Mediaboss Marketing

We only care about damaging Donald Trump, said Schwartz. For better or for worse, the only thing you can do if you really want to stop Trump is to vote for Haley.

By his own admission, Schwartzs crusade is a long shot. As of October, when New Hampshire requires voters to select their party affiliation, just 3,500 people had switched their registration from Democratic to undeclared it will take many, many more undeclared voters to cast a ballot for Haley next week to make a noticeable dent in Trumps polling lead. History, moreover, is not on Schwartz side: Similar efforts to mobilize New Hampshires undeclared voters in 2020 and 2016 came up notably short. (Similarly, in 2008 Rush Limbaugh launched Operation Chaos to delay the Democrats settling on a nominee.)

But in our conversation, Schwartz explained why he thinks 2024 might be different.

The following has been edited for clarity and concision.

Is there any indication that your strategy is working?

I think the fact that over 3,500 Democrats became undeclared before the October deadline was one initial indicator. The other indicator is that weve heard in surveys that the top issue for over 90 percent of left-leaning undeclared voters is stopping Donald Trump. And then the third is that, anecdotally, I have been in so many conversations with people who say, Oh, Im a Democrat and I missed the registration deadline, but I wish I could have changed over to vote in the Republican primary. Almost all the undeclared voters that I have talked to and I talked to a lot of Democratic-leaning voters are considering voting in the Republican primary. Not all of them will get there, but we can bring a horse to water. We cant make them drink.

How much of your efforts were directed toward getting Democratic voters to switch their party affiliation to undeclared, and how much has been dedicated to persuading already undeclared voters to vote in the Republican primary for Haley?

I would say we made a very limited effort focused on Democrats, because everyone told us that the process was too complicated, and we werent going to get Democrats to become undeclared. We spent about $2,000 to send text messages to 38,000 people, and 3,500 Democrats switched to undeclared. Our focus has been on the 130,000 undeclared voters who voted in the 2020 Democratic primary, because theyre high-propensity voters in the primaries, and they can easily switch to vote in the Republican primary. Weve already spent over $500,000 on the undeclared voters.

What sort of messaging are you finding to be most effective with those voters?

You have to mention who people should vote for and at this point, thats Nikki Haley. You have to say that shes actually viable in the polls, because left-leaning undeclared voters will not vote in the Republican primary unless they think shes within a few points meaning they can make a difference and stop Trump.

Another very effective message from our testing is a comparison chart between Donald Trump and Nikki Haley on how they handled Jan. 6, how they approach racism and hatred in this country, and how they deal with military service and military veterans. Most left-leaning people have been barraged by the media to think that Trump and Haley are the same and theyre both MAGA one is just MAGA lite. What we are trying to explain is that if you think about the issues most important to our democracy, Haley and Trump are night and day.

And then the final message weve found effective is a more emotional message along the lines of Imagine how you will feel on January 23 if Trump loses, if he rages and sends angry tweets. People already know how angry they are at Trump, but everyone else is just complaining about it. Were actually giving people something concrete to do about it.

Are you finding that left-leaning undeclared voters have an instinctual opposition to voting for a Republican like Haley? Can you overcome that knee-jerk reaction?

When you first have the conversation with them, most people are disgusted by Nikki Haleys positions on abortion or climate change. I cant tell you how many times they say, Well, I wont vote for somebody who will pardon Donald Trump. My response to that is, So you would rather let the criminal win than help select the person whos going to pardon the criminal?

Were just trying to get people to see that if you write in Biden, youre throwing away your vote. If you write in Dean Phillips, youre not only throwing away your vote youre actually hurting Trumps competitors and therefore helping Trump win. For better or for worse, the only thing you can do if you really want to stop Trump is to vote for Haley.

The Democratic Party in New Hampshire has come out against your strategy. What do you make of their opposition?

They were opposed to Democrats becoming undeclared, which I understand although almost all those undeclared voters will go back to being Democrats after this primary. When I have said that Donald Trump is an existential and unique threat to our democracy, they have repeatedly said that Chris Christie and Nikki Haley are also existential threats to the planet and to our democracy, because of their positions on abortion and climate change. They have attacked me for taking a photo with the popular governor, Chris Sununu. So if you want extreme partisanship, I think theyre doing a good job of showing that.

Can you expect anything different, though? Is it reasonable to expect the Democratic Party of New Hampshire to get behind an effort to get people to vote for their opposition?

I would say that if youve spent 10 years saying that Donald Trump is a unique, existential threat to democracy, and then six months before the primary, you start saying that every Republican is a unique and existential threat, you have lost all of your credibility.

Trump has started alluding to efforts like yours in his stump speeches and citing them as examples of election interference. At a recent rally, he even called for Sununu to change the rules in New Hampshire to prevent Democrats and independents from voting in the Republican primary. Do you worry at all that youre playing into his efforts to discredit the outcome of the primary?

Its rich coming from Donald Trump, given that in 2020 he called upon Republicans to vote in the Democratic primary for the weakest candidate. I would also say that past attempts to change the rules have failed, and it is insulting to undeclared voters who have always voted and will continue to vote in the Republican primary. It shows a fear of undeclared voters and the power that they have, given that they are the largest voting bloc in New Hampshire.

It is a tactical mistake for him to say he doesnt want any undeclared voter to vote in the Republican primary. That may play well in other states, but it will not play well here in New Hampshire.

Trump is suggesting in his speeches that these efforts are being backed by shadowy Democratic interests. Can you say whos funding your efforts?

We raised $20,000 among family and friends when we launched this organization, and we have invested all of that money into voter data files and messaging campaigns. A couple of people who wanted to stop Trump saw our efforts, and they have given us $650,000.

I will say that, around November and December, we saw some very prominent businesspeople like Jamie Dimon and Reid Hoffman come out with a similar strategy of encouraging people to vote for Haley in the primary and Biden in the general. So this idea has caught on. Its not just taking hold among a fringe group.

After the primary, how will you know if your efforts have succeeded?

We only care about damaging Donald Trump. So even though we have very limited control of the results and how Nikki Haley performs, if she is able to close this race to within single digits, that shows its a competition. Thats one metric of success. We are also very data-driven, and we are doing a large randomized-control trial so we will be able to study if our efforts had any impact from a more academic perspective.

But is there a topline number of voters in the Republican primary that would indicate that left-leaning undeclared voters turned out in large numbers?

In 2012 and 2016, there were almost exactly 100,000 undeclared voters who voted in the Republican primary. In 2020, there were 130,000 undeclared voters who voted in the Democratic primary. So well view it as successful if approximately 130,000 undeclared voters vote in the Republican primary. We anticipate there will be about 160,000 registered Republicans.

So the turnout is superimportant. The only way you can beat Trump is with a large turnout, because hes going to get his core supporters, which will be somewhere between 100,000 and 130,000 voters. If the turnout is above 300,000 people, then an opponent has a chance to make it close.

If its successful, can this strategy travel to other states, or is it only viable in New Hampshire?

We envision this effort as a national effort but we also understand that if Trump wins by double digits in both Iowa and New Hampshire, the race is over and we will likely fold up. If, however, Nikki Haley can get this to a single-digit race well, South Carolina is a totally open primary, and the Democrats will have already voted on February 3. Michigan is a totally open primary.

If Nikki Haley can survive South Carolina which is a ruby-red Trump state then what we are most excited about is Super Tuesday. Virginia is a totally open primary with lots of voters who dont like Trump. Massachusetts is 61 percent independent and 30 percent Democratic. Colorado is a semi-open primary. Minnesota is semi-open primary. Vermont is an open primary. We think Nikki Haley, if she survived South Carolina, can win in all six of those states.

How likely do you think that is?

Some people will say that is a fantastical scenario. We know that it is an extremely narrow path, and we are realistic that Trump will likely be the nominee. But if Nikki Haley is going to win or have even a small chance of winning, this is what we think her narrow path will look like.

Read the original here:
Inside the campaign to get Democrats to vote for Nikki Haley - POLITICO - POLITICO

Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), chair of the House Freedom Caucus, warned the majority of the Republican conference will be disappointed and upset if Johnson doesnt do more to fight for the anti-abortion policy riders that conservatives have demanded since last year.

Youre not going to get everything that you want when you have divided government, Good said. But the House majority ought to count for something. We should get at least half of what we want, shouldnt we?

Conservatives cheered the recent rise of Johnson, a longtime abortion opponent, and said they trusted him to deliver wins on abortion that proved elusive under his predecessor. But the Louisiana Republican has met intense pushback from swing district Republicans in his conference and from the Democratic-controlled Senate, which has vowed to block attempts to roll back abortion access. That leaves little room for Johnson to craft a deal that doesnt alienate at least some members of his caucus and isnt dead on arrival in the upper chamber.

Johnson and his allies, hoping to assuage irate conservatives, are arguing that his budget deal with Democrats which punts the fight into March gives House Republicans another opportunity to push for conservative policies in the coming weeks as lawmakers hammer out the details of individual spending bills.

The speaker has put us in a position to at least be able to negotiate, stressed Rep. Mario Daz-Balart (R-Fla.), who chairs the State and Foreign Operations subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. A shutdown will do nothing except waste money and destroy our ability to get conservative wins.

Conservatives viewed the fight over government spending as their best and possibly only vehicle for undoing Biden administration policies expanding access to abortion, and they spent months adding provisions to nearly every appropriations bill. They proposed measures to ban mail delivery of abortion pills, reimpose anti-abortion restrictions on global HIV programs, block the military from funding service members travel across state lines for an abortion, cancel coverage of abortion for veterans, kick Planned Parenthood out of various federal health programs and ban state Medicaid programs from covering abortion.

But Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a senior appropriator, is tamping down expectations as members wait to see final bill text.

[Johnson] hasnt promised us policy wins, Cole said. Hes promised us that we can fight for policy wins.

Talk of the House GOPs anti-abortion priorities has largely evaporated amid the rollout of Johnsons spending deal with Democrats, with hardliners in an uproar over their spending and immigration demands. Several subcommittee chairs in charge of drafting individual spending bills before March said they have received no guidance from GOP leaders about whether the anti-abortion policies will make it in the final text. And several House lawmakers confirmed to POLITICO that Johnson hasnt mentioned the fate of specific anti-abortion provisions in their closed-door caucus meetings since the spending deal was announced.

Not a thing, one House GOP lawmaker, granted anonymity to discuss internal conference matters, noted after the latest meeting.

Some House Republicans insist theres still an opening to demand these measures as funding deadlines and the possibility of a government shutdown draw near. But others, pointing to the Houses narrow majority, the Senates vow to block the policies and the White Houses threat to veto bills if they are included, are acknowledging the math is not on their side.

I dont think any of this stuff passes without bipartisan support, said Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.). Its not surviving 60 votes in the Senate. Its just not.

During a press conference Wednesday, amid conservative angst over the fading prospects for restricting abortion through budget riders, Johnson stressed that hes managing the second-narrowest House majority in the countrys history, limiting what they can expect to achieve.

We wont get everything we want, he admitted.

The speaker also pledged to keep fighting for House Republicans conservative agenda, a careful phrase many members say they understand as aspirational at best.

They want to work to get our policies included. But I think we all recognize thatll be tough, one House Republican lawmaker, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations, said of Johnsons team and its approach to abortion and a host of other GOP policy riders. The lawmaker expected the final funding bills to reflect a bipartisan compromise similar to the defense bill, which was stripped of anti-abortion policies Democrats deemed poison pills.

Johnson did not respond when asked about the fate of the budget riders Wednesday, and his office declined to comment.

If Johnson doesnt deliver on the riders, Then weve got a problem, Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) warned, insisting that the provisions are still a priority for many conservatives.

The fear that House Republicans will likely have few wins to show voters in November on spending, immigration policy or their anti-abortion push is also drawing fire from outside groups.

I understand the numbers, said Tom McClusky, an anti-abortion lobbyist with the organization Catholic Vote, referencing the Houses slim majority. But what I dont understand is that there just doesnt even seem to be a fight. It doesnt even seem to be a factor with House leadership.

The Heritage Foundation which called Johnson the right person for the job in November is also ramping up pressure on House Republicans to include the anti-abortion measures.

Congress has to assert its constitutional authority to push back against these extreme pro-abortion regulations and policies coming out of the administration, and it does that through the power of the purse, said Roger Severino, Heritages vice president of domestic policy who held a prominent agency post in the Trump administration. He added that Congress should say to the executive branch: If you want money to do what youre supposed to do, which is serve our veterans or provide health care, etc., then you do it without the taint of abortion.

Asked whether GOP hardliners will try to hold up key funding bills in the coming weeks if their abortion policy demands are not included, Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), a Freedom Caucus member, didnt make any commitments. Instead, he said the sanctity of life should be defended at all cost.

Facing pushback from unhappy conservatives who made their dissatisfaction clear by blocking an unrelated bill last week House GOP leaders are now trying to rally GOP members around a pair of stand-alone bills endorsed by anti-abortion groups. One diverts federal funds to crisis pregnancy centers, which dont provide abortions and counsel patients against seeking them. Republicans argue the legislation will support pregnant people and children while avoiding the ire of centrists who oppose new abortion restrictions. The White House has threatened to veto the legislation.

Democratic leaders, meanwhile, have pledged for months to act as a firewall against the anti-abortion riders on spending bills.

Under no circumstances are we going to enact new restrictions on abortion in our spending bills like House Republicans have done in theirs, said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the Senate Appropriations chair. If Republicans insist on anti-abortion poison pills, they will only be pushing us closer to shutdown.

Discouraged by the fading prospects for attaching anti-abortion measures to the government spending bills, some members are discussing backup plans, such as hitching them to a possible national security supplemental or end-of-year package. But conservative veterans of funding battles are dismissing those ideas as unrealistic and arguing that Republicans are letting their best chance slip away.

Unless we can figure out a way of getting pro-life legislation on a post office naming, then I dont really know how much will be possible, McClusky said. This is just about the only bicameral opportunity to either get something done or at least fight and show the contrast between Republicans and Democrats.

Read more from the original source:
Republicans fume over lack of anti-abortion policies in funding fight - POLITICO - POLITICO

Senator James Lankford, the Oklahoma Republican and staunch conservative, this week trumpeted the immigration compromise he has been negotiating with Senate Democrats and White House officials as one shaping up to be by far, the most conservative border security bill in four decades.

Speaker Mike Johnson, in contrast, sent out a fund-raising message on Friday denouncing the forthcoming deal as a Democratic con. My answer is NO. Absolutely NOT, his message said, adding, This is the hill Ill die on.

The Republican disconnect explains why, with an elusive bipartisan bargain on immigration seemingly as close as it has been in years on Capitol Hill, the prospects for enactment are grim. It is also why hopes for breaking the logjam over sending more U.S. aid to Ukraine are likely to be dashed by hard-line House Republicans.

The situation encapsulates the divide cleaving the Republican Party. On one side are the right-wing MAGA allies of former President Donald J. Trump, an America First isolationist who instituted draconian immigration policies while in office. On the other is a dwindling group of more mainstream traditionalists who believe the United States should play an assertive role defending democracy on the world stage.

The two wings coalesced last fall around a bit of legislative extortion: They would only agree to President Bidens request to send about $60 billion more to Ukraine for its fight against Russian aggression if he agreed to their demands to clamp down on migration at the United States border with Mexico. But now, they are at odds about how large of a price to demand.

Hard-right House Republicans, who are far more dug in against aid to Ukraine, have argued that the bipartisan border compromise brokered by their counterparts in the Senate is unacceptable. And they bluntly say they do not want to give Mr. Biden the opportunity in an election year to claim credit for cracking down on unauthorized immigration.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in .

Want all of The Times?Subscribe .

Read the original post:
With Deal Close on Border and Ukraine, Republican Rifts Threaten to Kill Both - The New York Times

He said he would absolutely vote for a candidate for the opposing party, depending on who else is on the ballot.

Ive voted for Democrats, Garvey said Wednesday as he made his first statewide tour as a candidate for the seat previously held by the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

His apparent willingness to cross party lines and neither endorse Trump nor seek the former presidents support would be heresy for a Republican in much of the country. But it makes sense in California for a general election, where the party now claims only a quarter of the electorate and where a GOP candidate hasnt been elected to a statewide office since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor in 2006.

The strategy also makes sense because of the states primary system, in which the top two candidates, regardless of party, advance to the runoff in November. Garvey, who is running against three veteran Democratic members of Congress, needs every Republican vote he can get, along with independents and moderates.

His unwillingness to embrace Trump, however, risks alienating passionate supporters of the former president who are expected to turn out for the primary in March.

Republican math is basically impossible in California, so if youre going to break through you have to create a new formula, GOP strategist Rob Stutzman said.

As Stutzman sees it, Garvey pretty much needs every Republican voter, some moderate Democrats and to dominate independents to stand a chance.

Garvey said he was not consciously distancing himself from Trump, noting that he likes some of the former presidents policies but does not always agree with how he gets his message across.

He said he voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020.

Do I think that the most dangerous disease next to Covid is Trump syndrome? Yes, Garvey added, a reference to the medias coverage of the former president.

At a Thursday meeting with Jewish leaders in the Bay Area city of Pleasanton, Garvey said he was not expecting a Trump endorsement but wouldnt say whether he would accept one either.

Im more concerned about the single most difficult race in America right now for a conservative moderate like myself, Garvey said. I dont have time to worry about him.

While Stutzman says Garvey has the chance to ride his Trump agnosticism through the March 5 primary, hell have to pony up more policy positions and ad money to stand any chance in the general.

He needs to keep a distance from Trump. But he cant vote for Biden. And that could work for the primary, Stutzman said, adding that Garvey needs to spend around $4-6 million in advertising to cushion his chances in March.

Beyond the spring, the road gets rockier. If he can make the runoff, I think itll be very difficult. Theres a lot about Mr. Garvey that we dont know yet. Hes not being specific about issues yet, but will have to be in the general, Stutzman said.

Pressed on the presidential primary, Garvey dodged the question, saying hes only interested in his own race.

Im going to vote for Steve Garvey, he said. The former president is not on my ballot. Joe Biden is not on my ballot.

Garvey will go head-to-head with his Democratic rivals, Reps. Katie Porter, Barbara Lee and Adam Schiff, from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Monday in Los Angeles. The first California Senate debate will air live on FOX 11 in Los Angeles, KTVU FOX 2 in the San Francisco Bay Area and will be livestreamed on POLITICO.

Lara Korte contributed to this report.

More:
Steve Garvey is running for Senate in California as a Republican but don't ask about Trump - POLITICO

By Jim Thompson HCP columnist

It is not Democrat or Republican nor liberal or conservative. It is the elites versus the rest of us.

Back when I was in high school, it was called the in crowd, and there was even a hit song about it. No matter when you were in high school, you remember the crowd that was in the know, and then there was everyone else. In the adult world, it has become the elites versus the rest of us.

There are elite conclaves around the world. Here in the United States, it is Washington, D.C., with minor outposts in each state capital. In Europe, it is the EU. Annually, it is the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, whose annual meeting just concluded this past week.

How can you tell the elites from the rest of us?

They are the ones who do all the things they tell the rest of us not to do. They tell us to walk to save the planet while they take their private jets. The elites control us (if we let them) by selling us hysteria. All the elite schemes have hysteria as the foundation principlethe idea if we dont immediately change our behavior, treasured items will become scarce, the earth will die, something along these lines.

Can I give you examples of this hysteria? Most certainly. The characteristics of all these forms of hysteria is that they have some redeeming elements; yet, when taken to the level the elites push on us, they have no basis in fact.

Things that come to mind include recycling, climate change, DEI (I discussed here a few weeks ago), carbon dioxide, gas powered cars, banning fossil fuels, Covid 19 precautions and on and on. All of these have a noble element to them, but when taken to the extreme, become hysteria. Some would include eating meat, other animal products and other such matters.

These are how the elites control us and separate us, from each other and our money (mantra "we must all must make sacrifices to achieve these vitally important goals).

Another trait of these hysterias is that voices who question such ideas are shouted down and ostracized. The elites are the authorities, the rest of us cant possibly know what we are talking about.

Then, there is the perpetuity of these programs they never end. We never achieve the vital end points of any of the hysterical subjects, they just go on and on and on. Get close to the goal, and the goalposts get moved.

One can always count on new hysterias being developed, too. Again, like high school, there must always be fresh subjects too lord over the masses.

Is there any hope of shedding the shackles of these issues? Yes. The new president of Argentina is a bright spot. So is Elon Musk, who gets it that freedom is more important than socialism. On the populist level, the farmers of the Netherlands and Germany have risen and demanded an end to the onerous dictates being put on them for the sake of climate change. More power to them.

What can you do? Quit automatically believing what you see on television and in the mainstream channels on the internet. Test what you hear against your own street-smart common sense. One of the problems today is that the media comes to us in many varied ways with the assumption of authority just by means of the forum in which they reach us.

Think about the days before radio, television and the internet the elites could not as rapidly disseminate their silly ideas with near the rapidity nor pretense of authority that they use today.

Think for yourself, and challenge everything you hear. You dont have to follow the in crowd.

Jim Thompson, formerly of Marshall, is a graduate of Hillsboro High School and the University of Cincinnati. He resides in Duluth, Ga. and is a columnist for The Highland County Press. He may be reached at jthompson@taii.com.

Read this article:
It is not Democrat or Republican - The Highland County Press