Mediaboss Marketing

Woodbury is a city in Gloucester County, New Jersey, in the United States. As of the 2010 United States Census the city's population was 10,174,[8][9][10] reflecting a decline of 133 (-1.3%) from the 10,307 counted in the 2000 Census, which had in turn declined by 597 (-5.5%) from the 10,904 counted in the 1990 Census.[19] Woodbury is the county seat of Gloucester County.[20]

Woodbury was originally formed as a borough on March 27, 1854, within Deptford Township, based on the results of a referendum held on March 22, 1854. On January 2, 1871, Woodbury was reincorporated as a city, based on the results of a referendum held that day.[21]

The Inspira Health Network is based in Woodbury.[22] The now-defunct Woodbury Country Club operated in Woodbury from 1897 to 2010, closing due to declining membership and mounting debt that led to a bankruptcy filing by the club.[23]

As recounted by the historian William McMahon, the Native Americans called the place where the city of Woodbury was to be founded, "Piscozackasing", or, 'place of the black burrs'.[24]

Woodbury was founded in 1683 by Henry Wood, a Quaker from the Northwest of England, who had left Great Britain due to religious persecution. Wood was incarcerated in Lancaster gaol for practicing as a Quaker and left his home in the village of Tottington, near Bury, Lancashire, in a boat to set up a community in the new world where he and his family could practice his religion freely. His surname and his home town went to make up the name of the city he founded Woodbury.[25][26][27]

In 2000, the Borough of Bury, England, and the City of Woodbury were twinned as part of millennium celebrations in both countries. The twinning ceremony was the culmination of a week where more than 300 school children and college students, local dignitaries and local residents from Bury took part in sporting and cultural events held in and around Woodbury with local people. During the week there was a symbolic meeting and reconciliation of the Vicar of Henry Wood's former church in Tottington and the Quaker's meeting house in Woodbury and an ecumenical service attended by many of the residents and visitors.[28]

In 1787, a fossil bone recovered in Woodbury from local Cretaceous strata was discussed by the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia.[29] The remains were only retrospectively identified as dinosaurian,[29] as dinosaurs would not be scientifically recognized as a distinct group of reptiles until Sir Richard Owen presented his treatise on British fossil reptiles to the British Association in August 1841.[30]

Woodbury was the first city in the United States to mandate recycling. This effort was led by then-councilman and later mayor Donald P. Sanderson in the 1970s, and an ordinance was finally passed in December 1980. The idea of towing a "recycling" trailer behind a trash collection vehicle to enable the collection of trash and recyclable material at the same time emerged. Sanderson was asked to speak in municipalities throughout the country and other towns and cities soon followed suit.[31]

According to the United States Census Bureau, the city had a total area of 2.059 square miles (5.333km2), including 2.009 square miles (5.203km2) of land and 0.050 square miles (0.130km2) of water (2.43%).[1][2] Woodbury has a few lakes that feed off of Woodbury Creek.

The city borders Woodbury Heights, West Deptford Township and Deptford Township.

Woodbury has a humid subtropical climate (Kppen climate classification Cfa) typical of New Jersey with warm summers and cold winters.

As of the 2010 United States Census, there were 10,174 people, 4,088 households, and 2,420 families residing in the city. The population density was 5,064.0 per square mile (1,955.2/km2). There were 4,456 housing units at an average density of 2,217.9 per square mile (856.3/km2). The racial makeup of the city was 66.01% (6,716) White, 24.91% (2,534) Black or African American, 0.23% (23) Native American, 1.28% (130) Asian, 0.28% (28) Pacific Islander, 3.19% (325) from other races, and 4.11% (418) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 10.66% (1,085) of the population.[8]

There were 4,088 households out of which 27.9% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 36.6% were married couples living together, 17.4% had a female householder with no husband present, and 40.8% were non-families. 35.3% of all households were made up of individuals, and 16.0% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.38 and the average family size was 3.10.[8]

In the city, the population was spread out with 23.5% under the age of 18, 8.7% from 18 to 24, 28.0% from 25 to 44, 25.9% from 45 to 64, and 14.0% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 37.0 years. For every 100 females there were 93.1 males. For every 100 females ages 18 and old there were 90.3 males.[8]

The Census Bureau's 2006-2010 American Community Survey showed that (in 2010 inflation-adjusted dollars) median household income was $58,629 (with a margin of error of +/- $4,598) and the median family income was $74,276 (+/- $7,880). Males had a median income of $57,019 (+/- $3,425) versus $37,363 (+/- $6,910) for females. The per capita income for the borough was $28,845 (+/- $2,571). About 7.8% of families and 11.4% of the population were below the poverty line, including 15.7% of those under age 18 and 15.0% of those age 65 or over.[44]

As of the 2000 United States Census[16] there were 10,307 people, 4,051 households, and 2,588 families residing in the city. The population density was 4,961.4 people per square mile (1,913.2/km2). There were 4,310 housing units at an average density of 2,074.7 per square mile (800.0/km2). The racial makeup of the city was 72.45% White, 22.83% African American, 0.22% Native American, 0.99% Asian, 0.14% Pacific Islander, 1.28% from other races, and 2.10% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 3.94% of the population.[42][43]

There were 4,051 households out of which 32.3% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 41.4% were married couples living together, 18.5% had a female householder with no husband present, and 36.1% were non-families. 31.7% of all households were made up of individuals and 15.4% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.43 and the average family size was 3.08.[42][43]

In the city the population was spread out with 24.8% under the age of 18, 8.5% from 18 to 24, 29.8% from 25 to 44, 20.4% from 45 to 64, and 16.5% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 37 years. For every 100 females there were 87.7 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 82.7 males.[42][43]

The median income for a household in the city was $41,827, and the median income for a family was $53,630. Males had a median income of $40,429 versus $30,570 for females. The per capita income for the city was $21,592. About 11.2% of families and 13.5% of the population were below the poverty line, including 17.7% of those under age 18 and 15.4% of those age 65 or over.[42][43]

Woodbury is governed under the City form of New Jersey municipal government. The government consists of a Mayor and a City Council comprising nine council members. A Mayor is elected at-large directly by the voters for a four-year term of office. The City Council consists of nine members, three from each of three wards, elected to serve three-year terms on a staggered basis, with one seat from each ward coming up for election each year as part of the November general election in a three-year cycle.[6][45]

As of 2017[update], the Mayor of the City of Woodbury is Democrat Jessica M. Floyd, whose term ends December 31, 2020.[3] Members of the Woodbury City Council are:[46][47][48][49][50][51]

At the January 2017 reorganization meeting, the City Council chose Kenneth McIlvaine from three candidates nominated by the Democratic municipal committee to fill the Third Ward seat expiring in December 2017 that was vacated by Jessica Floyd when she took office as mayor.[52]

The Democratic sweep in November 2012 of the three council seats and mayor gave the party a 6-3 majority on the 2013 council.[53]

Woodbury is located in the 1st Congressional District[54] and is part of New Jersey's 5th state legislative district.[9][55][56]

New Jersey's First Congressional District is represented by Donald Norcross (D, Camden).[57] New Jersey is represented in the United States Senate by Cory Booker (D, Newark, term ends 2021)[58] and Bob Menendez (D, Paramus, 2019).[59][60]

For the 20162017 session (Senate, General Assembly), the 5th Legislative District of the New Jersey Legislature is represented in the State Senate by Nilsa Cruz-Perez (D, Barrington) and in the General Assembly by Arthur Barclay (D, Camden) and Patricia Egan Jones (D, Barrington).[61] The Governor of New Jersey is Chris Christie (R, Mendham Township).[62] The Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey is Kim Guadagno (R, Monmouth Beach).[63]

Gloucester County is governed by a Board of Chosen Freeholders, whose seven members are elected at-large to three-year terms of office on a staggered basis in partisan elections, with two or three seats coming up for election each year. At a reorganization meeting held each January, the Board selects a Freeholder Director and a Deputy Freeholder Director from among its members. As of 2016[update], Gloucester County's Freeholders are Freeholder Director Robert M. Damminger (D, West Deptford Township; term ends December 31, 2018),[64] Deputy Freeholder Director Giuseppe "Joe" Chila (D, Woolwich Township; 2018),[65] Lyman J. Barnes (D, Logan Township; 2017),[66] Daniel Christy (D, Washington Township; 2016),[67] Frank J. DiMarco (D, Deptford Township; 2016),[68] Heather Simmons (D, Glassboro; 2017)[69] and Jim Jefferson (D, Woodbury; 2017).[70][71][72][73] Constitutional officers elected countywide are County Clerk James N. Hogan,[74] Surrogate Helene M. Reed (Monroe Township)[75] and Sheriff Carmel Morina (Greenwich Township).[76][77][72]

As of March 23, 2011, there were a total of 6,368 registered voters in Woodbury, of which 2,255 (35.4%) were registered as Democrats, 1,162 (18.2%) were registered as Republicans and 2,948 (46.3%) were registered as Unaffiliated. There were 3 voters registered to other parties.[78]

In the 2012 presidential election, Democrat Barack Obama received 67.7% of the vote (2,972 cast), ahead of Republican Mitt Romney with 30.9% (1,356 votes), and other candidates with 1.5% (65 votes), among the 4,430 ballots cast by the city's 6,623 registered voters (37 ballots were spoiled), for a turnout of 66.9%.[79][80] In the 2008 presidential election, Democrat Barack Obama received 66.9% of the vote (3,216 cast), ahead of Republican John McCain with 30.9% (1,487 votes) and other candidates with 1.2% (58 votes), among the 4,806 ballots cast by the city's 6,829 registered voters, for a turnout of 70.4%.[81] In the 2004 presidential election, Democrat John Kerry received 60.1% of the vote (2,735 ballots cast), outpolling Republican George W. Bush with 38.3% (1,742 votes) and other candidates with 0.7% (43 votes), among the 4,547 ballots cast by the city's 6,521 registered voters, for a turnout percentage of 69.7.[82]

In the 2013 gubernatorial election, Republican Chris Christie received 58.6% of the vote (1,499 cast), ahead of Democrat Barbara Buono with 39.4% (1,007 votes), and other candidates with 2.0% (51 votes), among the 2,608 ballots cast by the city's 6,370 registered voters (51 ballots were spoiled), for a turnout of 40.9%.[83][84] In the 2009 gubernatorial election, Democrat Jon Corzine received 51.8% of the vote (1,416 ballots cast), ahead of Republican Chris Christie with 36.4% (995 votes), Independent Chris Daggett with 8.5% (232 votes) and other candidates with 1.2% (34 votes), among the 2,732 ballots cast by the city's 6,649 registered voters, yielding a 41.1% turnout.[85]

The Woodbury Public Schools serve students in pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade. As of the 2011-12 school year, the district's four schools had an enrollment of 1,511 students and 127.5 classroom teachers (on an FTE basis), for a studentteacher ratio of 11.85:1.[86] Schools in the district (with 2011-12 enrollment data from the National Center for Education Statistics[87]) are Evergreen Avenue Elementary School[88] (grades preK-5; 315 students), Walnut Street Elementary School[89] (K-5; 92), West End Memorial Elementary School[90] (K-5; 340) and Woodbury Junior-Senior High School[91] (6-12; 764).[92][93]

St. Margaret Regional School is a PreK-8 elementary school founded in 1963 that operates under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Camden.[94][95]

As of May 2010[update], the city had a total of 36.26 miles (58.35km) of roadways, of which 29.15 miles (46.91km) were maintained by the municipality, 5.04 miles (8.11km) by Gloucester County and 2.07 miles (3.33km) by the New Jersey Department of Transportation.[96]

Route 45 (Mantua Avenue / Broad Street) enters the city at its southernmost point from West Deptford Township and proceeds for 1.8 miles (2.9km) before heading along the Deptford Township / West Deptford Township border at the north end of the city.[97]

County Route 551 (Salem Avenue) enters from West Deptford Township in the southwest and proceeds for 0.5 miles (0.80km) before beginning a concurrency with Route 45.[98]

NJ Transit bus service between the city and Philadelphia is available on the 401 (from Salem), 402 (from Pennsville Township), 410 (from Bridgeton) and 412 (from Sewell) routes, with local service offered on the 455 (Cherry Hill Township to Paulsboro) and 463 (between Woodbury and the Avandale Park/Ride in Winslow Township) routes.[99][100]

Beginning in the 1860s passenger train service was provided successively by the Camden and Woodbury Railroad, West Jersey Railroad, West Jersey & Seashore Railroad and the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines ending in the 1971. The station was built in 1883 and renovated in 2000.[101]

A stop on the proposed GlassboroCamden Line, an 18-mile (28.97km) diesel multiple unit (DMU) light rail system projected for completion in 2019, is planned.[102]

People who were born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with Woodbury include:

See more here:
Woodbury, New Jersey - Wikipedia

Over the last six decades, new presidents have garnered an average 46% approval rating in Gallup polling from the opposing party during the first six months of their tenure.

For Donald Trump and the Democrats? 8%. Yes, that's single digits.

Since the dawn of modern public opinion polling, never has such a small percentage of an opposition party's backers said they approve of the sitting president during his first six months. And it's not even close.

Trump's lack of any kind of honeymoon period among Democrats is one of the chief reasons for his record-breaking low approval ratings. Even Barack Obama got 28% approval from Republicans in the first half of 2009 and George W. Bush got 30% approval from Democrats in the first six months of 2001.

That means more than three times as many Republicans supported Obama and Democrats supported Bush at this point than Democrats approve of Trump right now.

This chart below highlights the growing polarization over the last half century: opposition party supporters commonly gave majority approval to new presidents until the 1980s. It dropped off even more with Bill Clinton, but Trump has ushered in a whole new era of partisan splits.

The reason Trump's overall approval rating is so low doesn't have anything to do with his Republican support, which is very comparable to previous parties in power. Among Republicans, 86% approve of Trump during the first six months compared to 82% of the president's party since 1953.

And Trump has needed to rely on his own party more than his predecessor. Fifty-one percent of Obama approvers were Democrats in the first six months of 2009 compared to 57% of Trump approvers are Republicans now, according to Gallup data.

Republicans made up 13% of Obama approvers, but less than half that many (6%) of Trump approvers are Democrats now.

The chart above shows the relatively consistent support parties have given their president -- and Trump is no exception. (The notable low point is Gerald Ford, who took over after Richard Nixon resigned and then pardoned him.)

Today's Republicans and Democrats are in uncharted waters of polarization. The partisan split for Trump during his first six months in office is the broadest gap between the parties in decades of available polling -- nearly double the average for the first six months of a new president since the 1950s. A whopping 77 percentage points divide Republicans and Democrats in their approval of Trump during the first six months.

But Democrats aren't the only group setting record lows. The same goes for independents: only 36% of them approve of Trump -- far fewer than the 60% for Obama and 53% for Bush during their first six months. Only twice have independents not given majority approval to a brand new president during his first six months; 36% approve of Trump now and 44% approved of Clinton in 1993.

CLARIFICATION: This story has been updated to clarify a reference about Democrats' support for Trump.

Read the original here:
Democrats really, really, really don't like Donald Trump - CNN

House Democrats have continued raising moneyat a historic pace, with the party campaign committeebeating its Republican counterpart for the second quarter of 2017, according to fundraising dataobtained byThe Washington Post.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is set to report June receipts of $10.7 million Thursday, bringing its quarterly total to $29.1 million and its year-to-date total to just shy of $60 million.

Tyler Law, a DCCC spokesman, said a solid majority of the 2017 haul are small donations from the grass roots, which reflects the massive amount of Democratic energy and widespread rejection of the Republican agenda.

These grass-roots supporters will help to sustain our momentum across the largest battlefield in a decade and keep the House in play, Law said.

According to the Washington Examiner, the National Republican Congressional Committee is set to report $7.5 million raised in June, bringing that committees quarterly total to $24.1 million and its year-to-date total to $60 million meaningthe DCCC and NRCC are neck and neck on fundraising for the year. As of late Wednesday, the NRCC had not yet filed its June report ahead of the July 20 deadline.

The Republicans, however, maintain a cash advantage, with $33.7 million on hand for the NRCC versus the $21.2 million the DCCC now has in its accounts. And the figures reported by the party committees can pale in comparison to the unlimited sums raised by independent super PACs.

The Congressional Leadership Fund, the main super PAC supporting Republican House candidates, reported raising $12 million for the year last month, most of which was spent to support GOP candidates in recent special elections. The House Majority PAC, Democrats main super PAC for House candidates, reported raising only $1.9 million in 2017 in a report filed last month.

Democratic leaders often plead poverty when they talk about their chances for 2018, conceding that Republicans are likely to raise more than Democrats as the midterms approach.

But Democrats say their fundraising performancehas given them reasons to be confident pointing not only to the DCCCs advantage over the NRCC in recent months, but also to a surge of 3 million sign-ups for the committees email list this year and a clear surge in small donations. More than 60 percent of the groups total 2017 receiptscame online, through the mail or over the phone, and nearly 300,000 contributions came from first-time donors.

It remains unclear, however, if the grass-roots engagement will translate into Democratic votes next year.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll published Wednesday found that 52 percent of voters would prefer that Democrats control the next Congress, while 38 percent of voters favored Republicans. But there are indications that Democratic voter enthusiasm is lagging.Sixty-fivepercent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents say they are certain they will vote next yearwhile 57 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they will definitely vote.

Follow this link:
House Democrats are starting to outraise their Republican counterparts - Washington Post

The mover on health care loses, Democratic operative James Carville said in January. To do something is to lose. That cold-hearted political proverb has been repeatedly proven true, if the standard is short-term electoral gain. In terms of policy, its another story. Now that Obamacare repeal has fizzled, Democrats have officially won the eight-year health care war.

The victory was not by default. Trump might look silly blaming Democrats for the failure of repeal and replace when Republicans control all branches of government, but united Democratic resistance was critical to keeping the Affordable Care Act as law. Without a single Democrat in Congress breaking ranks, the ideologically divided Republican caucus found it impossible to stitch together a majority for a functional alternative to the status quo.

Story Continued Below

But the euphoria of victory may quickly dissipate. Despite the fact that Obamacare was signed in this decade, many Democrats dont appreciate the bills history and have not internalized the lessons of its passage and durability. Without a clear-eyed understanding of their own triumph, Democrats may hastily launch another health care war, repeat many of the Republican Partys clumsy mistakes and prove Carville right all over again.

Many analysts will attribute the repeal bills demise to raw politics: be it Trumps unpopularity, poor salesmanship by Republican leaders, incorrigible Republican backbenchers or Democrats cynically betting on gridlock. But the biggest reason why Democrats were able to unify was the substance of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However imperfect, however unpopular, the law was built to last.

The popular provisions were intertwined with the unpopular provisions. The program was designed with input from insurers, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies; critics say they got off light (for example, POLITICO just investigated how much hospitals have been able to profit off of the ACA while cutting back on charity care), but all had a stake in Obamacares success. The bill was worked and re-worked until Democrats secured the blessing of the Congressional Budget Office. Finally, the law implicitly enshrined the principle that the government is responsible for making the health insurance system work for all Americans.

Plus, while theres plenty of room for improvement, the simple truth is the ACA has helped many people, covering more than 20 million additional people and contributing to an approximately 50 percent decline in bankruptcies.

Facing off against these strong foundations, the Republicans were outmatched. Playing Jenga with Obamacares complementary elements was doomed to crash at the steps of the CBO. Leaving people to the mercy of the free market was a political non-starter. The insurance industry, long the bte noir of the left, plunged a stake in the final version of the Republican replacement plan, warning the last-minute addition of the Cruz Amendment made the bill unworkable in any form.

And where the Republicans collapsed, the Democrats stood firm. Some Democrats on the left never liked the Affordable Care Acts compromises with the private health industry. Some red state Democrats were sensitive to complaints about rising premiums and little to no choices in some state insurance marketplaces. But all Democrats put those differences asideas they did in 2010to unite behind thwarting repeal. Yes, the amateurish nature of Republican lawmaking, at the presidential and congressional level, no doubt aided that unity. But if the current law was a complete bust, several Democrats would have broken ranks out of political necessity. They didnt.

And so, after eight exasperating years of playing defense on health care, Democrats finally have some wind at their back. But where they take that momentum is far from clear, as Democratic factions with competing goals are bound to draw different lessons from their win.

Health care wars never truly end; they just enter new phases. The core elements of Obamacaremost critically, the individual mandateare now entrenched. But there are still debates to be had about maintaining insurer subsidies, attracting insurers to uncompetitive marketplaces, reducing consumer costs and achieving 100 percent universal coverage.

In this next phase, unity will be much more difficult for Democrats. Opposing is always easier than proposing, and Democrats are already offering vastly different proposals in response to these issues. Fundamentally, Democrats have to ask themselves: Is it time to go big, or to largely quit while theyre ahead?

Some Democrats view Obamacares resilience as proof they should stick to fine-tuning within the structure of the current law. For example, Sen. Joe Manchin, the West Virginia Democrat who represents the largest percentage of Trump voters, is organizing a bipartisan group of senators to discuss how do you fix the private markets?

At the same time, the populist left wants to do what Republicans tried: repeal and replace. But instead of repealing Obamacare to give the wealthy a tax cut, hard-core progressives want to supplant the current system in favor of their long-time health care holy grail: single-payer, or Medicare for All. In the words of one progressive activist, single-payer is becoming a litmus test, not just for progressives, but for Democrats writ large. Sen. Bernie Sanders championed the Canadian-style plan in his 2016 presidential bid, and now 2020 possibilities such as Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Kristin Gillibrand have joined the club.

Both camps are taking big risks. Manchin and his fellow red state Senate Dems10 of whom are up for re-election next yearneed to be careful not to sacrifice the political leverage their party has earned from united resistance when they work to forge a bipartisan fix for the bill. Any deal that involves gratuitous concessions to Republicans will enrage the Democratic rank-and-file and cause a debilitating rift. But so far, the right-leaning Dems havent bound themselves to a specific set of proposals.

Not so on the left. The rigidity and intensity of the single-payer movement could well put Democrats in the same untenable box Republicans find themselves. Republicans just humiliated themselves by juicing their base with a grandiose yet simplistic promise, then learning the hard way they couldnt deliver. Now the GOP has to worry about turning out a deflated base for the midterms. A single-payer strategy could put Democrats in a similar predicament if and when they regain power.

The House Medicare for All bill (which, as of this spring, a majority of the Democratic caucus has co-sponsored for the first time ever) is a light 30 pages, hardly enough detail to engender confidence for a successful transition of one-sixth of the American economy. The Atlantic reports that Sen. Sanders will soon unveil a significantly more detailed single-payer plan. But there are fundamental obstacles that await any such bill.

Recall why the Affordable Care Act won the war: Because a nuanced policy was crafted with the input of the insurance, drug and hospital industries. All of these forces either fought for Obamacares passage (the pharmaceutical lobby spent a whopping $100 million in support of the bill in 2009 and 2010) or helped defend it against repeal, as the hospital lobby did fervently and the insurance lobby did in its late strike against the Cruz amendment.

For single-payer to succeed, a grassroots army would need to overwhelm the powerful health industry lobbies. No deals could be cut with an insurance industry literally fighting for its life. Meanwhile, the hospital and drug lobbies would fear getting squeezed hard by a government looking to consolidate all bargaining power. Recent single-payer fights on the favorable deep blue turf of Vermont and California did not provide much hope these obstacles can be overcome. Legislators in both states flinched because the taxes required to cover the upfront cost are so politically daunting.

Advocates of single-payer also dont have answers for voters who still want to hear whether they can keep their current plans if they like them. Some progressives see the public option, which would give customers the choice to buy into Medicare but wouldnt require it, as a way out of that jam. Except too many on the left, including Sanders, have already given away the game: Theyve said out loud they want public option to undermine private plans and be a stepping stone to single-payer. Therefore, insurers and their allies will have the political ammo needed to malign public option as a Trojan Horse.

Health industry lobbies would invest millions upon millions to stoke such consumer concerns. And winning a health care war without some health industry support is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible. That was the lesson President Barack Obama took from the 1994 failure of Hillarycare.

Of course, a battle royal with the health care special interests is exactly what the populist left wants. Not only do many progressives believe they can win the legislative battle in Congress, they believe its the way Democrats can win control of Congress. MoveOns Ben Wikler recently told McClatchy that the decision whether or not to back Medicare for All is a choice between a broken past or a future that gives people a reason to knock on doors and get involved in campaigns. It may be true that single-payer would motivate the Democratic base. But MoveOn and Wikler managed to successfully rally their troops for weeks in order to save the broken past known as the Affordable Care Act, so we know single-payer is not the only way to generate enthusiasm.

Its one thing to believe in your heart of hearts that, despite the political challenges, single-payer is the best health care policy. Its quite another to make it a litmus test that questions the sincerity of Democrats who disagree, either on substantive or politically pragmatic grounds. That would shatter Democratic unity, the very unity that Democrats needed to win the eight-year Obamacare war.

Bill Scher is a contributing editor to Politico Magazine, and co-host of the Bloggingheads.tv show The DMZ.

View original post here:
How Democrats Won the Healthcare War - POLITICO Magazine

History suggests the 2018 election will almost surely be a bad one for Republicans. Midterms are generally considered a referendum on the president, and the results are almost always bad for said president. Layer on the fact that President Trump is the most unpopular new president in the modern era, and it would seem to be at least at this early juncture a clear recipe for a Democratic wave.

The key word there being seem.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll, as Mike DeBonis and Emily Guskin report, presents a pretty mixed bag for Democrats. It shows that registered voterssay they want Democrats to control Congress to be a check on Trump by a 52-38 percent margin, but it also shows Democrats are rather remarkably less enthusiastic about voting than Republicans are. While 65 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning adults say they are almost certain to vote, just 57 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning adults say the same.

The question from there is which is more predictive of what lies ahead. And the answer won't necessarily make Democrats feel better.

That first number would seem to be a big one: People prefer a Democratic Congress reining in Trump by a 14-point margin! That is a big margin. It's actually similar in size to what itwas for Republicans before their big wins in the 2010 and 2014 midterms. When the Post-ABC poll asked this question in April 2014, the GOP led on it by 14 points. When it was asked twicetoward the end of the 2010 election, the GOP led by between eight and 16 points.

But then there's 2002. That midterm election was close to a stalemate, but just over a monthbeforehand, a similarquestion rendered a 19-point advantage to Democrats quite similar to today's 14-point edge. Despite this, Democrats would actually go on tolose some seats in the House and the Senate.

In addition, thechoice in the poll question is between being a check on the president and voting for the party that supports the president's agenda, and poll respondents are often drawn toward more middle-ground, moderate positions. Hence, Post-ABC polls show people have consistently leaned on the side of checking a president's power. But if you look at the so-called generic ballot a simple question about which party you prefer it's almost always closer than this. And sure enough, that's the case today, too.

So Democrats have an advantage there, though it's not clear how predictive it is. Which brings us to the flip side of the coin: enthusiasm. How bad is it that Democrats are somehow less enthusiastic about this election than are Republicans?

For past polling on that question, we have to look at registered voters rather than all adults, as we did at the top of this post. There, Republicans have a smaller, four-point advantage with 70 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning registered voters almost certain to vote vs. 66 percent for Democrats.

That's actually just shy of where the GOP's advantage was for much of the 2014 election, when they went on to a big win. On the eve of that midterm, the GOP had a seven-point edge on enthusiasm in Post-ABCpolling.The GOP had a bigger, double-digit edge on this heading into the 2010 election in which they won big.

And finally, many of the voters who give Democrats an advantage on that first question above saythey are "almost certain to vote" but didn't actually vote in the last midterm in 2014. Democrats-as-a-check-on-Trump leads by 34 points with this group, but by just 8 points with "almost certain" voters who did vote last time. This, as much as anything, suggestsenthusiasm is hugely important to Democrats.

These are indicators that fluctuate quite a bit, and we're still more than 15 months away from the 2018 election, so we'll have to stay tuned. But there seems to be almost an expectation that Trump as president will spur big Democratic turnout, and this poll calls that into question. Watch these "almost certain to vote" numbers going forward,because they are a pretty solid leading indicator.

ThePost-ABCpoll was conducted July 10-13 among a random national sample of 1,001 adults reached on cellular and landline phones. The margin of sampling error for overall results is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points and four points among the sample of 859 registered voters.

Read this article:
This poll should be a warning sign for Democrats - Washington Post