Mediaboss Marketing

For decades, Democratic politics in the nations most populous state has been overseen by a quintet of leaders who helped propel California from reliably Republican to dominantly Democratic.

To outsiders, they were the West Coast liberals whom conservatives love to hate stereotyped as chardonnay-sipping, tree-hugging, near-socialists who, were it geologically possible, would push the state so far left it would plunk into the Pacific. In truth, they have exerted a moderating force on Democrats here.

Their reign effectively ended at this weekends state party convention, part of a shift both generational and ideological that is altering power across the country and in the nations biggest Democratic state. Whoever fills the vacuum will answer defining questions: How far left will the California Democratic Party now go? Will its movement backfire?

Gov. Jerry Brown and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, ages 79 and 83, respectively, didnt show up at the convention. Former Sen. Barbara Boxer, 76, who left office in January, skipped it as well. State party chief John Burton, 84, was heralded in large part because he was leaving for retirement.

The fifth major force, 77-year-old Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, who had once planned to retire this term, spoke to delegates but did not publicly intercede in the boisterous remaking of the party structure.

All five differ dramatically from the figures who mustered the greatest enthusiasm among Democratic convention delegates over the weekend.

The partys old-guard leaders were tempered years ago when the Democratic brand brought accusations of being profligate and soft, and compromise was necessary with then-powerful Republicans.

Those experiences pushed them individually and collectively to cast a skeptical eye on the wilder wishes of their partys activists. Several of them rose to power as the Democratic Party lurched to the center to attract voters, a shift undone by the leftward moves in recent years.

Some of the newer Democratic activists this weekend saw their elders moves as treasonous to a party they have vowed to change. Kimberly Ellis, a representative of the newcomers who was narrowly defeated in the race for party chair, said Saturday that she was battling for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.

Its about remembering our true north, said Ellis, 43.

She punctuated her list of demands with calls for passage of the state Senates Medicare-for-all healthcare bill and support for abortion rights, full stop.

The latter comment could be taken as a shot at Pelosi, who said recently that she welcomed antiabortion Democrats as members of the party, a remark that some newer Democrats here criticized.

Pelosis daughter Christine, a longtime party official, alluded during a general session Sunday to what she called the tension and pain among delegates.

New activists want to...lead and we must work together in harmony, she said.

The generational and ideological fight that split the party over the weekend centered on the party chairmanship and an extended tussle over whether the party and its leaders were sufficiently supportive of a state Medicare-for-all plan.

That healthcare arose as the most prominent issue reflected the partys changed circumstances. There was little talk of immigration, a central focus of the party for two decades as Latinos rose as a potent party force. The emphasis on healthcare stemmed in part from timeliness given the Trump administrations move to repeal Obamacare and the increasing power of unionized nurses in California politics.

Protesters on Friday night cascaded down a set of stairs into the convention center lobby as Burton and others were delivering welcoming speeches there. The crowd, many of them wearing shirts from the nurses union, and some of them Bernie Sanders gear left over from the 2016 presidential campaign, swelled into Burtons audience, chanting and interrupting.

Burton, one of the best known state Democratic leaders after 60 years spent in liberal warfare in California, tried to shout down the protesters with a few well-placed expletives.

Whos that? one of the protesters remarked.

Undoubtedly, Brown would have been given the same treatment had he shown up, because he has been skeptical of the measure because of its expense billions is a safe bet and that theres no notion of who would pay for it. Feinstein, similarly, has backed away from pleas for a federal Medicare-for-all system, preferring to fix the problems of former President Obamas healthcare program.

The shift in power at the state party comes at a time of equally visible change in the ranks of senior state elected officials.

Boxer, at her retirement, was replaced by Kamala Harris, 24 years her junior. Browns potential successors range in age from the mid-40s to 50s, with the exception of former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who is 64.

The departures broke a logjam that had kept ambitious younger Democrats in amber: Boxer and Feinstein have held their Senate seats since 1992; Browns decision to run again for the governorship after two earlier terms has kept that office out of play since 2010.

While the ending of their era created the potential for movement among politicians, the propellant for change in the party was the 2016 Sanders campaign, which spurred higher voter registrations among younger Californians and pushed many of them into political activism.

Those voters were energized by Sanders key planks: Medicare-for-all healthcare plans, free college, and the eradication of corporate money from politics.

For many, those goals are inviolate. The problem for other Democrats, particularly elected ones called to vote on the proposals, is that neither Sanders nor his followers have laid out how to pay for his plans.

That may have little impact on Democrats in strongly blue areas, where the party holds sway. But not all races play out in such liberal territory, and not all Democratic politicians are comfortable so far to the left.

Democrats in 2018 are trying to pick up seven House seats held by Republicans in California districts that Hillary Clinton won in November. To win, those Democrats will need the activism and donations of the energized liberals. But to secure that support, the candidates may need to take positions further to the left than most voters in the districts, raising the possibility that Democrats could get in their own way.

Veteran Democratic strategist Roger Salazar said hes confident Democratic candidates will accurately gauge the will of local voters.

He acknowledged the possibility that the leftward swing could backfire among moderates. But a greater danger, he said, was that efforts to placate more moderate voters would leave younger Democratic activists feeling spurned.

The tough thing about having a new influx of voters is that some of them feel like outsiders, he said. Youve got to be sure to include them. If you ignore them, you do so at your peril.

It is also possible that as they move sharply to the left, Democrats will find the voters they seek. After the partys last big lurch, to the center in the 1990s, liberals felt disgruntled. But Democrats took the presidency and expanded their reach among voters in the middle.

You cant hide the fact that this is old school vs. new school, it is a generational split, it is the Berniecrats vs. the establishment, Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a USC public policy fellow who has worked and analyzed Democratic politics in California for decades, said as she watched the delegates.

Then again, she added, Maybe the tectonic plates of politics are really shifting.

For more on politics

cathleen.decker@latimes.com

Twitter: @cathleendecker

ALSO:

Rep. Adam Schiff calls for Democratic unity in a speech that suggests an ambitious future for himself

California Democrats say farewell to party leader John Burton. To no ones surprise, he responded with profanity

The latest from Washington

Updates on California politics

See the original post:
For Democrats in California, a generational shift pulls the party left, with danger and opportunity ahead - Los Angeles Times

With concerns rising over the future of financial aid for low-income Americans who rely on Obamacare, senior congressional Democrats have asked the Trump administration for information on talks in which health insurance officials say a senior administration official linked the aid to the industrys support for House Republican legislation to roll back the healthcare law.

The talks, first reported by The Times last week, occurred in April when a group of industry leaders met with Seema Verma, a President Trump appointee who heads the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and oversees Obamacare insurance markets.

Health insurers were seeking assurances from Verma that the Trump administration would continue to provide the aid, which helps millions of low-income Americans afford their deductibles and co-pays.

The aid, which reimburses insurers for lowering out-of-pocket costs, was paid by the Obama administration. It now is the subject of a lawsuit by congressional Republicans, who argue that Congress must approve the payments.

Trump and his aides have repeatedly threatened to withhold the assistance known as cost-sharing reduction payments, or CSRs a move that health insurers warn would sabotage insurance markets across the country.

At the April meeting, according to multiple industry officials interviewed by The Times, Verma linked the aid to the House repeal legislation, telling insurers the aid wouldnt be paid until the House bill passed, while also asking health insurers to endorse the bill.

The suggestion that the payments were connected to the industrys support for the Republican bill stunned industry officials.

It made no sense, one told The Times.

Jane Norris, a spokeswoman for the health agency, said The Times account was completely false.

The assertion that Administrator Verma offered to fund the CSR in exchange for support for legislation is preposterous, she said. What she said at the ... meeting in April was that no decisions had been made about CSRs.

But the senior congressional Democrats said they were concerned about the potential abuse of power.

Your reported actions suggest you are using the operation of the American healthcare system as a tool to gain leverage in political negotiations, the lawmakers wrote to Verma.

It is wholly inappropriate for you to use federally appropriated money intended to lower the cost of quality, affordable healthcare as a bargaining chip to garner political support for unpopular legislation being negotiated behind closed doors by the Trump administration and congressional Republicans.

Among other things, the lawmakers asked about any additional discussions in which Trump administration officials suggested a quid pro quo for support of the House Republican repeal bill.

The letter was written by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee; Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the senior Democrat on the Senate Health Committee; Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), the senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee; and Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), the senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Obamacare vs. Trumpcare: A side-by-side comparison of the Affordable Care Act and the GOPs replacement plan

Obamacare 101: A primer on key issues in the debate over repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act.

noam.levey@latimes.com

@noamlevey

Read more:
Congressional Democrats demand answers on Trump threats to sabotage Obamacare insurance markets - Los Angeles Times

On the offensive.

Anyone who thinks Donald Trump's staggering, stumblingpresidency is going to destroy the Republican Party really needsto remember what actually happened after Richard Nixon's resignation in 1974.

Yes, Republicans were routed in the midterm elections that year and lost the presidency in 1976. But theyrecovered strongly in 1978 and 1980. It was the same story after the Iran-Contra scandal in late 1986, which severely hurt Ronald Reagan's approval numbers, but didn't even cost Republicans the White House in 1988. George W. Bush's unpopular presidency wiped out the Republicans in 2006 and 2008 ... but then they rallied back sharply only two years later during Barack Obama's mildly unpopular early presidency.

Voters have extremely short memories. But the effects of an electoral disaster caused by their temporary shiftscan be enormously long-lived in terms of policy, judges and energizing the opposition.

First of all, the status-quo bias of the U.S. political system means that it's very difficult to pass anything major, but that once something does pass, it's hard to dislodge it. We may yet see a major Republican health care bill pass during this Congress, but even if that does happen much of the Affordable Care Act will survive. And that bill only passed because of George W. Bush's massive unpopularity after the Iraq War and the recession that began in late 2007, leading to Democratic landslides in 2006 and 2008. Similarly, Jimmy Carter's inept presidency yielded the 1980 Republican landslide and Ronald Reagan's big tax cuts and budget changes in 1981, much of which survived for a long time.

The electoral reaction doesn't last -- Republicans stormed back in 2010, just as Democrats had done back in 1982. But the policy changes that couldn't have happened otherwise persist.

What else lives on long after a landslide? Judges. The effects of Lyndon Johnson's electorally disastrous Vietnam War lived until Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a Nixon appointee, died in 2005. Jimmy Carter's failure to win a second term will live on as long as Justice Anthony Kennedy stays on the high court. And the effects of Bush's Iraq folly and the Bush-era recession will last as long as Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan remain on the bench. Not to mention the dozens and dozens of lower-court judges that also matter quite a lot. Granted, not all shifts of partisan control of the White House are caused by incumbent ineptness (or even just incumbent bad luck). But when a party does give up the presidency unnecessarily, the effects are huge even though the electoral punishment doesn't last long.

And there's a third long-lived effect. We think of the Affordable Care Act as Barack Obama's accomplishment, but it's at least equally the achievement of a group of members of Congress. Five of them -- Henry Waxman, George Miller, Max Baucus, Chris Dodd, and Tom Harkin -- were Watergate babies. That is, they were first elected to Congress in the 1974 Democratic landslide brought on by Richard Nixon's scandal.

A daily round-up of superb political insights.

Jonathan Bernstein's Early Returns

It's impossible to know exactly how important the skills that these legislators had developed over the decadeswere to getting "Obamacare" over the finish line. Obviously if they had never been elected, some other Democrats would have been the chairs of House Energy and Commerce, Senate Finance, and the other relevant committees. But I think most Congressional observers would agree that their level of skill and expertise was unusually high, and it's quite possible that they did make the difference on that bill (and several others over the course of their careers). And while some Watergate babies might have had Congressional careers regardless of that scandal, it's quite possible that some of them would not.

So, yes, if anyone tells you that Donald Trump will permanently destroy the Republican Party you can safely ignore it -- even if Trump winds up as unpopular as Carter, Nixon, and Bush it's very unlikely to do lasting electoral damage. But if Trump does produce a Democratic landslide or two, the effects may last a long, long time.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Jonathan Bernstein at jbernstein62@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mike Nizza at mnizza3@bloomberg.net

Read more from the original source:
How Democrats Could Leverage Trump's Sinking Presidency - Bloomberg

RICHMOND Widespread opposition to President Trump and his policies has heightened the challenge for Republicans hoping to retake the Virginia governors mansion this year, with GOP front-runner Ed Gillespie trailing both Democratic contenders by double digits in a new Washington Post-Schar School poll.

The Virginia governors race offers a significant test of how much Trumps sagging job approval ratings could hurt Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections and gauges whether anti-Trump activism will benefit Democrats. Although the general election isnt until November, the poll suggests a hostile environment for Republicans.

Republican favorite Gillespie, who has a wide lead in the partys three-way primary race, trails both Democratic candidates by almost identical margins: Tom Perriello by 50percent to 37percent, and Ralph Northam by 49percent to 38percent among registered voters.

[Post-Schar poll finds Ed Gillespie with big lead for GOP nomination]

Voters seem to be punishing Gillespie for Trumps performance, which they dont like. Trumps job approval rating is at 36percent, while 59percent of Virginia residents disapprove of his performance as commander in chief. More than half say they strongly disapprove, according to the poll, which was co-sponsored by The Post and George Mason Universitys Schar School of Policy and Government.

Unfortunately for Republicans running this year, they will carry the negative taint of the Trump administration with them no matter how hard they try to separate themselves, said Mark Rozell, dean of the Schar School.

And theres no easy way out, because going too far in repudiating Trump risks alienating the partys base, which still approves of the president.

Its a tough act to perform ... I really dont envy them trying to do that, Rozell said. The way it looks right now, thats a lose-lose situation for a Republican.

A majority 77 percent of Republicans in Virginia say they approve of the way Trump is handling his job, though just under half strongly approve, at 48percent.

Among self-identified independents, more than 6 in 10 voters who disapprove of Trump support Northam and Perriello over Gillespie, with the Democrats receiving similarly wide support among independents who oppose the Republican health-care bill passed earlier this month by the House.

Fifty-eight percent of registered voters oppose the House Republican plan endorsed by Trump to replace the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Just 34percent of registered Virginia voters support the proposed replacement, the American Health Care Act.

Gillespie has been cautious on Trump he was slow to endorse him last year and has been careful in responding to the regular flow of controversy that has marked Trumps presidency.

His problem is clear in the stance of a voter like Beverly Snead, 65, a political independent from Chesapeake. She voted for Hillary Clinton last fall but was willing to give Trump and any Republicans running for governor a chance this year.

But Trumps behavior in office has turned her off and Gillespies silence about it prevents her from supporting him, she said.

I have no problem with Republicans, Democrats, running the United States. Just do the right thing, said Snead, who is concerned about Trumps possible ties to Russia and thinks he has hurt race relations with the things that come out of his mouth.

If you see someone in your party doing wrong, speak up and do the right thing, she said.

Gillespie is one of three candidates vying for the Republican nomination in the June13 primary, along with state Sen. Frank Wagner (Virginia Beach) and Prince William County Supervisor Corey Stewart.

The winner will take on whoever prevails in the Democratic nominating battle, also culminating June 13, a tight contest between Northam, who is lieutenant governor, and former congressman Perriello. The poll did not measure general election preferences with Stewart or Wagner as the Republican nominee, both of whom trail Gillespie by a wide margin in the primary race.

[Race between Democrats running for Virginia governor is neck and neck]

Both Democrats are running hard against Trump, with Perriello leading that effort through an influx of national money, support from progressive darling Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and viral online videos.

Democrats strength in the governors race comes despite the lukewarm popularity of current Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe. At 49percent approval and 25percent disapproval, McAuliffes ratings are largely positive but below the average for past governors and significantly lower than Marylands Republican governor, Larry Hogan, who has a 65percent approval mark in his state.

On the Republican side, the candidate who has most enthusiastically embraced Trump is Stewart, who was Trumps campaign manager last year in Virginia before being fired for protesting against party leaders he thought were not supportive enough of Trump. He has turned his verbal flamethrower on Gillespie for not strongly defending the president, but Stewarts stance hasnt translated into voter support.

Gillespie has double the voter support of either Stewart or Wagner among likely Republican primary voters, according to the Post-Schar poll.

Some Republican voters who approve of Trump say they would like a Republican governor to embrace him, but that it wont necessarily affect their vote in November. Its important that he supports [Trump], but I think state government is quite a bit different than the federal government, said Nancy Hass, 52, a contract specialist from Virginia Beach.

Kevin Thompson, a 58-year-old Fairfax resident, said he wouldnt back an establishment Republican candidate like Gillespie in a primary but would still back him in a general election against a Democrat unless theres a very strong third-party candidate.

With overall Trump approval so low, though, the math is tough for any Republican nominee in the general election. Gillespie trails Northam and Perriello by similar margins even if you filter out people who are not all that interested in politics those who did not vote last year, or in 2013, or who are not following the governors race closely.

One factor that could help the Republican nominee is low turnout. Virginia elections typically draw far fewer voters in years when there is no presidential race. That can tend to favor Republican candidates, whose supporters generally are more likely to be white and older groups that are statistically more likely to vote.

At this relatively early point in the race, similar shares of registered voters who are Democrats (59percent) and Republicans (53percent) say they are paying close attention to the election though fewer than 1 in 5 of either party says they are following it very closely.

Democrats are hoping that one side effect of the controversies around Trump is that more people are motivated to vote. Colin Dillon, 23, was old enough the last time Virginia picked a governor but was away at college and didnt bother.

Now a financial analyst living in McLean, he plans to show up this year for the Democratic primary as well as the general election. He credits Sanders for stirring his interest in politics, although his opposition to Trump is also driving him.

I would say Im definitely more engaged, said Dillon, who supports Perriello in the primary but would vote for Northam if he emerges as the Democratic nominee. The current state [of Washington] has made me more focused on it and also more willing to bring up the discussion of you should vote with people.

Monday is the last day to register to vote in the June13 primaries.

The Post-Schar School poll was conducted by telephone May 9-14 among a random sample of 1,602 adults and 1,395 registered voters in Virginia, including landline and cellphone respondents, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three points among adults and registered voters.

Emily Guskin, Laura Vozzella and Fenit Nirappil contributed to this report.

Excerpt from:
Poll: Democrats have edge over Republican front-runner in Va. governor's race - Washington Post

New York Post

Democrats shy from impeachment and other notable comments New York Post Impeach Trump? Not so fast, say . . . Democrats. According to Mike Lillis at The Hill, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer and House Democratic Caucus chairman Joe Crowley have all tried to lower the volume on the impeachment ... Pelosi wants independent commission on Russia despite special counsel appointmentThe Hill all 59 news articles »

Excerpt from:
Democrats shy from impeachment and other notable comments - New York Post