Virtual Finish

Marc's article  -- NRCC backs Riggleman, as it does for all R incumbents

National party organizations are weak in certain ways but PIE partisanship is strong.

Hershey (p. 382):  "Why should partisanship help citizens who have so many other sources of information about candidates and issues?  Perhaps it is because they are exposed to so much information."

Edmund Burke on PIG:

In all bodies, those who will lead, must also, in a considerable degree, follow. They must conform their propositions to the taste, talent, and disposition, of those whom they wish to conduct: therefore, if an assembly is viciously or feebly composed in a very great part of it, nothing but such a supreme degree of virtue as very rarely appears in the world, and for that reason cannot enter into calculation, will prevent the men of talent disseminated through it from becoming only the expert instruments of absurd projects!

Charlie and Maddy raise questions about the future -- uncharted economic terrain.

Demographics

Ratcliffe's testimony today and ... Russia

Mueller indicted "the Internet Research Agency"

Defendant ORGANIZATION had a strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political
system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendants posted derogatory information about a number of candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants’ operations included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign”) and disparaging Hillary Clinton. Defendants made various expenditures to carry out those activities, including buying political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities. Defendants also staged political rallies inside the United States, and while posing as U.S. grassroots entities and U.S. persons, and without revealing their Russian identities and ORGANIZATION affiliation, solicited and compensated real U.S. persons to promote or disparage candidates. Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and
with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.

Examples of their work

Americans served as signal boosters.

Bots

They targeted Michigan and Wisconsin.

We close on a disturbing note:

They are still at it.

Progressive Outside Money

Zach Montellaro at Politico:

Justice Democrats, the hub for insurgent Democrats, has joined the rank of super PACs. On Friday, the group’s PAC filed a notice with the Federal Elections Commission announcing that it intends to become a so-called Carey Committee (which is also known as a hybrid PAC) — effectively forming a super PAC in addition to their already active PAC. 

The move is the latest example of the party’s liberal wing embracing the fundraising strategies that have been scorned by some on the left. (A spokesperson for the Justice Democrats did not respond to a voicemail or email left by Score on Sunday asking to talk about the group’s plans.) A group of top aides to Sanders’ presidential bid announced last week that they were forming a super PAC of their own to convince Sanders’ supporters to back Biden. Chuck Rocha, another Sanders aide, also formed his own super PAC, called Nuestro PAC, that aims to mobilize Latino voters.

Rocha poked at that underlying tension among some progressives who are wary of super PACs in a video he posted to Twitter over the weekend. “Just because Nuestro PAC is a quote-unquote super PAC, we ain’t taking no money from corporations. We ain't going out to work for none of these assholes I hate all my life,” Rocha said in the video. “We are literally going to the movement and trying to raise money to go out and get more Latinos to vote.”

The devil will be in the details (and the FEC reports) with these new groups. Sanders actually had over $700,000 worth of super PAC support during the primaries — but it was from Vote Nurses Values PAC, which has been funded by a nurses’ union and didn’t draw anywhere near the same kind of ire that other outside groups drew. Also worth remembering is Our Revolution, the Sanders-founded dark money nonprofit group. To try to fend off charges of hypocrisy, the group had voluntarily released the name of donors who gave over $250 — but not the exact dollar amount, which is less than the level of disclosure for super PACs. (The group said its largest donor gave $25,000.)

Starting to Sum Up

At Pacific Standard (a casualty of the collapse of niche publications), Seth Masket wrote about a major theme of this course:

For several years, a number of scholars (including me) have been making the case that American political parties are best thought of as loose networks of interest groups, candidates, donors, activists, and others, rather than hierarchies organized under the DNC or RNC. (You can see examples of such studies here, here, here, here, and here.) 

This observation is important for historical context.  When Madison wrote about parties, he was talking about what we would today call PIG -- specifically, legislative factions. There were no party organizations as we know them today.  Indeed, Americans tended to frown upon overt political campaigns. This exchange from Hamilton makes the point:

HAMILTON:  You've created quite a stir, sir
BURR:            I'm going door to door
HAMILTON:  You're openly campaigning?
BURR:            Sure.
HAMILTON:  That's new.

 Masket also made an observation that may relate to your essays:

The way we think of parties is vitally important to how we treat them. If we want to regulate parties or restrict their activities or even ban them, that's far easier to do if they're rigid hierarchies than if they're flexible networks. The latter can adapt to a great many impediments.

The same is true for proposals for party strategy.  If you argue that the Democratic Party should do X or the Republican Party should do Y, remember that there is no central shot-caller for either party.

Back to the Future: The Founders and the Parties

At Cato in 2011, my frequent coauthor Bill Connelly had some thoughts on the Founders and political parties:

Some insist today that the Founders did not expect political parties to form, that parties only arose later in American history. But in a 1792 essay titled “A Candid State of Parties,” Madison concluded that parties of distinction are “natural to most political societies,” and will likely endure. Even to this day, perhaps?

Admittedly, “A Candid State of Parties” is a partisan tract, just as were The Federalist Papers. Madison the Founder was a statesman, a politician, a political theorist, and a partisan. And that is not a criticism. Madison clearly understood that “in every political society, parties are unavoidable.” In fact, he concluded parties “must always be expected in a government as free as ours.”

Madison recognized that American politics and partisanship are rooted in the Constitution. Mere partisanship is possible precisely because of limited constitutional government, or as I like to say, the Constitution governs parties more than the parties govern the Constitution. Our constitutional concrete is sufficient to withstand partisan warfare today just as it did in the 1790s.

Partisanship is rooted in the Constitution because of First Amendment freedoms. Clearly freedom of the press and freedom of association allow and even invite the abuse of licentiousness and excessive partisanship. But what is the alternative? Madison understood that in a free society, politics, including the spirit of party, is ubiquitous.

Since the latent cause of faction and spirit of party are natural to man, Madison sought to control the effects of faction, rather than to remove the causes, since the cure would be worse than the disease. That is what the Anti‐​Federalists wanted; it would have required curbing liberty. The point was to expand, not limit, liberty.

Partisanship is also rooted in the Constitution in another fundamental way. Throughout our history beginning in the 1790s, partisanship has been premised on the fault lines of constitutional interpretation and debate over the central principles of the separation of powers and federalism, or in other words, role of government questions. Contentious partisanship has its roots in the Constitution.

In the 1790s we also see the Founders’ practice of their principles; their actions, too, seem to refute the notion that the Founders were anti‐​party. While the 1950s was a period of relative partisan quiescence as was the era of good feeling in the early part of the 1800s, I think if you look historically those two periods are the exception more than the rule.

Now, partisanship is potentially good and bad. Friction creates light as well as heat. Our Constitution invites constructive partisanship, including often cantankerous, cacophonous, contentious partisanship. The principal differences between our two great parties, whether over the war on terrorism, health care reform, or global warming, matter, and they are often principled differences.

It is worth examining some of the causes of heightened partisanship today. First, party primaries, especially in congressional elections, invite appeals to the party base, and clearly contribute to greater partisan polarizations. Should we eliminate congressional primaries or nominating primaries either at the presidential or congressional level?

Should we return to the smoke‐​filled rooms? A second cause is gerrymandered redistricting, especially enhanced by computer modeling. Perhaps we should adopt the reform of eliminating computers — or maybe not?

Third, the democratization and decentralization of Congress due to institutional reforms. Some of the above causes were consequences of the 1970s reforms, in Congress in particular, designed to make Congress more open and democratic. Should we reform the reforms?

Fourth: the growth of government and the concomitant increased stake in our politics contribute to increased partisan polarization. Big government gives you big politics. James Q. Wilson, one of the leading political scientists of recent generations, said that once politics was about a few things; today it is about nearly everything. Maybe what we need to do is limit government if we want to limit politics and make our politics less cantankerous.

Fifth, an important cause of partisan polarization has been the effort to advance comprehensive, nonincremental reforms. For example, the decision by Democrats to advance comprehensive health care reform may by its very nature have raised fundamental questions about the role of government. Perhaps we should refederalize some of the policy questions. Moreover, we blame political parties when we should also acknowledge the role of our two other key mediating institutions: interest groups and the media.

Sixth, greater partisan polarization is due to the explosion in the role of the number of interest groups, so‐​called hyperpluralism, including in the think‐​tank universe. Maybe we should blame or credit Cato for partisan polarization. The proliferation of think tanks over the last 30 to 40 to 50 years has contributed to a more ideological, or you could say more principled, politics.

Seventh, the dramatic increase in education among Americans augments polarization. If I may paraphrase Shakespeare, perhaps the first thing we should do is kill all the professors, though I personally hope we don’t do that.

Eighth, decentralization, fragmentation, and greater competition of the new media as the hegemony of the old media establishment erodes have clearly contributed to the more cacophonous, contentious character of our politics. We’re clearly not going to get rid of the Internet anytime soon. The media loves to report on the planes that crash, not the thousands of planes that fly successfully every day. Conflict is what gets covered as opposed to consensus, exaggerating the level of contentiousness in our politics. But do we want to get rid of the new media and return to the good old days, or was it the bad old days, of the media establishment? Do we really want to return to the 1960s’ near monopoly of national news by NBC, ABC, CBS, the UPI, and AP wires?

And yet, finally, the most fundamental cause of partisan polarization may be our 200‐​year‐​old constitutional system which, as I suggested earlier, invites the spirit of party in our politics — and I certainly don’t recommend a new constitutional convention.

Our Authors on Twitter

The candidate you like is the one you think is most electable | Marjorie Hershey, Indiana University TheConversation https://t.co/TiAFQkFlOD

— R Hashimoto (@1RHashimoto) March 12, 2020

Saying partisanship is a helluva drug is a helluva drug. https://t.co/Cdl4LXeU36

— Sam Rosenfeld (@sam_rosenfeld) April 23, 2020

Great Quote: “Politics is about conflict and democracy isn’t pretty.” We need to better teach this in civic ed. - Frances E.Lee, Prof. Of Politics & Public Affairs @PUPolitics @JennaSpinelle @McCourtneyInst https://t.co/EIN8vlcPiw

— Mike Kenig-Electoral Reformer (@ElectReformer) April 29, 2020

The Party Politics of COVID-19

My friend Philip Klinkner has some fascinating analysis at Vox:

[At] the federal level, we have seen lawmakers advocating for economic aid on a bipartisan (albeit asymmetrical) basis, resulting in the implementation of programs like the Paycheck Protection Program. But the parties have been divided more on public health measures. Passage of last week’s small business relief bill was held up because Democrats insisted, over Republicans objections, on including money for hospitals and more testing.

The differential impact of the pandemic also gives us clues about how the 2020 election might play out. Democrats will likely continue to criticize President Trump’s erratic and ineffectual response to the crisis and the need for the federal government to provide funding to meet the ongoing medical and economic emergency. President Trump, meanwhile, might argue that his actions have limited the pandemic at least in the areas where most of his voters reside, while Republicans might accuse Democrats of hyping the crisis in order to ramp up government spending for their voters in large urban areas.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office has already called aid to state and local governments devastated by the pandemic “Blue State Bailouts.” Such a message is all the more pernicious and perhaps more effective since it triggers prejudices related to race, religion, and immigration. If so, it seems likely that the pandemic will only deepen America’s chronic social and political divides.

Appraisals and Proposals II

Just a reminder: If we had ranked-choice voting for president, nobody would be complaining about @justinamash being a potential spoiler.

— Lee Drutman (@leedrutman) April 29, 2020

Examples of multiparty systems:  Canada, Britain, Israel

Causes of the two-party system:

• Duverger's "Law" (Hershey 37-38)
• Electoral college
• Ballot access

Types of Third-Party Movements

• Ongoing issue-based or ideological parties
• Short-lived movements
• Wallace 1968
• Anderson 1980
• Perot 1992

Reasons for Third Party Bursts

• Major party deterioration and issue responsiveness
• Economic decline
• Unacceptable major party candidates

Reasons for the brevity of the bursts

• Major parties coopt the third party agenda: Wilson coopts TR on Progressive reform, FDR coopts Socialists on social programs, Nixon coopts G. Wallace on law & order, Clinton coopts Perot on deficit control.
• Perception of spoiler effect:  Nader in 2000, Stein in 2016

Race and American Politics

• Bush 41 denounced Duke.
• Actual Edwin Edwards bumper sticker in 1991
• Economic anxiety v. racism -- additional research
• The political price
• Jack Kemp:  the road not taken

SCOTUS

• Crime
• Nixon and the courts
• Bork

Electoral College

• Nixon supported abolition.
• Bush 43 lost the popular vote but Americans accepted the outcome
• An unlikely critic
• National Popular Vote

Post-Primary Politics

Stephen Ohlemacher and Bill Barrow at  Associated Press

Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden has agreed to let former primary rival Bernie Sanders keep hundreds of delegates he would otherwise forfeit by dropping out of the presidential race in a deal designed to avoid the bitter feelings that marred the party in 2016 and helped lead to Hillary Clinton's defeat.

Under party rules, Sanders should lose about a third of the delegates he’s won in primaries and caucuses as the process moves ahead and states select the people who will attend the Democratic National Convention. The rules say those delegates should be Biden supporters, as he is the only candidate still actively seeking the party’s nomination.

However, in a memo obtained by The Associated Press, the Biden campaign says it will work with Sanders and state parties to fill those positions with Sanders supporters. The joint memo from the Biden and Sanders campaigns was being sent to state Democratic parties on Thursday.

“We must defeat Donald Trump this fall, and we believe that this agreement will help bring the party together to get Trump out of the White House and not only rebuild America, but transform it,” the two campaigns said in a joint statement.

In some ways, the delegate count is a moot point. While Biden has yet to formally win the 1,991 delegates needed to claim the Democratic nomination on the first ballot at the convention, he is the Democrats' presumptive nominee. All of his rivals — including Sanders — have endorsed him after ending their own campaigns.

The deal, however, is a major step in the two camps avoiding the acrimony between the Democratic establishment and progressive insurgents that marked Sanders' 2016 primary fight with Clinton, the eventual nominee. In that campaign, Clinton and Sanders battled for delegates until the end of the primary calendar and then jousted over the party platform and rules well into the summer.

Why is Biden so eager to make concessions?  Rebecca Morin at USA Today:

Bernie Sanders may have endorsed Joe Biden, but almost a quarter of the Vermont senator’s supporters aren’t jumping on board just yet, according to a new poll.

Nearly 1 in 4 Sanders supporters (22%) said they would vote for a third party candidate, vote for President Donald Trump, not vote in November or were undecided about who to vote for, according to a USA TODAY/Suffolk Poll. When broken down, 2% said they would vote for Trump, 8% said they would vote for a third party candidate, 2% said they would skip voting and 8% are still undecided.

However, the vast majority of Sanders supporters (77%) said they will vote for Biden in the general election in November.

Amash is In ... the Libertarian Nomination Race

With perfect timing for our discussion of third parties tomorrow, Justin Amash has entered the race for the Libertarian presidential nomination.  Matt Welch at Reason:

More than three years after first seriously contemplating it, one year after coming out in favor of impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, nine months after leaving the Republican Party, two months after hitting pause on his congressional re-election campaign, and just 22 days before the Libertarian Party (L.P.) is scheduled to select its own nominee, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, the most libertarian member of Congress, has decided to form an exploratory committee about running for president.

"Americans are ready for practical approaches based in humility and trust of the people," the congressman tweeted Tuesday night. "We're ready for a presidency that will restore respect for our Constitution and bring people together."

The 40-year-old son of Middle Eastern immigrants (mom is from Syria, dad a Palestinian refugee) now seeks to become the limited-government standard-bearer against septuagenarian big-government competitors Donald Trump and Joe Biden. He would certainly be the most high-profile presidential candidate, and the first to concurrently hold elected office, in the Libertarian Party's half-century of existence.

Amash, an F.A. Hayek–quoting five-term incumbent from Grand Rapids and former co-founding member of the House Freedom Caucus, became a sustaining member of the L.P. some time over the past two weeks, thus meeting the party's minimum nominating requirements. He now has three weeks—or perhaps more, should the Libertarian National Committee at its May 2 meeting decide to reschedule a national convention whose physical and legal status is in coronavirus limbo and whose Austin hotel abruptly canceled the event on Sunday—to convince wary delegates for a fourth consecutive election to select a candidate who has won office only as a Republican.

Also at Reason, Brian Doherty quotes a CMC alum:

Adam Kokesh, a "voluntaryist" candidate who wants to dissolve the federal government, was not reachable for comment as of posting time, but he did speak to the Amash question in a campaign email last May.

He praised Amash, noting that the congressman "is screwed for having integrity within a party [Republicans, at that time] that amplifies lies on a daily basis" and said that "Now here's the question for us Libertarians…do we welcome Justin Amash and recruit him to seek our nomination? Without hesitation, I say, 'Hell yes!!!'"

As Kokesh explained, "I can say with complete confidence that bringing Justin Amash into the fold would be great for the party," granting that "Amash is aligned with our shared principles. He is the most Libertarian member of Congress. Trained in Austrian Economics, his voting record supports his integrity on our issues."

Despite those positives for Amash, it's not that Kokesh, who wants the nod himself, thinks the L.P.'s delegates should give Amash the prize. The reason Kokesh said he welcomed Amash last May was that "if he throws his hat in the ring, the media attention brought to the LP will be MASSIVE" and it would be delicious, too, in an imagined future convention:

As the cameras roll, and the Trump-hating journalists wait with bated breath for our state chairs to count the ballots…they will be forced to announce the 2020 LP Presidential Candidate. And with hard work and your support, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, New York Times and others will run with the headline, "Libertarians Refuse to be Pawns, Nominate Adam Kokesh as Presidential Nominee."

(The selection process for the presidential nomination may not happen where cameras can roll, as a physical convention may be ruined by COVID-19, but Kokesh could not have guessed this last May. The party will be deciding exactly how they will choose their candidate at a May 2 virtual meeting of the Libertarian National Committee.)

Appraisals and Proposals I

Responsible Party Government -- Back to the Future!

"A Temporarily Responsible Party" (Hershey 353)

A few years after the Contract, Newt reflected:

We had not only failed to take into account the ability of the Senate to delay us and obstruct us, but we had much too cavalierly underrated the power of the President, even a President who had lost his legislative majority and was in a certain amount of trouble for other reasons. I am speaking of the power of the veto. Even if you pass something through both the House and the Senate, there is that presidential pen. How could we have forgotten that?

Issue ambivalence:

• Abortion:  survey trends and interviews
• Budget:  compare opinion on cuts with the composition of federal spending. What about foreign aid?
• The reckoning draws near.

Paradox:  are more democratic parties bad for democracy?:

Kamarck

• What is peer review?
• "The purpose of this step would be to let the primary voters know what people in government think of the capabilities of these candidates prior to the beginning of the nomination contests."  Would the confidence/no-confidence votes persuade voters? 
• What Republicans said about Trump in 2016
• The most recent nominee:

Proportional Representation?

Lee (203): "Bipartisanship is particularly problematic for a party seeking to win a larger share of institutional power

What about proportional representation?  Drutman:

Political scientist Frances Lee has looked closely at the devastating consequences of this intense national partisan competition, most recently in her masterful book, Insecure Majorities. The conclusion of her research is dispiriting: The more closely contested the control of institutions, the more politics devolves into zero-sum partisanship with all its dysfunctional consequences. Every vote becomes a party-line vote. Party leaders raise the stakes of every potential dispute to draw clear contrasts for activists, donors, and voters. Each party denies the other any small victory that might be useful in the next election, and looks primarily to embarrass the other side rather than to collaborate. The permanent campaign takes over.

• Remedy?  The Fair Representation Act 
• Experience with multi-member districts
• The cautionary tale of contemporary Israel

Examples of multiparty systems:  Canada, Britain, Israel

Causes of the two-party system:

• Duverger's "Law" (Hershey 37-38)
• Electoral college
• Ballot access:
• Third parties  (article at Reason)
• Independent candidates

Types of Third-Party Movements

• Ongoing issue-based or ideological parties
• Short-lived movements
• Wallace 1968
• Anderson 1980
• Perot 1992

Reasons for Third Party Bursts

• Major party deterioration and issue responsiveness
• Economic decline
• Unacceptable major party candidates

Trump Was Not Happy About the NRSC Memo

I could not have engineered a story that better illustrates the clash of institutional perspectives within a party.

Alex Isenstadt at Politico:

Earlier this month, the Senate Republican campaign arm circulated a memo with shocking advice to GOP candidates on responding to coronavirus: “Don’t defend Trump, other than the China Travel Ban — attack China.”

The Trump campaign was furious.

On Monday — just days after POLITICO first reported the existence of the memo — Trump political adviser Justin Clark told NRSC executive director Kevin McLaughlin that any Republican candidate who followed the memo’s advice shouldn’t expect the active support of the reelection campaign and risked losing the support of Republican voters.

McLaughlin responded by saying he agreed with the Trump campaign’s position and, according to two people familiar with the conversation, clarified that the committee wasn’t advising candidates to not defend Trump over his response.

The episode illustrates how the Trump political apparatus demands — and receives — fealty from fellow Republicans and moves aggressively to tamp down on any perceived dissent within the GOP. The president maintains an iron grip on his party, even as his poll numbers sag and he confronts fierce criticism from Democrats over his response to the coronavirus pandemic.

This episode recalls something similar in 1990.  George H.W. Bush acceded to a tax increase.  NRCC's Ed Rollins, sought to limit the damage to House GOP candidates and told them that they should not hesitate to break with Bush on the issue.  Bush lashed out at Rollins.  As you may recall, I've told the story of my own tangential involvement.  A friend down the hall drafted the Rollins NRCC memo, while I drafted Lee Atwater's RNC letter asking House Republicans to support the tax increase.

Back in 1990, Ed Rollins at NRCC advised House GOP candidates that they should not hesitate to oppose Bush 41 on proposed tax hikes. And as Bill Connelly and I wrote, Bush 41 was unhappy. https://t.co/D0aelQFMdE

— Jack Pitney (@jpitney) April 28, 2020

The Party Politics of Dating

Anna Brown at Pew:

At a time when political polarization and antipathy in the United States remains at modern historic highs, many single people looking for a relationship wouldn’t want to date someone who voted for the candidate of the opposing party in the 2016 presidential election, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. Democrats are especially wary of dating a Trump voter.

Among Democrats and those who lean toward the Democratic Party who are single but looking for a relationship, about seven-in-ten (71%) say they probably or definitely would not consider being in a committed relationship with someone who voted for Donald Trump. In fact, 45% say they definitely would not consider seriously dating a Trump voter.

Meanwhile, roughly half of single-and-looking Republicans and Republican leaners (47%) say they probably or definitely wouldn’t be in a relationship with someone who voted for Hillary Clinton, including 19% who say they definitely would not consider it. There is also some resistance toward dating someone who is a member of the opposite party – but less so than there is about dating a person who voted for the other party’s 2016 presidential candidate. Roughly four-in-ten single-and-looking Democrats (43%) say they would not consider being in a relationship with a Republican. About a quarter of Republicans who are looking for a relationship (24%) say they probably or definitely would not seriously date a Democrat.

The NRSC Memo

Alex Isenstadt at Politico:

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has sent campaigns a detailed, 57-page memo authored by a top Republican strategist advising GOP candidates to address the coronavirus crisis by aggressively attacking China.

The memo includes advice on everything from how to tie Democratic candidates to the Chinese government to how to deal with accusations of racism. It stresses three main lines of assault: That China caused the virus “by covering it up,” that Democrats are “soft on China,” and that Republicans will “push for sanctions on China for its role in spreading this pandemic.”

“Coronavirus was a Chinese hit-and-run followed by a cover-up that cost thousands of lives,” the April 17 memo states.

The document urges candidates to stay relentlessly on message against the country when responding to any questions about the virus. When asked whether the spread of the coronavirus is Trump’s fault, candidates are advised to respond by pivoting to China.
“Don’t defend Trump, other than the China Travel Ban — attack China,” the memo states.

The memo provides a clear, real-time example of how consultants provide talking points and anticipate questions:

Answers To Likely Arguments:

Q: Isn’t this Trump’s fault?

Note - don’t defend Trump, other than the China Travel Ban -- attack China

● This is China’s fault. The virus came from China and China covered it up. Because China lied about the extent of the virus, our public health officials acted late.
● I wish that everyone acted earlier -- that includes our elected officials, the World Health Organization, and the CDC.
● I’m glad that President Trump acted early to ban travel to China -- that’s something my
Democratic opponent did not support and that Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi criticized as
xenophobic and racist.
.
Q: Aren’t you being racist by blaming China and causing racist attacks against Chinese Americans?

● No one is blaming Chinese Americans. This is the fault of the Chinese Communist Party for covering up the virus and lying about it’s danger. This caused the pandemic and they should be held accountable.
● And no one has suffered more from the murderous Communist Chinese Party dictatorship than the people of China. We stand with them against their corrupt government that caused this pandemic.

Parties and Presidential Candidates

Reid J. Epstein and Shane Goldmacher at NYT:

Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee have agreed to a joint fund-raising accord and installed the Biden campaign’s choice as the D.N.C.’s chief executive, the latest signs that the party’s presumptive presidential nominee has consolidated control over its broader functions.

The new agreement, which party officials said would be made formal on Friday, will allow the former vice president to raise $360,600 from individual donors, with $5,600 going to the Biden campaign and the rest earmarked for the party committee.

At the request of the Biden campaign, Mary Beth Cahill, a D.N.C. senior adviser who briefly served as its interim chief executive in 2018, will take over from Seema Nanda. Ms. Cahill, a longtime operative for the party, served as campaign manager for John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign. Mr. Kerry is a longtime friend of and 2020 campaign surrogate for Mr. Biden. Ms. Nanda will leave the D.N.C.

The moves come as the Biden campaign exercises greater influence on the national committee, an effort that typically gets underway after a presidential nomination is assured. In the past, that has involved sending a team of aides to the party’s headquarters on South Capitol Street, but the coronavirus restrictions mean the Biden team will take over a party working from home.

Politico Morning Score:

THE REELECT — Different arms of Trumpworld are taking diverging paths forward. "The Republican National Committee has launched a massive effort to reach some 20 million swing voters to make an affirmative case for his performance. But Trump campaign officials are taking a different approach: Rather than devoting resources to boost Trump's numbers, which haven't moved materially since he was elected, they want to go scorched earth against Joe Biden," POLITICO's Alex Isenstadt wrote . "The deliberations illustrate how the highest ranks of the Republican Party are grappling with the uncertainty the coronavirus crisis has injected into the race — and how best to prepare for a general election that looks nothing like what they'd been anticipating."

Some advisers argue "there's little public appetite in a slash-and-burn campaign at a time when Americans are suffering. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Trump adviser and ally, said the president should wait until the late August convention to begin a full-fledged campaign and instead focus on dealing with the crisis. Dealing with it effectively, he contended, would virtually cement Trump's reelection. ... Yet campaign officials see reason to begin nuking Biden, especially as the former vice president ramps up his attacks. Liberal outside groups have spent millions of dollars on TV ads in battleground states going after Trump."

Left, Right, Vaccines, Shutdowns

Liz Szabo at Kaiser Health News reports that some anti-vaccine groups are joining with anti-lockdown protesters:

The anti-vaccine movement has never been limited to one political party. Left-leaning vaccine critics — such as Children’s Health Defense, led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — include environmentalists who are suspicious of chemical pollutants, corporations and “Big Pharma.” The Kennedy group’s website attacks Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, for rushing “risky and uncertain coronavirus vaccines” into development as part of a “sweetheart deal” for drug companies.

On the other side of the political spectrum, many anti-vaccine conservatives oppose state immunization requirements because they distrust “big government.”

• A group called Texans for Vaccine Choice has called on the governor to promise that no one will be forced to get a coronavirus vaccine in order to go to work or school.
• Posts on the Facebook page of Californians for Health Choice, which also opposed California’s vaccine laws, question stay-at-home orders and accuse government officials of refusing to admit the orders are a mistake.
• In a video on the Freedom Angels’ Facebook page, its founders describe stay-at-home orders as an abuse of government authority, and the closure of California gun shops as an assault on the Second Amendment. The group notes that guns could be essential for protection from rioters and looters looking to steal food during the pandemic.

In many ways, the conservative arm of the anti-vaccine movement is a natural ally for those leading “reopen America” rallies, said Dr. David Gorski, an oncologist and managing editor of the Science-Based Medicine site. Both harbor suspicions about government authority.

States, Public Policy, Polarization

The death of expertise:




LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT

Max Fine notes an article on current disputes, Myah Ward at Politico:

...Georgia's Republican governor, Brian Kemp, has been even bolder in his moves to reopen the state's businesses shuttered by the coronavirus pandemic. Bowling alleys, gyms, tattoo parlors and hair and nail salons will be allowed to reopen beginning Friday, as long as business owners adhere to social-distancing and hygiene guidelines. Starting next week, movie theaters can reopen and restaurants will be allowed to return to limited dine-in service.

... 

Democratic mayors in the state have condemned the governor’s orders. Mayor Kelly Girtz of Athens-Clarke County, Ga., told CNN Tuesday that he was urging his constituents not to follow the governor’s advice for reopening.

“I’m exhorting everybody in this community to continue to shelter in place. Do not reopen at this point. It’s not the time to do it,” Girtz said. “It’s like telling the quarterback, ‘We don’t have a helmet for you, we don’t have pads, but get out there on the field and just try not to get sacked.”

 Governors and Mayors -- cities are highly dependent on state governments

Blueberries in tomato soup: red states have blue cities, such as Austin, Texas

But even those from the same party often hate each other.

• Cuomo v. DiBlasio
• Pataki v. Giuliani

Also, the incentives of the national party diverge from those of state officials, even those of the same party.

John Wagner at WP:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) drew flak Thursday from governors in both parties after suggesting that states hit hard by the coronavirus outbreak should be allowed to seek bankruptcy protections rather than be given a federal bailout.

McConnell’s comments, made during a radio interview on Wednesday, came amid a renewed push from states for help from Washington to cover lost tax revenue that has been among the dire consequences of the ongoing pandemic.

“This is really one of the dumb ideas of all time,” New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) said during a briefing in Albany in which he warned that bankruptcy declarations by multiple states would lead to “a collapse of this national economy.”

Republicans who panned the idea included Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R), chairman of the bipartisan National Governors Association, which has asked McConnell for $500 billion to help states deal with lost revenue.

And state budgets are collapsing -- causing pressure both on GOP tax-cut proposals and Democratic spending proposals. 

THE LIMITED IMPACT OF GOP PROPOSALS. ON ABORTION, MANY PRO-LIFE POLS REALLY ARE RELUCTANT TO PULL THE TRIGGER.

The future:  demographics tend to favor the Democrats

State's Rights Arguments- a Tool for Democrats and Republicans alike

Political parties claim that their relevant policies are backed by either a Hamiltonian (strong federal control, weaker states- typically democratic) or Jeffersonian (state empowerment, weaker federal government- typically republican) ideology, but their larger policy goals dictate the political means to achieve them, not the other way around. For example, on the issue of marriage equality, Democrats adopted a Jeffersonian perspective through a States' rights argument while it was politically effective for them to do so.

In a statement on a presidential memorandum, President Obama wrote, “My Administration is not authorized by existing Federal law to provide same-sex couples with the full range of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples…. [The Defense against Marriage Act is] discriminatory, it interferes with States' rights, and it's time we overturned it." To many this was surprising, as Republicans are typically associated with this type of argument.


Republicans at the time opted to let the issue run its course in the Supreme Court. They believed that conservative agenda would prevail, and thus chose not to present an argument on the basis of States' rights. Ultimately, once they were unsuccessful, Republican leaders immediately began discussing the issue in terms of States' Rights. After the ruling, John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House at the time, said, "I am... disappointed that the Supreme Court disregarded the democratically-enacted will of millions of Americans by forcing states to redefine the institution of marriage.”


Despite the political messaging around States' Rights, the case itself, Obergefell v. Hodges, has no direct mention of States’ rights in the majority opinion nor in the dissents, though it is alluded to by Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. This indicates that the States’ rights argument was significantly weaker than the direct consideration of whether or not the constitution protects same sex marriage. Democrats, under President Obama’s leadership, constructed that narrative as a form of political messaging rather than pushing it as a legal argument, which is why it is not addressed in the decision or dissent. Opposed to the Republican outcry, Democrats made no mention of States’ rights after the ruling came down from the bench. Since the Democrats were successful in achieving their policy goal, they no longer needed to use States' rights as a means to achieve an end. Republicans, on the other hand, found the Supreme Court’s response suddenly lacking consideration of States’ rights, and adopted it as the same means as President Obama to the opposite end.

While both political parties use States’ rights arguments to gain public support and occasionally battle in the courts, the utilization of such arguments have strayed significantly from Jefferson and Hamilton’s original ideological separation. Through war, the courts, and the political party system, Hamilton ultimately won, and there is little to be done to move back to a Jeffersonian perspective on federal control. Democrats and Republicans only invoke those arguments now to achieve tangential policy goals and to message their respective bases.

Anti-Shutdown and Antivax Movements in the States

Kenneth P. Vogel, Jim Rutenberg and Lisa Lerer at NYT:

An informal coalition of influential conservative leaders and groups, some with close connections to the White House, has been quietly working to nurture protests and apply political and legal pressure to overturn state and local orders intended to stop the spread of the coronavirus.

The groups have tapped their networks to drive up turnout at recent rallies in state capitals, dispatched their lawyers to file lawsuits, and paid for polling and research to undercut the arguments behind restrictions that have closed businesses and limited the movement of most Americans.

Among those fighting the orders are FreedomWorks and Tea Party Patriots, which played pivotal roles in the beginning of Tea Party protests starting more than a decade ago. Also involved are a law firm led partly by former Trump White House officials, a network of state-based conservative policy groups, and an ad hoc coalition of conservative leaders known as Save Our Country that has advised the White House on strategies for a tiered reopening of the economy.

The effort picked up some influential support on Tuesday, when Attorney General William P. Barr expressed concerns about state-level restrictions potentially infringing on constitutional rights, and suggested that, if that occurred, the Justice Department might weigh in, including by supporting legal challenges by others. Separately, in Wisconsin, Republicans in the state legislature sued to block the Democratic governor’s order extending stay-at-home rules through May 26.
...
Support for the protests features more direct ties to the White House than simply support for Mr. Trump. The administration recently formed an advisory group for reopening the economy that included Stephen Moore, the conservative economics commentator. Mr. Moore had been coordinating with FreedomWorks, the Tea Party Patriots and the American Legislative Exchange Council in a coalition called “Save Our Country,” which was formed to push for a quicker easing of restrictions.

At my autism blog, I have a post about the overlap between the anti-shutdown movement and the antivaccine movement. 

A year ago,  Arthur Allen reported at Politico that Republican state legislators are taking up the antivaccine cause:

The GOP tilt is more pronounced among state lawmakers than among federal ones; many prominent Republicans in Congress including most of the 16 GOP doctors have endorsed vaccines. The most visible and voluble exception is Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), an ophthalmologist who says his own kids were vaccinated but the decision should be left to the parents, not the government.

But in states where legislators have advanced serious efforts to tighten restrictions, such as Maine, Washington, Colorado and Oregon, nearly all of the opponents are Republicans who’ve taken a medical freedom stance.

“The more they dig into it being about freedom, the more susceptible they become to the theories,” said Dave Gorski, a Michigan physician who has tracked the anti-vaccine movement for two decades. “Appeals to freedom are like the gateway drug to pseudoscience.”

At the extremes are legislators like Jonathan Stickland, a pro-National Rifle Association, Christian conservative in the Texas Assembly, who has described vaccines as “sorcery” while personally attacking Baylor University scientist Peter Hotez, who has a daughter with autism and works on vaccines for neglected tropical diseases. “Parental rights mean more to us than your self-enriching 'science,'" Stickland tweeted at Hotez earlier this month.

That same day, the Oregon Republican Party’s official Twitter account posted that Oregon Democrats were “ramming forced injections down every Oregon parent's throat.”
Other Republican state officials have blamed Central American immigrants for disease outbreaks, echoing a talking point of Fox commentator Lou Dobbs. In fact, experts say, children in many of those countries are more thoroughly vaccinated than their U.S. counterparts against diseases like whooping cough and measles.

In California, every Republican state senator voted against a bill to tighten vaccine mandates

Mariel Garza at LAT:

[I]t was dismaying to see state Senate Minority Leader Sen. Shannon Grove of Bakersfield and other Republican legislators side with the opponents on the bills to close a loophole that was allowing people to get around the state’s vaccination laws.
...
If this is a ploy to turn the so-called “anti-vaxxers” into GOP voters, they may not have great luck. Those opposed to mandatory vaccines don’t split along party lines. In fact, some of the places that have seen the lowest vaccination rates are solidly liberal communities, like Marin County and Santa Cruz.

State Governments: Innovation and Stickiness

Maddy asked about state government innovation:

A different ranking from a pro-business perspective.


"Sticky" liberal policymaking

The workforce:





DANNY: Why the differences?

Character of employment
Federal mandates on state and local government
Power of unions (in CA, NY and some other big states)

What states and localities spend money on:



Medicaid:  the program Republicans hate to love.


Education:

Charter schools are public schools.

People are generally happy with their own local schools

The Lieutenant Governor of Texas

In some states (e.g., California), the lieutenant governor is little more than a cipher.  In Texas, however, the office holds great power. Among other things, its occupant gets to appoint committee chairs in the State senate.

Oddly fitting that he was on Fox. Roger Ailes could have told him that such statements do not exactly win audience sympathy. In his book You Are the Message, he recalled a 1970s TV debate between a pompous corporate executive and a consumer advocate. pic.twitter.com/02vyKUSNCH

— Jack Pitney (@jpitney) April 21, 2020

COVID-19 & Elections

COVID-19 has (fairly obviously) impacted elections, as in-person voting could spread the disease. 19 states have postponed their upcoming primary elections due to COVID-19, almost all through executive order. This has proved relatively uncontroversial except for in Ohio and Wisconsin, where decisions to delay their respective elections were fought out in court.

First, in Ohio, Governor DeWine (R) did not oppose holding their March 17 election until the day prior, when he convinced two Ohio residents to file a lawsuit to change the date of the election (as he contended he did not have the power to do so). When that failed, his Health Director, Dr. Acton, issued the polls closed on the eve of the election in order to protect the health of voters. A candidate on the ballot asked the Ohio Supreme Court to weigh in, but it refused to do only hours before polls were originally set to open.

In Wisconsin, Governor Evans (D) discounted calls to postpone their primary set for April 7 given that there were municipal races in addition to one for a state Supreme Court race set to occur. Interest groups filed several lawsuits asking for changes to the election, culminating with an April 2 decision by a federal district court judge to allow any absentee ballot received by April 13 (and not necessarily postmarked by April 7 as required by statute) to be counted as valid. Governor Evans had a change of heart on April 3 and called the legislature into special session on April 4 to consider postponing the election, but it refused with both chambers only in session for less than a minute before adjourning. On April 6, Governor Evans declared the election moved by executive order. The legislature promptly sued, and a 4-2 partisan-line ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down his order as an overreach of his emergency powers. A 5-4 partisan-line ruling an hour late from the federal Supreme Court also struck down part of the district court's ruling allowing absentee ballots not postmarked by April 7 but received by April 13 to be counted as valid. Thus, when voters went to the polls the next day, there was lots of confusion and long lines.

Modifying the terms of the election itself has proved more controversial. 16 states currently require an excuse to vote absentee, but 8 of these states have waived their excuse requirements for their upcoming election. Of the 8 remaining states, 6 are Republican trifectas and the other 2 have Democratic governors but Republican-controlled legislatures. Litigation has proved successful so far in handling opposition by Republican state officials.

Thanks to the judge’s ruling this afternoon, fear of contracting COVID-19 is now officially a valid excuse to request an absentee ballot in Texas. https://t.co/HZH0VKH9Xb

— ACLU (@ACLU) April 15, 2020

Campaigns have also had to adjust to a new normal without canvasing and rallies. Especially for challengers in House or state legislative races, conducting virtual campaigning has been difficult as they have little staff or money when compared to incumbents. Even presidential candidates have been forced to rely on Twitter, Facebook, and text messages to get their messages across.

The political system as a whole needs to be more prepared for future election emergencies. As law professor Michael Morley writes, few state statues have comprehensive planning for a crisis that occurs around an election. He recommends implementing state statues that allow for election modification, postponement, and cancellation depending on the circumstances. Interest groups ranging from the Brennan Center to Free Speech For People have also rolled out their own plans for the upcoming elections.

A diverse electoral system is a robust system; neither the upcoming November election nor future elections should rely solely on a single channel for voting.

Here’s Michael Morley:https://t.co/90fnsGEoEQ

— Lawfare (@lawfareblog) April 19, 2020

Political Networks and Anti-Quarantine Protests

Isaac Stanley-Becker and Tony Romm at The Washington Post:

A trio of far-right, pro-gun provocateurs is behind some of the largest Facebook groups calling for anti-quarantine protests around the country, offering the latest illustration that some seemingly organic demonstrations are being engineered by a network of conservative activists.

The Facebook groups target Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York, and they appear to be the work of Ben Dorr, the political director of a group called “Minnesota Gun Rights,” and his siblings, Christopher and Aaron. By Sunday, the groups had roughly 200,000 members combined, and they continued to expand quickly, days after President Trump endorsed such protests by suggesting citizens should “liberate” their states.

The Dorr brothers manage a slew of pro-gun groups across a wide range of states, from Iowa to Minnesota to New York, and seek primarily to discredit organizations like the National Rifle Association as being too compromising on gun safety. Minnesota Gun Rights, for instance, describes itself as the state’s “no-compromise gun rights organization.”

The online activity instigated by the brothers helps cement the impression that opposition to the restrictions is more widespread than polling suggests. Nearly 70 percent of Republicans said they supported a national stay-at-home order, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll. Ninety-five percent of Democrats backed such a measure in the survey.

From Charlie: Trump as Party Leader

 Question: Is President Trump a strong leader of the Republican Party?

Answer: Yes/No, depending on how you define “strong leadership”

Pro Argument

· He has a 90% approval rating among registered members of the Republican Party

· Trump is delivering to the core factions of the Republican Party

• Fiscal Conservatives: Tax Cuts
• Social Conservatives: Judicial Appointments
• Business Conservatives: Deregulation

· Not only is he delivering to the GOP’s core factions, he has created a new faction of the Republican Party: Nationalist Conservatives

• Nationalist Conservatives support Trump’s anti-immigration policies and trade deal alterations

Together fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, business conservatives, and nationalist conservatives make up at least 80% of the Republican Party.

Con Argument

· While Trump is delivering to the core factions of his party, he is alienating voting demographics that will be important to GOP success in the future

• Minorities
• Young Voters 

· Minorities and Young people vote Democratic:

• Minority voters: comprise 40% of the Democratic party compared to the GOPs 12%.
• Young voters: 59% of millennial voters identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, while only 32 percent identify as Republicans or lean Republican.

Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric makes the Republican party less appealing

Implications for the Future:

• Voter turnout rates among these demographics was higher in 2018 than in 2014

Summary of voter turnout between 2014-2018:

• Asian turnout: 26.9% to 40.2%
• Black turnout: 40.6% to 51.4%
• Hispanic turnout: 27%to 40.4%
• Young turnout (ages 18-29): 19.9% to 35.6%

Not only is voter turnout increasing, but these demographics are becoming a larger proportion of the electorate

Minorities

• Minorities made up 13% of the electorate in 1980
• Minorites made up 26% of the electorate in 2016
• Prediction by Growth and Opportunity Project: Minorities will outnumber white voters in the 2040s

Young Voters

• Twenty years from now, by 2039, millennials and Gen Z will represent 62 percent of all eligible voters.

Takeaway: Trump’s leadership has caused a problem for the GOP because he alienates important and growing voting demographics. Trump’s divisive leadership leaves Republican Congressional leaders in a difficult situation. If they split from Trump on an issue, they may have a problem with their base; however, standing by Trump may cause future problems for the GOP.

From Maddy: Impeachment Messaging

Research Paper: Impeachment Messaging by Maddy Levine


The impeachment trial of President Donald Trump was a momentous event, marking the third impeachment of a United States President since the country’s founding. But what lies beneath the historical nature of the impeachment is what it showed about the dynamics of Republican and Democratic Parties in the Senate and House. Through researching the messaging campaigns of both parties, specifically focusing on the period of the House impeachment inquiry and vote, this process marked the breakdown of bipartisanship in and the growth of party polarization in Congress.

Convincing a Skeptical Public

Democrats challenge in the beginning of the inquiry was convincing the public that the investigation was necessary. To do this, Democrats focused messaging on a constitutional and nonpartisan obligation to pursue investigations into Trump’s infamous call with Ukraine. In contrast, Republicans faced the challenge of defending a president with an approval rating that has never broken higher than 49%. Their focus in early messaging was declaring the whistleblower report a non-credible source with a hatred for Trump.


Impeachment Inquiry

Democratic messaging remained steady in reiterating the somber nature of the inquiry, as well as that the process was not something they wished to pursue. They emphasized, especially in purple districts, that this was forced upon them by Trump himself. Meanwhile, Republicans struggled to come up with a coherent messaging scheme - messaging ranging between reframing the facts to state that while Trump did withhold aid, it was over foreign policy concerns, while others argued that the process was unjust.


Impeachment Debates

During the impeachment debates, the Democrats remained incredibly structured in their arguments. Emphasizing duty, service, and a pursuit of justice, they advocated for Representatives to vote for impeachment, and Senators to vote for removal. While Democrats invoked the Constitution, Republicans invoked the Bible, Pearl Harbor, and the end of democracy. Referencing a sense of unjust persecution, a dangerous precedent, and preserving democracy, they argued for voting against impeachment and removal.


Each party faced different challenges in winning support for cause - whether to impeach or dismiss. But with the sharp attacks against the foundations of the opposing party, and the inability of each party to agree on a single fact, it signaled the growth of party polarization, as well as the deterioration of bipartisanship within Congress. We currently are seeing the impacts, as Congress fails to come together in the face of COVID-19, still debating over the smallest amendments to relief packages.