majority PAC, which is the largest Super PAC on the Democratic side that is devoted to helping Democrats win House races nationwide. We’re going to be talking with her about how HMP goes about its work and the races that it’s focusing on this year, as well as the role redistricting has played in Democrat’s strategies. But before we talk with Ali, we are going to be running down our weekly hits on the most recent stories making news in the world of downballot elections.

David Nir:

There were in fact, some elections this past week in Wisconsin and California that we are going to recap. There was also an interesting turn of events in the Pennsylvania Senate race, where the Democratic primary went negative for the first time. We have Madison Cawthorn on tap once more; find out why Republicans are finally turning against him. And then we’re going to be discussing a couple of European elections that have taken place recently or are coming up on the docket very soon.

David Beard:

Great. Let’s go ahead and dive in.

David Nir:

Now, it’s time for our weekly hits, where we discuss the stories making the headlines and those that maybe are slipping past the headlines in the world of downballot elections. Beard, what have you got for us?

David Beard:

Well, this week there was a Tuesday, so that means that there were elections here in America, because we have elections almost every Tuesday somewhere. The two states we’re looking at are Wisconsin and California this week. In California, there was a special election for the remainder of representative, Devon Nunes’s term, former assembly minority leader, Republican Connie Conway took first place in the runoff that’s going to be held June 7th. She took 64,000 votes and about 35%. While right now, Democrat Lauren Hubbard who’s an official at the California Department of Water Resources, is in second with 20%, though that’s not final yet because there are a couple other candidates with about 15% each, GOP businessman, Matt Stoll and another Democrat Marine veteran, Eric Garcia.

David Beard:

There are still mail ballots that can be received and be counted, so that hasn’t been called yet. But I think the expectation is that Conway and Hubbard will advance to the runoff, which is again, June 7th. Neither one of them are running for any congressional seat in November because the seat is changing a lot in redistricting. So assuming Conway wins where she’s the favorite because it’s a pretty Republican leaning seat at the moment, she’ll already be a lame duck Congresswoman when she’s sworn in later in the summer. Again, if she wins.

David Nir:

One thing I should note is that Republican candidates combined for 65% of the vote in the first round of the special election, so that presents pretty daunting odds for Democrats. Though the second round is happening on the same day as the regular statewide primary, that hopefully means turnout will be higher, but I’d say this seat is very likely to remain in GOP hands.

David Beard:

Yeah, I think that’s the assumption. Then up in Wisconsin, there were a number of local elections for Wisconsin’s spring election that they have every year. One notable race that our friends at Bolts Magazine highlighted was that fake Trump elector Kelly Ruh, who tried to help Donald Trump steal the election in 2020 by being one of the Wisconsin electors for Donald Trump, she lost her reelection as an alderperson in De Pere, a town near Green Bay. So that was very good news. And then down in Milwaukee, acting mayor and Democrat Cavalier Johnson, decisively won Tuesday’s special election, beating conservative Bob Donovan by a large 72 to 28 margin.

David Beard:

Johnson who made history as the first black person elected to lead Milwaukee will then have to run for a full term here in a couple years up in 2024. And looking more broadly, I’m not going to go through all of the other various small elections that took place in Wisconsin, but it was overall a mixed bag, I would say. There were some Democratic victories, some Republican victories, which is not the worst news, I think, compared to where we’ve seen in the past, these before November elections that take place that are maybe lower turnout. You can really see wipe outs one way or another when it’s a big wave year.

David Beard:

So the fact that it wasn’t a terrible night for Democrats, I’m not saying it was a good night by any means, but the fact that it wasn’t a terrible night does provide a little bit of hope that a wave is not imminent later in the year, but that’s obviously just one factor among many that we’re going to continue to keep watching.

David Nir:

Well. And since last week was a week, that meant there was another opportunity for Madison Cawthorn to completely humiliate himself. But this time it seems like there were finally consequences for him. By now, I’m sure you have heard about his cocaine and orgies claim, it’s completely bonkers, total made-upcrap. It upset Republicans in a way that his fascistic rhetoric never could. But the most important thing is that just the other day, Republican Senator Thom Tillis announced that he would be endorsing state Senator Chuck Edwards, who is running against Madison Cawthorn or in the May 17 GOP primary.

David Nir:

Now, that’s a pretty unusual move to see a sitting Senator endorse a challenger to a member of Congress from his own state. But really, though the coke and orgy stuff got all of the attention, that’s not really why Tillis and other Republicans finally have painted a target on Madison Cawthorn’s back. The real problem is that Cawthorn has just behaved like a celebrity who cares much more about the national right-wing media circuit and the attention he gets in [Washington], D.C., than about his constituents back home. And in fact, that’s exactly something that Tillis specifically cited saying, “It comes down to focus on the district, producing results for the district. And in my opinion, Mr. Cawthorn hasn’t demonstrated much in the way of results over the last 18 months.”

David Nir:

And there’s another factor here as well that we’ve talked about on the show before, when Republicans rolled out their first congressional map last year, Cawthorn made this crazy decision to announce that he was going to run in an essentially brand new district that he hadn’t really represented at all, in a way to buttress conservative credentials, expose him to more of the state and also possibly to block another top Republican in the state legislature from running for that seat. And so, after Cawthorn announced that he was switching districts, that’s when Chuck Edwards got into the race for Cawthorn’s original seat, and then Cawthorn got screwed by reality.

David Nir:

The state court struck down the GOP map as an unconstitutional gerrymander and replaced it with a much fairer map, and that meant that the district Cawthorn wanted to run in, the new seat, didn’t exist anymore. It was turned into a very swingy district that would not suit a maniac like Cawthorn at all. So he tucked his tail and went back home to his district, the 11th in Western North Carolina, and the far Western tip of [District] 8, except the problem was Chuck Edwards said, “I’m not going to defer to you. I actually never stopped caring about Western North Carolina even when you were showboating off in other parts of the state.”

David Nir:

So because Cawthorn tried this whole district shopping shenanigan, he netted himself a challenger who simply just wasn’t going to budge on his way home. And Tillis is not the only major Republican who is supporting Edward’s challenge. How speaker Tim Moore and State Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger are also backing him. CNN reports that others may as well. Now, Cawthorn is still likely to win renomination. Even Edward’s own polling shows him trailing, but we still have about six weeks ago until the primary, quite a lot can happen. And like I said, it’s quite unusual for your own home state Senator to decide he wants you gone from the state’s delegation. So there may yet be other shoes to drop for Cawthorn.

David Beard:

There are certainly a lot of things a U.S. Senator can do to make your reelection a lot more difficult if they put their mind to it. And I’ll just add, since you already took us to North Carolina, I’ll just note that I didn’t take us to North Carolina; you took us to North Carolina. That this past week, there was a heroic victory by my alma mater, UNC, in the final four over Duke, which led to a narrow loss to Kansas. But to bring it back to politics, there was a heartwarming photo for any Southern Democrat of Democratic governor Roy Cooper, Democratic governor Laura Kelly of Kansas at lunch, hosted by Democratic governor John Bel Edwards of Louisiana, where the Final Four was played.

David Beard:

So I saw that photo and it warmed my heart, as did the victory over Duke, the narrow loss to Kansas less so.

David Nir:

Well, I should note also that Laura Kelly kicked off the first ad of her reelection campaign during that same game. So hopefully she got some warm fuzzies from associating herself with her home state school’s win.

David Beard:

Yeah. She’s got the election this year, the other two don’t, so by all means, she should take it all that she can.

David Nir:

So we’re going to migrate away from what seems to be our perversely favorite state of North Carolina, up to Pennsylvania, where just this week for the first time, the Democratic primary for Senate turned negative on the airwaves. The race is primarily a contest between two candidates, Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman and Congressman Connor Lamb, both of whom are from Western Pennsylvania. Fetterman has led in all the polls. He simply has greater name recognition. And it seems that Lamb’s allies think that the only way to stop Fetterman is to attack him on TV ads. But boy, did they screw up.

David Nir:

A Super PAC called Penn Progress started airing an ad that tried to contrast Lamb describing his background as a Marine and a prosecutor with Fetterman, and saying that Fetterman is, “A self-described socialist.” A huge problem, the ad cited an NPR piece from a couple of years back that did, yes, describe Fetterman as a self-described socialist, except at the end of the piece, there was a huge correction that said…

David Nir:

So we’re going to migrate away from what seems to be our perversely favorite state of North Carolina, up to Pennsylvania, where just this week for the first time, the Democratic primary for Senate turned negative on the airwaves. The race is primarily a contest between two candidates, Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman and Congressman Connor Lamb, both of whom are from Western Pennsylvania. Fetterman has led in all the polls. He simply has greater name recognition. And it seems that Lamb’s allies think that the only way to stop Fetterman is to attack him on TV ads. But boy, did they screw up.

David Nir:

A Super PAC called Penn Progress started airing an ad that tried to contrast Lamb describing his background as a Marine and a prosecutor with Fetterman, and saying that Fetterman is, “A self-described socialist.” But there was a big problem, at the end of the piece, there was a huge correction that said, “This piece said that John Fetterman is a self-described socialist. He is not.” So this ad was based on a claim in an article that was retracted.

David Nir:

And as a result, Fetterman’s campaign sent a letter to TV stations that were airing the ad, asking them to take the ad down because it contained a falsehood. And they said Fetterman has never called himself a socialist. And in fact, they even pointed to an interview he gave a few years ago where someone asked him directly, “Do you describe yourself as a Democratic socialist?” And he flat out said no. And the amazing thing was that at least one TV station in the Philadelphia area already yanked the ad off the airwaves. It’s pretty much the fastest I’ve ever seen. It was literally the same day it went up, according to [the] Fetterman campaign, it was taken down.

David Nir:

And the reason why this ad was vulnerable to this demand by the Fetterman campaign is that under federal law, TV stations have to air any ad that campaigns send them as long as they’re paid for. And this can include stuff that TV stations would never air. There was an ad a few years ago where a campaign try to get attention by having the candidates say, “Fuck the NRA,” and that was actually broadcast on TV. But third-party ads, TV stations aren’t obligated to run them. And because of that, because they’re not obligated to run them, that also means they can potentially be held liable for any defamatory or false content.

David Nir:

The Fetterman campaign’s letter, these campaigns send these letters all the time, but it’s essentially a veiled threat or not so veiled threat saying, “If you don’t take this ad off, we might Sue you for publishing defamatory content.” So third party ads like the one from this group Penn Progress really have to be vetted very, very carefully to make sure they aren’t vulnerable to being taken off airwaves. But man, what a huge blunder that the NPR piece in questions literally had the correction appended to it. There’s truly no excuse for this.

David Nir:

The thing though is that this might be a blessing in disguise because the idea that this group is attacking Fetterman for being too liberal or too far to the left in a Democratic primary, that seems completely crazy to me. If anything, that might make Fetterman more popular with voters. So Lamb’s team really needs to go back to the drawing board here. But I think that Fetterman remains the favorite in the Democratic primary here.

David Beard:

Yeah, it’s been a strange primary Lamb obviously has a lot of positives to the fact that he’s a very good candidate, he can run a strong campaign. But Fetterman had great name recognition and a very positive view amongst Democratic voters in a big state like Pennsylvania. So it was always going to be tough to overcome that. And this is not going to help at all.

David Nir:

There was originally a thought perhaps Lamb decided to run for Senate instead of seeking reelection because he was worried that his district in the House would be made considerably worse. But in fact, it actually got better in redistricting. Unfortunately, the filing deadline passed several weeks ago, there’s no chance of him switching races. But really, I think that ultimately, this is going to prove to be a mistake for Conor Lamb and that he should have sought another term in the House.

David Beard:

I’m going to wrap up our weekly hits by taking us back to a couple of international quick hits. Over in Europe, this time, over in Hungary and France. So in Hungary, there was a general election this past Sunday. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán won a fourth term in office with 54% of the vote, which was actually up more than four percentage points from his last selection victory in 2018. And his party retained a two thirds majority in parliament thanks to some pretty significant gerrymandering that his party has implemented in the past. Yes, gerrymandering is not just for here in America, it does happen in other, in other places as well, very severely in Hungary.

David Beard:

Now, Orbán is a right-wing autocrat who’s curtailed press freedoms, he’s eroded judicial independence, and he’s undermined multiparty democracy both with the gerrymandering and in other ways. This year, the opposition actually united against him for the first time, as opposed to running in a number of different parties. And that’s in large part due to the fact that the electoral system is partially first pass the post. Like it is here, where if multiple candidates run, it’s just, whoever gets the most votes wins the election. So obviously, with Orbán party being such a large figure, if you’re running two or three different candidates, it becomes so much harder to beat him or his candidate. Whereas if you unite against one candidate, you have a much better shot.

David Beard:

But unfortunately, they were unable to break through really outside the capital area and received just 34% of the vote overall. Now, Orbán’s been close with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, though he has walked that back a bit in the past few weeks in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine. He hasn’t been single handedly trying to block EU sanctions, though he has been on the more reluctant end of things. He’s been one of the last countries: once you got the rest of the countries on board, Hungary wouldn’t stand in the way, but he certainly hasn’t been helpful in that area.

David Beard:

He also hasn’t been allowing any lethal arms to be either donated from Hungary or transported through Hungary. And Hungary is one of the countries that shares a border with Ukraine, so that has caused some obstacles at time. There was some hope that this would hurt him with the electorate, but unfortunately, that just didn’t happen as we see here. And as we’ll talk about a little bit in France, it seems that despite a lot of concern in Europe over what Russia is doing in Ukraine and a lot of sympathy for the Ukrainian people, that hasn’t really translate to changing electoral habits, at least so far.

David Beard:

And in Orbán’s victory speech, he lists a number of what he called left wing groups or organizations that he’s overcome in this victory, amongst them, the left in Hungary, the EU, Hungarian-born billionaire George Soros, which is often the victim of antisemitic attacks in Hungary. And including that, he also include Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which seems in incredibly strange, but Zelenskyy has attacked Orban for being one of the most reluctant of the EU leaders to support Ukraine or to provide aid to Ukraine.

David Beard:

So he had called out Orban by name earlier since the invasion had happened. And Orban clearly has seen him as somebody to oppose, which is really concerning as now he’s almost certainly going to be part of the EU for at least the next few years.

David Nir:

And of course Zelensky is a Jew, so easy for Orban to lump him in with Soros. I’ve watched what’s gone on in Hungary these last many years, and I feel like what has happened there is what the GOP would very much like to do to America, to create a country where they can win a narrow majority of the vote or not even a majority of the vote and still win super majorities in the legislature and do exactly all the things that Orban has engaged in, especially undermining judicial independence and packing the courts with their cronies. It really does feel like there, but for the grace of God go we, example for us, whatever is going on in Hungary, it’s like an early warning system for us.

David Beard:

Absolutely. And Republicans aren’t really hiding that. The Conservative Political Action Committee, CPAC, which is one of the biggest Conservative groups in the country, they are gathering in May in Hungary where their headline speaker will be Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orban. So they aren’t really trying to hide their affection for him and for their desire to emulate what he’s done in Hungary here.

David Nir:

Yeah. I think they’ve been cowed into silence about their previous favorite autocrat who was of course Putin, and now they’re transferring their affection to Orban. And of course, Tucker Carlson is completely in love with Orban. And I think even broadcasts some episodes from there and has repeated and amplified his crazy antisemitic conspiracy theories. So it’s a bad situation all around. There’s really nothing good whatsoever that can be said about the situation there.

David Beard:

Yeah, exactly. And then over in France, there’s a related situation going on. Hopefully, will not turn out as badly as Hungary has turned out. But the first round of the presidential election is going to be taking place on Sunday, April 10th. The two leading candidates are centrist president Emmanuel Macron and far right leader, Marine Le Pen. They’re both expected to advance to a runoff that’s going to take place two weeks later, polls have shown Le Pen narrowing her deficit in that runoff to single digits after she lost to Macron five years ago by a landslide 32% margin, it was almost two to one the degree to which Macron defeated Le Pen.

David Beard:

Le Pen like much of the far right in Europe has been close with Putin in the past, like Orban has been. But as we saw in Hungary, as I mentioned, that doesn’t seem to be a major factor in voters’ decision making in these countries, it’s been much more about things like the cost of living and other domestic concerns. So that’s going to be something we’re going to watch closely. Obviously we’ll have the results of the first round next week, and then the results of the runoff a few weeks later. But Le Pen is definitely a major concern there and something to watch

David Nir:

That concludes our weekly hits. Next up, we will be talking with Lapp, the founder of the House Majority PAC, the largest Super PAC in the country to help Democrats in House races nationwide. Stay with us.

David Beard:

Today. We’re joined by Ali Lapp, the founder of House Majority PAC. House Majority PAC also known as HMP is an independent expenditure pack or Super PAC that works to elect Democrats to the House of Representatives. And on a personal note, she is also my former boss from when I worked at HMP back in 2012. So thank you so much for joining us, Ali.

Ali Lapp:

Absolutely. It’s always nice to join someone who was around for the inaugural cycle of House Majority PAC.

David Beard:

Yeah. It’s come a long way since then.

Ali Lapp:

It has.

David Beard:

So the details of what House Majority PAC is and how it differs from the [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] DCCC or even candidate campaigns can be tough to part for a lot of people. Can you give us a brief rundown of the unique role that HMP plays and how it functions as an independent expenditure PAC?

Ali Lapp:

The reason that House Majority PAC exists is because our campaign finance laws in this country are really confusing. And so the way that we have to operate is we are completely independent of candidates and party committees. When I look at House races, I like to think of it as a house, a literal house that someone would live in with three different wings. And one wing of that house are the candidate and their campaign committees. They’re allowed to work with certain people who work at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, they work with their state parties, they can work with the DNC. And they operate in that wing of the House.

Ali Lapp:

Another wing of the house is where the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s independent expenditure resides. They are the most isolated wing of that house. They really can only talk to themselves, they cannot coordinate with any other organizations, including the candidates, or outside groups who are supporting those candidates. And then the third wing of the House, I think is the biggest wing of the house, is where House Majority PAC resides. And in that wing, we also have groups like the League of Conservation Voters, EMILY’s List, labor unions who have independent expenditure arms, and we all operate independently of those other two wings and do whatever we can to make sure that the House Democrat in the races that we care about is going to win their election.

David Nir:

So just a small clarification. You mentioned that the DCCC’s independent expenditure arm is basically entirely isolated. Is HMP permitted to talk with other Super PACs such as those run by the League of Conservation Voters or EMILY’s List, other groups that you were mentioning.

Ali Lapp:

Absolutely. We work really closely with other organizations. I like to think of us as the air traffic control of House world. And so we work very closely with EMILY’s List independent/expenditure arm, which is called Women Vote, and League of Conservation Voters, as you mentioned. 314 Action is a great organization that supports candidates with a science background or who want to promote a science agenda. And we really try to help them make good decisions in their house independent expenditure work. We really see ourselves as helping them understand who the candidates are, what forces are at play. We have a decently sized staff of House experts, so when these organizations who may not have as big a staff decide, “Hey, we’d like to play in this race,” we can immediately help them with good information, sharing our polling data, sharing our research and helping them help us win House seats.

David Beard:

And so with this forced separation from the party and the candidates and their campaigns, how does HMP stand up this whole campaign operation largely on its own in coordination with these other folks. But you’re doing the biggest grunt work in terms of building up these different House races, and particularly doing it as opposed to a senate or a governor’s side where there’s at max 30 or 50 races. There’s 435 House races, obviously you’re not going to play in all of those, but you could easily play in 50 or more than that.

Ali Lapp:

Oh, absolutely. Look, we hire amazing people like you, who do this work for us. We have a really, I think, systematic way of organizing House races. We hire a political desk, a research desk, an assistant, and they take on a portfolio of 20 to 30 races. And they really have to understand these races inside and out through publicly available sources. So we do morning clips on all of these critical House races/ They’re watching and transcribing every single ad that comes out from the candidates, from the party committees. And we largely follow the candidates lead in these races.

Ali Lapp:

Sometimes you do have a candidate who might be an amazing candidate, but they had a really tough primary, or they just don’t have the fundraising network to do all that they would like to do. And so sometimes we do have to step in and do a little more, but generally, we follow the candidates lead, we try to reinforce their message, educate voters on the Republicans candidates, shortcomings. It’s an easy way of saying go negative on the Republican. We essentially are a critical part of these campaigns without them actually being able to tell us directly what to do.

David Nir:

Ali, obviously redistricting has upended the playing field across the country in so many states this year, and I’m wondering, how has the remapping process affected your planning for this year and your timeline in terms of getting involved with races, especially since we have some big states like Florida that haven’t even finished the redistricting process yet?

Ali Lapp:

When I founded House Majority PAC in 2011, it was also a redistricting cycle. So we have some experience at dealing with the logistics of redistricting and waiting for states to finish their maps. And certainly back in the 2012 cycle, Beard will remember this, we were waiting on states like Minnesota and others who just were taking forever in the courts to actually finalize their maps. We’re facing the same thing this year, as you mentioned, Florida is still not done. Florida’s a big state, there’s a couple of swing districts in there. So we would love to get Florida done with good maps as soon as we can, but we have to wait.

Ali Lapp:

It does affect our planning, we have to be very flexible, which is something I think we’ve always been good at House Majority PAC. We’re very nimble, we’re able to move quickly when we need to. And that’s really important in a redistricting cycle more than any other kind.

David Nir:

The big question in 2022 and one we have addressed in some way, shape or form in almost every episode of The Downballot so far is how to tackle the fact that the party in power almost always loses seats in a midterm when they control the White House. And this is especially acute given that the Democrats majority right now in the House is only five seats. Obviously, Joe Biden’s approval ratings are not strong and haven’t been for a while. From a broad perspective, how is HMP addressing this situation? Do you operate in this kind of environment? Obviously you went through the 2014 cycle, another difficult midterm under somewhat similar circumstances. How do you manage during an environment like this?

Ali Lapp:

This is obviously a very tricky cycle and it’s not just the historic nature of a midterm election when you hold the presidency, which as you said, traditionally is not great for the party who holds the White House. We know that, we know that we have hurdles to holding the majority, but the other factor that’s playing in here is it’s just a time of such uncertainty in America right now. We’ve just been through this pandemic, we’ve had enormous economic upheaval. There are a lot of social and cultural issues that put people on edge around the country, it’s a very divisive time. I think following the presidency of Donald Trump has just made people retreat to their corners.

Ali Lapp:

So it’s a really tumultuous time, and I think voters are feeling that and voters are generally on whatever side of the aisle are angrier than they normally are, and that’s something we have to reconcile and something we have to figure out if we’re going to hold the majority. Look, Biden’s numbers as you said are not great, and the most important thing that could happen for House electoral success is for Biden to improve his approval ratings. And I know that they’re trying and he’s got actually a lot of good things to run on and it’s something that we feel strongly that they should be talking about and celebrating some of the successes even more.

Ali Lapp:

If you look back at where we were before Biden was elected, our country has moved in the right direction so enormously, whether it’s from COVID or it’s on the economy, things are moving in the right direction, but I don’t feel like voters are giving us enough credit for that. And rather than question why and point fingers, we at House Majority PAC are just trying to make that case to voters. So that’s something I think is very important. We are also, look, I’ll be upfront with you, we have not done a ton of district by district polling.

Ali Lapp:

We like to save that for when the data’s a little fresher and we’re about to start communicating, but we’re really interested in looking at important voter groups around the country and trying to listen to them and understand their frustrations and figure out what we need to do as House Democrats to better communicate with them and connect with them so that we can hold our majority and possibly expand it this November.

David Nir:

So I’m curious, I know it’s going back eight years now, but are there any examples from 2014 where HMP may be snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, any particular topics or ads you recall running at any specific races then that might offer instructive lessons for the environment we’re facing this November?

Ali Lapp:

Yeah, that’s a good question. I was actually just thinking about this the other day. And I think one of my biggest takeaways from 2014 is that you have to remember that what you’re doing really matters, even when there is a big wave or a mini-wave environment, like there was in 2014, I would say there was a moderate Republican wave. And what we really had to do is figure each race out individually. And I know that sounds simple, but it’s really not. And it really is about understanding what’s going on in a specific district.

Ali Lapp:

One race that I think back to a lot was the reelection of Scott Peters in San Diego. And he was facing a relatively moderate Republican challenger who was a Councilman. A lot of national Republicans were very excited about his candidacy and he had a personal scandal that broke about a month before the election. There were a lot of possible outcomes to that scandal. We could have really overplayed our hand, it could have backfired, it was a very tricky thing to figure out. And I am really proud of the work that we did at HMP to understand that issue and figure out how to communicate about it in a way that was effective. And it was a very close election win for us.

Ali Lapp:

I think if we had not handled that particular issue so well, we very well could have lost that seat. It was a very tough district in a tough environment. And so that’s the lesson I take away, and the way I want to approach these races, this cycle, you can’t just say, “Everything’s terrible, we’re going to lose this race. And this is too hard.” You really have to understand on what’s going on the ground and be very sophisticated, be willing to make tough decisions and find effective ways to communicate to voters no matter how challenging.

David Beard:

And we’ve seen in past cycles over and over again, that maybe strong campaigning and advertising maybe can’t take you from a 50-seat loss to a 50-seat win or vice versa, but in every one of these waves that we’ve had for both Democrats and Republican, good candidates and good campaigns have withstood them and overcome those waves because they were better candidates or because they were able to successfully attack their opponents. So it’s very possible, it’s just something that, as you said, has to be really done on a case by case basis.

Ali Lapp:

Absolutely. It’s one of the main reasons I founded House Majority PAC in 2011, after the 2010 disastrous midterm election, you can see that the Republicans had all these allies on their side, American Crossroads was all the rage back then. And they came in late and put the hammer down on some Democrats that didn’t even think they were vulnerable. And they were always going to win the House that year, but I know that all of the outside spending they had on their side, the extra advertising, it gave them extra seats, which were then, it was much harder for us to then come back from that in 2012, because they had such an advantage in 2010.

Ali Lapp:

So the whole mission of House Majority PAC was to even the playing field and make sure we were fighting fair and they weren’t out communicating us so that no matter what the national environment, we were doing the very best we can to win as many House seats as possible for Democrats.

David Beard:

HMP has actually put out a few things recently, which is exciting for us because we get the chance now to talk about them. One thing that just came out this week is HMP released an ad called Rescued that touts Biden and the Democrats economic successes over the past year and a half or so, along with some research from Blue Rose Research about how positive the ad’s impact would be. So how did that come about? And what’s the rationale for an ad like that that doesn’t focus so much on a specific House or House races, but really has a much broader national focus?

Ali Lapp:

Well, we think we need to start setting the table for the dialogue that needs to happen this fall. We need to start talking about the economic successes that Democrats have brought to the American people and what we’re still doing every day to make things better for them. In that ad, we specifically talked about the job growth we’ve had, the economy turning around and what we’ve been doing lately, Biden doing his work to lower gas prices, the House voting on Congresswoman Angie Craig from Minnesota’s bill to cap the price of insulin. These are things that have a real impact on family’s pocketbooks, and we think we need to be talking about them even more aggressively than we already have been.

Ali Lapp:

So we felt that we should produce this ad, release it, try to get as much play as we can and potentially show what we believe is the right path to talking about the economy as we head into the fall elections.

David Nir:

You did some research suggesting that the ad does actually have the impact that you were hoping it would. Can you talk a little bit about those findings? And also, we’d like to get into the nitty-gritty of politics here. Can you talk a little bit about how that research was done? How do you test an ad?

Ali Lapp:

Well, there’s a number of different ways that research firms will test ads. I think the best way to do it is as organically as possible. You don’t just show voters an ad and say, “Hey, did you like that? Yes or no.” Because you’re not really going to get the reaction you would get if they saw it just naturally. So I like the kinds of ad tests where voters see an ad, they’ll see a couple different ads that are political, and then maybe they’ll see an ad for Bounty paper towels, and they’re asked, how would they vote in their congressional election or in a presidential election. And if you can get a gauge on that, you can get a sense of how much you’re actually moving voters based on the ad that they’ve seen.

Ali Lapp:

So we found, or Blue Rose Research found, that the ad that we produced on the economy increased respondent’s views that America’s on the right track by over 2% and approval for President Biden’s handling of the economy by nearly 2.5%. So again, that sounds like a small number, but that is a pretty big number in terms of just one viewing of an ad. What we really take away from that is that this is the kind of messaging that will work, that will improve voters’ views of what’s happening in the economy. And it’s really, it’s not that complicated, it’s simply talking about what we’ve done that’s gone right and what we’re still doing to continue to make things better.

David Beard:

The other big news that HMP recently announced was the $100 million in TV and digital ad reservations for this fall in many media markets across the country. First off, why make these reservations and announcements now? And then how do you decide which of these markets are going to go up now, which need to be announced and reserved now, and which do you wait on?

Ali Lapp:

Well, I’ve always been a big fan of reserving your television time early for two reasons. One, you are able to lock in lower television rates. And this is something that frankly, our side, the Democratic side did much better than Republicans for many years, they didn’t reserve rates. So you might get to the middle of October and we’re running an ad in the Philadelphia market that maybe for a week we’re paying $500 for, but the Republicans, because they did not reserve the time early and they just placed it in the middle of October, they might be spending $800,000 a week for that same amount of air time.

Ali Lapp:

So Democrats really have been far more efficient than Republicans for years. Sadly, they have caught on and I’m expecting to see a big House reservation from our Republican counterpart any week now, but it does lock in those lower rates and media is incredibly expensive. So any savings you’re able to get from that is really, really important. The second reason why I’m a big believer of reservations is, kind of addresses the question you asked earlier, Beard, how do we work with if all these other entities if we’re not allowed to legally talk to them? This is our way of saying, “Hey, we’re going to be on television these weeks at this level in Bakersfield, California, or in Los Angeles, or Phoenix.”

Ali Lapp:

And it does allow those candidates and party committees who care about the same races to know what we’re doing and be able to plan a little bit around it. We’re thrilled we were able to make such a large reservation this year, as you said, over 100 million in TV and digital reservations thus far. I know we’re going to be able to provide really robust, strong advertising for our Democratic incumbents and challengers this year.

David Nir:

I’m just curious since $100 million is such a large amount, even in today’s politics, how do all these TV stations across the country, how does that work mechanically? How do they know you’re good for it since obviously you won’t be paying for these ads just yet, is that right?

Ali Lapp:

Yeah, that’s right. You generally will send out the money literally a couple days before your reservation starts, which is a good thing because our fundraising, like all political organizations happens late and we could never put all that money down right now. So look, I think part of it is House Majority PAC has been around for a decade now, we have a track record of being good on our commitments. That’s not to say these reservations can’t change, they can and do often. There are times when maybe a race you thought would be competitive is not competitive, or maybe one of our ally groups wants to step up and spend a million dollars in a race, and that allows us to take a million dollars and put it in into a different race.

Ali Lapp:

These are not signed in blood, they’re not locked in, but this is our intention to spend. And I think what you’ll find if you look back at the last decade is that generally when organizations, whether it’s us, the DCCC, or on the Republican side, make reservations, they’re adhered to with somewhere between 85 and 90% consistency at the end of the day.

David Nir:

One question I have in relation to this, when you put out your press release announcing these reservations, you announced it by media market rather than by congressional districts. So it might say, “New York City, X million dollars, Las Vegas, Nevada, Y million dollars.” And at Daily Kos Elections, we did our best to try to figure out what districts we thought matched up with, which media markets. And of course, there’s some guesswork, like you said, of course also, you don’t necessarily know which races you’re going to devote the money to because it’s early.

David Nir:

But one thing that stood out is there were a few media markets on your list that seemed to cover some districts that definitely got worse for Democrats during the redistricting process, for instance, Arizona’s 2nd district or Michigan’s 10th district, Texas’ 15th district. How do you make decisions about whether a seat is worth the investment, especially when it’s gotten redder in redistricting?

Ali Lapp:

Well, that’s a huge, huge part of our mission at House Majority PAC. So unlike a candidate who goes out and polls and tries to figure out how do I best talk about my biography and my issues and how should I run my race, when we’re polling, we’re also trying to get a really good sense of a district’s viability because there are limited resources even with $100 million TV reservation, and we have to make our best judgment about which districts are the best to invest in. We don’t want to spend in districts that our Democratic candidate is going to win by 10 points, nor do we want to spend in districts where our Democratic candidate is going to lose by 10 points.

Ali Lapp:

So you really have to try to focus in on those ones where you are spending is going to be the decision maker and whether or not a race is won or lost. The way that we do it is really not that complicated, we obviously we do a lot of public opinion research in these districts, we poll, sometimes we do focus groups. We look at the strengths of the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate. We look at their fundraising and their ability to run a robust campaign. We think about how many allies we have in a race and whether or not they’re going to be able to invest in there as well. We look at the level of Republican commitment in a race as well.

Ali Lapp:

And we ultimately, we also have to take into account the cost of a race, frankly. If there are two races that are looked to be equal in terms of our ability to win them, but one of them is four times as expensive as the other, we’re all about numbers at House Majority PAC, we need to get to 218 or more. So we look at where we can get to the most Democratic House district, and we really have to evaluate every race in that context.

David Nir:

On the flip side, even though we as Democrats are facing a difficult year, there are still a number of opportunities to go on offense, especially because Democrats were maybe surprisingly aggressive in redistricting in a number of states. There are seats now that look much more enticing, districts like Illinois 13, or Michigan’s 3rd, or New Mexico’s 2nd. Can you talk to us a little bit about the districts where you’re looking to go on offense and what some of your top targets might be?

Ali Lapp:

Absolutely. And look, first, I should say, we talked a little bit about redistricting earlier and I really should give a huge shout out to the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. I’m so proud to have been one of the founding board members of that organization. Literally people say how come Democrats don’t plan ahead? We’re not strategic. Literally five or six years ago, a group of us got together and said, “We need to start thinking about the redistricting that’s going to happen in five or six years. And we need to make sure Democrats are better positioned there.”

Ali Lapp:

We were thrilled to get Eric Holder to lead that organization, and it has been a huge, huge game changer. And really, if we’re able to hold the House, they deserve a ton of credit. For the lawsuits that they have filed and won, for the aggressive map making that we’ve had in some states, we have much fairer maps. Democrats can compete in a much better way because we have better maps. Right now under the current lines, there are 224 districts that Joe Biden carried, after redistricting, there will be over 230. So even though the national environment is tougher, we have more Biden districts to compete in.

Ali Lapp:

That is not only good for 2022, it’s huge for the rest of this decade, and I just couldn’t be any happier about that. And it’s largely as a result of redistricting that we do have some really good offensive opportunities. We have a couple in California, anyone who follows House politics knows who David Valadao is and the Central Valley of California, a House Republican who holds a very Democratic district, but has been traditionally very challenging to beat. We have a great Democratic candidate there. Congressman Valadao is actually facing a really, really tough primary on the Right, and it’s entirely possible he may not be on the ballot in November because of this right-wing Republican challenger that he’s got.

Ali Lapp:

So we’re watching that really closely. There’s only one Democrat on the ballot, which is really important for us to make sure that we’re not locked out. We have that crazy primary in California where the top two candidates advance from, and it’s not a partisan primary. So that’s when we’re really excited about. Down in Orange County, Congresswoman Michelle Steel is in a more Democratic district than she has now. It is a district that Joe Biden won with over 53% of the vote. She has a really strong candidate in Jay Chen. I’m very excited about our prospects in that district.

Ali Lapp:

I think you may have mentioned Illinois 13, which is downstate. We’ve got a terrific candidate there. It was the Rodney Davis seat, but Congressman Davis has been put into a very safe Republican seat, and this is now a really good Democratic seat, Joe Biden got nearly 56% of the vote there. So that’s a great pickup opportunity. I’ll holler a couple in New York, which I think are really great out on Long Island in New York 1, which is the far Eastern side of Long Island. There is a Democratic primary in that district, but from a district that Trump won, it is now over 55% Biden district. It changed a lot. And that is obviously a very winnable seat for us.

Ali Lapp:

One of the highest profile races last year was incumbent Democratic Congressman Max Rose was challenged by Republican Nicole Malliotakis in the Staten Island, Brooklyn area, the Republican Nicole Malliotakis won. It was a Trump plus 10 district, it is now a Biden plus 10 district, huge swing. Max Rose is running again. He’s a great candidate. I fully expect that he’ll win that seat. And then up in Syracuse, John Katko, Republican Congressman has held that forever. He’s retiring this year. We have a couple of Democrats running there, but I feel great about winning that seat.

Ali Lapp:

It was always a Biden seat, it is now a Biden seat that he won with 59% of the vote. So hopefully that is a nice, safe Democratic seat. We’re excited about that. And then we also have two brand new districts, one in the Denver suburbs in Colorado, one in the Portland suburbs in Oregon, which are both Biden-won districts, and there are primaries there, but we’re really excited about the prospects of picking those seats up as well.

David Beard:

And Katko is one of those classics at withstanding Democratic waves, seemingly too, to their campaigns credit, they ran great campaigns and we would not be able to knock them off in the past, and luckily now, partially, maybe because of redistricting partially because of the increasing Trump nature of the caucus, he is retiring, making it a much more open runway to take that seat.

Ali Lapp:

Very exciting. He’s always been very difficult to beat, one of the last legitimately moderate members of Congress. They’re retiring in droves.

David Nir:

Ali, thank you so much. This has been incredibly illuminating. How can our listeners find out more about House Majority PAC work and support what you guys do?

Ali Lapp:

You can find us online at the housemajoritypac.com. That’s probably the easiest place to go and find our Twitter handle, Facebook or ads we’ve run in the past. There’s of course, a place where you can donate and contribute. We’re thrilled to have a really strong vigorous grassroots network of supporters, which anyone who runs a big organization like ours will tell you those grassroots donations are really important because they give you a stable funding base. You’re not so reliant on the whims of big donors and such. So we really appreciate all of the support that we have gotten from all over the country.

Ali Lapp:

And that’s really grown a lot in the last four to five years. So we’re incredibly grateful for that. Look, it’s going to be a tough cycle, but we are up for the challenge. We’ve got so many good Democratic candidates running. And look, 2020 was not a great year down ballot, even though Joe Biden won the presidency. So a lot of Democrats that held some of the toughest districts were not reelected in 2020. And the Democrats from really tough districts that were reelected in 2020, they’re battle tested. They are strong candidates, they fit their districts really well, and most of them got districts that are at least a little bit better as a result of redistricting.

Ali Lapp:

So we have every confidence in their ability to win this cycle. We’re there to support them. We know you guys are, we hope your listeners are, and we really appreciate the support.

David Beard:

Ali Lapp, founder of House Majority PAC, thank you so much for joining us.

Ali Lapp:

Thank you.

David Beard:

That’s all from us this week. Thanks to Ali Lapp for joining us. The Downballot comes out every Thursday everywhere you listen to podcasts. You can reach us by email at [email protected]. If you haven’t already, please like, and subscribe to The Downballot and leave us a five-star rating and review. Thanks to our producer, Cara Zelaya and editor, Tim Einenkel. We’ll be back next week with a new episode.