Mediaboss Marketing

No Democrat in the House of Representatives did what Cheri Bustos did last November. She wasnt the sole member of her party to win in a congressional district Donald Trump also tookthere were 11 othersbut she was the only one to post a 20-point landslide, and she did it in agricultural, industrial, blue-collar northwestern Illinois. In the kind of place where Hillary Clinton lost big last fall and where Democrats have been losing in droves for the last decade, Bustos has done just the opposite. A former newspaper reporter, the wife of a county sheriff and the mother of three grown sons, the 55-year-old third-term representative has won by wider margins every time shes run. And this past election, she notched victories not only in the urban pockets she representsRock Island and Moline of the Quad Cities, plus pieces of Rockford and Peoriabut in all her rural counties, too. If Democrats are going to wrest control of the House from Republicans, argue many party strategists, its going to happen in large part by doing more of whatever it is Bustos is doing three hours west of Chicago in her nearly 7,000-square-mile district of small towns and soybean fields.

We ought to be studying Cheri Bustos, Democratic consultant Mark Longabaugh, a senior adviser in Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, told me recently.

Story Continued Below

So twice in the first four months of this year, I traveled to her district to watch her work. In January, on a frigid Saturday the week before Trumps inauguration, I accompanied her in a silver, staffer-driven Ford Taurus, as she donned a yellow hard hat and installed an air filter in a locomotive in Galesburg (the latest in a regular series of appearances she calls Cheri on Shift), stationed herself in a grocery store produce section to introduce herself to customers at a Hy-Vee in Canton (Supermarket Saturdays) and swung by a pub in Peoria to talk with a group of activist women. And last month, on a rainy Wednesday, I joined her again, when she put on a pair of safety goggles for a tour of an aerospace factory in Rockford and met with the mayor of Rock Falls, population 9,266.

Left: Cheri spotwelding on a pickup truck at Daves Auto Body in Galesburg, Illinois. Right: Cheri on a forklift at KMI Packaging and Exporting in Pekin, Illinois. Cheri previously earned her certification as a forklift driver. | Cheri Bustos' Office

The Bustos blueprint, she told me in January as the Taurus dodged raccoon road kill outside a speck of a village called Maquon, is rooted in unslick, face-to-face politicking. She shows up. She shakes hands. She asks questionsa lot of questions. Dont talk down to peopleyou listen, she stressed. When she does talk, she talks as much as she can about jobs and wages and the economy and as little as she can about guns and abortion and other socially divisive issueswhich, for her, are no-win conversations, she explained. And at a time when members of both parties are being tugged toward their respective ideological poles, the more center-left Bustos has picked her spots to buck such partisanship. Shes a pro-choice Catholic and an advocate for limited gun control, but she has supported the Keystone pipeline and called for improvements to Barack Obamas imperfect Affordable Care Act. Its worked. Shes the only Democratic member of the Illinois congressional delegation from outside Chicagoland.

Rick Jasculca, a Chicago-based Democratic political consultant who worked in the administrations of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, told me he considers Bustos the future of the party.

She offers something the party needs, in a region of the country where it needs it desperately, said Robin Johnson, a political science professor at Monmouth College in Monmouth, Illinois, and one of Bustos closest confidants. If youre going to get back to a majority in the House, youre going to have to win some rural areasand all this comes through the Midwest.

Democratic leaders seem to acknowledge thisthat Bustos could help them build back a geographically broader electoral appeal. In the aftermath of the partys crushing defeats of 2016, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi chose Bustos to be a co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, after which she was elected by her peers. Her assignment is to teach other members of her caucus essentially how to talk to people like the shoppers she encounters by the bananas at the Hy-Vee. In some ways this was a confirmation of an existing though less formal role. Bustos, the single Midwesterner in House Democratic Leadership, already was a co-chair of the Red to Blue initiative of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and now shes ramping up her role in the organizations rural and heartland outreach efforts. Her national television and radio appearances have spiked. Shes been dubbed one of the partys rising stars.

It remains to be seen, though, whether her partys most powerful shot-callers ultimately will actually implement key tactics of hers in time for the 2018 midterms. Democratic Congressman Ron Kind, whos won for 20 years in western Wisconsin in a district Trump won, too, talked in an interview of a growing openness and willingness in the caucus to incorporate some of what has worked for Bustos and others like herKind ran unopposed last yearbut he worries, he told me, about his party succumbing to the temptation to lurch to the left in response to Trump. Congressman Rick Nolan of Minnesota, another of the dozen Trump-district Democrats, lamented his colleagues general lack of interest in tapping into the expertise of the few who have won in Upper Midwest. I could count, easily, on one hand, Nolan told me, the number of candidates for public office from the Democratic Party whove come up to me and said, you know, How did you do that? One of them, he added, was Bustos. Democrats, said Denny Heck, the congressman from Washington who has worked with Bustos on Red to Blue, would very considerably benefit if they listened to her. Bustos recently met with new Democratic National Committee boss Tom Perez, which her office saw as a starting point in what she and her staff hope will be an ongoing discussion.

This is a moment, of course, of existential angst for Democrats. Theyre unified mainly by their antipathy toward Trump. Beyond that, theyre grappling with the much more complicated calculus of whether to focus on stoking the Trump-hating base or re-embrace a more moderate approach and earn back the votes of traditional Democrats theyve leached practically everywhere but cities and the coasts. Ben Ray Lujan, the New Mexico congressman who heads the DCCC, is clear about where he stands on this. I can assure you, he said when we talked last week, that the direction Im giving is that we need to go back and re-establish trust and earn trust with people all over the country, including rural and blue-collar Americans. But what has made Bustos in particular so successful in her rural, blue-collar district is also what at times has caused friction and consternation in Washington. Not everybody she works with thinks shes a part of the solution for their partys woes.

Memorabilia lines Bustos congressional office in the Longworth House Office Building. | M. Scott Mahaskey/POLITICO

You better have thick skin after youre elected, because youre going to have members of your caucus who are upset with you that youre not voting straight party line, she told me not long ago in her office on Capitol Hill, sitting in front of a John F. Kennedy poster while drinking coffee from an Abraham Lincoln mug.

Ive had fellow members who are very upset with me, she continued. Ive had somebody say, Are you even a Democrat?

She wouldnt tell me who that was. She just said she told the person shes been a Democrat her whole life. But maybe, she said, Im a little bit of a different kind of Democrat.

I asked if she feels like shes being listened toif she thinks her model will be embraced and implemented elsewhere. Bustos, whos dispositionally cheerful, highly competitive and eager to share, did not respond with an unqualified yes.

Theres people who think weve got to just work on the baseright?and get people fired up, and thats going to get us to 218. I dont, she said. I dont think thats going to get us to 218. I think whats going to get us to 218 is to understand these tough districts where we have not done well.

She cited as evidence last months special election in Kansas. The Democrat won Wichita but lost everywhere else. That candidate bombed in all those rural areas, Bustos said bluntly. If he just didnt bomb in those rural areas, we couldve won that.

***

If you reverse-engineered a Democrat capable of winning in Illinois 17th congressional district at this anti-elitist, politically volatile time, you couldnt do a whole lot better than Bustos.

Shes the granddaughter of a hog farmer who was a state legislator, a Democrat from a small, out-of-the-way and predominantly Republican county in eastern Illinois. Shes the daughter of the late Gene Callahan, a onetime political reporter for the Springfield Registerthe afternoon newspaper at the time in the state capitalwho left journalism to become a top aide to legendary Illinois Democratic lawmakers Paul Simon and Alan Dixon. Simon and Dixon, and a young Dick Durbin, too, were regulars at her house, talking politics around the kitchen table of her childhood.

Before she graduated from the University of Maryland with a degree in political science and from the University of Illinois at Springfield with a masters in journalism, she went to Illinois College, where she played volleyball and basketball and was picked as the MVP for both as well as the schools top female-student athlete. Her high school basketball coach told me Bustos was a ferocious rebounder thanks to a willingness to scrap and a knack for knowing where the ball was going to be.

Bustos plays catch with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz to warm up for softball practice on May 4. | M. Scott Mahaskey/POLITICO

She moved in 1985 to the Quad Cities to be a night-shift police reporter for the Quad-City Times. Her starting salary was $16,500 a year. She drove a white Plymouth Horizon hatchback and had a Goodwill couch and a dog named Kibble. Early on, the former Cheri Callahan met a young deputy sheriff named Gerry Bustos, a Quad Cities local, at a bar called the Lil Cowbell. They married quickly, raised their three sons in East Moline and carved out Friday nights for family dinners at Franks Pizza in nearby Silvis, where the walls are white cinder blocks and the only salad on the menu is a plate of iceberg lettuce.

After 17 years at the newspapershe also covered city hall and was an editor and an investigative reporter who zeroed in on abuses allowed by the state Department of Children and Family ServicesBustos spent a decade working in corporate communications and public relations for a pair of major regional health care companies. Health care is very, very complicated, she learned, but her time at Trinity and Unity Point Health was a tutorial in the sprawling, complicated sector of the economy that would come to be the core of the nations bitter political fight.

She works her butt off, said Bill Leaver, her boss and mentor at both companies.

Until 9, 10 oclock at night nearly every single day, and I mean that, said Gerry Bustos, who exercises at the Two Rivers YMCA every morning at 4:30along with his wife when Congress isnt in session.

And in the winter of 2006 and 2007, for the first time in her life, Bustos ran for officea bid to be an alderwoman in East Moline. The ground was so frozen during the campaign her husband used a drill to make holes for signs, while she wore long underwear and a thick brown down coat and knocked on every door twiceregardless of party affiliation. Because why would a Republican not vote for me? she said.

***

Illinois 17th district over the last generation has leaned Democratic, buoyed by organized laborbut the linchpin manufacturing industries are stressed, dealing with reinvention or outright elimination. The local nexus of this painful, systemic change is Galesburg, where 5,000 steady, relatively well-paying jobs vanished when a Maytag factory moved to Mexico. That was in 2002. The town still hasnt recovered. Johnson, the Monmouth professor who is Bustos friend and adviser, sees it as ground zero in this battle over globalization. And the Democrats in Galesburg and around the area as a whole are not liberal in the least, he explainednot latte Democrats but beer-and-shot Democrats, with pickup trucks with shotgun racks. A significant swath of voters in the district prize their independence and pragmatism and make their political picks based on the person rather than the party, said Chad Broughton, the author of Boom, Bust, Exodus, a book about Maytag, Galesburg and the region. They want to hear from Democrats, but they generally feel like theyve been abandoned by Democratson trade deals, on bread-and-butter economic considerations and in a perceived shift to the left in the overall culture. And in the 17th District in 2010, a year in which more than two dozen centrist Democrats got voted out of Congress, Bobby Schilling, a pizza shop owner, rode the national tide and edged out the incumbent Democrat Phil Hare.

But the political reorientation didnt stick in northwestern Illinoison account of Bustos. In 2012, she beat Schillingbecause of redistricting that added parts of more Democrat-friendly Rockford and Peoria, because Obama was on the ballot and made for a more favorable national turnout, and because she was assiduous in talking about jobs, agriculture and infrastructure while steering clear of the flashpoint social issues. In her victory speech at the Rock Island Holiday Inn, she told supporters she intended to reach across the aisle in Washington. People just want to succeed, she said, and government can help.

In 2014, she beat Schilling againand her margin went up, from seven points to 11. Then, last November, with Trump triumphing due to his pledges to bring back lost jobs, and with Bustos endorsing Clinton, she nonetheless tightened her grip on the district, trouncing GOP challenger Patrick Harlan. A fifth of the people in her district who voted for Trump also voted for her.

She was getting white male voters when they were abandoning our party in rural America, said Doug House, the Rock Island County Democratic Party chair and the president of the Illinois Democratic County Chairmens Association. They were for Trumpand they were for her. She was connecting with them.

The key in these districts, said Kind, the congressman from Wisconsin, is you have to be able to connect with your constituents on a basic-value level, so they understand that you get them.

Joe Manchin, the senator from West Virginia who consistently has won as a Democrat in a state that voted overwhelmingly for Trump, told me Bustos has been able to win because of a certain likeability factor and an intangible authenticity. Cheris real, Manchin said.

Bustos talks with Rep. Rick Nolan (D-Minn) following an Agricultural Committee hearing on May 3. | M. Scott Mahaskey/Politico

Bustos sits on the House Committee on Agriculture and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. She toggles deftly between unions and chambers of commerce. Shes been endorsed by the Illinois Farm Bureau, and the Illinois Sierra Clubnot easy to do, she said. She organizes an annual economic summit at Augustana College in Rock Island, and she spent last August trekking around her district on what her office titled a 21st Century Heartland Tour. Last fall, she was noncommittal about how she would have voted on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, but she called it a tough one for me, given the state of industry in her district. We have been hit very, very hard in this part of the state of Illinois, and in the state of Illinois, she told the Quad-City Times in 2015, because of what I would call bad trade deals.

Less than a month after her 2016 win, Bustos discussed this in an interview on NPR.

We have been the party of working-class men and women for the entire history of our party, Bustos said. My dad raised us to say if it werent for organized labor and the Democratic Party, there wouldnt be a middle class. I believe that. But weve got to go where people are. And weve got to listen.

***

Watch the pinch points, one of the workers told her at the locomotive repair factory in Galesburg in January, as Bustos gamely (but not quite successfully) attempted to insert the large air filter while wearing the yellow hard hat and an orange safety vest that paired awkwardly with her gold hoop earrings.

What am I doing wrong? Bustos asked.

An employee gave the filter a final necessary nudge and told Bustos she had done well for her first time. The bright white gloves she had been given were black with soot and grime.

Cheri on Shift feels a little like a gimmick. In the most simplistic, play-the-game, political sense, its a photo op. At this one, I wasnt the only reporter. There also was a local public radio correspondent. But what was different about this Cheri on Shift photo op was the patter of her questions. It was constant. She quizzed the supervisors leading the tour and the employees we encountered. What do you do here? How long have you been with the company? Do you like it? Can you support your family? Can you go on vacation? Who works here? Who do you like hiring? You guys like hiring farm kids? How long does it take to train for one of these jobs? Anything else on your minds?

Being present mattersthats how DCCCs Lujan put it when we talked. Cheri gets that, he said.

Bustos doing a beekeeping shift at Beacon Woods Farm in Peoria, Illinois. | Cheri Bustos' Office

Its more than presence, from what I observed. Bustos in essence reports the story of her district so she can better tell it back in Washington. In the Taurus, I asked her how she talks about the thorniest subjects for her, and for any Democrat in a district like the 17th of Illinois. How, I wanted to know, does she talk about the issues that her party sometimes thinks are most importantbut that her constituents see differently?

I started with guns.

I say, My husband carries a gun on his hiphes the sheriff of Rock Island County. All my sons own guns. I own a gun. But weve got to be reasonable about this, she said to me. I say, All I want to do is make sure people who are deranged or on a terrorist watch list dont have guns. Thats how I talk about it.

And abortion?

I dont try to change their mind, she said. Im Catholic, so I understand their views. Im pro-choice, buthere she shifted the subject with me, the way she says she does with othersthats not what most people are talking about. Most people are talking about jobs.

She talks, in other words, about these kinds of things by not talking about them much, because the people she represents, she says, arent talking about them much, either, or dont want to.

On these sensitive topics, she saidBlack Lives Matter, transgender bathroom laws and so onI dont dwell on them.

Bustos has said to me several times that she considers members of Congress independent practitioners, free in their districts to do what they think is best for themselves and their constituents. But the flexibility intrinsic in this approach butts up before long against the heightened rigidity of the expectations of the party nationally. Witness the recent occurrence of Perez, the DNC chair, endorsing a pro-life mayoral candidate in Omaha, Nebraska, only to backtrack after blowback from pro-choice advocates. Bustos, though she had been tapped to help the party in spots like northwestern Illinois, was not the pick to respond to Trump after his joint session speech at the end of February.

Robin Johnson from Monmouth watched former Kentucky governor Steve Beshear handle the Democratic Partys responsedelivered from a Lexington diner, closed, darkened and quiet but filled with citizens set up at tables as stock-still props. The content of what Beshear said hit the appropriate populist notes on health care and jobs, but it elicited mixed reviews. Johnson, for one, was baffled not only by the odd dose of stagecraft but the selection of the person to deliver the messagean old name, not a new face.

Why not Cheri Bustos? Johnson told me. During Beshears remarks, he said, he sent Bustos a text message. I said, Jeez, you should be the one giving this response.

***

Being a centrist doesnt mean being an enemy collaborator. In Washington in late April, in her Capitol Hill office, Bustos smiled, drank from her Abe Lincoln mug and verbally thrashed President Trump.

This was three months after I had watched Bustos at the pub in Peoria say in an interview with a local TV reporter that she would give him the benefit of the doubt.

A week before our meeting in Washington, though, I sat in the front row of a panel at the Institute of Politics in Chicago and listened to Bustos say people in her district who had tried Trumpthats how she phrased itat this point were expressing a lot of concern. She didnt stutter when she pronounced his first 100 days a disaster.

And the day before, in a news conference, she said the passage of the Trump-pushed health care legislation would be like ripping out the beating heart of rural America.

Now, sitting across from me in her office, Bustos practically was taunting Trump.

Man, she said, if I were president of the United States in my first 100 days, Id want to have a lot of winsand, you know, I wouldnt want to have wins that I have to lie about. She scoffed at his multiple claims of unprecedented accomplishment in his administrations first few months. Its like, Did you ever study history?

But the calamity of his presidency to this point, Bustos thinks, presents an opportunity for Democrats, confident and poised to make up ground, to get to 218 in 2018but particularly, she believes, if they focus on winning districts like hers.

Could Bustos teach Democrats how to win again? Responding to that question of mine, she said she didnt want to sound stuck up, but what she has done, she pointed out, has worked.

What she has done challenges the purity-test fealty that has defined this era of historic and increasing polarization in Congress. Paying attention to the messages shes getting on the ground as much as to the talking points from above, she might say, shouldnt make her a traitor in the eyes of her party. To keep faith with both her constituents and the Democrats broader national aims is often less a question of the precise stance she is taking and more a question of how she puts it. In short, her blueprint for success is simply the freedom to make a call in the field.

Mine is just one way of doing things, she said. Im not saying its the only way or its absolutely the right way. Im not presumptuous enough or arrogant enough to think that I have all the answers or that mine is the way to go. Im not saying that at all.

And yet

Im just saying, she said, that in a district that Donald Trump wonand here is the closest the classically Midwest-nice native of Illinois came to a boastI won by 20 points.

The competitive college team MVP in Congress, one of the star players and power hitters in the annual Congressional Womens Softball Game, wants to help her side.

That is what I want to share, she said. This is whats worked for us, and maybe it will work for you, and heres how you can execute.

She looked at mereally, though, she was looking at, and speaking to, the whole Democratic Party.

Heres our blueprint, Bustos said. You can have it.

Michael Kruse is a senior staff writer for Politico.

Read the original post:
The Secret Weapon Democrats Don't Know How to Use - POLITICO Magazine

Since President Donald Trump abruptly fired FBI director James Comey on Tuesday evening, the White House and its defenders have been claimingthat Trump was merely heeding the call of many Democratic politicians who had previously called for Comeys dismissal

The White Houses line of reasoning goes like this: Canning Comey was actually an instance of Trump trying to sing Kumbaya with the opposition. Thisclaim has been repeated by the president and his staff, as well as many rightleaning publications.

The Democrats have said some of the worst things about James Comey, including the fact that he should be fired, but now they play so sad! Trump tweeted on Wednesday morning.

Deputy White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders echoed the talking point later that same day during a news briefing.

Frankly, I think its startling that Democrats arent celebrating this since theyve been calling for it for so long, she said.

But this spin is false on two different levels.

First, Trump himself has statedthat he had decided to fire Comey on his owneven before he received a memorandum from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein citingComeys conduct during the FBIs investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clintons unauthorized private email server. The Kumbaya claims are completely false on that score alone.

Secondly, Democrats, by and large, did not callfor Comey to be fired before his termination.

In December 2016, in his final weeks before retirement, former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reidhastily agreed to the propositionthat Comey should resign. Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., appears to be the only currently serving Democratic legislator who had called for Comey to resign before Trump fired him, which he did in a November 2016 op-ed.

Other than those two exceptions, elected Democrats have not called for Comeys resignation, though a number said they hadlost trust in him after the former directordrew attention to himself in the waning days of the 2016 presidential campaign. As nearly everyone remembers, less than two weeks before the election, Comey told members of Congress that the FBI was reviewing newly-discovered emails from Clintons server. His announcement was a false alarm those emails turned out to be duplicates of messages the agency had already reviewed.

I do not have confidence in him any longer, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., now the leader of the upper chambers Democrats,said last year. The FBI director has no credibility, said Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., this past January.

Whether or not they were sincere in those expressions, the reality is that congressional Democratsdidnot ask for Trump to fire Comey. They might not have liked him, but plenty of them appeared to be willing to give him a chance to prove his nonpartisanship by spearheading the agencys criminal and counterespionage probes of Russian government involvement in computer hacking efforts against the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party.

But even if Democrats had called for Comeys head, such hypothetical demands would still haveno bearing on the appropriateness of President Trump deciding to fire the FBI director while his agency was in the middle of overseeing the potentially explosive Russia investigation.

One would expect Republicans to jump to defendtheir partys president like this, but even some members of the mainstream press have bought intothe Trump administrations superficial reasoning.

NBC reporter Peter Alexander, for instance, appeared to have swallowed the White House spin during a Wednesday interview with Rep. Waters.

So she [Clinton] should have fired him, but he [Trump] shouldnt fire him, Alexanderasked the congresswoman, in a highly contentious discussion during which he seemed unable to see the simple distinction.

This is why Im confused, Alexander said to Waters.

No, no, youre not confused, Waters responded, dropping a subtle hint that she believed the NBC reporter was being deliberately obtuse.

The California congresswoman then explained it as simply as possible:

The president of the United States who has a history of firing people who get close to him and his allies like [Michael] Flynn, and like Miss [Sally] Yates he will fire them if he believes somehow theyre getting too close to him in these investigations. I believe that the president of the United States should not have done this in the middle of an investigation. Thats it.

That is indeed it.

Being able to distinguish relatively simple nuance is not hypocrisy. News reporters shouldnt allow such facile spin to go unchecked.

Continue reading here:
Democrats aren't hypocrites on Comey: Trump's firing of the FBI director is cause for outrage - Salon

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

The 2018 election is still 543 days away. But already, it seems clear that Democrats are poised to sweep Republicans out of power in the House. And if President Trump keeps up his tripartite trainwreck of monstrous policy, abuse of power, and addle-brained babbling, any sentient being with a D after their name should be able to stomp Trump in 2020.

However, as I argued yesterday:

Democrats' goals must be bigger than Trump himself. If they are to defuse the threat of Trumpism, and help cure the rot within the Republican Party, they must win not only in 2018 and 2020, but again and again and again and use the power thus gained to cement their own grip on government and to restore civic health to the whole population.

How can Democrats do that? They can start by learning the proper lessons from their failures in the Obama years.

Many liberals thought that after the disastrous failure of the Bush presidency they were in for a generation of political dominance, like Democrats after the Great Depression or Republicans after the Civil War. But their moment in the sun lasted a mere two years.

They lost in 2010 because they failed to understand both the nature of their political opponents and the nature of the policy problems they faced. In 2008, most Democrats disastrously misread the state of the political terrain, and none more so than Barack Obama. Instead of seeing the obvious truth that Republicans were increasingly nutty fanatics who hated his guts, and who win elections by basically cheating he bent over backwards again and again to try to get Republican votes, and only narrowly avoided disaster. Neither he nor the rest of the party even considered very obvious (and perfectly fair) moves to backstop their own power, like making D.C. a state (all but guaranteeing the party one House and two Senate seats in perpetuity), or making voter registration automatic (which just sharply increased turnout among Democratic-leaning demographics in Oregon), or making Election Day a holiday, or a voting rights amendment, or other such ideas. Democrats can't even properly counter-gerrymander states they control.

Similarly, it failed to sink in that being the party in power during an economic calamity you fail to fix is the number one way to get wrecked in the next election. The party did manage to pass a large stimulus package. But it was not nearly big enough. And quickly repossessed by idiotic Beltway nonsense about budget deficits, the party was pivoting to austerity by early 2010, with unemployment still brushing double digits. Instead of breaking up concentrated economic power, the government largely sat back and allowed Wall Street to continue to roll up whole markets into tyrannical oligopolies. Worst of all, Obama by himself could have prevented nearly all of 9 million fraudulent foreclosures. He chose not to enforce the law.

Is it any wonder that Trump was able to marshal the anger of much of America's beleaguered working class?

To this day most Democrats do not grasp that even the pre-2008 economic status quo was awful for a great many Americans. The crisis of economic inequality is still largely treated as a boutique issue, ranked below growth or "equality of opportunity," or other such hoary centrist notions. In reality, inequality means the country is failing to function for much of its citizenry: Millions of people are working many hours for little pay, unable to afford child care or a higher education, or going up to their necks in debt for a worthless degree, or being bankrupted by medical debt despite being insured, and on and on. People are dying by the tens of thousands of diseases of despair suicide, opioid overdoses, alcoholism, and so forth.

The general wretchedness of American life today has helped create an angry, restless, and bitter population. Many simply give up on politics, while others are increasingly willing to listen to previously fringe voices on the left and right some, like Trump, horrible bigots. It is not the only factor behind Trump's success, but it is an important one and one firmly within the grasp of federal policy.

Now Republicans are in charge, and they're doing their level best to make everything worse as fast as they can. Unless they cheat so badly as to erase the last fragments of American democracy altogether, chances are pretty good that they will be knocked out of power in the House in 2018 just like the Democrats were in 2010, for the same reason: They have failed to make the country function on behalf of the people.

But if Democrats are to avoid the same fate once more, they must take steps to restore a decent quality of life to every American, without exception. By all means, the 2018 and 2020 campaigns should include a large measure of railing against Trump's brazen corruption and abuse of power, and if Democrats win they should undoubtedly figure out the truth about Trump and Russia. But as I have outlined before, once they take control, they must do better than fiddly little tax credits and jerry-rigged private insurance markets. America has enormous problems that demand bold, sweeping solutions. Fiddling with the knobs of centrist policy simply will not do.

Read more:
How Democrats can roar back - The Week Magazine

New York Times

In New Jersey, Democrats Hope No Good Health Care Compromise Goes Unpunished New York Times Less than a week after Representative Tom MacArthur helped legislation that would repeal the Affordable Care Act clear a gridlocked House, he faced hundreds of outraged constituents and protesters on Wednesday in his district's Democratic stronghold. and more »

The rest is here:
In New Jersey, Democrats Hope No Good Health Care Compromise Goes Unpunished - New York Times

In this weeks politics chat, we sift through all the different lessons Democrats are taking from the 2016 election. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

micah (Micah Cohen, politics editor): Theres been a sudden resurgence of post-mortems on the 2016 presidential election. So todays plan is to discuss the various conclusions that have been floating around. But lets talk through them specifically in regards to what lessons Democrats should learn heading into 2018 and 2020.

Everyone got that?

clare.malone (Clare Malone, senior political writer): jksdfbdsafbskdf

harry (Harry Enten, senior political writer): Sounds like a blast.

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): Its a retreat to move forward, so to speak.

micah: Exactly.

OK, so question No. 1: Lots of people think Hillary Clinton ran too much of an anti-Trump campaign, as opposed to running on an affirmative vision for the country. Do we think thats true? Do Democrats need a vision for 2018 and 2020? Or can they win just by running against Trump? (With the latest James-Comey-firing imbroglio, for example, there seems like plenty of material for Democrats to run on.)

natesilver: For 2018, an anti-Trump/anti-GOP message should suffice. For 2020, theyll need that plus something more affirmative.

micah: What makes you say that?

clare.malone: There are governors races in 2018; dont Democrats need an affirmative message in those?

harry: We do know that Clinton ran a very negative campaign. At least on television. That didnt work. Or, it didnt work well enough. Midterms can be very different, however. Theyre usually a referendum on the incumbent president. That said, the relationship between a presidents approval rating and the midterm results is not as strong as you might think.

natesilver: PARTIES DONT HAVE BROAD, SWEEPING VISIONS AT MIDTERMS.

micah: Contract With America.

natesilver: Thats the only example, Micah. Think of another.

Go ahead.

Please proceed, governor.

micah: Democrats ran on an anti-war, anti-corruption message in 2006. That was a pretty consistent message nationally.

clare.malone: What if were in a new time, MAKING HISTORY, Nate? Isnt there room to think that this might be a new paradigm? (Points for buzzword, right?!)

natesilver: You might need an affirmative message if you were running against a super-popular Dwight D. Eisenhower-type of president and trying to make the case for why he needed some constraints on his power anyway. But the Democrats are running against Donald Trump. And Republicans already control both branches of Congress, in addition to the presidency. Its not a hard argument to make.

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): I have never thought that Clinton lost because she lacked a more positive message. Lots of people agreed with Trumps core message that the country is struggling, Washington needs to be shaken up. And he appealed to cultural/racial concerns in a way that she couldnt. Im not sure a more focused economic message, whatever that means, would have won Clinton Wisconsin, for example.

And I think 2006, 2010, 2014 all showed that running largely against the incumbent president is fine for midterms.

natesilver: Im not sure its true either, but I think this topic (whether Clinton needed a more positive message) has actually been a bit under-studied, relative to other causes of Clintons defeat. She was a pretty big outlier in terms of having so few non-negative ads. And whether this was the right decision or not, it probably had more impact than whether she visited Wisconsin, for instance.

harry: One of the questions that I havent seen answered is whether running against Trump could work merely because Democrats are fired up. Or whether they will need to win over Trump voters. Right now, the generic ballot suggests that Democrats wont have that hard of a time convincing people to vote against Trump.

perry: People wanted to vote for Trump. Or enough of them, in the right areas. I think 2018/2020 are referendums on him. A 10-point plan on X is fine. But it will be ignored.

Who among us has read Chris Murphys foreign policy vision?

Or Elizabeth Warrens new book?

micah: Who hasnt!?

Pop quiz: Whats the title of Warrens book?

natesilver: Im not sure Ive ever read a book written by a politician. Or at least not a my vision sort of book.

perry: This Fight Is Our Fight. I read it last week. Raise?

micah: At FiveThirtyEight, you actually get your pay docked for reading that kind of book.

perry: Murphy says we should double the foreign aid and diplomacy budget.

micah: Thats a winning message for sure.

natesilver: This Fight Is Your Fight. This Fight Is Our Fight. From California. To The New York Islands.

harry: One under-studied group is people who voted for neither Clinton nor Trump and voted for a Democrat or Republican for the House in 2016. Third-party votes made up about 3 percentage points more of the presidential than the House vote. If Democrats can win a good chunk of those in 2018, it could help them out on the margins.

perry: Right. Its not clear Democrats need to win many Trump voters next year.

micah: OK, question No. 2: Do Democrats need a message or plan that appeals to white working-class voters?

clare.malone: They need a message that appeals to all working-class voters. We touched on this a little bit last chat (I think theyre starting to blur), but Democrats need a front-and-center message that is hard-core populist economics (or at least rhetorically), appeals to white, black and Latino voters, and puts identity politics on the back burner a little.

Thats the real talk. Its not that Democrats need to get rid of talking about identity politics which is what people always read but its an emphasis thing.

natesilver: Theres the issue that white working-class voters are overrepresented in swing states. And also in the House and (especially) the Senate, given that they have something of a rural bias.

perry: I think the empirical answer to this is not really, right? You can win through gains in the suburbs, among college-educated whites, etc. And according to a new study by the Public Religion Research Institute, the data suggests that white working-class voters are being moved to Republicans by Trump-style rhetoric such as Make America Great Again and a kind of cultural nostalgia. Democrats cant out-identity the Republicans on issues like limiting immigration.

micah: Trumps appeal to white voters along cultural resentment lines particularly on issues like immigration was huge, right? I mean, that was Clares thesis in The End Of A Republican Party.

perry: The PPRI study suggests that its not that Democrats talked about Black Lives Matter too much, but that Trump talked about the problems of illegal immigration just enough.

This is where the Bernie Sanders approach falls apart, to me.

If the issue is not Democrats talking about race too much, but that Republicans have found cultural issues that work or them, thats a more complicated issue. How do Democrats appeal to white-working class people worried about cultural issues/the growing diversity of the country, etc?

That is what PPRI was highlighting.

harry: I havent read the report as in depth as you have, Perry, but I tend to think that over the long run, these things balance each other out. That is, it may not be tomorrow that Democrats win over enough college-educated whites in the Sunbelt to offset losses among working-class white voters in the Northeast and Midwest. But eventually, these things tend to work out to a 50-50 nation. (For what its worth, the PPRI study is not the first to mention the idea that Democrats would lose ground among whites fearful of the growing diversity of the country. Its been long discussed in academia. Its just that 2016 was the first time we really saw it in action on a national scale.)

perry: My point, to say this bluntly, is that if winning white working-class voters is about culture, not economics, Im not sure what a Democratic message for them sounds like.

micah: Yeah, I cant imagine a majority of Democrats will start dog-whistling on race.

natesilver: This point is a little hard to articulate, but are we overrating how much choice Democrats have in this area? A party, like any other large group, is sort of made up of its constituent parts.

clare.malone: Nate, by that do you mean catering to local culture? Catering to the different factions of the party in different geographic regions?

natesilver: I mean, you basically have a party made up of (1) white urbanites; (2) some wealthy white suburbanites, especially women; (3) blacks; (4) Hispanics; (5) Asians.

I guess Im just asking whether these things are self-fulfilling to a certain extent. People look at the sorts of people who are Democrats and they say, Thats not me.

perry: Right.

micah: But Democrats are recruiting 2018 candidates as we speak. Dont they have some agency there?

harry: Candidates still matter in House elections. Youre probably not going to win in Wyoming if youre a Democrat, but you have a chance to pick off some interesting seats if you run the right people.

perry: Yes, they have some agency. Candidates do matter. Im suggesting, if I were recruiting candidates, I would spend less time on populism, more time on finding people with cultural ties to their areas.

To me, if we think Joe Biden would have done better than Clinton, we are talking about culture/identity, not populism. (Although I dont deny they are related.)

clare.malone: The most interesting lab for all this are state legislative elections.

micah: Why, Clare?

clare.malone: Thats where Democrats can test hypotheses of who might win or if their fate is sealed in certain places by demographics and a shifting culture.

natesilver: The party can and should be more inclusive. And that means finding the right candidate to compete in lots of red-leaning areas. And a big tent attitude that permits multiple messages at a time.

clare.malone: So you could take your chance and see whether or not a populist running in a more Trump-leaning area can actually sell something in the Democratic-brand. Or if hes just perceived as, I dunno, the liberal elites tool in such-and-such locality.

micah: OK next question: Do Democrats need a better media strategy?

(This is Nates question, so, Nate, please explain the thinking behind it.)

natesilver: Haha. I guess I meant two things by that.

The first component is that if were diagnosing what went wrong for Clinton, her media coverage was an important part of it, particularly the coverage of email related stories (including FBI Director James Comeys letter).

micah: Here we go

clare.malone: Please just see Nates 30-part series on this.

natesilver: So do Democrats need to push back more against the mainstream media when the mainstream media latches on to dumb narratives? It might feel unnatural for Democrats because the mainstream media like Democrats have a center-left orientation. But it was certainly a problem for Clinton.

micah: Clare, Nates series is a skimpy 10 parts at the moment.

perry: The greater media push back is already happening: See Bret Stephens. Or look at Neera Tandens Twitter feed. Democrats now constantly attack The New York Times.

natesilver: See, Id argue that the pushback against the NYT, et al., is healthy for Democrats. The mainstream media has a lot of different hang-ups and biases, one of which is a liberal/cosmopolitan bias. But another one is that they respond to people who work the refs, and the right has been much better about working the media referees than the center-left has for a long time.

micah: Hasnt the media gotten better about not getting bamboozled by criticism into slanting coverage? Remember when climate change was a both sides issue? Thats not the case anymore.

clare.malone:

natesilver: The Times just hired Bret Stephens, and MSNBC just hired George Will, so Im not sure that climate is the best example.

perry: Right.

micah: Lol.

Im talking news coverage, though.

harry: Id say Democrats did a pretty good job of getting a network like CNN to call Trump a liar on its chyron. Trump lies more than the average politician, but still. Isnt that a sign that Democrats can do a pretty job of working the refs too?

clare.malone: Whoa. Stop, guys. The Democrats didnt make CNN do that. Lets give journalism some credit.

harry: Oh, I disagree tremendously. CNN was giving Trump wall-to-wall coverage with little pushback. For a very long time. Im not saying CNNs own journalists didnt also fight back. But I think Democrats definitely worked the refs.

natesilver: CNN became a lot more sophisticated over the course of the campaign, which is not to say they dont still have problems.

perry: Jeffrey. Lord.

micah: I mean, there was a learning curve for everyone in covering Trump. Us included.

natesilver: For sure.

clare.malone: Again, Ill make my now-tired response: TV news was very different than other news in how they were covering Trump.

micah: Yeah, we really shouldnt lump them together. TV has much different incentives.

micah: OK, so we think Democrats should keep working the refs?

perry: This will not be fun as a reporter, but I think the Democrats should invest as much time bashing the media as the Republicans have.

natesilver: Another media question: Do Democrats need to deal with the social media environment, the alt-right, fake news, WikiLeaks and the like?

perry: Thats where I think Democrats will have trouble. There is going to be active resistance on the left to the kind of misleading, false, crazy media style of some of the right-wing sites. Fake news, or what have you, can be an effective political strategy. And is dangerous for democracy.

clare.malone: The Democratic Party is a bigger tent. Breitbart works because of the out-group mentality of many Republicans and their relative demographic homogeneity.

harry: Im not sure there would be that much resistance, at least based on my Twitter feed.

micah: With Trump in the White House, there definitely has seemed to be an uptick in liberal conspiracy theories. But I think Clares right that theres something about the left culturally that keeps that wing of the party more contained?

perry: Right.

clare.malone: Although, theyre certainly more activated these days.

micah: So to Nates question about whether Democrats need a strategy to combat that stuff do they? What would it be?

natesilver: Yes, they need a strategy. And, no, I dont have any idea what the strategy should be.

Excerpt from:
Will An Anti-Trump Message Be Enough For Democrats In 2018? - FiveThirtyEight