Democratic

The Los Angeles chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America will not endorse a candidate for mayor.

After City Councilmember Nithya Raman decided at the last minute to run against her former ally Mayor Karen Bass, the group called a vote on whether to reopen the endorsement process, which it had closed without supporting a candidate.

DSA-LA backed Raman’s two successful city council runs, but she has been at odds with the group on some issues.

Also in the mix was another mayoral candidate, community organizer Rae Huang, whose positions align more closely with those of the group.

The two candidates were present for Saturday’s vote at Immanuel Presbyterian Church in Koreatown, though neither spoke.

The left-wing organization, which has about 5,000 members, is known for running strong ground game campaigns that include canvassing, door-knocking and phone banking. In addition to Raman, three other DSA-backed politicians now sit on the 15-member City Council.

Before the vote, DSA-LA members argued for and against reopening the endorsement process.

“The worst thing we can do right now for our movement is to say, ‘Well, actually, we’re not going to endorse Rae or Nithya. We’re going to do a third thing, which is to issue no endorsement.’ Who is the audience for this message?” said Leslie Chang, a co-chair of DSA-LA.

DSA-LA member Anna Gross argued that neither candidate was ideal, with Huang, who has little political experience, being a long shot and Raman hesitating to fully embrace the group.

“I do want a democratic socialist mayor, but as it stands, we have one candidate who is not going to win … and a candidate who will not openly identify as a democratic socialist,” Gross said.

Of the 488 members who voted Saturday, about 55% supported reopening the endorsement process, falling short of the required two-thirds majority.

If the process had been reopened, the group would have then voted on whether to endorse Raman, Huang or neither.

Huang’s earlier attempt to get the endorsement while the window was still open had failed because she did not obtain enough valid member signatures to qualify.

If the race is not decided in the June 2 primary, DSA-LA can still endorse a candidate in the runoff.

Besides Bass, Raman and Huang, the field of 14 candidates includes conservative reality TV star Spencer Pratt and tech entrepreneur Adam Miller.

Some members believed that a mayoral endorsement would take resources away from the slate of six local candidates they have already endorsed.

In city council races, DSA-LA is backing incumbents Hugo Soto-Martínez and Eunisses Hernandez; Faizah Malik, who is running against incumbent Traci Park on the Westside; and Estuardo Mazariegos for an open South L.A. seat.

The group is also backing Marissa Roy, who is challenging City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, and Rocío Rivas, an incumbent L.A. Unified school board member.

The same day she announced her surprise bid for mayor, Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman called a member of the local Democratic Socialists of America chapter.

She wanted to meet with the group’s leadership to explain her late-breaking decision to challenge Mayor Karen Bass, her longtime ally, which took just about everyone in the city by surprise.

Two days later, Raman gathered at her Silver Lake home with leaders of DSA-LA, which has endorsed her two runs for City Council but has been at odds with her on some issues.

Leslie Chang, a co-chair of the 5,000-member chapter, recalled Raman saying, “‘The media is going to paint me as a DSA candidate, and I have a relationship with you, and I’m interested in maintaining that relationship. So let’s talk.’”

DSA-LA, which had declined to endorse in the mayor’s race, will decide on Saturday whether to reopen its endorsement process.

Some members believe that a mayoral endorsement would take valuable phone-banking and door-knocking resources away from the slate of six local candidates they have already endorsed.

If the process moves forward, the question would then be whether to back Raman or Rae Huang, a housing activist viewed by some members as more aligned with socialist principles, while others see her as less electable. The group could also decide not to endorse either candidate.

Leslie Chang, co-chair for the Los Angeles chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, at a rally at Molina Grand Park in Los Angeles on March 18.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Going to bat for a mayoral candidate would be the highest-profile drive the local organization has run in a city where its influence has expanded since it knocked on doors for Raman’s first council campaign in 2020. In addition to Raman, three other DSA-backed politicians now occupy seats on the 15-member City Council.

In New York, DSA member Zohran Mamdani was recently elected mayor on a platform of rent freezes and free city buses.

“It would be a major coup for DSA to have one of their candidates be elected mayor [of Los Angeles],” said Sara Sadhwani, a politics professor at Pomona College.

The Rev. Rae Huang, who is running for mayor of Los Angeles, joined the Fair Games Coalition to announce the launch of the Overpaid CEO Tax Initiative in front of the Tesla Diner in West Hollywood on Jan. 14.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

As a city council member, Raman has delivered several major wins celebrated by DSA members, including strengthening renter protections and passing the first reform to the city’s rent stabilization ordinance in decades.

But she has sometimes been out of step with the group, approving budgets that increased police spending and seeking to revise Measure ULA, also known as the city’s “mansion tax,” to offer a 15-year exemption to developers of multifamily and commercial projects.

Raman’s most visible split with DSA occurred over the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack that killed more than 1,200 Israelis.

DSA released a statement saying “this was not unprovoked.” Raman called the statement “unacceptably devoid of empathy for communities in Israel.”

In early 2024, DSA censured Raman for seeking and accepting an endorsement from Democrats for Israel-Los Angeles, a liberal Zionist group, chiding her for “accepting support from [DSA’s] enemies.”

“Why are people wary of endorsing Nithya for mayor? A lot of people who were in leadership at the time are hesitant because of that situation,” said Noah Suarez-Sikes, a member of DSA-LA’s steering committee.

In a statement to The Times, Raman called herself an “independent leader.”

“While I share the DSA’s emphasis on uplifting the working class and those who have been left behind by the political establishment, I don’t always agree with my allies on how to accomplish our goals,” she said.

Some DSA members see Huang, who has little citywide name recognition or political experience, as more connected to the group’s platform than Raman. Huang has called for “Fast and Free Buses” as well as for more public input on the city budget.

Huang highlighted her support for keeping the “mansion tax” as is, also telling The Times that she would reduce the Police Department budget and the number of officers.

Raman has said she believes the Los Angeles Police Department should maintain its current staffing of around 8,700 sworn officers.

Konstantine Anthony, a DSA member and Burbank City Council member who gathered signatures to reopen the endorsement window, is supporting Huang.

“She is the exact candidate DSA across the country should be running for every seat,” he said.

Keshav Kundassery, a DSA member since 2019, supports Raman.

While he called Huang’s campaign for mayor “inspiring,” Kundassery said he does not think that she can get enough support.

“DSA should be in the business of running campaigns to win,” he said.

DSA-LA has already endorsed in four city council races, backing incumbents Hugo Soto-Martínez and Eunisses Hernandez; Faizah Malik, who is running against incumbent Traci Park on the Westside; and Estuardo Mazariegos for an open South L.A. seat.

The group is also backing Marissa Roy, who is challenging City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, and Rocío Rivas, an incumbent L.A. Unified school board member.

“Any consideration we make now we will make understanding the balance of resources of our six candidates and a potential seventh,” said Chang, the DSA-LA co-chair.

Times staff writer David Zahniser contributed to this report.

I’ve seen enough. It’s time to revise our expectations about the midterms.

For more than a year now, conventional wisdom has been that Democrats would take back the House — but not the Senate — in the November midterms.

That’s because this year’s Senate map would require Democrats to win numerous seats in red states.

In fact, if you had asked me a couple of months ago, I would have told you that, yes, Democrats have a shot at the Senate, but in the same way my teenage son has a shot at someday dating Sydney Sweeney. Which is to say, technically possible but cosmically unlikely.

But recent developments (such as President Trump’s plunging approval ratings on the economy) are encouraging me to revise my thinking.

I’m not alone. Independent journalist Chris Cillizza recently observed that for the first time ever, prediction markets like Polymarket and Kalshi showed Democrats with a narrow edge.

Now, prediction markets are not scientific. Neither, for that matter, is licking your finger and holding it up to the wind — but both have outperformed political polling at various times in the last couple of years.

The difference is that in prediction markets, people are wagering actual money, which tends to sharpen the mind in ways that answering a pollster’s call during dinner does not.

Of course, you probably haven’t heard much about this revised political outlook. That’s because nobody has any incentive to shout it from the rooftops.

Democrats don’t want to inflate expectations and risk turning a solid win into a perceived disappointment. Republicans, meanwhile, are not eager to advertise that their Senate majority is wobbling like a shopping cart with a bad wheel. And we pundits, chastened by having been burned, are reluctant to get too far out over our skis.

Even Cillizza still leans Republican on balance. But if I had to bet today — and I tend to define bet as “regret later” — I’d put my chips on the Democrats. Not because it’s a sure thing, but because almost every political and economic development seems to be trending in their direction.

History helps. The “out” party in the midterms usually does well. Current events help. Policies, including the war in Iran and rising gas prices, tend to sour voters on whoever’s in charge. And candidate quality helps. Voters do occasionally notice who’s actually on the ballot, and Democrats are serving up a semi-respectable offering.

Let’s pause to appreciate what’s at stake. Control of the Senate isn’t just about who gets the nicer office furniture. It determines judicial confirmations, including the possibility that Trump could fill a fourth Supreme Court vacancy (if one opens up in 2027 or 2028).

Now, it would be irresponsible of me to just drop this idea without delving into some logistical details.

For Democrats to flip the Senate, they need to net four seats. That means defending everything they already have while winning four more. The encouraging news (if you’re rooting for the Democrats) is that there are at least eight plausible opportunities for that to happen.

In North Carolina, incumbent Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, is widely expected to win. In Maine, Republican Sen. Susan Collins once again finds herself in a political knife fight — her natural habitat, though perhaps not her preferred one. She will face Maine’s current governor or a flamboyant and controversial oysterman. I’m not sure who’d be the tougher opponent.

Out in Ohio, former Sen. Sherrod Brown benefits from the rare political skill of being a Democrat who still seems at home in Ohio.

The Democrat running in Alaska is a former member of Congress (and the first Alaska Native elected to Congress). And for the open seat in Iowa, Democrats seem likely to nominate a two-time Paralympic gold medalist who represents the reddest state house seat held by a Democrat.

Then there’s Texas, the perennial Democratic mirage — always shimmering on the horizon. But this year, it might come into clear view. James Talarico has emerged for Democrats, while Republicans are stuck choosing between scandal-plagued Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton and incumbent Sen. John Cornyn — a process that currently resembles a family feud conducted with vicious attack ads.

Meanwhile, in Nebraska and Montana, Democrats aren’t even pretending to compete. Instead, they’re relying on independents who — like Sens. Bernie Sanders and Angus King — would likely caucus with them.

In Nebraska, independent Dan Osborn already proved he can make it close: He lost in 2024 — a bad year to run against a Republican. And in Montana, the sudden announced retirement of Sen. Steve Daines has created an opening that didn’t exist five minutes ago (in political time).

Let’s not get carried away. The idea that Democrats could sweep all these races is still the kind of thing you say after your third drink. But winning half of them? That’s no longer fantasy. That’s … plausible. Maybe even more likely than not.

This isn’t a safe bet. It’s not even a comfortable one. But for the first time, it’s starting to look like smart money isn’t laughing at the idea anymore — it’s quietly sliding chips across the table.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

March 18 (UPI) — Illinois Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton claimed victory late Tuesday in a close race to be the Democratic Senate nominee in November, as voters headed to the polls to cast ballots in primary elections.

Dozens of local and federal contests were held throughout the state on a busy election Tuesday that included 17 U.S. House races but only one for the Senate — a seat being left vacant by the retiring Dick Durbin, the six-term senator and the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate.

Stratton claimed victory in a packed race for the Democratic nomination for Durbin’s seat.

“We did it,” she told supporters in her victory speech in Chicago.

“Tonight, we showed what’s possible when you listen to the people and give the people what they want.”

Stratton ran on a progressive platform of securing a single-payer healthcare system and a $25 minimum wage, while rejecting all corporate Political Action Committee funding during her campaign.

U.S. Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi and Robin Kelly emerged as her main political rivals.

Krishnamoorthi told his supporters in a brief speech Tuesday night at the Westin Hotel in Chicago’s River North neighborhood that he had called Stratton to congratulate her on winning the primary.

“I offered her my full support on the road ahead,” he said.

Krishnamoorthi positioned himself as the anti-President Donald Trump Democrat, often railing against the Republican leader and campaigning on his so-called Trump accountability plan of reforms to rein in presidential power to prevent abuses of power.

“Obviously, this is not the result we sought, but unlike Donald Trump, I’m not going to question the outcome,” he said.

“Now we must come together as Democrats and as Americans to make sure that we return to principles that made us a beacon of freedom and opportunity for the world.”

Kelly conceded online.

“Tonight’s isn’t the outcome we wanted, but I am so proud of us, and I still believe in putting people over profits,” she said in a statement.

“You want to know that your elected leaders are fighting for YOU, not distracted by outside noise. I’ll continue that fight in the U.S. house. I still have your back.”

As of early Wednesday, when an estimated 92% of the ballots had been counted, Stratton had secured about 40.1% of the vote share to Krishnamoorthi’s 33.2% and Kelly’s 18.1%, CNN and CBS News reported.

In a statement, Durbin, who did not endorse any candidate in the race, said he looked forward to “passing the torch” to Stratton when his term ends, while congratulating Krishnamoorthi and Kelly.

“Now our attention must turn to ensuring Juliana wins the general election on November 3,” he said. “With Donald Trump in the White House for another two years, the challenges facing our country and state will continue to be historic and unprecedented. We need Juliana Stratton fighting alongside Sen. [Tammy] Duckworth every day.”

On the GOP side, Don Tracy, former Illinois Republican Party chairman, was poised to seek Durbin’s vacant Senate seat as his party’s nominee.

Tracy campaigned in the blue state by positioning himself as a center-right candidate at a time of extremism in his party, stating on his website that he would seek “common sense solutions over extreme agendas.”

He also argued to be a voice for the entire state, voicing concerns that all federal elections had become contests for Chicago and Cook County.

“It’s time to make Illinois a two-party state again,” he said in a statement claiming victory on Facebook, while bashing Stratton as “the most extreme far-left U.S. Senate candidate this state has ever seen.”

“I will push for common sense solutions that make life more affordable for working families. I will work for everyday Illinoisans, not special interests or extreme agendas.”

Tracy was poised to win early Wednesday with nearly 40% of the vote share compared to lawyer Jeannie Evans’ nearly 23%, the closest runner-up, CNN and CBS News reported.

Evans campaigned on being a political outsider and a conservative Republican, while championing lowering costs and fighting crime.

In the governor’s race, Illinois is poised to have a rematch of 2022, when Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, beat Republican farmer Darren Bailey.

While Pritzker ran uncontested, Bailey was seemingly coasting to the GOP nomination in a landslide.

With 94% of ballots counted, Bailey had won 53.5% of the vote share to runner-up Ted Dabrowski’s 28.8%, according to CNN and CBS News tallies.

“The first fight has been won, but make no mistake, we are just getting warmed up,” he said in his victory speech.

“Best birthday ever.”

Bailey ran on a law-and-order campaign that included lowering property taxes, cutting government spending and cracking down on repeated criminal offenders.

SANTA FE, N.M. — Democratic-led states alarmed by the prospect of federal immigration officers patrolling the polls during this year’s midterm elections are taking steps to counter what they see as a potential tactic to intimidate voters.

New Mexico this week became the first state to bar armed agents from polling locations in response to President Trump’s immigration crackdown, a step being considered in at least half a dozen other Democratic-led states.

The moves highlight a deep distrust toward the Trump administration from blue states, which have been the target of his aggressive immigration tactics while threatened with military deployments and deep cuts in federal funding. Their concerns were heightened after the president suggested he wants to nationalize U.S. elections, even though the Constitution says it’s the states that run elections.

The Trump administration said it has no plans to deploy immigration agents to polling locations. Last month, the heads of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol told a congressional committee “No, sir” when asked if they had any plans to guard polling places. The Department of Homeland Security’s deputy assistant secretary for election integrity, Heather Honey, recently told secretaries of state it “is simply not true” that immigration agents will be at the polls this year.

But a group of eight secretaries of state wants that in writing from the nominee to succeed Kristi Noem as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. In a letter Monday to Trump’s new pick to lead the agency, Markwayne Mullin, the group pressed for assurances “that ICE will not have a presence at polling locations during the 2026 election cycle.”

Federal law already prohibits the deployment of armed federal forces to election locations unless “necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States,” but Democratic lawmakers, election officials and governors remain concerned.

“The fear is that the Trump administration will attempt to evoke a national emergency or execute some other deployment of federal agents or military troops in order to interfere with elections and intimidate voters,” said Connecticut Democratic state Rep. Matt Blumenthal, co-author of a state bill to establish a 250-foot buffer from federal agents at local polls and other restrictions on federal intervention. “And we’re not going to let that happen.”

A potential clash between states and the federal government

Other bills seeking to ban immigration agents at the polls are pending in Democratic-led states, large and small, from California to Rhode Island.

In Virginia, lawmakers are weighing legislation that could prevent federal civil immigration officials from making arrests within 40 feet of any polling place or courthouse. But the provision on polling sites remains under negotiation, and it’s unclear whether it will be in the final bill.

The newly signed law in New Mexico prohibits orders that put any armed person in the “civil, military or naval service of the United States” at local polling locations and related parking areas, or within 50 feet of a monitored ballot box, from the start of early voting.

Under New Mexico’s new law, which takes effect in May and will be in place for the state’s June 2 primary, people who experience intimidation or obstruction at the polls from federal agents or military personnel can file a civil lawsuit seeking relief in state courts. State prosecutors and local and state election officials also can sue, and the courts can apply fines of up to $50,000 per violation.

It also prohibits changes to voting qualifications and election rules and procedures that conflict with New Mexico law, as Trump prods the U.S. Senate to approve a bill to impose strict new proof-of-citizenship requirements in elections nationwide.

Any state measures intended to counter federal election law will face legal hurdles because of the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution, which says federal law supersedes state law.

“It could set up a direct clash between state governments and the federal government. We don’t know exactly how that’s going to go,” said Richard Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at the UCLA School of Law. “Given the supremacy clause, there’s only so much states can do.”

‘We will hold free and fair elections’

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said her own distrust of the Trump administration in election oversight stems from ongoing Department of Justice efforts to get detailed state voter data without explaining why and Trump’s continuing false claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

“Do I believe the federal government and people in the White House? No,” said Lujan Grisham, who terms out of office at the end of 2026.

“We are sending a message to everyone: We will hold free and fair elections, and New Mexicans will be safe in every ballot location and that’s our responsibility,” the Democrat said Tuesday during a news conference. “The Constitution says the states run their elections, and that bill makes that painfully re-clear to the federal government.”

Federal seizure of ballots and election records is a growing concern

New Mexico Republicans, who are in the minority in the legislature, voted in unison against the bill.

“I would question strongly why we have to do this other than just to have to poke the president in the eye,” state GOP Sen. Bill Sharer of Farmington said during floor debate.

State Sen. Katy Duhigg, an Albuquerque Democrat who was a co-sponsor of the legislation, said it’s “better safe than sorry with democracy.” She said she wanted to “make sure that there was some sort of tool that our local law enforcement would have at their disposal if something does happen, if the federal government does in some manner try to interfere with our elections.”

Connecticut’s bill, scheduled for a hearing later this week, also takes aim at federal attempts to seize ballots or other election material. It would require that state officials receive notification of such a move.

Blumenthal said state lawmakers can’t prevent seizures such as the January search by the FBI on an election center in Fulton County, Ga., a Democratic stronghold that includes Atlanta. But he said, “there might be an opportunity for our state attorney general’s office or the secretary of the state’s office to challenge that.”

Lee and Haigh write for the Associated Press. Haigh reported from Hartford, Conn. AP writer Oliva Diaz in Richmond, Va., and David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo., contributed to this report.

March 6 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s ruling Democratic Party has recently increased its engagement with major companies and business groups, a shift analysts say reflects growing economic uncertainty and the political importance of economic performance.

Party leaders have held a series of meetings with industry representatives while launching policy initiatives such as a “KOSPI 5000” special committee and a task force reviewing economic criminal penalties and business regulations.

The outreach marks a change from the party’s earlier image as primarily focused on regulation, positioning itself instead as a listener to industry concerns.

The move comes as tensions in the Middle East, potential U.S. tariff measures and volatility in financial markets raise economic risks. Political leaders have increasingly addressed these issues directly, as economic developments quickly translate into political and legislative debates.

On Wednesday, the Democratic Party held a meeting with business leaders to discuss risks stemming from the Middle East conflict and possible U.S. trade tariffs. Participants discussed concerns including potential disruptions to projects in the Middle East, export slowdowns and measures to stabilize financial markets.

Party officials have also held policy discussions with the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry while continuing work through the KOSPI 5000 committee on capital market reforms. Another task force has been examining ways to adjust criminal penalties related to economic activity and ease regulations that business groups say hinder corporate operations.

Economic risks increasingly shape political debate

Analysts say economic shocks are now quickly becoming political issues.

Recent disagreements between the ruling party and opposition lawmakers over legislation tied to investment cooperation with the United States delayed discussions in a parliamentary special committee for several weeks, illustrating how economic policy disputes can quickly turn into political battles.

Economic performance influences political approval

Academic research has also shown that economic conditions can influence political approval and election outcomes.

A study published in a Korean academic journal examining presidential approval ratings from 1993 to 2019 found statistically significant links between approval ratings and macroeconomic variables such as interest rates and inflation.

Research by scholars at Seoul National University also found that voting behavior in South Korea cannot be explained solely by regional political loyalties and is strongly influenced by voters’ economic evaluations.

Similar findings appear in international research, including a study from the University of Cambridge that examined how personal economic conditions and perceptions of national economic performance affect voting decisions in South Korea.

Corporate performance tied to government finances

South Korea’s fiscal structure is another reason the ruling party is expanding contact with businesses, analysts say.

According to the National Assembly Budget Office, national tax revenue in 2024 totaled about 336.5 trillion won ($253 billion), down 7.5 trillion won ($5.6 billion) from the previous year.

Corporate tax revenue alone fell by about 17.9 trillion won ($13.5 billion), making it one of the main reasons for the overall decline in tax revenue.

For the administration of President Lee Jae-myung, which has promoted a broader welfare framework described as a “basic society,” maintaining corporate growth and investment has become increasingly important to sustaining tax revenues needed for expanded public spending.

Still, analysts caution that the ruling party’s outreach should not necessarily be interpreted as a shift toward a pro-business policy stance.

Business groups have continued to raise concerns about legislation such as revisions to the Commercial Act and labor-related bills sometimes referred to as the “Yellow Envelope Law,” which they argue could weaken corporate governance protections.

Some lawmakers have therefore adopted what observers describe as a two-track approach – consulting with companies while continuing to pursue regulatory legislation.

Analysts say the recent outreach to business leaders reflects a broader political strategy combining economic crisis management, legislative coordination and efforts to maintain political support.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260306010001790