hellopoetry.com/poem/274366
Mid-term elections 2018: Trump hails 'tremendous success.
Trump hopes for “beautiful bi-partisan situation”
Video caption Trump hopes for “beautiful bi-partisan situation”
US President Donald Trump has hailed “tremendous success” in the mid-term elections after a night of mixed results for his Republican party.
Democrats won the House of Representatives, which will enable them to thwart the president’s agenda.
But Republicans consolidated their grip on the Senate, ensuring the president can still make key appointments.
Mr Trump said the outcome “defied history” as the ruling party does not usually gain seats in the mid-terms.
Results in maps and charts
Five key things we learned
Live reaction
At a feisty news conference on Wednesday, Mr Trump offered an olive branch to Democrats, proposing both parties work together on joint legislative priorities.
But he said that if Democratic-controlled congressional committees started serving legal writs against his administration, Republicans would do likewise and gridlock would ensue.
In ill-tempered exchanges, Mr Trump called a CNN correspondent “a rude, terrible person” and told an NBC reporter: “I’m not a big fan of yours either.”
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi has promised her party will serve as a counterweight to the White House.
Ms Pelosi - who is favourite to become speaker, a position she held from 2007-11 - told supporters: “Today is more than about Democrats and Republicans. It’s about restoring the Constitution’s checks and balances to the Trump administration.”
Meanwhile the Florida Senate race is heading for a recount after Republican Rick Scott got 50.21% and incumbent Bill Nelson 49.79% of the vote. A margin of less than half a percentage point automatically triggers a recount.
Video caption The story of election night in two minutes
What difference will the new Congress make?
The Democrats gained more than the 23 seats they needed for a majority in the 435-seat lower chamber.
They could now launch investigations into Mr Trump’s administration and business affairs, from tax returns to potential conflicts of interest.
The Democrats could also more effectively block his legislative plans, notably his signature promise to build a wall along the border with Mexico.
In the Senate, Democrats were facing an uphill battle because they were defending 26 races, while just nine Republican seats were up for grabs.
The Republicans are on course to increase their representation from 51 to 54 in the 100-seat Senate upper chamber.
Mr Trump has threatened to retaliate for any Democratic investigations with his own probes in the Senate into alleged “leaks of classified information”.
Silver linings
By Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington
Even handing over power to Democrats in the House may have a bit of a silver lining for the president.
Now he will have someone to blame if the economy takes a turn for the worse (and, given business cycle realities, it might). He’s got a ready-made explanation for why he can’t get anything done in the next two years - and a pitch for what needs to change in the next election.
Day in and day out, he’ll have a set of clear political opponents to contrast himself with.
Video caption The BBC’s Anthony Zurcher explains what losing the House means for Donald Trump’s presidency.
Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama lost control of the House in their first term in office and went on to win re-election. History, serving as a guide, predicted this would probably be a bad night for the president.
History also indicates that while the road may be rocky, better days could be ahead.
What this all means for Trump
More on the mid-terms:
Young votes stamp their mark on politics
What else did Americans vote for?
Why US mid-term elections matter
Who are the new faces in Congress?
Female candidates fared particularly well in an election cycle that had been billed as the Year of the Woman.
ImaAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez (C) is the youngest woman ever elected to the US House
Two 29-year-old Democrats - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Abby Finkenauer - are due to be the youngest women ever to win House seats.
Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are the first Muslim women and Sharice Davids and Debra Haaland the first Native American women to be elected to Congress. All are Democrats.
Ayanna Pressley was elected as Massachusetts’ first black congresswoman.
How the mid-term elections broke records
The mid-terms seen from abroad
Video caption The women who made history in the mid-terms
What’s happening in governors’ races?
Governors - who head the executive branch in state governments - have been chosen in 36 out of 50 states.
In Florida, a progressive Democrat conceded after an ugly battle against Trumpist conservative Ron DeSantis.
But in Georgia, Democrat Stacey Abrams - who was hoping to become the first black female governor in the US - refused to concede as her Republican opponent Brian Kemp took a commanding lead after a bitter campaign.
Democrats also captured governorships in Michigan, Illinois, Kansas and Wisconsin, where former Republican presidential contender Scott Walker was beaten.
New York Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo - sometimes spoken of as a 2020 presidential contender - cruised to a third term.
Copyright © 2018 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.-lowest-common-denominator/
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
President Trump has replaced Sessions. Here’s what that means for the Mueller probe.
“If he was selected because he doesn’t think it’s an appropriate investigation, then I’m deeply concerned,” said a former U.S. attorney.
Robert Mueller testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee in 2013.Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call,Inc. file
SHARE THIS —
Nov. 7, 2018 / 5:03 PM ET
By Julia Ainsley
With Jeff Sessions now out as attorney general, President Donald Trump’s choice to fill his shoes, at least temporarily, is in the position to have a significant impact on the scope of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.
Matthew Whitaker, who has served as Session’s chief of staff since late 2017, has been tapped to become acting attorney general and will therefore take over the role of overseeing Mueller’s probe from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Sessions had recused himself from overseeing the probe because of his involvement with the campaign, but Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Flores said on Wednesday, “The acting attorney general is in charge of all matters under the purview of the Department of Justice.”
For months, Trump publicly attacked Sessions for recusing himself from overseeing the probe, and blamed his decision for allowing Rosenstein to appoint a special counsel. Now, with Whitaker at the helm, Trump has someone leading the Justice Department who has already suggested that Mueller’s probe should be reined in.
“If he was selected because he doesn’t think it’s an appropriate investigation, then I’m deeply concerned,” said Chuck Rosenberg, a former U.S. attorney and general counsel at the FBI.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks during a round table discussion at the Justice Department on Aug. 29, 2018.Manuel Balce Ceneta / AP file
Before Whitaker came to the Justice Department in 2017, he wrote an op-ed for CNN that said Mueller’s investigation was “going too far.” He supported Trump’s claim that the probe would be crossing a red line if it branched into the finances of Trump and his family.
As a legal commentator on CNN, Whitaker also said that Sessions could be replaced with someone who would reduce Mueller’s budget.
“That attorney general doesn’t fire Bob Mueller, but he just reduces his budget to so low that his investigation grinds to almost a halt,” Whitaker said in July 2017.
Now Whitaker will be in the position to do just that. Previously, whenever Mueller has needed permission to expand his scope or add more resources, he went to Rosenstein. That responsibility will now fall to Whitaker.
Rosenstein has also stood up to Republicans in Congress who have sought to publicly disclose documents related to the Russia investigation — a battle Whitaker may not be willing to fight.
Trump’s decision to replace Sessions with Whitaker rather than Rosenstein, the No. 2 at the Justice Department, has led to questions about the president’s motives and whether the move strengthens Mueller’s hand in pursuing an obstruction of justice case.
“I think we’re watching obstruction of justice play out in plain sight,” Frank Figliuzzi, the former assistant director of counterintelligence at the FBI, said on MSNBC.
Whitaker, 49, served as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa from 2004-09. Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, he does not need to be sworn in or approved.
And now this:
TheHill
SENATE
November 07, 2018 - 05:45 PM EST
Collins: Mueller ‘must be allowed’ to continue Russia probe
Collins: Mueller ‘must be allowed’ to continue Russia probe
GETTY IMAGES
BY JORDAIN CARNEY
TWEET SHARE EMAIL
GOP Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) on Wednesday warned the Trump administration against interfering with special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, saying he “must be allowed” to finish it.
“It is imperative that the Administration not impede the Mueller investigation. I’m concerned Rod Rosenstein will no longer be overseeing the probe,” Collins said in a string of tweets.
Collins, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also said that Mueller “must be allowed to complete his work without interference” regardless of who is the attorney general.
Collins’s remarks are among the first signs of concern from the Senate Republican Conference, which has largely met the news of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s ouster earlier in the day with a collective shrug.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was put in charge of the investigation after Sessions recused himself last year.
Several GOP senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), have lauded Sessions but skirted what impact his dismissal might have.
Collins’s concerns were echoed by Sen.-elect Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who also weighed in, saying it was “imperative” that Mueller be able to continue his probe.
“I want to thank Jeff Sessions for his service to our country as Attorney General. Under Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, it is imperative that the important work of the Justice Department continues, and that the Mueller investigation proceeds to its conclusion unimpeded,” he said in a tweet.
Romney has gained attention both nationally and within the Senate GOP caucus as a someone who could push back against Trump once he comes to Washington next year.
Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), two of the biggest Trump critics, are retiring at the end of the year, while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) died in August following a battle with brain cancer.
Romney and Collins’s pushback on Wednesday comes after Trump announced that he was ousting Sessions from the top Justice Department spot and that Whitaker, his chief of staff, will take over in an acting role including overseeing the Russia probe.
Whitaker’s ascendence immediately set off alarm bells among congressional Democrats. He’s previously criticized the Mueller investigation, including warning in a 2017 op-ed that Mueller was “dangerously close to crossing” a line if he looked into the Trump family’s finances.
More in Senate
McConnell riding high after ‘very good day’
Schumer: 2020 ‘doesn’t bode well’ for GOP
Feinstein: Acting AG must pledge to Senate he won’t interfere with Mueller
Sanders warns Trump: Interfering with Mueller probe an ‘impeachable offense’
Grassley to make chairmanship decision after meeting with colleagues next week
The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax
Wonder of wonders if the investigation comes to a climactic power struggle. ?
Or some yet hidden compromise is yet to be invented.
Why dems didn’t win Senate
Support The
Guardian
The Guardian - Back to home
News
Opinion
Sport
Culture
Lifestyle
Menu
Gerrymandering and voter suppression might have cost Democrats an even larger House majority, experts said.
Democrats got millions more votes – so how did Republicans win the Senate?
Senate electoral process means although Democrats received more overall votes for the Senate than Republicans, that does not translate to more seats
Follow live updates on US politics
Sabrina Siddiqui in Washington
@SabrinaSiddiqui
Thu 8 Nov 2018 09.54 EST First published on Thu 8 Nov 2018 07.00 EST
The 2018 midterm elections brought significant gains for Democrats, who retook the House of Representatives and snatched several governorships from the grip of Republicans.
But some were left questioning why Democrats suffered a series of setbacks that prevented the party from picking up even more seats and, perhaps most consequentially, left the US Senate in Republican hands.
Among the most eye-catching was a statistic showing Democrats led Republicans by more than 12 million votes in Senate races, and yet still suffered losses on the night and failed to win a majority of seats in the chamber.
Sign up for the new US morning briefing
Constitutional experts said the discrepancy between votes cast and seats won was the result of misplaced ire that ignored the Senate electoral process.
Because each state gets two senators, irrespective of population, states such as Wyoming have as many seats as California, despite the latter having more than 60 times the population. The smaller states also tend to be the more rural, and rural areas traditionally favor Republicans.
This year, because Democrats were defending more seats, including California, they received more overall votes for the Senate than Republicans, but that does not translate to more seats.
However, some expressed frustration with a system they suggest gives an advantage to conservative-leaning states.
The rise of minority rule in America is now unmistakable
Laurence Tribe, Harvard professor
The real concerns for Democrats, they said, could be found in a combination of gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics that might have prevented them from winning an even larger majority in the House and some key statewide elections.
“The rise of minority rule in America is now unmistakable,” said Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard University.
“Especially with a sitting president who won a majority in the electoral college [in 2016] while receiving roughly 3m fewer votes than his opponent, and a supreme court five of whose nine justices were nominated by Republican presidents who collectively received fewer popular votes than their Democratic opponents and were confirmed by Senates similarly skewed.”
According to the latest data, Democrats won the House popular vote by about seven percentage points in Tuesday night’s midterms.
Blue wave or blue ripple? A visual guide to the Democrats’ gains in the midterms
They picked up 29 Republican-held seats in the House, while losing two of their own incumbents, resulting in a net gain of 27 seats. Republicans meanwhile won a larger majority in the Senate, picking up at least two seats as a handful of vulnerable Democrats faced defeat.
The mixed result undermined Democratic hopes of a blue wave in an election billed as a referendum on Donald Trump and his presidency. In the 2010 midterms, by contrast, Republicans stormed into control of the House with a haul of 63 seats.
But the latter was the result of partisan gerrymandering, which saw Republican-controlled state legislatures redraw congressional districts to favor the party in what conservative architects dubbed as Redmap, short for the Redistricting Majority Project.
It was for this very reason that Tuesday night’s governor’s contests were deemed by Democrats as equally, if not more, important. With the next redrawing of district lines set to take place in 2020, it was regarded as vital for Democrats to win back seats in state legislatures across the country.
Democrats made gains in some must-win states, including Michigan, but fell short in other battlegrounds, such as Florida and Ohio. David Daley, author of a 2016 book about how Republicans built a firewall against Democrats through redistricting, said he was not sure Democrats had done enough on Tuesday “to ensure that they have a reasonable voice in the process”.
Elsewhere, progressives lamented the results in the Senate, where some commentators were quick to note that Democrats led the overall tally by double-digit percentage points. The most recent figures had Republicans holding 51 seats and Democrats with just 46, with a handful of races still too close to call.
But the 2018 Senate map was unfavorable for Democrats going into the midterms – the party was defending 26 seats compared with Republicans’ nine – and the outcome had more to do with which states were up for grabs.
Each of America’s 50 states elects two senators, regardless of population, and only a third of the country’s Senate seats are voted on each election cycle.
What that means is that California, which has a population of just under 40 million, holds the same representation in the Senate as Wyoming, which at roughly 579,000 is the least populous state in the country.
Voter suppression tactics may have played a part in the failure of the North Dakota senator Heidi Heitkamp’s re-election bid. Photograph: Ann Arbor Miller/AP
“That’s a radically undemocratic principle, and it gives rise to what we see,” said David Golove, a professor at the New York University School of Law, “which is that the minority populations are going to have a disproportionate impact in the United States. That tends to mean conservatives have a disproportionate influence over the Senate.”
Because the Senate map changes every two years, experts said, it was also difficult to tabulate what a national vote might look like. Since more Democratic seats were up for re-election in 2018, some argued, it was not unexpected that the party secured more votes.
“The Senate is inherently anti-majoritarian,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of Berkeley Law at the University of California. “So it is not about the total vote, but votes in each state.”
Any notion of change would require a constitutional amendment, he added, which is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future.
Arguably more tangible than the historic construct of America’s electoral process was the role voter suppression might have played in some big Democratic losses.
In North Dakota, voter ID rules pushed by Republicans and upheld by the supreme court may have barred thousands of Native Americans from voting in Tuesday’s general election. The restrictions required that voters show their current residential address in order to vote. But many Native Americans who live on reservations do not have street names and instead use PO boxes.
In 2012, the state’s incumbent Democrat, Senator Heidi Heitkamp, was elected in part due to the support of Native American voters. She lost on Tuesday to her Republican challenger, Kevin Cramer, although the margin was large enough to suggest voter suppression tactics alone did not cost Heitkamp the race.
Loading video
Stacey Abrams v Brian Kemp: inside the bitter battle for Georgia’s soul - video
The closely watched governor’s race in Georgia, however, told a more contentious story, as the Democrat Stacey Abrams vied to become the first black woman elected governor in US history. Abrams was running against the Republican Brian Kemp, who as Georgia’s sitting secretary of state remained at the helm of the office tasked with overseeing its elections.
Leading up to the election, Kemp’s office put at least 53,000 voter registrations on hold – the majority of which applied to black voters – citing Georgia’s so-called “exact match” law. The restrictions could have prevented thousands of eligible voters from casting ballots due to minor discrepancies with other identification documents that included missing hyphens, middle initials or accent marks in a name.
Abrams, who narrowly trailed Kemp as returns poured in on Tuesday, refused to concede.
“We are going to make sure that every vote is counted, every single vote,” she said. “In a civilized nation, the machinery of democracy should work for everyone, everywhere.”