Mediaboss Marketing

Two more candidates have filed paperwork to compete for the Democratic nomination to challenge Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.) next year.

Alison Kiehl Friedman, an expert in combating human trafficking, and Deep Sran, founder of the Loudoun School for the Gifted, join an already crowded field.

Democrats think they have a chance to flip the Northern Virginia seat, which has been in GOP hands since 1980, after the area backed Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.

Comstock supporters say the congresswomans ability to outperform GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump by 16 points to win a second term cemented her dominance in the district.

The district includes Loudoun County and parts of Fairfax and Prince William counties, as well as Clarke and Frederick counties to the west. As the closest thing to a battleground district in the region, it attracts more than its share of activists and donors.

[Why a programmer from Maryland wants Northern Virginia to Dump Comstock]

A native of Takoma Park, Md., Friedman, 38, grew up in an activist household. While pregnant with Friedman, her mother founded Voters for Choice with Gloria Steinem and her father worked for a nonprofit organization that helped build assets for the poor.

Friedman earned a bachelors degree at Stanford University and worked at People for the American Way before joining the staff of then-Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.). She served as executive director of the Alliance to Stop Slavery and End Trafficking and in 2009, went to work for the State Departments anti-trafficking office.

Friedman said she was inspired to run by her daughter. The girl had written to Trump urging him to love instead of hate in the spirit of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., but feared he would discover her letter and bring guns to our house, Friedman said.

If my daughter is brave enough to write a note like that, she said, I do have the ability to do more, and what Ive always loved doing is working on protecting the worlds most vulnerable.

She disputed Comstocks claim that she leads on human trafficking because she supported legislation that President Barack Obama signed. Friedman opposes Trump on a host of issues, including, she said, his disregard for institutions vital to our democracy and his scapegoating of people of color and immigrants.

Friedman, who is pursuing an MBA through Oxford University, left the State Department in 2015, and moved from the District to McLean, in April of this year.

The newest candidate, Deep Sran, 45, grew up in Silver Spring, attended Montgomery County public schools, and earned a bachelors degree from the University of Maryland and a law degree from Georgetown. He worked for firms in Baltimore, Chicago and Washington for three years, but always felt like education was the way to make lasting social change.

Returning to the University of Maryland, he earned a doctorate in educational psychology and went on to teach and serve as curriculum director at the Cesar Chavez Public Charter High School. He moved to Ashburn, in the district where he is seeking office, in 2004, and still lives there with his wife and two daughters.

Tried of the long commute, he started a small private school, the Loudoun School for the Gifted, about a decade ago as a laboratory for education ideas that could work in public school, he said.

Its purely Field of Dreams if you build it they will come, he said. I love education. It is in my mind the way to build a better world.

Sran, whose parents are from India, said that with his background and experience, he can relate to the districts robust South Asian community.

I understand why small-business people dont tend to vote for Democrats, he said. On the other hand, my whole life has been about social justice.

At least seven Democrats, including Friedman and Sran, are running or say they plan to run for the party nomination to challenge Comstock.

State Sen. Jennifer Wexton, a former prosecutor from Loudoun County; Lindsey Davis Stover, who worked in Veterans Affairs during the Obama administration; and Dan Helmer, a Rhodes Scholar and Army veteran, announced their campaigns early, followed by David B. Hanson, a retired Navy intelligence officer from Clifton.

Kimberly Adams, past president of the Fairfax teachers union, said she will begin her campaign next month.

Democratic leaders in the congressional district will decide early next year whether to nominate a candidate through a state-run primary open to all voters or a party-run process.

Follow this link:
Field of Democrats competing to challenge Rep. Comstock grows by two - Washington Post

The eyes of the nation were on the special election in Georgias 6th Congressional District Tuesday. And, once the dust settled, Democratic leaders tried to spin it as a mix of good news and bad news.

The good news, according to Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, D-NM, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is that Jon Ossoff came so close. Despite the loss, we have a lot to be proud of, Lujan said. Which is kind of like the proverbial Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

The fact is: Georgia 6 has been in Republican hands since 1979. In 2012, Mitt Romney won the district by more than 23 points. Tom Price, who abandoned the seat to become Donald Trumps HHS secretary, never got less than 60 percent. Even though Trump only carried the district last November by 1.5 points, its still a red district in a red state. So it is impressive that any Democrat proved so competitive, losing by only four points.

But: So what? Politics isnt beanbag. In politics, close doesnt mean anything. Theres only winning and losing. And winning is the only thing that counts. Jon Ossoff lost, even though he raised $23 million, more than any other congressional candidate in history, and outspent his Republican opponent Karen Handel. Jon Ossoff lost, even though this was billed as the race that would catapult Democrats back into control of Congress in 2018.

Yes, the bad news is that Jon Ossoff lost. And Democrats have to stop spinning about how well he did, all things considered, and start dealing with the reality of not only why he lost but why, in the four special elections held so far in 2017, Democrats have a record of 0-4.

Why did Democrats lose in Georgia 6? Two factors, above all others: Wrong candidate and wrong message. Jon Ossoff, former congressional staffer and documentary filmmaker, may be a bright young man, but he bombed as a candidate: too stiff, too cold, too reserved. Hes hardly the kind of guy youd want to go out and have a beer with. Hes more like the nerd youd do anything to avoid. He has all the charisma of a banana slug.

But Ossoff also had the wrong message. Not necessarily a bad message. He didnt say anything offensive. Just the wrong message. He didnt say anything particularly inspiring, either. He didnt focus on Donald Trump. He didnt adopt the progressive platform of Bernie Sanders. He just cast himself as the policy wonk who would do good things for his district when the public clearly wanted more.

According to leading political strategist Stanley Greenberg, Ossoff and his team made one other fatal mistake. They were so determined to keep the race based on local issues that they failed to respond when Republicans raised the stakes by painting Ossoff as an acolyte of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and her liberal San Francisco values. Its a tired, old, phony line of attack, but it still works in some parts of the country, especially if you dont respond.

Once Republicans had so nationalized the race, Greenberg told me, Ossoff had no alternative but to also talk about the national importance of Georgia 6. He could have done so by focusing on the Republican health care bill, which would take health protection away from 23 million Americans and be the first vote cast by whoever won the Georgia special. But he chose not to. He stayed local, instead, and lost.

The Democrats loss in Georgia 6 is all the more ironic when compared to what happened in South Carolina 5. In Georgia, Jon Ossoff received $6 million from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and a ton of national publicity. In South Carolina, Democrat Archie Parnell received only $275,000 from the DCCC and zero national publicity.

Yet, when the votes were counted, Parnell scored better than Ossoff. He lost by only 2,836 votes, which says something about where the national Democratic Party is today. The more establishment party leaders love you, the worse voters like you and the less likely they are to vote for you.

It doesnt mean Democrats have less chance of taking back control of the House. According to strategist Charlie Cook, there are 71 districts now held by Republicans that are more favorable to Democrats than Georgia 6. But it does underscore where Democrats have to start in order to win back the House in 2018: find and field better candidates starting with a candidate who lives in the district, which Jon Ossoff did not.

Bill Press is host of a nationally syndicated radio show. He can be reached by email at bill@billpress.com.

Read this article:
Press column: Coming close in Georgia no win for Democrats - Portage Daily Register

Photo: J. Scott Applewhite

Democrats to offer platform on economy in attempt to end losing streak

Democrats have been losing elections by not offering voters a bold economic agenda, and the party plans to change that by releasing a platform within a month that won't be "baby steps," Senate Minority Leader Leader Charles E. Schumer said Sunday.

Congressional Democrats will try to pass the plan legislatively over the next year a remote possibility given Republican control of Congress and will campaign on it during the 2018 midterm elections, Schumer, D-N.Y., said on ABC's "This Week."

"Democrats need a strong, bold, sharp-edged and common-sense economic agenda," Schumer said. "Policy, platform, message that appeal to the middle class, that resonate with the middle class."

With Republicans controlling the White House and Congress, and Democrats unable to score a win in recent special elections for open congressional seats, the party's trying to find an effective approach beyond simply opposing President Donald Trump and Republican policies.

Some Democrats have questioned whether House Minority Leader Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., should be replaced to give the party new leadership heading into the 2018 elections.

Schumer didn't offer details about the g economic plan but said the top lesson for Democrats after losing to Trump in 2016, and more recently a hard-fought and costly special election in Georgia on June 20, is that it's not enough for the party to simply oppose Trump and that an economic message is missing.

Continue reading here:
Democrats to offer platform on economy in attempt to end losing streak - Albany Times Union

The loss in last weeks special congressional election in Georgia produced predictable hand-wringing and finger-pointing inside the Democratic Party. It also raised anew a question that has troubled the party through a period in which it has lost political ground. Simply put: Do Democrats have a message?

Right now, the one discernible message is opposition to President Trump. That might be enough to get through next years midterm elections, though some savvy Democratic elected officials doubt it. Whats needed is a message that attracts voters beyond the blue-state base of the party.

The defeat in Georgia came in a district that was always extremely challenging. Nonetheless, the loss touched off a hunt for scapegoats. Some Democrats, predictably, blamed the candidate, Jon Ossoff, as failing to capitalize on a flood of money and energy among party activists motivated to send a message of opposition to the president. He may have had flaws, but he and the Democrats turned out lots of voters. There just werent enough of them.

Other critics went up the chain of command and leveled their criticism at House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). She has held her party together in the House through many difficult fights ask veterans of the Obama administration but she also has become a prime target for GOP ad makers as a symbol of the Democrats liberal and bicoastal leanings. Pelosi, a fighter, has brushed aside the criticism.

Perhaps Democrats thought things would be easier because of Trumps rocky start. His presidency has produced an outpouring of anger among Democrats, but will that be enough to bring about a change in the partys fortunes?

(Amber Ferguson/The Washington Post)

History says a president with approval ratings as low as Trumps usually sustain substantial midterm losses. That could be the case in 2018, particularly if the Republicans end up passing a health-care bill that, right now, is far more unpopular than Obamacare. But Trump has beaten the odds many times in his short political career. What beyond denunciations of the Republicans as heartless will the Democrats have to say to voters?

Though united in vehement opposition to the president, Democrats do not speak with one voice. Fault lines and fissures exist between the ascendant progressive wing at the grass roots and those Democrats who remain more business-friendly. While these differences are not as deep as those seen in Trumps Republican Party, that hasnt yet generated a compelling or fresh message to take to voters who arent already sold on the party.

[Lessons from this years special congressional elections]

Hillary Clinton, whose rhetoric often sounded more poll-tested than authentic, never found that compelling message during her 2016 campaign. She preferred to run a campaign by demonizing Trump and, as a result, drowned out her economic platform. This was a strategic gamble for which she paid a high price.

The absence of a convincing economic message did not start with Clinton. Former president Barack Obama struggled with the same during his 2012 reelection. He wanted to claim credit for a steady but slow recovery while acknowledging forthrightly that many Americans were not benefitting from the growth. It was a muddle at best, but he was saved by the fact that Mitt Romney couldnt speak to those stressed voters either. In 2016, however, Trump did.

Clintons loss forced Democrats to confront their deficiencies among white working-class voters and the vast areas between the coasts that flipped in Trumps direction. Their defection from the Democratic Party began well before Trump, but until 2016, Democrats thought they could overcome that problem by tapping other voters. Trump showed the limits of that strategy.

The Georgia loss put a focus on a different type of voter, the well-educated suburbanites, particularly those who dont live in deep-blue states. While losing ground among working-class whites, Democrats have been gaining support among white voters with college degrees. In the fall, Clinton advisers believed she would do well enough with those college graduates to overcome projected erosion among those without college educations. She fell short of expectations, however, allowing Trump to prevail in the pivotal Midwest battlegrounds.

The Georgia district had the highest percentage of college graduates of any in the nation. Ossoff tried to win over those suburban voters with a moderate message on economic issues, but it wasnt powerful or persuasive enough to overcome the appeal of the Republican brand in an election in which the GOP made Pelosi-style Democrats a focus. Loyalty to party was strong enough to allow Karen Handel to prevail.

[In defeat, Democrats point fingers at one another, especially Pelosi]

The long-running debate over the Democrats message probably will intensify as the party looks to 2018 and especially to 2020. It is a debate that the party needs. Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, writing in the American Prospect, sees a problem that goes beyond white working-class voters to those within the Democratic base who also were left behind by the post-2008 economic gains. He argues that the partys problem is with working-class voters of all types, not just whites.

Greenberg has long been critical of the tepidness of the partys economic message and puts some of the blame on Obama. He believes the former presidents economic message in 2012 and 2016 focused on progress in the recovery largely to the exclusion of the widespread pain that still existed. That mix of heralding progress while bailing out those responsible for the crisis and the real crash in incomes for working Americans was a fatal brew for Democrats, he argues.

For progressives, the answer to this problem is clear: a boldly liberal message that attacks big corporations and Wall Street and calls for a significant increase in governments role in reducing income and wealth inequality. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been aggressive in promoting exactly that, as he did during the 2016 campaign, with calls for a big investment in infrastructure and free college tuition at public colleges and universities. He has said he intends to introduce legislation he calls Medicare for All.

That kind of message probably will spark more internal debate, particularly among Democrats from swing districts or swing states. It points to one of the biggest challenges Democrats face as they move beyond being the anti-Trump party. That is the question of whether they are prepared to make a robust and appealing case on behalf of government in the face of continuing skepticism among many of the voters they are trying to win over. Trump might not succeed in draining the swamp, but he has tapped into sentiments about Washington that Democrats ignore at their peril.

Nor can Democrats ignore voters concerns about immigration. The Democrats message on immigration and immigrant rights (and some other cultural issues) plays well in many blue states, but it draws a much more mixed reception in those parts of the country where Trump turned the election in his direction.

In this divided era, its easy for either party to look at the other and conclude the opposition is in worse shape. Thats the trap for Democrats right now as they watch Trump struggle in office. But Democrats are in the minority in the House, Senate, governorships and state legislatures. Clinton may have won the popular vote, but that proved about as satisfying as coming close while losing last week in Georgia. Its no substitute for the real thing. If continued frustration with losing doesnt prompt rethinking about the message, what will?

Read the rest here:
Beyond opposing Trump, Democrats keep searching for a message - Washington Post

Some Democrats say nyet to their party leaders Russia obsession.

I did a 22-county tour, Rep. Tim Walz of Minnesota told The Hill Saturday. Nobodys focusing on that.

We should stay away from just piling on the criticism of Trump, complained Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont.

In the wake of the partys failure to win a much-watched special election in Georgia on Tuesday, Democrats in all but deep-blue districts are voicing doubts about the relentless anti-Trump strategy that the party has followed since his inauguration.

People back in Ohio arent really talking that much about Russia, Rep. Tim Ryan told MSNBC on Thursday.

If we dont talk more about their interest than we do about how were so angry with Donald Trump and everything thats going on, then were never going to be able to win elections.

In a Harvard-Harris poll conducted for The Hill last week, 64 percent of registered voters said the investigations into President Trump and Russia are hurting the country, and 56 percent want Congress to move on to other issues.

Continue reading here:
Democrats warn party to move on from Russia obsession - New York Post