Mediaboss Marketing

Right now, theres a flurry of political activity in western Orange County.

With a special legislative election afoot, four Republicans are running vigorous campaigns, debating conservative ideas and collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign cash in House District 44, which envelops Disney, Winter Garden, Dr. Phillips and west Orlando.

So, the Republicans are all-in.

One the other side of the aisle is a single Democratic candidate without much name ID, support or money. As of his last report, he had raised $3,131 with most of that coming from the candidates own pocket.

All this in a district that strongly supported Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump just nine months ago by a double-digit margin, in fact.

This, my friends, is why Democrats are chronic losers in this state because they dont compete.

Heck, they cant even organize.

While Republicans are playing masters-level chess, Democrats are trying to understand the differences between red and black checkers.

In this case, we have a special election the first local one of the Trump era in an provably anti-Trump district and yet the Democratic Party is mostly MIA.

This is not a new phenomenon. Despite having more voters in Florida, Democrats havent won a single statewide office in more than a decade, other than Bill Nelsons seat for U.S. Senate.

As a result, Democrats are about as relevant as an underwater candle.

Now, Dems have made some gains in local legislative and Congressional seats in the past couple of years. But they are still way outnumbered in the Legislature 79-41 in the House and 24-15 in the Senate and struggling to find a path to relevance.

Many Democrats know this.

Doug Head, who ran Orange Countys Democratic Party for 12 years until 2004, is the single big donor (having cut a $500 check) to Paul Chandler, the underfunded candidate in House District 44.

Head knows the party didnt do squat to successfully recruit a well-known candidate and believes that was a mistake, but said he wanted to support the brave soul who stepped up to run.

We need to rethink some of our basic assumptions, Head said of party leaders defeatist approach. And maybe hell have a chance.

Steve Schale, who ran Barack Obamas Florida campaign in 2008, agreed.

You have to give yourself opportunities, Schale said. You need to put good players on the field in as many places as you can.

Even Chandler a 37-year-old former teacher, bank teller and Disney worker who moved back to Orlando just two years ago to run a health-care company knows hes not anyones hand-picked favorite.

Ive always been the underdog, he said. But the only way a House seat is not winnable is if you dont put someone in it to win it.

Hes absolutely right.

Privately, Democrats offer all sorts of excuses for why they didnt do more to recruit and fully back an established candidate.

Theres not enough money. The district still has more registered Republicans. Marco Rubio still won there. We dont have good candidates ready.

Blah, blah, blah. And wah, wah, wah.

How do you think you get good or well-known candidates in the future?

If nothing else, the exercise of running the campaign is calisthenics for the main events, Head said. Weve got to build our muscles.

Schale agreed, calling full-throated campaigns a healthy organizing exercise.

The bottom line: If Democrats dont try in a competitive race like this, theyre basically waving the white flag.

Now, its certainly true that legislative and congressional districts are still gerrymandered in favor of the Republicans. (Democrats also rigged the districts when they controlled the state back decades ago.)

And yes, the Republicans have more money, thanks largely to business interests who believe Republicans better serve their interests. (About $200 million more in party contributions over the past 10 years and even more siphoned through political committees.)

But all that shouldve been even more reason for Democrats to focus on a special election in a competitive district like this one, where snagging just 10,000 votes could flip a seat.

Wes Hodge, the leader of the Orange County Democrats, said the party has been working behind the scenes to help Chandler and said the efforts will step up after the GOP primary on Aug. 15 among Republicans Usha Jain, John Newstreet, Bobby Olszewski and Bruno Portigliatti.

Well see. Maybe Democrats will belatedly step up their game. Maybe both sides will dazzle with impressive campaigns and hearty exchanges of ideas heading into the October general election.

Maybe. But theres no doubt Democrats are starting behind again.

Hodge noted that cronyism is the only reason they are even having this special election.

Hes right about that. The seat is suddenly vacant because Gov. Rick Scott picked sitting state Rep. Eric Eisnaugle a 40-year-old lawyer with a lackluster legislative record, no judicial experience and not even much courtroom experience to serve on one of the highest courts in the state.

And how did that happen? Because once again, Republicans had their chess game mastered. They were thinking three moves ahead while Democrats where fumbling to open the box.

smaxwell@orlandosentinel.com

The rest is here:
This is why Florida Democrats are losers - Orlando Sentinel

SCHENECTADY Damonni Farley can run for Schenectady City Council, just not as a Democrat.

On Friday, state Supreme Court Justice Barry Kramer threw out Farley's petition on procedural grounds.

The insurgent Democrat backed by Mayor Gary McCarthy went to court in hopes of overturning a decision by the Board of Elections that knocked him off the Democratic ballot when 481 signatures on his petitions were found because for assorted reasons to be invalid.

The left Farley with only has 668 valid petitions, and he needed 752 to force a primary because Farley would have been the fourth Democrat vying for three open City Council seats.

Many signatures that the election commissioners threw out last week were ruled invalid because they were Democrats whose actual addresses did not match those on file with the Board of Elections while others who signed the petitions were enrolled in another political party.

Kramer told Farley's attorney, Daniel Smalls, that besides the paperwork not being filed properly the biggest problem was that he failed to include former City Council President Margaret "Peggy" King in the petition he filed Monday.

"She had to named so she had an opportunity to be heard," said Kramer shortly before dismissing the matter.

King filed objections to 534 of the 1,149 signatures submitted by Farley.

Kramer also said it was too late to revise the court document because the statute of limitations had run out.

"This procedural aspect cannot be fixed," said Kramer.

Afterwards, Frank Salamone, who argued the case for the county, said his office was "gratified that the bipartisan decision was upheld," a reference to the fact that Commissioners Amy Hild, a Democratic, and Darlene Harris, a Republican, presided over the process. Both were in court.

Farley said he's disappointed the case wasn't heard, but he's now looking forward to the general election in November.

"This entire process has energized the city of Schenectady and they are gonna come out and vote for me on the Working Family Party line," he added. "Its a new day, we're fired up and ready to go."

The incumbent Democrats are John Mootooveren, Marion Porterfield and Karen Zalewski-Wildzunas.

Three other candidates vying for a City Council seat are Rima Cerrone, a Republican, Mohamed Hafez, a registered Democrat running on the GOP line, and Joseph Muno, who is collecting signatures for a bid as an independent candidate.

Read the rest here:
Farley's bid in court to force Democrats into primary foiled - Albany Times Union

Aug. 3, 2017 at 1:21 PM

Sen. Bernie Sanders speaking at a rally for Heath Mello, a pro-life Democrat who lost the Omaha Democratic mayoral race in the spring.

For Democrats with eyes fixed on the midterms, the months since the 2016 election have been filled with soul-searching about the most promising paths to victory in 2018. This week, Rep. Ben Ray Lujn, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, made some news when he said in an interview with The Hill that the organization wouldnt take a candidates stance on abortion into account when allocating campaign funds. The move has angered some on the left and renewed questions about what ideological deviations from Democratic orthodoxy the party should tolerate as it tries to win back voters who swung for President Trump in last years election.

Activists and some prominent Democrats took umbrage with the DCCCs stance when news of it surfaced this week. Cecile Richards, head of Planned Parenthood, wrote in a tweet, Women deserve access to safe, legal abortion no matter if their state is red or blue its a constitutional right that cant be traded away; and ThinkProgress talked to abortion rights activists who felt undermined by the move. Former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean, who headed the organization during its 2006 50 state strategy push to be competitive, even in conservative states, tweeted out the Hill article and said, Im afraid Ill be with holding support for the DCCC if this is true.

But the DCCC signal on abortion is in keeping with some of what Sen. Bernie Sanders has been pushing for that the party emphasize its economic message over its cultural one. Its this philosophy that led Sanders to campaign this past spring for a Democratic mayoral candidate in Omaha, Nebraska, who voted for abortion restriction measures during his time in the state Senate.

The debate isnt just lip service about how to attract Trump voters its indicative of a split that already exists within the party. A look at the numbers shows Democrats dont all feel the same about abortion rights. In 2017, polarization doesnt just happen across party lines, but within parties themselves.

In 1995, about 66 percent of the overall Democratic electorate believed that abortion should be legal in most or all cases. Since then, Democrats overall have shifted towards greater comfort with abortion. In 2017, 75 percent said they think it should be legal in most or all cases, according to a Pew Research Center poll.

But that shift hasnt occurred across the board within the party. The last couple of years have seen approval for abortion shoot up dramatically among white Democrats and those who identify as ideologically liberal. But black Democrats and ideologically moderate or conservative Democrats have moved more slowly in their approval rates.

Angry reaction to Lujn and the DCCCs decision against an abortion litmus test for campaign funds comes in part because ideological liberals now make up more of the Democratic Party. Those liberals approval rates for abortion have increased dramatically since 2015, indicating perhaps a renewed interest in the abortion rights cause since the rise of Trump.

According to Gallup, liberal affiliation within the Democratic Party has increased by around one percentage point every year since 2001, when it was 30 percent, through 2016, when it was 44 percent. And in just the past two years (the most recent presidential election cycle), self-described liberal Democrats have become dramatically more supportive of abortion rights: In 2015, 78 percent of liberal Democrats thought abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and by 2017, that number was at 88 percent, a dramatic jump.

White Democrats made similar movements in those two years: In 2015, 74 percent of them favored abortion, and in 2017, that number was at 83 percent. Black Democratic voters have also increased their support for abortion rights over the last decade, but continue to lag behind the percentage of white Democrats who favor abortion rights. Views on abortion among black Democrats (who are less likely than white Democrats to identify as liberal) havent substantially changed over the last two years. In 2015, 64 percent of black Democrats thought abortion should be legal, and in 2017 that number had only moved to 66 percent. Thats a 2-percentage point swing compared to white voters almost 9-point swing during the same two years.

In a party that is growing increasingly liberal, the argument to play to an emerging base of voters activated by Trump is compelling. Dean told FiveThirtyEight that he sees cultivating the strength of youth movements as key. The big trick with this age group is to organize them, stop them from being ad hoc, he said. We need to focus on our principles and then sell our principles to people who are inclined to work with them. For Dean, being in favor of abortion rights is one of those principles.

But if the focus for Democrats is the short-term need for 2018 wins, the DCCC and Sanders also have a strong case. Even setting aside whether or not candidates with more moderate views on abortion will win back areas Democrats lost to Trump, abortion doesnt seem to particularly animate a key group that Democrats need to see turn out in 2018: black voters. Although the latest Pew Research Center poll showed that most black Democrats are pro-abortion rights, only 7 percent said the party should limit its support to pro-abortion rights candidates in a recent YouGov poll. White Democrats, on the other hand, prioritized the issue of abortion rights more strongly, with 35 percent of them saying that the party should limit its support to only these types of candidates.

What does seem clear is that as the road to 2018 unspools, the Democrats might need to brace for their own culture war over the culture wars.

Follow this link:
Democrats Aren't In Lockstep Over Abortion That's Why They're Fighting - FiveThirtyEight

Democrats begin to see Pelosi as a 2018 problem McClatchy Washington Bureau In a survey of 20 Democratic House candidates, only one a former Senate staffer from Orange County, California would state support for the congresswoman staying on as leader of the House Democratic Caucus. Of the rest, 18 declined to say if Pelosi ... and more »

Excerpt from:
Democrats begin to see Pelosi as a 2018 problem - McClatchy Washington Bureau

Senior Democrats on Wednesdayendorsed an irrational, socially destructive line of policy that would not be out of place in the Trump White House. No, they did not join Attorney General Jeff Sessions in his intensifying campaign against reverse racism. And they did not announce support for Presidents Trumps absurd border wall. They released a get-tough-on-trade program designed to out-demagogue Trump on one of his signature messages.

This is classic Democrats. Self-conscious that they lost the middle of the country, they recast themselves as the ones who really care about their opponents trademark issue. But Republicans are better at emotional appeals and have already exploited the nations fear and anger. This is John Kerry in 2004, who ran an ineffective national security campaign against George W. Bush. The Democrats latest move on trade is pathetic, and it is bad for the country.

Bill Clinton dragged Democrats toward an optimistic, pro-globalization stance in the 1990s. Since then, the economic case for this position has become more nuanced but has not fundamentally changed. Society at large benefits from increased international trade, in the form of cheaper goods, higher exports and increased specialization. Though there are some losers, most everyone benefits. The rational response is not to forgo trade-related wealth creation but to use some of the gains from trade to compensate the losers.

Many Americans, spurred by irresponsible or ignorant leaders, nevertheless blame trade for creating far more losers than it has. The mainstream of both parties resisted this sentiment until 2016, when Trump executed his hostile takeover of the Republican Party and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) came surprisingly close to winning the Democratic presidential nomination.

Now Democrats have fully evacuated the intellectual high ground. Senate Democratic leaders announced Wednesday that, just like Trump, they favor renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, which has bound North America together with little net impact on U.S. employment. Democrats would also create a new agency that would scrutinize foreign investment in the United States, offer new tax incentives for reshoring jobs and hire a new trade prosecutor to crack down on unfair trade practices.

Democrats unveiled an economic platform on July 24 that included plans to address unfair market competition, rising pharmaceuticals costs and stagnant wages. (Reuters)

These are mostly gimmicks. Two existing agencies already have powers to combat unfair trade practices. Politicians have promised to renegotiate NAFTA before without meaning it. Even so, the policy rollout signaled a more intemperate tone from Democrats. Theyre rapacious, the Chinese, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) exclaimed Wednesday.

Experts are not impressed. Im both saddened and furious that the Senate Dems have jumped on the protectionist bandwagon so fully, with all the rhetorical flourish, New York University Professor Robert Howse told the New York Times. As a matter of policy, none of these measures, on any plausible economic theory, would result in improving the circumstances of U.S. workers, addressing inequality, or the socioeconomic challenges specific to the U.S. heartland.

A common retort is that the nation should seek fair trade, not the harmful trade pacts of past decades, with deals that promote worker and environmental protections. Yet President Barack Obama negotiated just such an agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Turned out that a real-world trade deal did not satisfy anti-trade zealots and the politicians who attack the poverty-destroying, wealth-creating project of global integration. Instead, they became only more resistant. Rather than making the case that the TPP is what trade critics had demanded, that freer trade helps nearly everyone and hurts a relative few, or that automation is responsible for many of the lost manufacturing jobs that offshoring is blamed for, Hillary Clinton unconvincingly flipped against the TPP during her 2016 primary race against Sanders.

Now the Democratic Party the one to which the country must look for responsible governance in the age of Trump has formally surrendered to anti-trade nonsense. With ever-fewer leaders making the case for globalization, it will be easier for Americans to assume that freer trade has devastated the nation. The country should focus on building trade relationships while investing in education, infrastructure and other things that will make the country less stratified and more internationally competitive. Instead, it will continue to shrink from global leadership and waste resources trying to save a manufacturing economy that was never going to last.

Excerpt from:
Democrats on Trump: If you can't beat him, join him - Washington Post