Mediaboss Marketing

DNC Chair Tom Perez. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

In May 2017, the Democratic National Committee (DNC)postedits worst fundraising month since 2003, and April 2017 was its worst since 2009. Its abysmal fundraising turnout has continued into June, during which it only raised$5.5 millionand added $200,000 to the organizations debt of $3.3 million. The DNC has $7.5 million in cash on hand. For comparison, the Republican National Committee (RNC) has over $44 million and no debt. The DNCs lack of cash doesnt bode well forDemocratshoping to recoup their losses in 2018.

While the DNC has repelled progressives, voters, and even the wealthy donors that new DNC Chair Tom Perez was instilled to appease, theDemocraticCongressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is abandoning progressivesto shift the party further to the right. The DCCC receivedcriticismfor pouring funds and resources into Georgia special election congressional candidate Jon Ossoff while ignoring Bernie Sanders-backed candidates in special elections in Montana and Kansas. Ossoffs campaign received over $23 million in campaign funds, making it the most expensive congressional election in history. His election was supposed to prove that fiscally conservative neo-liberals running in wealthy suburbs was the key toDemocrats recovery. Even though Ossoff came up short, the DCCC is doubling down on running Republican-lite candidates.

IBTimesreportedon July 20, To the scorn of progressives,Democratstrying to win back the U.S. House next year are relying on the conservative wing of the party. TheDemocraticCongressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the Houses primary campaign group, is coordinating with the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 18 moderateDemocratsthat has shriveled in numbers and power in recent years, BloombergreportedMonday. The Blue Dog Coalition and the DCCC have widely favored courting Wall Street donors and appeasing them by propping up candidates who dont engage in rhetoric perceived as anti-Wall Street. By relying on moderate candidates, the DCCC is doubling down the faction thatran the party into the ground during theObamaadministration.

These people are the absolute last ones theDemocratsneed. Not only have the tectonic plates of politics fundamentally shifted from 2008, when the Blue Dogs peaked, the caucus ideology is bad and political poison, wrote Ryan Cooper in an op-ed for The Week. It may still be possible to win a race or two with a Blue Dog candidate. But their knee-jerk fiscal conservatism during a huge recession was politically catastrophic for the party as a whole (in addition to being stunningly economically illiterate).

The enthusiasm and energy within theDemocratic Partyis with the progressive wing, which champions policies like Medicare for All. TheDemocraticestablishmentresists progressives, and their failure to harness their energy ultimately benefits Trump and the Republican Party. Democratshave provided a pathetic opposition to Trumpand Republicans so far, and its likely these weaknesses will translate into losses come election season.

Steven ThrasherexplainedhowDemocratshave built the foundation for this weak opposition in a recent op-ed in The Guardian,TheDNCsinability to be an effective opposition party has been almost a decade in the making, exacerbated by their loss of over900 legislative seats since Obama took office in 2009; Obamas failure toprosecute Wall Street bankersafter they stolenearly half the black wealthin the country; the partys failure to develop an economic vision that waslittle more than Republican Lite(or, as Obamaput it, 1980s moderate Republicanism); and,unfairly helpingHillaryClintonduring the 2016 primaries, even though Bernie Sandersconsistently polled betterthan Clinton and the political winds (fanned by Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter) haveclearly moved onfrom neoliberal Clintonomics. Rather than harness progressives enthusiasm, which has gained strength withBernie Sanderspollingas the most popular politician in the country, Democratsto their detrimentare trying to revive past ideologies and strategies.

Go here to see the original:
Fundraising Trouble for DNC, DCCC Ignores Progressives for Wall ... - Observer

Progressive groups across the nation are launching their 2018 campaign efforts this weekend.

Their goal?Turn the 2018 midterms into a single-issue election that focuses solely on President Donald Trumps efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

The Health Care Voter campaign will kick off at more than 125 planned health care protests around the country. Voters will be asked to fill out a pledge cardvowingto vote out members of Congress who voteto get rid of Obamacare. The campaign will then use the collected contact information to alert voters about planned protests and town hall meetings.

The campaigns launch comes after the Senate votedto debate,predominantly alongparty lines, the GOP bill to repeal and replace Obamacare.

This vote is an attack against the most vulnerable people in the nation, a statement from the Womens March said in a tweet. Millions of families will now lose their health care coverage as a result of the GOPs vicious and dangerous actions.

Other progressive groups jumpedat the opportunity to wage attacks on Republican senators.

Republicans like Sens. Dean Heller and Rob Portman should be ashamed of themselves for ignoring the floods of people calling, protesting, and fighting like hell to keep their health care coverage,NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Houge said in a statement. The senators who voted to advance this bill yet again demonstrated that they will cast the health and well-being of women and families to the side in order to score points with the fringe elements of their base.

The American people will not sit by and be taken back to a time where people with pre-existing conditions died of easily treatable diseases, and people paid more for less comprehensive health care, Nita Chaudhary, co-founder of the pro-womens equality group UltraViolet, told CNN. Our lives depend on it, and our senators promised to protect us now we promise to make sure their constituents know how they voted.

Organizers and participants include:

One of the groups, Save My Care, launched radio attack ads targeting Republican Sens.Dean Heller (Nev.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.) andCory Gardner (Colo.).

Go here to see the original:
Progressives launch massive campaign targeting Republicans who favor Obamacare repeal - TheBlaze.com

But President Donald Trump is -- and has always been -- a culture warrior.

And he made an aggressive move to elevate those issues to the political forefront Wednesday by announcing via Twitter that he is banning transgender Americans from serving in the military.

This time, though, top Democrats say they don't fear that a political debate over transgender rights will damage them in the Rust Belt. And some Democratic senators running for re-election in red states were sharply critical of Trump's move.

"Democrats need to show -- and can show -- that they can simultaneously fight for a society that is both more fair and more prosperous -- and drive home the fact that Trump is delivering neither," long-time Democratic strategist Ron Klain said in an email.

Democrats seen as prospects for the party's presidential nomination in 2020 immediately lambasted Trump's move. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand vowed to introduce legislation to overturn it. California Sen. Kamala Harris called it "discriminatory, wrong, and un-American." Former Vice President Joe Biden tweeted that "patriotic American who is qualified to serve in our military should be able to serve."

The Democrats Trump is really seeking to put in an uncomfortable position, though, are the 10 senators up for re-election in states he won -- all of which have more white, Christian voters who polls show are more likely to oppose transgender rights.

Some of those senators also attacked Trump's decision.

"If a service member can do the job and is willing, they should be able to serve -- and they should be able to be open about who they are," said North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, among the Democrats facing the toughest re-election battles in 2018.

"Decisions about military force posture and readiness are matters of life and death that should be among the most seriously considered by a president, and motivated by the best military judgment of the armed forces -- not by politics," Heitkamp said.

Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly cited Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby's criticism of Trump's transgender military service ban.

"When the stakes are as high as the safety and security of the United States, we should always have an open door for the best, most talented patriots," Donnelly said in a statement. "Military service should be about abilities, integrity, and performance, and I agree with my Republican colleague Sen. Shelby that everybody should be treated fairly and given a chance to serve."

"The decision announced by the administration today will prevent highly qualified, patriotic Americans from serving in our military," said Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey.

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown sounded a similar note, saying: "We should not turn away anyone who is willing and able to serve this country and help keep American safe."

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, tweeted: "A ban against any patriotic American who wants to serve our country is wrong."

Democrats have at least two major recent data points that suggest the political tide has shifted on LGBT issues.

In Wisconsin -- one of the states Trump won that is holding a Senate contest in 2018 -- Baldwin, who became the first openly gay senator when she won the seat in 2012, is running for re-election.

And in North Carolina, the economic backlash against Republicans' transgender bathroom bill played a central role in GOP Gov. Pat McCrory's loss in his re-election bid in 2016.

Trump himself had campaigned on a promise to protect LGBT Americans -- although it was always through the lens of defending them from "radical Islam," rather than civil rights.

"This will become the latest example for voters that the GOP agenda is about keeping their most extreme base happy to protect Trump, not about delivering on the things people care about so we protect the middle class," said Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson.

"If they think voters will reward them for an agenda that discriminates against people by firing thousands of them who want to protect our country instead of getting results on health care and the economy, they're tragically misreading America," he said.

In a sign that the politics of the issue might not be in Trump's favor, Republicans in purple states, including Arizona Sen. John McCain, criticized his broad tweets that left unanswered questions about whether thousands of transgender people currently serving in the military will be kicked out.

Other Republicans in swing states who are on the ballot in 2020 also criticized Trump's decision. North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis said he agrees with McCain. "Americans who are qualified and can meet the standards to serve in the military should be afforded that opportunity," said Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst, a veteran. Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, told reporters, "I think anybody who wants to serve in the military should serve in the military."

Read more from the original source:
Democrats say they're ready for a culture war as Trump bans transgender people from military service - CNN

What is it about Russia some vestige of all those Cold War spy films, perhaps that mentioning it makes so many people, on all political sides, behave so irrationally?

Consider the behavior of Democrats who are seeking to prove that Donald Trump or his campaign "colluded" with Russia, with the implication that this "collusion" somehow determined the outcome of the 2016 election.

The mainstream media feeds this narrative with breathless multiple-bylined stories about Attorney General Jeff Sessions's casual encounter with the Russian ambassador in the Mayflower Hotel or Donald Trump Jr.'s ludicrous meeting with the Russian lady lawyer.

Of course, a genuine conspiracy would have been conducted with the Internet-age equivalent of secret messages written in invisible ink delivered to secret dropboxes. And it's not clear what useful guidance the shambolic, tweet-driven Trump campaign could have given to Russians bent on messing with the American electoral process.

In any case, the Russia issue was litigated during the campaign. Candidate Trump's weird unwillingness to say anything negative about Vladimir Putin, plus his past business dealings in Russia, raised legitimate questions about his Russia policy. Hillary Clinton intelligently and aggressively aired these issues in debate and on the stump.

No evidence has been found that any state's election system was hacked. Hackers, apparently Russian (though Trump weirdly said he doubted that), tried to access Republican and Democratic servers. They penetrated the Democrats' system and publicized embarrassing emails. Does anyone believe those stories switched the 77,000 votes by which Trump narrowly carried Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin? Not really.

Ever since about 9:00 Eastern on election night, Democrats have been yearning to oust Trump from office. Some otherwise intelligent liberals outlined scenarios putting Hillary Clinton in the White House. Many imagine now that some smoking gun of "collusion" evidence will result in Trump's impeachment and removal from office.

But it's hard to imagine what it could be. Special prosecutor Robert Mueller may ensnare some witness in a perjury trap, but how do you have a smoking gun when there's no identifiable crime?

I think it's irrationally risky for Democrats to make "collusion" their major issue and effectively to promise they'll impeach Trump if they win a House majority next year. More to the point, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi seems to agree and has told colleagues to downplay the I-word.

She doesn't want to alienate that quantum of voters willing to vote for Democrats to check Donald Trump, but not to force an impeachment trial which will, as in 1999, result in acquittal in the Senate. But such cool rationality seems rare among her fellow Democrats.

Cool rationality is not a term anyone, fan or foe, seems likely to attach to Donald Trump any time soon. His tweets and interview responses, seemingly determined to prompt Jeff Sessions's resignation as attorney general, are as irrational as critics' scenarios of his imminent replacement by Hillary Clinton.

Sessions, the only senator to endorse him before he clinched the Republican nomination in May 2016, has striven faithfully to carry out his policies. His recusal from involvement on Russia matters last March, though over-cautious in my view, was something Trump could have cautioned against then. And Trump could now legitimately call on Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to cabin in what National Review's Andrew McCarthy has argued is Mueller's illegally broad mandate. Presidents have lines of communication with appointees less public than Twitter.

Trump, of course, has only himself to blame for Mueller's appointment, which resulted from self-admitted clever leaking and maneuvering by James Comey after he was abruptly fired as FBI director in May.

Meanwhile, it's hard to dismiss as fake news reports that other cabinet members and Republican senators are dismayed and disheartened at Trump's treatment of Sessions. You would surely feel that way yourself if you were in their shoes.

Moreover, if Sessions resigns or is fired, there will be confirmation hearings for his replacement. One thing Democrats and maybe some Republicans will demand is a commitment that Mueller not be fired or his investigation limited.

Similar commitments extracted from Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus prompted their resignations when Richard Nixon ordered them to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox in October 1973. Nixon resigned 10 months later.

It has long been my contention that the political marketplace, like the economic marketplace, operates tolerably well when competitors, constrained by the rule of law, act out of rational self-interest.

It doesn't work so well when, as today, people on both sides keep acting irrationally.

Continued here:
Democrats and Trump: both behaving irrationally - Washington Examiner

Theodore Roosevelt offered Americans a "Square Deal." His fifth cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, gave us "The New Deal." Modern Democrats, who have lost election after election, are now offering the country "A Better Deal."

Speaking in Berryville, Virginia, a small town that voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump and is represented by a Republican in Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, "Too many Americans don't know what we stand for."

Actually, they do know and that's why Democrats don't have the White House, why they lost their congressional majority and the reason they are in the minority in most state legislatures and governorships.

Standing on a platform with other aging, hard-left Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), the "Better Deal" sounded like warmed over hash. Here's how The New York Times described it: "The policies combine left-leaning doctrine old and new -- a $15-an-hour minimum wage, a crusade against monopolies, and efforts to lower prescription drug costs -- elevating issues Democrats expect to animate next year's midterm elections and supplying an answer to critics who accuse them of offering nothing but obstruction."

It would be nice if one of those monopolies targeted by Democrats were the public schools and the increasingly popular school choice option, which The Wall Street Journal recently noted is working to improve grades of especially poor and minority children. Don't look for that to happen, as Democrats aren't about to give up campaign donations from the teachers unions.

Wasn't the expansion of the Medicare program under President George W. Bush to include prescription drug payments supposed to have reduced costs? Not so. When the government gets involved in almost anything -- from college tuition, to drugs -- costs go up, not down.

As for the $15-an-hour minimum wage suggestion, we have heard this argument from Democrats in previous calls for its increase. A recent Harvard Business School study of restaurants in San Francisco found that every one-dollar increase in the minimum wage led to a 4 to 10 percent increase in the likelihood of a restaurant closing.

A University of Washington study on the minimum wage law's impact on restaurant workers in Seattle found that while hikes accounted for higher wages, the number of hours low-wage earners were allowed to work declined, producing a net loss in earnings. In other words, the restaurant workers earned more before the government mandated a higher minimum wage. Doesn't anyone in government understand basic economics, not to mention human nature?

Nowhere in the unveiling of their "Better Deal" is there any suggestion by Democrats that low-income Americans can, or should, work for the day when they are independent of government. As the party of government, Democrats have addicted millions of people to the notion that they are owed, or "entitled," to other people's money. Theirs is a party of envy, greed and entitlement, pitting the successful -- and envy of them -- against the less successful with little expectation that those at the bottom of the wage scale can, or should, rise from their current circumstances to embrace a better life.

The Times story called the Democrats' announcement "the battle cry of a party in the wilderness." Question: If a Democrat speaks in the wilderness, will anyone hear?

This latest effort to fool voters into believing Democrats have something new to say, or better policies to try, isn't a better deal, it's a raw deal.

Thomas is a columnist with Chicago Tribune.

See the original post here:
Thomas: Democrats offer a raw deal - Quad City Times