Mediaboss Marketing

Democrats learned the value of outside money after getting crushed in 2010. In 2014, they learned that big money alone is not enough. With 2016 on the horizon, Democrats involved in outside groups are keen to avoid getting schooled again.

Interviews with about a dozen donors and operatives many of whom attended the annual winter meeting of the Democracy Alliance, a liberal club of wealthy donors, in Washington last week pointed to several weaknesses in the Democratic big money circuit, from poor messaging to a lack of diversity among consultants.

Story Continued Below

As these outside organizations, which range from super PACs to environmental groups, start planning for the next election cycle, here are five steps Democrats interviewed said they must take:

Deliver a cohesive, national message probably on the economy

Democrats this cycle tried to bring up a host of issues in different races, often aiming to localize them in a bid to distance themselves from Obama. Or, as in the Colorado Senate race, they picked one narrow subject, womens reproductive rights, and relentlessly hammered it.

(Also on POLITICO: The GOP's numbers problem)

Even though Democrats touted their strategy throughout the cycle, in the end, none of the messages were powerful enough to break through to a broad enough audience.

This year was an election about everything, but also about nothing because there wasnt a cohesive message, said Anna Greenberg, a top Democratic pollster.

Outside groups (as well as campaigns) need to devise a national message to drive voters to the polls in 2016, and most likely it will need to focus on the economy, Democrats interviewed said. Some pointed to the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Actions economic-focused ads as models the groups early advertising in 2012 is often credited with the presidents reelection.

See the original post:
Democrats debate big-money strategy

Democrats are searching for explanations to their thorough defeat in the midterm elections. Aside from obvious considerations low turnout, sixth year election, etc. there are several arguments that the economy was a big reason Democrats lost so thoroughly. It was polled, once again, as themost importantissue concerning voters this election.

However, this stance presents a bit of a paradox. For one, the economy is not all that bad. In fact, its doing pretty well. The US isoutperformingother economies recovering from theglobal recession. The US has steadily added jobs each month for several years. Unemployment is below 6% for the first time since 2008. The stock market has been breaking records in recent months and performing well generally for the last few years. Gas prices are low. The housing market is recovering. Factory production and jobs are up. Corporations are enjoying record-breaking profits. Economic confidence is higher than it has been since 2008. Despite a slow recover, the economy isrelatively strong.

This normally bodes well for the incumbent presidents party in election years. That was obviously not the case on Nov. 4.

Some argue this disjuncture is because of income inequality. Many pollsters, political analysts, and reporters are arguing that, while the economy may beimproving,individualvotersare notreapingthebenefits. And therefore, they are not rewarding the incumbent party in the way that they normally would.

This is almost certainly not the case. The overwhelming majority ofresearch shows voters are much more likely to consider the national economy than their pocketbook. Individual economic circumstances may play a small role, but, for the most part, perceptions of national economic conditions overwhelm other economic considerations.

Similarly, inequality is not new. The income gap started growing in the early 1970s. Unless the US has reached some unseen tipping point, it is unclear why income inequality would matter in this election and not in others. For example, if inequality was to have affected voting decisions, the relationship between the economy and voting would have likely started todecouplein the 1990s, when inequality increasedsharplyunder President Clinton. However, that hasnt occurred.

Its more likely that Democrats failed to affect voters perceptions of the national economy. As Lynn Vavreckpoints out, voters perceptions of the economy matter more in midterm elections than in presidential years. And further, partisanship has an effect on perceptions of the economy. It acts as a lens through which perceptions of the state of the nations economy are filtered. Democrats ability to change Republicans perceptions of the economy was likely minimal.

However, it is also possible they failed to convince their own partisans that the economy was, in fact, performing well. Democrats attempts to localize their races and distance themselves from the president also put distance between them and a solid national economy. During the campaigns, we heard very little about steady growth, lower unemployment, or the other factors that could have played well for Democrats. Its entirely possible many did not believe these trends were good enough to campaign on. Its also likely that many states in which these races took place still had struggling economies, which, according to a new paper by Stephen Ansolabehere, Marc Meredith, and Erik Snowberg in the journal Economics & Politics(November 2014),can affect perceptions of the national economy. However, that wasnt the case in Iowa, Colorado, New Hampshire, South Dakota, and Virginia, all of which have unemployment below the national average. Its also possible that so many fundamentals pointed away from Democrats, it was never a messaging battle they could have won.

Regardless, the key takeaway is that income inequality was almost certainly not one of the structural issues that contributed to the Democrats defeat this Tuesday.

Joshua Huder publishes his Rule 22 blog at http://rule22.wordpress.com.

Go here to read the rest:
Why Democrats lost the election: Income inequality did not affect the midterms

Senate Democrats urged President Barack Obama to issue orders halting deportation of undocumented immigrants that go beyond protecting individuals with family ties in the U.S. to include vital workers.

In a letter to Obama today, Senate leaders including Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said the president shouldnt be cowed by Republican threats to tie up government funding and risk a shutdown if he makes good on his promise to act on immigration.

Some Republicans are claiming that you do not have the authority to act, wrote Reid, along with Senators Richard Durbin of Illinois and Charles Schumer of New York, the second-and third-ranking Senate Democrats. But we know that you, like previous presidents, have broad executive authority to shape the enforcement and implementation of immigration laws.

Obama is in the final stages of crafting a plan that would provide relief from deportation to many undocumented immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens, according to people familiar with administration planning. It might also include parents of legal residents and immigrants brought to the country as minors.

The prospect of executive action has created a confrontation with Republican lawmakers, who accuse the president of an unconstitutional power grab that will poison the environment for bipartisan compromise in the new Congress.

A group of Republicans in both chambers is vowing that they will try to block funding to implement Obamas order. If that holds up a spending bill, the federal government would have to cease many of its operations on Dec. 12.

Members of their caucus are saying some really scary things, Reid said today in a speech on the Senate floor. Can these Republican leaders stand up to these people who are intent on holding our government hostage?

House Speaker John Boehner and incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have stressed they dont want a government shutdown. Even so, support is building within their party to find a way to resist Obamas orders.

All options are on the table, Boehner told reporters on Nov. 14 in Washington, while declining to say what Republicans might do. Were going to fight the president tooth and nail on this if he continues to go down this path.

Among the other Democratic senators signing the letter to Obama are Patty Murray of Washington, who heads the Budget Committee, Michael Bennet of Colorado and Robert Menendez of New Jersey.

View original post here:
Senate Democrats Urge Obama to Issue Bold Immigration Orders

Jonathan Gruber?Doesn't ring a bell.

Jonathan Gruber? Wasn'teven on our staff!

Jonathan Gruber? That guy what a loser. I would never associate with such people.

This is essentially what top Democrats have said about the MIT professor and White House health-care consultant in the wake of the appearance of a video in which he implies the Affordable Care Act passed because of the "stupidity" of the American people. Such efforts to distance oneself from another person, though, often come with a healthy dose of convenient and sometimes misleading verbiage.

Here's a sampling of the distancing, along with what the top Democrats really meant.

(And for further reading on just how much work Gruber did onObamacare, see here.)

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she didn't know who Jonathan Gruber is, but she spoke about him in 2009 in footage surfaced by CSPAN. (CSPAN)

Nancy Pelosi:"I don't know who he is. He didn't help write our bill."

Translation: OK, technically I do know who he is, and I've even cited his work. But we're not buddies. Also, while he was paid $400,000 to consult the White House on the law and played a significant role, he didn't technically write the bill.

The second half of this statement is, again, technically, true. But it masks the fact that Gruber played an important role in the final Obamacare product. Few people involved with the law actually could be described as its author up to and including, probably, Pelosi. But many people had plenty of input and knowledge of its evolution, including Gruber, who specializes in this stuff, after all.

Read the original here:
The Fix: Democrats attempts to get away from Jonathan Gruber, translated

Senate Democrats end block on Keystone XL vote
After being blocked for six years by Senate Democrats, the House votes today on the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline project. Democratic leaders thought gi...

By: CBS This Morning

Go here to see the original:
Senate Democrats end block on Keystone XL vote - Video