Mediaboss Marketing

Over the course of the last two years, I've traveled across the country meeting with some of the biggest donors in Democratic politics. As the leader of an organization working to win Democratic control of statehouses ahead of redistricting, it has been my job to urge our party's biggest funders to not fall into the same trap Democrats that fell into in 2010.

That year Democrats collectively sat on our hands while Republicans invested roughly $30 million into down ballot races, won control of two-thirds of state legislatures across the country, and gerrymandered themselves into dozens of congressional seats for the next decade.

Nevertheless, many of our party's biggest funders have repeatedly told me that they are singularly focused on defeating Trump this election and won't invest in other efforts. That's a major problem for the future of the Democratic Party, the future of our democracy and the future of our country.

One would think after experiencing the decade-long effects of Republican gerrymandering from the last round of redistricting, Democratic donors would be jumping at the opportunity to prevent this from happening all over again. One might even assume that the Supreme Court's decision earlier this year, effectively giving a greenlight for partisan gerrymandering, might further raise the alarm. Sadly, that's been far from the case.

But there's an important point that has been largely overlooked in this discussion: For donors on the Democratic side, it doesn't have to be a zero-sum choice between fueling efforts to defeat Trump or supporting Democratic state legislative campaigns.

That's because the data makes clear that putting a relatively small amount of money into a key selection of battleground states could ensure Democrats are not gerrymandered out of power in Congress for decades to come.

Winning Democratic majorities in just three strategic state legislatures - specifically, Texas, Florida and North Carolina - would significantly boost Democrats' long-term power nationally and provide a crucial check on GOP gerrymandering ahead of redistricting.

Based on estimates of population growth, Texas, Florida and North Carolina are expected to have more than 80 U.S. Congressional seats following the 2020 Census. These three states have been ground zero for some of the most extreme cases of Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression over the last decade.

For those motivated to support Democratic politicians at the national level, helping Democrats flip these state legislatures is vital to preventing further Republican gerrymandering, which could lock Democrats out of power at the Congressional level for the next decade.

Our organization, Forward Majority, has analyzed the data and landscape to identify 60 races that are prime targets across these three states. We estimate that competitive campaigns with a good chance of securing Democratic majorities would cost about $30 million dollars in total.

Donations to these efforts power campaigns, ensuring all voters in a competitive district have the chance to hear messages and learn about the Democratic challenger.

It seems with each passing day, more Democratic donors are promising to spend massive amounts of money to defeat Trump in 2020.

Just the billionaires vying for the nomination, Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, have promised to spend hundreds of millions to defeat Trump and fuel their campaigns. The $30 million needed to win power in key state legislatures is well below the $47.6 million from Tom Steyer and a fraction of the nearly $160 million and counting from Michael Bloomberg in their efforts to secure the Democratic nomination.

Defeating Trump is an essential, existential fight; both the stakes and costs are extremely high. But, Trump is a symptom of the rot and corruption in our political system, not the root cause. If Democrats defeat Trump but fail to counter the voter suppression and gerrymandering that tear at the heart of fairness, representation and accountability in our democracy, we will be all the more vulnerable to the next aspirational authoritarian who rises after him.

The good news is that, by investing in winning Democratic majorities in legislatures in a handful of states, billionaire White House hopefuls can also make a far-reaching impact in politics and in the lives of thousands of Americans over the next decade for pennies on the dollar.

The reality is that if just one of them put a small fraction of those funds, $30 million, behind targeted legislative races in these three states, we would mitigate the greatest risks of voter suppression and gerrymandering that impact the balance of power nationally for the decade to come. It's time for Democratic donors to wake up - before it's too late.

Vicky Hausman is the co-founder and co-CEO of Forward Majority, an organization focused on winning power for Democrats in state legislatures to address voter suppression and gerrymandering. Prior to Forward Majority, she was a Partner with Dalberg, where she led the firm's Americas business and Global Health Practice. Vicky started her career as a Peace Corps Volunteer, and was previously a consultant with the Boston Consulting Group.

Read the original post:
Democrats need to spend money to win state houses, not just beat Trump - INSIDER

BETTENDORF, Iowa As they streamed out of the ballroom following a Scott County fund-raising banquet Saturday night, one after the other Iowa Democrats admitted that they still had not decided whom to support just over a week before the states presidential caucuses.

But by not mentioning his name as they rattled off their short lists, they made it clear whom they would not support: Senator Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist from Vermont who has taken the lead in recent polls.

Instead, every one of the 30 still-undecided Democratic activists here rattled off some combination of the same four names Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind.

As Mr. Sanders tightens his grip on the partys young and left-wing voters in Iowa, more traditional Democrats, the ones who happily sit through marathon banquet dinners to hear the candidates and their representatives, remain split between his four leading competitors or remain unsure altogether about whom to rally behind.

I have told my colleagues all along: Bernie Sanders can win with 27 percent of the vote here, said Representative Dave Loebsack, an Iowa Democrat supporting Mr. Buttigieg, alluding to his fellow lawmakers, many of whom are deeply uneasy about running with Mr. Sanders on top of the ticket.

The fracture among mainstream Democrats here carries profound implications for a primary that has already unsettled the party establishment and prompted late entrants into the race.

Mr. Sanders is threatening to seize control in the early states, taking narrow but clear polling leads in Iowa and New Hampshire and increasingly menacing Mr. Bidens advantage in national polls. With his mammoth online fund-raising operation, Mr. Sanders appears to be in a position of financial strength unmatched by any other candidate besides Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City.

Mr. Sanderss endurance, and his apparent rise in the earliest primary and caucus states, reflects both the loyalty of his core supporters and their conviction that Mr. Sanders would bring the same fighting resilience to the general election. But even among many liberals who admire Mr. Sanderss campaign, or some of his policy ideas, there is deep concern about the implications of nominating a candidate from the left whom President Trump is sure to portray as extreme.

I think that Bernie is just a bridge too far for the country, said Bonnie Campbell, a former Iowa attorney general who is supporting Mr. Biden. Ms. Campbell said she would have no difficulty supporting Mr. Sanders in the general election, but added, I can tell you, I hear from friends and colleagues who say: Oh my God, what are we going to do if Bernie wins?

But in Iowa, Democrats who hope to avert that outcome do not appear close to settling on another candidate as an alternative to Mr. Sanders. And if more moderate voters dont coalesce behind an alternative by next weeks caucus, party traditionalists fear, Mr. Sanders could win Iowa with only a modest plurality, emboldening his leading rivals to remain in the race, and then notch another victory again a week later in New Hampshire. No Democrat in modern times has lost contested races in both Iowa and New Hampshire and claimed the nomination.

The early primary and caucus outcomes could have an outsize impact on later primaries, including the large states voting in March, some of which begin collecting mail-in and early ballots in the immediate aftermath of Iowa. If a candidate like Mr. Sanders were to seize momentum next week, it could help him build a head start in states like California and Texas.

It is a scenario that is deeply alarming to establishment-aligned Democrats, if not unfamiliar. Four years ago, convinced Donald Trump could not win the presidency, they watched with delight as he snatched the Republican nomination without winning majorities because his more traditional rivals divided the vote and refused to bow out.

The Democrats in this race have been as reluctant to target Mr. Sanders as the Republicans were to target Mr. Trump four years ago; in each case they were skeptical of his staying power and believed they had more to gain by attacking other rivals.

Even now, as Mr. Sanders takes a lead in the first two early states, his opponents have not delivered a sustained argument against his candidacy, and remain reluctant to take him on: while Mr. Buttigieg drew attention for warning in a fund-raising solicitation that a Sanders nomination would be too risky, he notably declined to amplify his rhetoric in television interviews over the weekend. The closest he has come to confronting his rival on the left is to make oblique references to the often-bitter 2016 primary between Hillary Clinton and Mr. Sanders.

Most of us would agree the less 2020 resembles 2016 the better in all respects, Mr. Buttigieg said in a brief interview. Each of the would-be Stop Sanders candidates has built enough political strength to justify forging ahead: Mr. Biden remains the national front-runner, with unmatched support among black voters; Mr. Buttigieg and Ms. Warren both have double-digit support in New Hampshire polls, and sizable war chests; Ms. Klobuchar has the thinnest operation beyond Iowa of the group, but over the weekend she earned the endorsement of New Hampshires influential Union Leader newspaper.

Should all four move forward from Iowa, with their perceived strengths and weaknesses, it could make it difficult for any of them to become a rallying point for voters uneasy about Mr. Sanders.

Complicating matters further for traditionalists, and making this race potentially even messier than Mr. Trumps primary, is the presence of Mr. Bloomberg, who is not contesting the traditional early states in February but has already poured more than $270 million in advertising into later contests and made clear to allies that he will remain in the race should Mr. Sanders come roaring into March.

Mr. Bloomberg was on Ms. Klobuchars mind as she left the dinner here Saturday. She was asked if she would remain in the race if she did not break into the top three in the caucuses, which has often been the number of viable candidates who leave the state.

Even if youre in fourth, she was asked?

You think its only going to be down to four candidates even by New Hampshire? she said before answering the question. No, its not.

Then, pointing to Mr. Bloomberg, she explained why the Democratic vote may remain splintered.

Why would I get out while hes still in? Ms. Klobuchar demanded.

With nearly 40 percent of Iowa voters indicating in a new New York Times-Siena College poll that they were still not certain about whom to support, Mr. Sanders could still suffer a reversal of fortune here.

Thats in part because of the states complex, multiphase caucusing process, which allows supporters of underdog candidates to shift to stronger contenders. If Mr. Sanders has the most enthusiastic base of support in Iowa, he may be less well positioned to expand his bloc in later rounds should moderate voters rally to one of the four other leading candidates.

And its Ms. Klobuchar whom Iowa Democrats are watching most closely. If she does not reach 15 percent in most precincts, her supporters could determine the statewide winner if they migrate mostly to one candidate.

Former Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, Mr. Bidens most prominent supporter in the state, was blunt about why Ms. Klobuchars backers should support the former vice president.

Mr. Biden has the best chance of winning the general election, he shares Ms. Klobuchars pragmatic politics and Joe is going to need a running mate, Mr. Vilsack said.

A more urgent concern for Mr. Vilsack was the prospect of Iowa producing a muddled result, a scenario thats more likely this year because the state party, for the first time, is releasing raw vote totals from the initial round of balloting as well as the final results and delegate allocations.

If I had to make one prediction, there will be a split decision and thatll have repercussions, he said. Because whoever quote-unquote wins can claim that they won, and talk about it going into New Hampshire.

So while they still hope to best Mr. Sanders in Iowa or New Hampshire, several of Mr. Sanderss rivals have begun emphasizing their strengths in states later in the calendar.

Mr. Bidens advisers and surrogates have been stressing his support among minority communities that become important starting with the Nevada caucuses on Feb. 22, while Ms. Warrens campaign circulated a memo last week detailing its preparations in the March primaries that will award most of the delegates that will settle the Democratic nomination.

And in a conversation with volunteers before a town hall-style meeting in Davenport on Sunday, Ms. Warren reiterated her determination to compete into March and beyond, telling supporters she already has staff in 30 states, according to a volunteer who attended the meeting and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

We all know that this is very likely to be a long nomination process, said California Assemblyman David Chiu, who on Sunday was opening a campaign headquarters in San Francisco for Ms. Warren and said of her campaign: They are going to put up a tremendous fight here in the state.

That phase of the race is also when Mr. Bloomberg, with his vast personal fortune, could become a more urgent factor, either rising as an obstacle for Mr. Sanders or further fracturing the partys moderate wing.

In California, Mayor Robert Garcia of Long Beach, who endorsed Mr. Biden this month, said he expected the former vice president to consolidate support there once it becomes clear that theres a few candidates left.

But gathering support around just a few candidates could also be difficult in California, Mr. Garcia noted, because the states mail-in ballots would list the names of candidates who falter or withdraw over the course of February.

There are going to be a lot of candidates in California, because they are going to be on the ballot, he said. There will be some drop-off, but theyre all competitive here and thats going to continue.

Read more here:
In Iowa, the Not Sanders Democrats Find Voters Torn - The New York Times

Thanks to strong support from younger voters, 78-year-old Bernie Sanders is the front-runner for Utahs Democratic presidential primary on March 3 doubling the percentage of support from his nearest rival in a huge field. But one of every five likely voters is still undecided.

Sanders, a liberal Vermont senator, attracts support from 26.5% of Utahns who say theyll vote in the March 3 Democratic primary, according to a Salt Lake Tribune survey conducted by Suffolk University. Fellow progressive Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts senator, is No. 2 with 14.4%.

Trailing them in the top tier of candidates are two moderates: former Vice President Joe Biden with 12.1% and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg with 9.9%. The poll of 132 likely Democratic primary voters has a margin of error of plus or minus 8.5 percentage points.

He starts with a foundation of individuals who previously supported him in the presidential contest," Magleby said, and those folks are likely to return and participate in 2020.

It looks like I got some bad information, Sanders said, looking over the first vast crowd. Somebody told me Utah was a Republican state. He has yet to visit the state this year.

Sanders generates most of his Utah support now and in 2016 from younger voters.

In the new poll, Sanders won 49% of the support from likely Democratic voters ages 18-34 and 40% of those ages 35-44 double to tripling what other candidates received from those age groups. Older age groups are far more evenly split. Warren led with those ages 45-54, Bloomberg led among those 55-64 and Biden led among those 65 and older.

For his academic research, Magleby interviewed some of Sanders 2016 managers for media and fundraising about why the senior citizen is so popular with younger voters.

Their answer is: Hes seen by young people as authentic, Magleby said. Sure, hes older. Sure his hair is a little frizzy. But what those young people like in Sanders is that hes the real Bernie. Hes authentic.

Mike Oberbrockling, 35, of Layton, is one of the people polled who plans to vote for Sanders.

After Bernie wins, he is going to do the things he says he is going to do, Oberbrockling said. He seems to be pretty upfront with everything. You watch a lot of interviews with most politicians, and they give long, drawn-out answers that arent clear. Bernie doesnt beat around the bush.

Magleby said many younger voters also seem to see Sanders as a father figure, or a grandfather figure, and Oberbrockling agrees.

Some people call him Americas dad, Oberbrockling said. And just like any dad, he wants whats best for everybody. And the cool thing about Bernie Sanders is it doesnt matter if you support him or not he still wants those better things in place for you, such as Medicare for all.

Magleby said younger voters are also part of an enthusiastic liberal wave that often appears in Democratic presidential campaigns. In contrast, he said, older voters tend to be more centrist and more interested in experience. That is shown by Gaye Anthony, 66, of Taylorsville, one of the Biden supporters among poll respondents.

At this point in our democracy with whats going on [with President Donald Trump], she said, we need [Bidens] experience and temperament to help bring our country back to an order that is more stable and more friendly, and more in keeping with our traditions and our expectations.

Magleby said the poll also shows the strength of the liberal wing in the Utah Democratic Party in a state controlled by Republicans. He notes that progressives Sanders and Warren are capturing 40% of the vote, while centrist moderates trail well behind.

This is not uncommon in one-party states, he said, where the out party is more interested in making a statement than winning an election.

Magleby added it reinforces a perception that the Utah Democratic Party is well left of the Utah mainstream, and that isnt going to help Democrats win any office in the state of Utah, where party labels are on the ballot.

Warren visited Utah last April and announced this week that she hired senior staff here to oversee a grassroots campaign.

Mary Blair, 44, of South Ogden, is one of those polled who is excited about Warrens anti-corruption message. I like that shes not taking any type of PAC money ... because I believe that big business money has to come out of politics. So Im all in on Elizabeth Warren and have been for a long time.

Other candidates in the poll who received some support include: entrepreneur Andrew Yang and former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, 4.6% each; Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, 3%; and billionaire Tom Steyer and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, 0.8% each.

Originally posted here:
Utah Democrats haven't lost their love for Bernie Sanders, who leads the pack in new poll - Salt Lake Tribune

We have to decide whether to give into the fear or whether to fight back," Warren said. Me, Im fighting back. That's why I'm in this. Im fighting back. Im fighting back because we are at our best as a nation when we fight back. When we see big problems and we take them on and we fight back."

Buttigieg has become Warren's rhetorical opposite, especially as he rose sharply in the Iowa polls last fall.

Having attacked the idea that fighting is the point" at a gathering of thousands of Iowa Democrats in November, the 38-year-old former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, typically only mentions Trump by name once in his standard speech, when he asks his audience to imagine the day after Trump leaves office.

When the on-cue burst of cheers subsides, he speaks of an America in the ashes of an impeachment, a divisive election and, as he did in Fort Dodge on Saturday, in need of being brought together, in need of healing and common purpose."

Biden, a veteran of decades of congressional battles who served as Barack Obama's right-hand man, strikes a balanced tone.

In Ames last week, he said, One of the things a president has to do is you have to be a fighter and a competitor, but a president also needs to be a healer. You have to heal the country." He repeated that theme on Sunday in Marshalltown, saying, We can't go on with this endless political war.

Even as Sanders, who labeled Trump a racist, a sexist, a homophobe and a religious bigot" in his opening remarks to a college audience in Ames on Saturday, unity has emerged as a theme as caucus night has approached.

Read this article:
Democrats' Competing Impulses: Should They Fight or Unite? - The New York Times

Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren have accused one another of lying about a private conversation in 2018 over whether a woman could become president; Mr. Sanders and Mr. Biden have attacked each other over Social Security and corruption; and Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democratic nominee, has come off the sidelines to stoke her rivalry with Mr. Sanders, declaring that nobody likes him.

The lack of consensus among Democratic voters, 10 days before the presidential nominating primary begins with the Iowa caucuses, has led some party leaders to make unusually fervent and early pleas for unity. On Monday alone, a pair of influential Democratic congressmen issued strikingly similar warnings to very different audiences in very different states.

We get down to November, theres only going to be one nominee, Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking House Democrat, said at a ceremony for Martin Luther Kings Birthday at the State House in Columbia. Nobody can afford to get so angry because your first choice did not win. If you stay home in November, you are going to get Trump back.

No matter who our nominee is, we cant make the mistake that we made in 16, Representative Dave Loebsack of Iowa said that night in Cedar Rapids as he introduced his preferred 2020 candidate, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., at a town hall meeting. We all got to get behind that person so we can get Donald Trump out of office, Mr. Loebsack added.

In interviews, Democratic leaders say they believe the partys fights over such politically fraught issues as treasured entitlement programs, personal integrity, and gender and electability could hand Mr. Trump and foreign actors ammunition with which to depress turnout for their standard-bearer.

I am concerned about facing another disinformation campaign from the other side, said Representative Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, a Biden supporter who was uneasy enough that he recently sought out high-profile congressional backers of some of the other contenders to discuss an eventual dtente. For those of us who are elected officials, we need to exercise real leadership to make sure all of the camps are immediately united after all this is over.

Excerpt from:
A Major Fear for Democrats: Will the Party Come Together by November? - The New York Times