Mediaboss Marketing

DES MOINES|They knew the score. They knew the daunting reality, the limitations of their power.

For Iowa Democrats, the 2017 legislative session transpired precisely as they feared. Maybe even worse.

Overall, the session has been worse than my worst nightmare, said Rob Hogg, the Democrats leader in the Iowa Senate.

The all-Republican control of the Iowa Capitol, ushered in by the 2016 election, rendered Democrats completely helpless as the GOP implemented its agenda.

Republicans did not waste the opportunity. With their newfound authority, they passed sweeping measures that brought dramatic, conservative changes to Iowa laws regarding collective bargaining for public employees, gun and abortion regulations and lawsuit reform, just to name a few.

Democrats vehemently argued against each of those bills but to no avail. Elections have consequences, and Democrats didnt have the votes.

I expected that they would do some kind of Republican priority things. I thought some of them would be some minor, reasonable things, and theyve rammed through hot-button issue after hot-button issue, Hogg said. And its just been a really ugly session.

Said Mark Smith, the Democrats leader in the Iowa House, I think that these have been three months that have changed Iowa, and not for the better.

Without enough votes to stall any bills, the best Democratic legislators could do was extend the clock, drag out the debate, keep the discussion in the public eye for as long as possible.

They picked their spots and did just that many times, most notably during the collective bargaining debate. Democrats in both the House and Senate drafted dozens of amendments in an attempt to weaken the legislation, knowing full well the majority Republicans were not going to let that happen, and extend the discussion.

The marathon collective bargaining debate spanned three days; the Senate at one point literally debated through the night.

Democrats now hope that those messagesthe many speeches they gave in committee hearings, on the House and Senate floors, at rallies in the Capitol rotunda and back in their districts at legislative forumsresonated with Iowa voters and that they will affect the November 2018 election and help change the Statehouse power structure to give Democrats a seat at the lawmaking table again.

Hogg is hopeful. He said he will spend the months after the legislative session traveling the state to help Democrats organize in preparation for 2018.

I think Iowans across the state have a very high level of concern about what the new Republican majority has been doing, Hogg said. I think they dont like it. I think they feel like theyve been shut out, that they feel like nobodys listening to them. And theyre organized and engaged at a higher level than Ive ever seen before. Theres really a growing sense of citizenship across this state.

Erin Murphy covers Iowa politics and state government for Lee Enterprises. His email address is erin.murphy@lee.net.

Read the original here:
Democrats' 'nightmare' almost over, work just beginning - Sioux City Journal

By Alex RoartyMcClatchy Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON Liberal activists are unleashing their fury on the Democratic Party establishment for failing to recognize that rampant disgust with President Donald Trump is now fueling an enthusiasm among voters that could turn even Republican districts blue.

After a long-shot Democratic candidate came within 7 points of winning a Kansas congressional district last week that has been Republican for more than 20 years, progressive strategists blamed the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for not putting enough money and resources into the race, and national operatives more broadly for paying too little attention.

"To the Washington Democratic insiders who wrote this race off before it began, it's time to wake up and realize that the grass roots expects this resistance effort to be waged unflinchingly in every single county and every single state across the country," said Jim Dean, president of Democracy for America, a progressive advocacy group.

Bernie Sanders' former presidential campaign team, now running a group called Our Revolution, piled on: "The Democratic Party can no longer ignore districts that they consider 'safe' for Republicans."

Even the Democratic candidate in Kansas said the party needs to become active everywhere even in conservative districts and states.

"[DCCC] and DNC need to be doing a 50-state strategy," James Thompson, a civil-rights lawyer, said in his concession speech.

Thompson's strength headed into the final days of the special election to fill Kansas' empty in Congress stunned Republicans and forced national GOP officials to make a major, last-minute effort to help their nominee, Ron Estes.

Democrats in Washington at the Democratic National Committee and the DCCC, which is House Democrats' campaign arm flatly reject the charge that they did anything wrong in Kansas, arguing that involvement from the national party would have been counterproductive and an unwise use of scarce resources. For many reasons, moving the needle in a district this conservative is difficult for a group like the DCCC.

But the split over Kansas is emblematic of the rift growing wider between the activists and the operative class as two wings of the Democratic Party struggle to find common ground not only on policy but on the strategy and tactics that might lead them back to power.

"The DCCC will continue its long-standing and failed model of helping only most favored candidates until grass-roots disgust makes that stance untenable," said Jeff Hauser, a longtime progressive strategist. "Taking 'chances,' especially in a cycle which might well prove to be a wave, should be the DCCC's default approach."

Democratic allies of the DCCC have argued that running TV ads in the Kansas district would do more harm than good because Republicans could have used them to argue that Thompson was a tool of the national party a potent criticism in a conservative area. They also say that calls for the party to help with mail or field staff would have taken months of preparation for a race nobody knew would be competitive until last week. (The DCCC did not conduct a poll of the race until days before the election.)

"Everybody's internal numbers on both sides didn't have this being a race in time to start a field operation," said Ian Russell, who served as DCCC's political director last year.

He added that the committee also had to be realistic in its assessment of the race, which many party strategists deemed unwinnable even with an energized Democratic base. Any investment from Democrats would have been met with an equal or greater response from Republicans, while donors might have been misled into thinking that a victory was imminent.

"The DCCC has to be honest with its donors about where they have opportunity," Russell said. "If you cry wolf all the time, it makes it very difficult to actually move resources if you have a real race."

But that misses a larger point, some progressive leaders say. To many on the left, the party went to great lengths to ignore the race entirely, refusing to acknowledge it in emails or fundraising pitches despite the work being put into it by volunteers.

Democrats could at least have set up a digital fundraising page, said Michael Whitney, who was the digital fundraising manager for Sanders' presidential campaign, or made any other small gesture in a sign of support for those working on the ground.

"It's not about the DCCC or the DNC as an institution doing something on their own," Whitney said. "It's about working with grass-roots supporters and donors when opportunity exists to help Democrats win."

Progressives and the DCCC have another chance to get on the same page next week, during a special House election in the north Atlanta suburbs that both parties see as a political bellwether. The political committee has had field staffers working in the Georgia congressional district for months and is spending $250,000 on get-out-the-vote ads on African-American radio stations.

The efforts are poised to benefit Jon Ossoff, who has become a favorite of the activist left, which has helped him raise more than $8 million for his campaign in only a couple of months.

National Democrats have long had reservations about the viability of the race, but they see it as a better bet than the contest in Kansas. And DCCC officials say their involvement there along with the relationship they've tried building with activists groups and the 20 staffers they sent into Republican districts in February is proof they have a strong partnership with their party's grass roots.

"Energy amongst Democrats is off the charts, which the DCCC recognized and acted on earlier than any previous cycle," said Meredith Kelly, DCCC spokeswoman.

But Kelly also acknowledged that the progressive strategists might have a point about making an effort in districts where the party would normally not have a chance at victory. Now that the party has finally seen the turnout in a special-election race, it can have greater confidence about analyzing future races which could lead to a more boldness in taking on Republicans in traditionally red districts.

"We now have a good sense of energy that's out there in terms of how it actually translates at the ballot box," Kelly said. "That certainly is going to shape how we look at the remaining special elections and the general elections next year."

Read more here:
Liberals fume at Democratic establishment as timid about Trump - The Providence Journal

Thanks to Hillary Clintons unexpected defeat last fall, Democrats face a quandary they werent expecting until the next decade: what does their party embody in a post-Clinton universe?

One place to go seeking answers: California and an open gubernatorial seat in 2018 thats a window into modern-day progressivism or, at least, the Left Coast version of it.

One recent statewide poll has Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom well ahead of his Democratic rivals 28 percent overall support, to only 11 percent for former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, 8% for state Treasurer John Chiang and 3 percent for former state schools superintendent Delaine Eastin.

Among just Democrats, the numbers are more jarring. Newsom receives 40 percent of his partys vote, to only 15 percent for Villaraigosa (25 percent of Democrats were undecided).

So what does Newsom owe this to, aside from his dogged pursuit of a job that eluded him when he challenged Jerry Brown for it back in 2010?

Its more than good looks. Although, blessed with a striking Stanford-educated wife whos dabbled in films and four young children, the well coiffed, corporate-casual, 49-year-old Newsom is the embodiment of Marin County metrosexual chic.

Nor is it Newsoms Bill Clinton-like quest to convince voters of his passion for big ideas. One of Newsoms pet concepts: how automation driverless cars, robotic burger-flippers will scramble Californias job market.

What distinguishes Newsom in California circles and why his gubernatorial quest is worth studying for other Democrats trying to rebuild the blue wall that Donald Trump laid to waste across the Rust Belt is his ownership of four topics, all beginning with the letter g, that resonate with his partys faithful.

Those topics:

Gays. In 2004 and at the time the mayor of San Francisco, Newsom sparked a nationwide political and legal firestorm by issuing about 4,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It put him eight and nine years ahead of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

It gives Newsom a big civil-rights talking point to market to Democrats both in California and nationwide should his ambitions take him beyond the Golden State (though same-sex marriage remains a tough sell to some black Protestants).

Guns. Newsom was a sponsor of 2016s Proposition 63, which outlawed the possession of high-capacity magazines and requires background checks for buying ammunition and outlaw magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Gun control is not a political third rail in deep-blue California (Prop 63 received a high percentage of votes than did Mrs. Clinton. However, it remains troublesome for Democrats in purple states (last October, the National Rifle Association spent heavily on broadcast networks in North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania three states that eluded Clintons grasp).

Grass. Guns werent Newsoms only involvement with last falls initiative slate. He also co-sponsored Proposition 64, which legalized recreational marijuana use for California adults 21-and-over.

Newsom hailed its passage as nothing less than a game changer regarding Americas war on drugs, although Prop 64 received almost 685,000 fewer votes than Prop 63 and one million fewer voters than another ballot measure that raised Californias tobacco tax.

A funny thing about legalized pot: of the eight states that have legalized recreational use, only one (Alaska) didnt vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016; two others (Colorado, Nevada) are battleground states. The remaining five California, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington are the backbone of a Democratic electoral count (three blue wall states Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania have medicinal marijuana laws on the books).

As with his stance on same-marriage marriage, is Newsoms advocacy for legalized pot two or more campaign cycles ahead of the curve?

Government. More recently, Newsom added new timber to his gubernatorial platform: universal healthcare. What Newsom envisions is a statewide version of the Healthy San Francisco plan implemented while he ran that city, which provides coverage to over 50,000 uninsured city residents (without regard to income or immigration status).

A potential snag for any healthcare expansion in California, as summed up by the man Newsom hopes to succeed: Where do you get the extra money?

After an election in which Democrats found themselves on the defensive over Obamacares flawed promise, is the utopia of universal healthcare a winning message come 2020? Three years from, will voters in the same flyover states that lost touch with the national Democratic Party warm up to the progressive agenda underway in California?

An oddity of recent times is goliath Californias lack of relevance in presidential affairs. After having a favorite son on a national ticket in seven of the nine national elections from 1952 to 1984, Californias been out of the game for over three decades now. Given its heavy tilt to one party, the nation-state serves little purpose for presidential candidates other than chichi fundraisers and daytime drop-ins on Ellen DeGeneres couch.

Perhaps the next governor ends that drought. If so, it could be part of the next tectonic shift in California politics.

In 1966, Ronald Reagan led a conservative revolt against Democratic rule of Sacramento, running against the cultural drift of the times a crusade that eventually took him to the White House.

In 2003, Arnold Schwarzenegger led a less ideological, more populist uprising again, at the expense of Californias Democratic power structure.

Schwarzenegger wasnt constitutionally eligible to run for president. But one could argue that hints of his celebrity-driven populism could be found in Donald Trumps improbable campaign.

Were Gavin Newsom to succeed Jerry Brown, its neither a rebellion against nor a repudiation of Democratic policies. However, it would mark a pronounced shift in favor of progressive idealism (Brown, the nations oldest governor, opposes marijuana legalization, claims to be a fiscal conservative, and fashions himself as a pragmatic curb against the State Legislatures liberal excesses).

What Newsom is offering to California may sell in the Golden State a year from now. But gays, guns, grass and government as the cure to what ails the party out of power?

California dreaming until proved otherwise far away from the Left Coast.

Bill Whalen is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, where he analyzes California and national politics. He also blogs daily on the 2016 election at http://www.adayattheracesblog.com. Follow him on Twitter @hooverwhalen.

See the rest here:
What's a Democrat to run on these days? In California: gays, guns, grass and government - Fox News

By Bill Barrow and Kathleen Foody

Photo: Kevin D. Liles, For The Washington Post

Democrat Jon Ossoff attends a campaign event Friday in suburban Atlanta. He is leading polls in the race to replace Tom Price, now the secretary of Health and Human Services.

Democrat Jon Ossoff attends a campaign event Friday in suburban Atlanta. He is leading polls in the race to replace Tom Price, now the secretary of Health and Human Services.

Democrats look for upset in GOP turf

MARIETTA, Ga. Republicans in Georgias conservative 6th district dont agree on which of their partys 11 candidates should represent the area in Congress.

But theyre united on one thing: it cant be the Democrat trying for a major upset fueled by anti-Trump sentiment and millions of dollars from around the country.

I dont care what party youre from, said Marty Aftewicz, a 66-year-old GOP voter from Marietta. If the moneys coming from outside the district, its dirty.

Democrats in the area, though, see the flood of donations as a sign theyre not alone in opposing the president.

LATEST TRENDING VIDEOS: Story continues below

It gives me some hope, even though Georgia is a heavily red state, said Barbara Oakley, a 65-year-old retired pharmacist. I think Democrats got surprised by Trump in November and theyre ready to work.

Approaching Tuesdays primary, Republicans are trying to prevent victory by a previously unknown former congressional staffer, 30-year-old Jon Ossoff. His bid to replace Health Secretary Tom Price in Congress carries implications beyond the northern suburbs of Atlanta as both major parties position themselves for the 2018 midterm elections.

Five Democrats will appear on the ballot, but Ossoff is considered the greatest threat to the GOP. Two independent candidates also are running.

The 18-candidate jungle primary comes a week after Republicans sweated out a single-digit special congressional victory in Kansas. Republican winner Ron Estes had previously coasted to easy statewide victories as state treasurer, but won a House seat in Wichita by just 7 percentage points, with little outside investment from national Democrats.

In Georgia, by contrast, both parties have dispatched paid field staffers, and a Republican political action committee backed by House Speaker Paul Ryan has spent more than $2 million pounding Ossoff. President Trump underperformed other Republicans in the suburban district, making it a soft target for Democrats.

Jon is being bankrolled by the most extreme liberals, said Republican candidate Karen Handel, referring to Ossoffs fundraising haul that exceeds $8 million, most of it from outside the district.

Republicans essentially concede Ossoff will lead the voting Tuesday. That leaves 11 Republican candidates hoping the investigative filmmaker fails to reach a majority. If he doesnt, Ossoff and the top GOP vote-getter would meet in a June 20 runoff.

Bill Barrow and Kathleen Foody are Associated Press writers.

Read more:
Democrats look for upset in GOP turf - SFGate

The Senate's inevitable approval of Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court suggests that rather than failing to successfully filibuster President Trump's nomination, Democrats might have done better to show him the respect Republicans denied to Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's choice for the post. At least, that might have won Democrats points with the public for graciousness.

But in the end, it was Gorsuch's "originalist" views of the Constitution - said by some legal scholars to be more extreme than those of Scalia or his acolyte, Justice Clarence Thomas - that led the minority party to dare Senate Republicans to execute the "nuclear option."

AP file photo

The Republicans obliged by ditching a Senate rule requiring at least 60 votes to end debate on a Supreme Court nomination. Ironically, Democrats set the precedent for being bombed when they lorded over the Senate and changed the rules in 2013 to allow a simple majority to end debate for all cabinet and judicial nominations except for the Supreme Court.

Invoking the nuclear option now makes it easier for Republicans to ignore Democrats when the next vacancy occurs. That could be soon, given the justices' ages: Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 84; Anthony Kennedy, 80; Stephen Breyer, 78; Clarence Thomas, 68; Samuel Alito, 67; John Roberts, 62; Sonia Sotomayor, 62; Elena Kagan, 56; and Gorsuch, 49.

Youth is usually associated with liberal views, but Gorsuch's age disturbs progressives who say it makes him more dangerous. Ian Milhiser, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, says Gorsuch, as did Scalia, believes in "originalism," meaning the only way to properly interpret the Constitution is by examining what its words meant when it was ratified. But while Scalia also stressed the need for judicial restraint, Gorsuch seems to lack such qualms.

Scalia's originalism, Milhiser said, "was rooted in an understanding that conservatives may not always control the Supreme Court, so judicial conservatives would do well to articulate lines that no judge, liberal or conservative, must ever cross." In contrast, Gorsuch, "who has spent his entire professional career watching the court grow more and more conservative," doesn't have Scalia's instinct for restraint. In that respect, Gorsuch may more closely resemble Thomas.

The possibility of another Thomas on the court was a better reason than mistreatment of Garland for Democrats to fight Gorsuch's appointment to the bitter end. After all, in the coming years the court may make crucial rulings on voting rights, gerrymandering, campaign finance, gender identification, affirmative action, and abortion. But the fight was lost months ago. Even if Garland had a hearing, the Senate's Republican majority wasn't about to confirm him.

For all the trouble they took to deny Gorsuch his seat, all the Democrats got is a chance to put the shoe on the other foot if they can retake the Senate. That's not good. This country is desperate for an end to the partisan warfare that has crippled Congress. But the fight over the Gorsuch nomination has taken the Senate farther down the wrong path to where the House is already muddled. Remember when filibuster was a bad word; it actually served a useful purpose.

Published: April 16, 2017 3:01 AM EDT The Philadelphia Inquirer

We recently asked you to support our journalism. The response, in a word, is heartening. You have encouraged us in our mission to provide quality news and watchdog journalism. Some of you have even followed through with subscriptions, which is especially gratifying. Our role as an independent, fact-based news organization has never been clearer. And our promise to you is that we will always strive to provide indispensable journalism to our community. Subscriptions are available for home delivery of the print edition and for a digital replica viewable on your mobile device or computer. Subscriptions start as low as 25 per day. We're thankful for your support in every way.

Visit link:
Democrats have little to show for fight to keep Gorsuch off court - Philly.com