Mediaboss Marketing

House Republicans are feeling good about their defense of President TrumpDonald John TrumpGermans think Trump is more dangerous to world peace than Kim Jong Un and Putin: survey Trump jokes removal of 'Home Alone 2' cameo from Canadian broadcast is retaliation from 'Justin T' Trump pushed drug cartel policy despite Cabinet objections: report MORE in this months impeachment vote, and now want to use the divisive fight to cut into the Democratic majority in next falls elections.

Republicans would need to gain about 20 seats to win back the House majority, something seen as a tall order by most political observers.

Much will depend on the presidential election, as a Trump victory would likely offer some coattails for Republicans. Yet Trumps low approval ratings and the possibility he could again win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote makes the GOP an underdog in seeking to end Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiPoll: More independent voters trusting of news stories Health care, spending bills fuel busy year for K Street Trump goes after Pelosi in early morning tweets complaining about impeachment MOREs (D-Calif.) second Speakership.

Gains by the GOP are much more likely, and Republicans are confident they can use the impeachment votes by many House Democrats against them starting with those representing districts won by Trump in 2016.

There are 30 such seats following Rep. Jefferson Van Drews (N.J.) decision to switch parties and become a Republican.

For the Democrats running in those 30 Trump districts, they now need to tell their constituents why they voted against their vote for president, and I think that's going to be a very difficult argument to make, especially with President Trump on the ballot, National Republican Congressional Committee Spokesman Michael McAdams told The Hill.

McAdams argues Democrats will be in a tricky position given GOP voters are energized by an impeachment they oppose. He also noted polling that shows independents opposed to impeachment.

Democrats recognize the threat, particularly in districts such as Rep. Joe CunninghamJoseph CunninghamHow the 31 Democrats in Trump districts voted on impeachment The Hill's Morning Report - Vulnerable Dems are backing Trump impeachment GOP claims vindication, but Van Drew decision doesn't spark defections MOREs in Charleston, S.C., and Kendra HornKendra Suzanne HornHouse votes to temporarily repeal Trump SALT deduction cap How the 31 Democrats in Trump districts voted on impeachment Pelosi, other female Democrats wear black to mark 'somber' Trump impeachment vote MOREs in Oklahoma City. Those two districts were surprises for Democrats in 2018, with Horn having flipped a seat that had been held by Republicans since 1975 and Cunningham won a district held by the GOP since 1981.

At the same time, they arent sweating too much about the possibility of losing their majority.

One Democratic operative pointed to a recent Politico-Morning Consult poll showing 52 percent of respondents support impeaching the president, as well as a funding edge for the party.

The source said they expect Democrats in swing districts to place a strong focus on health care and drug pricing.

We have a huge, huge, huge advantage on drug prices and health care and it's where we're going to spend our money money that we have more than they do," the operative said. We have more money on the hard side than they do, which obviously goes a lot further.

Given Van Drews party switch, just one Democrat Rep. Collin PetersonCollin Clark PetersonGabbard under fire for 'present' vote on impeachment Gabbard rips Pelosi for delay of impeachment articles The Hill's Morning Report - In historic vote, House impeaches Trump MORE (Minn.) voted against impeachment. Peterson represents a district Trump won by more than 30 points. Hes held it for decades, but is likely to face a tough challenge.

Of the 30 Democrats representing districts won by Trump, McAdams noted that Trump won 13 by more than 6 1/2 points.

He also said New Jersey, where Van Drew appeared to decide his best route to reelection was to run as a Republican, will be a key state. Democrats gained four seats in the state in 2018.

Conservative outside groups have also ramped up spending on anti-impeachment ad campaigns, hammering Democrats on their votes in districts they see as winnable.

Shortly after the Houses impeachment vote, American Action Network announced plans to spend an additional $2.5 million in 29 Trump-won districts held by Democrats, following an $8.5 million spending blitz in the weeks leading up to the articles of impeachment coming to the floor.

And prominent figures in the party have been making the rounds on cable news and taking to social media in an attempt to amplify their anti-impeachment messaging, taking aim at Pelosi and leaders of the inquiry including House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffTrump's tweets became more negative during impeachment, finds USA Today Trump attacks Democrats over impeachment following call with military members Saudi sentencing in Khashoggi killing draws criticism except from White House MORE (D-Calif.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold NadlerJerrold (Jerry) Lewis NadlerImpeachment's historic moment boils down to 'rooting for laundry' Impeachment just confirms Trump's leadership 2019 was a historic year for marijuana law reform here's why MORE (D-N.Y.).

House Minority Whip Steve ScaliseStephen (Steve) Joseph Scalise2019 in Photos: 35 pictures in politics A solemn impeachment day on Capitol Hill House votes to impeach Trump MORE (R-La.) said he expects moderate Democrats to try to separate themselves from the impeachment narrative as the election grows nearer.

There are a lot of Democrats today who voted for people who can't go back home and explain that vote, and I will challenge them if they're getting a lot of people criticizing their vote, I would challenge them to invite Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff to explain what was done today, he told reporters immediately after the impeachment vote.

The Democratic operative said if Republicans were that confident about winning back the majority in 2020, fewer would be retiring.

So far 25 Republicans have announced they will not run for reelection next year, including Reps. Will HurdWilliam Ballard HurdSunday shows - Republicans, Democrats maneuver ahead of House impeachment vote Texas Republican: You can oppose impeachment and disagree with 'some of this behavior' Sunday Talk Shows: Lawmakers look ahead to House vote on articles of impeachment, Senate trial MORE (Texas), Mark WalkerBradley (Mark) Mark WalkerA solemn impeachment day on Capitol Hill GOP begins impeachment delay tactics with motion to adjourn The Hill's Morning Report - Vulnerable Dems are backing Trump impeachment MORE (N.C.) and George HoldingGeorge Edward Bell HoldingMark Walker mulling 2022 Senate bid, won't seek reelection in the House North Carolina congressman says he won't seek reelection after redistricting Democrats likely to gain seats under new North Carolina maps MORE (N.C.).

Some represent districts that appear likely to be won by Democrats.

The Cook Political Report has Democrats favored to win two seats in North Carolina that will be easier pickups for the party because of new congressional district lines brought about by a court decision. The two seats are held by Walker and Holding.

Democrats are also favored to pick up a seat in Texas.

If impeachment is so great for them, why are all their members retiring and why are they are not raising more money two signs that look bad for them in flipping the House, the operative said.

Go here to read the rest:
House GOP vows to use impeachment to cut into Democratic majority | TheHill - The Hill

To the Editor:

Re Democrats Sparred Over a Wine Cave. Its Billionaire Owner Isnt Pleased (news article, Dec. 22):

It is amazing how thin a skin some billionaires have. Criticize their opulence or even mention a wealth tax, and they are quickly insulted or get all jittery. I guess more money than most people can imagine is still not enough to feel secure.

However, the issue is not a $900 bottle of wine served at a fund-raiser for Pete Buttigieg, even though that sounds extravagant by any standard. The issue is money in politics.

I do not begrudge the wealthy their money and the lifestyle it buys. Opulence generates business and jobs, and capitalism has spawned a good life for the majority of us. However, there are too many around the world and here at home who continue to live in or near poverty. There simply needs to be a far better balance and a system free from the heavy influence in politics that concentrated and unfettered wealth brings.

If you do not want to end up as a political talking point, at least make your donations without the need to serve $900 bottles of wine.

Bruce NeumanWater Mill, N.Y.

To the Editor:

As someone who fervently hopes for a Democrat to beat President Trump in 2020, I am deeply troubled by the wine cave kerfuffle and the Democratic lefts purity test. If fund-raising among those with deep pockets is condemned as corrupt, Democrats are destined to lose.

The situation reminds me of what the Chinese call Ah-Q-ism after a fictional character by the author Lu Xun. Ah-Q rationalizes that he has succeeded despite his repeated failures because he has the moral high ground.

I fear this will be the Democrats fate in 2020; they will console themselves for having retained their purity while all of the values we Democrats hold dear will be trampled underfoot, not just for four years, but for decades to come because of Trumpisms victory.

Ginny MayerEdmonds, Wash.

See the rest here:
Wine Caves and Purity Tests in Democratic Politics - The New York Times

California is a near daily punching bag for White House, so it figures that the largest tax overhaul in decades pushed through by President Trump would take aim at this deep blue state. But Democrats are now working to rid the rules of a particularly galling feature targeting Golden State residents.

By a slim margin Democrats in the House voted to remove a cap on deductions based on state and local taxes collectively known as SALT. Under the Trump rules, a taxpayer can deduct up to $10,000 in such levies, a critically low amount in high tax states such as this one and New York, New Jersey and Illinois. Guess what? These state also happen to reliably vote Democratic, meaning the lower number is a slap at Trump foes.

Why it matters here should be clear. Housing prices mean new buyers have high property tax bills along with state incomes taxes. Holding these SALT levies to $10,000 means that taxpayers are denied thousands more in deductions they took in years past. A state report last year estimated that Californians will pay $12 billion more in taxes.

What the House Democrats did is to undo the cap but with an addition. The super-wealthy earning $100 million or more wont be in line for sky-high deductions as before.

The vote wasnt an easy one. Numerous study groups say that the deductions are a gift to upper income groups who are more likely to have bigger property and sales tax bills. That worried some Democrats and led progressive members to oppose the changes. But the Trump deduction cap harms many more than a plush segment of society.

In an opinion piece in the Times of San Diego, local Rep. Mike Levin, a Democrat, noted that 58,000 people in his coastal district making less than $100,000 per year will lose out due to the SALT deduction changes. Home sales may be harmed if buyers cant look forward to tax benefits that make a buy pencil out.

The future of the House measure is dim given the GOP majority in the Senate. But theres every reason to demand changes in politically contrived tax law.

This commentary is from The Chronicles editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters.

Read the original here:
Editorial: Democrats are pushing the right fix to a Trump tax law - San Francisco Chronicle

Its the holidays, which means you need something long to read while lounging around the house. Luckily, were taking a break from the news to give you an in-depth look at each of the Flyover states as we head into 2020. With the help of cleveland.com data guru Rich Exner, weve compiled all sorts of facts and figures from the past two elections to really understand whats happening on the ground in our seven states.

Today we head to Illinois. Heres where you can find our write-ups about Indiana, Wisconsin and Ohio.

The largest of the Flyover states, Illinois also happens to be one of the largest Democratic strongholds in the country. The home state of former President Barack Obama is bolstered by Chicago, the third largest metro area in the country.

Considering the term Chicago politics is now an epithet against Democratic machine politics, its pretty safe to say that you can put this one in the D column for 2020. The state hasnt voted for a Republican for president since George H.W. Bush in 1988 (though notably voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 as well). Democrats control all branches of state government, including supermajorities in both the state House and Senate.

Its not just voting trends, either. Chicago has served as a sort of Midwest epicenter for the anti-President Donald Trump movement. It was in Chicago that Trump was forced to shut down a rally after protesters shouted him off stage. And its no wonder why. Perhaps no city in America is Trumps favorite punching bag more than Chicago a feud that likely started over his downtown hotel there.

Oh, and you cant forget the corruption, including a sweeping probe going on right now. Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat, is currently sitting in prison possibly awaiting a Trump pardon. Former Gov. George Ryan, a Republican and Blagojevichs predecessor, got out of prison in 2013.

Nevertheless, the state is often much more competitive than people give it credit for. Since 1990, three of the last six governors have been Republicans, though the latest only served one term. In the 2020 elections, the importance of Illinois actually lies in several of its congressional districts, which could play a key part in determining who wins the House.

Illinois is the largest of all the Flyover states, but is also the only one that has shrunk since 2012, meaning it will almost certainly lose a congressional seat after redistricting in 2020.

The full set of data can be found here.

2010: 12,830,602

2012: 12,884,119

2016: 12,826,195

2018: 12,741,080

Net change: -89,552

Net change in Flyover states: 724,790

U.S. change: 18,421,896

Percentage change: -0.70%

Flyover percentage: 1.17%

U.S. percentage: 5.97%

Voting age citizens 2012: 8,934,979

Voting age citizens 2016: 9,038,458

Voting age citizens 2018: 9,074,766

Net change: 139,787

Flyover change: 950,932

U.S. change: 13,557,146

Percentage change: 1.56%

Flyover percentage: 2.07%

U.S. change: 6.16%

Illinois is the most diverse of the Flyover states, largely anchored by Chicago. It is the only Flyover state that closely resembles the United States as a whole, demographically speaking. In fact, it is slightly more diverse than the U.S. overall.

The full set of data can be found here.

White: 71.7%

Flyover median: 81.0%

U.S.: 72.2%

Black: 14.1%

Flyover median: 11.2%

U.S.: 12.7%

Asian: 5.6%

Flyover median: 2.8%

U.S.: 5.6%

Other or multi-race: 8.6%

Flyover median: 5.2%

U.S.: 9.5%

Hispanic: 17.3%

Flyover median: 6.9%

U.S.: 18.3%

Foreign Born: 14.1%

Flyover median: 5.5%

U.S.: 13.7%

Median age: 38.3

Flyover median: 39.5

U.S. median: 38.2

Illinois is far and away the most educated of the Flyover states. It has a higher rate of high school graduation, bachelors degrees and professional degrees for residents aged 25 and up than the country as a whole. It also has, by far, the highest median family income of Flyover states.

The full set of data can be found here.

High school degree or higher (25+): 89.5%

Flyover median: 91%

United States: 88.3%

Bachelors or higher (25+): 35.1%

Flyover median: 29.6%

United States: 32.6%

Graduate or professional degree (25+): 14.0%

Flyover median: 11.1%

United States: 12.6%

Median family income: $81,313

Flyover median: $76,068

United States: $76,401

When we decided to put together this list, we wanted to look at the jobs and unemployment figures around the time of the presidential election. Illinois was hit harder during the recession, with unemployment climbing to the highest of any Flyover state and higher than the U.S. unemployment rate. Its recovery was also slower, in terms of job growth, from 2013-2017. But since 2017, Illinois has outpaced its neighbors in terms of job growth.

The full set of data can be found here.

Jan. 2013 jobs: 5,782,000

Jan. 2017 jobs: 6,043,000

Oct. 2019 jobs: 6,192,300

2013-2017 change: 261,000

Illinois percentage change: 4.5%

Flyover percentage change: 5%

U.S. percentage change: 7.7%

2017-2019 change: 149,300

Illinois percentage change: 2.5%

Flyover percentage change: 1.9%

U.S. percentage change: 4.3%

Jan. 2013 unemployment: 9.2%

Flyover median: 7.9%

U.S. rate: 8%

Jan. 2017 unemployment: 5.3% (-3.9)

Flyover median: 4.9

U.S. rate: 4.7% (-3.3)

Oct. 2019 unemployment: 3.9% (-1.4)

Flyover median: 3.9%

U.S. rate: 3.9% (-0.8)

As I said at the top of this edition, Democrats have a stranglehold on Illinois state government. Led by House Speaker Michael Madigan, they have supermajorities in both chambers. Now-Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat and one of the richest men in the state, ousted former Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican and also one of the richest men in the state, in 2018. Democrats hold the rest of the statewide offices as well, though with more ebb and flow between parties in the past decade.

Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, both Democrats, represent the state in the U.S. Senate. Durbin is Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumers top deputy. The 18 members of Congress are split 13-5 in favor of Democrats, largely due to heavy partisan gerrymandering. Illinois is also home to Rep. Cheri Bustos, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

President Barack Obama easily won the state in 2012 by 884,000 votes. Illinois was the only Flyover state where Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump in 2016, which she did by a 944,000-vote margin.

Democrats have won the U.S. House vote every year since 2012 by anywhere from 100,000 to 500,000 votes, though the delegation has fluctuated. However, in 2018 the blue wave overtook much of the state, with Democrats winning the U.S. House vote by more than 1,000,000 votes, picking up two seats in the process.

The full set of data can be found here.

2012 presidential election margin: D, 884,296

Flyover: D, 1,847,011

U.S.: D, 4,982,291

2016 presidential election margin: D, 944,714

Flyover: R, 251,345

U.S.: D, 2,868,686

2012 Illinois congressional vote margin: D, 535,884

Flyover: D, 539,951

Continue reading here:
Illinois provides the Democrats with a Midwestern base: The Flyover - cleveland.com

WASHINGTON The high costs of health care are a driving force animating House Democrats in the swing districts that will decide control of Congress next year, with the electoral consequences of their votes to impeach President Trump unclear and a court ruling that left the fate of the Affordable Care Act in limbo.

From the suburbs of Seattle, Chicago, Philadelphia and Richmond, Va., to East Lansing, Mich., and Southern California, first-term Democrats see the worries about health care that secured their 2018 elections playing out again in 2020, and they are eager to run toward them.

I have done 15 town halls in my district this year and the top issue I have talked about is lowering prescription drug costs, said Representative Andy Kim, Democrat of New Jersey, who has made addressing health care costs the central point of his legislative agenda and his re-election campaign. The cost side of things is something people see on a daily basis. Its something tangible that they understand is a problem.

The House majority in 2020 will be decided in roughly two dozen districts like Mr. Kims in south central New Jersey, where Republican voters outnumber Democrats, but where a Democrat nonetheless picked off a Republican incumbent in 2018. Democrats hope the debate over rising health care costs will give them a decisive advantage, especially in suburban districts where Mr. Trump, who has failed to deliver on his promises to lower drug prices, remains unpopular.

The Republicans relentless attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act when they were in charge helped Democrats take back the House in 2018. Now, even as the future of the law hangs in the balance in the court system, with an appeals court striking down the individual mandate last week but further delaying any resolution, much of the Democrats political message has moved from how to save health care to how to pay for it.

Im confident health care will be a huge part of the election discussion next year, said Nathan Gonzales, the editor of Inside Elections, a nonpartisan analysis of congressional races. Democrats want to talk about health care, in part because they believe it was a key factor in helping them win back the House in 2018.

Representative Abigail Spanberger, Democrat of Virginia, recalled how in 2017, when she was running for her first term, a major concern she heard from voters was the potential loss of protections for those with pre-existing conditions.

That was top of mind, she said. Then it would go into the cost of premiums and cost of prescription drugs. Now the starting point is the cost of drugs, and, Oh by the way, I want to make sure pre-existing conditions are protected.

House Democrats passed far-reaching legislation this month that would empower the federal government to negotiate lower prices for scores of prescription medications, all but force pharmaceutical companies to offer those prices to all consumers and cap out-of-pocket drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries.

Republicans have labeled the House bill a form of socialism, and they dislike the notion of the government negotiating directly with drugmakers, even though Mr. Trump was among the first people in Washington to promote the idea. The Republican-controlled Senate is unlikely to take up the House bill. But Democrats are set to run hard on it, providing them another point of contrast as they go back to their districts.

Over 80 percent of Americans believe that Congress should work to lower prescription drug costs for as many Americans as possible, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which has been tracking public opinion on health care issues for two decades. The foundation found that Americans viewed lowering prescription drug costs and continuing the A.C.A.s protections for people with pre-existing conditions as the most important priorities for Congress.

When Representative Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of Michigan, went looking for a district office in Lansing after her 2018 victory, she picked a building that housed a large health care center that served low-income residents, underscoring the central policy theme of her campaign. On a recent Monday morning, she attended a round-table event at the center with health care workers and Michigans governor. A patient advocate who lives in Ms. Slotkins district, Sarah Stark, held up vials of insulin that she said now cost her $335 each. People are losing their homes, and their ability to put food on the table, Ms. Stark said.

Ms. Slotkin said the single most common question she hears while speaking to constituents involves health care costs: People will pull me aside and clutch my arm and say: I cant afford my prescription drugs. My son is rationing his insulin. I cant afford my coverage. Im paying more in health care and prescription drugs per month than I am for my mortgage. Im underwater.

Voters cite the rising costs of insurance premiums, higher deductibles, surprise bills from out-of-network providers and price increases for popular and often lifesaving drugs. Even those with employer-based insurance, once viewed as protection against rising costs, have watched their average annual premiums increase by 54 percent over the last decade. Added up, rising health care costs are hitting nearly everyone, nullifying the nominal gains in their paychecks.

The Republican efforts at repeal and replace ironically highlighted the protections in the A.C.A. that would be lost and generated more public support for the law than at any time since its passage, said Mark A. Peterson, a professor at the Meyer and Renee Luskin School of Public Affairs at the University of California, Los Angeles. Now more attention has turned to the other live issue that remains, that has largely always been present and that the A.C.A. has done little to forestall, and in some cases is perceived to have made even worse: out-of-pocket health care costs for individuals and families.

Over the last few months, House Democrats, including many in their first term, have been churning out a slew of bills to address health care costs, holding town hall meetings in their districts on the topic, visiting health care centers and patient groups, and joining forces with advocates for lower drug prices.

Democrats are betting heavily that they have solidified an image as the protectors and defenders of the health care system, just as Republicans long dominated voters confidence on national security issues. They are aided in large part by their attacks on the pharmaceutical industry and a growing trend among Democratic candidates to loudly refuse drugmakers political donations. American voters have disdain for the pharmaceutical industry, according to polling by Gallup. The House Democrats playbook for 2020 will be to paint the Republican Party as doing big pharmas bidding.

The president has been playing Ping-Pong, said Representative Lauren Underwood, Democrat of Illinois. He stood in the House chamber and asked us for the authority to negotiate drug prices, and we delivered, and he walked away.

Health care, Ms. Underwood said, is central to her re-election campaign. She has written 30 pieces of legislation this year, much of it health care related, like a bill signed Monday by Mr. Trump that was designed to make a cheaper generic form of insulin available to consumers more quickly.

Representative Kim Schrier, Democrat of Washington and a pediatrician, said that making her constituents aware of the House prescription drug bill is her biggest campaign priority. She recalled a recent town hall event in her district, shortly before Mr. Trump was impeached, where she expected the impeachment proceedings to dominate the conversation. But what really got peoples attention was H.R. 3, she said, referring to the bill. That was like the grand slam.

Most voters had never heard of the bill, she conceded. This is why I am doing a lot of town halls, sending out mail to people in my district, and frankly it is what I will have to spend a lot of time on the stump and Facebook talking about, she said. Every time I am on TV, I talk about the cost of prescription drugs.

Another factor that has highlighted the high costs of health care is the back-and-forth over Medicare for All, which has been central to the Democratic primary for the White House. The debate shines a light on total spending, said Allison K. Hoffman, an expert on health care law and policy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

In our current system, the health care spending burden is divided among many parties, including employers, employees, the government and charities, she said. In Medicare for All, its all shifted to the federal budget, which makes people ask, Why are we spending nearly 20 percent of gross domestic product on health care?

Republicans, who are fully aware of the drubbing they took over their attempts to unravel the Affordable Care Act, insist that they will not be caught flat-footed again, and that the debate over Medicare for All only fortifies them this time around.

Republicans are on much better ground this cycle, said Bob Salera, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. Voters want bipartisan action to lower the cost of health care and prescription drugs, not socialized medicine.

Democrats like Ms. Schrier, who does not support the Medicare for All approach that has been embraced by several presidential candidates and large swaths of her party, may well find themselves caught between their most liberal constituents, who crave Medicare for All, and Republicans and more centrist Democrats who do not.

I know there is a big movement to blow up the system, but I dont know that we need to do that to make a meaningful change in peoples lives, she said.

The rest is here:
Democrats Who Flipped Seats in 2018 Have a 2020 Playbook: Focus on Drug Costs - The New York Times