Mediaboss Marketing

Democrats resoundingly condemned Trumps executive action on refugees and U.S. entry from several predominantly Muslim countries Friday.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck SchumerCharles SchumerTrump faces pressure to keep sanctions from GOP Democrats denounce Trump's actions barring refugees Warren goes on tweetstorm over refugee ban MORE (D-N.Y.) said tears are running down the checks of the Statue of Liberty and called the order backward and nasty.

Trump's executive order bans Syrian refugees "until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the [U.S. Refugee Admissions Program] to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest."

Warren called the move a betrayal of American values.

Sen. Chris MurphyChris MurphyDem senator hits colleagues silent on Trump's refugee ban Democrats denounce Trump's actions barring refugees Dem rep on Trump's refugee order: 'I am ashamed that he is our president' MORE (D-Conn.) wrote in an Huffington Post op-ed that Trump has now handed ISIS a path to rebirth."

On Twitter, he shared a widely spread photo of a 3-year-old Syrian boy who drowned as his family attempted to migrate to Europe, along with the message: To my colleagues: dont ever again lecture me on American moral leadership if you chose to be silent today.

Sen. Dianne FeinsteinDianne FeinsteinDemocrats denounce Trump's actions barring refugees Intel Committee Dems to Trump: Read torture report Senators move to nix Trump's ban on funding NGOs that provide abortions MORE (D-Calif.) invoked the same image.

There is no legitimate national security reason to ban refugees the vast majority of whom are women and children who have experienced absolute horror, she wrote in a statement.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), whose name often comes up in 2020 speculation, called the order fundamentally un-American.

President Trumps fundamentally un-American executive order today stands in painful contrast to our ideals: pic.twitter.com/ynDLwRgqrW

Sen. Jeanne ShaheenJeanne ShaheenDemocrats denounce Trump's actions barring refugees Sheryl Sandberg blasts Trump's revival of ban on abortion funding Overnight Healthcare: Ryan maps out GOP timeline on ObamaCare MORE called it grossly inhumane.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) wrote on Twitter: Shame. Shame. Shame. Today is a dark day. I feel sick.

Trump's action earned support from top Republicans like Speaker Paul RyanPaul RyanTrump faces pressure to keep sanctions from GOP Democrats denounce Trump's actions barring refugees Ryan: Building border wall 'urgent' MORE, who wrote in a statement:"President Trump is right to make sure wearedoingeverything possible to know exactly who is entering our country."

The rest is here:
Democrats denounce Trump's actions barring refugees - The Hill (blog)

Saturdays Womens Marches, which rebuked President Trump on the day after his inauguration, probably drew more than 3 million participants between hundreds of locations across the United States, making them among the largest mass protests in American history. The marches recalled the tea party protests of April 15, 2009, an event that helped to mark the beginnings of a backlash to former President Obama but overall attendance at the Womens Marches was about 10 times higher than at the tea party rallies, according to our estimates.

But the geographic distribution of the marches also echoed Novembers election results, in which Hillary Clinton lost the Electoral College despite receiving almost 3 million more votes than Trump nationwide. About 80 percent of march attendees were in states that Clinton won, and a disproportionate number were in major cities. So if the marches were a reminder of the depth of opposition to Trump unprecedented for a president so early in his term they also reflected Democrats need to expand the breadth of their coalition if they are to make a comeback in 2018 and 2020.

More Politics

As FiveThirtyEight did for the tea party protests in April 2009 and for the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011, we sought to collect credible estimates of crowd sizes at the Womens Marches based on local news accounts. (You can find a complete accounting of our estimates and sources here.) We wanted to avoid estimates given by march participants or organizers, since these often exaggerate attendance compared with estimates by public officials such as local police and fire departments. In St. Louis, for example, police estimated the crowd at 13,000 participants, while a march organizer said 20,000 people had come.

Overall, we found 11 cities where there were separate estimates of crowd sizes given by organizers and local officials. They followed a remarkably consistent pattern: In all cases, the estimate by local officials was 50 to 70 percent as high as the one given by march organizers. Or put another way, the estimates produced by organizers probably exaggerated crowd sizes by 40 percent to 100 percent, depending on the city.

Nonetheless, its clear that the Womens Marches drew huge numbers of people. For most of the largest marches, we were able to identify a crowd-size estimate from public agencies, such as a police department or a mayors office, or which was provided by nonpartisan experts who sought to estimate crowd sizes using photography or other techniques. Where we werent able to find such sources, we discounted the reported march sizes by 40 percent if they were based on estimates given by organizers or by 20 percent if a news accounts sourcing was ambiguous.

Even with this relatively cautious approach, we estimated the aggregate crowd size at 3.2 million people among the roughly 300 U.S. march sites for which we were able to find data. Our estimate of 3.2 million marchers is lower than other estimates that take organizer-provided estimates at face value, but is nonetheless an impressive figure. By comparison, using a similar technique, we estimated the tea party rallies on April 15, 2009, drew around 310,000 participants among about 350 cities. Here are what we estimate to be the largest marches:

The largest march was probably on the Capitol Mall in Washington, which was estimated at 500,000 by local officials and at 470,000 by crowd scientists contacted by The New York Times. (By a variety of metrics, attendance at the Womens March on Saturday exceeded that at Trumps inauguration on Friday.) But theres some ambiguity about this. In Los Angeles, organizers claimed to turn out 750,000 people, while police and public officials didnt put out a precise estimate. Using our 40 percent discount rate yields an estimate of 450,000 people. In New York, meanwhile, the Mayors Office estimated the crowd size at 400,000, while organizers put the number at 600,000. (We used the Mayors Office estimate.) Its possible that any of Washington, New York and Los Angeles actually had the largest march.

In addition to L.A., there were several other major cities, such as Denver and Chicago, for which we had to rely on (discounted) estimates put forward by organizers. In some cases, we contacted officials in these cities, but they declined to provide further on-the-record guidance.

And even when there are official crowd-size estimates put forward by local governments, they are often imprecise, particularly for events like the Womens Marches, which werent held in confined locations and which lasted for hours, with not all participants remaining from beginning to end. It wouldnt greatly surprise us to learn that as few as 2 million or 2.5 million Americans participated in the Womens Marches on Saturday or that as many as 5 million did. Either way, those are impressive numbers compared with similar events in the past.

One of the odder sentiments we heard on Saturday was from journalists wondering aloud why all the enthusiasm they were seeing at the marches hadnt translated into a win for Clinton. While 3 million (or so) marchers is a lot, almost 66 million Americans supported Clinton in defeating Trump in the popular vote last November. Like Clintons voters, however, the marchers were mostly concentrated in big cities in blue states.

Specifically, about 80 percent of march attendance came in states that Clinton won. By comparison, only slightly more than half of Clintons voters were in these states.

Only 11 percent of marchers, by contrast, were in a key group of swing states those that Obama won in 2008 or 2012 but which Clinton lost in 2016. (These states are Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Indiana.) Some 25 percent of tea party protesters on April 15, 2009, were in these swing states, by contrast.

We should be careful not to lose the context here. While a higher share of tea party participants were in swing states, a higher raw number of Womens March participants were, because Womens March participation was much higher overall. Nonetheless, the largest rallies were generally not in swing states (with some exceptions: about 87,500 people in Madison, Wisconsin; 50,000 in Philadelphia; and 25,000 in Pittsburgh).

Instead, participation in the rallies skewed to the West. Some 37 percent of marchers were in the Western Census Bureau Region, even though it makes up only 23 percent of the U.S. population:

In races for Congress, there are potential opportunities out West for Democrats. There are 23 congressional districts where Clinton defeated Trump but which elected a Republican to Congress. Of these, 10 are in the West, mostly in California. But this is not necessarily a great development for Democrats as far as presidential races go, because they already have more voters than they need in California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii and increasingly in Colorado and New Mexico whereas the other states in the region are either still too red or dont have enough electoral votes to really move the needle. Nevada is something of an exception to this, as is Arizona, although they dont have all that many electoral votes either.

Another weakness in the Democratic coalition, as pointed out by Sean Trende and David Byler at RealClearPolitics, is that its increasingly concentrated in cities, a problem given that the U.S. Senate to a large degree, the Electoral College to a small degree, and the U.S. House to a greater or lesser degree (depending on how districts are drawn), all tend to give an advantage to rural areas. While marches perhaps arent the best way to measure the urban/rural balance in your coalition its inherently easier to gather large masses in more densely populated areas the contrast between the Womens Marches and the tea party is nevertheless striking. Some 85 percent of the attendance at the Womens Marches came in what Trende and Byler call large cities those located in metro areas with populations of at least 1 million or mega cities metro populations of at least 5 million. By contrast, only 44 percent of tea party participants were in large cities or mega cities, as the tea party had a long tail of attendance in small-to-medium-sized towns, suburbs and exurbs (this would portend Trumps strength in those areas eight years later). About 56 percent of the U.S. population is located in large cities or mega cities, so somewhere in between the Womens March and tea party, although closer to the tea party end of the spectrum.

To be clear, its not a bad thing for Democrats that huge numbers of people turned out in cities to participate in these rallies. There were, for instance, many reports of people from suburban, exurban and rural areas traveling to the nearest big city to participate in a Womens March. In many cases, moreover, the Womens March also had strong numbers in medium-sized cities, especially in college towns, state capitals and in the West. And overall, the Womens Marches turned out about 500,000 people outside of large cities and mega cities more than the tea party rallies turned out in total on April 15, 2009. Democrats need to consider where their supporters are located and not just how many of them there are, and the Womens Marches skewed toward cities overall. But they were big enough to contain hopeful signs for a Democratic resurgence in small and medium towns.

At a macro level, Democrats have every right to be encouraged about the Womens Marches. Thats because the day the presidency changes parties is often a turning point but it can be a turning point against the incoming presidents party if the opposition plays its cards right. If history is a guide, it will suddenly become a lot easier for Democrats to win elections to Congress, statewide and local offices as voters seek to balance against Trump. The more policies Republicans enact, or threaten to enact, and the balancing instinct will become stronger. The risks are probably greater if the president is unpopular, as Trump is for the time being, although presidents who assume the office with high approval ratings arent immune from this phenomenon, as Obama and Democrats learned the hard way.

But this balancing doesnt happen automatically; it requires organization and effort. In that sense, the tea party which, like the Womens March, had a somewhat inchoate set of policy positions and principles when it first formed can serve as a model for Democrats. The Republicans huge gains in the 2010 midterms were partly the result of a massive enthusiasm gap in the GOPs favor but partly also because of organization. Republicans raised a lot of money and fielded competitive House candidates in almost every swing district, even if the tea party also produced a few oddballs in Senate and gubernatorial races. Like the early tea partiers, some of the people who turned out on Saturday will turn into organizers, fundraisers and influential voices in their communities, and some of them will even become candidates for office. The Democratic Party needs broader geographic appeal than what it has right now. But turning out 3 million people one day after the new president is inaugurated is a pretty good start.

Kathryn Casteel, Ben Casselman, Blythe Terrell, Harry Enten and Micah Cohen contributed to this article.

The rest is here:
The Long March Ahead For Democrats | FiveThirtyEight

Since President Trump won election last November, some Democrats and pundits have argued that, despite his noxious rhetoric and promises, the new president deserves a chance, either broadly or on specific issues such as trade and infrastructure. Perhaps he would surprise people, and even if he didnt, Democrats would be hypocrites to obstruct right away after complaining about endless GOP obstruction. January has shown that a Trump presidency will be at least as bad as feared, yet too many Democrats still haventadjusted to reality.

Far from reaching across the aisle or ignoring the GOP establishment, Trumps presidency so far is a catalogue of campaign promises filtered through a screen of GOP orthodoxy. His Cabinet has a number of Washington outsiders never mind that a number of them are manifestly unqualified for the posts or that several of the so-called outsiders are billionaires and big-money donors. His administration is already implementing crackdowns on immigration, muzzling the Environmental Protection Agency on climate change, threatening commitments to the United Nations and unwinding the Affordable Care Act all red meat for his base and areas where Trump and the GOP establishment agree. The areas of least concrete progress an Obamacare replacement and an infrastructure program are the areas where his ideas most obviouslyconflict with Republican doctrine.

Oh, and he still hasnt released his tax returns, he speaks wistfully of another chance to take Iraqs oil, he has already created at least one crisis with a U.S. neighbor and he threatens the very foundation of U.S. democracy with falsehoods about supposed voter fraud.

ThoughDemocrats are talking tougher, too many are still acting as though old rules apply. Politico reports thatSenate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) has prioritized eight nominees rather than trying to gum up all the picks at once.All but four members of the Democratic caucus voted to confirm Nikki Haley as U.N. ambassador despite a complete lack of qualifications for the post. Every Democrat on theBanking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee voted to send similarly unqualified Ben Carsons nomination to the full Senate. According to Politico, senators believe they can inoculate themselves from the criticism of obstructionism often leveled at [Sen. Mitch] McConnell during Obamas presidency.

Thats not good enough. History shows us that presidents do, in fact, govern as they campaign, and Trump is doing just that. Add in his tendency to agree with whatever the last person he met with told him, and you have a presidency blending the policies of Mike Pence and Steve Bannon with the temperament and attention span of a toddler banging on his high chair not the kind of politician that Democrats can or should work with.Everyone knows that Democrats have very little voting power to stop Trumps mistakes, but that doesnt mean they have to implicitly smooth the way. Everything should be focused on limiting the damage Trump and the Republicans can do, using political leverage or at least refusing to rubber-stamp Trump nominees and actions to at least slow things down.

To be clear, a message of were not him is insufficient. Democrats should push their own agenda focused on good jobs and equal rights. Indeed, Schumer and others deserve credit for proposing a specific infrastructure plan that would create real jobs to contrast with the eventual Trump-GOP giveaway to big business. But whatever shape Democrats own policies take, Trump has already proved that he deserves no accommodation.

Visit link:
The case for 'giving Trump a chance' is dead. Too many Democrats are still holding back. - Washington Post (blog)

Democrats, Play Hardball on a Supreme Court Nominee New York Times Re Court Selection Expected Soon (So Is a Brawl) (front page, Jan. 25): Here is where the Democrats fail to protect their constituency, with a pattern of being too reasonable, not willing to act as brutally as the Republicans, this time at the ...

Here is the original post:
Democrats, Play Hardball on a Supreme Court Nominee - New York Times

WASHINGTON On April 15, 2009, a wave of populist protests swept across the country, pegged to tax day. John Boehner, who was then-House minority leader, was curious how theyd play out, and joined one in Bakersfield, California with Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

What he saw there stunned him, and he immediately knew that if Republicans could harness that energy, hed become speaker of the House. As he told his staff in his typically salty manner, They are fucking furious and were going to win.

Boehner was right on both points, and he vowed that day to make sure he channeled the rage he was witnessing into campaigns against Democrats the next fall. To ally with his base, he and then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) resolved to engage in all-out obstruction. It worked, until it worked too well, and consumed Boehner himself, as well as his deputy, former Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.).

Elected Democrats are now facing the same challenge, as a fired-up progressive base is marching far ahead of the party leadership. Democrats are scrambling to keep up.

This week, when progressive champions Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) voted in a Senate committee to approve the thoroughly unqualified Ben Carson to head the Housing and Urban Development Department, there was little criticism from established liberal organizations in Washington. But the grassroots lit up blasting them on Twitter, Facebook, in calls to their offices, and in countless emails to Huffington Post reporters, asking us what on earth their one-time heroes were doing.

Warren clearly felt the backlash. OK, lets talk about Dr. Ben Carson, she began a lengthy Facebook post on Wednesday.

That the votes came just days after millions poured into the streets in more than 650 womens marches on Saturday made it that much more jarring. Those marches, after all, had not been sparked by Planned Parenthood, or the Democratic Party, or unions, or MoveOn.org, even if they did pitch in to help once it got going. Instead, they came from regular, angry people people who may try to replace the ones in power.

Its going to motivate a lot of people to activism and to run for office, said Fran DeBenedictis, a 63-year-old retired New York City cop, as she scanned the crowds at Saturdays march in D.C. She was one of hundreds of thousands who marched in the city that day, armed with a homemade sign denouncing sexism and homophobia amazingly, it had a photo of her on it from a womens march decades earlier and joined by two friends who rode in on a bus from Long Island, New York. This, she said, motioning to the scene, is what brings change.

Ive been doing this for 40 years, she said. It works.

For DeBenedictis and others, the march was the most cathartic and inspiring experience theyd had since the despair of President Donald Trumps win in November. More than 3 million people flooded the streets in cities and towns across the country, donning pink cat-eared pussy hats and vowing resistance to Trumps anti-woman, anti-environment, anti-immigrant agenda. It was such a high that many went back home fired up and ready to fight, but realized, wait, now what?

Jen Bendery

The organizers of the march provided the platform that an angry electorate demanded, but they didnt dictate what comes next. Yes, they co-hosted the march with well-established, progressive groups in Washington D.C., like Planned Parenthood and the Natural Resources Defense Council. But they didnt coordinate with those groups to collect attendees names and email addresses to keep them engaged in those groups fights around reproductive rights or climate change. Instead, the organizers collected contact information for the local organizers themselves, which may wind up being far more powerful than another giant list of progressives.

Ive already gotten a follow-up email from the Womens March in D.C. I think organizers are doing a much better job of absorption post-march than anything Ive ever seen prior to this, said Micah Sifry, who studies technology and political activism. He recently advised the new grassroots group SwingLeft.org, which connects volunteers with progressive House candidates running in nearby swing districts.

Organizers also didnt try to whittle down, say, the movements top three progressive priorities and try to keep attendees focused on those issues in Congress. In spite of this lack of a centralized plan, or perhaps because of it, something remarkable has happened: Democrats desperate for change are going around the establishment and taking action themselves.

In the five days since the marches, theres been a surge of grassroots mobilization online and tens of thousands of people have signed up to get involved. Hundreds of people have signed up to run for local and state offices. Some have volunteered to help Democratic candidates in swing districts. Others, frustrated by the lack of change that theyd like to see, are starting their own campaigns that make fighting Trump as simple as sending a text or downloading an online postcard to send to your member of Congress on a given issue.

Laura Moser, a 39-year-old writer and mom of two young kids, had never led any kind of political mobilization effort before December, when she launched Daily Action. Its perhaps the easiest and most targeted progressive campaign out there: You just text the word DAILY to the number 228466 (or ACTION), and youll get a text message about an urgent progressive issue in your area, based on your zip code. If you want to act, you listen to a short recorded explanation on it and from there, youre routed directly to your member of Congress or senator to weigh in.

In 90 seconds, you can conscientiously object and be done with it, reads the Daily Action website. You can make the phone calls when youre walking to the bus stop, or waiting in line for your morning latte. One touch of the phone and youre done.

Moser, who leaned on her husbands tech experience to set up the mechanics of the operation, has tapped into an eager audience. Daily Action already sends 75,000 texts per day as many as 20,000 of those came from people who signed up after the march and has 30,000 subscribers on Facebook. Moser said she was motivated to create the campaign after seeing so many progressives outraged and depressed about Trump and ready to fight for their ideals, but, per usual, not having any organization around it.

I kept getting all these messages from people like, What are we going to do? Were going to die, Moser said. This is my solution to the despair. I cant stop all the horrible things that are happening, but I can react to them.

Cynthia Ross

This newfound energy is driving throngs of people into the political process and its quickly being turned against Democratic politicians for being soft on Trump, whether its by approving his cabinet nominees or signaling a willingness to work with him.

Senate Dems response to millions taking to the streets is beyond disappointing, said Shaunna Thomas, co-founder of the womens online advocacy group Ultra Violet. It is outright shameful.

Resistance means resisting, Markos Moulitsas wrote Thursday on the progressive site Daily Kos.All those people in the streets last Saturday didnt march for Democrats to make nice with the GOP. They marched to resistwhether its Trump, or his acolytes like Carson. And if even progressive champions like Warren cant figure that out, we really are in trouble.

In the meantime, new grassroots groups are cropping up by the day. Theres the aforementioned Swing Left, which launched the day before Trumps inauguration and has more than 220,000 signed up to participate. Theres Justice Democrats, which is raising money to fund challenges to so-called corporate Democrats. Theres Run for Something, a group of Hillary for America and Obama for America, which is recruiting young Democrats to run for local and state office. They launched Friday and are seeing an average of 100 people sign up every day. The organizers of the Womens March just started their own effort: 10 actions for the first 100 days, which calls on its broad base of supporters to take action on a specific issue every 10 days.

Brad Bauman, a Democratic consultant and former executive director of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said the progressive base doesnt think its leaders are up to challenging Trump.

What were seeing here is a tacit understanding by progressives that establishment Democratic leaders are not equipped to fight Donald Trump the way that Donald Trump needs to be fought, said Bauman, who works with labor and environmental groups. Progressives frankly would have been much happier had [Senate Democrats] said to him, We will not confirm a single one of your picks unless you immediately and publicly renounce breaking up families, the wall, restricting Muslim entry into the country, torture and the rest of the alt-right agenda.

Some traditional groups are paying attention and following the lead of the masses. MoveOn sponsored the march and kicked in $100,000 to support it. The group held a phone call the day after and 60,000 people joined; another 15,000 turned out for small rallies at Senate and House offices on Tuesday, calling for opposition to Trumps #SwampCabinet, as its been dubbed.

The grassroots progressive base and more broadly, the public, which voted decisively against Trump is demanding clear, principled, and total opposition to the Trump Administrations extreme and unprecedented agenda. Mayors, Attorneys General and Governors are showing what real leadership looks like right now said Ilya Sheyman, executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action.

Senate Democrats should pay attention, he added. Doing business as usual or treating Trump as your run-of-the-mill threat will not do.

Read the rest here:
The Democratic Base Is Marching Right Past Its Leaders - Huffington Post