Mediaboss Marketing

Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) will present his investigative report to lawmakers at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee headquarters Thursday night. | AP Photo

House Democrats are going to extreme lengths to conceal a report on the partys problems.

After nearly five months, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) presented his investigative report to lawmakers during a members-only gathering at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee headquarters Thursday night.

Story Continued Below

Only about two-dozen lawmakers showed up for the presentation, which sources described as "dense but thorough." But members were not allowed to have copies of the report and may view it only under the watchful eyes of DCCC staff.

The presentation didn't focus on Democratic messaging and instead was heavily skewed towards money -- how much the DCCC brings in, from where and how those funds are spent.

Some Democratic lawmakers and staffers complained that the cloak-and-dagger secrecy was overblown and actually makes the findings look worse than they are. But the DCCC is sticking by its strategy.

Like any healthy organization, the DCCC always works to evolve and grow after each election cycle, and we were happy to have Congressman Maloney as part of that effort this year, spokeswoman Meredith Kelly said.

This analysis is based on strategic information about our organization and meant for internal purposes, not public consumption, she added.

A spokeswoman for Maloney referred questions to the DCCC.

The report provides recommendations on how the DCCC should modernize its data collection and overhaul its media operation, according to sources who were briefed on it. The document is also said to criticize the organization for the lack of diversity in consultants whom the DCCC employs.

Maloney offered suggestions for how DCCC should regroup ahead of the 2018 midterms, including hiring someone specifically in charge of diversifying the group's consulting ranks.

Lawmakers have privately criticized the way the DCCC operates for years, saying party leaders are too heavy-handed behind the scenes. Finger-pointing reached a fever pitch after the election: Democrats picked up just six House seats despite predicting far higher gains, prompting rank-and-file members to demand immediate changes.

The Maloney report did not criticize specific members of leadership, according to sources.

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.

Maloney was tapped to lead the post-mortem after flirting with a challenge to DCCC Chairman Ben Ray Lujn (D-N.M.), a leadership ally, in December.

Multiple sources credited Lujan for his cooperation, saying he was totally transparent about the inner workings of the DCCC during the investigation.

The New York Democrat delivered a lengthy analysis to lawmakers of where Democrats went wrong in the election during a party retreat in February. His latest report is a thorough review of DCCC operations and practices.

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

Original post:
House Democrats bury 2016 autopsy - Politico

The Democratic Party is in a bad way. It's trying to figure out how to climb out of its historically bad position, and given the split results of the 2016 primaries (and Hillary Clinton's eventual loss), there's plenty of debate about whether the future should be aboutpurity or pragmatism.

To oversimplify things: You've got the Sen. Bernie Sanders/Sen. Elizabeth Warren wing urging a fearless focus on progressive issues (especially on the economy) even in conservative-leaning areas,and you've got the old establishment types who think appealing to the political middle with moderation is the way to go.

There haven't been many major elections this year, but this uneasy balancehas beenspotlighted in just about all of them.

In Kansas, you had liberals crying foul over the party's lack of supportfor a Democrat running in a very tough district who espoused some Sanders-ian beliefs. The party is confronted with a similar choice in Montana, where an anti-Wall Street Democrat is the underdogon May 25. Last week, Sanders (I-Vt.) momentarily questioned the progressivism of Georgia special-election candidate Jon Ossoff. Then a related controversy over Sanders's embrace of an antiabortion rights candidate for Omaha mayor led theDemocratic National Committee's chairman tosuggest Democrats must support abortion rights.

The common thread in all four is that nagging pull to the left to combat President Trump with fearless progressivism even in tough districts. But all four have also shown the limits of that approach.

In Kansas and Montana, special election candidates James Thompson and Rob Quist, respectively, have both used some of the language of the progressive left most notably on social media. Both have gotten support from Sanders backers, and Sanders will visit Montana to campaign with Quist.

But here's the prevailing images of the candidates that voters have seen in their TV ads:

These ads are carefully planned for mass consumption as the pictures these campaigns want voters to remember as they head to the polls. None of them really screams progressive Democrat.

In Kansas, nearly every Thompson ad featured him either wielding a gun or wearing a hat with a gun on it. In contrast, there was very little red meat for progressives, beyond general statements about prioritizing education and women's rights.

In Montana, one Quist ad recycles a tired campaign-ad conceit: The candidate literally shooting something with a gun.Philip Bump recapped the many, many examples of this past year, and almost all who have done it are either Republicans or Democrats running in very red areas. It is one of two Quist ads featuring a heavy gun presence.

It is, of course, possible to marry this pro-gun message with a progressive economic one. But the prevailing public images of both candidates are not about a $15 minimum wage; they're guns.

In that other special election this month, Sanders momentarily questioned Ossoff's progressivism despite Democrats making Ossoff a cause celebre the firstpossible sign of a progressive, Democratic backlash against Trump. It was a curious decision in the first place, and one Sanders ultimately backed off of, endorsing Ossoff.

But while he was wavering on Ossoff, Sanders was on his way to campaigning in Omaha with mayoral candidate Heath Mello, who has a progressive message but also has a history of supporting abortion restrictions involving ultrasounds. And Sanderseven told NPR this(again, while questioning Ossoff's progressivism): And we have got to appreciate where people come from, and do our best to fight for the pro-choice agenda. But I think you just can't exclude people who disagree with us on one issue.

The predictable outcry there led DNC Chairman Thomas Perez toapparently declare an abortion litmus test for Democrats. Every Democrat, like every American, should support a womans right to make her own choices about her body and her health, Perez said. House and Senate Minority Leaders Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) quickly differed with Perez, saying it's okay to be an antiabortion Democrat as about 1 in 4 Democratic voters are.

In all four cases, Democrats have flirted with a purity focus in four tough areas of the country. Each shows how difficult that is to pull off.

And that's got to be frustrating for progressives. After all, Republicans have fought over purity for years, with the tea party giving the GOP establishment repeated fits. And the GOP only continued its ascent in Congress and now to the presidency. Why can't Democrats do the same with progressivism? Why can't they run like Sanders in Montana and Wichita and Omaha and suburban Atlanta?

The reason is pretty simple: reality. Because of the way our population is distributed, Democrats can't afford to enforce the kind of doctrinaire purity that the tea partywas so successful in policing.

Here's how I put itback in February:

There are simply more red states and more red congressional districts. Republicans took over the House and Senate in recent years largely because they knocked off some of the final hangers-on among Democrats in conservative-leaning places. It first happened in the South; then it spread to Appalachia and the Midwest. ...

The 2016 election is a good example of this. Trump, as everyone knows, lost the popular vote by two full points, 48percent to 46 percent. But despite that loss, he actually won 230 out of 435 congressional districts, compared with 205 for Hillary Clinton, according to numbers compiled by Daily Kos Elections. And in the Senate, he won 30 out of 50 states.

So basically, 53 percent of House districts are Republican and 60 out of 100senators hail from red states, according to the 2016 election results (in which the GOP, again, lost the popular vote).

Democrats won the House because socially and culturally conservative candidates carried conservative states districts in the South and along the Rust Belt in 2006 and 2008. Schumer led the recruiting effort in the Senate, and Pelosi became speaker as a result of then-DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel's political pragmatism. They know the deal.

The Democrats' tendency these days will be to demandtheir party be as un-Trump and un-Republican as possible in trying to win back control of Congress. These examples show how bumpy that path is already proving.

See the original post here:
The Democratic Party is stumbling toward liberal purity - Washington Post

What the focus on Trump's numbers misses, however, is that Democrats aren't in a great place with voters either.

One number in the Post-ABC poll really stood out to me as something that should worry Democrats pondering the party's future: Asked whether the Democratic Party is in touch with the concerns of the average person, just 28% of respondents said it is -- as opposed to 67% who said Democrats are out of touch. Those numbers are worse than the "in touch/out of touch" numbers for either the Republican Party or Trump in that same poll.

More amazing to me is that only 52% of self-identified Democrats said their party was in touch with peoples' concerns, while 44% said it was out of touch. (Also of concern for Democrats: Fewer than 1 in 5 independents -- 18% -- said the Democratic Party was in touch with the average person.)

Those numbers -- particularly among Democrats -- are striking. Party leaders in Washington have positioned the party as the voice of the little guy since the earliest days of the Trump presidency: Their side would be the one to stand up for the disenfranchised people in the country whose lives Trump neither cared about nor even thought much about.

The problem with that conclusion is exposed in the numbers above. Yes, there are lots and lots of Democrats who support Warren, buy "nevertheless, she persisted" T-shirts and wear them proudly. But that doesn't mean the party can automatically be assumed to be the voice of "the people."

What it also means is that Trump's election isn't a panacea for the Democratic Party. While it's easier to attribute the party's 2016 loss to stated (and unstated) racism and sexism in the country -- and there was some of that! -- that analysis absolves Democrats of the sort of internal review the party badly needs.

Consider this: A billionaire businessman raised in New York City was able to successfully cast his Democratic opponent as the candidate of the elites in this country. How? Because there was already a preconceived notion within the populace that Democrats were coastal snobs -- shopping at Whole Foods, sending their kids to private school and viewing the rest of the country with utter disdain. That sentiment still very much exists in the country.

It's possible that even if Democrats do nothing between now and the 2018 election, they will make major gains in Congress -- and could well end up in the House majority in early 2019.

But that won't solve the existential problem facing the party which, simply put, is this: Most people don't think Democrats "get" them.

Read more from the original source:
This poll number should scare Democrats - CNNPolitics.com

DNC Chairman Tom Perez speaks to a crowd of supporters at a Democratic unity rally on April 21, 2017 in Salt Lake City.

One hundred days in, we now know that only 2 percent of Americans who voted for Donald Trump regret their vote, according to the latest ABC/Washington Post poll. That same poll says two-thirds of all those questioned believe the Democratic Party is out of touch with the concerns of Americans, higher than either Trump or the Republicans.

Yet the media continue to think Trump is on the ropes.

Advertisement

Take a look around: The Republicans control the White House, both branches of Congress, as well as a majority of governorships and state legislatures. No ones taken a census of local tree wardens and tax assessors, but the odds are pretty good they lean Republican too. And what is the Democratic Party response? A Mao-like purge of dissenting views, which they believe will restore the party to its former glory.

All political parties face the same choice: They can turn the leadership of their organization over to either militants or consensus builders. In the case of the Democrats, they have chosen the militants.

Get Arguable with Jeff Jacoby in your inbox:

Our conservative columnist offers a weekly take on everything from politics to pet peeves.

Newly elected Democratic Party chair Tom Perez made it clear the militants are in charge when he declared the party will not support any anti-abortion candidates. The controversy arose over a mayors race in Nebraska Omaha, not Boston or San Francisco where the Democratic candidate, Heath Mello, has a history of voting against abortion rights as a member of the state legislature.

Soon after the Georgia results arrived, Democrats began to grumble amongst themselves.

In response to pressure from abortion rights groups, Perez distanced himself from Mello, saying, Every Democrat, like every American, should support a womans right to make her own choices about her body and her health. That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state.

This will come as a surprise to the nearly one-quarter of Democrats who believe, according to the Pew Research Center, that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. By Perezs odd reckoning, the way for Democrats to reclaim majority status in this country is by shrinking their numbers. Addition by subtraction is not an effective political strategy.

Advertisement

Nor does it send a welcoming message to leading anti-abortion Democrats like Joe Manchin of West Virginia or Bob Casey of Pennsylvania.

Following uproar over Perezs remarks, Democrats have stumbled over their damage control, saying their candidates can think whatever they want, but they must support abortion rights as policy.

We need to be understanding of those who take a different position, because of personal conscience, but as long as they are prepared to back the law, Roe versus Wade, prepared to back womens rights as weve defined them under the law, then I think they can be part of the party, said Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois.

In other words, we wont jet plane you like Maos communists did in the Cultural Revolution, but you need to accept the partys position or risk banishment.

At some point, Democrats are going to have to win an election somewhere they are not expected to win in order to prove their viability going into next years midterms.

Following President Obamas election, the 2010 midterms resulted in sweeping Republican gains. Those wins were presaged by GOP victories in 2009 governor races in New Jersey and Virginia, and in the 2010 Massachusetts special election to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate.

So far, the Democrats are struggling to notch their first post-Trump victory. They lost a Kansas special election for the House,and were forced into a runoff for a Georgia seat where the Republican is favored to win. Upcoming House races in South Carolina and Montana seem out of reach.

With the militants running things, its hard to see where the path back to power begins.

Read the original here:
Abortion rift puts Democratic militants in charge - The Boston Globe

South Dakota Democrats are set to vote on a set of constitutional amendments this weekend that would push up their party officer elections and possibly trigger a contest for party chair.

Democratic candidates for the South Dakota House of Representatives Karen Soli, left, and Ann Tornberg, right, visit during the South Dakota Democratic Party's Election Night event Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2016, at the Holiday Inn Sioux Falls City Centre in downtown Sioux Falls.(Photo: Joe Ahlquist / Argus Leader)Buy Photo

The biggest weekend of the year for South Dakota Democrats could also usher in a whirlwind contest aimed at ousting the party's chair.

Central committee members learned this week that those in attendance will vote Saturday to amend the party's constitution to shorten the terms of party officers and to push elections from winter months following gubernatorial elections to the spring of odd-numbered years.

The proposal comes with the latest call to unseat South Dakota Democratic Party Chair Ann Tornberg and has been considered a coup by some party insiders.

Supporters of the proposal to swiftly alter party rules say the change is needed to make the party more competitive moving forward, while opponents say it will damage consistency and experience among the Democrats' top ranks.

In a letter first published on progressive blog Dakota Free Press,party member Rachelle Norbergof Vermillionsaid she brought a variety of proposals to clean up language in the party's constitutionas well as the two election reforms in hopes of holding an election for a new party chair this weekend.

"We dont hold Ann Tornberg responsible for all that ails the SDDP. She has tried her best, and for that we thank her," Norberg wrote."What we do hold her responsible for is a severe lack of management ability that has led to low fundraising, dropping voter registration numbers, a nearly invisible message, and at the center, zero of anything resembling a strategic action plan for the State Party."

Tornberg said Tuesday that she wanted to respect the proposals and the democratic process bygiving them consideration in committee. She also said she felt she'd effectively managed the party since she was elected in 2014, despite the outcome of the 2016 elections.

"I feel like I worked very hard and there was a lot of indications of effectiveness," Tornberg said. "I understand the frustration with South Dakota Democrats as there are frustrations all over the country about the election of Donald Trump."

Calls to recall Tornberg and to "shake up" party leadership rang out following sweeping losses in 2016. Former U.S. House candidate Paula Hawks said the party didn't provided her enough support and urged party then leaders tobe more aggressive.

Hawks didn't return a call requesting comment Tuesday.

There could be hundreds of county party representatives that show up to vote on Saturday. A majority will have to support the amendments and it's unclear whether an election could take place the same day.

At least half of the eligible members in attendance would have to sign a recall petition and present it to central committee leadership.

Heather Halverson, chair of the Minnehaha County Democratic Party, said she felt the efforts to elect a new chair nearly half way through Tornberg's term seemed "sudden." Despite that, she said she would listen to arguments on both sides and decide how to vote on Saturday.

"If it seems like something that might help the party move forward, then I might vote to support it," Halverson said. "But if it's too much of an upheaval, I'm not sure I can vote for that."

Jeff Barth,who challenged Tornberg for her position in 2014, said he wouldn't be in attendance at the meetings Saturdaybut felt the effort to oust the party head was being brought in poor taste.

"I don't particularly care much for the ploys intended to manipulate the process essentially at the last second," Barth said.

Follow Dana Ferguson on Twitter @bydanaferguson, call (605) 370-2493 or email dferguson@argusleader.com

Read or Share this story: http://argusne.ws/2q6jbdN

Read the original post:
Democrats to consider replacing chair at party meeting - Sioux Falls Argus Leader