Mediaboss Marketing

Demonstrators gather outside of the U.S. Supreme Court after President Donald Trump announced Neil Gorsuch as his nominee to the Supreme Court on Jan. 31. | Getty

By Elana Schor

03/09/17 01:10 PM EST

Updated 03/09/17 04:10 PM EST

Liberal groups on Thursday launched a coordinated campaign to stoke Senate Democratic opposition to President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, including planning a nationwide "day of action" on April 1.

The liberals' campaign, dubbed "The People's Defense," comes as activists prepare to make resistance to Judge Neil Gorsuch one of the top issues propelling millions of protesters into the streets since Inauguration Day. Senate Democrats have already responded to the growing energy of their base by mounting a historic blockade of Trump's most contentious Cabinet nominees, and liberal groups aim to add Gorsuch to the list.

Story Continued Below

"What we're experiencing is a genuine gathering of massive energy across the country to say, we cannot allow someone handpicked by Donald Trump" to win a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, said NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue, whose pro-abortion-rights group is leading the anti-Gorsuch effort.

Hogue told reporters that she's "hearing a lot of 'He's a really nice guy'" responses to Gorsuch, who has benefited from positive meetings with several Democratic senators whose votes would be necessary to mount a successful filibuster of his nomination.

"That's way too low a bar for a jurist of the highest court of the land," Hogue added. "What we need to be focused on is his record."

The liberal groups hinted at their forthcoming efforts in a Monday letter, first reported by POLITICO, which urged Senate Democrats to "do better" in opposing Gorsuch.

Advocates described the anti-Gorsuch effort in a news release as "a hub of action to leverage the unprecedented grassroots activism that has been created by the Trump Administrations agenda and direct it towards defeating the Gorsuch nomination."

Among other left-leaning groups involved in the new campaign are the Center for American Progress Action Fund, CREDO Action, MoveOn.org Civic Action, the Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of Teachers, End Citizens United, EveryVoice, and Stand Up America.

Also helping roll out the anti-Gorsuch campaign on Thursday was Indivisible, the group founded by former Democratic congressional aides that has fast become a key player in teeing up tense town-hall confrontations between Republican lawmakers and their constituents. In a note to its supporters, Indivisible advised them to prepare for "a national day of action" against the nomination on April 1.

Conservative groups have already kicked off a multi-million-dollar TV ad campaign promoting Gorsuch and dismissed Thursday's announcement.

"These liberal activist groups have been totally ineffective in tarring Judge Gorsuch, and this desperate Hail Mary of a campaign won't change a thing," said Jeremy Adler, spokesman for the conservative advocacy group America Rising Squared. "Every day that goes by sees new and strengthening support for Judge Gorsuch from across the political spectrum because his credentials and record as a fair, thoughtful jurist are unimpeachable."

Hogue said that liberal groups are not planning TV ads but are instead aiming to match right-leaning groups' financial muscle with grassroots firepower.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Thursday that he expects the chamber to approve Gorsuch early next month, before senators leave Washington for a planned two-week recess on April 8.

Read the rest here:
Liberals launch new anti-Gorsuch campaign - Politico

The Trump era has produced a surplus of provocative and irresistible questions about American life for the chattering class to clamor over. The latest came in the form of an NYU experiment that used actors to recreate presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton exactly as they happened, with one adjustment - their genders were swapped.

The intention, as explained by one NYU professor, was to confirm the "liberal assumption" that "no one would have accepted Trump's behavior from a woman, and that the male Clinton would seem like the much stronger candidate."

For most of the presidential campaign, liberals, including Barack Obama, tossed around that assumption as though it were an unimpeachable fact. When the Left-leaning experimenters at NYU put it to the test, however, their results contradicted it completely.

According to NYU professor Joe Salvatore, "People across the board were surprised that their expectations about what they were going to experience were upended." A New York Times reporter explained, "Most of the people there had watched the debates assuming that Ms. Clinton couldn't lose. This time they watched trying to figure out how Mr. Trump could have won."

To many performance-goers, the female Trump was likable, while the male Clinton was not.

For spectators of American politics, these results provide much material for digestion. At first blush, disentangling reactions to the experiment feels almost overwhelmingly complicated. But does it have to be that way?

Maybe it's simple. When you analyze everything through the prism of identity politics, your vision is clouded.

Because of the dominant perception that Clinton was unlikable, liberal supporters saw her as a victim of persistent sexism. When they experienced a man using her same words and embodying her same mannerisms, they saw the unlikability. If you remove the lens of presumed sexism, you see what everyone else sees.

Similarly, the Left complained that Trump's masculinity allowed him to get away with bluster and pomposity. But the female Trump in NYU's experiment got away with that same behavior just fine.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Three years later, the 2014 bill is a proven failure when it comes to disciplining VA employees.

03/10/17 12:01 AM

Because liberals' standard package of presumptions about gender colored their perceptions of both candidates, they were left incapable of making accurate evaluations.

Truthfully, this experiment seems more like a lesson in how assumptions about gender impede our ability to understand reality, rather than inform it.

In an email to the Washington Examiner, American Enterprise Institute scholar Christina Hoff Sommers mused, "I'm not so sure this NYU play is a lesson about gender but about authenticity."

Sommers, an expert in gender and feminism who did not support Trump, assessed the results by explaining, "Mr. Trump whatever his failings spoke his mind. He was spontaneous, uncensored and funny. Tom Wolfe called him a 'lovable megalomaniac.' Ms. Clinton came off as scripted, focus-grouped, and supercilious."

"That's hard to love in either sex," Sommers concluded.

Also from the Washington Examiner

The Office of Government Ethics reached out within hours of statements by Trump and Conway.

03/09/17 11:37 PM

Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Original post:
Liberals discover the limits of Clinton's likability - Washington Examiner

Washington Times

See no evil: Liberals refuse to see themselves as hypocrites Washington Times For too long, the liberal left has been hiding behind a guise of compassion and inclusivity. They claim to care about the forgotten man and pretend to have tolerance for people of all backgrounds, races, religions and political beliefs. Yet, time and ... 3 cops, pepper spray used in arrest of Sen. Tim Kaine's son near Trump rally at CapitolTwinCities.com-Pioneer Press Sen. Tim Kaine's son among several arrested after protesters disrupt Trump rally in MinnesotaWashington Post all 166 news articles »

Here is the original post:
See no evil: Liberals refuse to see themselves as hypocrites - Washington Times

Senator Jeff Flake from Arizona is one Republican whom Democrats would have to unseat in 2018 to gain a majority.

Donald Trump won the White House and Republicans hold majorities in the US House and Senate, but Democrats have held out hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

History suggests that by the time the midterm elections come along, the party not holding the White House will make significant gains. Just as Republicans took over Congress in 1994 and 2010 two years into a new presidents term, so too would Democrats take over Congress in 2018 and push back on Trumps agenda.

Advertisement

That isnt likely to happen.

Democrats need a tremendous amount to go right politically next year for them to even have a shot at a majority in either house of Congress.

Get Political Happy Hour in your inbox:

Your afternoon shot of politics, sent straight from the desk of Joshua Miller.

Consider the Senate. It is possible that in the history of the country, a party has never been so close to a majority Democrats need to flip just three seats yet so far away from actually getting it.

Counting the two independents who caucus with Democrats, Republicans have a 52-to-48 advantage. In 2018, there are 34 seats up for reelection. Twenty-five of them are those who caucus with Democrats and just nine are Republicans. Among the 25 Democrats (and independents) up for reelection, 10 are running in states that Trump won last year.

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report lists 15 of the 34 Senate contests as competitive. Democrats currently hold 13 of those 15 competitive seats.

Advertisement

Just breaking even with things the way they are would be a huge accomplishment for Democrats, said Kyle Kondik, who analyzes Senate races at the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

The path to a Democratic Senate majority would mean the following would have to happen:

All 13 Democratic incumbents running for reelection in competitive seats would have to win.

Both Republicans incumbents running for reelection in competitive seats (Arizonas Jeff Flake and Nevadas Dean Heller) would have to lose. Trump won Arizona by almost 15 percentage points.

Democrats would have to defeat a Republican incumbent from one of seven deeply Republican states. The best shot among this group is Ted Cruz in Texas.

Put another way: For Democrats to win the Senate, they have to go a perfect 16-0, which includes Democrats winning in North Dakota, Montana, Indiana, Missouri, and, yes, Texas.

Tom Lopach, who headed up the Senate Democrats campaign arm in 2016, said that while the map looks tough, when you look at the particular Democratic candidates, these are people who know their states backwards and forwards and who have run hard and smart races that they have won before.

This still isnt even addressing how Democrats could win in Texas. The last time a Democrat won a Senate contest there was in 1988.

Harvey Kronberg, who has edited a Texas political newsletters for nearly 30 years, said in 2018 a Democratic win is a long shot at best.

While Ted Cruz has faced a lot of criticism from Republicans for not endorsing Trump and among the local business community because he has been so focused on national politics, right now you have to assume he will win the Republican nomination and reelection, Kronberg said. Democrats remain disorganized, and the national party would have to spend a lot of money here. Even then, he said, it would be difficult.

Still Democrats can take solace on two points. First, even if Democrats dont have 50 seats, it is also unlikely that Republicans will have the 60 seats they need to overcome a filibuster. Second, as UVAs Kondik noted, Democrats might have a better shot at taking over the House, but fewer seats there are in play than have been in the past, according to analysts.

There are also two factors that could work in either partys favor. So far, no incumbents up for reelection have announced they will retire. Also 2018 could be a wave year, especially given that Trump has had historically low approval ratings so far.

I expect 2018 will be similar to 2006 in that voters will be frustrated with sloppy governing and Hurricane Katrina moments from Trump, which will help Democratic candidates, Lopach, the Democratic strategist, said.

For Democrats to have big gains in 2018, it will take that kind of environment.

See the rest here:
For Democrats, 2018 won't be easy - The Boston Globe

As of early Friday morning, a new political bookremained perched at the top of Amazons bestsellers list: Reasons to Vote for Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide by Daily Wire managing editor Michael J. Knowles.

The book, published Feb. 8, is described as the most exhaustively researched and coherently argued Democrat Party apologia to date and a political treatise sure to stand the test of time.

Its cover is a stately white and features the image of a donkey colored by the American flag. An endorsement by Daily Wire editor in chief Ben Shapiro calls the bookthorough.

If Democrats copied and pasted the contents of this book into their national platform they could become unstoppable, read one user review. Exhaustive, yet concise, treatment of the reasons to vote for Democrats. I thoroughly enjoyed this book and recommend it as a teaching tool for any potential voter. This book is truly unparalleled, read another.

Riveting from cover to cover, read a third.

A peek inside finds a quote from Thucydides, and a table of contents with such lofty chapters as Foreign Policy, Civil Rights and Homeland Security.

What follows next are roughly 260 blank pages, save for the books title printed atop each.The going list priceis $9.99.

This shouldnt come as a surprise. The Daily Wire, after all, is a deeply conservative website, featuring articles such Illegal Immigrant Charged With Beheading Own Mother With Butcher Knife and The Trump Is A Russian Plant! Case Is Falling Apart. Here Are 4 Things You Need To Know.

On Thursday, Knowles appeared on Fox & Friends, andsaid: Whats really great about this book, you can go cover-to-cover in about 15, 20 seconds.

It took a very long time to research this book, he said. Ive been observing the Democratic Party for at least 10 years now and when I observed their record and reasons to vote for them on reasons of economics or foreign policy or homeland security or civil rights and so on I realized it was probably best to just leave all the pages blank.

When I started researching the book and going through this exhaustive study process, at first I turned to the 2012 Democratic National Convention, and it turned out they were deciding whether or not to include God in their party platform, Knowles said. And the Democrats booed God. Thats not good. So I decided probably if Im going to make a good case to vote for Democrats, probably just leave that chapter blank.

During the vote, boos can be heard, which led conservative news outlets such as Fox to run headlines like Democrats Boo God, Jerusalem.

Though it might be a novelty item, the book seems to be flying off the shelves.

Not wanting to miss out on the action, the Democrats appear to haveresponded with a missive of their own. Reasons To Vote For Republicans: A Captivating Interpretation by Char Daley, just published.

You can guess whats inside.

More from Morning Mix

Ben Carson told HUD staff he could zap their brains into reciting verbatim books read 60 years ago. What?

Mark Levin has warned before of Obamas silent coup. Now he has a follower in the Oval Office.

17 migrants crossing into Canada rescued in blizzard, as mounting numbers desperately flee U.S

Follow this link:
'Reasons to Vote for Democrats' jumps to the top of Amazon's bestseller list. But its pages are blank. - Washington Post