House Democrats target Hispanic voters in battlegrounds with new barrage of ads

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) on Wednesday announced a seven-figure ad campaign targeting Hispanic voters in battleground districts throughout the country.

The digital, print and radio ads seek to promote mail voting and to support candidates in tough races.

“We are not taking anything or anyone for granted and our latest investment in digital, print, and radio advertising will reach voters where they get their news,” said DCCC Chairwoman Rep. Cheri BustosCheryl (Cheri) Lea BustosRepublican fears grow over rising Democratic tide Biden, Democrats see late opportunity in Texas The Hill’s Campaign Report: Biden asks if public can trust vaccine from Trump ahead of Election Day | Oklahoma health officials raised red flags before Trump rally MORE (D-Ill.) in a statement.

“These investments are only possible because of the early commitment we made to research in critical Latino communities, and build on our on-the-ground work to engage and mobilize Latino voters across the House battlefield,” added Bustos.

The digital ads will run on platforms include Facebook, Instagram, Pandora, Snapchat and YouTube.

They will target voters in five districts in California; two each in Arizona, Nevada and New York; one each in Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Georgia, New Jersey, Utah and Florida; and eight districts in Texas.

Similarly, radio ads will target nine Texas districts, three in California, two in New York and one each in New Mexico and New Jersey.

Print ads will focus more heavily on California. They will be aimed at voters in six of the state’s districts, as well as in four Texas districts and one each in Florida and New York.

The distribution of ads reflects the DCCC’s battleground map. It is defending substantial gains made in 2018 in California, and hoping to replicate that election this year in Texas.

The latest ad barrage follows an independent expenditure TV campaign — ads that weren’t coordinated with individual campaigns and don’t count against campaign spending — released to prop up candidates in California, New Mexico, Florida and Texas.

The content of the ads reflects wildly different realities on the ground across the country.

The video, radio and generic Spanish-language print ads relay a message generally supporting Democratic House candidates and instructions on how to vote by mail.

Early voting has traditionally been favored by Hispanic voters, but they have been slow to adopt mail voting in previous elections.

Initial data seems to show Hispanic voter participation could build on its 2018 surge, despite the difficulties posed by voting during the coronavirus pandemic.

Democrats are pushing two websites, IWillVote.com and VoyAVotar.com, hoping to turn voter interest into effective voter participation.

But the latest ads follow the independent expenditure campaign targeting individual races, such as the one in Florida’s 26th congressional district, where Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-PowellDebbie Mucarsel-PowellDisinformation, QAnon efforts targeting Latino voters ramp up ahead of presidential election Florida Democrat asks FBI to investigate anti-Semitic, racist disinformation Hispanic Caucus members embark on ‘virtual bus tour’ with Biden campaign MORE (D) is fighting off a challenge from Miami-Dade

Read more

Oregon House Republicans’ PAC files complaint over Democrat’s incorrect voters’ pamphlet statement

A political action committee controlled by Oregon House Republicans on Wednesday asked the secretary of state to investigate, after the campaign manager for Democratic House candidate Lynnette Shaw of rural Yamhill County acknowledged that Shaw’s voters’ pamphlet statement contained incorrect information.



Oregon House Republicans' PAC on Wednesday filed a complaint over a Democratic candidate's incorrect voters' pamphlet statement. Dave Killen / Staff


© Dave Killen/The Oregonian/oregonlive.com/TNS
Oregon House Republicans’ PAC on Wednesday filed a complaint over a Democratic candidate’s incorrect voters’ pamphlet statement. Dave Killen / Staff

Shaw’s campaign manager Dustin Daniel told Willamette Week on Tuesday that in an “unfortunate mistake,” Shaw’s statement in the general election voters’ pamphlet incorrectly stated she earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Minnesota. Daniel told the newspaper that Shaw’s statement in the primary election voters’ pamphlet correctly stated she attended the University of Minnesota. Her candidate filing for the general election says she completed three years of college.

Loading...

Load Error

Trey Rosser, executive director of the Evergreen Oregon PAC, pointed out that Shaw’s LinkedIn resume also lists a bachelor’s degree from the University of Minnesota. Rosser wrote in the complaint to Secretary of State Bev Clarno, “By knowingly submitting a voters’ pamphlet statement with false information, Lynnette Shaw is clearly in violation of state law. As you know, violations of ORS 260.715 are a Class C Felony.”

Two years ago, a Bend House candidate’s false statement that she received a college degree also became an issue and ultimately caused Amanda La Bell to quit the race.

House District 24, which covers portions of Yamhill and Washington counties, is currently held by Republican Rep. Ron Noble, who is running for re-election. It is among the most hotly contested Oregon legislative races in the state and as of the end of September, it was the 12th most expensive race, The Oregonian/OregonLive reported.

Shaw could not immediately be reached for comment.

— Hillary Borrud 5/8 [email protected] 5/8 503-294-4034 5/8 @hborrud

Subscribe to Oregonian/OregonLive newsletters and podcasts for the latest news and top stories.

———

©2020 The Oregonian (Portland, Ore.)

Visit The Oregonian (Portland, Ore.) at www.oregonian.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Continue Reading

Source Article

Read more

Biden’s campaign assures voters the U.S. ‘is perfectly capable of escorting trespassers out of the White House’

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden assumed reporters wanted to ask him about the lack of charges in the Breonna Taylor killing when he landed in Wilmington on Wednesday night after a trip to North Carolina. They were more curious about his reaction to President Trump’s point-blank refusal to commit to leaving office if the voters reject him in November. “What country are we in?” Biden asked, explaining that he was “being facetious” — and then explaining it again because it’s hard to communicate facetiousness with a face mask on. “Look, he says the most irrational things. I don’t know what to say about it. But it doesn’t surprise me.”

Biden’s campaign had already put out a more pointed statement: “The American people will decide this election. And the United States government is perfectly capable of escorting trespassers out of the White House.”

A lot of people were very disturbed by Trump’s prediction that “there won’t be a transfer [or power], frankly,” if you “get rid of the ballots” — and “it’s a sharply atypical response for a president, certainly,” Philip Bump writes at The Washington Post, trying to parse what Trump meant to say. But “given his rhetoric in 2016, this was not an atypical response for Trump.” But even if you translate Trump in the most generous light, he said, “it’s disconcerting because it reinforces that Trump’s interest in appearing to be victorious remains a primary concern,” certainly more than the legitimacy of America’s constitutional system of government.

More stories from theweek.com
America needs to hear the bad news first
A mild defense of Republican hypocrisy on the Supreme Court
Trump is the only one being honest about the Supreme Court fight

Source Article

Read more

Election 2020 live updates: Biden makes appeal to Black voters in N.C. as Trump stages White House events

Speaking in Charlotte, on Wednesday, Biden focused on the economic vulnerability of African Americans, outlining his previous proposals for racial equity while pledging to elevate the Civil Rights Division if he is elected.

At what was billed as a “Black Economic Summit,” he addressed the growing racial unrest around the country and the potential to spur change in public policy.

“Average people have gone, ‘My lord, holy mackerel. I didn’t know it was this bad,’” Biden said.

During his remarks, a grand jury in Jefferson County, Ky., indicted a former police officer on three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment in the fatal shooting of Breonna Taylor during a drug raid in March. Biden did not mention the case directly.

Biden talked about infusing more money into historically Black colleges and universities, and touted a plan that would allow anyone from a family making less than $125,000 to go to a public college for free.

At one point, he stopped and said he kept a list of his major funding proposals and how he’d pay for them, pulling a notecard out of his pocket. He argued for tax code changes that would raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy — but he also tried to make clear he wasn’t going as far, politically or rhetorically, as his former Democratic primary rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

“You think I’m making it like, you know … Bernie Sanders, ‘Billionaires are bad.’ That’s not the problem,” Biden said, casting his proposal as a more modest increase in the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans to 39.4 percent. “I’m not trying to punish anybody. It’s time everybody pay their fair share.”

At the end, Biden said he would allow one more question, saying with a laugh, “I could really do yes or no if you ask me an easy question.” The question was about how the Department of Justice would operate differently under him.

“This has been the most corrupt administration to modern American history,” Biden said. “The Justice Department’s turned into the president’s private law firm.”

On cases and prosecutions, Biden said, “the Justice Department will be totally independent of me.” But he said that the Civil Rights division would be elevated and would have “a direct office within the White House.”

“I’d make sure there’s a combination of the Civil Rights Division having more direct authority inside the Justice Department and be able to investigate, than in fact it has now,” Biden said.

“But I get asked the following question, ‘If in fact you get elected, would you prosecute Trump?’” Biden added. “The answer is I’m not going to pursue prosecuting anybody. I’m going to do what the Justice Department says should be done.”

Source Article

Read more

Opinion | The White House blames voters for the messes Trump made

In the White House driveway Tuesday morning, Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, was asked about the spontaneous surge in contributions to Democrats since Republicans announced, 80 minutes after the first report of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, that they would ram through a replacement.

“I’ve heard the reports of Democrat fundraising going through the roof because of this particular event,” Meadows said, using Republicans’ bastardized name for the Democratic Party. He called it “very sad” and concluded: “But that just shows you, at this particular time in history, we have a very divisive electorate.”

A divisive electorate? No, we have a divisive president. The voters aren’t divisive.

Perhaps Meadows misspoke and meant “divided.” But the electorate isn’t that, either. There is partisan polarization, but voters aren’t really divided on the issues. They simply don’t like what Trump is doing.

This isn’t the first time Team Trump has blamed voters. Back in 2015, when Ben Carson was surging in the Iowa Republican caucuses, Trump said Iowans were fools for believing a personal story Carson told. “How stupid are the people of Iowa?” Trump asked. “How stupid are the people of the country to believe this crap?”

The American people are not stupid, and they are not with Trump. The “silent majority” Trump often refers to is in fact a boisterous minority artificially amplified by the electoral college, the Senate’s structure, gerrymandering and the Supreme Court’s rollback of voting rights. Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million in 2016 and he has been below 50 percent public approval for his entire presidency. He trails Joe Biden badly in nationwide polling, and his campaign strategy indicates he isn’t even contesting the popular vote.

And what of the Senate majority, which now claims to be fulfilling a mandate from the American people? Senate Republicans received 18 million fewer votes than Democrats in 2018, and 10 million fewer votes in 2016.

Vast majorities of Americans are concerned about the coronavirus, support the mandatory wearing of masks and say they avoid crowds. Trump mocks mask-wearing, holds mass rallies and boasts about playing down the virus. Monday he falsely said covid-19 “affects virtually nobody” under 18. Meanwhile, The Post reports, his Pentagon spent $1 billion of pandemic-relief funds on military hardware.

Americans overwhelmingly oppose choosing a new justice now. A Reuters/Ipsos poll finds 62 percent, including half of Republicans, saying the winner of the election in six weeks should make the choice.

But Trump on Tuesday shared radio provocateur Rush Limbaugh’s call for a nominee to be confirmed without even holding hearings. And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell brazenly reversed his pious defense of the voters four years ago. Back then, when he refused to consider an Obama nominee more than eight months before the election, he said: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice.”

Nearly 90 percent of Americans, of all stripes, have pleaded for more civility from public officials. Yet this week, Trump

Read more

Only Voters Can Stop Trump Now

With less than 50 days to go until the election, exhausted House Democrats—staring down fresh oversight challenges from a president who just keeps on serving them up—are embracing a Jesus-take-the-wheel approach: putting faith in the voting public to exercise the ultimate check on Donald Trump.

On a Tuesday morning outside the U.S. Capitol—days after the release of a whistleblower complaint alleging, among other things, that Trump administration officials have been severely downplaying the extent of Russian interference in the 2020 election—the question of how House Democrats might keep up at a time like this prompted Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ) to offer a disbelieving chuckle. Which then morphed into a full-on fake sob, played up for effect.

Malinowski’s initial reaction to that question might sum up how many of his colleagues are feeling right now—almost comically fatigued at the prospect of confronting a new crisis, a breakdown of election security protocols, in a presidency that’s been full of crisis. But his actual answer to the question indicated a broader hope among Democrats that the light at the end of the tunnel may finally be near. 

“Impeachment is the tool the Constitution gives us to deal with serious abuse of power in between elections,” said Malinowski, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who was sharply critical of Trump during that impeachment process. “When you’re two months from an election… the American people are going to have their say very, very soon.”

With campaign season in full swing and Congress consumed with attempting to respond to a devastating pandemic, House Democrats’ apparatus of Trump oversight is decidedly on the back burner. The party is of course planning to do its due diligence in responding to the issues that have come up, like the whistleblower complaint, but with impeachment far behind in the rearview and the administration continuing to stonewall requests for documents and testimony, there’s a realization that Democrats may have reached the limit of their oversight powers.

“It feels that way sometimes,” said Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI), “but I obviously think we still have to pursue every avenue, turn over every rock… I mean, right now, it’s pretty much in the hands of the American people.”

No Democrat is arguing that they should take a laissez faire approach to oversight of the Trump administration’s stewardship of the executive branch. But in a complete departure from their typical election-year form, many in the party are increasingly confident that the American people will exercise the ultimate check on Trump—by voting him out. 

“We’re at a point where everything matters,” said Malinowski. “I don’t think it helps the president to be seen as trampling on legal norms, especially in a moment where he’s trying to run a campaign based on law and order… It’s not so much that the Hatch Act is a burning issue, a burning kitchen table issue for families in districts like mine, but people understand the law is the law.” 

Democrats are “finally confident” Trump is heading toward defeat,

Read more

New Hampshire voters to choose candidates for 2 House seats

An Air Force veteran, a former Trump official and a combat nurse are among the candidates for New Hampshire’s two congressional seats competing in Tuesday’s primary to represent their party in the November general election.



FILE - In this May 14, 2020, file photo, Rep. Ann Kuster, D-N.H., asks questions during a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington. Kuster is the incumbent Democrat candidate in the 2nd Congressional District in New Hampshire's Sept. 8, primary election. (Greg Nash/Pool via AP, File)


© Provided by Associated Press
FILE – In this May 14, 2020, file photo, Rep. Ann Kuster, D-N.H., asks questions during a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington. Kuster is the incumbent Democrat candidate in the 2nd Congressional District in New Hampshire’s Sept. 8, primary election. (Greg Nash/Pool via AP, File)

Democratic U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas, a freshman lawmaker, is running unopposed in the 1st District race. Democratic U.S. Rep. Annie Kuster, seeking her fifth term representing the 2nd District, is expected to beat her lone challenger.

The 1st District has been as swing district of late but the 2nd has been solidly Democrat for years.

On the Republican side in the 1st District, Matt Mowers, a 31-year-old former official in President Donald Trump’s State Department, and Matt Mayberry, a 55-year-old Air Force veteran and realtor, are the favorites to take on Pappas. They are among five candidates running for a seat representing the district that covers the eastern part of the state, including parts of greater Manchester, the Lakes Region and the Seacoast.



FILE - In this Nov. 6, 2018, file photo, Democrat Chris Pappas celebrates winning New Hampshire's 1st Congressional District race in Manchester, N.H. Pappas is the incumbent Democrat candidate in New Hampshire's Sept. 8, 2020 primary election. (AP Photo/ Cheryl Senter, File)


© Provided by Associated Press
FILE – In this Nov. 6, 2018, file photo, Democrat Chris Pappas celebrates winning New Hampshire’s 1st Congressional District race in Manchester, N.H. Pappas is the incumbent Democrat candidate in New Hampshire’s Sept. 8, 2020 primary election. (AP Photo/ Cheryl Senter, File)

Mowers has outraised Mayberry by about 4-1 and picked up a coveted endorsement from Trump. Mayberry has responded by accusing Mowers of being a carpetbagger looking to move back to New Hampshire just to win a House seat.

Both candidates have similar conservative views and support Trump’s agenda. They have promised to fight illegal immigration, continue building the wall at the southern border, defend the Second Amendment and would support congressional term limits.

The 2nd District race — encompassing a mostly rural district that stretches from New Hampshire’s border with Canada to the Massachusetts line — is shaping up to be a rematch between Kuster and Steve Negron, who owns a defense engineering and consulting company in Nashua. The other serious challenge is Lynne Blankenbeker, a combat nurse and Navy Reserve captain from Concord.



FThis Sept. 2019 handout photograph provided by Lynn DiZazzo shows Lynne Blankenbeker, Republican candidate for New Hampshire's 2nd Congressional District. (Lynn DiZazzo photo via AP)


© Provided by Associated Press
FThis Sept. 2019 handout photograph provided by Lynn DiZazzo shows Lynne Blankenbeker, Republican candidate for New Hampshire’s 2nd Congressional District. (Lynn DiZazzo photo via AP)

Negron, 59, a retired U.S. Air Force officer and former state House member, won the nomination in a seven-candidate race in 2018. Blakenbeker, 56, a lawyer who also served in the House, came in third. There are two other candidates.

Loading...

Load Error

Negron and Blankenbeker count among their priorities reducing health care costs, a strong national defense and a secure border. During a debate that aired Thursday on WMUR-TV, they agreed that the

Read more

Lawmakers hope Ohio voters won’t notice they’ve done nothing about House Bill 6

Ohio’s Republican-run House and Senate returned to the Statehouse Tuesday and said, in so many words, they need more time to think about repealing the $60 million Ohio purchase – House Bill 6. It requires Ohio electricity consumers to bail out two nuclear power plants.

State legislators seem to think they know better than voters do what’s good for Ohioans. That’s the same patronizing attitude that got HB 6 passed last year. When working Ohioans want something, the General Assembly’s reply always seems to be, “What’s the big rush?” But when the Powers That Be want something, General Assembly’s reply always seems to be, “Yes, sir!”

The U.S. attorney’s office for Southern Ohio has called HB 6 a “racketeering conspiracy involving approximately $60 million … to pass and uphold a billion-dollar nuclear plant bailout.” That alleged conspiracy led a federal grand jury to indict Republican ex-House Speaker Larry Householder, of Perry County’s Glenford, and four other Ohio political figures. Householder and the others are presumed innocent unless convicted.

HB 6 requires Ohio electricity consumers to bail out the Perry and Davis-Besse nuclear power plants, once owned by Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp., plus two coal-fueled power plants owned by a group of utilities, including FirstEnergy and American Electric Power Co.

New House Speaker Robert Cupp, a Lima Republican, sent proposed HB 6 repeals to a new House Select Committee on Energy Policy and Oversight. Otherwise, the repeal bills might have landed in one of two standing committees: Public Utilities (chaired by Rep. Jamie Callender, a Lake County Republican who co-sponsored HB 6; the Perry nuclear plant is in his district), or Energy and Natural Resources, chaired by Rep. Nino Vitale, an Urbana Republican with a zest for publicity.

Northeast Ohio Republicans whom Cupp named to the special House HB 6 committee are Rep. Mark Romanchuck, of Mansfield, who’s running for an open Senate seat that represents Medina and Ashland counties; and fellow GOP Reps. Dick Stein, of Norwalk, and Scott Wiggam, of Wooster. Romanchuck voted “no” on HB 6 last year; Stein and Wiggam voted “yes.”

Northeast Ohio Democrats Cupp named to the HB 6 committee are Reps. Kent Smith, of Euclid, and Casey Weinstein, of Hudson. They both voted “no” on HB 6 last year.

The state Senate’s HB 6 repeal bills were sent to the Senate’s Energy and Public Utilities Committee, chaired by Republican Sen. Steve Wilson, a Warren County banker. Wilson said in July that Householder had “breached the trust of Ohioans” but that HB 6 “was good public policy for the future of energy in our state, [and] I was proud to work on it.” Questions, ratepayers?

Perhaps General Assembly Republicans who voted for HB 6 – 42 of the House’s 61 Republicans, 16 of the Senate’s 24 Republicans – may bet the presidential campaign will distract anti-HB 6 voters. A presidential winner can bolster his or her party at the Statehouse. When President Donald Trump carried Ohio in 2016, Republicans captured 66 Ohio House seats, their post-1966

Read more

Opinion | There Is No Route to the White House Without Latino Voters

This year, a projected 32 million Latinos will be eligible to vote, making them the largest racial or ethnic minority ever to participate in a presidential election. And for the first time, Latinos will outnumber Black voters, according to the Pew Research Center.

The power of Latino voters is evident in states such as Florida and Arizona. Had the Latino turnout been higher in those states in 2016, Mr. Trump might not be president. But over half of all Latinos eligible to vote didn’t do so, and consequently history was written in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Despite the racist insults he hurled at Mexican immigrants during his last campaign (“They are bringing drugs. They are bringing crime. They’re rapists.”) Mr. Trump won 28 percent of the Latino vote. Though not even close to the 66 percent that voted for Hillary Clinton, it was enough to win him the election. Clearly, even insults couldn’t convince that small slice of the Latino electorate that Mr. Trump, who promised economic opportunity, a wall and a crackdown on dictatorships in Cuba and Venezuela, was unfit for office.

I myself have surfed the great Latino wave. When I arrived in the United States in the early 1980s, fewer than 15 million Latinos lived in this country; now we number more than 60 million. And in less than three decades we will be at 100 million, according to estimates.

These numbers mean no candidate will be able to achieve power in the United States without Latino support. Karl Rove, chief adviser to President George W. Bush, understood this perfectly. In 2004, Mr. Bush won 44 percent of the Latino vote, more than any other Republican presidential candidate ever. It was the first time Republicans tried to divide the Latino vote and prove the phrase attributed to Ronald Reagan: “Latinos are Republican. They just don’t know it yet.”

But instead of continuing their efforts to court Latino voters, Republicans turned their backs. As a candidate in 2016, Mr. Trump announced he would build his wall at the border, and that Mexico would pay for it. This is not how to win the hearts of Latinos.

The Latino vote is increasingly powerful, diverse and sophisticated. And in exchange for that vote, which can make or break a president, the Latino community expects concrete benefits. A few words in Spanish and a few empty promises are no longer enough.

Source Article

Read more