Mediaboss Marketing

Republicans kicked off a monthlong respite from the drama surrounding national politics in Washington D.C. this week, only to return home to more chaos and anger from local constituents who elected them to office.

Just as Democrats faced the newly founded Tea Party protesters during the 2009 summer recess, GOP lawmakers were swarmed with major demonstrations immediately after heading back to their hometowns, mostly due to their agenda on health care.

Related: The GOP attempts to repeal Obamacare yet again after failing 70 times

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Voters flocked to the first town halls scheduled for Republican representatives since the majority left Washington Friday afternoon, demanding an end to the partys efforts torepealformer President Barack Obamas landmark health care initiative, the Affordable Care Act.

Things got ugly very quick.

One protestor attending a town hall in California with Representative Doug LaMalfawho voted in favor of replacing Obamacare with the GOPs widely opposed American Health Care Actwished for his death while holding a sign that read Lackey for the Rich!

May you die in pain!He shouted at the Republican congressman.

Others dressed as The Wizard of Ozs infamous Wicked Witch of the West to protest LaMalfas support for legislation that even President Donald Trump reportedly described as meanduring a Republican luncheon at the White House.

SenatorCory Gardneralso took a beating from his local voters in Colorado, one of whomdemanded to know why on Earththe conservative voted consistently to repeal Obamacare.

Seven years ago, when I ran for Congress, I said that I would vote to repeal and replace Obamacare, and Im going to continue to live up to the promise I made,Gardner said. The crowd responded with shouting and boos, sharply rejecting his suggestion that his party will continue to attempt to dismantle the health care bill.

In most photos from local reporters and Twitter users circulating social media during Republican town halls nationwide, protesters can be seen holding signs that read in bold letters RESIGN, One Term Onlyand other scathing messages calling forthe removal of elected officials currently holding office.

Meanwhile, videos from inside the events show locals appearing dumbfounded and frustrated by Republicans responses as to their stalled agenda six months into holding power in both houses, and their policieson issues such ashealth care and the environment.

I appreciate the enormous challenges and difficulties you face as a member of Congress,one man tells LaMalfa in a video from his town hall Monday night. However, along with many Americans and backed by scientific consensus, I am convinced that rapid climate change caused primarily by the combustion of fossil fuels is the most significant issue facing this country.

I do not buy into the idea that man-made activity, such as fossil fuels, affects climate change,the congressman responded, before being drowned out by audience members banging their heads in frustration and berating him out with boos.

Even for conservative lawmakers Republican voters, the wish to carry on from repealing Obamacare could be well warranted: Newsweek found at least 70 attempts by the GOP to repeal, diminish or otherwise reduce the legislation since it came into law in 2010.

Several Republicans who expressed uncertainty about the upcoming monthlong trip back home have yet to schedule town halls. That isnt to say the entire party is hiding behind closed doors: Georgia representativeBuddy Carterhas scheduled at least nine town hall meetings during his vacation.

Just five days into what was supposed to be the longest annual holiday for lawmakers nationwide has instead turned into hell for some. And it may only just be beginning.

See the article here:
Furious Voters Wish Death and Unemployment on Republicans in Nationwide Recess Demonstrations - Newsweek

When West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice stood next to President Trump during a campaign rally in Huntington, W.Va., on Thursday to announce that he was switching parties and becoming a Republican, it was a historic moment for the GOP.

Justice's decision gives Republicans control of 34 governorships tying a record set nearly a century ago. Democrats hold just 15 governorships. (Alaska's governor is an independent). Republicans now hold so-called trifectas control of a governor's mansion and both chambers of a state legislature in 26 states (including Nebraska's non-partisan unicameral legislature which is effectively controlled by Republicans). Democrats have just six such trifectas. That's in addition to Republicans' complete control of the federal government.

And unlike their D.C. cousins, Republicans in statehouses across the country can point to conservative policy accomplishments this year, such as adding new restrictions on abortion, expanding gun rights, weakening private and public sector labor unions and expanding school voucher programs.

But a constellation of forces means that this level of Republican dominance in the states is brittle and in danger of shattering.

Large playing field, unpopular president

Perhaps the biggest reason Republicans are vulnerable is because of the extent of their past successes at the state level. Republicans are defending 27 of the 38 governors' seats that are up election between now and November 2018. And 14 of those 27 seats will be vacant including large, important states such as Florida, Michigan and Ohio mostly due to term limits.

While it's too early to tell how many races will be truly competitive, it's likely Republicans will face plenty of headwinds. State-level elections have become increasingly nationalized over the past two decades and the president's popularity can have a major impact on voter enthusiasm and turnout especially a challenge with a president as polarizing and unpopular as President Trump currently is.

Infighting and overreach

Years in power have also created problems for state-level Republicans. In Kansas, an overly ambitious plan to cut taxes orchestrated by Gov. Sam Brownback (who's been nominated to a State Department post in the Trump administration) starved the state of funds for its schools and other services. Kansas Republicans wound up bitterly divided over the issue and earlier this year, a moderate faction sided with Democrats to override Brownback's veto and rescind the tax cuts.

Similarly, a series of tax cuts in oil-dependent Oklahoma left the state poorly prepared for a downturn in energy prices. Republican lawmakers were forced to swallow their opposition and vote for tax hikes in order to keep the state solvent.

With Democrats all but vanquished in several Republican-dominated states, intra-Republican disputes have taken center stage. In Texas, Republicans are divided between a business-friendly faction that prioritizes low taxes and less regulation and social conservatives eager to pass the most conservative legislation possible, such as a bill limiting transgender access to bathrooms. Earlier this year, Florida Gov. Rick Scott was running campaign-style ads against fellow Republicans in the legislature over a dispute about economic development funds.

A combination of voters unhappy with the governing party's track record and internal party rifts that will play out in primary elections, sometimes leading to extreme or unqualified candidates, could weigh down Republican candidates up and down the ballot over the next year.

The maps and the courts

After the Republican wave election in 2010, victorious GOP state lawmakers took advantage of that year's decennial redistricting to further entrench their power, especially in swing states such as Wisconsin and North Carolina.

Republican-drawn legislative and congressional district maps in North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Georgia and Alabama are already in federal court because of concerns about racial gerrymandering and North Carolina has already been ordered to redraw some of its districts.

But an even greater existential threat to Republican dominance at the state level comes from one of the most important Supreme Court cases of this fall's docket. Arguments in Gill vs. Whitford could determine whether Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin were allowed to take partisanship into account when drawing legislative boundaries. The Republican maps in Wisconsin were so formidably drawn that the GOP won 60 of 99 seats in the Wisconsin House even as Democrats drew more votes statewide in 2012 and 2014.

While both parties use partisan gerrymandering to their advantage, Republicans' dominance at the state level means the GOP has far more on the line from a Supreme Court decision.

Can Democrats capitalize?

The flip side of Republicans' dominance is the weakness of state-level Democrats. Going into the 2010 midterm elections, Democrats had full control of 17 states compared to Republicans' 10 states. Democrats acknowledge they've let their state parties wither and need to focus on rebuilding.

As former President Barack Obama told NPR's Steve Inskeep after the 2016 election, "you've got a situation where there are not only entire states but also big chunks of states where, if we're not showing up, if we're not in there making an argument, then we're going to lose."

But Democrats have a long way to go. A much touted effort to recruit candidates for this year's Virginia's House of Delegates elections has substantially increased the number of districts Democrats are competing in from 39 in 2015 to 67 today but that still leaves 33 districts where the party was unable to find a candidate to run.

Still, while Democrats haven't won any of the special U.S. House elections so far this year, they've significantly improved their margins even in deeply Republican districts suggesting that Democratic voters are highly motivated.

More evidence of enthusiasm comes from the latest Quinnipiac poll that has 52 percent of voters saying they prefer that Democrats control Congress compared to 38 percent for Republicans. Given the GOP edge in congressional and state legislative districts, Democrats will probably need popular sentiment to sway far in their favor if they are to have a hope of regaining power.

It's still 15 months until Election Day 2018 and plenty can still happen. But based on the landscape, it's hard to see how Republicans can maintain their current level of dominance.

Follow this link:
In The States, Republicans Have Never Been So Dominant Or Vulnerable - KUNC

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said Tuesday that he is unlikely to support a "clean" measure to increase the nation's debt limit.

Cole, like many other House Republicans, wants to include spending cuts or other language that would reduce government spending in any measure raising the government's borrowing limit.

"Most Republicans want to do something to lower the trajectory of the debt," Cole said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "I mean, a clean debt ceiling hike is like having a credit card and saying 'I've reached my limit, I'm just going to change the limit higher without changing any of my spending habits.'"

"That's a tough sell to Republicans," he added. "Democrats seem to be fine with that, but I think most of my colleagues aren't."

Democrats have warned that they will not accept spending cuts tied to the debt ceiling bill.

Since Democrats could filibuster a bill in the Senate, this gives the minority plenty of leverage in the upcoming fight.

Congress faces a Sept. 29 deadline for lifting the ceiling. If it does not, markets are likely to suffer and the government could shut down and risk defaulting on its debt.

Cole said that he wants a measure raising the debt ceiling to include policiesthat would aim to reform government spending and debt.

"This idea we can go on spending interminably and just simply raise the debt ceiling every time sooner or later the credit markets are going to make that impossible to do," Cole said. "So let's reassure them and show them we're serious about lowering the deficits and eventually the long-term debt."

Follow this link:
GOP lawmaker: House Republicans not likely to back clean debt ceiling hike - The Hill

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WCIA) -- Democrats running for governor are beginning to organize their own events around the Illinois State Fair to replace the Democrat Day rally after party leaders pulled the plug on the annual outdoor festivities last month.

Chicago city Alderman and Democratic gubernatorial candidate AmeyaPawarcriticized party leadership for nixing an open air rally in lieu of a private brunch with donors.

"If we continue shutting people out of the conversation about the future of our state, then we will never grow as a party and we won't stand a chance to beat Bruce Rauner next year," Pawar said. "We can't just be talking to each other behind closed doors at fundraisers.

Pawar plans to host his own 'Progressives Day Rally' at Springfield's Douglas Park on Thursday, August 17th immediately after the brunch. The Pawar campaign is reaching out to invite other candidates to join him at the event, which is located three miles from the fairgrounds. Part of the itinerary includes stump speeches, hay bales and a band.

"As Democrats, we should be the 'big tent' party. And we must be willing to take our message directly to the public and present our case as to why a progressive Democrat is better suited to be governor than Bruce Rauner," Pawarsaid.

House Speaker and Democratic Party Chairman Michael Madigan made the decision not to hold the annual Democrat Day rally this year, instead opting to focus on a Chairman's Breakfast with party donors and activists.

So far, at least eight primary candidates are on the agenda, including headliner speeches from U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (IL) and AmyKlobuchar(MN). Admission is $40 per person. Sponsors can pay as much as $15,000 for a table. The donation provides them exclusive access to Senator Klobuchar at a reception.

Dan Kovats, a spokesman for the Sangamon County Chairman's Association, said "This year will be our largest year ever. We'll have close to two thousand people at the event."

Kovatssays general admission tickets are nearly sold out, but some could possibly be available at the door. The event is booked at the ritzy Crowne Plaza hotel near Lake Springfield.

"We're very much in favor of a big tent party," Kovats said. "We're not trying to close anyone out or section it off to anyone."

Statewide office holders like Secretary of State Jesse White, Comptroller Susana Mendoza and Attorney General Lisa Madigan will also be addressing the crowd.

Madigan spokesman Steve Brown bristled at the notion that party leaders were neglecting individual voters in favor of donors, saying only conservative groups would make such a suggestion.

Brown then offered to help promote Pawar'sevent, although he has not said if Speaker Madigan would attend.

"If they want to tell us where it is, we'll put it on our website and let people know about it," Brown replied.

The widening split within state party ranks mirrors a national fight in the Democratic party between the moderate and progressive wings. Several of the primary candidates have opened bruising lines of attack against Madigan in their bid to represent the party in the 2018 general election.

Chris Kennedy has called for a ban on property tax attorneys doubling as state lawmakers, a clear shot at Madigan's private business operation.

State Senator and candidate Daniel Biss (D-Evanston) routinely rails against "money and the machine" and has called for term limits on legislative leaders. Madigan just recently became the longest tenured state House Speaker in American history.

House Representative Scott Drury (D-Highwood) has compared Madigan to big screen villains Dr. Frankenstein and Lord Voldemort, and recently tweeted the state of Illinois more closely resembles a dictatorship than a democracy.

Madigan will be on stage as one of the speakers at next Thursday's fundraising brunch. Party leaders have instructed primary candidates to keep their speeches under three minutes.

Read the original post:
Pawar bucks Madigan, hosts 'Progressives Day' rally - IllinoisHomePage.net

For now, at least, the attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act appears dead. Sabotage by a spiteful Trump administration is still a risk, but there is gasp! a bipartisan push to limit the damage, with Democrats who want to preserve recent gains allying with Republicans who fear that the public will blame them for declining coverage and rising premiums.

This represents a huge victory for progressives, who did a startlingly good job of marshaling facts, mobilizing public opinion and pressuring politicians to stand their ground. But where do they go from here? If Democrats regain control of Congress and the White House, what will they do with the opportunity?

Paul Krugman writes for The New York Times.

Well, some progressives by and large people who supported Bernie Sanders in the primaries are already trying to revive one of his signature proposals: expanding Medicare to cover everyone. Some even want to make support for single-payer a litmus test for Democratic candidates.

So it's time for a little pushback. A commitment to universal health coverage bringing in the people currently falling through Obamacare's cracks should definitely be a litmus test. But single-payer, while it has many virtues, isn't the only way to get there; it would be much harder politically than its advocates acknowledge; and there are more important priorities.

The key point to understand about universal coverage is that we know a lot about what it takes, because every other wealthy country has it. How do they do it? Actually, lots of different ways.

Look at the latest report by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund, comparing health care performance among advanced nations. America is at the bottom; the top three performers are Britain, Australia and the Netherlands. And the thing is, these three leaders have very different systems.

Britain has true socialized medicine: The government provides health care directly through the National Health Service. Australia has a single-payer system, basically Medicare for All it's even called Medicare. But the Dutch have what we might call Obamacare done right: individuals are required to buy coverage from regulated private insurers, with subsidies to help them afford the premiums.

And the Dutch system works, which suggests that a lot could be accomplished via incremental improvements in the ACA, rather than radical change. Further evidence for this view is how relatively well Obamacare, imperfect as it is, already works in states that try to make it work did you know that only 5.4 percent of New Yorkers are uninsured?

Meanwhile, the political logic that led to Obamacare rather than Medicare for all still applies. It's not just about paying off the insurance industry, although getting insurers to buy in to health reform wasn't foolish, and arguably helped save the ACA: At a crucial moment America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry lobbying organization, and Blue Cross Blue Shield intervened to denounce Republican plans.

A far more important consideration is minimizing disruption to the 156 million people who get insurance through their employers, and are largely satisfied with their coverage. Moving to single-payer would mean taking away this coverage and imposing new taxes; to make it fly politically; you'd have to convince most of these people both that they would save more in premiums than they pay in additional taxes, and that their new coverage would be just as good as the old.

This might in fact be true, but it would be one heck of a hard sell. Is this really where progressives want to spend their political capital?

What would I do instead? I'd enhance the ACA, not replace it, although I would strongly support reintroducing some form of public option a way for people to buy into public insurance that could eventually lead to single-payer.

Meanwhile, progressives should move beyond health care and focus on other holes in the U.S. safety net.

When you compare the U.S. social welfare system with those of other wealthy countries, what really stands out now is our neglect of children. Other countries provide new parents with extensive paid leave, provide high-quality, subsidized day care for children with working parents and make pre-K available to everyone or almost everyone; we do none of these things. Our spending on families is a third of the advanced-country average, putting us down there with Mexico and Turkey.

So if it were up to me, I'd talk about improving the ACA, not ripping it up and starting over, while opening up a new progressive front on child care.

I have nothing against single-payer; it's what I'd support if we were starting fresh. But we aren't: Getting there from here would be very hard, and might not accomplish much more than a more modest, incremental approach. Even idealists need to set priorities, and Medicare-for-all shouldn't be at the top of the list.

Original post:
Enhance Obamacare and move foward from single-payer - Albany Times Union