Mediaboss Marketing

The passing of Mario Cuomo brought bipartisan tributes appropriate to a rare political figure with a developed inner life. He was Catholic-educated, and it showed. How many other politicians grappled with Thomas Aquinas? Even the loser is dignified by such a duel.

But the intensity of affection for Cuomo, especially among Democrats of a certain age, comes from his ideological clarity. In the history of American rhetoric, there are orators of national unity such as Martin Luther King Jr. There are orators of national purpose such as John F. Kennedy. Cuomo was an orator of ideological definition. His 1984 keynote address at the Democratic National Convention provided progressives with the best version of themselves, as tribunes of the forgotten and excluded.

Populists must have felt similarly stirred at the Democratic convention in 1896, when William Jennings Bryan declared war on idle capital. Conservatives still regard a 1964 Ronald Reagan speech, A Time for Choosing, in much the same category. Cuomos Tale of Two Cities belongs in the company of speeches that defined a creed.

But it is worth recalling that Cuomos version of the liberal faith did not prevail, at least immediately. The year he gave that speech, a progressive Democratic presidential candidate lost 49 states. It was Bill Clintons New Democratic overhaul of liberalism that ended his partys long slump in presidential politics.

Democrats still debate whether this was really an overhaul or more of a facelift. Like most effective party reformers, Clinton made significant shifts in tone and policy, without completely alienating his partys base. Rhetorically, Clinton emphasized growth and opportunity over equality. Substantively, he embraced community policing, strong defense, reinventing government and welfare reform the latter a truly dramatic deviation from progressive orthodoxy.

President Obama has now effectively undone everything that Clinton and the New Democrats did in the 1980s and 90s. Issue by issue, todays Democratic Party is about where it was in 1979.

Obamas initial political appeal was personal rather than ideological; he would transcend ideological debates without actually engaging them in any creative or interesting way. He ran for office in 2008 on the aesthetics of politics rather than policy or political philosophy. But he has governed as an utterly conventional, backbench Senate progressive (which, in retrospect, he was). He won reelection by motivating a fundamentally liberal coalition of minorities, young people, women and the college-educated. And he has fully embraced this strategy as a cause. His second inaugural address is among the strongest assertions of a progressive vision uttered by an American president in a century.

In 2012, Obama demonstrated that the New Democrat accommodation is no longer required to win a national election at least for him. It helped, of course, to face the chief executive of Bain Capital in the aftermath of a financial crisis. It also helped that the Republican economic message was stuck in 1979 as well. But unlike a generation ago, when Obamas liberal record would have cost him dearly, he was able to win reelection easily. We are a different nation. Middle America has shifted on some social issues, and the white portion of the electorate has steadily decreased.

Obamas political triumph has been mainly personal. Since 2009, Democrats are down 70 seats in the House and 14 seats in the Senate. Obamas positioning of his party has involved ceding groups and regions particularly white voters in deep and border South that once were coveted objects of New Democratic appeal. But Obama has demonstrated that a progressive can win a national election without making this outreach. He has proved, it seems, that Clintonism is no longer necessary.

Just as another Clinton (Hillary) has become the Democratic front-runner.

More here:
Gerson: Are Democrats stuck in 1979?

Gary Cameron/Reuters

Democrats are looking to reclaim their Senate majority in two years, but after losing nine Senate seats in 2014, their path back to that majority won't be easy.

Democrats will be benefiting from a favorable landscape, with Republicans defending 24 seats (many of them in blue territory) while Democrats will be defending only 10. To leverage that advantage into control of the Senate, however, Democrats need to net at least four seats (five, if Republicans win the presidency). That requires sweeping out blue-state freshman Republicans in states such as Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin while also defeating a couple of brand-name senators, such as Rob Portman or Marco Rubio, in perennial swing states.

So to kick off the new year, here is National Journal's preview of the seven most compelling Senate races in 2016, with the most pressing question that will determine the race's outcome listed below:

Nevada: Does Governor Brian Sandoval run against Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid?

Despite sporting the worst approval ratings of any senator running for reelection in 2016, Reid is as well prepared as anyone to take on his competitionor at least to scare them away from running in the first place. The GOP's dream candidate, Governor Brian Sandoval, would probably start out ahead, thanks to his statewide political profile, moderate reputation, and Hispanic background. But he's far from a sure thing to run, knowing Reid's excellent track record in pulverizing his opposition. Giving up an influential job where he's become one of the GOP's nationally compelling politicians to wrestle in the mud with the Senate minority leader isn't exactly a no-brainer of a decision.

Reid, however, is looking vulnerable enough that Nevada political analyst Jon Ralston rates his chances as no better than 55 percent, no matter whom the Republicans run against him. But if Sandoval passes on the race, there's a greater chance that a hard-right candidate could emerge in a primaryand that's proven to be a surefire path to victory for Reid in the past. And the presidential-year electorate in 2016, with higher Hispanic turnout, should be very beneficial for Reid. That's one reason he was such an enthusiastic champion of President Obama's executive orders on immigration. It's no coincidence that Obama announced the decision, Reid by his side, in Las Vegas.

Wisconsin: If Russ Feingold runs, will he welcome the financial support of outside groups, including the DSCC?

During his time in the Senate, Feingold was the Democrats' leading campaign finance scoldand he lived up to his principles in practice. He refused any outside spending from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in his unsuccessful 2010 campaign, and from any other outside super PACs. But a lot has changed in the past four years, and without the assistance of outside groups, Feingold would be badly outspent. Senator Ron Johnson, who self-financed his way to a comfortable victory to win the seat, has the resources to do so again in two years.

Feingold has been coy about his future plans, but Democrats expect him to consider a comeback against Johnson. Feingold is a favorite of progressives, and his candidacy would be a reliable way to energize the grassroots base. But some Democrats would prefer a more-moderate nominee with a better relationship with party leaders, such as Representative Ron Kind.

Go here to see the original:
Democrats' Narrow Path Back to Senate Control

Reid Wilson had a great piece over the weekend reporting that Republicans, having expanded their control on the level of the states, are now planning to move forward with a juggernaut of conservative legislation in dozens of places, including in the 24 states where they are now in total control.

This is another reminder of a topic weve discussed before: The urgent need for Democrats to focus more energy and resources on making electoral and policy gains at the state level.

As it turns out, there are now some signs that Dems are trying to do this: Various groups and party officials are planning new efforts along these lines.

The picture Wilsons piece paints is bleak for Democrats. In addition to enjoying total control of government in half the states, Republicans also control 31 governorships and two thirds of partisan legislative chambers. Wilson reports that all over the country, Republicans are planning new rounds of fiscally conservative tax policies; right to work laws that would further weaken labor unions; and fresh initiatives targeting abortion rights and environmental regulations, among other things. What can Democrats do about this, in the near and long term?

Some Dems have formed a group called the State Innovation Exchange, a coalition of lawmakers and operatives that is meant to go toe-to-toe with right wing state-focused groups such as the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council.

Nick Rathod, the executive director of the State Innovation Exchange, tells me his group is examining new types of legislative templates that lawmakers can employ on the state level to move progressive ideas forward just as ALEC does for conservative policies.

Rathod says his group is formulating a police reform bill that would create some form of state-level independent oversight agency, in hopes of capitalizing on the organizing energy unleashed by recent police killings. The group is also developing voting reform proposals that would expand voting access and flexibility, and proposals that would boost paid sick days, among other things. The group will encourage local Democrats to introduce such proposals in various states, where appropriate, in hopes of generating discussion and attention to them even in places where Republicans have control.

As difficult as it might seem to get anything done this way, Rathod points out that even in the last election which was awful for Democrats multiple states passed minimum wage hikes, showing that progressive policies can be moved forward even on hostile political turf. This is a big deal: In part due to those and other previous victories, millions of Americans are getting a raise this year, even in territory where Dems sustained major losses.

All this is being eyed as a long game, and part of the mission here is to reorient the Democratic donor class. Ultimately we want to get to a $10-12 million budget over the course of the next few years, Rathod tells me. Donors understand that if we want to get something done in this country, we have to go to the states, because its not happening in D.C. Historically, donors have focused on federal elections and moving policy at the federal level. Theres still a strong need to get people more excited about the possibilities at the state level.

Meanwhile, the influential Democracy Alliance, a group of wealthy liberal donors, is currently working on a plan to channel money from the partys top money people into elections in states. Key to this plan will be figuring out how to make relatively un-sexy state-level contests and issues attractive to money folks who think all the action is in high profile federal races.

Read more:
Sargent: Shellacked on the state level, Democrats chart a way out of the wilderness

Remembering #39;liberal lion #39; Mario Cuomo / Democrats, New York
Remembering #39;liberal lion #39; Mario Cuomo Liberal lion and Former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo passed away at the age of 82. Ed Schultz and Fmr. Gov. Howard Dean remember the great man who ...

By: MSNBC News

See the original post here:
Remembering 'liberal lion' Mario Cuomo / Democrats, New York - Video

Gary Cameron/Reuters

Democrats are looking to reclaim their Senate majority in two years, but after losing nine Senate seats in 2014, their path back to that majority won't be easy.

Democrats will be benefiting from a favorable landscape, with Republicans defending 24 seats (many of them in blue territory) while Democrats will be defending only 10. To leverage that advantage into control of the Senate, however, Democrats need to net at least four seats (five, if Republicans win the presidency). That requires sweeping out blue-state freshman Republicans in states such as Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin while also defeating a couple of brand-name senators, such as Rob Portman or Marco Rubio, in perennial swing states.

So to kick off the new year, here is National Journal's preview of the seven most compelling Senate races in 2016, with the most pressing question that will determine the race's outcome listed below:

Nevada: Does Governor Brian Sandoval run against Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid?

Despite sporting the worst approval ratings of any senator running for reelection in 2016, Reid is as well prepared as anyone to take on his competitionor at least to scare them away from running in the first place. The GOP's dream candidate, Governor Brian Sandoval, would probably start out ahead, thanks to his statewide political profile, moderate reputation, and Hispanic background. But he's far from a sure thing to run, knowing Reid's excellent track record in pulverizing his opposition. Giving up an influential job where he's become one of the GOP's nationally compelling politicians to wrestle in the mud with the Senate minority leader isn't exactly a no-brainer of a decision.

Reid, however, is looking vulnerable enough that Nevada political analyst Jon Ralston rates his chances as no better than 55 percent, no matter whom the Republicans run against him. But if Sandoval passes on the race, there's a greater chance that a hard-right candidate could emerge in a primaryand that's proven to be a surefire path to victory for Reid in the past. And the presidential-year electorate in 2016, with higher Hispanic turnout, should be very beneficial for Reid. That's one reason he was such an enthusiastic champion of President Obama's executive orders on immigration. It's no coincidence that Obama announced the decision, Reid by his side, in Las Vegas.

Wisconsin: If Russ Feingold runs, will he welcome the financial support of outside groups, including the DSCC?

During his time in the Senate, Feingold was the Democrats' leading campaign finance scoldand he lived up to his principles in practice. He refused any outside spending from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in his unsuccessful 2010 campaign, and from any other outside super PACs. But a lot has changed in the past four years, and without the assistance of outside groups, Feingold would be badly outspent. Senator Ron Johnson, who self-financed his way to a comfortable victory to win the seat, has the resources to do so again in two years.

Feingold has been coy about his future plans, but Democrats expect him to consider a comeback against Johnson. Feingold is a favorite of progressives, and his candidacy would be a reliable way to energize the grassroots base. But some Democrats would prefer a more-moderate nominee with a better relationship with party leaders, such as Representative Ron Kind.

View post:
Democrats' Narrow Path Back to Controlling the Senate