Democratic Party facing data challenges going into 2020: ‘We better get on the same page’

Democrats are on a high after winning back the House last month, but they have a looming problem they know they need to address: data. Specifically, getting all their voter data under one proverbial roof. Heading into 2018, Democrats made a concerted effort to build a voter database that could compete with President Trump’s campaign operation … Continue reading “Democratic Party facing data challenges going into 2020: ‘We better get on the same page’”

Democrats are on a high after winning back the House last month, but they have a looming problem they know they need to address: data. Specifically, getting all their voter data under one proverbial roof.

Heading into 2018, Democrats made a concerted effort to build a voter database that could compete with President Trump’s campaign operation and the sophisticated data-sharing program they have with the Republican National Committee. But, the Democratic National Committee is looking to take that a step further by unifying its data under one for-profit operation – but it's prompted pushback among state party leaders, according to Politico. The state party leaders reportedly fear losing ownership rights of this data to a large, national operation, while the DNC says bringing the data from outside groups together with state parties would create a more powerful tool looking ahead to 2020.

The problem for Democrats is not necessarily a lack of data.

DNC officials moved to ramp up their voter engagement program, IWillVote, ahead of the 2018 races. The program reached over 60 million people in the 2018 midterms. They did so by connecting with voters at events like March for Our Lives – though the DNC is not directly affiliated with it – to encourage people to fill out voter commitment cards. Through those cards, the DNC was able to collect personal information.

Anyone who committed to vote was then part of a digital “chase” program that used text and email methods to send people personalized information on their polling places — the first fully digital commit-to-vote and chase program of its time, according to one official.

"From Women's Marches to rallies in Congress, the DNC has organized around large grassroots gatherings to engage voters and harness the enthusiasm on the ground to translate to votes at the ballot box,” DNC spokeswoman Sabrina Singh said.


The party also purchased over 110 million cell phone numbers to add to its voter file, collecting every available number for registered voters across the country. The DNC used these numbers to get out the vote in key races, contacting and encouraging less-frequent voters to turn out.

"Throughout the year, the DNC used this data to send more than 15 million state-specific peer-to-peer text messages through DNC-funded programs to engage voters to turn out in the midterm election,” Singh said.

According to Democratic strategists, however, the problem going forward is a lack of unity.

“If Democrats want any chance of winning in 2020 then we better get on the same page,” said a senior Democratic strategist and former state party official.

Much of the data on the Democratic side has come from marches and other political movements that turned their issue-based outreach into operations to get out the vote in the 2018 midterms. The Women’s March created the Power to the Polls effort to mobilize and register voters. The group also hosted “Call Your Sister” phone-banking events across the country that encouraged women to contact other women.

But, these are not run by the party.


When compared with the RNC’s massive voter operation — which works in unison with the Trump campaign and the state party officials — this could put the Democrats at a disadvantage looking toward 2020 because they wouldn’t have as much compiled data for the eventual nominee.


The former state party official who spoke with Fox News said the last time the DNC was truly unified in its data operation was under former chairman Howard Dean, when the party had a 50-state strategy. Dean left his post in 2009.

Doug Schoen, a Democratic strategist and Fox News contributor, agreed that the party would be better off if the data was under one operation — but he acknowledged that would be unlikely.

"Given the divisions in the party, and the mutual mistrust that exists between state and local parties, I doubt that this will ever, in fact, happen," he said.


Strategists have disagreed about whether Democrats are under pressure to compete with Trump’s operation and rally events.

The former state leader said that digital guru Brad Parscale’s new role as head of the 2020 Trump campaign should make Democrats nervous, while another said the recent midterms showed Democrats can compete in their own way.

“I think we did a pretty great job of that in the midterms and will be spending even more in a presidential cycle,” said Jessica Tarlov, a Democratic strategist and Fox News contributor. “We don't need to fight him with rallies of the same size. They're really only good for the crowd that's there and they're his die-hard supporters.”

She added that since the president is running for re-election, the rallies will mean less in terms of attracting support and predicted that they will also not be televised as much, which would mean less exposure.

“I think with Trump as a known quantity after four years in office, the rallies matter a lot less. He's not being introduced to any new audiences,” Tarlov said.

Fox News’ Peter Doocy contributed to this report.

Sally Persons is White House producer for Fox News Channel. Follow her on Twitter @sapersons.

Democrats and the border: What they don’t want you to know

Is steel more moral than concrete?

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said last week that she and other Democrats consider a border wall “immoral.” But some of the same Democrats who decry President Donald J. Trump’s proposed concrete wall as a 30-foot-tall human-rights violation actually approved 700 miles of steel barriers under the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (SFA).

Give Pelosi this: She is consistent. She voted against SFA. Maybe, deep down, she wants an America without borders.

Meanwhile, these current, former, and then-ascendant Senate Democrats all voted for SFA, which President George W. Bush signed into law. On September 26, 2006, the Senate passed SFA 80–19, with 26 Democrats voting Yea. Among them:

Joseph Biden of Delaware (“I voted for the fence related to drugs,” he explained in a 2007 debate. “A fence will stop 20 kilos of cocaine coming through that fence.”)Sherrod Brown of Ohio (while still in the House, Brown voted Yea that September 14.)Tom Carper of DelawareHillary Clinton of New York (the Halloween after voting for SFA, she told the Council on Foreign Relations that America should “secure our borders with technology, personnel, physical barriers if necessary in some places.”)Dianne Feinstein of California (“Democrats are solidly behind controlling the border, and we support the border fence,” she told the Los Angeles Daily News. “We’ve got to get tough on the border. There’s no question the border is a sieve.”)Bill Nelson of Florida (freshly defeated by Republican Rick Scott)Barack Obama of Illinois (“The bill before us certainly will do some good,” Obama argued on the Senate floor. “It will authorize badly needed funding for better fences and better security along our borders, and that should help stem some of the tide of illegal immigration in this country.” He added that SFA would stymie “immigrants sneaking in through unguarded holes in our border. . .”)Chuck Schumer of New YorkDebbie Stabenow of MichiganRon Wyden of Oregon

Illegal immigrants from the so-called caravan lately have been caught on camera burrowing under and vaulting over the steel fence. One of these barricade climbers, Honduran Maryury Elizabeth Serrano-Hernandez, 19, soon went into labor and delivered an American-citizen anchor baby in a San Diego hospital on November 27. Border Patrol officers told Fox News that the mother, the father (age 20), their newborn son, and another boy (age 2) all were “placed into immigration proceedings and released on their own recognizance on December 2.” Let’s see if they eventually attend their asylum hearing or simply dissolve into the American landscape.

This column is adapted from a column that first appeared in the National Review. Keep reading here.

Elizabeth Warren admits she’s not ‘a person of color’ during commencement speech

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Friday said she is "not a person of color," during a commencement speech at a historically black college.

“As a country, we need to stop pretending that the same doors open for everyone, because they don’t,” she said during a commencement speech at Morgan State University in Baltimore, according to the Washington Post.

“I’m not a person of color,” she continued. “And I haven’t lived your life or experienced anything like the subtle prejudice, or more overt harm, that you may have experienced just because of the color of your skin.”

"I’m not a person of color. And I haven’t lived your life or experienced anything like the subtle prejudice, or more overt harm, that you may have experienced just because of the color of your skin."

— Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren

The acknowledgment from the Democrat, who’s been making concrete steps to prepare for her 2020 presidential run, came after a months-long agony of trying to refute criticism that she falsely claimed Native American heritage.

Warren insists she never used Native American heritage to gain advantage, though she listed herself as a “minority” before the University of Pennsylvania offered her a job, according to the Boston Globe. She later asked the university to change her listed identity as “Native American.”

In October, she released her DNA analysis results that showed “strong evidence” that she has a Native American ancestor dating back six to 10 generations.

The analysis claims that if Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother were Native American, Warren would be considered 1/64 Native American. Should Warren’s ancestor date back 10 generations, the senator would be only 1/1,024 Native American.



But the DNA analysis results only emboldened Warren’s critics, who say President Trump and the nickname he gave to the senator – “Pocahontas” – was apt because the results didn’t prove Warren was really a Native American.

“To put that in perspective, Warren might even be less Native American than the average European American,” Republican National Committee Deputy Communications Director Mike Reed told Fox News in October, while saying this would “not give you the right to claim minority status.”

The Cherokee Nation also criticized Warren.

"A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong."

— Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr

“A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship,” Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr., said. “Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong.”

The DNA results rollout reportedly irked Warren who now may be regretting the move as rather than closing the matter, it only invited more attacks against her, according to the New York Times.


Warren reportedly expressed concerns that the stunt only ruined her relationship with the Native American community. Outside advisers also told the newspaper that the issue won’t go away and she will have to tackle it again on the campaign trail.


Yet Warren’s chances of having a viable path to presidency in 2020 appear to be dwindling after the Boston Globe’s editorial board said the Democrat is too divisive to run for president.

“While Warren is an effective and impactful senator with an important voice nationally, she has become a divisive figure,” the editorial stated. “A unifying voice is what the country needs now after the polarizing politics of Donald Trump.”

Lukas Mikelionis is a reporter for Follow him on Twitter @LukasMikelionis.

Democrats demand answers, DHS investigation into death of Guatemalan girl, 7

Congressional Democrats are demanding a full investigation into U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials after a 7-year-old Guatemalan girl died last week while in U.S. custody, a report said Friday.

Five senior Democratic lawmakers, including members who will soon chair the House Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, sent a letter on Friday to the Department of Homeland Security's acting inspector general, John Kelly, urging an investigation into the death of Jakelin Amei Rosmery Caal Maquin, The Washington Post reported.

The lawmakers cited "the seriousness of this tragedy and the many questions that remain," according to the paper.

“The investigation should focus on policies and practices designed to protect health and safety, as well as policies and practices that may result in increased migration through particularly harsh terrain,” the letter said.

The letter said the investigation should examine "appropriateness of holding children in Border Patrol stations," which they claim were "never designed to hold children."

The Homeland Security Department's inspector general has opened an investigation, and congressional leaders also promised one.

The letter further states that DHS should investigate CBP's "failure to timely notify Congress" of the matter, saying it's "hard to overstate our frustration" that they learned of the incident through media reports one week after the incident.

From the Senate, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tweeted in response to the migrant girl's death.

"A 7-year-old girl should not be dying of dehydration and shock in Customs and Border Protection custody," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tweeted. "Secretary Nielsen and @DHSgov must be held accountable for Jakelin Amei Rosmery Caal Maquin's death."

Jakelin was picked up by U.S. authorities with her father, Nery Gilberto Caal Cuz, 29, and other migrants this month in a remote stretch of the New Mexico desert. Some seven hours later, she was put on a bus to the nearest Border Patrol station but soon began vomiting, reports said. By the end of the two-hour drive, she had stopped breathing, reports said. She died of dehydration and shock, The Post reported, citing the CBP.

Customs and Border Protection said Friday that the girl initially appeared healthy and that an interview raised no signs of trouble.

Authorities said her father spoke in Spanish to Border agents and signed a form indicating she was in good health, though a Guatemalan official said late Friday that the family's native language was a Mayan dialect.

CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan said agents "did everything in their power" to save her.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Amy Lieu is a news editor and reporter for Fox News.

Democrats won’t win in 2020 unless they remember that the road to the White House runs through Main Street

Recently, I was standing in the check out line of a Whole Foods in Washington, D.C. While waiting, I did what most people do and perused the magazines that adorn the end of the register.  What struck me was the selection of publications offered at this upscale, organic grocery chain. The Harvard Business Review, The Atlantic Monthly and some yoga magazine were on offer instead of the usual titles like Martha Stewart Living, People or Good Housekeeping that I see at home in Ohio. In that moment, supermarket magazines became symbolic of the tug of war between the “coastal elites” and “middle America.”

I happen to have one foot in both of these worlds as I split my time between Washington, D.C. and my home state of Ohio. I am a fifth generation Buckeye, but I have lived and studied all over the world. I have two masters' degrees and graduated from some of the nation’s leading academic institutions including Stanford and Georgetown. Maybe on paper, I am an “elite” but I think because my roots are in the Heartland I can see both perspectives. I subscribe to both Martha Stewart Living and The Atlantic Monthly (seriously).

When I’m in D.C. I often hear those around me dismiss Midwesterners as uneducated, provincial and resistant to both change and diversity. At home in Ohio, my friends lament that the “elite” media or friends and family that now live outside of the region look down upon them for choosing to live in a small town, not a big city. Main Street America feels the scorn that the coastal elites have for them.

It seems to me that what I would call “judgmental elitism” is a driving force in dividing our nation. For many, the 2016 election embodied this fissure. Trump vs. Clinton was a proxy war for Middle America vs. the coastal elite. Elitism, in its current form is less about money or even educational attainment.

President Trump is a billionaire who graduated from the Ivy League.  For decades, he traveled between his many properties in a private jet. He lived on Fifth Avenue in New York. By all accounts, Trump checks all the boxes of an “elite.” But, many Main Street Americans do not correlate Trump with the “elite” because he does not insult them or their way of life, even if it is starkly different.

To me, the push and pull between elites and everyone else is not about siding with Trump over Democrats, Ohio over D.C., or the highly educated over the so-called anti-intellectual. Rather it should be a teachable moment to find a way for us all to recognize we come from different backgrounds and have different views. While Democrats won the House by a staggering 40 seats, most pickups were not in the Midwest.

I believe my fellow Democrats should not ignore the signs of division between the elites and everyone else. Main Street remains insulted by the elite’s dismissive and condescending attitude towards them. National Democrats have lost the trust of the people in regions like mine because they are perceived as being part of this condescending elite. If Dems want to win back the White House in 2020, we must remember the Electoral College road back to Pennsylvania Avenue runs right through Main Street USA.

Capri S. Cafaro is a former Democratic Ohio state senator. She is currently a political commentator and an executive in residence at American University. Follow her on Twitter @thehonorablecsc.

Fox News Poll: Pelosi, McConnell face negative ratings heading into new term

After a contentious election that saw the Democrats win back the House and Republicans retain the Senate, voters view both parties’ congressional leaders negatively, according to the latest Fox News poll.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell receives the worst rating of the leaders included in the survey, with a net negative 16 (28 percent favorable vs. 44 percent unfavorable).  He’s followed by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (36 favorable vs. 48 unfavorable) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (28 favorable vs. 40 unfavorable) — both net negative 12.


House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy has a net negative rating of 4 (19 percent favorable vs. 23 percent unfavorable), however, he remains mostly unknown to voters with over half unable to rate him (57 percent).

It’s not all bad news though.  While ratings for Pelosi and McConnell remain underwater, the new poll shows they have both gained in popularity since August.  Polling was conducted Sunday through Tuesday, with most interviews completed prior to Pelosi and Schumer’s combative meeting at the White House on Tuesday.

Pelosi’s favorability is up 7 points since August, going from 29 to 36 percent.  That nearly matches her record of 37 percent favorable in March 2007 (roughly two months after she first became Speaker).

McConnell saw a similar boost of 6 points, and now has a record favorable of 28 percent. His previous high was 25 percent earlier this year (January 2018).

Party loyalty and independents are largely responsible for the gains.  In August, 46 percent of Democrats and 16 percent of independents viewed Pelosi favorably.  Today it’s 57 and 29 percent respectively.  For McConnell, 36 percent of Republicans and 11 percent of independents viewed him favorably in August; today those numbers stand at 45 and 27 percent.

Schumer’s ratings are holding steady.

Among Partisans

Pelosi receives a 57 percent favorable among Democrats.  That is higher than Schumer’s 40 percent among Democrats and McConnell’s 45 percent among Republicans.  McCarthy gets 29 percent among the party faithful.

For comparison, Republicans give Donald Trump a 75-point net positive rating:  87 percent favorable vs. 12 percent unfavorable.

Overall, views of Trump are slightly negative: 46 percent of voters have a favorable view of him, while 52 percent have an unfavorable one.


The holiday season is in full swing with companies hosting parties and families preparing to get together.  Will politics play a part in who people choose to spend time with this year?

Not so much.

Two-thirds of voters (66 percent) say the political views of friends and family won’t be a factor at all.

Still, for 27 percent politics will be a factor (13 percent “a major factor” vs. 14 percent “a minor factor”).

Those most likely to say it will be a factor are nonwhites (38 percent), voters under age 45 (37 percent), Democrats (35 percent), and urban voters (35 percent).

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cellphone interviews with 1,006 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from December 9-11, 2018.  The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all registered voters.

McCaskill blasts ‘too many embarrassing uncles’ in Senate, in final floor speech

Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill criticized the Senate in a grim farewell speech Thursday, calling it "dysfunctional" and filled with “too many embarrassing uncles.”

The two-term senator from Missouri delivered a farewell speech after she lost her re-election bid in November to the state’s Republican Attorney General Josh Hawley. She questioned the abilities of the Senate, adding she feared for its future: “It just doesn’t work as well as it used to.”

“The United States Senate is no longer the world’s greatest deliberative body and everybody needs to quit saying it until we recover from this period of polarization and the fear of the political consequences of tough votes,” McCaskill said.

She also took aim at her colleagues.


“Peter Morgan, an author, wrote that no family is complete without an embarrassing uncle. We have too many embarrassing uncles in the United States Senate.”

She added that in her time as a lawmaker, she learned that “it puts the 'fun' in dysfunctional.”

Other senators delivering farewell speeches this week included Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Bill Nelson, D-Fla.

Paulina Dedaj is a writer/ reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter @PaulinaDedaj.

Marc Thiessen: Democrats’ negotiating strategy can be summed up in one word

Good news for the incoming House Democratic majority! They have something President Trump really, really wants: money to build a border wall. Trump is desperate for this money. Mexico won't give it to him. Only congressional Democrats can. Without their consent, he can't deliver on one of the key campaign promises he made during the 2016 election.

There's a name for this in classic negotiating strategy. It's called "leverage." Good negotiators use leverage (something they have, which their adversary wants) to obtain what are called "concessions" (something their adversary has, which they want). The result is what experts call "compromise." This is how the civilized world gets things done.

But in a fit of pique, Democrats are throwing away their leverage, insisting that they will never — under any circumstances — give Trump the wall he so desperately wants. The reason? Because he wants it and they despise him.

There is a name for this in negotiating strategy as well. It's called "insanity."

It would be one thing if Trump was demanding that Democrats make some great moral compromise. But he is not. Democrats say they are for border security. They may think that a wall is a costly and inefficient way to secure the border, but there is nothing inherently wrong with a wall. In 2006, 26 Senate Democrats — including Sens. Charles Schumer, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which required the Department of Homeland Security to build two layers of reinforced fencing along 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. Is there some profound moral difference between a fence and a wall? No.

So why not give Trump his wall in exchange for something they want? They could give Trump the $5 billion he is asking for to begin construction of the wall, in exchange for a path to citizenship for the nearly 2 million "dreamers" — illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own. Trump would negotiate on this basis in a heartbeat.

Then, when Democrats take the majority next year, they could offer him the remaining $15 billion to $20 billion he needs to finish the wall, in exchange for legal status for the other 11 million people here in the country illegally. The wall could buy legal status for every illegal immigrant living in the shadows — a longtime Democratic priority.

Again, Trump would likely be willing to cut such a deal. He is on record repeatedly saying that he wants to find a way for the vast majority of illegal immigrants (the "good ones," he calls them) to get right with the law and secure legal status, so long as we get rid of the rapists, murderers and drug dealers (aka the "bad ones") and secure the border. That is what Democrats claim they want to do as well. So take him up on it.

Or, if they don't want to use their leverage to solve the illegal immigration problem, then Democrats could use the wall as leverage to win concessions from Trump on something else. Democrats have laid out an ambitious agenda — from shoring up Obamacare, lowering the cost of prescription drugs and Medicare-for-all to modifying Trump's tax cuts, increasing the minimum wage, strengthening environmental rules, tackling global climate change and enacting paid family leave. The possibilities are endless. If Democrats don't use the wall as leverage, they won't get any of this.

In their Oval Office meeting, Schumer told Trump that "elections have consequences" — echoing the infamous words spoken by Obama to congressional Republicans in 2009 when they presented him with their ideas for a stimulus package. Back then, however, Democrats controlled not just the House but the Senate and White House, too. Today, Republicans control the executive branch and have an expanded Senate majority. So if Democrats want to get anything done, they can't ram it through over GOP objections, because Trump has leverage, too — in the form of a pen he can use to sign or veto legislation. To get anything done, Democrats have to negotiate — and compromise.

The answer for Democrats is simple: Don't refuse the wall; use the wall.

Marc Thiessen is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Thiessen served as chief speechwriter to President George W. Bush and to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Fox News Poll: 39 percent of voters think President Trump will be re-elected

The midterms are over, and the 2020 presidential election begins in earnest.

How do things look for President Trump’s re-election?  Thirty-nine percent of voters think he will be re-elected, according to a new Fox News poll.  For comparison, former President Obama’s re-elect number was 29 percent at this same point in his presidency (December 2010).


The survey also finds 38 percent would vote to re-elect President Trump if the election were today, up a touch from 35 percent who said the same in January.

In addition, 30 percent say they would definitely vote to re-elect Trump, up from 22 percent in January.  At the other end of the spectrum, 47 percent say they will definitely vote for someone else.  That was 48 percent at the beginning of the year.

That produces a net negative of 17 points on “definite” vote.  Obama had a net negative of 13 points on the definitely re-elect question at around this stage of his presidency.

One notable difference:  less than 1 in 10 voters gave the economy positive marks in late 2010, while five times as many (47 percent) rate it positively today.

“It’s instructive to compare President Trump’s numbers with those for President Obama,” says Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who conducts the Fox News Poll along with Democrat Chris Anderson.

“Trump’s economic handling numbers are decent and his base is there, but his re-elect numbers are about the same as Obama’s from late 2010.  He needs to expand his appeal and do better than break-even on the economy if he wants another four years.”

Among Republicans, 72 percent think Trump will win in 2020, and 80 percent would vote to re-elect him.

Nearly two-thirds of Republicans, 64 percent, would “definitely” re-elect Trump, up 15 points from 49 percent in January.

The same is true among those who supported Trump in 2016:  67 percent say they would definitely vote for him again, up from 52 percent.

Overall, a majority, 55 percent, says they would vote for someone else over Trump.  Democrats would back someone else by an 89-7 percent margin and independents by 59-22 percent.

Who might that someone else be? The survey asks voters what kind of president several potential Democratic candidates would be: excellent, good, only fair, or poor.  Voters are encouraged to say if they have never heard of someone, and that is certainly the case for many of those tested.

Two Democrats have officially announced their candidacy:  Maryland Rep. John Delaney and former West Virginia State Sen. Richard Ojeda.  They have some of the lowest name recognition of anyone included in the survey.  About 7 in 10 voters overall and 7 in 10 Democrats are unable to rate either of them.

While the field is still undefined, it is no surprise better-known politicians currently rate higher.  Most Democrats say former Vice President Joe Biden (70 percent excellent or good) and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (63 percent) would be excellent or good as president.

Some 38 percent of Democrats feel that way about Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, while about a third thinks Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke (36 percent), New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker (34 percent), and California Sen. Kamala Harris (33 percent) would be excellent or good.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg gets the largest number saying he would make an only fair or poor president:  38 percent of Democrats feel that way.  Warren comes second at 33 percent only fair/poor.

Many other potential candidates receive slightly higher negative than positive ratings among Democrats, including New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, former Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz, and businessman Tom Steyer — though these potential candidates are largely unknown to a majority of Democrats.

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cellphone interviews with 1,006 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from December 9-11, 2018.  The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all registered voters.

California Dem Ted Lieu say he would ‘love to regulate’ speech, bemoans US Constitution that prohibits him

California Democrat Ted Lieu bemoaned on Wednesday that though he would “love to be able to regulate the content of speech,” including that on Fox News, he can’t do it because of the U.S. Constitution.

Lieu made the comments during an interview about the testimony of Google CEO Sundar Pichai at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, where he dismissed the allegations that the tech giant amplifies negative stories about Republican lawmakers, saying “if you want positive search results, do positive things."

CNN host Brianna Keilar praised Lieu for his performance but asked whether other Democrats should have used the committee to press Google on conspiracy theories that spread on their platforms.

“It's a very good point you make. I would love if I could have more than five minutes to question witnesses. Unfortunately, I don't get that opportunity,” Lieu said of the committee hearings.

“However, I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech. The First Amendment prevents me from doing so, and that's simply a function of the First Amendment, but I think over the long run, it's better the government does not regulate the content of speech,” he continued.

"I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech. The First Amendment prevents me from doing so, and that’s simply a function of the First Amendment, but I think over the long run, it’s better the government does not regulate the content of speech."

— California Democrat Ted Lieu

Lieu added that private companies should self-regulate their platforms and said the government shouldn’t interfere.

After his remarks aired, Lieu came under fire on social media, prompting him to go on a Twitter spree to clarify his views, including that he would like to regulate Fox News.

One Twitter user had accused him of being “a poster child for the tyranny.”

Lieu insisted that he’s actually defending the First Amendment rather than showing his desire to regulate speech.

“My whole point is that government officials always want to regulate speech, see e.g. the Republican Judiciary hearing alleging Google is biased against Republicans,” he wrote in another tweet. “But thank goodness the First Amendment prevents me, @POTUS and Republicans from doing so.”

“I agree there are serious issues, but the speech issues are protected by the First Amendment,” the Democrat added. “Would I like to regulate Fox News? Yes, but I can't because the First Amendment stops me. And that's ultimately a good thing in the long run.”

Lieu has become somewhat a foe of President Trump following his election, often taking to social media to throw jabs at the president.

He’s among the Democrats who’s been flirting with the idea of impeaching Trump over the perceived collusion between Russia and the campaign. He also tried to kick-start earlier this year the impeachment process of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.


Lieu also raised eyebrows in summer after playing on House floor an audio recording of the crying migrant children separated from their families as part of the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance policy.”

Last year, Lieu was slammed for walking out of a moment of silence for victims of a mass shooting at a Texas church.

Lukas Mikelionis is a reporter for Follow him on Twitter @LukasMikelionis.