Democratic Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      David Hogg, Parkland Survivor and D.N.C. Vice Chair, Hopes to Unseat Democratic Incumbents

      by

      David Hogg, a young liberal activist and now a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, is leading an effort to unseat the party’s older lawmakers in primaries.Less than three months after the young political activist David Hogg was elected as a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, he is undertaking a new project that is sure to rankle some fellow Democrats: spending millions of dollars to oust Democratic members of Congress in primary elections next year.Mr. Hogg, 25, who emerged on the political scene as an outspoken survivor of the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Fla., said his party must squelch a pervasive “culture of seniority politics” that has allowed older and less effective lawmakers to continue to hold office at a moment of crisis.And so he is planning through a separate organization where he serves as president, Leaders We Deserve, to intervene in primaries in solidly Democratic districts as part of a $20 million effort to elect younger leaders and to encourage a more combative posture against President Trump.In an interview, Mr. Hogg said he understood that he would face blowback for his decision to serve simultaneously as a top official in the party — which is typically focused on electing Democrats over Republicans — and as a leader of an effort to oust current Democratic lawmakers.“This is going to anger a lot of people,” Mr. Hogg said of his efforts, which he began to brief allies, some lawmakers and party officials on in recent days. He predicted “a smear campaign against me” that would aim to “destroy my reputation and try to force me to stop doing this.”“People say they want change in the Democratic Party, but really they want change so long as it doesn’t potentially endanger their position of power,” he said. “That’s not actually wanting change. That’s selfishness.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Swept Out of Office by Covid, a Democratic Governor Eyes a Comeback

      by

      Steve Sisolak, the former governor of Nevada, says he is weighing a rematch against Gov. Joe Lombardo, the Republican who ousted him in 2022.Many Democrats performed better than expected in the 2022 midterm elections, bucking historical trends to hold on to key governor’s offices and House seats and to expand their majority in the Senate.One notable exception was Gov. Steve Sisolak of Nevada, who was weighed down by a backlash to the lockdowns he had ordered during the coronavirus pandemic and by the economic downturn that followed. Even as Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat, squeaked out a re-election victory in Nevada, Mr. Sisolak became the only Democratic governor to lose that year, giving way to Joe Lombardo, a Republican.Now, as Democrats search for a direction after their November defeat and contemplate the best ways to oppose President Trump and his allies, Mr. Sisolak is considering a rematch against Mr. Lombardo. A former Clark County sheriff, Mr. Lombardo has stood as a Republican bulwark against the Democratic-controlled Nevada Legislature. He is up for re-election next year.Mr. Lombardo occupies a somewhat rare position in today’s Republican Party. Though he speaks favorably of the president, he distanced himself last year from the state party and its focus on debunked election conspiracy theories, and he was not an especially vocal presence on the campaign trail for Mr. Trump.In two phone calls this week, Mr. Sisolak, 71, spoke about a possible comeback attempt, the state of the Democratic Party and how the economic turmoil caused by Mr. Trump’s tariffs could affect Nevadans.Here is the conversation, condensed and edited.What have you been seeing in Nevada since you’ve been out of office, and how do you think Governor Lombardo has been doing?We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Meet the 23-Year-Old Student Who Raised $25 Million in Democratic Losses

      by

      A law student in Florida has a lucrative side gig: fund-raising consultant. His firm earns a 25 percent cut of “profit” from donations, and critics have begun to pile up after two special elections.After the Democratic candidates in Florida’s special elections burned through millions and millions of dollars on the way to double-digit losses this week, some Democrats are asking where that money deluge came from — and where it all went.The answer to both questions is, in part, a 23-year-old law student and dungeon master — in Dungeons & Dragons — with a lucrative side gig.In between classes and fantasy play, Jackson McMillan is also the chief executive of Key Lime Strategies, a small fund-raising firm in Florida that scored big when it landed as clients the two Democratic nominees in the Florida congressional elections, Josh Weil and Gay Valimont. Mr. McMillan said they had combined to raise $25 million.“We’ve built a juggernaut,” he said in an interview.Along the way, Mr. McMillan has piled up critics far beyond his years. Much of the focus is on his unusual fee structure, which one top party official excoriated in a cease-and-desist letter as “exorbitant.” His firm received a 25 percent cut of “true profits” — the proceeds after fund-raising expenses — for both special elections.Mr. McMillan is unapologetic.“A lot of the people who are critiquing me online are mad that it wasn’t them,” he said of raising so much money, which he said put a scare into Republicans and injected real money into long-neglected corners of a rightward-drifting state.One secret ingredient to his firm’s success, Mr. McMillan explained, is Dungeons & Dragons.“All the senior fund-raising strategists at my firm — myself, Ryan — we’re dungeon masters,” he said of his college friend and the firm’s chief operating officer, Ryan Eliason. “We run Dungeons & Dragons games. So we weave narratives and tales. It’s like our biggest hobby. We basically tell a really compelling story. And that’s what sets us apart from — that and a lot of technical analysis — is what sets us apart from some of our competitors.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Mallory McMorrow Enters Michigan Senate Race

      by

      The 38-year-old Democratic state lawmaker says that her party needs a generational shift.State Senator Mallory McMorrow of Michigan, a Democrat from the Detroit suburbs, jumped into her state’s U.S. Senate race on Wednesday, becoming the first prominent candidate to enter the contest, which will help decide control of the chamber next fall.The seat opened after Senator Gary Peters, a Democrat, announced his retirement, and the race — in a state that has often favored Democratic senators but twice voted for President Trump — will be among the most closely watched in the country next year.“We need new leaders,” Ms. McMorrow, 38, said in her announcement video. “The same people in D.C. who got us into this mess are not going to be the ones to get us out of it.”Ms. McMorrow won Democrats’ acclaim several years ago for defending liberal values while identifying herself as a “straight, white, Christian, married suburban mom,” and her announcement video featured national pundits remarking on the speech. She flipped a Republican-held district in 2018 and is the first woman to become State Senate majority whip, her campaign has noted, in Michigan’s history.She is unlikely to have the Democratic lane to herself for long.Democrats who have signaled that they are eyeing the Senate race include Representative Haley Stevens, a moderate from suburban Detroit; Representative Kristen McDonald Rivet, a Democrat who won a challenging House district in Michigan last year; and Abdul El-Sayed, an outgoing health director in Wayne County and a progressive who ran unsuccessfully against now-Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, in the 2018 primary.Ms. Whitmer, who is term-limited, has said she is uninterested in running for Senate. Pete Buttigieg, the former transportation secretary and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, has also taken himself out of contention.Whoever emerges from the Democratic primary, the race is expected to be competitive in the general election.Republicans who could or are expected to run include former Representative Mike Rogers, who narrowly lost to Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat, in November, and Representative Bill Huizenga. Tudor Dixon, who lost the governor’s race to Ms. Whitmer in 2022, and Kevin Rinke, who lost that Republican primary, could look at runs for Senate or governor. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Susan Crawford Wins Wisconsin Supreme Court Election, Despite Elon Musk’s Millions

      by

      Susan Crawford defeated Brad Schimel for a State Supreme Court seat in a race that shattered spending records and maintained a liberal majority on the court.Susan Crawford, the liberal candidate for a pivotal seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, overcame $25 million in spending from Elon Musk and defeated her conservative opponent, The Associated Press reported, in a totemic contest that became a critical test of the nation’s prevailing political winds.Judge Crawford, who serves in Dane County, handily defeated Judge Brad Schimel of Waukesha County, who ran on his loyalty to President Trump and was powered by record spending in the race from Mr. Musk, the president’s billionaire policy aide. The barrage of spending in the race may nearly double the previous record for a single judicial election. With over 70 percent of the vote counted on Tuesday evening, Judge Crawford held a lead of roughly 10 points.“Today, Wisconsinites fended off an unprecedented attack on our democracy, our fair elections and our Supreme Court,” she said in her victory speech on Tuesday night. “Wisconsin stood up and said loudly that justice does not have a price. Our courts are not for sale.”For Democrats, the result is a jolt of momentum. They have been engaged in a coast-to-coast rhetorical rending of garments since Mr. Trump returned to the White House in January and embarked with Mr. Musk on an effort to drastically shrink federal agencies, set aside international alliances and alter the government’s relationships with the nation’s universities, minority groups, immigrants and corporate world.Coming on the heels of Democratic triumphs in special elections for state legislative seats in Iowa and Pennsylvania and the defeat of four Republican-backed state referendums in Louisiana, Judge Crawford’s victory puts the party on its front foot for the first time since last November. Her win showed that, at least in one instance, Mr. Musk’s seemingly endless reserves of political cash had energized more Democrats than Republicans.The victory for Judge Crawford maintains a 4-to-3 majority for liberals on the court, which in coming months is poised to deliver key decisions on abortion and labor rights.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Johnson Moves to Block a Bill Allowing New Parents in the House to Vote by Proxy

      by

      A long-simmering fight over whether to allow members of Congress to vote remotely after the birth of a new child is coming to a head on Tuesday afternoon, when Speaker Mike Johnson’s behind-the-scenes efforts to quash the majority-supported change to the chamber’s rules will be tested on the House floor.The quiet push from a bipartisan group of younger lawmakers and new parents started more than a year ago, when Representative Anna Paulina Luna, Republican of Florida, began agitating for a change to House rules that would allow new mothers to designate a colleague to vote by proxy on their behalf for up to six weeks after giving birth. Ms. Luna landed on the idea after her own child was born.There is no maternity or paternity leave for members of Congress, who can take time away from the office without sacrificing their pay but cannot vote if they are not physically in the Capitol. Proponents of the change have called it a common-sense fix to modernize Congress, where there are more women and more younger members than there were 200 years ago.Democrats including Representatives Brittany Pettersen of Colorado, who gave birth to her second child earlier this year, and Sara Jacobs of Colorado joined Ms. Luna’s effort, expanding the resolution to include new fathers and up to 12 weeks of proxy voting during a parental leave.But Mr. Johnson has adamantly opposed them at every turn, arguing that proxy voting is unconstitutional, even though the Supreme Court refused to take up a Republican-led lawsuit challenging pandemic-era proxy voting rules in the House. Mr. Johnson and his allies have argued that any accommodation that allow members to vote without being physically at the Capitol, no matter how narrow, creates a slippery slope for more, and that it harms member collegiality.“I do believe its an existential issue for this body,” Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina and chairwoman of the Rules Committee, said on Tuesday. “Congress is defined as the ‘act of coming together and meeting.’” Changing that, she said, “undermines the fabric of that sacred act of convening.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Sue Trump Over Executive Order on Elections

      by

      Nearly every arm of the Democratic Party united in filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Monday night, arguing that a recent executive order signed by the president seeking to require documentary proof of citizenship and other voting reforms is unconstitutional.The 70-page lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., accuses the president of vastly overstepping his authority to “upturn the electoral playing field in his favor and against his political rivals.” It lists President Trump and multiple members of his administration as defendants.“Although the order extensively reflects the president’s personal grievances, conspiratorial beliefs and election denialism, nowhere does it (nor could it) identify any legal authority he possesses to impose such sweeping changes upon how Americans vote,” the lawsuit says. “The reason why is clear: The president possesses no such authority.”The lawsuit repeatedly argues that the Constitution gives the president no explicit authority to regulate elections, noting that the Elections Clause of the Constitution “is at the core of this action.” That clause says that states set the “times, places and manner” of elections, leaving them to decide the rules, oversee voting and try to prevent fraud. Congress may also pass federal voting laws.As Democrats debate how best to challenge the Trump administration’s rapid expansion of executive power, the lawsuit represents one of the first moments where seemingly every arm of the party is pushing back with one voice.Such unity is further evidence that Democrats still view the issue of democracy as core to their political brand, as well as a key issue that can help them claw back support with voters as they aim to build a new coalition ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. In February, Democrats sued the Trump administration over attempts to control the Federal Election Commission. Weeks earlier, the D.N.C. joined a lawsuit over new voting laws in Georgia.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      White House Takes Highly Unusual Step of Directly Firing Line Prosecutors

      by

      Two longtime career prosecutors have been suddenly fired by the White House, in what current and former Justice Department officials called an unusual and alarming exercise of presidential power.In recent days, the prosecutors, in Los Angeles and Memphis, were dismissed abruptly, notified by a terse one-sentence email stating no reason for the move other than that it was on behalf of the president himself.The ousters reflected a more aggressive effort by the White House to reach deep inside U.S. attorney offices across the country in a stark departure from decades of practice. While it is commonplace and accepted for senior political appointees at the Justice Department to change from administration to administration, no department veteran could recall any similar removal of assistant U.S. attorneys.A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment.Asked about the ousters and whether others had been let go in a similar fashion, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said, “The White House, in coordination with the Department of Justice, has dismissed more than 50 U.S. attorneys and deputies in the past few weeks.”She added, “The American people deserve a judicial branch full of honest arbiters of the law who want to protect democracy, not subvert it,” offering no explanation for how either of the two fired prosecutors might have done that. Prosecutors are part of the executive, not judicial, branch of government.During his campaign, Mr. Trump vowed to drastically reshape the ranks of career Justice Department officials, aggrieved by the investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia in his first term and the four criminal indictments between his presidencies.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More