$3t House Aid Bill, US Sales Collapse. UPDATES

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday unveiled a $3 trillion coronavirus aid package on Capitol Hill.

House Passes $3 Trillion Aid Bill Over Republican Opposition.

The bill faces a veto threat from President Trump, near-unanimous opposition by Republicans and complaints from Democrats, but leaders called it their opening offer in talks on the next round of pandemic relief.

A divided House narrowly passed a $3 trillion pandemic relief package on Friday to send aid to struggling state and local governments and another round of direct $1,200 payments to taxpayers, advancing a proposal with no chance of becoming law over near-unanimous Republican opposition.

Democratic leaders characterized the measure, which President Trump has promised to veto, as their opening offer in future negotiations over the next round of coronavirus aid, forging ahead in passing it even amid rifts within their own ranks.

With nearly $1 trillion in aid to battered states, cities and Native American tribes, and another round of bolstered jobless benefits and direct government payments to Americans, the measure was an expansive sequel to the $2.2 trillion stimulus enacted in March, reflecting Democrats’ desire to push for a quick and aggressive new round of help.

Mr. Trump and Republicans have vacillated about whether they would commit to another phase of federal assistance, and have made it clear they are in no rush to provide it. “It’s always interesting to me to see how much patience some people have with the pain and suffering of other people,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said.

The bill passed on a tight margin, 208 to 199, as some moderate Democrats from conservative-leaning districts rejected it as a costly overreach that included provisions unrelated to the pandemic.

The package contained a number of Democratic priorities, including $100 billion for rental assistance and $75 billion in mortgage relief. It would allocate $3.6 billion to bolster election security, and would provide a $25 billion bailout for the Postal Service, a lifeline that the agency has said is critical to its survival, but that Mr. Trump opposes.

It would also temporarily suspend a limit on the deduction of state and local taxes from federal income taxes — which Democrats have repeatedly pushed for — and would disproportionately benefit high-income taxpayers in high-tax areas. It would substantially expand eligibility and increase the value of some tax credits, like the earned-income tax credit, that are targeted to the poorest Americans.

The S&P 500 rose more than 1 percent on Thursday, after recovering from an early drop of nearly 2 percent.

 Collapse in sales is the worst ever for US retailers

Consumer spending tumbled a record 16.4% in April as the backbone of the U.S. economy retrenched amid the coronavirus pandemic, according to a government report Friday.

Economists surveyed by Dow Jones expected the advanced retail sales number to fall 12.3% after March’s reported 8.3% dive already had set a record for data going back to 1992. The March numbers were revised to be not as bad as the 8.7% initially reported.

Some 68% of the nation’s $21.5 trillion economy comes from personal consumption expenditures, which tumbled 7.6% in the first quarter just as social distancing measures aimed at containing the coronavirus began to take effect.

New York's 420,000 wealthiest residents fled the city in two months, new smartphone data
An analysis of multiple sources of aggregated smartphone location data has found that five percent of New York City’s population, or 420,000 people, left between March 1 and May 1 amid the coronavirus pandemic (right). In the city’s very wealthiest blocks, in neighborhoods like the Upper East Side, the West Village, SoHo and Brooklyn Heights, residential population decreased by 40 percent or more, while the rest of the city saw comparably modest changes. The majority fled to vacation homes on Long Island, to Westchester and upstate New York, to Pennsylvania, to Connecticut and to Florida. Residents who fled typically were white, had college degrees or higher and earned incomes of more than $100,000. “There is a way that these crises fall with a different weight on people based on social class,” said Kim Phillips-Fein, a history professor at New York University and author of a book about how New York changed during the fiscal crisis of the 1970s. “Even though there’s a strong rhetoric of ‘We’re all in it together,’ that’s not really the case. This is a tried-and-true human strategy — that when you encounter trouble, run away,”n New York City, there are more than 186,000 confirmed cases of the virus and more than 20,000 confirmed/probable deaths (inset). NY TIMES

World looks on in horror as Trump flails over pandemic despite claims US leads way

GUARDIAN

The Trump administration has repeatedly claimed that the US is “leading the world” with its response to the pandemic, but it does not seem to be going in any direction the world wants to follow.

Across Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America, views of the US handling of the coronavirus crisis are uniformly negative and range from horror through derision to sympathy. Donald Trump’s musings from the White House briefing room, particularly his thoughts on injecting disinfectant, have drawn the attention of the planet.

“Over more than two centuries, the United States has stirred a very wide range of feelings in the rest of the world: love and hatred, fear and hope, envy and contempt, awe and anger,” the columnist Fintan O’Toole wrote in the Irish Times. “But there is one emotion that has never been directed towards the US until now: pity.”

The US has emerged as a global hotspot for the pandemic, a giant petri dish for the Sars-CoV-2 virus. As the death toll rises, Trump’s claims to global leadership have became more far-fetched. He told Republicans last week that he had had a round of phone calls with Angela Merkel, Shinzo Abe and other unnamed world leaders and insisted “so many of them, almost all of them, I would say all of them” believe the US is leading the way.

None of the leaders he mentioned has said anything to suggest that was true. At each milestone of the crisis, European leaders have been taken aback by Trump’s lack of consultation with them – when he suspended travel to the US from Europe on 12 March without warning Brussels, for example. A week later, politicians in Berlin accused Trump of an “unfriendly act” for offering “large sums of money” to get a German company developing a vaccine to move its research wing to the US.

The president’s abrupt decision to cut funding to the World Health Organization last month also came as a shock. The EU’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, a former Spanish foreign minister, wrote on Twitter: “There is no reason justifying this move at a moment when their efforts are needed more than ever to help contain & mitigate the coronavirus pandemic.”

A poll in France last week found Merkel to be far and away the most trusted world leader. Just 2% had confidence Trump was leading the world in the right direction. Only Boris Johnson and Xi Jinping inspired less faith.

Coney Island in Brooklyn last Monday. 

How close is New York City to reopening?

New York City has met only four of the seven health-and-safety benchmarks that the state requires regions to meet in order to begin reopening. Thus, the region of the state hardest hit by the virus is also the furthest from allowing some of its nonessential businesses to resume operations.

The state has published a dashboard charting each region’s daily progress toward meeting its standards. Five of the 10 regions have met all seven benchmarks. Here is a quick look at where New York City stands on the state’s key questions:

Has the three-day rolling average of the total number of people in the hospital on a given day declined for 14 consecutive days? Yes.

Has the three-day rolling average of hospital deaths declined for 14 consecutive days? Yes.

Has the three-day rolling average of new hospitalizations stayed under two per 100,000 residents? No, the city’s new-hospitalization rate stands at about 2.56.

Does the region have at least 30 percent of its hospital beds available? No, the city has about 28 percent of its beds available.

Does the region have at least 30 percent of its intensive-care-unit beds available? No, the city has about 22 percent of its I.C.U. beds available.

Has the region shown, over the span of the last week, that it can conduct 30 virus tests for every 1,000 residents each month? Yes.

Does the region have the 30 contact tracers available for every 100,000 residents?: The state lists New York City’s status in this category as “Expected” and is counting it as completed.

Enida Flowers, a victim information and referral advocate, took a call at the Illinois Domestic Violence Hotline in Chicago.

Domestic Violence Calls Mount as Restrictions Linger: ‘No One Can Leave’

The coronavirus has created new tensions. Staying at home has worsened abusive situations. Shelters worry about the spread of the virus.

The woman dialed the hotline from her car. Her partner was laid off from his job after the coronavirus outbreak hit the United States, she told the counselor, who listened from a basement call center in Chicago. He had become more tense and violent than ever. Please help.

Americans have been cooped up at home for months to slow the spread of the coronavirus, many of them living in small spaces, reeling from sudden job losses and financial worries. Children are home from school in every state in the country.

That confinement has led to another spiraling crisis: Doctors and advocates for victims are seeing signs of an increase in violence at home. They are hearing accounts of people lashing out, particularly at women and children.

“No one can leave,” Kim Foxx, the chief prosecutor in Chicago, said in an interview. “You’re literally mandating that people who probably should not be together in the same space stay.”

The Chicago Police Department said that domestic-violence-related calls increased 12 percent during a period from the start of the year through mid-April, compared with the same time period in 2019. In other cities, including Los Angeles and New York, the police have seen a drop in calls, but the authorities have said they believed that victims were in such close quarters with their abusers that they were unable to call the police.

Many shelters, citing worries over the spread of the virus inside their facilities, have stopped accepting newcomers. In Evanston, Ill., a Y.W.C.A. shelter for weeks remained open to the women and children who were there before the outbreak, but no new families were being allowed inside. The shelter’s hotline was closed down. Only one staff member was working at a time.

Bill Maher Rips Democrats for Caring About Tara Reade Accusations: ‘Exactly What Republicans Want’


YAHOO

On Friday’s “Real Time,” Bill Maher waded into the accusation by former Senate staffer Tara Reade that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993. And in his view, whatever truth of the matter turns out to be, it’s not worth destroying Biden’s candidacy if it gives Donald Trump another four years.

“Just because Fox News is obsessed with the Biden sex assault allegations, it doesn’t mean the rest of us have to be,” Maher said, kicking off the final part of his weekly “New Rules” segment. “You may have noticed that Donald Trump has one move” accuse you of the very thing he’s guilty of. ‘Puppet. No puppet. You’re the puppet.’ Remember that one?”

In Maher’s view, Reade’s accusations essentially turn Trump’s infamous ‘grab them by the p—-y’ comments around and fling them at Biden. “Not that he even needs to say it,” Maher said about Trump. “The ‘liberal media’ and liberal party is doing it for him. Exactly what Republicans want. For us to go down the rabbit hole of ‘Joe Biden, sex monster.’ So now everybody’s investigating, but there is no fact-finding here.”

“It’s a ‘he said, she said, she said something else entirely,’” Maher continued, referencing the apparent inconsistencies in Reade’s story. “Yes, Biden’s accuser, Tara Reade, has been contradicted by multiple people. Most importantly, Tara Reade. Just last year, she said of Biden, ‘I wasn’t scared of him, that he was going to take me in a room or anything. It wasn’t that kind of vibe.’”

“She suggested she had filed a sexual harassment report. Now, she says she didn’t. She says she was fired by Biden’s office, but in deleted posts she said she left because quote, ‘I love Russia with all my heart… President Putin scares the power elite in America because he is a compassionate, caring, visionary leader. His obvious reverence for women, children and animals, and his ability with sports is intoxicating to American women,’” Maher continued.

Maher then complained that “we’re letting this person change the subject from ‘Donald Trump, lethal incompetent’ to ‘Joe Biden, sex monster’? She literally wrote a love letter to the murderer trying to keep Biden from the White House,” referencing the extrajudicial murders carried out on foreign soil linked to Putin.

“Yet the New York Times is calling for the DNC to establish a truth panel on this. Truth panel, huh? Which part? Putin’s reverence for animals, or how intoxicating he is to women? And Democrats are coalescing around the position that this accusation must be thoroughly vetted for the party to keep its credibility.”

“Well, you know credibility certainly is a problem for the Party on this issue,” Maher said, arguing that Democrats “‘woke’ themselves into a corner when they adopted #BelieveWomen as their slogan when it should always have been #TakeAccusationsSeriously. Kirsten Gillibrand said of the Al Franken allegations, ‘The women who came forward felt it was sexual harassment, so it was.’”

Sidenote: While Gillibrand joined several other Democratic members of congress when she called on Franken to resign, he was never formally expelled. He was however accused by at least eight women of inappropriate behavior.

You know Democrats are the party of choice,” Maher added. “We can choose not to completely f— ourselves over this. I know it’s a sex scandal and in normal times that’s what we do instead of issues, but there are actually some pretty big problems going on right now. I don’t know if you noticed but America has turned into a failed state that does a worse job keeping it citizens alive during a pandemic than Cambodia.”

“And to me, that’s a little more important than Tara Reade achieving closure. She says Biden attacked her, and he says he didn’t. Those are their positions. How about this for yours? Don’t know, never will, don’t care,” Maher said. “I care in the macro about women being attacked, of course, but on this one, I’m with Bogey, who said, ‘I’m no good at being noble, but it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.’”

“Everybody says we need to do everything we can to defeat Trump. Yeah, except anything. Well, I’m no good at being noble either, but if in 1993 Joe Biden had grabbed my nuts in a corridor — and I was in Washington that year — and I had this knowledge, and revealing it could hurt the guy running against Trump, I’d save it for my memoirs,” Maher joked. “I’d like to think that I’d have a little more perspective.”

“We have a president who says drink bleach,” Maher noted, referring to when Trump literally suggested that people could inject disinfectant into their bodies to treat coronavirus. “Jeez, you waited 27 years. It couldn’t hold another few months? That’s what I would like to ask Ms. Reade. Why now? I’m not saying, ‘Why not 27 years ago?’ I understand. It can take victims years to come forward. I’m saying why not before Super Tuesday?”

“Why not last fall when we still had a dozen other candidates to choose from. Why wait until Biden is our only hope against Trump, and then take him down,” Maher concluded. “This story is gathering an importance it should not have. There is so much at stake in this next election. The entire world needs to be put back together like Humpty Dumpty. Why should one person’s victimhood trump everyone else’s?”

THE WEEK

Tara Reade’s lawyers include a Trump donor, former Sputnik editor

May 8, 2020

Tara Reade has now accused presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden of sexual assault on camera, after Biden unequivocally denied the allegation on TV. And after saying she was having trouble finding legal representation, Reade now has at least two lawyers, The Associated Press reports.

Her main attorney is Douglas Wigdor, a supporter of President Trump — he donated $55,000 to Trump’s 2016 campaign — who has also represented women in sexual assault cases against Harvey Weinstein and Fox News hosts. Wigdor told AP his firm is currently representing Reade without charge, and the firm denied any political motivation.

Reade’s other new lawyer is William Moran, who “previously wrote and edited for Sputnik, a news agency founded and supported by the Russian state-owned media company Rossiya Segodnya,” AP reports. As Reade noted in her interview with Megyn Kelly, skeptics of her allegation sometimes bring up her recent, now-deleted quasi-erotic writings praising Russian President Vladimir Putin to suggest she’s “a Russian agent.” Moran texted AP Thursday to say he found its focus on his past work “disgraceful.” Wigdor said Reade told him she was connected to Moran through Katie Halper, the podcaster who first broadcast Reade’s assault allegation.

Reporters who have investigated Reade’s account were unable to find any other allegations of sexual assault against Biden, and aides to former President Barack Obama said they uncovered no such allegations when they thoroughly vetted him for vice president in 2008.

SHUTDOWN ENDS, shifting focus to next spending bill, ‘dreamers’

Shutdown ends, shifting focus to next spending bill, ‘dreamers’

President Trump signed a short-term spending bill to fund the government through Feb. 8 after it passed the Senate and House on the strength of a statement from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that he would address the status of young immigrants called “dreamers” who were brought to this country illegally as children. Thirty-three Senate Democrats joined 48 Republicans to break the impasse.

  • A bipartisan group of senators formed this weekend to try to move talks forward and encourage leadership to speak to each other. The talks were led by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who literally made senators use a talking stick so no one interrupted each other. [BuzzFeed / Emma Loop]

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) holds a colorfully beaded "talking stick" in her office on Capitol Hill, which she used during contentious negotiations between Senate moderates to end the shutdown. (Alan Fram/AP)

The shutdown exposed the challenges facing congressional Democrats daily: how to wrangle victories while in the minority and keep the party’s base energized ahead of the November elections.

The Resistance will struggle when it tries to replicate the tactics of the tea party movement. The left learned with its failed shutdown gambit that it cannot beat President Trump by copying the same playbook that the right used against Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Many Republicans think the federal government isn’t just a problem, but a leviathan that needs to be slayed. Democrats, in contrast, believe that government is a force for good, and party leaders see it as their solemn duty to deliver services. They see themselves as “afflicted,” as Hillary Clinton likes to say, “with the responsibility gene.”

That’s partly why it took Republicans two weeks to cave when they shut down the federal government in 2013,

President Trump at the White House Friday. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

President Trump at the White House Friday. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

It was an out-of-character role for a president used to commanding and demanding center stage: seen but not publicly heard outside the confines of his team’s highly-controlled communications operation.

Keeping the president as contained as possible and largely hidden from view deprived Democrats of the bogeyman they expected when they decided to force the shutdown.

As negotiations stalled Friday night, McConnell called Trump and told him he should prepare for a shutdown. “Trump, ever eager for a deal, responded by asking who else he should call and suggested he dial Democrats or try [Schumer] again,” Ashley Parker and Josh Dawsey report. “But McConnell urged the president to sit tight and make the Democrats come to them … Trump paused, agreed, and then offered McConnell his highest praise: ‘You are a good negotiator.’ … Over the weekend, aides like [Mick] Mulvaney, [John] Kelly and [Marc] Short warned Trump to stay out of the fight and let it play out on Capitol Hill. … McConnell and [Ryan] also believed that the Democrats were in a politically tricky position, and called Trump multiple times to ensure he remained locked into the approach … Trump told advisers on several occasions he was listening — even if his instincts were to do otherwise…

Democratic senators believe that a Senate immigration bill passing with a significant bipartisan majority would ultimately force House Republicans to capitulate on the issue. But House conservatives won’t be easy to sway, and the president remains a true wild card.

The deal that reopened the government did nothing to ensure the House will act on a bill that the Senate passes, and conservatives aligned with the Freedom Caucus predicted that the bipartisan proposals currently being considered would be dead on arrival in their chamber.

“House Republicans, meanwhile, are entertaining much more restrictive legislation that would grant legal status only to those who applied for and received DACA protections,” Mike DeBonis reports. “In addition, the bill sponsored by Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Michael McCaul (R-Tex.), Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) and Labrador would reduce the number of authorized legal immigrants by roughly 25 percent — about 260,000 a year — while also authorizing border-wall construction, funding 10,000 new Border Patrol and immigration enforcement officers, and mandating employers use the federal ‘E-Verify’ system to screen employees for immigration status. The legislation also would crack down on ‘sanctuary cities’ that do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

“Any one of those provisions represents a deal-killer for Democrats — as well as for many Republicans,” DeBonis notes.

Bipartisan talks among House members have produced a bill sponsored by Reps. Will Hurd (R-Tex.) and Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) that would take a much narrower approach to protecting dreamers and could ultimately get Democrats on board. But under pressure from their conservative ranks, House Republican leaders have shown little enthusiasm for the bill.”

As a congressman, Paul Ryan agitated for a bipartisan immigration deal. To become speaker, he pledged that he’d only bring an immigration bill to the floor if a majority of GOP lawmakers would vote for it. That’s the so-called Hastert Rule.

For now, he’s trying to thread the needle. “We don’t want to kick kids out,” he said on Fox News yesterday. “But … we don’t want to say to people in other countries, ‘Oh, get yourself to America illegally because sooner or later you will get legalized.’ We need to make sure that we control immigration.”

House leaders said they’re still acting as if the deadline to deal with DACA is March 6, which is when Trump announced last year that he would end the program.

Hoping for a Bargain in a Swift SurrenderBy CARL HULSE 

Senate Democrats believe they are limiting damage from a political miscalculation by surrendering, but doing so has drawn a fierce backlash from the left.

The fierce backlash underscored the challenge confronting Mr. Schumer and more centrist Democrats as they attempt to negotiate with Republicans and President Trump to reach an agreement on immigration without alienating the more liberal factions of a party that has moved distinctly to the left. Their balancing act reflects the broader tension in the party as it tries to reconcile the fervor of blue-state opponents of Mr. Trump and the caution of Democrats in states where they must appeal to Trump supporters.

Democrats need to protect 10 Senate Democrats up for re-election in states carried by the president and appeal to the swing voters who could flip control of the House. Those vulnerable Senate Democrats were key to sparking the bipartisan drive to bring the shutdown to an end. Yet many of the Senate Democrats considered potential 2020 presidential candidates voted to keep the shutdown going.

Heading into the showdown, Mr. Schumer and other top Democrats figured that Mr. Trump was at a vulnerable moment, given the uproar surrounding racially charged comments made in a recent meeting with senators to discuss immigration, disturbing words that came on top of persistent accounts of Oval Office chaos.

And they saw the so-called Dreamers — the young immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children — as a particularly appealing group, as they faced deportation to countries they barely knew through no wrongdoing of their own. Polling consistently finds deep American sympathy for those immigrants, and under intense pressure from the left to stand tough, Democrats hoped the public would embrace the use of all possible measures to help them.

But over the course of the weekend, Democrats increasingly came to realize they had maneuvered themselves into a difficult position that made many of the party’s moderate senators uncomfortable. Republicans were not distancing themselves from the president despite his erratic swings on immigration policy. And while the Dreamers may be a highly sympathetic group, using them as a rationale for shuttering the federal government was not playing well.

The president, top Republicans and their allies had some success in framing the showdown as a case of Democrats putting the interests of “illegal immigrants” ahead of American citizens, a line of attack Democrats felt they could not weather.

“Voters in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were getting Republican robo-calls saying Democrats had ‘prioritized illegal immigrants over American citizens,’” Robert Costa, Erica Werner and Karen Tumulty report. “Polls consistently show that a large majority of the public is sympathetic to the plight of the hundreds of thousands of (dreamers) … But what the Democratic senators were sensing was something else that shows up in the polls: Most voters do not want to see the government shut down over immigration. And the causes that are articles of faith with the Democrats’ liberal and ethnically diverse base can alienate many voters in conservative, largely white battleground states. 

In relenting so rapidly, Democrats saw some tangible benefits. They managed to highlight the plight of the Dreamers while avoiding a prolonged shutdown that could have ultimately damaged their cause. And by conceding defeat on Monday, Democrats avoided widespread disruptions in government operations that would have cascaded during the week and beyond.

They also won the pledge from Mr. McConnell to allow broad bipartisan negotiations on immigration, overall spending, health programs and other unresolved issues. If those fail to produce an agreement by Feb. 8, he promised to open an immigration debate on the Senate floor. Senators on both sides of the aisle saw that as a breakthrough that could provide a chance for the polarized chamber to engage in what has become a rare occurrence: actual legislating.

What they do not have is any certainty that Mr. Trump will back whatever legislation the Senate produces or that the House will even consider it.

The agreement to end the shutdown came after weekend negotiations among a bipartisan group of about two dozen lawmakers assembled by Mr. Manchin and Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine. Members of the group all saw the shutdown as unacceptable and contributing to public disgust with Washington, motivating them to pursue a solution outside the chamber’s leadership.

They say they are intent on finding a way to protect the immigrants covered by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program as well as fashioning a “global” agreement on spending, disaster aid and a variety of other issues that have defied resolution.

Republican participation in the bipartisan group was crucial for Democrats seeking assurances from Mr. McConnell on the way forward. While they were nervous about accepting the word of Mr. McConnell given their history of clashes with him, they doubted that he would undercut such a substantial number of his fellow Republicans.

“I expect the majority leader to fulfill his commitment to the Senate, to me and to the bipartisan group and abide by this agreement,” Mr. Schumer said. “If he does not, of course — and I expect he will — he will have breached the trust of not only the Democratic senators, but members of his own party as well.”

Still, immigration activists found fault with putting any faith in Mr. McConnell. And they noted that even if the Senate can draft a measure that attracts a broad majority, it faces a steep test in the House, which ignored a 2013 Senate immigration measure that passed with 68 votes.

Negotiations will now begin with Democrats in a new posture. During a Friday meeting with Mr. Trump aimed at settling the dispute, Mr. Schumer said Democrats would agree to provide significant funding for the wall along the Mexican border that Mr. Trump has made a central and symbolic element of his agenda. They had previously opposed any funding for the wall.

While Democrats gave that ground, they are not without weapons. Should the negotiations collapse, they will be able to pound Republicans for abandoning the Dreamers. They could also vote again to shutter the government, though that seems unlikely after this episode.

Chuck Schumer is pictured. | Getty Images

EZRA KLEIN, VOX

 1)Consider what we don’t know about what comes next. We don’t know which immigration bill, or bills, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will bring to the Senate floor. We don’t know if any immigration compromise passes the Senate. We don’t know if an immigration bill that passes the Senate will get a vote in the House. Even if it does get a vote in the House, we don’t know if it’ll pass. And if it does pass, we don’t know if Trump will sign it.

2) We also don’t know what the implicit Democratic position is here. If Democrats get a fair vote in the House and Senate on an immigration deal and it doesn’t pass, will they shut down the government again in three weeks? Put differently, is this a deal about a fair process or about a particular outcome? If Democrats don’t get a deal and they shut the government back down in three weeks, it’s hard to see what was lost here.

3) Democratic opponents of the deal believe that an extended shutdown increases the likelihood of a DREAMer compromise. But does it? That is to say that an extended shutdown will cause Trump so much political or personal pain that he will accept one of the immigration compromises he has thus far rejected. Neither dynamic is obvious to me.

4) Politically, Trump’s entire brand is anti-immigration politics, and if there is round-the-clock news coverage of a shutdown over immigration, he’ll think it’s good for his base. Personally, Trump’s goal in life is to be seen as a winner, and to double down when attacked or under pressure, and so it’s hard to see how a high-stakes battle over a shutdown — which would make a deal on immigration look like a cave to reopen the government by Trump — helps.

5) Beyond that, shutting down the government should be a last resort in the most extreme situations (if that). And historically, shutting down the government usually doesn’t end with the party that forced the shutdown getting the policy concessions it wants — it often strengthens the president’s party. To the extent there’s an open path in which an immigration deal can be negotiated and brought to a vote with the government still open, that’s a good thing.

POLITICO

California’s two Democratic senators could barely contain their anger after Chuck Schumer cut a deal with Mitch McConnell to reopen the government on Monday — and deal later with the 200,000 Dreamers in their state facing deportation.

“I’m disappointed with a conversation that suggests a false choice: You either fund the government or you take care of these … kids. We can do both,” Sen. Kamala Harris fumed. It would be “foolhardy” to trust McConnell, she said of the majority leader’s promise to take up an immigration bill in the coming weeks.

The Democratic strategy going in was to use their leverage in the government funding fight to help Dreamers, lamented Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who had expressed grave misgivings about a shutdown days earlier.

“I trust that because the leadership did it this way, that they must know something I don’t,” she said.

The turn of events Monday marked the most serious cracks in the unity Schumer has painstakingly built within his caucus since he became Democratic leader a year ago. After holding almost all Democrats together through fights over the Supreme Court, health care, taxes and even Friday’s vote that shut down the government, Schumer is now under attack from the left and confronting pointed criticism of his negotiating skill.

His performance resulted in a Democratic-led shutdown — and an agreement with McConnell that provided no guarantee of a new immigration law. But multiple Democratic senators and aides told POLITICO in the aftermath that it might have been Schumer’s only way out: He couldn’t go against the bulk of his left-leaning caucus in fighting for DACA recipients. But he also could not allow the shutdown to drag on for so long that it began hurting his vulnerable incumbents.

“That’s where a majority of caucus was going. So he represented his caucus,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who voted with Republicans on the roll call that shut down the government on Saturday morning.

No Democratic senator suggested that Schumer’s leadership is under any threat after his agreement with McConnell to fund the government through Feb. 8. …But progressive senators were visibly miffed by what their leader had just done, even if they did not publicly go after him.

—-

But liberal groups were furious, threatening in a conference call with progressive senators on Monday to spend money against Schumer and his vulnerable incumbents this fall, according to a person on the call. Those groups put out barbed statements, with the Progressive Change Campaign Committee casting Schumer and supporters of his deal as “weak-kneed.”

“It’s Schumer’s job to lead and keep his caucus together to fight for progressive values, and he didn’t do it,” said Ezra Levin, co-executive director of the activist group Indivisible.

 [But] after reviewing polls and the Senate map this year — 10 Democrats face reelection in states that Trump won — McConnell concluded a lengthy shutdown would hurt Democrats more than Republicans, according to a Republican aide. Likewise, the Democratic Caucus began sensing quickly that a long shutdown over immigration would begin damaging the sympathetic public view of Dreamers, a Democratic aide said.

—-

But the one hang-up for Democrats was McConnell. Citing a stalled commitment he made years ago to take up a bill to revive the Export-Import Bank and vague recent statements on immigration, Democrats regard McConnell as untrustworthy. They believe he prefers to legislate through partisan broadsides instead of finding common ground.

But the emergence of the moderate group’s Republican members — and their private pledges to work together on immigration — was enough to push 33 Democrats across the finish line in support of Schumer, including his entire leadership team.

— A new cliff now looms in 16 daysIn addition to immigration, both parties and both chambers still need to hash out a deal on military and domestic spending.

  • Jennifer Rubin: “It is unlikely to matter by the midterms. Especially during the Trump era, the sheer volume of news cycles between now and then should make this a distant memory. (If you recall, the GOP staged and lost a government shutdown in 2013, and then won big in 2014.)”

JONES WINS IN DEMOCRATIC UPSET, BUT MOORE REFUSES TO CONCEDE.

Democrat Doug Jones spoke to reporters outside his Mountain Brook, Alabama polling place after he placed a vote for himself on Tuesday 

Source: AP

VOTE %
Jones (D) 670,551 49.9%
Moore (R) 649,240 48.4%
Total Write-Ins 22,777 1.7%
100.0% reporting

In a surprising flip of a solidly Republican state, Doug Jones became the first Democrat elected to the Senate from Alabama since 1992 in a victory that showed the increasing power of sexual misconduct allegations and the limits of President Trump’s political influence. Roy Moore told his supporters “it’s not over” and suggested that the race might go to a recount, but the Alabama Republican Party said it would not support his push for one.

  • The race captivated the nation, not only for its debates over party loyalty and morality, but also for its immense implications for both parties and the Trump presidency.

Democrats are jubilant — and newly confident about 2018 — as they win on Trump’s turf

After more than a year of partywide bickering in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s defeat, Democrats found solace in a stunning feat — beating a Trump-style Republican in one of the most ruby-red states in the nation.

The Democrat’s surprising victory gives Senate Republicans an even thinner margin entering the second year of Trump’s presidency.

This race seemed to bring together much of what is in the forefront of the political debates, from the influence of the president to the fractured Republican Party to the issue of sexual harassment. For Republicans, it was a bad night, no matter how it was measured. The question is where do they go now.

The White House disputed the characterization of the president’s tweet as sexually demeaning. But Democratic calls increased for congressional investigations or Trump’s resignation.

After what seems like years, the Alabama special election is over. The race to replace Attorney General Jeff Sessions in the Senate featured votes spanning nearly four full months, with one bizarre turn after another, and ended Tuesday night with Democrat Doug Jones pulling off the upset over Republican Roy Moore, who faced allegations that he had sexually harassed and assaulted teenage girls while he was in his 30s.

Leigh Corfman, left, in a photo from 1979, when she was about 14. At right, from top, Wendy Miller around age 16, Debbie Wesson Gibson around age 17 and Gloria Thacker Deason around age 18. (Family photos)

————————————————–

Let’s break down the whole thing via winners and losers.

WINNERS

Democrats’ Senate majority hopes

At the start of the cycle, the math for Democrats winning the Senate majority in 2018 — even in a very good environment — appeared prohibitive. They had only two bona fide pickup opportunities, they needed three pickups, and they had to defend 10 swing and red states that President Trump won. The map was just brutal.

 

But since then, they’ve gotten the news they need to at least put the Senate in play. Potential takeovers in Arizona and Nevada look increasingly promising. An open seat has popped up in Tennessee, where last week Democrats landed popular former governor Phil Bredesen as a candidate, and now they’ve nabbed one of the three pickups they needed a year early in Alabama. The math is still tough, but it’s clearly within the realm of possibility now. And with Democrats claiming a double-digit lead on the generic ballot, things are very much looking up.

A Suburban Shellacking

Voters in Alabama’s cities and most affluent suburbs overwhelmingly rejected Mr. Moore’s candidacy, an ominous sign for Republicans on the ballot next year in upscale districts. In Jefferson County, which includes Birmingham and some of the state’s wealthiest enclaves, Mr. Jones, the Democratic candidate, captured more than 68 percent of the vote. And in Madison County, home to Huntsville and a large NASA facility, Mr. Jones won 57 percent of the vote.

 

While these Alabamians, many of them women, may have been appalled by the claims of sexual misconduct against Mr. Moore, results like these were not isolated to this race. They mirrored returns in last month’s statewide and legislative races in Virginia, a state filled with well-heeled suburbanites.

The #MeToo movement

—-

Jones’s win has to be a shot in the arm for the #MeToo movement. A year after sexual harassment accusations failed to bring down Trump, they were able to stop a Republican in a dark-red state. Moore certainly had other problems, but this has to embolden other women who might be considering sharing their stories. At the very least, it shows they can have a real impact.

 

A Jones suppoter holds a sign reading 'The spotlight is on Alabama' as he watches election returns during an election night gathering the Sheraton Hotel

African American turnout

Perhaps the biggest story line heading into Election Day was whether enough black voters would turn out to vote for Jones. Given how racially polarized Alabama is, Jones could only count on so many votes from white Alabamians, who usually go about 4 to 1 or more for the GOP….Well, black voters turned out — in about the same numbers they did for Obama in 2008 and 2012, in fact. … The big question is whether this was because conservative-leaning white voters were turned off by the allegations against Moore and stayed home, or because efforts to turn out black voters were just that successful. Even if it was a mix, though, black voters gave Jones the shot he needed.

 

Roy Moore, who has staunchly denied claims of sexual misconduct, has long been a popular figure in Alabama, and a divisive one. CreditBrynn Anderson/Associated Press
Roy Moore's spokesman Ted Crockett (right) went on CNN Tuesday night  and told Jake Tapper (left) that the candidate 'probably' thought homosexual conduct was a crime
Roy Moore’s spokesman Ted Crockett (right) went on CNN Tuesday night and told Jake Tapper (left) that the candidate ‘probably’ thought homosexual conduct was a crime

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5172839/Alabama-Senate-race-close-call.html#ixzz518Q3cqDc
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

LOSERS

Trump

Trump stuck his neck out by backing Moore even when other members of the GOP establishment wouldn’t, apparently believing that Moore had regained momentum.

 

Bannon and Moore during a campaign rally, Dec. 5.

Photographer: Nicole Craine/Bloomberg

Stephen Bannon

The former Trump adviser backed Moore even when Trump was behind Strange, and he carefully guided Moore through the accusations. As Bannon biographer Joshua Green wrote for Bloomberg News, Bannon was instrumental in avoiding a conservative-media backlash against Moore, which might have been fatal.

 

In the end, though, Bannon was just prolonging the inevitable. And for a man who fashions himself a kingmaker for insurgent GOP candidates, having your chosen candidate lose in Alabama is pretty darn bad. Establishment Republicans were only too happy Tuesday night to blame Bannon for the loss of a really important Senate seat.

But Mr. Moore’s allies placed the blame for the loss on Mr. McConnell, who withdrew his support after the allegations first emerged that Mr. Moore had pursued teenage girls sexually or romantically.

 

“They colluded with the Democrats to undermine a pro-Trump candidate like Judge Moore just like they are going to try to do that in 2018 to myself and other pro-Trump candidates,” said Corey Stewart, who is challenging Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia… Mr. Moore’s loss will only exacerbate tensions between Senate leaders and the party’s grass-roots and will probably play out in a series of House and Senate primaries in 2018. And if Republicans continue to nominate candidates who are too controversial to win general elections, the party’s internal divisions may cost them control of Congress.

 

Senate Republicans

As The Post’s Paul Kane astutely pointed out Tuesday morning, either result in the election would be difficult to call a victory for Senate Republicans. Losing the seat would mean their majority was narrowed by half and more imperiled come 2018, but winning it would mean they had to deal with Moore. And even before the sexual allegations, that was something Senate Republicans really preferred not to do, given Moore’s uniquely extreme politics and penchant for fashioning himself a martyr. Layer on top of that the fact that Republicans said they’d call for an ethics investigation and even, in some cases, Moore’s expulsion, and having Moore in the Senate might have been a bigger headache than adding a Democrat.

 

[But] next year, they may have an even tougher time passing party-line legislation. And maverick members of their fragile majority — like Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Bob Corker of Tennessee — could have a far stronger hand in the chamber.

 

Mr. Jones in 2002, when he was the United States attorney in the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing case.CreditDave Martin/Associated Press

Doug Jones: A Lawyer in the Thick of Alabama’s Big Moment.

Before the special election on Tuesday, the largest of Mr. Jones’s historical moments, and perhaps still the most consequential, were the successful prosecutions of two of the Klansmen involved in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, nearly 40 years after the crime. Mr. Jones served as lead prosecutor.

Bernie Sanders’ single payer plan is here. Think of it as an opening bid.

WASHINGTON POST

Bernie Sanders released his latest single payer health care plan, and while there are some small differences between this one and what he has proposed in the past, the biggest difference is that this time, he’s got lots of company. Fifteen Democratic senators are co-sponsoring his bill, including most of those considering running for president in 2020.

Support for some kind of universal coverage is now the consensus position among Democrats. And Sanders’ single payer plan is the one that has gotten the most attention, so it’s going to be the one against which other plans are measured.

But we have to understand this plan for what it really is: an opening bid. While he won’t say so himself, I doubt even Sanders believes that something in this form could pass through Congress. Even so, it represents an important strategic shift for the Democratic Party.

Here are the basics on what Sanders’ plan would do, based on a summary released by his office:

  • It establishes an (almost) true single payer system in which private and employer-based insurance is replaced by an expansion of Medicare to include nearly every American.

  • It does so over four years, lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 55 and insuring all children in the first year, then expanding the plan to include all citizens over the following three years.

  • It includes areas of coverage not currently offered by traditional Medicare, including dental, vision, and hearing aids.

  • It eliminates nearly all co-pays, coinsurance, and deductibles.

  • It allows the expanded Medicare system to negotiate drug prices, which Medicare is currently forbidden from doing.

  • It does not include nursing home coverage, which would continue to be covered under Medicaid, nor does it eliminate the VA or the Indian Health Service.

  • It would pay providers at current Medicare rates, which are lower than private insurance but higher than Medicaid.

This is a maximalist demand. It essentially says, “My plan is: everything. Not just covering everybody, but covering everything, without co-pays or deductibles. Is that realistic? Not really. But that may not be a problem.

One of the complaints people on the left had about both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — in general, but specifically on health care — is that they gave away too much too quickly, often before negotiations even started. They were too focused on what Republicans or interest groups would never accept, so they moved their opening proposals three steps to the center, leaving the final negotiated solution much more conservative than it had to be. It would have been far better, this critique goes, if they had opened with a much more liberal proposal, then slowly given some ground and eventually arrived at a more liberal compromise.

A BETTER DEAL OR THE SAME DEAL?

Forget ‘A Better Deal.’ Here’s what would actually work for Democrats.


EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST

At a kickoff event in Berryville, Va., Democratic Party leaders announced three initial policy priorities: creating 10 million jobs over five years, with new apprenticeship programs and a tax credit for employers who provide on-the-job training; “cracking down on the monopolies and big corporate mergers that harm consumers, workers and competition,” as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) writes in a Post op-ed; and concrete action to lower the price of prescription drugs, a big factor in rising health-care costs.

All of which is fine. But somehow I don’t see Republican spinmeisters quaking in their Ferragamo loafers.


If there is one lesson Democrats should have learned from 2016, it is that opposition to Trump is not by itself enough to win elections. I predict this will still be the case when the 2018 midterms roll around.

Yes, the Republican Party looks to be in trouble. Trump is sowing intraparty rancor and division, not unity. The base has remained loyal thus far, but independents and crossover Democrats have been given no reason to stick with the GOP.

It is possible that the stars might align next year to produce conditions for a pro-Democratic, anti-Republican “wave” election. But that has not happened yet. In the Senate, the Democratic caucus has 25 seats up for grabs next year, while Republicans have only eight seats at risk. And in the House, the GOP holds a 46-seat majority that will be difficult to reverse because of gerrymandering.

I’m still waiting to hear the “bold solutions” that Democrats promise. I can think of one possibility: Why not propose some version of truly universal single-payer health care?

Yes, that would be risky. But it might generate real excitement among the Democratic base — and also grab the attention of some of the GOP’s working-class supporters. Incrementalism is not the answer. Democrats need to go big or go home.

BUT WILL THEY STICK WITH IT?

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi are pictured.
Getty

Democrats have landed on a mantra for the 2018 midterms: “A Better Deal.”


 Politico’s Elena Schor and Heather Caygle report:  “The rebranding attempt comes as Democrats acknowledge that simply running against Trump wasn’t a winning strategy in 2016 and probably won’t work in 2018 either. The slogan, which is still being polled in battleground House districts, aims to convince voters that Democrats have more to offer than the GOP and the self-proclaimed deal-maker in the White House. But even as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi prepare a jobs package centered on infrastructure, trade and the minimum wage, some of their most vulnerable members are making other plans. … Leadership may not find universal support for the left-leaning platform, particularly from those trying to defend seats in Trump-friendly states.”