Mediaboss Marketing

ROSWELL, Ga. Republicans set to vote in a crucial special congressional election are sticking by President Trump and Karen Handel, the GOP nominee, unmoved by the daily drumbeat of scandal from the White House.

In interviews Wednesday, Republicans in this upscale Atlanta suburb said they weren't concerned about the Senate testimony of James Comey or implications that Trump acted improperly in firing him as FBI director because of a desire to kill an investigation into his possible Russia ties.

Although there is lingering discomfort with Trump's habit of opining and picking fights on Twitter, staunch Republicans here generally view the president as a Washington outsider who is learning on the job and will get better.

They expect he'll have more bumps in the road in the months ahead, but that isn't diminishing their support for him or, significantly, Handel, who is running to fill the area's vacant House seat in a toss-up campaign.

"He could tone down the tweets and put more emphasis on the issues. But the issues that he's pushing forward are issues I support," said Bob Anderson, 70, who voted for Ohio Gov. John Kasich in Georgia's 2016 Republican presidential primary. "I don't think that there's any pro-Russian agenda on the part of the Trump administration, and I think that's been demonstrated so far."

Comey was scheduled to testify Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee about the circumstances surrounding Trump's decision to dismiss him as FBI director.

In his opening statement publicized Wednesday, Comey suggested that Trump acted improperly in urging him to drop an investigation into Michael Flynn, a top Trump campaign surrogate and the president's former national security adviser, over his contacts with Russian officials.

That ongoing saga has engulfed Washington, and Trump's national approval ratings have taken a hit. Republicans working to elect Handel are concerned. Trump won the 6th Congressional District by only 1.5 points, even as Tom Price, now Health and Human Services secretary, was elected with more than 60 percent.

Indeed, Democrat Jon Ossoff narrowly led Handel in the latest polling averages with less than two weeks to go until the June 20 election. An Ossoff victory would send shockwaves through Washington. This suburban district, white collar, traditionally Republican but skeptical of Trump, is the sort Democrats have to win in 2018 to have a shot at a House takeover.

But traditional and reliable GOP voters remain satisfied with Trump and are motivated to participate, even though they would prefer more action from the Republican majorities on Capitol Hill. They're lining up behind Handel. Many, like Marie Shubert, 79, cast their vote early.

"She's a Republican, and we need all the help we can get in Washington," said Shubert, who backed Trump in the 2016 primary. "President Trump is doing OK. He's doing, as a matter of fact, very well. He's getting a lot of things done that are good for the country good for us. The Congress not so much. I'm very disappointed."

"They're taking so long with everything," she added. "Just like this Obamacare. I'm so disappointed because they had 10 years to fix it, and they always said they would fix it, and they always said they had a bill, but in the end they didn't."

The Washington Examiner spoke with a collection of Republican voters Wednesday afternoon while tagging along with a field canvasser volunteering in Roswell for the Congressional Leadership Fund, the GOP super PAC affiliated with House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

The wealthy community, with homes ranging from more than $100,000 to more than $1 million, is situated in the more conservative, northern end of the 6th District, which has been held by the GOP for four decades.

Fidelity to the Republican Party in this area is not surprising. The voters here are conservative and established, as compared with the more moderate Republican transplants to the area who live closer to downtown Atlanta.

But it's notable.

These are not the poor, thinly educated working-class voters so often associated as unshakably loyal to Trump. They own well-appointed homes, built on large lots adjacent to leafy streets.

As with the blue-collar voters credited with propelling Trump to victory in November, ethical clouds surrounding Comey's firing and the Russia investigation haven't diminished their enthusiasm for Trump and the potential they see in him.

Nearly five months in, Brenda Jimmerson, 70, gives Trump a grade of "middle of the road."

"But he's not a politician," she said. "It's his first time in office. He went into it for what I consider to be the right reasons. And if everybody that takes a new job starts out perfectly takes a new job, I would be surprised."

Jimmerson's main complaint? "Some of his tweets need to be contained," she said.

See original here:
Republican voters sticking with Trump ahead of James Comey ... - Washington Examiner

In the aftermath of the DNC unapologetically rigging its primaries against progressive Bernie Sanders supporters in 2016, a growing number of progressives and young voters are choosing to leave the Democratic Party, citing what they describe as irreparable corruption. Many others, however, believe the best way to fight back is to effect a hostile takeover of the party from within. The fact that we have these competing views is not a problem. What is a problem, however, is the prevailing assumption among both factions that these two strategies are mutually exclusive. I dont believe that they are.

Proponents of an internal revolution within the Democratic Party, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders, will tell you that the current two-party duopoly makes any effort to run for higher office outside one of the two major parties virtually impossible. Instead, theyre focusing on taking over the party at the local levels and launching primary challenges against the establishment-supported incumbents. These are sound ideas, though detractors are quick to point out that they do have flaws.

Progressives who have decided to kick the Democrats to the curb argue that fighting for equal representation within a party that has already demonstrated that theyre willing to violate even their own rules in order to prevent that from happening is a futile endeavor. After all, if too many people are voting for the candidate the leadership doesnt like, they can always just prevent people from voting again by altering their party affiliations in closed primary states without their consent like they did in 2016. Thats in addition to the corporate media already declaring the establishment candidate the winner before a single vote is cast. These folks, often identified by the #DemExit hashtag, mostly believe that starting a new party or joining an existing third party is the only answer.

Therein lies the problem, according to many Berniecrats. While theres a consensus among #DemExit supporters that its time for progressives and young people to leave the Democratic Party, nobody can seem to agree on exactly where we should all go from there. In our severely outdated first-past-the-post voting system, scattering votes across many different candidates and parties essentially guarantees that your movement will have little to no representation.

Both of these factions make valid arguments, which has led to a lot of debate and disagreement. Unfortunately, this has also resulted in a growing amount of animosity and division among progressives. In some cases, Ive even seen outright in-fighting, where each group accuses the other of not being progressive and/or trying to sabotage the movement. This needs to stop, as it accomplishes nothing and plays right into the hands of those in the political establishment who would like to see us remain marginalized and ignored.

So which strategy do I think is best? Thats simple: Both. Theres no reason why we cant fight to take over the Democratic Party from within while also putting pressure on them in the form of outside challenges, especially if the two factions coordinate their efforts.

For example, Berniecrats who manage to gain enough control at the state-level can push the states to adopt ranked choice instant-runoff voting, which would mean that independent and third-party candidates would no longer be at a disadvantage because lesser-evilism would no longer apply. Everyone could vote for who they want without having to worry about helping the Boogey Man du jour win. This will enable the #DemExit faction to start really making gains, diminishing the power and resources of the two major parties as they lose seats all across the country. That, in turn, should weaken the neoliberal party establishment enough for the Berniecrats to finally succeed in claiming the Democratic Party as their own.

The blueprint to our success lies in mutual cooperation, not converting everyone to the same way of thinking. People who want to leave the party should do so, while those who choose to remain should not be discouraged. Instead of focusing on trying to convince the other side that your way is better, try to think of how you could use the benefits of your way to help them with what theyre trying to accomplish. Diversity of perspectives is not a weakness. It is perhaps our greatest strength. So lets use it and work together toward our common goals.

Go here to see the original:
Berniecrats and #DemExit progressives need to work together - Newton Daily News

Conservative Review

Things I learned from liberals Conservative Review Liberals opened up a can of worms with their boycott tactics that they are probably starting to regret. By teaching conservatives how to marshal small groups of Twitter users into fighters fighting above their weight class, we have collected a number ...

Originally posted here:
Things I learned from liberals - Conservative Review

When, on April 18, British Prime Minister Theresa May called a snap election for June 8, the expectation was that she would romp to victory over the opposition. Crush the saboteurs! cried the right-wing Daily Mail. Whether it was called to strengthen her Brexit negotiating position with the European Unionand members of her own Conservative Party, or to bolt the armor of popularityto her image, May and almost every political observer believed that June 8 would end with a massive Conservative majority over the Labour Party and its supposedly hapless leader Jeremy Corbyn.

But events have played out differently. A 16 percent lead for the Conservatives on April 18 has shrunk to 7 percent in less than two months.Because of the strength of third parties in Britain, Corbyn only needs to overperform by a few percentage points(an average polling error, to borrow from Nate Silver) for May to fallshort of a majority. Regardless, the dream of the Conservative landslide looks to be dead and the circumstances of Laboursrecovery can bea lesson for progressives elsewhere, including the United States.

Most of Labours recovery has taken place since the start of May (the month, not the politician), coinciding with two developments. Britains general election broadcast rules, which requireTV outlets to maintain due impartiality during campaigning, kicked in early May. From whenCorbyn became party leader until very recently, the vast majority of major media outlets including Labour-leaning publications such as the Guardian were critical of him. During the campaign though, while newspapers and tabloids have remained partisan, the broadcast rules have freed Corbyn to make his case to the publicdirectly on television. Surprise, surprise: Corbyn has performed well in pre-election appearances, while May (the politician, not the month) has refused to debate other candidates directly and has looked shaky answering questions.

Were unlikely to see similarly restrictive broadcast rules in the United States, but progressives here can learn from the second development: the release of the parties manifestos the equivalent of a party platform in the United States, albeitcarrying somewhat more weight. The Conservative manifestobroadly avoided specifics, including how muchproposals on housing and other issues would cost. Its imprecision magnified Mays struggles in talking with voters. Nor did it help May that the program originally included cuts to in-home care for the elderly, a key Conservative constituency. May reversed on that idea, but not before damage was done.

On the other side, for years, Labour manifestos were incrementalist, offering small changes and tweaks to existing programs. The 2017 version is far bolder: free university tuition, more money for the National Health Services and other major initiatives,paid for by taxes on corporations and the wealthiest. The platforms clarity and detail contrasted favorably with the Conservatives vagueness, while energizing the Labour base, especially young voters. (Of course, getting them to vote is another matter.) Corbyns Labour recognizes that when votersthink the system is broken and major change is required, parties need to go big with their ideas. If your opponent is stumbling, as May has, newly persuadable voters want solutions not pandering.

To be clear, Labour policies cannot be replicated unchanged in the United States.Corbyns Labour is much further left-of-center than even the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. But as liberals and progressives in the United Statesdebate what kind of policies to offer in 2018 and beyond, Corbyns recovery and Mays difficulties again show that boldness doesnt backfire; voters reward it.

See more here:
What American liberals can learn from Jeremy Corbyn's campaign - Washington Post (blog)

VICTORIA - Politicians have been called back to the British Columbia legislature on June 22, setting the stage for a possible change in the provincial government.

Premier Christy Clark has said she expects to lose a confidence vote in the house after the New Democrats and Greens reached an agreement to allow the NDP to form a minority government.

No party won a majority of seats in a provincial election last month.

The Liberals won 43 seats in the 87-seat legislature, with the NDP winning 41 seats and the Greens three.

The results left Clark with a tenuous grip on power and spelled the likely end for the Liberals' 16 years in government.

Government House Leader Mike de Jong issued a statement Wednesday about the recall of the legislature, saying the first order of business will be to elect a Speaker.

"After which, and in the aftermath of a very close election, the government will seek to determine if it continues to enjoy the confidence of the house."

Green Leader Andrew Weaver welcomed the decision to recall the house.

"I'm glad that the premier has finally decided to recall the legislature," Weaver said in a statement. "In the weeks since the election, it has been encouraging to see all three parties agree that British Columbians want us to work together."

Follow this link:
BC legislature returns June 22, stage set for confidence vote on Liberals - BNN