Mediaboss Marketing

Their candidate, Jon Ossoff, has a real chance to win partly because he isnt suffering from the gap in voter passion and commitment that usually bedevils Democrats, especially in off-year races. It would be a big deal if Democrats could more often close their passion-and-commitment gap. Even modestly higher turnout could help them at every level of politics and hasten the policy changes that liberals dream about.

Demographic groups that lean Republican generally have higher voter turnout than Democratic-leaning groups.

After all, polls show that a majority of Americans support progressive positions on most big issues. Yet Republicans dominate state and federal government.

Turnout is a big reason. Last year, Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 voted for Clinton over Trump in a landslide. Only 43 percent of citizens in that age group voted, however. By contrast, Americans over age 65 supported Trump and 71 percent of them voted. Similarly, Americans in their 30s were more likely to support Clinton, and less likely to vote, than those in their 50s.

The pattern also exists across ethnic groups. Asian and Hispanic voters went for Clinton in a bigger landslide than millennials, but most Asian and Hispanic citizens didnt vote.

And the gaps grow even larger in midterm elections. A mere 17 percent 17 percent! of Americans between 18 and 24 voted in 2014, compared with 59 percent of seniors.

If youre liberal and frustrated by these statistics, you should be. But you shouldnt be defeatist.

What can be done? First, dont make the mistake of blaming everything on nefarious Republicans. Yes, Republicans have gerrymandered districts and shamefully suppressed votes (and Democrats should keep pushing for laws that make voting easier). But the turnout gap is bigger than any Republican scheme.

Second, keep in mind that turnout is a human-behavior problem. It involves persuading people to change long-established habits. And there is a powerful force uprooting all kinds of habits today: digital technology.

More specifically, smartphones are changing how people interact with information. Id encourage progressives in Silicon Valley to think of voting as a giant realm ripe for disruption. Academic research by Alan Gerber, Donald Green and others has shown that peer pressure can lift turnout. Smartphones are the most efficient peer-pressure device ever invented, but no one has figured out how social media or texting can get a lot more people to the polls yet.

Finally, remember that the political left has had some recent successes in raising turnout, and they involved old-fashioned political excitement. Obama won partly through higher turnout among younger and nonwhite voters. Black turnout even exceeded white turnout in 2012, before slipping last year.

This months British election is also intriguing. The Labour Party did better than expected, helped by a surge of younger voters angry about Brexit. But Britain also offers a caution to anyone who thinks higher turnout depends on far-left candidates, like Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader. Corbyn didnt win, and he didnt come very close.

My instinct is that the answer for Democrats involves a passionate message of fairness of providing jobs, lifting wages, protecting rights and fighting Trumps plutocracy. It can be bolder than Democrats have been in decades. But it should not resemble a complete progressive wish list, which could turn off swing voters without even raising turnout.

People who dont vote regularly arent progressive activists in disguise. They tend not to follow politics closely. Although most lean left, they are not doctrinaire, and theyre not looking for white papers. They are looking to be inspired.

Obviously, these are tough times for Democrats. They havent had much electoral cheer since 2012 and its unclear whether Ossoff will win. But Democrats should remember that they still have one enormous advantage.

The countrys real silent majority prefers Democrats, if only that majority could be stirred to vote.

See the rest here:
If Liberals Voted ... - The New York Times - New York Times

Six times the B.C. NDP proposed legislation that would have led to the ban of union and corporate political donations in British Columbia.

And six times the B.C. Liberal government stood in the way.

But thisThursdaythe B.C. Liberals willunveila new look.

The 2017 speech from the throne will be very different from throne speeches of the past,since the party was firstelected in 2001. Many of the ideas the party fought against while in power will now be included as Liberal policy.

Banning union and corporate donations - check.

Increasing social assistance rates - check.

Transit funding without a Metro Vancouver referendum - check.

And here is the political kicker.

NDP MLAs willhave to vote against all of those changes they've championed for yearsif they want to form government. That is because the upcoming throne speech will be pegged to a confidence vote expected to end the 16 year Liberalpolitical dynasty.

"What you are seeing is exactly what you would expect from a government in the situation that we are in where we won the electionin having the most seats and the most votes but not having a majority," said Social Development Minister MichelleStilwell.

"I think we are always looking at creating the bestBritish Columbia that we can."

B.C. Premier Christy Clark arrives June 12, 2017 at the swearing-in ceremony for her new cabinet. (Richard Zussman/CBC News)

It's not just legislative votes the Liberal partyhasitseye on. It's the next provincial election.

With the B.C. legislature in an unprecedented time of uncertainty, predicting when that next election will be is impossible.

But the Liberals know that what they did leading up theMay 9election didn't work and this new course is an attempt to lure back voters in Metro Vancouver.

As bits and pieces of the speech from the throne are leaked to the media, thepicture emerging is of a Liberal party willing to substantially change.

B.C. NDP Leader John Horgan promised to make education a defining issue in the 2017 provincial election. (Denis Dossman/CBC)

This could mean a more direct approach onovercrowded Surrey classrooms, a focus on increasing child care spaces in Metro Vancouver and closing loopholes for evicting renters and for foreign investors parkingmoney in Vancouver real estate. All issues that weren't part of the last Liberal election campaign, but were featured in the platforms of both theGreens and NDP.

"For sure, it's about getting votes, but it's about connecting with people," said B.C. Liberal cabinet minister Sam Sullivan. "We have really recognized how we didn't do well in the urban area. We did really well in the Interior, the North, the suburbs, etc, but we were unable to connect with urban voters."

Many of those urban voters weredisappointed when February's provincial budget was the ninth in a row to provide no increase to social assistance rates.

This, despite recognition the province hasbecome one of the country's most expensive places in which to live and the government's claim it was using the province's wealth to help those who needed it most.

It's only now, with the confidence vote looming, that the Liberals will increase those rates by $100 a month at a cost of about $53 million a year.

The same goes for increasing disability rates. The government hadbattled for years with advocateswho were angry rates were left unchanged from 2008 to 2015.

Now, the Liberals are promising to do just that if they stay in power or win the next election.

"We all know that there is a lot of cynicism and skepticismof people in politics. Ithink this will add to that cynicism," said disability advocate JaneDyson. "Ithink that a lot ofpeople's confidence in politicians will be further eroded from what we are seeing now."

There are some core principles the Liberals are unwilling to budge on.

Don't expect the throne speech to include a change of direction on the Site C dam or Kinder Morgan. The Liberals will also likely stick by thebalanced budget pledge and theMasseyBridge project.

But beyond that, almost anything goes. And that will set up an election where the major parties appear to stand for many of the same things.

Leaving voters to wonder if they believe any of them.

Here is the original post:
BC Liberals adjusting principles for a shot at power - CBC.ca

The bipartisan calls for unity following the shooting attack on Republican lawmakers practicing at a baseball field in northern Virginia is unlikely to last.

How could it last when some conservative lawmakers and commentators are already blaming progressives and liberals for the shooting that left Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La) in critical condition after surgery to repair damage to his hip and internal organs.

Last Wednesday morning James Hodgkinson, 66, of Belleville, Ill., opened fire on Republican lawmakers practicing for an annual congressional charity baseball game in Alexandria, Va. Two heroic African-American Capitol Police officers shot and killed Hodgkinson during a gunfight.

Immediately after the shooting some Republicans began blaming the shooting on liberals for inciting Hodgkinson, a former volunteer for Bernie Sanders presidential campaign.

Kellyanne Conway seemed to accuse the media of fomenting the kind of anger that led Hodgkinson to embark on the shooting rampage.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich blamed increasing hostility on the left for inciting Hodgkinson, and a series of things, which sends signals that tell people that its OK to hate Trump, its OK to think of Trump in violent terms, its OK to consider assassinating Trump.

What happened to individuals being responsible for their own behavior?

It wasnt too long ago when Republicans were quick to insist that angry rhetoric and right-wing ideology, and even the divisive language that Trump used during his presidential campaign, are not to blame for individual actions.

Blaming Sanders, liberals or progressives for Hodgkinson actions is wrong.

Sanders advocates for a peaceful political revolution. He acknowledged that Hodgkinson was a volunteer on his campaign and said he was praying for the recovery of Scalise and the other victims.

I am sickened by this despicable act, Sanders said in a statement. Let me be as clear as I can be. Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society, and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms. Real change can only come about through nonviolent action, and anything else runs against our most deeply held American values.

His followers are right when they said that blaming all of Sanderss supporters for the actions of one was comparable to blaming all Muslims for terrorism.

Although the criminal is the only one to blame for his actions, politicians on the right and the left should be clear that they denounce violence as part of their movement.

See the rest here:
Please don't blame shooter on liberals - The Philadelphia Tribune

A A

Paul Nelsons tirade I am sick of liberals (June 10), to me, is wacko. He asked, I am sick of liberals, arent you? and I answer absolutely not. I am sick of any group who thinks hate is the answer, which consists mainly of conservatives.

Most liberals believe what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: All men are created equal, not all white males or all who government deems to be equal, but all men.

The hatred shown by the current administration to womens rights, to minorities, to the physically and mentally disabled, to the LGBT community, to those in poverty, and many other groups is appalling, and I say this hatred must stop as it is tearing the fabric of our nation apart. If Nelson thinks liberalism supports the Jeffersonian declaration, then he is correct and there is no apology from me on my belief that all men are created equal.

Beware of history and how the Nazi regime rose to power the comparisons to our current government are eerily similar. Who among us wants that to repeat?

Go here to read the rest:
Letter: No, I'm not sick of liberals - The Columbian

The federal Liberal government iscreating a new "super" civilian watchdog to review security and intelligence agencies across government and extending new powers to Canada's electronic spy agency.

The proposed changes were unveiled today as part of a massive legislative overhaulof Canada's anti-terrorism regime.

After tabling the 139-pagebill in the House of Commons, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodalesaid it aims to strike a better balance between strengthening security in a fast-changing threat environment, and safeguarding the charter and privacy rights of Canadians.

"Governments have no greater responsibilities than keeping their citizens safe and safeguarding their rights and freedoms," he said. "These are the fundamental obligations that underpin the new national security legislation."

Goodale said the new expert review body, called the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, is a "major innovation in our security architecture."

The watchdog agency, which will have a chair and between three and six members, will oversee the Canadian Security Intelligence Service(CSIS), the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) and security functions of the RCMP. It will alsohave jurisdiction over every governmentdepartment and agency that has a security or intelligence role, including the Canada Border Services Agency.

Trudeau Scheer and Mulcair talk about the security legislation0:43

Under new legislation, CSE, the electronic spy agency, will have new powers to work with the Canadian Armed Forces and tocarry out offensive operations againstforeign actors,to shut down potential cyberattacks in order to protect Canadian assets and critical infrastructure.

The current mandate only allows the agency to defend, block or shield from such attacks.

Today's legislation also createsa new intelligence commissioner position, and that person will authorize certain intelligence and cybersecurity activities before they are carried out.

The commissioner could review and approve ministerial decisions on what kinds ofdata CSIS cancollect, as well as what foreign data could be retained.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjansaid the military will benefit from the electronic spy agency's new authorities in the face of escalating cyberthreats.

"This allows CSE to be able to use specialized tools and skills to making sure we as a government have the broad range of tools to make sure our interests are protected," he said.

One of the most controversial elements of C-51, the former Conservative government's anti-terror bill,was to give CSISnew powers to disrupt a terrorist threat. That authority was retained in the Liberal bill, but Goodale saidCSIS will now requirecourt approval before taking anyaction that might violate constitutional rights.

"What is critically important is that it be exercised consistently with the law and the charter, and we've put the framework in place to make sure that is the case," he said.

Goodale announces new anti-terror bill2:16

The new bill also checks off a number of election campaign promises to repeal what the platformcalled "problematic elements" of Bill C-51, including:

Conservative MP Erin O'Toolecriticized what he called an "omnibus security bill" for raising the burden for detaininga potential attacker, and relaxing the language around promoting terror. He said those changes will make it harder to prevent attacks.

"They are watering down Canadian security measures all to maintain the election promise with respect to C-51," he said. "They're making it more difficult for law enforcement and security agencies to protect Canadians on our soil."

But NDP public safety critic Matthew Dub said the bill does not go far enough in repealing Conservative measures that compromised the privacy of Canadians.

He raised specific concerns about the continued information-sharing regime, and around the retained power of CSIS to disrupt terror threats, calling that "extremely concerning."

"While C-51 was a haphazard way of bringing in these broad powers for national security agencies, the broad powers are still there, they've only been formalized by the Liberals," he said.

Goodale said the government will also modernize the security apparatus to adapt to new tools and technology to respond to emerging threats from espionage to confront an increasingly unstable geopolitical environment and"emboldened adversaries who are more creativethan ever in their plots."

The legislation was shaped largely by nationwide consultations through online surveys, town halls and MP outreach, he said.

Last month, the government released a summary of those consultations. It found that while most participants were prepared to accept new measures and powers for law enforcement and national security agencies to protect Canadians, they wanted more checks and balances in place.

"A clear majority of stakeholders considered current oversight to be inadequate, and many believe existing review bodies need more capacity and should be allowed to collaborate on reviews," the report read."There was strong support among roundtable participants and online responses for a single, expert, independent, non-partisan body to oversee all of the government's national security activities."

Go here to see the original:
Liberals to create 'super' national security watchdog as part of anti-terror law overhaul - CBC.ca