Mediaboss Marketing

In 1939, Winston Churchill famously described Russia as a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, which is proving an apt description of the scandal playing out nearly eight decades later about Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections.

As it turns out, our very own Democratic Party was doing some meddling of its own using some of the Russians own tactics while using Russians as a foil. Thats the latest twist in a plot line that makes a John le Carr novel look like a kids coloring book.

The story started, as you recall, in late July of 2016, during the Republican nominating convention in Cleveland, when the international whistleblowing outfit WikiLeaks published thousands of purloined emails from the Democratic National Committee. Their content was somewhat embarrassing to the Democratic establishment, inasmuch as it bolstered the suspicions of the Bernie Sanders faithful, who believed that under party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz the DNC had engaged in various subterfuges to help Hillary Clinton quell the Sanders insurrection.

These efforts included dispatching moles to his campaign events, and paying Hillary supporters to troll Bernie on social media. Although Wasserman Schultz was forced out, the DNC hierarchy and the Clinton campaign needed to respond. They could have simply told the truth and apologized, the truth being that of course party regulars favored Clinton over Sanders: Bernie hadnt even called himself a Democrat until he began running for the partys nomination while Hillary Clinton was Mrs. Democrat. That admission could have been accompanied by expression of regret for their excesses.

But repentance is not in the Clintons playbook. In this case, neither was candor. Instead, the campaigns top officials formulated their lines of attack. First, they cast aspersions on the veracity of the WikiLeaks emails. Second, they insisted this was all a Russian plot to help Donald Trump. It was a calculated one-two punch. By calling into question the authenticity of the emails, Clinton didnt have to respond to their contents the sabotaging of Sanders campaign. In boxing vernacular, that was the left jab setting up the right cross, which was the Russia angle. The jab was a lie: They knew the emails were accurate. Playing the Russia card was, at best, disingenuous. Thanks to the Washington Post, we now know that the Clinton organization had been plotting a preemptive strike against Trump for months when it hired an anti-Republican opposition research outfit called Fusion GPS to go to Russia and dig up dirt on him.

What emerged from those efforts was the salacious anti-Trump dossier produced by ex-British spy Christopher Steele and shopped around to liberal media outlets until BuzzFeed, an online site so hostile to Donald Trump that it refused to accept Republican ads in 2016, took the bait. Virtually everything Clinton and her surrogates have said about Russia and Trump from that day to this has been either a direct falsehood, or a lie of omission. Following up on a tip that Clinton and the DNC were paying Fusion GPS, New York Times reporters were told vigorously by Marc Elias, counsel to both the DNC and the Clinton campaign, that there was nothing to it. Yet, according to the Post expose, there was a lot to it Elias was the one who hired Fusion GPS.

Elias, now representing former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, also reportedly sat mute beside his client while Podesta told a Senate committee that he didnt know who financed Steeles efforts. Then theres Clinton herself. Shes played up the Steele dossier while on the book tour for What Happened, her post-election finger-pointing. In the book itself, she wrote:

In the summer of 2016, according to the Washington Post, the FBI began investigating a dossier prepared by a well-respected former British spy that contained explosive and salacious allegations about compromising information the Russians had on Trump. The intelligence community took the dossier seriously enough that it briefed both President Obama and President-elect Trump on its contents before the inauguration.

Heres whats missing from that account: Clintons campaign paid this well-respected former British spy, setting in the motion the entire affair. Lets stop and consider what that means for a moment. Nobody has revealed how much money was involved but Elias law firm was paid $12.4 million by the DNC and the campaign during the election. How much of that went to Steele? How much did Steele pay his former Russian contacts to spin their spicy tale of Trump cavorting with Russian prostitutes, masking real estate deals as bribes, and generally setting himself up to be blackmailed?

I dont want to cast aspersions on Michael Steele, whom many besides Hillary describe as respected, but theres something about spreading so much cash around as part of an investigation that makes the information suspect. Its why checkbook journalism is rarely considered investigative reporting at all: The money creates an incentive to make things up. Viewed through this prism, it all looks less like a genuine investigation and more like a sting operation orchestrated by the Democrats to win an election.

To this day, the only regret expressed by Clinton or her supporters is that they couldnt place the Steele dossier in the media before the election, though it wasnt for lack of trying. Even without it, nearly every prominent Democrat, including Clinton and President Obama warned of Russian meddling during the last two weeks of the campaign. In the end, it wasnt enough, so after the election, Team Clinton decided to keep using the Russian angle, both to excuse their failure and undermine the candidate who actually won.

Less than 24 hours after Hillarys concession speech, Podesta and Campaign Manager Robby Mook convened a staff meeting at Clintons Brooklyn headquarters to formalize this attack. The effort was described by authors Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes in a book that explains what happened more insightfully than Mrs. Clintons memoir.

For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public, they wrote. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.

But heres the problem. The Russian government was interfering in the U.S. election. Among other scams, Russian internet trolls spread anti-Hillary rumors and fake news. Yes, the DNC trolled Bernie Sanders, but this was a vastly more sophisticated effort. And while Russians are no more monolithic than Americans, if any part of the Steele dossier is accurate, Russia was playing both sides of the fence. But why?

It was while trying to discern Russias motives and future course of action that Winston Churchill invoked his riddle wrapped in mystery inside an enigma line. Thats the famous part of the quote. There was more, however. But perhaps there is a key, Churchill added. That key is Russian national interest.

In the end we may learn that Vladimir Putins goal is simply setting Americans at one anothers throats. If so, he seems to have succeeded. Yet, one wonders: to what aim? Is Russia such a basket case that Putin and his minions can only feel superior by watching us hammer away at each other? If so, perhaps Republicans and Democrats can be induced not to cooperate.

Correction:Christopher Steele is theex-British spy thatproduced theanti-Trump dossier.

Carl M. Cannon is executive editor and Washington Bureau chief of RealClearPolitics.

Read the original here:
How Hillary and the Democrats played Russia card

It took nearly a week, but leading Democrats hope theyve done enough to wash their hands of politically uncomfortable ties to Harvey Weinstein. But Republicans arent letting go just yet.

The Democratic Partys recent days have been punctuated by a flurry of statements condemning the Hollywood fixture for years a high-profile fundraiser for leading Democrats and a flood of promises to send years worth of donations to charity from nearly every prominent lawmaker to receive Weinsteins backing in the past. By Wednesday, each high-profile Democrat to receive money from Weinstein had made plans to direct it elsewhere, aside from recent retirees like former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who still denounced him.

Story Continued Below

But even as top Democratic lawmakers pledged to donate the cash theyd gotten from Weinstein, the Democratic National Committee itself stopped short of promising a full giveaway. The committee pledged "over $30,000" of Weinstein donations to political groups that work to elect women.

The only problem? The DNC had raised over $300,000 from Weinstein, a fact Republicans have been quick to exploit.

"They're keeping 90 percent of his donations; I don't understand, Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel told CNN. "If you stand for treating women well and you stand for the respect of women, you shouldn't take money from somebody who treated women with the absolute highest level of disrespect.

Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The DNC, which has struggled to raise money recently, has not responded to a request for comment.

Still, after a few days of excruciating silence in response to the initial New York Times report and subsequent investigations from the Times and The New Yorker detailing countless accusations of sexual assaults or advances, the frustrated outpouring from elected Democrats reflected the partys discomfort. It was a situation to which Democrats have not recently been accustomed, after all: They found themselves under unrelenting fire from Republicans for ties to Weinstein that were deep and undeniable.

Michelle and I have been disgusted by the recent reports about Harvey Weinstein. Any man who demeans and degrades women in such fashion needs to be condemned and held accountable, regardless of wealth or status, Obama said Tuesday, after five days of pressure to condemn Weinstein, who had bundled over $600,000 for him in 2012, according to federal campaign reports.

I was shocked and appalled by the revelations about Harvey Weinstein. The behavior described by women coming forward cannot be tolerated, Clinton added in a statement of her own, distancing herself from the man who brought her 2016 presidential campaign over $1.4 million. On Wednesday, Clinton appeared on CNN and pledged to donate the money received from Weinstein to charity.

At a time that Democrats were hoping to be pushing back against President Donald Trumps tax push and enflaming tensions between Republican senators and the White House, the partys leaders instead were forced to fend off repeated questions about their relationships with the man each was quick to condemn.

While the retired Clinton and Obama took until Tuesday to weigh in, it didnt take as long for active Democrats to speak out against Weinstein. Leading Republicans were nonetheless even quicker to tie the onetime California power broker to the partys leading lawmakers.

During three decades worth of sexual harassment allegations, Harvey Weinstein lined the pockets of Democrats to the tune of three-quarters of a million dollars, the RNCs McDaniel said in a statement last week. If Democrats and the DNC truly stand up for women like they say they do, then returning this dirty money should be a no brainer.

Donald Trump Jr. tweeted repeatedly about Weinstein after the first story broke, urging Democrats to disavow their donor.

It took Hillary abt 5 minutes to blame NRA for madmans rampage, but 5 days to sorta-kinda blame Harvey Weinstein 4 his sexually [sic] assaults, chimed in White House adviser Kellyanne Conway on Twitter on Tuesday.

The questions didnt let up for Democrats after the holiday weekend.

Any leader should condemn this, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, Clintons 2016 running mate, told CNN on Tuesday morning in response to questions about Weinstein. These allegations are low-life behavior."

All the while, many in the party privately fumed as GOP officials amped up the pressure on them to return campaign cash from the former studio head, furious that Republicans would make this an issue considering the multiple sexual harassment allegations against Trump himself.

By the middle of this week, however, leading Democrats and party groups said they would donate as much money as they had received from Weinstein to charities, many dealing with sexual and domestic violence. That included senators such as Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and Sens. Al Franken of Minnesota, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.

But the Democratic National Committee itself said it would give a portion of the money it had received to political groups that work to elect women, raising further GOP eyebrows and hardly putting the story to rest.

Weinstein had positioned himself as close to a number of party leaders Malia Obama interned at The Weinstein Co. in 2016 and at least six of the recipients of his money are potential 2020 presidential candidates.

But by Wednesday each member of that group But by Wednesday five members of that group Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California, and Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia had pledged to send the money to charity. The campaign of the sixth, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York, said it would donate $50,000 to an unspecified womens charity. Cuomo, who had raised $110,400 from Weinstein or his company since 1999, will hang on to the remainder of the money, a decision criticized by Republicans.

Cristiano Lima contributed to this report.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

The rest is here:
Democrats dogged by Weinstein cash - POLITICO

Democratic candidates are reporting historic early fundraising totals, alarming GOP strategists and raising the prospect that 2018 could feature the most expansive House battlefield in years.

Animated by opposition to President Donald Trump and the Republican congressional majorities, at least 162 Democratic candidates in 82 GOP-held districts have raised over $100,000 so far this year, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest FEC data. Thats about four times as many candidates as House Democrats had at this point before the 2016 or 2014 elections, and its more than twice as many as Republicans had running at this point eight years ago, on the eve of capturing the House in the 2010 wave election.

Story Continued Below

Nearly three dozen Republican incumbents were outraised by Democratic challengers in the third quarter of this year a stunning figure. Nine GOP incumbents already trail a Democratic opponent in cash on hand, increasing the likelihood that many veteran incumbents will face tough opposition for the first time in years.

The Democrats fundraising success, especially from a glut of candidates who have never run for office before, is unsettling to those charged with protecting the GOP majority.

Thats something that should get every Republicans attention in Washington, said Jason Roe, a Republican strategist who works on House races. These first-timers are printing money."

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.), who has never gotten less than 58 percent of the vote in 12 terms in Congress, is among those suddenly facing cash-flush opposition. Three Democratic opponents outraised Frelinghuysen in the third quarter, and each has already brought in more money than any challenger Frelinghuysen has faced in a quarter-century.

Your guide to the permanent campaign weekday mornings, in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

In Texas, GOP Rep. John Culberson, whose Houston-area district attracted little attention from either party before Hillary Clinton carried it in 2016, finished the summer with less campaign cash than two different Democratic opponents.

The long slate of well-funded Democratic candidates, coupled with a favorable political environment and poor polling numbers for Trump, is raising Democratic hopes of erasing the GOPs 24-seat majority.

The Democrats in 2017 are starting to very much resemble the Republicans in 2009, said former Rep. Steve Israel, who chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2012 and 2014. People are talking about a wave developing, but in order to even begin to think about a wave, you have to be in a position to take advantage in [case of] a wave. And Democrats are clearly in that position.

Many Republican representatives, especially ones battle-hardened from past campaigns, are already preparing hard for 2018 by shoring up their positions. Reps. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) and Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), for example, vastly outraised all of their Democratic challengers in the last quarter as they ready for reelection campaigns in districts Trump lost in 2016.

The fact that the environment is so intense so early is ultimately a good thing, as it makes sure more members will be prepared, said Mike DuHaime, a Republican operative. They can see it coming.

Republican groups are also raising tens of millions of dollars to help bolster their party. The Republican National Committee in particular has outstripped the Democratic National Committee, raising over $100 million and building up cash reserves of over $44 million this year, ahead of the 2018 elections. House Speaker Paul Ryan has also raised record-setting amounts of money for House Republicans.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee raised $8.9 million in September, beating its Republican counterpart for the fifth month in a row. But the National Republican Congressional Committee still has more than $10 million more in its bank account money that will come in handy across the sprawling battleground, especially if more incumbents retire.

Democrats and Republicans each have a handful of costly, open battleground seats to defend, from Rep. Dave Reicherts (R-Wash.) suburban district outside Seattle to Democratic Rep. Tim Walzs rural seat in southern Minnesota.

Resources will be spread thin because no incumbent in the primary or in the general can afford to not take this seriously, said Roe, the Republican consultant. Were just spread thin. Thats our vulnerability, the strain on resources."

That strain was apparent in recent comments by Rep. Glenn Grothman, who represents a solidly Republican block of eastern Wisconsin, easily won reelection in 2016, and has not typically made lists of GOP incumbents vulnerable to a 2018 challenge. Grothman told a local radio program earlier this month that hes very apprehensive about the future, because the fundraising is not going as well as Id like.

Were not raising as much money as we should, Grothman added.

A week later, his Democratic opponent, Dan Kohl, filed a campaign finance disclosure showing him outpacing the Republican incumbent.

Clearly there is an intensity among the Democratic base that is similar to what Republicans had in 2009, but its hard to tell what its going to be like a year from now, said DuHaime. But you cant deny the enthusiasm.

Stung by over-optimistic projections in past years, Democratic operatives have been careful to avoid declaring a wave on the horizon. With so many candidates piling into crowded Democratic primaries, they worry about their own resources being drained and fear nominees could be pulled too far to the left before difficult general election battles next year.

Its way too early to start measuring the drapes, said former DCCC executive director Kelly Ward, now a top staffer at the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, adding that under the current congressional map, you need a tsunami, not just a wave, to overcome how badly the [district] lines are broken."

The partys first order of business in 2018 will be to navigate an unusual number of expensive primaries looming due to the free-flowing money and the opportunity Democrats smell in dozens of districts. In southern California, two of the biggest Democratic self-funders in the country Andy Thorburn, who loaned his campaign $2 million, and Gil Cisneros, who gave his campaign over half a million dollars are both running against GOP Rep. Ed Royce, along with a handful of other candidates. Three other districts in Orange County alone are similarly crowded, and drenched in campaign money.

In some primaries, local Democrats are pushing back on national party leaders anointment of candidates, as in the fight to take on Rep. Mike Coffman in Colorado. Democrats also expect issues like Sen. Bernie Sanders Medicare-for-all plan to divide candidates, and Republicans are ready to pounce on statements that may play well in Democratic primaries but could be damaging in swing-district general elections.

Nothing beats watching candidates blow their cash trying to explain how progressive they are and how they are still on the fence about Nancy Pelosis place in their party, said Jesse Hunt, the press secretary for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Israel acknowledged the debates within his party but said he does not believe they will weaken Democratic candidates next November.

To the extent that there are differences, they are certainly not sapping Democrats fundraising abilities, not sapping Democratic recruitment and certainly not sapping Democratic energy, Israel said. There may be fissures, but they are not swallowing up our party. The Republicans have fissures that are swallowing up their party.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

Original post:
Democrats early money haul stuns GOP - POLITICO

I totally understand the passion of those who want to bring those statues down, but Democrats cannot lose focus on the overriding issue of midterm elections, which is building the middle class back up, said Steve Israel, a recently retired House Democrat who chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The midterm elections need to be a referendum on whether President Trump has delivered to a middle class that has been pummeled.

Jess OConnell, the chief executive of the Democratic National Committee, disagreed and said the party must operate on all levels.

If we learned anything over the past few months, we know that silence is not an option, she said. We have to hold Republicans accountable, not just President Trump, but Republicans who remain silent.

Democratic leaders argue that all of their efforts are consistent with the twin goals of civil rights and economic rights, while they work to hold Mr. Trump accountable for saying that there were some very fine people on both sides of the unrest in Virginia.

Ms. OConnell said that the Democratic Party must stand against the Confederate statues and focus on the problems that face voters daily, like health care and jobs.

The Rise and Organize campaign has rallied Democrats to knock on doors and call people to encourage them to participate in electoral politics.

People are still asking us about health care. Theyre asking us about the economy and about how to raise wages, Ms. OConnell said. And those are the things that we are working on as well.

But so vague is the slogan #RiseAndOrganize that supporters of Robert James Ritchie, better known as Kid Rock, are using it on Twitter to rally conservatives around the Michigan Republicans possible Senate campaign. On the left, activists have used it for anti-racism programs, for trying to stop the Dakota Access pipeline and for voter registration.

Republicans say all of this only underscores the presidents contention that Democrats have become the party of obstructionism, blocking progress on overhauling the tax code, on building a wall on the southern border and on reviving the nations infrastructure.

In his opinion article, Mr. Schumer called for a concentrated focus on Mr. Trumps Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, headed by Vice President Mike Pence and Kansas hard-line conservative secretary of state, Kris Kobach.

This is how the appalling failure to use the right words and stand up to hate in the aftermath of Charlottesville is made real in the form of policy; they are two edges of the same sword, Mr. Schumer wrote of racism and the commission. Under the guise of voter fraud, which experts agree is practically non-existent, conservative forces in the administration, cheered on by white-supremacy-stoking publications like Breitbart News, are reviving the old playbook of disenfranchising minority voters.

Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, said that Ms. Pelosi also wants to see the commission disbanded, but that she is also pushing to have Congress censure the president, hold congressional hearings on white supremacists and make the case to voters that Democrats will do more to help the middle class.

One can do all of these things, Mr. Hammill said. Those things are not mutually exclusive.

Joseph Pinion III, a Republican strategist, warned that Democrats may get too caught up in fighting cosmetic racism and symbols. Mr. Pinion said that, as an African-American, he wants to see Confederate symbols gone and the presidents election commission disbanded. But, he said, Democrats need to look at why they lost the 2016 presidential election.

The truth is the Democratic Party to this day, in the wake of Hillary Clinton, has gone about absolving itself of any wrongdoing, he said. That is the easiest thing to do and also the most dangerous thing to do.

Until Democrats learn to communicate beyond an activist base to a greater American public, he added, they are still going to be going nowhere fast.

A version of this article appears in print on August 25, 2017, on Page A13 of the New York edition with the headline: Democrats Search for a Unified Response After Charlottesville Violence.

Read more:
Al Drago for The New York Times - New York Times

Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan is better acquainted than most Democrats with the financially stressed voters who helped carry Donald Trump to the White House. He comes home to them every week.

Throngs of erstwhile Democrats voted for Trump in Ryans Rust Belt district in Youngstown, and they cheered his return for a bombastic rally in July.

Yet Ryans plan for winning them back is increasingly out of step in a Democratic Party fast moving to the left.

People from areas like where I come from dont necessarily hate corporations, said the congressman, who wants Democrats to focus on boosting business instead of berating it for economic inequality. In Ryans view, the hate the rich guy thing doesnt work.

Union leader RoseAnn Demoro has equally strong views about what will fail Democrats: Ryans corporate-friendly approach, which she complains the party has clung to since Bill Clinton entered the White House. In any other place they would have fired the entire group of people and started from a different narrative after the last election, said the executive director of National Nurses United. Not the Democrats. They have lost a thousand seats in the last decade and they are still staying the course.

Beneath the united front that Democrats project over matters such as President Trumps appeasement of white supremacists and policy missteps is a deep fissure over how to win back voters on the issue that matters most, the economy. The centrist economic policies that have been a driving force of the Democratic agenda for decades are under heavy attack from an ascendant left, led by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

Moderates are now scrambling to rebrand and reassert the Clintonomics that served them so well in the 1990s and into the Obama administration, including embracing global trade and collaborating with industry. But Hillary Clintons stinging loss has become a major drag on a platform that stops far short of progressives promises of Medicare for all, free college, expanded Social Security, increased taxes on the rich and protectionist trade policies.

Worried that they have nobody with equal star power to Sanders or Warren, centrists are eagerly seeking out recruits in such places as a stealthy confab held in Aspen, Colo., this month by Third Way. But in a sign of the sensitivities, organizers promised not to name the nationally known politicians in attendance lest they face harassment from the left for showing up.

A formidable group of Democratic elected officials led by one of the creators of Clintonomics, Will Marshall, has banded together under the name New Democracy to confront the growing influence of the left. Many of them hail from Trump country.

The group Priorities USA, which is packed with Hillary Clinton loyalists, has also plunged into the economic message debate armed with data from its focus groups of persuadable Trump voters in swing states. The effort is promoted as beneficial to Democrats of all varieties and Priorities USA has no plans to get involved in primaries but it also cautions candidates against banking too far left. Priorities Chairman Guy Cecil, citing the focus group findings, warned Democrats it would be a mistake to stress economic fairness over growth.

Achieving economic success to these voters is more about working hard and leveraging the opportunities you are given, not leveling the playing field, Cecil wrote in a widely distributed memo earlier this month.

A lot of this is familiar. Centrist and progressive Democrats have been tangling for decades over what economic path to take, and the tension only grew in the aftermath of the election. The fight is playing out in backrooms in Washington and hostile volleys between activists over social media.

California Sen. Kamala Harris is among those caught in the crossfire. Activists on the left created a vivid meme that attacked her as a centrist corn cob an insult progressives hurl at politicians they accuse of twisting themselves into positions palatable to the center. They cited her decision while California attorney general not to prosecute billionaire Steven T. Mnuchin, now Trumps Treasury secretary, for misdeeds state investigators uncovered at the California bank Mnuchin ran. Their meme went viral after Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden, a longtime advisor to Hillary Clinton, called on Sanders to tell his supporters to knock it off.

Party leadership sought to foster harmony with the rollout this summer of Democrats A Better Deal platform, which had populist undertones but was muted enough to not repel moderates. The vague document drew no small measure of mockery. Some complained it was about as inspired as the Papa Johns pizza chain slogan it sounded like (Better ingredients. Better pizza.).

The plan was silent on the issue fast emerging as a key focus among Democrats in the economic debate: whether to pursue a single-payer, government-run healthcare system, also known as Medicare for all. Large numbers of Democratic politicians, emboldened by the failure of Republicans to repeal Obamacare, are now backing it, including even some moderates like Rep. Ryan. Ben Tulchin, lead pollster for the Sanders presidential bid, argues that the concept has broad support from voters and can give a boost to Democrats even in conservative districts.

But the push has energized a counter-movement by Third Way, a centrist think tank.

I am completely dubious of these claims that socialized medicine is wildly popular, said Jonathan Cowan, president of Third Way. They never tell people in their polls that it would mean taxes go up significantly and they would not keep their doctor. Try that out. The moment you actually tell people what it is, support collapses.

Cowan noted that Colorado voters in November soundly defeated a single-payer proposal. This is a dangerous political fantasy, he said. If you believe in single-payer health insurance and dont care about the consequences, fine. But to argue it is a political winner when it literally has never gotten more than 30% in a ballot measure is wrong.

Third Way finds itself in a place it had not expected: Relitigating the same fights that played out during the Democratic primary. Its leaders anticipated that at this point they would be advising a Hillary Clinton White House on implementing the many policy proposals she had adopted from their playbook. Instead, they find themselves straining to bring them back into the discussion at all.

Sandersism is the only cause on offer for Democrats right now, Cowan said. It didnt win in the primary. It hasnt been winning since the primary. Its incumbent on Democrats to create and offer a true alternative to this.

Once they do, its going to be a tough sell in a party that has grown impatient with its own establishment.

Demoro, the union executive, has her own prediction on how it will be received by the voters that Democrats are eager to win back: This is how it reads to middle America: They are smug, they are not listening, they are not capable of listening.

evan.halper@latimes.com

Follow me: @evanhalper

ALSO

No, Trump's support hasn't collapsed, but yes, he's increasingly alone

Trump fills Phoenix speech with charged language, accusing media and fellow Republicans of failings

Rather than swift military victory, Trump's Afghanistan plan seeks stalemate and negotiated settlement

UPDATES:

11:40 a.m.: This article was updated with more detail about the meme targeting Sen. Harris.

This article was originally published at 3 a.m.

An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated the New America Foundation hosted a meeting of centrist Democrats in Aspen, Colo. The meeting was hosted by the think tank Third Way.

See more here:
Democrats take shots at one another in their hunt for a winning ... - Los Angeles Times