Mediaboss Marketing

On the day Donald Trump officially becamepresident of the United States, Democrats still remained steadfastly opposed tothe billionaire businessmans proposals.

During the inaugural ceremony Friday, many House Democrats worebuttons emblazoned with the hashtag #ProtectOurCare, calling out Republicans and Trumpfor their promise to overthrow former President Barack Obamas signature health care legislation, the Affordable Care Act.

Members wanted to wear a sign of solidarity with the Affordable Care Act at the inauguration, Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), told Talking Points Memo.

As TheBlaze reported earlier this month, Senate Republicans have already taken the first steps to repeal Obamacare with a nearly party-line vote 51-48 last week. The procedural voteestablished special budgetary rules that protect the GOP from a Democrat-led filibuster, permitting a repeal vote to take place with a simple majority in the 100-member Senate.

While the wheels are rolling down the path to undo the Affordable Care Act, Republicans are divided about what to do once the historic legislation is history.

Many Republicans have proposed repealing the bill and slowly replacing portions of the law while others have called for a delay in repealing Obamacare until a replacement is ready. But Trump, speaking to the New York Times, said a replacement law must follow very quickly or simultaneously.

All of this comes at a time when Obamacare has reached an all-time-high in popularity.

According to a new CNN/ORC poll, 49 percent say they favor the 2010 health care bill, while 47 percent remain opposed to the law.

More:
See the button House Democrats wore to Trump's inauguration - TheBlaze.com

Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Yvette Clarke, Ted Lieu, Lloyd Doggett, and Earl Blumenauer.

Photo illustration by Slate. Images by Paul Morigi/Getty Images, Brendan Smialowsk/Getty Imagesi, Mark Wilson/Getty Images, Kris Connor/ Getty Images, and screenshot via WREG

Yvette Clarke, a Democratic congresswoman from Brooklyn, New York, had initially planned on attending Donald Trumps inauguration out of respect for tradition and the institution of the presidency. But last week, she started to waver. We had the opportunity as members of Congress to attend the intelligence community briefing about what took place in terms of hacking and the intrusion of the Russian government into our electoral processes, she told me. Id always been concerned about it, but until the briefing, I didnt realize the breadth and depth of what took place. Then, on Friday, Trump took to Twitter to insult civil rights hero Rep. John Lewis, who had said he doesnt see Trump as a legitimate president. All talk, talk, talk - no action or results, Trump tweeted about Lewis, a former Freedom Rider who was beaten nearly to death marching from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. It was, says Clarke, the nail in the coffin. Lewis had said he wasnt going to the inauguration, and Clarke announced that she was staying away as well. I believe in the peaceful transfer of power, Clarke says. I also believe in the peaceful right to protest.

Michelle Goldberg is a columnist for Slate and the author, most recently, of The Goddess Pose.

Soon the boycott snowballed. As of this writing, nearly 70 members of Congressmore than one-third of the Democratic caucusare skipping Trumps inauguration. So is Secretary of State John Kerry. Lewis words, and Trumps reaction to them, set off a cascade as one Democrat after another realized that there was no reason to pay Trump the respect typically given American presidents. Youre actually seeing a huge reaction to the cloud of illegitimacy over Donald Trump, California Rep. Ted Lieu, who is also boycotting the inauguration, tells me. Says Texas Rep. Lloyd Doggett: I think its an important message we are sending to Mr. Trump, that you will get no cooperation if you provide no cooperation. You will get no respect if you provide no respect.

The last time members of Congress staged a protest like this was in 1973, when 80 anti-war representatives refused to attend Richard Nixons second inauguration. True, a few Democrats, including Lewis and California Rep. Barbara Lee, skipped George W. Bushs inauguration in 2001. But even though Bush lost the popular vote and assumed the presidency thanks to a Supreme Court ruling, most Democrats refrained from questioning his legitimacy and instead worked to shore up popular faith in our democracy. The attitude then, says Doggett, was, Lets honor this peaceful transition in our democracy. Thats important even though it came about in a very unjust way.

But Democrats feel that their good faith wasnt repaid and are increasingly unwilling to remain bound by political manners that their opponents refuse to heed. They have finally realized that, faced with an opposition with a limitless will to power, they cannot preserve collegial bipartisan processes alone. Now we have that experience behind us, Doggett says of the Bush years. We have to look at what a terrible price we have paid for having George W. Bush instead of Al Gore as president. Now, as we consider an even more outrageous Republican president, given that experience, I think its essential that we use every nonviolent way that we can of resisting Trumpism.

Not every Democrat who is skipping the inauguration describes Trump as illegitimate. Some simply say they cant pretend to celebrate an event that they and their constituents regard as a calamity. I made a decision shortly after the election that I didnt think, in good conscience, I should dignify what should be a solemn and very significant occasion with my presence, says Oregon Rep. Earl Blumenauer. Mr. Trump ran what I think is arguably the most disgraceful election in our nations history.

Yet Democrats are increasingly willing to say that Trumps election was not just tragic but tainted, and that he may not have any right to the office hes about to assume. Like Clarke, Lieu says he was shaken by what he learned in the classified intelligence briefing about Russian hacking. The classified report provides clear and convincing information to support the conclusions set forward in the unclassified report, he says. Hes been infuriated by Trumps attempt to raise doubts about the intelligence communitys findings. He is lying to the American people when he said that some other country may have hacked us, says Lieu. It was Russia. Trump went to the briefing. He knows whats in that report, and he is lying to the American people.

Lieu sees other reasons to question Trumps legitimacy. He will be in violation of the constitution the second he is done swearing in his oath of office, Lieu says. He has massive foreign conflicts of interest. He can fix that by divesting his global business holdings or putting them in a blind trust. He refuses to do so. He also refuses to release his tax returns as he said he would. That would let the American people know if he has any special interests in Russia.

Not surprisingly, conservatives are accusing Democrats of hypocrisy, since Democrats denounced Trump for his campaign to delegitimize Barack Obama and worried that hed refuse to accept an election loss. Back in October, when Trump foolishly suggested he might not accept the results of the election, it was considered a threat to democracy, John Daniel Davidson writes at the Federalist. Now, its an act of patriotism. Davidson decries a sinister trend, common to both sides, of routinely attempting to delegitimize the opposition.

This argument has a surface logic, but it depends on ignoring the underlying facts. Trump threatened to call the election results into question based on fantasies about voter fraud. Democrats are questioning the results based upon the findings of Americas 17 intelligence agencies. Trump attacked Obamas claim to the presidency with racist lies about his nationality. Democrats are attacking Trumps by demanding the truth about his financial holdings. If our 17 intelligence agencies had a high confidence that Barack Obama faked his birth certificate, absolutely there would have been a huge legitimacy crisis, Lieu says wryly.

Anyway, many Democrats, particularly those in deep-blue districts, are past worrying about what Republicans think of them. Theyre being disingenuous, says Barbara Lee. Let them say what they want to say. They can keep criticizing us. Weve got to be real with people. Weve got to be the voice of the people. Tennessee Rep. Steve Cohen has come to the conclusion that the right will smear Democrats no matter what they do, so they might as well do what they think is right. There are two different worlds, he says. One world is tolerant and accepting and diverse and, in my opinion, thoughtful. Its two different worlds, and its hard to see where theres a bridge.

In such a polarized climate, Democrats are less worried than they once were about appealing to an elusive center or winning the approval of bipartisan eminences in Washington. It used to be that Democrats were terrified about what the centrist establishment would say about them if they showed spine or, heaven forfend, bared their teeth, says Ben Wikler, Washington director of MoveOn.org, which is calling for all Democratic lawmakers to boycott the inauguration. But now that establishment has been eviscerated. It has been shown to have no power whatsoever. Democrats can see that fighting back is the only option. And they can already tell that theyre going to catch hell from their grass-roots activists if they dont do it.

Top Comment

Good for them. Republicans have lied, cheated, and used every underhanded trick in the books, sinking the country or their own states in the name of power and wealth, and America rewarded this behavior with control of the government. More...

Its not clear that the defiant posture will last. Doggett predicts that during the inauguration, Trump will offer a few conciliatory remarks about bringing the country together. Im confident that there will be some fawning comments about how hes finally beginning to act presidential, and lets come together for the good of the country, Doggett says. The pressure on Democrats to collaborate with Trump could become intense. Im hopeful, but were very early in the process, and theres no doubt that theres a big corporocrat section of our caucus, he says.

But for now, a growing group of Democrats are listening to their outraged progressive constituents, most of whom want their representatives to stand up to Trump however they can. Cohen says one of his donorsa Republicanwrote to him urging him to change his mind about the inauguration, arguing, You need to watch the peaceful transfer of power. Thats part of democracy. Cohen doesnt disagree; the decision to skip the inauguration was one he wrestled with. But ultimately, he says, Its also part of democracy to let people know that you represent their voices.

Original post:
The Inauguration Boycott Shows Democrats Are Learning to Fight Like Republicans - Slate Magazine

When President-elect Donald Trump replaces Barack Obama on January 20, the Democratic Party will find itself more removed from power than at almost any point since the partys creation.

Scorned by the same voters who once embraced the New Deal, built the Great Society, and put their hope in the nations first black president, Democrats are now locked out of power in Washingtonand out oftwo-thirds of state legislative chambersacross the country.

Simply put, Democrats once vauntedcoalition of the ascendant younger, multiethnic, educated, and urban failed them in2016, and in 2014 and 2010 before that. That coalitionproved to have major handicaps, part demographic and part geographic, that have been hollowing out the party for years.

Democrats may find cold comfort in Hillary Clintons nearly 3 million popular vote lead and the fact that more peoplecall themselves liberal than ever polled. And they can, and do, fairly protest a system of representative government that allows the government to be so unrepresentative of the popular vote. But it will be up to Democrats to solve their own problem within the current rules.

You cant say that the Democrats are at their absolute historical nadir because you cant be at your absolute historical nadir when you win a popular vote majority, said Tom Schaller, the political scientist and author of the book Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South.But you have a knifes edge balance between the two parties and the knife is tilted towards one party for various structural reasons.

Future demographic changes should eventually put Democrats back in the White House, but that will do nothing to solve their problems down ballotand could take more time than they can afford. To win again now, Democrats will have to beat their geographic disadvantageby holding together a diverse coalition that has already shown major signs of crackup.

Countless autopsies will be written of the 2016 election. Most will focus on the strategy and tactics of the Clinton campaign. But to understand how Democrats arrived in this mess to begin with, it helps to go back to the partys founding over 150 years ago.

See How Democrats Got Here or jump to What Lies Ahead.

Part One

The story of the 2016 election the defection of white working class voters mirrorsthestory of the Democratic Party.

Just as the Republicans have gone from the party of Lincoln to the party of Trump, the Democratic Party has undergone its own radical transformation from a Southern white party to a Northern cosmopolitan one.

The party that traces its founding to Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, two slaveholding Southern planters whocreated a party in their image, looks very different today.

It was once the stanchion of working class whites, mainly in the South. And the farmer, the mechanic, and the laboring classes of society, as Jackson called them, gave Democrats a sturdy demographic and geographic power base.

Democrats dominated both chambers of Congress for nearly a century. From the 1930s to the 1990s, Republicans only managed to win control of the House twice, each time for a single two-year term.

Democratic power was strongest in the South, where they controlled virtually every Congressional district, governors mansion, state legislature and county council.Even as recently as 1988, when the South joined the rest of the country in voting overwhelmingly for George H. W. Bushover Democrat Mike Dukakis, it stuck with Democrats down ballot.

But relying on the Solid South, where Democrats had enacted Jim Crow laws and ruled without accountability, came with deep moral compromises for the party that would eventually prove untenable.

Upper Legislative Chambers

Lower Legislative Chambers

Lower Legislative

Chambers

Upper Legislative

Chambers

In the early 20th century, Northern intellectuals, union members and immigrants began flocking to the working class party, swelling its ranks to help elect Franklin Roosevelt four times. Each time he ran, he carried every former Confederate state and major industrial cities. Harry Truman followed, giving Democrats two decades of White House occupancy.

The uneasy New Deal Coalition began to fray along the issue of civil rights. As John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson pushed for racial equality, their fellow Democrats in the South, like George Wallace, fought it tooth and nail. When Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Texan reportedly lamented, We have lost the South for a generation.

Thats when Republicans aimed their sights on the Solid South and on working class white Democrats everywhere. The GOPs Southern Strategy played up racial grievances and highlighted cultural differences to lure voters away from a party that was drifting towards its liberal and urban wings.

Later, as a persistent wage gap grew between upper and lower income earners, many were turned off by Democrats embrace of free trade policies and the growing dominance of coastal elites, who seemed to look down their noses at flyover country.

Shaded bands indicate party in control of the House

Upper/Lower State Legislatures

Republicans Control House

Shaded bands indicate party in control of the House

Upper/Lower State Legislatures

Many white working class voters found a more natural home in the GOP as both parties swapped territory and became more ideologically consistent. But these voters might have stayed if Democrats had made more of an effort to retain them.

In 2008, the Democratic base had been reborn. Obamas victory that year would have looked foreign to Jackson and even Roosevelt.But as much as the Obama coalition was powered by young people, minorities, single women and educated urban dwellers, it also crucially included many blue collar whites. Union members helped him win Scranton, Pennsylvania,by 26 points (Clinton eked out a 3-point margin in 2016), and farmers helped him carry Iowa by 9percentage points (Clinton lost it by 9).

In fact, Obama actually won more raw votes from non-college educated whites because they are so numerous than from African-Americans, Latinos, or educated whites.

Obama lost non-college educated whites by large margins in both 2008 and 2012, but they were still crucial to his victory. In fact, he actually won more raw votesfrom non-college educated whites because they are so numerous than from African-Americans, Latinos, or educated whites. They remain the single largest demographic voting bloc, even as their share declines slowly over time.

But Obamas success obscured his partys decomposition further down the ballot as the Democratic Party completed its metamorphosis from a working class white party based in the South to a multiethnic one based in cities.

The last white Deep Southern Democrat in Congress, Georgia Rep. John Barrow, wasnt ousted until 2014. And it took until 2016 for Democrats to lose their final legislative chamber in the South, the Kentucky House of Representatives, which they had held without interruption since 1920.

The day after the election, Democrats woke up to a party that had lost most rural areas of the country, leaving behind a map that today looks like an archipelago of blue cities swimming in an ocean of red.

Democrats wipe out in rural areas is politically deadly.

The partys most obvious problem in 2016 was geographic: They got more votes across the country, but in the wrong places.

For the second time in 16 years, Democrats lost the Electoral College and the presidency even though they won the popular vote. And if you add up all 34 Senate races last year, Democrats won 6 million more votes, thanks largely to California and New York,while failing to retake control of the chamber. In 2012, they won 1 million more votes in the House and didnt come close to winning it.

Democrats are quick blame Republican gerrymandering.

Obamas former Attorney General Eric Holder recently launcheda party-wide effort, backed by the outgoing president,focused on turning the tables on gerrymandering by winning back state legislatures ahead of 2020, when they will redraw congressional districts. The effort is crucial to Democrats ability to win back the House, since the party has only one chance to change the maps every 10 years.

But Democrats a have a deeper, structural problem beyond gerrymandering. Democrats lost the House in 2010 before Republicans had redrawn the maps.

The problem is quirky but its effects are profound: Electorally speaking, Democrats live in the wrong places.

Americas electoral system rewards the party whose voters are more spread out across the map and, for now, that means the GOP. Democrats are densely packed in major cities where they waste millions of votes winning inefficiently huge marginsthat cant be effectively redistributed no matter which party is drawing the congressional districts.

In Pennsylvania, for example, Republicans control 13 of the states 18 congressional districts even though registered Democrats outnumber Republicans in the state by close to 1 million voters. Republican gerrymandering is responsible for much of that mismatch. But GOP mapmakers were aided by the fact that Democrats tend to be inefficiently concentrated in the states two major cities, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

Jowie Chen, a professor at the University of Michigan, has run hundreds of computer simulations to compare real election results to hypothetical ones innon-gerrymandered districts.The results show Democrats unintentional self-gerrymandering is arguably a bigger handicap than the GOPs intentional gerrymandering.

In 2014, for instance, Republicans won 247 House seats with the help of Republican-leaning districts gerrymandered after the 2010 census. According to Chens simulations, however, the GOP still would have won 245 seat if the election were run again in non-gerrymandered districts.

Gerrymandering can have a big impact on individual states, like in politically divided North Carolina, where snaking districts help Republicans control 10 of the states 13 congressional seats. But Democrats also play this game in states they control, offsetting Republican gerrymandering, according to Chen.

Of course Democrats dont wantnon-gerrymandered districts they want district maps doctored for their advantage. So the potential upside from retaking state legislatures is significant. But in the aggregate, their gerrymanders will never be quite as effective as their more rural opponents.

Cities arent the only problem. Far-flung Democratic clusters alongold industrial canals or small towns where universities happen to have been built a century agoalso lead to wasted votes.

In conservative North Florida, for example, Democrats have pockets of support in Gainesville, home of the University of Florida, and in the state capital, Tallahassee. Clinton won Alachua and Leon Counties, home to both of those cities, respectively, by a 25-point margin. But geographically isolatedDemocratic redoubts like these often get subsumed by their conservative surroundingsin congressional or state Senate elections with broad geographic districts.

Fluky as it may be, the inefficient distribution of Democratic voters makes it harder for Democrats to win no matter how congressional districts, state legislative districts, and even state boundaries are drawn. The mere existence of political boundaries at all is the problem.

Because of the urbanization of the Democratic Party, any sort of geographic line-drawing is inherently going to value the rural party, and thats the Republicans, said Chen.

There is no level of geography that systematically favors Democrats over the Republicans. There is no state where Democrats are geographically advantaged.

And when it comes to the presidency, what matters is winning states as 2016 showed clearly not the national popular vote, thanks to the Electoral College. So anything that makes it a little harder for Democrats to win individual states also makes it a little harder to win the White House.

Democratshave long grumbled about theirdisadvantage in the Senate, where the heavily populated blue states of California and New York get the same two senators as do tiny red Wyoming or Idaho. The Senate makeup compounds Democrats disadvantage at the presidential level as well, since individual states receive the same level of representation in the Electoral College as they get in Congress, further empowering small states at the expense of large ones.

If you dont hear much about this problem from Democrats, its because the forces behind self-gerrymandering are more economic and cultural than political.

Three-quarters of liberals say they prefer to live where the houses are smaller and closer to each other, but schools, stores, and restaurants are within walking distance, according to a Pew survey.An equal portion of conservatives say they prefer places where the houses are larger, but amenities are miles away.

People with college degrees often move to cities to pursue economic opportunities while their non-college cohort stay home. So cities suck up liberals from the countryside, leaving behind vast swaths of unguarded territory for Republicans. And theresdatato suggest living in cities actually make people more liberal.

Progressives are not sure how to address this problem other than to encourage hipsters to move to Iowa, as journalist Alec McGillis once suggestedin a New York Times op-ed.

Making Des Moines or Columbus, Ohio, or Raleigh, North Carolina, for instance cool enough to attract would-be political homesteaders from Brooklyn may be outside the realm of traditional political strategy, but it might be one of the most effective ways for Democrats to secure their future.

Des Moines and other small cities are becoming increasingly attractive places to live, thanks to growing knowledge industries and revitalized downtowns. And the rising cost of living in major metros like San Francisco and New York are pushing many millennials to look elsewhere. Forbes namedDes Moines the best city for Young Professionals in 2011, while Raleigh and Columbus both made the top 10last year.

Without dramatic geographical shifts,the trend will only get worse for Democrats as both parties voters increasingly gravitate toward politically like-minded communities without even realizing it, a phenomenon laid out in Bill Bishops 2004 book The Big Sort.

Politics is becoming a bigger part of peoples identity, Bishop said, and a reliable indicator of what kind of car you drive, TV you watch, or food you eat. And with more mobility than ever, Americans naturally end up clustering together with people like them, leading to more politically polarized communities.

Democratic voters have become even more inefficiently distributed since 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote by a narrower margin than Clinton, while also losing the Electoral College. And Democratic voters will distribute themselves even less efficiently in 2020 and 2024 and beyond unless theres a sudden exodus from major cities and the coasts.

Democrats distribution problem is not a fatal curse, but theyll have to overcome the handicap and attract more voters in Republican-leaning areas.

Last year, two demographers influential in Democratic circles, Bill Frey of the Brookings Institution and Ruy Teixeira of the Center for American Progress, along with Center for American Progress statistician and policy expert Rob Griffin, explored a half dozen possible paths for each party in the 2016 election.Most scenarios they ran through their rigorous statistical analysisfavored Democrats, given the countrys underlying demographic changein the partys favor.But one represented the partys nightmare: Scenario F.

Scenario F predicted a hypothetical surge of white working class voters for Republicans on Election Day, similar to the one that actually helped Trump win. Their prediction nearly nailed the results (they missed the regional nature of Trumps bump, assuming the surge would be more national), so Teixeira and Frys other conclusions should worry Democrats.

If they can keep those white working class voters in future presidential elections, Republicans could obtain and keep an electoral vote advantage over a number of cycles, despite underlying demographic changes that favor Democrats, the simulations predicted.

Worse,evenif Democrats got a similarly sized surge in minority votesScenario E Democrats do not pick up any additional electoral votes, the researchers added.

Unfortunately for Democrats, their geographic and demographic challenges overlap.For instance, Latinos, among whom Democrats have the mostroom to improve turnout, often live in politically unhelpful places. California alone is hometo more than a quarter of the nations Latinos while another fifthlive in Texas.

Midterm elections, like the upcoming one in 2018, remain a challenge for the Obama coalition.

Young people, minorities, and single women dont come to the polls as reliably as Republicans older and whiter voters, contributing to the massive losses Democrats suffered in 2010 and 2014.

Democrats can win big in midterms, as they did in 2006. But that victory was fueled by a massive backlash against George W. Bushs presidency, making it more of a fluke than a model. Democrats may get another windfall next year if Trumps remains unpopular, but theyll need a more sustainable way to win elections without the boost of a presidential campaign.

The Democratic Party has been written off before, even as recently as 2002, when Bush consolidated power with Republican gains in both the House and Senate. But just four years later, Democrats took back Congress, and six years later they retook the White House, too, in a landslide.

Since the November election, the Democratic Party has been gripped by an existential dilemma: Does it try to win back white working class voters or cut them loose? While the choices arent mutually exclusive, they involve trade-offs in how the party speaks to voters and which ideas it prioritizes.

While Democrats will inevitably attempt to pursue some combination of both We dont need to decide between social justice and economic justice. Weve got to have all of that, Democratic National Committee Chair candidate Keith Ellison said its worthwhile to examine the choices separately to clarify the differences.

Democrats could always just call 2016 a black swan eventand carry on without major changes. Clinton won the popular vote, after all, and many Democrats think she only lost the Electoral College because of Russian hacking or FBI Director James Comeys last-minute intervention.

In the 2020 presidential election, the electorate will continue to evolve in Democrats favor as minorities and millennials make up a larger share of overall voters while non-college educated whites continue to decline. Indeed, four more years of natural demographic changes alone might be enough to give Democrats the relatively tiny number of voters Clinton would have needed in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin to win the Electoral College in 2016.

In four years, Republicans base will get older while Democrats will get younger. Young voters turned out in lower numbers for Clinton than Obama, but they still broke for the Democratic nominee by a wide 55%-37% margin, according to exit polls. Thats a hugesilverlining for Democrats. Millennials recently surpassed Baby Boomers as the biggest generation in the country and their voting power will only grow as more reach voting age.

Despite the maxims about everyone getting more conservative as they get older, plenty of research suggests Americans political views tend to crystallize in their early adulthood, leaving an imprint on how each generationvotes for the rest of their lives. So millennials are likely to remain liberal as they age.

Turnout patterns by age look like anupside down Nike swoosh, rising steadilythrough young adulthood before plateauing in middle age from the 50s through the 70s, before falling precariously in the late 70s and 80s as mobility and health issues make it harder for voters to get to polls.

Still, even the most ardent Democrats agree that the 2016 election revealed deeper problems within the partys coalition that will not be solved by waiting for older Republican voters to age out.

Their plans for climbing out of the abyss have fallen into two basic camps:

One option for Democrats is to try to reconstruct asmuch of the lost portion of the Obama coalition as possible ironically, by returning to the partys white working class roots.

Ohio, long a presidential bellwether, is one of the upper Mid-Atlantic and Midwest states including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan that had recently voted Democratic, but flipped for Trump. Democrats will probably never win the presidency again without winning back Pennsylvania or Michigan, which were both extremely close in 2016. But the question is what to do with places like Ohio and Iowa, both of which Obama won twice before Clinton lost them decisively.

In the Ohio scenario,

64 electoral votes are contested.

In the Ohio scenario, 64 electoral votes

are contested.

To win back the white working class voters who populate both states, Democrats would likely need to de-prioritize policies that are either unimportant or alienating to these voters, like immigration reform, and so-called identity issues to refocus on a bread-and-butter economic message. Proponents of this path range from Sen. Bernie Sanders on the left to what remains of the partys moderate Blue Dog caucus in Congress. That may not mean moving to the right on policy, and could entail a more populist direction on issues like free trade (something that has deeply divided Democrats).

But talking less about priorities of, say, the Black Lives Matter movement and more about those important to laid off factory workers risks turning off emerging parts of the Democratic coalition, like minorities and young people. And theres no guarantee Democrats could even succeed in winning back non-college white voters in large margins.

The other option many Democrats favor would be to lean into their coalitions future diversity, write off their losses with white working class voters, and hope demographic changes move quickly enough to catch up to them by the next elections.

Clintons late campaign foray into Arizona, a state that has long voted Republican, was widely seen as one of the campaigns biggest follies. But she came within 4 points there and lost Georgia by just 5 points, while she lost Ohio and Iowa by nearly 10 percentage points each. Many respected analysts say Democrats future liesin the sunbelt, not the rust belt.

In the Arizona scenario,

71 electoral votes are contested.

In the Arizona scenario, 71 electoral votes

are contested.

Continued here:
Democrats: Left in the Lurch - NBCNews.com

More than 50 Democrats in the House of Representatives have said they won't attend Friday's inaugural ceremonies. Here are some of the reasons they are skipping out. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

A growing group of Democratic lawmakers will boycott President-elect Donald Trumps inauguration Friday to protest what they described as his alarming and divisive policies, foreign interference in his election and his criticism of civil rights icon John Lewis, a congressman from Georgia.

There are now more than 60 House Democrats 65, at last count who have declared that they will not attend the inauguration on Capitol Hill this week. The number rose sharply after Trump tweeted Saturday that Lewis (D) is all talk, talk, talk and should finally focus on the burning and crime infested inner-cities.

Lewis, who sees Trumps Nov. 8 win as illegitimate because of Russias allegedinterference in the election, is best known for leading civil rights protests in the 1960s, including the 1965 march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala., during which state troopers brutally attacked the crowd. Lewis will not attend the inauguration, he told NBC News in an interview for Sundays Meet the Press.

President-elect Donald Trump's team and senators of both parties on Jan. 15 reacted to Trump's feud with Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.). (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

Heres a list of other lawmakers who will not attend, starting alphabetically with Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.):

Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.):

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.):

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.):

Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.):

Rep. Anthony G. Brown (D-Md.):

Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.):

Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.):

Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-Calif.):

After serious consideration, I have decided that I will not stand with Donald Trump during his ceremonial inauguration ... I feel this decision best represents my family, constituents, and country, Cardenas said in a statement.

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.):

Donald Trump has shown an utter lack of respect for so many Americans. His attack on civil rights hero John Lewis is the latest example. I will not attend this years inauguration ceremony, Castro said in a statement.

Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.):

Rep. Katherine M. Clark (D-Mass.):

Rep. Yvette D. Clarke (D-N.Y.):

Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.):

A spokesman told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that Clay will be back home in St. Louis speaking to school kids.

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.):

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.):

His behavior and harmful words during and after the campaign have left the country I love with open, bleeding wounds. Instead of binding those wounds, he has poured salt on them, Connolly said in a statement.

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.):

Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.):

DeFazio typically avoids pomp and circumstance events in Washington, he said in a statement to Oregon Public Broadcasting.

Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.):

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas):

Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.):

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.):

Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.):

Rep. Dwight Evans (D-Pa.):

Rep. Marcia L. Fudge (D-Ohio):

Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.):

Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.):

Rep. Ral M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.):

Rep. Luis V. Gutirrez (D-Ill.):

Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.):

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.):

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.):

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.):

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.):

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.):

Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.):

Will not attend, per the Chicago Tribune.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.):

I acknowledge the fact that he is the incoming president, but Im not in the mood to celebrate that fact, Lofgren told the Los Angeles Times.

Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.):

The President-elect must get the message that his antagonistic and divisive comments are unacceptable. We cannot tolerate attacks on women, minorities or a civil rights icon, Meng said in a statement.

Rep. A. Donald McEachin (D-Va.):

I have never seen a campaign that was based so much on hatred. I have never seen a campaign where a foreign power intervened to get one candidate elected and where the candidate did not even acknowledge, let alone condemn this behavior. Im not sure what there is to celebrate.

The continued hatred and insults even long after the campaign is over is unacceptable. He should have begun to bring people together the day after the election, and he has not started yet. I have a train ticket, but unfortunately, it has come to this.

Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.):

Will not attend, per the Los Angeles Times.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.):

Rep. Grace F. Napolitano (D-Calif.):

Will not attend, per the Los Angeles Times.

Rep. Donald Payne Jr. (D-N.J.):

I will not celebrate [Trumps] swearing-in to an office that he has proven unfit to hold, Payne said in a statement.

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine):

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.):

Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.):

Will not attend, per the Chicago Tribune.

Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.):

I cannot risk my presence at his inauguration being interpreted as any kind of endorsement of the normality of our situation. I will not attend the inauguration, Raskin said in a statement.

Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.):

Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.):

A real president doesnt attack the press because they ask tough questions, Ruiz told the Desert Sun. A real president doesnt insult and bully celebrities or everyday Americans because they disagree with him.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.):

Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.):

Im just not a big Trump fan, Schrader told Oregon Public Broadcasting. He hasnt proved himself to me at all yet, so I respectfully decline to freeze my ass out there in the cold for this particular ceremony.

Rep. Jos E. Serrano (D-N.Y.):

Rep. Terri A. Sewell (D-Ala.)

Upon prayerful deliberation, I have decided not to attend the inauguration of the 45th President. While I have a profound respect for the office of the President, and I accept the results of the election, I simply cannot accept the blatant disrespect shown by President-elect Trump towards American civil rights icon, my colleague, friend and mentor, the Honorable John Lewis. The ongoing attacks against Congressman John Lewis are a direct assault on the sacrifices of those brave men and women in my Alabama district who fought, bled and died for the civil rights and voting rights of all Americans. As always, I stand with my constituents.

Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.):

Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.):

Will not attend, per the Democrat & Chronicle.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.):

As the House of Representatives is not in session the week of Inauguration, Congressman Smith will spend the District Work Period at home in Washington state meeting with his constituents, a representative for the congressmansaid in a statement to Seattle NBC affiliate KING 5 News.

Rep. Darren Soto (D-Fla.):

I am deeply disappointed with Trumps attacks against civil rights hero John Lewis and will not be attending the inauguration as a result, Soto told Orlando ABC affiliate WFTV-Channel 9.

Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.):

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.):

Will not attend, per the Clarion-Ledger.

Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.):

Rep. Nydia M. Velzquez (D-N.Y.):

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.):

Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.):

Rep. Frederica S. Wilson (D-Fla.):

Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.):

For the last ten weeks, President-elect Trump has continually denigrated the office of the President by using his bully pulpit for insult and ridicule, Yarmuth said in a statement. This is not normal. It is an embarrassment to our country and to the office of the presidency, and we must send the message that this behavior is not acceptable from the leader of our nation. Not attending the Inauguration is one way for me to do that.

Jenna Portnoy contributed to this report.

More:
More than 60 Democratic lawmakers now skipping Trump's inauguration - Washington Post

Democrats joining the puerile food fight Rep. John Lewis started with the President-Elect may soon live to regret it.

Donald TrumpDonald TrumpMcConnell breaks with Trump on NATO Trump makes unannounced stop at his DC hotel Rick Perry misunderstood Energy Secretary job: report MORE has promised a vigorous legislative agenda for his first one-hundred days, and has the majorities in Congress to make good on that promise. Democrats who continue to whine and pout, calling him illegitimate, may soon find themselves on the wrong side of history.

Heres what is likely to occur between now and mid-April:

President Trump will reverse hundreds of Obamas executive orders, shredding big portions of the former Presidents legacy.

Republicans will pass the Obamacare repeal and replace measure.

Republicans will pass a tax reform package that includes middle class tax cuts and a significant reduction of the corporate income tax.

Republicans will fund the border wall, and President Trump will start to open bids from contractors.

And if Donald Trump succeeds in building the border wall (and yes, Mexico will ultimately pay for it through a remittance tax, tariffs, or other measures), he will be re-elected in 2020 with big numbers.

As Mike Huckabee said on Fox Business on Tuesday, Democrats are never going to be happy his election because of their "personal animosity," and that is a huge mistake. Why? Because as the new President succeeds with his policies, American voters will have little patience with such critics.

Im not suggesting that Rep. Lewis is about to lose re-election, given that he represents one of the most consistently Democratic districts in the nation.

But some of the Democrats who have decided to join him in boycotting Fridays inauguration could find themselves facing primary opponents. Among the most vulnerable in this regard is newly-elected Rep. Anthony Brown (D-Md).

After his disastrous failure in the Obamacare roll-out as Lieutenant Governor, Brown lost his bid to become Governor in 2014 in heavily-Democrat Maryland. How could that happen? Because members of his own party turned against him and voted for the Republican or just stayed home.

I witnessed Mr. Browns unpopularity when black Republican gubernatorial candidate Charles Lollar and I won the endorsement in the 2014 primary of a pre-eminent black pastors and business association in Prince Georges County. (I was Lollars running mate).

I asked the leaders of this group why they were endorsing a Republican ticket over Mr. Brown, and they responded almost unanimously: because Anthony Brown had arrogantly ignored them over the previous eight years as Lieutenant Governor. He was out of touch and took them for granted.

Those same black leaders are going to benefit from lower tax rates, as well as from the reduction in the number of illegal aliens with their drain on public school and public health resources. They are not going to take kindly to politicians who tell them these benefits are somehow illegitimate, because they have a personal beef with the President who brought them about.

Under Obama, Democrats lost more than 1,000 seats in Congress and in state legislatures because of his unpopular policies. For Democrats to continue opposing President Trump when he enacts popular policies is a strong indicator they have suicidal tendencies.

If these suicidal Democrats dont seek treatment, the people will dish it out to them at the ballot box.

They face the same choice Bill ClintonBill ClintonHillary Clinton tweets well-wishes to Bushes Chelsea Clinton: We must keep fighting Lanny Davis: Farewell, President Obama: Your legacy as one of the best presidents is secure MORE faced after the 1994 midterms: embrace success, or go down as a failure.

Three weeks before last Novembers election, Rep. Lewis tweeted out a quote from Walking with the Wind, his memoire of the civil rights movement. We are one people, one family, one house the American house. We must learn to live together as brother & sister or we will perish as fools.

Those are wise and humble words. Rep. Lewis and his fellow boycotters would do well to heed them.

See the original post:
Democrats are committing suicide by joining Lewis boycott - The Hill (blog)