Mediaboss Marketing

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) on Friday said Democrats need to be a "big tent" party amid clashes over whether candidates are sufficiently progressive enough to be backed by the national party.

"I think we have to have a big tent," Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the Oversight panel and a frequent television presence for the party, said in an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

"Because it's one thing to say, 'OK, I don't want to be bothered with these folks.' It's another thing to say, 'Let's pull them under the tent, so we can be effective and efficient in getting something done.' Period."

Cummings also talked about how conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats helped the party win legislative victories in the Obama years.

Separately, Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersEx-aide: Obama still the leader of the Democratic Party Sanders endorses Ossoff, but won't call him a progressive The Hill's 12:30 Report MORE (I-Vt.)saidhe did not know whether Georgia House candidate Jon Ossoff, a Democrat seeking to win a conservative-leaning district, was a true progressive.

Some Democrats have called recently to open the party up to opposing viewpoints in an effort to expand its reach and appeal to voters who may not align with certain planks of the Democratic platform.

That approach has won the support of DNC Chairman Tom Perez, who said that, while the Democratic platform supports abortion rights, the party needs to be open to working with people with opposing points of view in order to reach voters in Republican-leaning parts of the country.

If youre going to be a big tent party as we are, and you're going to help elect Democrats who have generated support in their communities ... the will of those voters is the will that we must respect," Perez told ABC News' Jonathan Karl.

Read the rest here:
Cummings: Democrats need to be 'big tent' party - The Hill

New York Times

'Pivotal Moment' for Democrats? Gerrymandering Heads to Supreme ... New York Times The Wisconsin State Capitol in Madison. A panel of judges agreed that the State Assembly's electoral districts had been gerrymandered before the 2012 election ... and more »

More:
'Pivotal Moment' for Democrats? Gerrymandering Heads to Supreme ... - New York Times

For a few election cycles now, Democrats have been vowing to put the largest, most important red state, Texas, in play. President Trump won the state by a not-very-close 9 points. Then again, Mitt Romney won it by about 16 points in 2012. Democrats still insist that as the state becomes more affluent, more diverse and more urban, it will tip Democratic. In 2016, Harris County the most populous county in the state went Democratic: Ending a streak of thin electoral margins, Harris County the biggest battleground in ruby red Texas with a population larger than 25 other states turned solidly blue with the largest presidential margin of victory in more than a decade.The blue wave was apparent up and down the ballot on a banner night for the countys Democrats.(If this sounds familiar, remember we just came through the Georgia 6th Districts special election, in which an atypical, wealthy and educated red district gave Democrat Jon Ossoff a stunning plurality of 48 percent.)

Last year, the Pew ResearchCenter reported: The Hispanic population in Texas is the second largest in the nation. About 10.4 million Hispanics reside in Texas, 18.8% of all Hispanics in the United States. . . . Some 28% of Texas eligible voters are Hispanic, the second largest Hispanic statewide eligible voter share nationally. One reason Hispanics do not turn out in as high numbers as white voters has to do with age. Latino eligible voters are younger than white, black and Asian eligible voters in Texas. Some 32% of Latinos are ages 18 to 29, compared with 19% of white eligible voters, 26% of black eligible voters and 21% of Asian eligible voters. As voters age, they tend to become more regular voters, which suggests that just as the Hispanic population is growing, the turnout among Hispanic voters will rise as they age.

While the Texas congressmen in deep-red districts have little to worry about, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and congressmen such as Rep. Will Hurd (R-Tex.), who barely won in a district that went for Hillary Clinton, may face unusually stiff competition in 2018. A few political tremors rumbled through the state recently.

First, last month a federal appeals court found that Texas intentionally discriminated against black and Latino voters in drawing its 2011 congressional map, the majority found in a 2-1 ruling More specifically: Three of the states 36 districts violate either the U.S. Constitution or the Voting Rights Act. Hurds district was one of those found to have been unconstitutionally gerrymandered.

Separate court decisions struck down the state House and Senate map and invalidated the state voter-ID law. The Associated Press explained:

For Texas, the stockpiling losses carry the risk of a court punishing the state by demanding approval before changing voting laws. The process, known as preclearance, was formerly required of Texas and other states with a history of racial discrimination before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act. But the court kept in place the chance that states could again fall under federal oversight if intentional discrimination is found.

Minority rights groups and Democrats could press a three-judge panel in San Antonio over that possibility at a court hearing later this month in San Antonio, when theyre also expected to demand new state and congressional maps for the 2018 elections.

These are huge victories for civil rights groups and in turn could boost Democratic participation in 2018.

In addition to the legal battles, polling released this week presented some head-turning results. The TexasLyceum Poll found: Texans believe that immigration is the number one issue facing the state and the nation, but a plurality of Texas adults (62 percent) also say that immigration helps the U.S. more than it hurts. The younger the respondent, the more positively they view immigration. Moreover, Most Texas adults continue to oppose (61 percent) President Donald Trumps proposal to build a wall on the U.S.- Mexico border, and most dont want him to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. Many support traditional immigration reform proposals, even a pathway to citizenship if significant restrictions are put in place. Remarkably, 63 percent support allowing illegal immigrants living in the U.S. the opportunity to become citizens after a long waiting period if they pay taxes and a penalty, pass a criminal background check, and learn English. Even on the hot-button issues of sanctuary cities, voters are split (45 percent approve, 49 percent do not) on whether local officials must automatically turn [someone here illegally] over to federal immigration enforcement officers.

Thats not the response one might expect from deep-red Texas or from a state that elected anti-immigration hawks such as Trump and Cruz. Well, Texans dont much like either of those pols:

Senator Cruz is tied with Congressman [Beto] ORourke, who entered the contest last month, at 30 percent each. However, 37 percent of registered Texas voters say they havent thought about the race yet. Congressman [Joaquin]Castro fairs slightly better against the incumbent Senator, with 35 percent of Texas adults saying they support him over Ted Cruz at 31 percent.

By a margin of 54 percent to 42 percent, Texans disapprove of the job Trump is doing. As is true elsewhere, subgroups of voters view him in starkly different terms. (85 percent of Republicans give the President positive marks compared to 86 percent of Democrats who disapprove of his job performance. Same goes for young Texans. . . . 73 percent of 18-29 year olds are not enthused with the Presidents job performance along with 61 percent of Hispanics. Meantime, he is viewed positively by 60 percent of Whites.)

And finally, Texans are generally pro-NAFTA. Overall, 43 percent of Texas adults say that NAFTA has been good for the Texas economy, 24 percent say that it has been bad, and 33 percent offered no opinion. The topline results tracked closely to when we previously asked this question in 2009, when an equal share, 43 percent said that NAFTA had been good for the Texas economy, 28 percent said that it had been bad, and 29 percent had no opinion.

In sum, if Democrats can keep up their level of enthusiasm, turn out their base and run against Trump and his anti-immigrant and anti-trade policies (which hurt Texas residents), Cruz and a few incumbent GOP congressmen may have their hands full. Cruz, in particular, who has opportunistically been all over the map on support for Trump and on immigration and failed to deliver much in the way of concrete results for his constituents might actually be an inviting target for Democrats. We should underscore the pollsters warning that polling conducted this far in advance of an actual election are, at best, useful in gauging the potential weaknesses of incumbents seeking re-election [And] the substantial percentage of undecided respondents coupled with the conservative, pro-Republican proclivities of the Texas electorate in recent years suggest a cautious interpretation. (Cruz will also have a boatload of cash.)

Nevertheless, the notion that Republicans would have to work hard to hold seats in Texas tells you that something is changing. If right-wing immigrant-bashing and protectionism dont work in the Lone Star State, Republicans might need to reconsider their philosophy.

Read more:
Democrats may finally break through in Texas, thanks to Trump - Washington Post (blog)

Bill Bush The Columbus Dispatch @ReporterBushDoug Caruso The Columbus Dispatch @DougCaruso

Incumbent Democrats on the Columbus City Council have raised more than $250,000 leading up to the May primary, much of it in large contributions from developers and others who do business with the city.

Meanwhile, two progressive Democrats challenging the incumbents raised less than $15,000, and Republicans barely registered in campaign finance reports due Thursday afternoon for money raised and spent during the period Jan. 1 through April 12.

The nonpartisan primary election on May 2 will narrow a field of nine candidates to six vying for three seats on the seven-member council in November.

Councilwoman Priscilla Tyson collected $119,559 in campaign cash, including $25,000 from developer Don Casto; $10,000 from OAPSE AFSCME, a union that represents school employees; and $5,000 from the Crabbe Brown & James law firm. Tyson passed $56,485 to the campaign of Councilman Shannon G. Hardin, who counted that money among the $180,934 he reported raising. Harden disclosed his donations on two separate reports, using new city campaign disclosure rules approved last year.

In addition to the money from Tyson, Hardin's major donations included a total of $10,000 from four principals in developer Wagenbrenner Weinland Park Homes LLC; $10,000 from a United Food and Commercial Workers union PAC; and $6,000 from attorney and City Hall lobbyist Sean Mentel.

Councilman Mitchell J. Brown reported contributions of $6,285, including $2,500 from Huntington Bank; $1,000 from the Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease law firm; and $750 from construction contractor George Igel.

Two council candidates from the progressive Yes-We-Can wing of local Democrats raised less than $15,000. Will Petrik, the leader of the group, reported $9,398 in contributions, including $1,000 of his own money. Jasmine T. Ayers reported raising $4,551, including $200 of her own money.

Of the four Republicans on the ballot, Kieran L. Cartharn raised the most: $650. Support from Franklin County Auditor Clarence Mingo's campaign fund accounted for $300 of that. Whitney Smith raised $200. Two employees of the local Republican party who are on the ballot as placeholder candidates reported no donations.

In the Columbus Board of Education primary, the three incumbents, all Democrats, have a big cash lead on the three Yes-We-Can Democratic challengers. The two Republican candidates, meanwhile, had a combined total of just 16 cents on hand.

Board incumbent Ramona Reyes had $14,612 on hand after raising $6,560 during the reporting period, including $5,000 from the union representing the district's non-teaching employees.

Incumbent Dominic Paretti had $6,220 on hand after raising $9,211 during the reporting period. He contributed $2,500 of that to the Franklin County Democratic Party.

Incumbent Michael Cole raised $5,000 all of it from the non-teaching employees union. He had $3,565 left on hand.

The Yes-We-Can Democrats Erin Upchurch, Amy Harkins and Abby Vaile filed as a slate, raised $5,250. Most of the donations were for $50 or $100. They had $3,329 left on hand.

The Republicans in the school board racehad next to nothing:Seth Golding raised nothing, putting his balance at the 16 cents leftover in his campaign fund;GOP newcomer Zach Amos raised no cash, and had zero on hand.

dcaruso@dispatch.com

@DougCaruso

@bbush@dispatch.com

@ReporterBush

See original here:
Incumbent Democrats lead council, school-board fundraising - The Columbus Dispatch

Har Homa neighborhood in east Jerusalem.

State Democratic Party heavyweights are sounding a red alert against a provocative proposal for their state committee to declare opposition to Israeli settlements in the West Bank without specifically mentioning Palestinian violence, a step some top leaders fear would lead to an exodus of Democratic voters.

If approved, a resolution offered by Carol Coakley of Millis, an 18-year member of the Democratic State Committee, would put the state party on record that Israels settlements in the occupied West Bank are obstacles to peace.

Advertisement

It would call on the states 11-member congressional delegation all Democrats to clearly express their opposition to Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, in pursuit of a negotiated peace.

But former state treasurer Steve Grossman and other Democratic leaders are sounding the alarm, and hoping to derail it before the effort could go before the full Democratic State Committee next week.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.

Grossman, the former chairman of both the state and national Democratic parties, as well the one-time head of the pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee, said the resolution, if successful, could gravely damage Democrats politically.

He said it feeds a one-sided blame game, which is playing out across college campuses and in pockets of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, and would send a disturbing message to many Democratic activists.

A lot of people would read about it and would read the language and say: Frankly, thats the last straw. This is not a place I feel comfortable any longer, Grossman said.

Advertisement

Many would see it as an attempt to drive a rhetorical stake through Israels heart and lay the blame not part of the blame, but virtually the exclusive blame for the failure of the peace process at Israels door, to the exclusion of any responsibility by Palestinians, he said.

Coakley, in an interview with the Globe, said she was inspired to propose the resolution in part by the anti-Islamic sentiment stirred up by the 2016 presidential election.

Her resolution quotes from the State Department under former president Barack Obama, which at one point last year described settlement activity as corrosive to the cause of peace.

Theres a much better chance to get to some negotiations if they stop building settlements, Coakley said.

Israeli settlements in the West Bank have grown under every Israeli government over the past 50 years, despite international opposition, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently announced construction of 5,500 new houses.

In February President Trump told an Israeli newspaper that settlements dont help the process and that he didnt believe going forward with these settlements is a good thing for peace.

Coakley acknowledged there has been a fair amount of pushback from Democrats who think the resolution would alienate supporters.

Coakley proposed the resolution last August; party leaders sent the resolution to a new subcommittee of about a dozen members to study it.

The subcommittee held a hearing on the resolution Wednesday night in Boston. Several members of the public testified in favor of Coakleys resolution; fewer testified against it, according to a person who was in the room.

The subcommittee members will vote on the resolution over the weekend, according to its leaders, Alex Pratt and Marianne Rutter.

The subcommittee has several options. It can refer the document to the full state committee for a vote on April 29. It can table the resolution. It could amend it. Or members can farm it out to another subcommittee for more review.

Cole Harrison, the executive director of Massachusetts Peace Action and a Democratic activist, testified Wednesday in favor of Coakleys resolution, which he said has been repeatedly delayed by the party.

Grossmans warnings, he said, are just scare tactics.

This resolution targets a hypocrisy in the position of the national Democratic Party lets call it the Hillary-wing of the party which says it supports a two-state solution, but gives huge aid and backing to Israel and very little to Palestinians, Harrison said.

He denied the resolution is one-sided and pointed to language saying Massachusetts Democrats deplore all acts of violence against civilians including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement, and destruction; and we concede that these too are obstacles to peace committed by both sides.

Besides Grossman, other Democrats are also weighing in against the resolution.

James Segel, a former state representative and aide to Barney Frank, said in a letter that the very partisan and divisive resolution blames one party for the deadlock in the peace process, while ignoring the many contributions of the other to the conflict.

He submitted different wording that he said is more aligned with the national partys platform. The Democratic National Committee platform calls for a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict negotiated directly by the parties.

The Democratic State Committee cannot afford such a divisive and ill-advised resolution at a time when our party needs to unite to protect the values and commitments we hold dear, Segel wrote.

If adopted it is almost certain to spark a bitter, very public and entirely unnecessary debate that would seriously undermine party unity and alienate many of our core supporters, he said.

Boston City Councilor Josh Zakim submitted written testimony, calling Coakleys effort unnecessarily divisive and pushing for Segels wording, which Zakim called a more balanced approach.

But Richard Colbath-Hess, a leader of the Cambridge-based Palestine Advocacy Project said his group backs the Coakley resolution.

Settlements are illegal under international law, he said. Were glad the Democratic Party is trying to step up to this. We dont want people in the Democratic Party to be apologists for the State of Israels human rights abuses.

Coakley, the resolutions author, disagrees that it would drive away supporters.

I think there will be some people upset, but I think its pretty obvious [settlements] are an obstacle to peace, Coakley said.

Its pretty obvious nobody in this country would put up with those living conditions, she said. I dont find many opponents of the resolution among people who are active on [the issue] because they just think [settlement policy] is an embarrassment.

Gus Bickford, the chairman of the state Democratic Party, did not respond to repeated requests for comment Thursday.

Read more here:
State Democrats roiled by resolution opposing Israeli settlements - The Boston Globe