Mediaboss Marketing

Privately, though, Democratic leaders had long known their internal polling showed Republican Greg Gianforte on track to defeat their candidate, Rob Quist. The party had spent a modest $500,000 on the race -- paltry, compared to the $2 million more the DCCC's chairman had announced just a day earlier it would spend on a race in Georgia.

It has in some ways exposed rifts over the party's approach that are still lingering from the Sanders vs. Clinton contest, particularly after Sanders spent the weekend before the Montana contest campaigning alongside Quist.

"You have to ask yourself, could this have been different had we actually invested more resources in that race?" said Lucy Flores, a former Nevada assemblywoman and board member of the Sanders-aligned Our Revolution.

"We are dealing with the most disappointing and concerning government we've seen in my adult life -- and that results in a lot of pressure to win in races that are a stretch," said Tom Lopach, a Democratic operative who led the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2016.

Markos Moulitsas, the founder of the liberal blog Daily Kos, said he is hesitant to criticize the DCCC because its job is to win back the House -- and that means tough decisions about where to spend limited resources.

"But I will say this: Part of winning next year will depend on an energized liberal base," Moulitsas said.

If Democrats can continue to narrow major gaps in the size of Trump's win compared to GOP congressional candidates' victories next year, he said, "a heck of a lot of Republicans are in serious trouble."

"And guess what? Showing you won't back down from a tough fight breeds loyalty and support," Moulitsas said. "Our readers and donors knew exactly what they were doing when they donated money for those long-shot races. And they didn't care, because we're putting serious pressure on the GOP, and they won't be able to outspend us 6-to-1 on every race next year."

New Mexico Rep. Ben Ray Lujn, the DCCC chairman, argued that Democrats are making "smart investments, specific to those districts."

Meanwhile, the Republican super PAC Congressional Leadership Fund pumped millions of dollars into the Montana race, easily outspending the left.

"Republicans should be worried that they've had to dump so many dollars in to try to defend a district that they shouldn't have had to spend a penny in," Lujn told reporters.

For the Democratic establishment, part of the struggle is that -- with progressives' eyes on a quartet of House special elections in traditionally Republican districts -- its investments are being closely watched, especially with what's expected to be a much broader than usual battlefield in the 2018 midterm elections.

Many Democrats see in 2018 a potential wave election similar to 2006, when then-President George W. Bush's declining popularity allowed the party to sweep into power in the House.

But in 2006, the Howard Dean-led Democratic National Committee had launched a "50-state strategy." New DNC Chairman Tom Perez has promised a return to that 50-state approach -- but he is in the early stages of rebuilding the DNC from the ground up.

That means the national party isn't well positioned to play a supporting role in the House special elections.

"The easiest decision to make in politics is to spend more money. The hardest decision in politics is where to cut it from," said Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic operative who led the DCCC's independent expenditure arm in the 2014 election cycle.

"It's a gut-wrenching decision to pull money away from a candidate who might win in favor of a candidate who has a better shot at winning. But that's what we have to do in order to end Trump and Paul Ryan's rule of Congress," Ferguson said.

Montana GOP candidate on why he's running 01:26

On the Senate side, Democratic incumbents in states Trump carried -- including Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, Montana Sen. Jon Tester and North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp -- have already made a point locally of broadening their outreach as Trump's White House moves to appease the President's base, Lopach said.

"We as a party have got to get back to economic, pocketbook, kitchen-table issues -- because an economic issue affects you if you are a black voter, brown voter, white voter, if you're a woman voter, LGBTQ voter," Lopach said. "I think we've lost sight of the fact that economic issues are overarching."

The DCCC has invested much more heavily than in Montana in the June 20 runoff in Georgia, where Jon Ossoff will attempt to claim the seat in the northern Atlanta suburbs previously represented by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and current Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, both Republicans.

And the party has identified some rural districts, and others in the industrial Midwest, as top targets for next year.

But Democrats are wise to closely guard their resources with so many potentially competitive Republican seats on the map in 2018, Ferguson said.

"No one wants to be in a position in the fall of telling a promising candidate in a competitive district that the resources aren't there because they were spent 18 months earlier as part of a Pyrrhic victory," Ferguson said. "Pyrrhic victories don't get a vote for House speaker."

View post:
Liberals say Democratic establishment needs to fight harder - CNN

San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge.(Photo: FREDERIC J. BROWN, AFP/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON Democrats want to preempt President Trump on a major unfulfilled campaign promise: a plan to create jobs and rebuild the nations infrastructure.

A coalition of progressives is holding events in 20 cities this week to highlight a plan they say would create millions of jobs by taxing Wall Street. It stands in contrast to what Trump is likely to do: proposing public-private partnerships they say will enrich banks and foreign corporations while potentially neglectingsome of the neediest urban and rural communities and projects.

Their ideas stand no chance of becoming law given Republican control of the House and Senate.

Yet its an opportunity for Democrats to outline to the American public their contrasting vision for creating jobs through major public investments with a Republican approach that would likely be heavy on tax incentives for big corporations and Wall Street.

The White House is gearing up to push for its own infrastructure plan in addition to Obamacare replacement and tax reform before the summer congressional recess. In his budget proposal, Trump included $200 billion over 10years including incentives for states, cities and private investors, as well as efforts to reduce federal regulations.

Progressives are fighting to create millions of jobs, build a 21st century economy, and pay for it by taxing the big banks that still never paid the bill for crashing the economy almost a decade ago, said Dan Cantor, national director for the Working Families Party.

Trumps so-called infrastructure plan will be nothing more than a massive giveaway to Wall Street, and he'll stick our children with the bill for generations to come, he said.

Read more:

Mick Mulvaney defends Trump budget against Dems calling it 'immoral'

Trump returns to political challenges, from Russia inquiry to health care

Putting Americans back to work through a massive infrastructure bill was a central issue in Trumps outsider, populist-themed campaign that was waged against a backdrop of collapsing bridges in Minnesota, lead-laced drinking water in Michigan and flooded cities across the south. He also made infrastructure a centerpiece both during his election-night speech and a Feb. 28 address to Congress, vowing to create millions of lobs.

According to a fact sheet included in Trumps proposed 2018 budget, his plan would leverage private-sector spending to focus federal dollars on transformative projects that are priorities at both the federal and regional level. It is also likely to include a controversial provision for adding tolls to existing interstate roads.

Last week the Congressional Progressive Caucus introduced a resolution outlining the progressive alternative. Our plan offers a path toward a fairer economy in which we can all thrive, the coalition said in a statement. It is proof that our countrys complex infrastructure challenges can be guided by a simple principle: public money should go toward the public good, it said.

The plan calls for investing $2 trillion over ten years, which it estimates would employ 2.5 million Americans in the first year to rebuild transportation, water and energy systems while also focusing on unsafe schools, homes and public buildings. With minimal potential for big investor profits, these are areas big companies may shun.

On Wednesday and Thursday members of the "Millions of Jobs" coalition are holding events highlighting some of the most critical projects their plan would address, including a water tower in Flint, Mich.; New York Citys Penn Station, which has seen massive delays due to aging systems; and a power plant in Lakeland, Fla.,where an explosion recently knocked out a large, 40-year-old power unit.

The plan is the product of a partnership with outside progressive groups including the Working Families Party.

Trumps Transportation secretary, Elaine Chao, has said Trumps plan will include some kind of public-private partnerships and perhaps the sale of some government assets. Hes also rolling back environmental regulations and supports tax reform funded in part by repealing the Affordable Care Act.

The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates the need for $4.6 trillion in infrastructure investments over 10years, with more than half of that sum currently unfunded. As progressives frame their approach to the economy, a common thread is the comparison to Franklin D. Roosevelt, with the coalition calling the plan a New Deal for Jobs.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2rotn4p

See the original post here:
Democrats' infrastructure proposal contrasts with Trump's plan, budget - USA TODAY

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), who spearheaded the letter, raised similar concerns in April. | AP Photo

More than 40 House Democrats are urging the White House to revoke Jared Kushner's security clearance "to protect national security" until the FBI resolves its investigation of potential collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and agents of the Russian government.

The lawmakers expressed concern over recent reports about Kushner's secretive meeting with Russia's ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, including that Kushner, President Donald Trump's senior adviser and son-in-law, sought a back channel to the Kremlin that would rely on Russian facilities to avoid detection by U.S. officials.

Story Continued Below

"While the various congressional and law enforcement investigations continue, the White House should take all possible steps to protect national security including immediately revoking Mr. Kushner's security clearance," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to White House Counsel Don McGahn.

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), who spearheaded the letter, raised similar concerns in April, when reports indicated Kushner had omitted the Kislyak meeting from his application for a security clearance.

"Multiple reports now say that he discussed opening a secret line of communications that could be monitored by Russian intelligence but not American intelligence, which would be disqualifying," Beyer said in a statement to POLITICO. "Jared Kushner cannot be trusted.

It's a sharp escalation from Democrats aimed at Kushner. When Beyer initially raised his concerns in April, just four Democrats joined his call, and they noted that Kushner's failure to detail his meetings with foreign officials could amount to a felony. This time, at least 41 had signed on by Wednesday evening, and more were expected to add their names by Thursday.

The signers include House Armed Services Committee ranking member Adam Smith of Washington and Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio, as well as the five signatories on the April letter: Beyer, Ted Lieu of California, Jerry Nadler of New York, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Peter Welch of Vermont.

Sign up for POLITICO Huddle. A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox.

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

The Trump administration has largely defended Kushner, with top officials emphasizing that back channels are a routine part of diplomacy. But Democrats note the meetings came after intelligence agencies issued an assessment that Russia had actively interfered in the 2016 presidential election and after the Obama administration had levied sanctions in retaliation.

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

See the original post here:
House Democrats: Revoke Kushner's security clearance - Politico

The comparison seems apt on paper. Northam boasts support from all of the state's prominent Democrats and has a lengthy career in state government, which helped make him the consensus pick of the party establishment. Perriello, meanwhile, entered the race late, has zero experience in state government and is running as an unabashed liberal.

Tribbett believes Perriello's run is a test case for Democrats in Virginia.

"The Democratic model in Virginia for several decades has been trying to get elected in a red state," he said. "Now that Virginia is a blue state and it looks like it is getting bluer, the model for electing a governor in Virginia has changed."

Northam represents the type of successful candidates that Virginia Democrats have run for years. Governor-turned-Senator Mark Warner once proudly boasted his "A" rating from the National Rifle Association, talked up his "Sportsmen for Warner" advocacy group and embraced the endorsement of NASCAR stars.

In 2017, the two gubernatorial candidates are fighting over their mixed record on 2nd Amendment issues. Perriello is distancing himself from his own A rating from the NRA as a member of Congress. Northam is spinning a perfect 100% legislative voting record in 2013 from the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a local gun rights advocacy group.

"I can't imagine Chuck Robb or Gerry Baliles or Mark Warner or Tim Kaine running the type of campaign that Tom Perriello is running," said Larry Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia's Center of Politics, referring to Democrats who triumphed in races for governor since the 1980s.

Northam has stuck to the strategy that works. He has crisscrossed the state for the better part of the past four years in his capacity as the number two Democrat elected in state government. He has stuck close to current Gov. Terry McAuliffe, who is term-limited under Virginia's unique state law that forbids governors from seeking re-election.

Northam is focusing on a very specific set of issues Democrats rely on, talking up his support for abortion rights, expanding access to health care and keeping the state budget balanced.

"Voters in Virginia are looking a bit more at the comparative qualifications," said Sabato. "Northam has two terms in the (state) Senate, one term as lieutenant governor. He is essentially next in line."

His solid campaign has helped him keep his support from the state's popular Democratic leaders rock solid. But while they continue to stick by his campaign, they are reluctant to criticize Perriello in any way.

"Listen, Tom had every right to get into the race, and I haven't said a bad word, and I'd never say a bad word," said McAuliffe. "If Tom were the nominee the next day, I would be the first guy out there campaigning. What matters to me is getting a Democrat elected governor."

And while Northam retains that support, Sabato argues a simple endorsement only goes so far.

"They think they lend their names and that is worth thousands of votes," he said. "Actually it is worth the vote of their spouse, about half of the time."

Free from the confines of the traditional campaign, Perriello has run an unconventional race, embracing the endorsement of liberal leaders from outside Virginia, holding a rally with Sanders, touting endorsements from former Clinton top aide John Podesta and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren as well as raking in funding from sources outside the commonwealth.

To date, Perriello has raised 51% of his more than $2 million in fundraising dollars from donors who do not live in the state. He has cashed big checks from figures like liberal activist George Soros and his family. All told, Perriello has raised more than $385,000 from people with the last name Soros. By comparison, 91% of Northam's more than $3 million in campaign cash comes from donors inside Virginia.

"It's the kind of thing that just a few years ago in Virginia would've beaten a Democrat," said Sabato.

"It is well beyond anything I have ever seen before," described Tribbett. "It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Democrats to create an organizational structure that we've never had."

But Sabato warns that while Perriello's lurch to the left is what made his primary campaign viable, it could end up hurting his chances in the general election. Perriello's lack of state government experience and the fact that he has few contacts and connections in Richmond could be a drag on his campaign. However, despite Northam's obvious advantages in that department, his campaign has yet to seize on the issue in a tangible way that might expose Perriello's flaws.

"Either the Northam campaign is legitimately confident because of their private polls or they overconfident and lethargic," said Sabato.

Public polls show the race in a virtual tie, which means that the outcome of the June 13 primary will likely come down to turnout -- how many voters show up and exactly where they show up. If turnout is average, that could be an advantage for Northam. If turnout exceeds expectations that will likely indicate a surge of new voters -- people potentially energized by Perriello's underdog campaign.

"Older voters and the traditional voters will participate no matter what," said Tribbett. "The new voters that come in that add to your electorate tend to be younger voters. They tend to be people participating in a primary for the first time and they would be more open to a challenger to the establishment."

But at this point, most Virginia Democrats remain reluctant to pick a winner, demonstrating the unpredictable nature of the electorate especially barely seven months after Donald Trump's shocking presidential win.

The winner of the Northam-Perriello fight will face the winner of what has at times been an animated fight between Prince William County Supervisor Corey Stewart, State Sen. Frank Wagner, and former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, who came very close to upsetting Warner in a 2014 senate fight and is the perceived favorite in the upcoming primary.

See original here:
Virginia Democrats face first battle in war for party's soul - CNN

When a candidate for Congress assaults a journalist just before election day, you'd expect him to lose his race. Not in Montana this week.

Republican Greg Gianforte allegedly body-slammed Ben Jacobs of the Guardian newspaper. The act that witnesses and an audio recording suggest was unprovoked was, if true, disgraceful.

Gianforte was charged with misdemeanor assault. But he still beat Democrat Rob Quist in Thursday's election, which was believed to be close even before the physical confrontation occurred.

Why did the Democrat lose to such a faulty Republican opponent? One answer is the state's Democratic governor, Steve Bullock, who ordered the all-mail election, which means most votes were cast before the dust-up occurred or was widely known about.

But that is only part of the answer. Although Montana did not break down the election day versus early vote totals, we do know that in at least two big counties, Gianforte did better on election day than he had in the early vote.

This and other signals within the county vote tallies suggests that many voters just didn't care about the smackdown of a Fleet Street hack. Sure enough, local reporting provides anecdotal evidence of that. Michael Tracey, a correspondent for the left-wing Young Turks YouTube channel, talked to some election day voters, and got the sort of response you might expect: "I don't believe anything anymore," one woman said of the media reporting on the alleged body-slam. Another voter, a man, may have gotten closer to the heart of the problem: "I don't care what they say ... a vote for Quist is a vote for Pelosi."

Democratic leaders spent this spring on a "unity tour" that demonstrated not only how far they are outside the mainstream of political opinion, but also how unwelcoming they are of those within it. They not only disowned but perhaps also mortally wounded their own candidate for Mayor of Omaha because he did not sufficiently toe the party line on abortion. That issue has nothing to do with the mayoralty of Omaha, yet Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, made a national example out of Heath Mello by declaring that pro-life candidates like him are basically dead to the national party.

This is just one example, but the incident helps illustrate how, even with public opinion running strongly against President Trump, Democrats continue to lose. They have staked out several issues, such as immigration enforcement, voter ID, and the trade-offs between environmental and economic concerns, and avoid common sense positions on these matters. They depict reasonable positions, such as that deportation is sometimes appropriate, as racist. And then they wonder why people in the heartland don't want to be represented by them.

The Montana voter's comment about Pelosi is ironic, because Pelosi is one of the few liberal Democrats who understands the need to field some centrists if the party wishes to build a House majority. But it also shows what an invidious position centrist Democrats are in when they are running for office in interior states. Even as they take abuse from zealots like Perez in the national party they are repudiated by voters.

Republicans' success in Montana may mean little in 2018. After President Barack Obama's big win in 2008, Republicans won no important elections until the fall, and didn't win any special elections to Congress until the following January. But the GOP went on to take the House in a landslide in 2010.

Republicans will now have one more House vote on healthcare and other issues. And it's all because Montana voters have reached the point where they would pick almost anyone before choosing to elect a Democrat.

Read this article:
Montana is just not that into Democrats - Washington Examiner