#this is a redraw from a previous one i made for the campaign because the pose was already perfect | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

somethingusefulfromflorida · 4 years

Text

2022 midterms and 2024 general

2022 is an important year because the House of Representatives is reapportioning itself; following the 2020 census, the states have been tasked with redrawing district maps to “reflect” the new population. Partisan gerrymandering has been a problem for decades, but it has become a thoroughly entrenched problem following the 2019 Supreme Court decision that gerrymandering is outside the scope of federal courts; the 5-4 conservative majority decided that they can not and will not rule on the matter again, leaving it up to Congress and the states to figure it out. Congress can’t get anything done, so a gerrymandering ban is all but impossible, meaning the states have total control over their new maps. A majority of the states are controlled by Republicans, despite representing less than half the country; there are more smaller states than bigger states, so even though more people live in urban areas, the rural areas get the majority voice in the redistricting process.

This means that 2022 is going to be probably the worst gerrymandered year in American history; given that the Supreme Court has since changed to a 6-3 conservative majority, I don’t see them overturning their previous decision any time soon, meaning Republicans have an inordinate advantage going forward.

Let’s look at the 20th century as a guide to see if we can make any predictions.

1902: Republican Teddy Roosevelt is president, and the Republicans control both the House and Senate. Following the election, they maintain control.

1912: Republican William Howard Taft is president, Republicans control the Senate, Democrats control the House. At this time, both parties had liberal and conservative wings, and the Republicans were having a civil war between the liberal Roosevelt faction and the conservative Taft faction. Roosevelt ran against his own party’s incumbent as a Progressive, a third party spoiler, giving the White House to the Democrats for the first time since the 1880s (and to a southerner for the first time since the Civil War). Democrats kept the House and took back the White House and Senate, giving Woodrow Wilson the trifecta.

1922: Republican Warren G. Harding is president, Republicans control both the House and Senate. This year is special because it is the first time in American history that the House was unable to reapportion itself after a census; there was a major battle across the country between rural and urban state legislatures, so Congress eventually passed a law in 1929 to set the number of House seats permanently at 435, the level it had reached by that time. Before this, the House grew ever ten years, inflating with population; it has been stagnant ever since, making each Congress less representative than the one before it. Republicans maintained control of the House and Senate.

1932: Republican Herbert Hoover is president, Republicans control the Senate, Democrats control the House. Hoover was more or less single-handedly responsible for the Great Depression, refusing to give aid to the people, forever ranking him as one of the worst presidents in American history; he was soundly defeated by Franklin D. Roosevelt who dragged us out of the depression and jump started the economy during World War II, becoming one of the greatest presidents in American history. Democrats won super-majorities in both the House and Senate, giving Roosevelt all but unlimited power (the only thing keeping him from literally becoming a king was that Democrats were still split between the more liberal north and the conservative south).

1942: Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt is still president, on his third term, and Democrats still control the House and Senate. They maintain control after the election.

1952: Democrat Harry S. Truman is president, but the recently passed 22nd Amendment forbid him from running for a third term. This is the first reapportionment year of the century without an incumbent president running for re-election; Democrats still control the House and Senate. After 20 years of Democratic rule, the country elects Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower a war hero and basically America Incarnate. He was everything they wanted in a president; he was manly, intelligent, anti-communist, super Christian, and racially tolerant. Republicans took back the White House, the House and Senate, giving Eisenhower the trifecta.

1962: Democrat John F. Kennedy is president, and Democrats control both the House and Senate. They maintain control after the election.

1972: Republican Richard Nixon is president, but Democrats maintain control of both the House and Senate. Nixon stole this election by hiring goons to break into the Democratic headquarters and steal dirt on his political opponent (Watergate Scandal). His campaign forged a letter from his strongest rival Edmund Muskie of Maine, in which they made it look like he was insulting the French-Canadian population, which would be like someone from Florida insulting Cubans, or someone from California insulting Mexicans. Muskie cried giving a speech denouncing the letter, imploding his campaign. The Democrats instead went with the unpopular George McGovern of South Dakota, a political nobody; Nixon hurt HIS campaign by revealing that his running mate Thomas Eagleton had depression and previously underwent electro-shock therapy, runing his career and forcing McGovern to replace him at the last minute with Sargent Shriver, whose main claim to fame was being married to John F. Kennedy’s sister. Nixon won in a landslide, winning 49 states including South Dakota. Nixon failed to cover up his crimes and resigned in 1974 before he could be impeached. Democrats kept both the House and Senate.

1982: Republican Ronald Reagan is president. Republicans control the Senate, but Democrats control the House. Both parties keep their respective chambers following the election.

1992: Republican George H.W. Bush is president, and Democrats control both the House and Senate. Bush is nowhere near as popular as Reagan was, riding his coattails into office and then stumbling through his first term. During his campaign he said “read my lips: no new taxes.” During his term he created new taxes. Whoops. He cared more about foreign policy than domestic, but still fumbled the Gulf War; we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait (yay), but then overthrew the Kuwaiti government (boo). The war had so much buildup; it was the only thing reported on TV for weeks and months, and it was over in days, so everyone was like “what was the point?” He may still have won re-election were it not for Ross Perot; a businessman from Bush’s own Texas, he ran the most successful third party campaign in modern history. He didn’t win any states, but he had national appeal where former third-partiers only had regional appeal; he split the ticket in all 50 states, meaning that Bush and Democratic rival Bill Clinton won multiple states with less than 50% of the vote. Clinton was a charismatic young southern Democrat in direct opposition to old pretender Bush (he was a new Englander pretending to be a Texan). Democrats won the White House, and kept both chambers of Congress, giving Clinton the trifecta.

2002: Republican George W. Bush is president (the H.W.’s son), and while the Republicans control the House, the Senate is split 50-50 for the first time in history. This should mean that Republican control the Senate because Dick Cheney was VP, but midway through 2001, Vermont Republican Jim Jeffords left the party to become an independent and caucus with the Democrats, giving them an effective 51-49 majority (fun fact: Jeffords was eventually succeeded by none other than Bernie Sanders). Bush Jr. was a warmonger who wanted to “redeem” the Bush family legacy by finishing what his daddy started; he used the tragedy of 9/11 as a pretense to go to war with Iraq so he could topple Saddam, even though Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks, had no ties to al-Qaeda, and possessed no WMDs. Republicans kept the House and narrowly won back the Senate after the election.

2012: Democrat Barack Obama is president. Democrats control the Senate, but Republicans control the House. Both parties keep their respective chambers, but Democrats win a handful of new House seats despite the re-districting.

2022: Democrat Joe Biden is president (in the event of an unforeseen tragedy, it might be Kamala Harris). Democrats control the House and Senate by razor-thin margins, meaning single-digit rebels could deadlock Congress entirely. It is very likely the Republicans will take back the House, and I give both parties a dead even chance of winning the Senate. Democrats are certainly going to lose Georgia and possibly Arizona, but could pick up Pennsylvania and maybe even Wisconsin; Pennsylvania is open because the Republican incumbent is retiring, but the Wisconsin incumbent is running for re-election, so that one will be an uphill battle. Those two are their best shots; maybe North Carolina (no incumbent), maybe Florida (yes incumbent), but I wouldn’t hold my breath. There’s a non-zero percent chance Congress could remain deadlocked 50-50. It depends on if Biden/Harris get anything substantive done this year.

It appears that the majority party in the House has the advantage going into the next re-districting cycle, but it has never been this close before and it fails to account for the Republican Revolution in the 80s and 90s. The Democrats maintained control of the House for 60 years, then Bill Clinton took office and the Republicans reorganized themselves in opposition to everything he stood for (even in the areas where he stood with them). Newt Gingrich took the Republican party from defense to offense, changing the playbook so they cared less about policy and more about culture; since then, instead of running for stuff, Republicans run against stuff. Their entire platform became “oppose Democrats,” with no real plan besides doing the opposite of what the other party wants to do; remind you, in 2016 Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court because he was a politically neutral choice who Republicans had no qualms against, they just refused to seat him because they hated Obama. Trump was a symptom of this backpedaling, he helped narrow the Republican platform even more, to the point that they didn’t change a thing between 2016 and 2020. That’s unheard of; a lot changed between then and now, and they didn’t feel the need to update ANYTHING, no new ideas, no new promises, just more of the same. It worked in 2016, and they thought it would work again in 2020, but then the pandemic hit and unemployment spiked to Great Depression levels and we entered a recession, turning Trump from Ronald Reagan to Herbert Hoover. It is historically difficult to defeat incumbent presidents, Trump was just a wildly unpopular idiot, and Biden was inoffensive and pretty close to politically neutral (he’s a moderate Democrat who is convinced he can work with Republicans even though their MO is still to oppose him on principle; they will NEVER work with him).

2024 seems so far away, but we’re already getting a taste at what it may look like. If Trump decides to run again, he will absolutely win the Republican nomination; if he runs again, no other candidate will even try to throw their hat in the ring, they worship at his feet, they’d never dare oppose him. In that case, it will be a rematch between Biden and Trump, which hasn’t gone to the challenger since Grover Cleveland won a nonconsecutive second term in 1892. Trump will lose the popular vote for the third time, but could eke by with a slim Electoral College victory if Republicans in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia implement their anti-voting laws. If Biden doesn’t run for a second term, the Democratic nomination will absolutely go to Kamala Harris, meaning it’ll be Harris v Trump, a repeat of Clinton v Trump in 2016. A competent but politically moderate woman pretending to be a left-wing progressive will be torn apart by the media, third party candidates will be treated like real challengers, and the republicans will take the White House with a minority vote for the third time in a row (the last time a Republican won the presidency with a majority vote was George H.W. Bush in 1988. Bush Jr was re-elected with a majority vote in 2004, but he lost his initial race in 2000 and was given the victory by the Supreme Court. Democrats have won 7 of the last 8 elections, but have only seated 3 presidents).

Biden v Trump is up in the air

Harris v Trump will probably go to Trump

If Trump doesn’t run, then the Republican race may be as crowded as it was in 2016, only this time the dozen or so candidates will be vying for an endorsement from Trump. Whoever he picks will become the nominee, so over the next year or two we can expect a ton of right-wing nutjobs to try and position themselves as his heir apparent. Some people think it will be one of his adult children, Don Jr or Eric or maybe Ivanka, but they’re not quite as popular as their dear old dad, and he hates them anyway (he hates Don Jr because he has the same name as him, he hates Eric because he’s a bigger idiot than he is, and he wants to fuck Ivanka’s brains out). More likely, the nomination will go to a far-right sycophant like Ted Cruz who came in second behind Trump in 2016, or Ron DeSantis who is positioning himself as Trump’s #2 guy in Florida. Rick Scott is also vying for that position, so he could give DeSantis a run for his money, and senators generally perform better than governors, so I’d watch them closely. It won’t be a moderate Republican; that will never happen again. They ran moderates in 2008 and 2012 and they got their asses handed to them by Obama, their wing of the party has all but evaporated, there are no viable moderate Republicans anymore, so blue-state Republican governors like Hogan (MD), Scott (VT, no relation), and Baker (MA) don’t stand a chance. Trump IS the Republican party, so what he says goes. It’ll be a competition to see who can suck up to him the hardest and win over his base, but it’s not a race Trump will leave quietly. He could be a kingmaker, but that would mean giving up his spot as leader of the party, something he doesn’t want to do. If he doesn’t run, he’ll still basically be running vicariously through whichever candidate gets the nomination; it’ll be a Trump puppet, Diet Trump, store brand Trump “sorry we’re out of Coke, is Pepsi okay?” They’ll never be as popular as the real thing, and Biden will have the incumbency advantage after rescuing the country from the pandemic and the recession, so 2024 is the Democrats’ to lose.

I predict that Biden will be re-elected in 2024, but Republicans will take back both chambers of Congress. He will resign halfway through his second term due to declining health, making Harris the first female president, who will then lose handily in 2028 against a Republican woman (both will face misogyny, but the Republican will be white, so she’ll have it easier). Biden and Harris will seat no Supreme Court justices after 2022, so Breyer needs to retire RIGHT THE FUCK NOW or else he’ll become the next Ruth Bader Ginsburg. When the Republicans take back the White House, Clarence Thomas will probably retire and be replaced by a young black woman who is even more conservative than he is, just to stick it to the Democrats. Roberts and Alito (conservative), and Kagan and Sotomayor (liberal) are relatively young, so they won’t be leaving anytime soon, and Trump’s 3 appointees are stuck for decades, so Breyer will be the only liberal vacancy in the foreseeable future; if Democrats replace him, the court remains 6-3 conservative, but it will put them in a better position going forward. If Republicans replace him, they’ll get 7-2 conservative, which would be bad for women (especially trans women), the rest of the LGBT community, black people, immigrants, poor people, and everyone else who isn’t explicitly a Republican demographic.

If Democrats want to swing the country away from fascism, they need to act decisively and soon! Nuke the filibuster, pus through electoral reform, expand the Supreme Court, get rid of the Electoral College, ensure that no party can rule without majority support ever again. This would almost certainly lead to a civil war as conservative shit their pants with fear over having to campaign on popular ideas for once; the states would push back hard, the courts would push back hard (McConnell and the Republicans packed the courts by refusing to let Obama seat anyone after 2015, accruing hundreds of vacancies for Trump to fill), and Trump’s base would fight back hardest of all. They would make January 6th look like child’s play, it would be a total bloodbath, all out revolution! We need a constitutional convention to overhaul the system, but that would create more questions than answers, and the conservative minority would still weasel their way into power through compromises just as they’ve always done. The senate is disproportional to appease conservatives, black people counted as 3/5 of a person to appease conservatives, free and slave states were admitted in equal number to appease conservatives, reconstruction was ended to appease conservatives, appeasement is the only way conservatives prosper!

2 notes · View notes

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

How Many Seats Did Republicans Lose In The House

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-many-seats-did-republicans-lose-in-the-house/

How Many Seats Did Republicans Lose In The House

Results Summary And Analysis

Democrats take House, Republicans keep Senate in historic midterms

The Democratic Party won control of the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm elections. The Democrats gained a net total of 41 seats from the total number of seats they had won in the 2016 elections. This was their largest gain of House seats in an election since the 1974 elections, when the Democrats gained 49 House seats. Democrats won the popular vote by more than 9.7Â;million votes or 8.6%, the largest midterm margin for any party and the largest margin on record for a minority party.

According to the Associated Press‘ statistical analysis, gerrymandering cost the Democrats an additional sixteen House seats from Republicans.

Voter turnout in this election was 50.3%, the highest turnout in a U.S. midterm election since 1914.

Note that the results summary does not include blank and over/under votes which were included in the official results or votes cast in the voided election in North Carolina’s 9th congressional district.

Source: Election Statistics â Office of the Clerk

State

Meg Whitman’s $142million Loss

Former eBay boss Meg Whitman paid a heavy price for her losing bid to become California’s governor -; $142million.

That’s how much billionaire Whitman, pictured below in tears after her loss last night, spent on her unsuccessful bid to succeed Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger in the governor’s mansion in; Sacramento.

It was the moist any self-funded candidate has even spent on a U.S. election campaign.

But it counted for nothing as she was beaten by Democrat former California Governor Jerry Brown, who succeeded in his attempt to take charge of the cash-challenged state again.

Whitman’s big budget bid was hampered by a scandal over her hiring of an illegal immigrant housekeeper and her admission that she didn’t vote for 28 years.

Brown, 72, will now be returning to the office he last held 28 years ago. The state attorney general was California’s 34th governor during his previous tenure between 1975 to 1983 and now becomes its 39th.

Asked by Mr Seacrest if he was getting much sleep, President Obama admitted: Not much lately.

IN DELAWARE:

Democrat Chris Coons easily won Delaware’s Senate race over Republican Christine O’Donnell, a Tea Party backed candidate who struggled to shake old television footage in which she spoke out against masturbation and talked about dabbling in witchcraft.

Last night O’Donnell vowed she will not stop fighting.

‘The outcome isn’t what we worked so hard for but our voice was heard,’ she told a party of supporters.

IN KENTUCKY:

IN CALIFORNIA:

Why Did House Democrats Underperform Compared To Joe Biden

The results of the 2020 elections pose several puzzles, one of which is the gap between Joe Bidens handsome victory in the presidential race and the Democrats disappointing performance in the House of Representatives. Biden enjoyed an edge of 7.1 million votes over President Trump, while the Democrats suffered a loss of 13 seats in the House, reducing their margin from 36 to just 10.

Turnout in the 2018 mid-term election reached its highest level in more than a century. Democrats were fervently opposed to the Trump administration and turned out in droves. Compared to its performance in 2016, the partys total House vote fell by only 2%. Without Donald Trump at the head of the ticket, Republican voters were much less enthusiastic, and the total House vote for Republican candidates fell by nearly 20% from 2016. Democratic candidates received almost 10 million more votes than Republican candidates, a margin of 8.6%, the highest ever for a party that was previously in the minority. It was, in short, a spectacular year for House Democrats.

To understand the difference this Democratic disadvantage can make, compare the 2020 presidential and House results in five critical swing states.

Table 1: Presidential versus House results

Arizona

Read Also: How Do Republicans Feel About Abortion

New Redistricting Commissions In Several States Add To Uncertainty

The announcement that California and six other states, mostly in the Midwest and Northeast, will lose House seats in the next Congress set off a wave of fundraising appeals from incumbent Democrats concerned about their efforts to hold on to their chamber majority in 2022.;

Democrats outnumber Republicans by almost 2-to-1 in the congressional delegations that will be reduced because of census data released Monday.;

But the lost seats do not automatically mean that fewer Democrats will come to Washington from the Rust Belt and Northeast.;

The bottom line is, of these seven states that are losing seats, it is entirely possible that will all be self-canceling, and there will be no net change, said Sam Wang, director of the Princeton Gerrymandering Project.;

Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, California and West Virginia are each slated to lose a seat because their populations did not grow as fast as states in the South and Mountain West.

Democrats control the redistricting process in several of the states losing seats, and independent or bipartisan commissions will draw new boundaries in some of the others.;

But its hard to predict with certainty which party will come out ahead, partly because the details about where the population grew within the states will not be released until late summer or early fall. Also, efforts to redraw lines for a partisan advantage in one district could inadvertently make a neighboring district more competitive.;

Republicans Score Big Gains In House Pelosi Barely Hanging On

Copy Link

Democrats expected and eagerly anticipated a blue wave that would sweep them into power in the White House, House, Senate, and state legislatures.; It didnt happen, not by a long shot.

In fact, not only did they do poorly across the board, but, as a Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee spokeswoman astutely noted, President Trump acted not as the Democrat-expected anchor but as a buoy for Republican legislative candidates.

That Democrats vastly misjudged the appeal of their radical agenda is crystal clear , and perhaps nowhere is that more evident than in the House races.; Nancy Pelosi truly expected her party to pick up seats, yet it appears its the Republicans who are on track to accomplish the 10-15 seat gains the Democrats expected in their column.

Pelosi on Election Day: “Democrats are poised to further strengthen our majority.”

Pelosi today: “I never said that we were going to pick up” seats.

Kevin McCarthy

Despite AOCs declaration that Democrats lost the House, they have so far managed to win 219 seats .

Powerline notes that Republicans have flipped 12 House seats: RealClearPolitics notes that Republicans have picked up a net of 9 House seats. RCP projects that Republicans will pick up a net 10-13 seats when the counting is done.

12 FLIPS in the House for the GOP!

CA39 Young Kim

Students For Trump

Of the House races yet to be called as of Friday, Republicans are leading in 11 of the 14 races.

Newsweek reports:

Read Also: How Many Republicans Are Needed To Vote For Impeachment

United States House Of Representatives Elections

2018 United States House of Representatives elections

The 2018 United States House of Representatives elections were held on November 6, 2018, with early voting taking place in some states in the weeks preceding that date. Voters chose representatives from all 435 congressional districts across each of the 50 U.S. states. Non-voting delegates from the District of Columbia and four of the five inhabited U.S. territories were also elected. These midterm elections took place halfway through the term of Republican President Donald Trump. On Election Day, Republicans had held a House majority since .

In the 2018 elections, the Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, won control of the House. The Democrats gained a net total of 41 seats from the total number of seats they had won in the 2016 elections. The 41-seat gain was the Democrats largest gain of House seats since the post-Watergate 1974 elections, when they picked up 49 seats.

Upon the opening of the 116th United States Congress, Pelosi was elected as Speaker of the House. Incumbent Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan chose not to run for another term. In November 2018, House Republicans elected Kevin McCarthy as House Minority Leader.

Gop Women Made Big Gains

While the majority of the Republican caucus will still be men come 2021, there will be far more Republican women in Congress than there were this year. So far, it looks like at least 26 GOP women will be in the House next year, surpassing the record of 25 from the 109th Congress. Thats thanks in part to the record number of non-incumbent Republican women 15 whove won House contests. And its also because of how well Republican women did in tight races. The table below shows the Republican women who ran in Democratic-held House districts that were at least potentially competitive,1 according to FiveThirtyEights forecast. As of this writing, seven of them have won.

GOP women have flipped several Democratic seats

Republican women running for potentially competitive Democratic-held House seats and the status of their race as of 4:30 p.m Eastern on Nov. 11

District D+22.1

Results are unofficial. Races are counted as projected only if the projection comes from ABC News. Excludes races in which the Republican candidate has either a less than 1 in 100 chance or greater than 99 in 100 chance of winning.

You May Like: Are Democrats Red And Republicans Blue

You May Like: Why Did Radical Republicans Impeach Johnson

If You Have A News Tip Wed Like To Hear From You Reach Out To Us Via One Of Ourtip Line Channels

Rep. Ami Bera of California, the fundraising chair for the moderate NewDem Action Fund, said in an interview with BuzzFeed News that he was disappointed by the election results.

I described the election a little bit different than Speaker Pelosi, Bera said. I think our goal for many of us as Democrats is not to have any of our colleagues lose. So by that metric, you know, we lost some really valuable members of Congress, and for that I’m sad, and that bothers me.

Still, Bera said he didnt see what Democrats could have done differently in several races they lost, pointing to Rep. Joe Cunninghams loss in South Carolina.

There’s nothing about his campaign that we could have improved on raised resources to get his message out and at the end of the day, he lost by one percentage point in a district that I bet Trump is gonna win by 10 to 13 points, Bera said. So, you know, that’s just tough terrain.

But the party clearly needs to better understand some voters of color, Bera said, who broke in higher numbers for Trump this cycle than they did four years ago.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has also been open about discussing Democrats communication failures this cycle.

ReplyRetweetFavorite

In the weeks since Election Day, she has argued that moderates were not digitally strategic enough during their campaigns.

And Bera said he and his caucus members arent just brushing off Ocasio-Cortezs advice.

There may not be an answer. It may be that theyre screwed.

Its Not All Bad News For Democrats

Representative Kevin McCarthy discusses if Republicans can take back the House in 2020

While it was unquestionably a good night for Republicans, Democrats still held onto most of the seats they won in 2018 and will continue to be the majority party in the House. Thats in part because they retained most of the suburban districts they picked up in 2018.

Of the 233 seats that Democrats held coming into the election,2 186 of them were in districts that were predominantly or partly suburban in nature, according to density categorizations by Bloombergs CityLab. Thus far, Democrats have lost seven of those seats, but they captured one GOP-held suburban seat around Atlanta. And thanks to redistricting, theyve also won two formerly Republican seats around Greensboro and Raleigh in North Carolina, which reflect the partys strength in more populous areas.

Because of their relative success in the suburbs, Democrats kept many seats in places President Trump won in 2016. Coming into the election, Democrats held 30 seats in districts Trump carried in 2016, and they wouldve lost their majority if theyd lost more than half of them . But theyve won 18 of them so far and picked up one from the GOP . In fact, more than half of Republicans gains have come in seats representing places that Trump won by a pretty sizable margin in 2016. Well have to wait a bit before data can tell us how congressional districts voted in 2020,3 but for now it seems many Republican gains were made by picking off the lowest-hanging fruit.

Don’t Miss: Why Is There Republicans And Democrats

House Democrats May Well Have To Contend With A Republican Senate

House Democrats have spent the past two years passing bills at a rapid clip, on everything from sweeping anti-corruption reforms to lowering the cost of prescription drugs to a $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill. But the vast majority of these bills were dead on arrival in the US Senate. It seems likely this ambitious agenda could continue to be on ice, unless Democrats flip two Georgia Senate runoff races that will be decided in January.

One of the few bipartisan pieces of legislation Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, and President Trump were able to agree on was the $2.2 trillion CARES Act at the beginning of the pandemic; a second stimulus package has been held up by partisan bickering. McConnell recently signaled willingness to pass another stimulus package before the end of the year. He for the Senates lame-duck session but was vague on concrete details.

Even on infrastructure one of the few places where there seemed to be bipartisan agreement getting a bill through could be elusive. Should Democrats flip the Senate, Pelosi has provided them a road map.

But its too early to say if they will get to use it.

Update: This piece was updated with recent Decision Desk calls in several key House races.

A White House In Disorder

The tweet came without warning, on the day of the South Carolina primary. Watching television aboard Air Force One, on a flight back from his summit in Singapore with Kim Jong-un, the North Korean despot, Mr. Trump decreed that Representative Mark Sanford of South Carolina must be defeated.

Mr. Sanford, an idiosyncratic conservative who routinely criticized the president, was in a tough primary battle with Katie Arrington, a state legislator running as a Trump loyalist. Hours after Mr. Trumps message, Mr. Sanford conceded defeat.

If Mr. Sanford suffered in June for his apostasy, Mr. Trumps party paid another price Tuesday: Ms. Arrington lost the general election in a heavily Republican district to Joe Cunningham, a Democrat.

Mr. Trumps capricious approach to politics was destabilizing for Republicans up and down the ballot, leaving candidates exposed to the presidents whims and grievances and the machinations of White House advisers. Rather than approaching the midterm campaign as a task of holding together a political coalition and steering it to victory, Mr. Trump focused chiefly on rewarding perceived friends and punishing those who crossed him.

The endorsement was off. The day after Idahos primary, Mr. Trump phoned the triumphant Mr. Little and, unaware of the tapes genesis, asked: Did you see that video?

Recommended Reading: Should Republicans Vote In Democratic Primary

How Did State Populations Change From 2010 To 2020

The U.S. population has increased by 7.4% since the last Census, to a total of;331,449,281 people.

California is the most populous state with 39,538,223 people, while Wyoming is the smallest state at 576,851 people.

Utah was the state with the fastest growing population over the last decade, increasing by 18.4%, while West Virginia had the most population loss, dipping 3.2%.;

What Was The Outlook Prior To The Election

Republicans needed to get to 218 seats to win back the majority they lost in 2018. The National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm of House Republicans, in early 2019 identified dozens of Democratic-held districts to target. They included;30 Democrats;who were elected or re-elected in 2018 in districts that voted for President Donald Trump in 2016. All but one Dave Loebsack of Iowa sought re-election. Most were first-term members who defeated or succeeded Republicans in the 2018 election. Republicans won some of these Trump Democrat districts but needed to unseat most to win back control of the House.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the campaign arm of House Democrats, identified more than 40 Frontline Democrats it expected to have very competitive re-election campaigns. Many of these members represented;suburban districts;that have diversified their populations in recent years. In most of these districts, Democrats were running for re-election for the first time. The Frontline Democrats amassed large campaign funds.

Democrats also identified more than three dozen Republican-held districts they intended to target, including seven in Texas.

Democrats also made a play for the suburban Texas districts of retiring Republican Reps.;Pete Olson;of the 22nd District and Kenny Marchant of the 24th District. They lost the 22nd District, but the 24th is currently too close to call, with Republican Beth Van Duyne leading.

Also Check: Who Is Correct Democrats Or Republicans

New Yorks Congressional Seats Over Time

Gained seats

W.Va.

Calif.

And several key states with changes coming to their maps California, Colorado, Michigan and Montana have independent commissions tasked with determining new legislative boundaries on a nonpartisan or bipartisan basis.

The parties have this natural inclination to go for broke, say, Weve got a new seat, lets grab it and take the opportunity we have, said Bernard Grofman, a political science professor at the University of California, Irvine, who has served as a special master for court-ordered redistricting in multiple states. For Republicans, he said, picking up new seats and stopping Joe Biden is going to have a high, high priority, even though they may pay a big political price down the road.

The 2021 redistricting process will also be the first time since 1961 that a raft of mostly Southern states will not have their maps subject to a preclearance process from the Justice Department, following the Supreme Courts 2013 decision to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The court last month heard arguments that could undo more elements of the act that would impede the ability to sue to block new maps.

Without having to seek preclearance, Republicans in states where they control all levers of government Florida, Georgia and Texas, to name three will have far more influence on the new maps than they have had in past reapportionment cycles.

Copy Link

12 FLIPS in the House for the GOP!

CA39 Young Kim

Students For Trump

Newsweek reports:

0 notes

vytautolo-blog · 6 years

Text

Attorney general again rejects David Couch’s proposed ballot initiative to alter redistricting process

Redistricting occurs every ten years, along with the U.S. Census. It’s an important issue: Partisan gerrymandering (yes, both sides do it when they’re in power) can lead to funky-shaped districts in Arkansas and elsewhere that seem counter to the spirit of a representative democracy. Couch — the Little Rock attorney who has campaigned for more than 20 ballot initiatives and authored the medical marijuana amendment that voters passed in 2016 — is proposing an amendment to the state constitution that would establish a “Citizens’ Redistricting Commission” consisting of seven members. The members of the commission would be chosen by the Majority and Minority Leaders in the House of Representatives and the Majority and Minority Leaders in the Senate, each choosing one member.

Those commission members would then choose three additional members by majority vote. None of these three additional members could have any political party affiliation, as determined by their voter registration.

This might produce a more fair system, but it would reduce the power currently held by the Republican officeholders set to have total control of redistricting under current law, including Rutledge herself. Under current law, the “Board of Apportionment” — consisting of the governor, the secretary of state, and the attorney general — draw the maps for the 100 House districts and 35 Senate districts. The General Assembly redraws the maps for the state’s four Congressional districts.

In her opinion issued today, Rutledge complained of ambiguities in the text, which is par for the course when the attorney general rejects ballot titles. As a sample: She stated that because the proposal “represents a substantial change to longstanding Arkansas constitutional law by repealing Article 8 to the constitution,” said repeal should be noted higher in the text; she said that the provision barring someone from serving as a commissioner is an immediate family member had served in various appointed or elected offices in the last five years failed to define what an “immediate family member” was; failed to define terms such as “geographic or political units” and “jurisdictions” that she said would not be readily understood by voters; and half a dozen other nits she located to pick.

Couch expressed frustration that all of the language that Rutledge said needed to be revised this time was in the previous draft that he submitted and drew no comment at that time. Rutledge had suggested other changes on the initial draft, which Couch made (changes which drew no comment this time). This is, shall we say, an inefficient manner for the attorney general’s office to go about dispensing guidance. In Couch’s view, it amounts to foot-dragging.

“She came up with a whole bunch of new stuff that was in the first one the first time we submitted it,” Couch said. “No we have to re-submit and she’ll take another ten business days.”

To proceed, the ballot measure first needs to be certified by the attorney general. At that point, the amendment would need to collect around 85,000 signatures of registered voters by July to make it on the ballot in November.

A protracted back-and-forth to win approval from the attorney general for ballot measures has been typical. The slightly absurd dance happens with most proposals — this year, Rutledge has rejected more than 50 proposed ballot titles and not accepted a single one. The situation led Driving Arkansas Forward, a group pushing an amendment to allow two casinos, in Jefferson County and Pope County, to file a 167-page lawsuit against Rutledge with the state Supreme Court earlier this week, after Rutledge rejected the group’s proposal a fourth time. “We are concerned that the Attorney General is applying an unnecessarily burdensome standard in this review,” a spokesman for the group said.

As for Couch’s redistricting proposal, Rutledge might be especially motivated to obstruct, obfuscate, and drag her feet. If enacted, Couch’s proposed amendment would take away a power currently designated to Rutledge herself, as a member of the Board of Apportionment. More broadly, it would give a voice to the minority party. In 2020, that would mean giving Democrats and nonpartisan actors a seat at the table, as opposed to total control by Republicans. Perhaps Rutledge is sour on that idea.

The attorney general is ostensibly supposed to be neutral on the content of the proposal itself in these opinions, but Rutledge’s commentary does seem to reflect her own “view of the merits of a particular proposal,” her protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. From her opinion:

As a final note, I believe a cautionary note is warranted in light of the significance of the subject matter undertaken-apportionment and redistricting-and the complexity and far-reaching effects of your proposal. I have to question whether the Court would view your measure as one that the voters could readily understand so as to be able to make a considered and informed choice in the voting booth.

“It bothers me that in some of her comments she doesn’t think the electorate of the state of Arkansas is smart enough to figure out redistricting,” Couch said.

As to whether Rutledge might be particularly motivated to put the brakes on this proposal, Couch said, “It’s hard to comment on anybody’s motives. But some of her comments in the letter would lead a reasonable person to believe that some of the objections are content-based.”

Couch said that he would re-submit a revised proposal on Monday. “I’ll keep at it until I get it or until she tells me I can’t get it — and then I’ll ask the federal court to see if that’s constitutional. You can’t use this statute as a pretext to stymie or block someone’s constitutional right to petition.”

youtube

from Attorney general again rejects David Couch’s proposed ballot initiative to alter redistricting process via Attorney general again rejects David Couch’s proposed ballot initiative to alter redistricting process March 15, 2019 at 06:18PM Copyright © March 15, 2019 at 06:18PM

0 notes

mglintnek · 6 years

Text

Attorney general again rejects David Couch’s proposed ballot initiative to alter redistricting process

“She came up with a whole bunch of new stuff that was in the first one the first time we submitted it,” Couch said. “No we have to re-submit and she’ll take another ten business days.”

“It bothers me that in some of her comments she doesn’t think the electorate of the state of Arkansas is smart enough to figure out redistricting,” Couch said.

youtube

0 notes

mabintoudesign-blog · 6 years

Text

Hungarian History

Independence Restored

1918 - Austro-Hungarian Empire is broken up at the end of World War I. Hungarian republic is proclaimed following a revolution.

1919 - Communists take over power under Bela Kun. Kun wages war on Czechoslovakia and Romania. Romanian forces occupy Budapest and hand power to Admiral Miklos Horthy.

1920 - Under Treaty of Trianon, Entente powers award more than two-thirds of Hungarian territory to Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia. The re-defining of Hungary's borders leaves a third of native Hungarian speakers living outside the country.

The National Assembly re-establishes the Kingdom of Hungary, but as the Entente powers had refused to allow the return of a Habsburg king, Admiral Horthy is made regent.

1920s-1930s - Admiral Horthy's rule is characterised by bitter resentment at loss of Hungarian territories, becomes progressively more reactionary and more closely allied with Nazi Germany.

1938 - After Munich Agreement cedes part of Czechoslovakia to Germany, Hungary regains some of the territory it lost in 1920.

1939 - Hungary joins Anti-Comintern Pact of Germany, Japan and Italy, and withdraws from League of Nations.

1940 - With the encouragement of Nazi Germany, Hungary regains northern Transylvania from Romania.

1941 - Germany invades Soviet Union. Hungary allies itself with Germany, and loses a large part of its army on the Eastern Front.

1944 - Hungarian Nazis seize power after Horthy asks advancing Soviet troops for an armistice. Jews and gypsies are deported to death camps.

Communist rule

1945 - Soviet forces drive the Germans out of Hungary by early April. New coalition government introduces land reform bill, redistributing land from large estate owners to peasants.

1947-49 - Communists consolidate power under Soviet occupation, with new constitution, nationalisation of industry, collectivised agriculture and mass terror.

1956 uprising

1956 - Uprising against Soviet domination suppressed by the Soviet Army. Janos Kadar becomes head of government.

1960s - Kadar gradually introduces limited liberalising reforms. Political prisoners and church leaders are freed, farmers and industrial workers given increased rights.

1968 - New Economic Mechanism brings elements of the market to communist state management.

Spearheading change

1988 - Kadar is replaced by Karoly Grosz. Opposition groups form the Hungarian Democratic Forum.

1989 - May - Border with Austria is opened, and thousands of East Germans escape to the West. Communist state in Hungary is dismantled and a transition to a multi-party democracy starts.

1990 - A centre-right coalition wins elections. Hungary withdraws from any participation in Warsaw Pact military exercises.

1991 - Soviet forces withdraw from Hungary. The Warsaw Pact is dissolved.

Democracy

1994 - Former Communists and liberals form coalition following elections. Gyula Horn, the leader of the reform Communists, pledges to pursue free-market policies.

1997 - Referendum endorses joining Nato, which happens in 1999. The European Union decides to open membership talks with Hungary, which begin in 1998.

1998 - Centre-right coalition under Fidesz leader Viktor Orban elected.

2001 June - Parliament backs controversial Status Law entitling Hungarians living in Romania, Slovakia, Ukraine, Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia to a special identity document allowing them to work, study and claim health care in Hungary temporarily.

2002 May - Peter Medgyessy forms new centre-left coalition government in which the Socialist Party partners the liberal Free Democrats.

2003 April - Referendum overwhelmingly approves Hungary's membership of an enlarged EU. However, turnout is only 46%.

Hungary in the EU

2004 May - Hungary is one of 10 new states to join the EU.

2004 September - Former sports minister Ferenc Gyurcsany becomes prime minister following resignation of Peter Medgyessy in row with coalition partner over reshuffle.

2005 June - Parliament chooses opposition-backed Laszlo Solyom as president after Socialists' candidate is blocked by their Free Democrat coalition partners.

2006 April - General election returns Socialist-led coalition under Ferenc Gyurcsany to power.

2006 September-October - Violence erupts as thousands rally in Budapest demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Gyurcsany, after he admitted his government had lied during the election campaign.

Economic woes

2008 March - Government defeated in opposition-sponsored referendum calling for abolition of new fees for health care and higher education.

2008 April - Mr Gyurcsany reshuffles cabinet after Alliance of Free Democrats quits coalition.

2008 October - Hungary is badly hit by the global financial crisis. International Monetary Fund, EU and World Bank grant rescue package worth 20bn euros (£17bn).

2009 March - Hungary and Russia sign deal to build part of the South Stream pipeline across Hungarian territory, although pipeline was eventually halted in 2015. Hungary also agrees to jointly build underground gas storage facility in Hungary, a move which will turn the country into a major hub for Russian gas supplies.

2009 April - Economy Minister Gordon Bajnai takes over as PM; he announces a programme of public spending cuts, tax rises and public wage freezes.

2009 June - Far-right Jobbik party wins three seats in European Parliament elections, gaining almost 15% of the vote.

Rise of the right

2010 April - Conservative opposition party Fidesz wins landslide victory in parliamentary election, gaining two-thirds majority. Jobbik enters parliament for first time, winning 47 seats.

2010 May - Parliament passes law allowing ethnic Hungarians living abroad to apply for Hungarian citizenship. Slovakia threatens to strip anyone who applies for dual nationality of their citizenship.

2010 October - A state of emergency is declared after a torrent of toxic red sludge escapes from a reservoir of chemical waste, killing seven people and injuring 150. Rivers

2011 February - Government agrees to amend media law. European Commission says that the changes meet its concerns over media freedom.

New constitution

2011 April - Parliament approves a new constitution that opponents say threatens democracy by removing checks and balances. The EU expresses concern over the law and asks for it to be withdrawn.

2011 December - Parliament approves controversial new election law that halves the number of MPs and redraws constituency boundaries. Critics object it tilts the system in favour of the governing Fidesz party.

Parliament passes controversial law on central bank reform that gives the government greater control over monetary policy. EU and IMF officials cut short aid talks.

2012 January - Top rate of VAT is increased from 25% to 27% - the highest rate in the EU - as part of a series of austerity measures aimed at curbing the budget deficit.

Tens of thousands of people take part in protests in Budapest as controversial new constitution comes into force.

Credit ratings agency Fitch downgrades Hungary's credit rating to junk status. Two other main ratings agencies already reduced Hungary's rating to junk levels within the previous six weeks.

2012 February - Hungarian state-owned airline Malev goes bankrupt.

EU aid suspended

2012 March - EU suspends aid payments to Hungary because of budget deficit.

2012 April - Hungary makes small changes to the Central Bank law, and the European Commission agrees to resume talks with the IMF on a massive bailout.

2012 May - Veteran Fidesz politician Janos Ader elected president by parliament. His predecessor and fellow Fidesz supporter Pal Schmitt resigned in April after it was revealed that he had plagiarised the works of others in his doctoral thesis.

Standoff with IMF

2012 September - Government rejects conditions attached by the IMF to a new 15bn-euro (£12bn) loan as unacceptable. PM Viktor Orban says the government will present an "alternative negotiation proposal".

2012 November - Jobbik MP Marton Gyongyosi sparks outrage by calling for a list of officials of Jewish origin to be compiled, saying that they could pose a "national security risk".

2013 January - Constitutional court strikes down electoral law amendment approved by parliament in November, saying it restricts voter rights.

2013 March - Parliament approves fourth amendment to 2012 constitution, curbing power of constitutional court.

Economic recovery

2013 June - Government seeks to amend constitution banning political advertisements in independent media and restrictive guidelines on recognition of religious groups, but later waters down proposals under EU pressure.

Hungary emerges from recession, EU EU releases it from excessive deficit procedure mechanism.

2013 September - Parliament approves the latest constitutional changes, despite threat of legal action from the EU.

2013 December - Supreme Court blocks a government attempt to have loans denominated in foreign currencies declared unlawful.

2014 January - The unveiling of plans for a memorial marking the seventieth anniversary of the German occupation in 1944 prompts criticism that the government is seeking to play down Hungary's wartime role as a Nazi ally. Following an international outcry, the plans are put on hold.

2014 February - The government approves a controversial 10bn euro (£8.3bn) deal with Russia over the financing of two new reactors at the Paks nuclear power plant.

Second Fidesz victory

2014 April - Fidesz wins a second sweeping victory in parliamentary elections. International election monitors say that restrictive campaign rules and biased media coverage gave the governing party an unfair advantage.

2014 July - Prime Minister Viktor Orban says that liberal democracy has had its day, and cites Russia, China and Turkey as successful "illiberal" states that he says are worthy of emulation.

2014 August - Mr Orban criticises EU sanctions imposed on Russia over the Ukraine crisis.

2014 September - Hungary's gas pipeline operator says it has suspended delivery of gas to neighbouring Ukraine indefinitely. The move coincides with Russian moves to boost supplies to Hungary.

2014 October - The government drops a proposed tax on internet use which had sparked big protests in Budapest.

2015 February - Thousands protest at visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin on gas supplies to Hungary. EU member states had agreed not to hold bilateral meetings with Mr Putin after Russia's annexation of Crimea.

Migrant crisis

2015 May - EU denounces Hungarian plans for public consultation on immigration, saying proposed questionnaire risks demonising migrants.

2015 September - New law allows arrest of migrants seeking to cross fence on Serbian border, after 200,000 mainly from the Middle East enter the country over the summer in hope of moving on to Germany and elsewhere.

2016 October - Government claims victory after referendum overwhelmingly backs its rejection of EU plans to relocate migrants among member-states, despite low turnout of 40.4%.

2017 May - European Parliament threatens to suspend Hungary from the EU in practical terms over its attempts to close down the liberal Central European University in Budapest.

2017 June - Hungary passes law that requires non-governmental organisations to register as foreign organisations if they receive a certain amount of funding from abroad, in a move seen by opposition supporters as targeting groups critical of the government.

2017 November - Hungarian-born financier George Soros complains about a government campaign involving billboards and leaflets alleging he plans to force EU countries to accept millions of migrants.

0 notes

irena-lucier791grlb · 6 years

Text

Attorney general again rejects David Couch’s proposed ballot initiative to alter redistricting process

Attorney General Leslie Rutledge today rejected a proposed ballot initiative brought by David Couch to enact changes to the process by which the state redraws congressional and state legislative districts. It was the second time that Rutledge has rejected the proposal. Redistricting occurs every ten years, along with the U.S. Census. It’s an important issue: Partisan gerrymandering (yes, both sides do it when they’re in power) can lead to funky-shaped districts in Arkansas and elsewhere that seem counter to the spirit of a representative democracy. Couch — the Little Rock attorney who has campaigned for more than 20 ballot initiatives and authored the medical marijuana amendment that voters passed in 2016 — is proposing an amendment to the state constitution that would establish a “Citizens’ Redistricting Commission” consisting of seven members. The members of the commission would be chosen by the Majority and Minority Leaders in the House of Representatives and the Majority and Minority Leaders in the Senate, each choosing one member. Those commission members would then choose three additional members by majority vote. None of these three additional members could have any political party affiliation, as determined by their voter registration. This might produce a more fair system, but it would reduce the power currently held by the Republican officeholders set to have total control of redistricting under current law, including Rutledge herself. Under current law, the “Board of Apportionment” — consisting of the governor, the secretary of state, and the attorney general — draw the maps for the 100 House districts and 35 Senate districts. The General Assembly redraws the maps for the state’s four Congressional districts. In her opinion issued today, Rutledge complained of ambiguities in the text, which is par for the course when the attorney general rejects ballot titles. As a sample: She stated that because the proposal “represents a substantial change to longstanding Arkansas constitutional law by repealing Article 8 to the constitution,” said repeal should be noted higher in the text; she said that the provision barring someone from serving as a commissioner is an immediate family member had served in various appointed or elected offices in the last five years failed to define what an “immediate family member” was; failed to define terms such as “geographic or political units” and “jurisdictions” that she said would not be readily understood by voters; and half a dozen other nits she located to pick. Couch expressed frustration that all of the language that Rutledge said needed to be revised this time was in the previous draft that he submitted and drew no comment at that time. Rutledge had suggested other changes on the initial draft, which Couch made (changes which drew no comment this time). This is, shall we say, an inefficient manner for the attorney general’s office to go about dispensing guidance. In Couch’s view, it amounts to foot-dragging. “She came up with a whole bunch of new stuff that was in the first one the first time we submitted it,” Couch said. “No we have to re-submit and she’ll take another ten business days.” To proceed, the ballot measure first needs to be certified by the attorney general. At that point, the amendment would need to collect around 85,000 signatures of registered voters by July to make it on the ballot in November. A protracted back-and-forth to win approval from the attorney general for ballot measures has been typical. The slightly absurd dance happens with most proposals — this year, Rutledge has rejected more than 50 proposed ballot titles and not accepted a single one. The situation led Driving Arkansas Forward, a group pushing an amendment to allow two casinos, in Jefferson County and Pope County, to file a 167-page lawsuit against Rutledge with the state Supreme Court earlier this week, after Rutledge rejected the group’s proposal a fourth time. “We are concerned that the Attorney General is applying an unnecessarily burdensome standard in this review,” a spokesman for the group said. As for Couch’s redistricting proposal, Rutledge might be especially motivated to obstruct, obfuscate, and drag her feet. If enacted, Couch’s proposed amendment would take away a power currently designated to Rutledge herself, as a member of the Board of Apportionment. More broadly, it would give a voice to the minority party. In 2020, that would mean giving Democrats and nonpartisan actors a seat at the table, as opposed to total control by Republicans. Perhaps Rutledge is sour on that idea. The attorney general is ostensibly supposed to be neutral on the content of the proposal itself in these opinions, but Rutledge’s commentary does seem to reflect her own “view of the merits of a particular proposal,” her protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. From her opinion: As a final note, I believe a cautionary note is warranted in light of the significance of the subject matter undertaken-apportionment and redistricting-and the complexity and far-reaching effects of your proposal. I have to question whether the Court would view your measure as one that the voters could readily understand so as to be able to make a considered and informed choice in the voting booth. “It bothers me that in some of her comments she doesn’t think the electorate of the state of Arkansas is smart enough to figure out redistricting,” Couch said. As to whether Rutledge might be particularly motivated to put the brakes on this proposal, Couch said, “It’s hard to comment on anybody’s motives. But some of her comments in the letter would lead a reasonable person to believe that some of the objections are content-based.” Couch said that he would re-submit a revised proposal on Monday. “I’ll keep at it until I get it or until she tells me I can’t get it — and then I’ll ask the federal court to see if that’s constitutional. You can’t use this statute as a pretext to stymie or block someone’s constitutional right to petition.” copyright © 2016 http://dlvr.it/Qw3CPP

0 notes

nebacktra · 6 years

Text

Attorney general again rejects David Couch’s proposed ballot initiative to alter redistricting process

“She came up with a whole bunch of new stuff that was in the first one the first time we submitted it,” Couch said. “No we have to re-submit and she’ll take another ten business days.”

“It bothers me that in some of her comments she doesn’t think the electorate of the state of Arkansas is smart enough to figure out redistricting,” Couch said.

youtube

from Attorney general again rejects David Couch’s proposed ballot initiative to alter redistricting process via Attorney general again rejects David Couch’s proposed ballot initiative to alter redistricting process December 05, 2018 at 12:16PM Copyright © December 05, 2018 at 12:16PM

0 notes

babyartisankoala-blog · 6 years

Text

Attorney general again rejects David Couch’s proposed ballot initiative to alter redistricting process

“She came up with a whole bunch of new stuff that was in the first one the first time we submitted it,” Couch said. “No we have to re-submit and she’ll take another ten business days.”

“It bothers me that in some of her comments she doesn’t think the electorate of the state of Arkansas is smart enough to figure out redistricting,” Couch said.

#Credit Repair Alaska

0 notes

cleopatrarps · 6 years

Text

As Najib holidays in Malaysia, his former mentor Mahathir turns up…

LANGKAWI/KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (Reuters) – The police kept watch close to a holiday villa where Najib Razak this week gave his first sit-down interview since his shock election defeat last month, a reminder for the former Malaysian prime minister that he may not have much more time to relax.

FILE PHOTO: Malaysia’s former prime minister Najib Razak speaks to Reuters during an interview in Langkawi, Malaysia June 19, 2018. REUTERS/Edgar Su/File Photo

He is under investigation for corruption, has been labeled a crook by his successor, is banned from traveling overseas, and has watched while his family’s homes have been raided and luxury goods hauled away by officers.

Only hours before – also in an interview with Reuters – his mentor-turned-tormentor, the new Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, reeled off the charges he is looking to bring against Najib for his alleged role in a scandal that saw billions of dollars go missing from state fund 1MDB. They included embezzlement, bribery, losing government money.

“People would expect a former prime minister to be treated with decorum. Instead, I’ve been subjected to raids and all the other things,” said Najib.

Plain clothes officers from the police’s special branch intelligence arm were an obvious presence in and around the five-star hotel where he and his family were staying.

No criminal charges have been brought against Najib, and he said he did not know if hundreds of millions of dollars that moved through his personal account was from 1MDB.

Instead, Najib said 92-year-old Mahathir, the veteran leader who once helped engineer Najib’s political ascent before turning on him, appears to be being vindictive.

Since his defeat in a May 9 general election, nearly 300 boxes of designer handbags and dozens of bags filled with cash and jewelry were among the items taken away by police in 1MDB-related searches at properties linked to Najib’s family.

“I never in my wildest dreams expected something like that to happen,” said Najib. “Even my grandchild’s shoes were taken away. In my son’s apartment, his assistant, his ‘Man Friday’ if you like, who does everything for him, even his cheap watches were taken away. What’s that got to do with 1MDB?”

“They wanted to tarnish my image in the court of public opinion,” he added.

Najib’s insistence in the interview that he should not be blamed for the multi-billion-dollar scandal at 1MDB, a fund he had founded in 2009, triggered scorn across the country from some politicians and members of the public on Thursday.

“Najib always assumes that people are stupid,” Mahathir told the Malay Mail in an interview on Thursday in reference to Najib’s comments to Reuters.

DOZENS OF SUITCASES

Mahathir, who previously ruled the country from 1981-2003, is seen as the father of modern Malaysia.

And that is especially the case in Langkawi, a tourist island near the Thai border, which Mahathir developed during his previous tenure and which is now his constituency after he won it from Najib’s coalition in the election last month.

Najib said he also helped upgrade Langkawi during his reign and has a close affinity with the island, but when images of his family arriving for their holiday with dozens of suitcases started circulating on social media over the weekend, some people said they thought he was trying to flee.

He has denied he has ever had plans to flee, saying he wants to clear his name and doesn’t want to be a fugitive.

Najib, who was in power for about a decade, said that like so much of the good he did in government, his legacy has been tainted by the attacks from Mahathir and the winning coalition of parties.

“It was a hate campaign…They came up with very scurrilous allegations to defame me and the government. Unfortunately after a period of time, it changed public opinion,” Najib said.

Najib faced criticism himself ahead of the election for the last-minute redrawing of electoral boundaries that was allegedly meant to favor his Barisan Nasional coalition, the introduction of a “fake news” law just weeks before polls, and the decision to hold the vote on a Wednesday, which made it very difficult for some Malaysians to return to the places where they were registered to cast their ballots.

“TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE”

Speaking from Najib’s vast former office in the administrative capital of Putrajaya, Mahathir told Reuters that he has no doubt Najib is “totally responsible” for the 1MDB scandal. He also blames Najib for the corruption of the entire government machinery, including the way contracts were awarded – many times without tenders.

But in a country where institutions have been tainted by years of score-settling, Mahathir is also wary about moving too fast.

“Now the people are asking since you said he is guilty of this, why aren’t you doing anything,” said Mahathir, a self-proclaimed workaholic whose desk was strewn with documents.

FILE PHOTO: Malaysia’s Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad speaks during an interview with Reuters in Putrajaya, Malaysia June 19, 2018. REUTERS/Lai Seng Sin/File Photo

“But of course we have to investigate very carefully. On the one hand, politically we can say he has done wrong things. But if you are going to a court of law, you must have full proof. Evidence that can hold up in a court of law.”

Mahathir said he was quite surprised to have won the election because Najib knew “that if he loses, he may land up in jail”.

“I thought he would have something up his sleeve”, Mahathir said.

MAHATHIR SOUGHT TO PULL THE STRINGS

For Najib, the ties with Mahathir deteriorated some time ago.

After Mahathir helped him to power in 2009, Najib said their relationship started to sour as his mentor tried to pull the strings behind the scenes.

“He was insistent on telling me what to do and telling what sort of direction I should take.”

Najib said Mahathir, for example, told him to sell a jet aircraft because it was too ostentatious, and advised him to set up a ‘council of elders’ with Mahathir as chairman. He pushed back on both ideas.

Then in late 2015, as 1MDB became the subject of investigations in multiple countries and fingers started to be pointed at Najib, Mahathir turned on him. In the run up to the election, Mahathir described helping Najib to the top as the biggest mistake of his life.

Yet for Najib, there remains a begrudging respect for his mentor even in defeat.

“He (Mahathir) knew everything about the system so he operated from within and from without, so that had a distinct advantage.

“He was quite clever in a way that he summarized everything in very simple terms, and repeated ad nauseum the same thing over and over again.”

Even though Mahathir is touting charges against him that carry hefty fines and even jail sentences, Najib, a keen golfer, still compares the election contest to a game.

“It is like football, you play by the rules. Somebody else wins because they didn’t play by the rules,” Najib said.

Reporting by Joseph Sipalan, A. Ananthalakshmi and Praveen Menon; Writing by John Geddie; Editing by Martin Howell

The post As Najib holidays in Malaysia, his former mentor Mahathir turns up… appeared first on World The News.

from World The News https://ift.tt/2tsx3Sc via News of World

#Daily World News #Daily Entertainment #Daily Sports #Today News #World The News

0 notes

party-hard-or-die · 6 years