Mediaboss Marketing

ERIK S. LESSER/European Pressphoto Agency

Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton delivered a videotaped address during the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Winter Meeting in Atlanta.

Hillary Clinton has kept a relatively low profile since losing the election in November a few public appearances and walks in the woods notwithstanding. But she has a new message for her fellow Democrats: keep fighting.

Appearing in a video message at the Democratic Partys Winter Meeting in Atlanta on Friday, Clinton, who has stayed out of the Democrats contest for party chair, praised the Jan. 21 womens marches across the country and other signs of public criticism of Trump

Advertisement

Let resistance plus persistence equal progress for our party and our country, she said.

She also indirectly noted her popular vote victory, which Trump has insisted was not legitimate. Nearly 66 million votes, she said, are fueling grassroots energy and activism.

Get Political Happy Hour in your inbox:

Your afternoon shot of politics, sent straight from the desk of Joshua Miller.

Saying that being the Democratic candidate was the honor of a lifetime, Clinton urged Democrats to keep fighting.

The former Democratic presidential candidate made an appearance at the Democratic National Committees Winter Meeting in Atlanta.

Ill be right there with you every step of the way, she said.

While Clinton has maintained a quieter profile since the election, she has commented publicly at select times during the Trump presidency.

Advertisement

When an appeals court rejected a Trump administration request to reinstate the presidents travel ban, she tweeted 3-0 in response to the decision, an apparent reference to the judges unanimous decision.

Original post:
Hillary Clinton urges Democrats to keep fighting - The Boston Globe

In the wake of Donald Trumps election, the left side of the political spectrum has mobilized with a strength and fervor that few can remember. Protests against the administrations actions have occurred daily, beginning with the Womens March, a massive mobilization that involved more than onein every 100 Americans. The protests have already shifted the political landscape, with Senate Democrats voting en masse against Trumps most controversial nominees, and even successfully derailing Andy Puzder, his pick forlabor secretary.

But for this resistance as its been labeled to sustain itself in the months ahead and truly change politics, it must become a full-fledged movement. To better understand the possibilities for movement-building and explore its implications, we tried to quantify just how influential progressives are feeling today, and what they see as their path forward.

The survey was conducted among 988 respondents identified as Political Influencers. In short, Political Influencers are hyperactive partisans who exhibit a high level of activism. They are involved in a number of political activities, from more traditional approaches to influencing (i.e., voting or signing a petition) to more committed activities (i.e., participating in a local community group or taking part in a demonstration). As their name implies, Political Influencers are active and outgoing, and pride themselves on being well-informed and up to date. Enabling their influence, this audience likes talking about politics and current affairs with friends, and doesnt shy away from expressing opinions.

Gleaning insight into the views of Political Influencers is particularly important because they have an inordinate amount of influence over whether or not movement-building is successful. Research has shown that the impact of an Influencer can be significant, and includes an ability to change behaviors or opinions in others. Basically: Political Influencers are movement-makers.

Awakening a New Political Movement?

Far from agreeing with New York Times columnist David Brooks that protests are ineffectual, 97 percent of respondents believe that demonstrations strongly (68 percent) or somewhat (29 percent) help the cause(s) that are being advocated. Even more noteworthy, the protests and demonstrations that have taken place since the 2016 election appear to be awakening an audience that has previously shied away from such public displays of disapproval. In the past six months, slightly more than half (54 percent) of Political Influencers have taken part in a political protest or demonstration. Of those, only 7 percent say they had regularly participated in protests or demonstrations in the past, while nearly two in five (39 percent) say they had never participated in a protest before. Other research suggests a similar dynamic. A new Quinnipiac poll, for instance, found that nearly half (48 percent) of Democrats say they have become more politically active since the election; the same is true of only 28 percent of independents and 27 percent of Republicans.

Past movements have been successful in part because theyve been able to harness power from those that dont see themselves inherently as protesters or activists. In addition, other polling has shown that the Womens March and other progressive actions are broadly popular among voters, which make them both more effective and harder for Republicans to ignore. Despite claims by Trump that the protesters are paid agitators, they have significantly more public support than he does.

To the benefit of progressive candidates in upcoming elections, Political Influencers also plan to be quite active in terms of political contributions to candidates and causes. Between now and the 2018 election, the mean amount respondents who plan to donate expect to contribute to candidates and causes is $749. Hearteningly, they are more likely to report targeting money toward state and local races than national races, though they are least likely to donate to state and local causes.

Democrats Have Their Vote, but Significant Party-Building Lies Ahead

Of those Political Influencers who express a vote preference in the 2018 midterm election, 98 percent plan to vote for a generic Democrat against a generic Republican. That said, these Influencers dont currently have many good words for their party, which is seen by many as disorganized, spineless, leaderless, weak and ineffective. Even more troubling, a quarter believe the party will still be divided come November 2018.

Fundamentally, there exists a crisis of confidence among Political Influencers when it comes to their views of the Democratic National Committee. While majorities have confidence in state and local Democratic leaders and state parties, and to a lesser extent in Democratic members of the U.S. Senate and House, a majority dont have confidence in the DNC to represent their interests. This lack of confidence is weighing on feelings toward the party. Only 31 percent of Influencers believe the party has strong leadership, and perhaps even more troublingly, only 37 percent believe the party is on a path toward victory.

Another red flag for the Democratic Party moving forward is how few Political Influencers believe that joining a political party is an effective way to ensure their voice is heard by decision-makers. By and large, Influencers see voting in elections as the best way to ensure their voice is heard (79 percent say its one of the best ways). Calling or writing your elected official (72 percent) is also seen as an important way to make your voice heard. Notably, making a political donation (38 percent) is also seen as an important way to ensure being heard. But fewer than one in five Influencers (18 percent) see joining a political party as a top way to ensure your voice is heard by decision-makers. This apathy toward belonging to a political party should act as a warning to the incoming leaders of the Democratic Party. Political Influencers are motivated, and taking action. But they dont see identification with the party as a key way to ensure their voice is being heard.

As to how the party positions itself moving forward, there is one thing all Influencers overwhelmingly agree on: The Democratic Party needs to stand up to Trump. Eighty-one percent of respondents strongly and 13 percent somewhat agree that Democrats should stand their ground against Trump, rather than compromising. Moving forward, the party needs to ensure these Influencers feel that it is speaking and acting in a way that reflects their own voices. The party standing its ground against Trump is the surest way to do so.

How Young Influencers are Shaking Up the Party

Moving forward, the party needs to both better understand and better address the unease of younger Influencers. Young Influencers were least likely to believe that voting is the most effective way to make a difference (only 56 percent of those under 30 vs. 71 percent of those 65 or older) and also the least likely to say they always vote (74 percent vs. 94 percent, respectively). Influencers young and old must embrace the importance of voting, and the party is an important messenger in that conversation.

It appears that divides stemming from the 2016 Democratic primary campaign remain, as disproportionately high levels of distrust toward the Democratic National Committee exist among younger Influencers. While only 35 percent of those age 65 or older say they trust the DNC a little or not at all, 57 percent of those under 30 distrust the DNC. Younger respondents were also less likely to approve of how Democrats in Congress were handling their job, with 87 percent of those 65 or older approving compared to 71 percent of those under 30. In addition, only 28 percent of those under 30 say that fights for working families describes Democrats very well, compared to 42 percent of those 65 or older.

While these divides are certainly not chasms, they do indicate potential areas of friction among Political Influencers moving forward, particularly when it comes to party-building. And they provide a caution flag to Democratic leaders: More can and should be done to address this trust deficit that exists, particularly among younger Political Influencers.

Identity Politics or Populism?

Following the presidential election, there has been a lengthy debate about the tension between a progressive embrace of civil rights and an embrace of economic populism. Notably, few respondents worried that the Democrats were too focused on the interests of people of color (i.e., consumed by identity politics). Even more notably, young respondents were least likely to believe the party is too focused on speaking to communities of color. Fifty-five percent of those under 30 said that described Democrats not well at all compared to 38 percent of those 65 or older.

These low numbers believing the party is too focused on identity politics paired with the high numbers who believe the Democratic Party is fighting for working families would suggest Influencers dont see these questions as zero-sum. Instead, they may perceive that identity politics ensures that populism does not become racially exclusionary, while economic progressivism ensures that identity politics remains tethered to economic liberation.

Though many have been quick to draw lessons from the Tea Party, it also provides a cautionary tale of ideological purity. The fixation on ideological purity in the Tea Party movement almost certainly cost Republicans seats in the Senate and sunk the grand bargain, an agreement that favored their interests. Instead, President Obama got some of the tax increases he wanted later anyway, while Social Security and Medicare were spared from even modest cuts. Today, the extreme positions of the Tea Party imperil the Republican Partys long-sought plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

We find that ideological purity may not be as much of a stumbling block on the left as it has remained for Republicans. Respondents were asked whether they would prefer making sure Democrats espouse strong progressive values or are united in their opposition to President Trump. Fully 62 percent of respondents choose the latter. Progressives would be wise to learn from the mistakes the Tea Party made in 2010, and avoid the temptation to let ideological purity supersede an ability to coalesce a winning majority united in opposition to Trump necessary to win back control of the House in 2018.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

The strength and fervor of this resistance is real and has the potential to grow into a full-fledged political movement. These insights from Political Influencers suggest four key takeaways to watch moving forward:

1. There are signs that this effort is engaging people who havent been actively engaged in politics in the past.

It appears that resistance efforts are indeed drawing new blood into the Influencer circle, engaging progressives who havent always been as actively involved. Making sure these new Influencers feel like their voice is being heard will be critical. Equally important, there is a recognition among Political Influencers that for change to happen, it must be fought for at all levels of government, including at the state and local level.

2. Political Influencers play an important role in the strength and direction of the resistance effort moving forward. Right now, there is a crisis of confidence in the national party.

While Political Influencers are overwhelmingly planning to vote for and support Democrats heading into 2018, the partyhas some significant rebuilding ahead. These folks are motivated and taking action, but they dont see identification with the party as a key way to ensure their voice is being heard. Moving forward, the party needs to ensure these Influencers feel it is speaking and acting in a way that reflects their own voices. Standing up against Trump is the surest way to do so.

3. Progressives need to avoid the missteps of the Tea Party, and right now, they are. But care must be taken to avoid the trap of ideological purity.

The Tea Partys legislative success has been and remains muted, in part because of its insistence on ideological purity. While these findings suggest that ideological purity may not provide a similar challenge for the left, it is important to learn from the Tea Partys mistakes.

4. Democrats need to portray themselves as a party thats willing to fight, and rely on their state and local counterparts to organize resistance efforts.

Political Influencers are desperately seeking a national Democratic operation that acts as a bullhorn for their own voices to be heard. Right now, these Influencers dont express confidence that the DNC represents their interests, and even fewer believe the party has strong leadership or is on a path toward victory. Bottom line: The work is cut out for this new team that takes the reins at the DNC. In the meantime, Political Influencers recognize the importance of state and local organizing efforts, and are involving themselves at this level. Its here, at the grassroots, that the rebuilding effort will reap its greatest rewards.

Note: The authors conducted a national survey of 988 Political Influencers. The survey was conducted from Feb. 7-11, 2017. For this survey, a Political Influencer is someone who has engaged in five or more of the following activities: presented his or her views to an elected leader (i.e., through letters, emails or calls); written a letter to an editor; urged someone outside his or her family to vote; used social media to discuss politics; urged someone outside his or her family to take part in a demonstration; urged someone to get in touch with an elected official; made a speech before an organized group; served as officer of an organization or club; run for public office; taken an active part in a political campaign; signed a petition; voted in an election; donated to a campaign or issue advocacy organization; participated in a community group that advocated for a specific issue; or taken part in a demonstration or protest.

These insights represent a diversity of voices across geographies, ages and professions. Notably, Political Influencers are not limited to traditional political circles and more often than not come from seemingly unrelated industries; in fact only 2 percent of respondents in this research consider their jobs to be in political advocacy and fewer than 2 percent reside in Washington. Political Influencers on the left are disproportionately white, female and college-educated. But whats notable is that differences across these demographic groups are muted, the exception being among younger Political Influencers.

See more here:
Where do Democrats go from here? Look toward Political Influencers who want them to stand up to Trump - Salon

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

There are another 120 vacant federal judgeships and, of course, the Neil Gorsuch nomination to the Supreme Court. Each requires Senate approval.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

White House staff is busily choosing and vetting candidates for the rest of the positions, and there undoubtedly will be many nominations sent to the Senate for confirmation in the next several weeks.

And where is the Senate now? On vacation.

We hear a lot of talk that Harry Reid gave away the store when he exercised the nuclear option, and that Republicans have the 51 votes needed to get the Trump team confirmed. That may be, but with the way Majority Leader Mitch McConnell runs the Senate, Democrats canand probably willmake it impossible to confirm more than a handful of nominees.

The problem isnt the votes. Republicans have those. The problem is timefloor time.

As a senior Senate staffer told me this week: Regardless of how many votes it takes to confirm or approve anything in the Senate, if Democrats want to force the issue, they can require a minimum of 30 hours to debate any nomination or any bill. Let that sink in. 549 vacancies, at 30 hours each, equals 686 days. If you subtract weekends, and add a nice vacation every few months, you are looking at never finishing this job throughout the entirety of Donald Trumps first term. And this assumes they are in session around the clock and do no other legislative business, which is also impossible.

Under Senate rules, when debate is cut off, senators are entitled to another 30 hours of debate. Since the Senate is rarely in session for more than 25to 30 hours a week, Democrats can tie things up indefinitely.

So you would think the Senate would be working long hours, forcing Democrats to talk until exhausted, so the Presidents team gets confirmed, right?

Wrong. After doing virtually no work during most of January, and working at a leisurely pace in February, the Senate just left town for a 10-day recess. That means they went home to campaignafter being on the job for about six weeks. As my friend said: The Democrats are shutting down the Senates business, and Mitch McConnells answer is to give everyone a big vacation. The message to Democrats is: keep up the great work, we have no intention of fighting back.

The result? The government will be run by bureaucrats, Obama holdovers and temporary acting trump appointees. Neil Gorsuch wont get confirmed for weeks and weeks, and other judicial vacancies will remain vacant. Not to mention letting President Trumps program simply die on the vinethe crucial business of repealing Obamacare, tax reform, passing budgets and appropriations, and the rest of the things Donald Trump and taxpayers so badly need.

So what is to be done?

I spoke with a long-time staff member from the Senate Judiciary Committee (who must remain anonymous if he wants to keep his job), who told me that Republicans only remedy is to force Democrats to debate until they wear themselves out. Schedule Senate floor debates to go all day and night, on weekends and holidays until Democrats cry uncle.

Is McConnell likely to do that? I asked. Not a chance, said my friend.

Are any Republican Senators demanding that they fight back? I asked.

Not a one, I was told.

Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington told the New York Times this week that [Democrats] have to resist [Trump] every way and everywhere, every time we can By undermining Mr. Trump across the board, Democrats hope to split Republicans away from a president of their own party.

Unless Mitch McConnell gets down to business and gets the Senate back to work, he may help Democrats do exactly that.

Alfred S. Regnery serves as the Chairman of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund.

Original post:
ExclusiveRegnery: Anti-Trump Democrats' Best Allies Are Senate Republicans - Breitbart News

Will immigration reform stifle recruitment of foreign talent? New York Post If enacted, the sweeping immigration measures including cutting back on coveted professional HB-1 visas for prized workers could undermine productivity and income statements in US financial services, Street executives say, as talented ... and more »

Read this article:
Will immigration reform stifle recruitment of foreign talent? - New York Post

The Trump administration this week released a new set of orders that could greatly increase the number of deportations of undocumented immigrants in the United States.

The White House has tamped down suggestions that the guidance will lead to massive deportations, but immigrant communities have been greatly alarmed.

Here are 5 questions surrounding the immigration guidance from Trumps Department of Homeland Security.

What happens to the dreamers?

DHS says the rules dont touch Obamas Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), which allows high-achieving immigrants who were brought to the country illegally as kids to remain and work without threat of deportation.

In a conference call with congressional officesTuesday, officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said DACA beneficiaries wont be pursued, per se, but if a DACA recipient happens to be in the vicinity of another apprehension, that DACA recipient may be apprehended, a Democratic aide saidThursday, relaying ICEs message.

Theres no priority if everyone is prioritized for removal, the aide said.

At least one such case has already occurred this month in Seattle, where Daniel Ramirez Medina, twice enrolled in DACA, was detained by ICE agents who had come to his home to arrest his father. Ramirez has since sued.

Stephen Legomsky, former chief counsel of at DHSs Citizenship and Immigration Services branch, said its anyones guess what the Trump administration will do with DACA.

DHS could end new enrollments but continue the program and renew existing work permits when they expire after two years.

Terminating the program and revoking unexpired work permits seems unlikely, Legomsky predicted, because of the legal steps that would be required.

With more than 700,000 current DACA-holders, that process would be extremely labor-intensive, said Legomsky, now a professor emeritus at Washington University School of Law.

But Trump is getting plenty of pressure from conservative hardliners to kill the program altogether. And his newly appointed attorney general, former-Sen. Jeff SessionsJeff SessionsDem 2020 hopefuls lead pack in opposing Trump Cabinet picks Five tough questions for Trump on immigration Issa: Sessions should recuse himself from any Russia probes MORE (R-Ala.), was among its fiercest critics.

Are deportations about to spike?

The new DHS rules, by empowering immigration officials to remove virtually anyone in the country illegally while encouraging the help of local law enforcers, create the potential for a massive spike in deportations. But theres disagreement about what the practical effect of those changes will be.

One restricting factor mentioned by all sides is that DHS simply doesnt have the funding to find, process and remove 11 million people.

Still, Democrats and other immigration reform advocates who howled when Obamas deportation numbers rose to a record-setting 435,000 in 2013 fear the figure will jump much higher under Trump.

Thats largely because the new rules broadly expand the definition of criminality meriting prioritization to include, not only those convicted of crimes, but also those charged or having committed acts which constitute a chargeable criminal offense. That could mean that anyone admitting after-the-fact to even minor crimes say, driving without a license could quickly become a target.

Democrats also think Trumps rhetoric suggests muscle could be placed behind the orders.

While former President George W. Bush also established rules dictating that those merely charged with a crime were prospective ICE targets, he didnt express an intent to deport 11 million people, the Democratic aide said.

The way the Trump administration operates, they want big numbers. They want to show big things, huge things.

Roy Beck, head of NumbersUSA, which advocates for a reduction in immigration, said that while Trump is pushing a very accelerated and assertive deportation effort, theres no indication the administration is interested in mass round-ups. He expects the focus to be on those who have already been through removal proceedings, but not yet deported, and those who have been convicted of crimes. Combined, Beck puts that number at around 2 million.

You could do mass deportations very easy. You just start going to the various day-labor cites in any city and you could just sweep up busloads, he said. But I do not believe thats going to be happening.

I think that well be lucky to see 500,000 people removed this year, Beck added. Its not that easy, when youre not doing mass roundups.

Will Congress fund ramped-up enforcement efforts?

Funding has constantly limited the scale of the governments enforcement efforts, and the trend will almost certainly persist under Trump.

Indeed, ICEs 2016 budget was $5.9 billion, of which $3.2 billion was dedicated to enforcement and removal operations figures that still stand as part of the current continuing resolution (CR).

Republicans last year proposed a slight uptick in 2017 spending for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to cover, among other things, 100 new enforcement priority officers. But that figure pales to the 10,000 new ICE officers Trump wants to hire subject to available resources, the DHS memo clarifies.

The CBPs overall budget of $11.3 billion comes nowhere near the funding needed to perform mass deportations. A 2015 analysis conducted by the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank, estimated the cost to apprehend, detain, process and deport 11 million people would run between $400 billion and $600 billion.

Lawmakers could face pressure to give Trump the resources he needs to make good on his deportation promises, but they will also hear from fiscal hawks who want to rein in deficit spending under a unified GOP government.

Will Mexico cooperate?

Trumps bellicose approach has soured relations between the U.S. and Mexico which could cripple the administrations deportation strategy, which leans heavily on the cooperation of its southern neighbor.

A key part of Trumps plan involves returning migrants who cross the southern border, regardless of their nationality, back to Mexico to await hearings on their asylum claims. Such cases have spiked in recent years as violence and corruption in Central America have prodded thousands of migrants northward.

Legomsky said Mexico has no legal obligation to accept the return of the many deportees from elsewhere, and even deporting Mexicans puts a proof-of-origin burden on U.S. officials.

Since many arrive without identification, [Mexico] could legitimately refuse to accept many individuals whom the U.S. asserts but cant prove are Mexican nationals, he said.

The administration acknowledged in the ICE conference call that DHS does not now have the right to push deportees into Mexico, said the Democratic aide familiar with the conversation. And Mexican leaders have threatened to raise their concerns with the United Nations.

I want to say clearly and emphatically that the government of Mexico and the Mexican people do not have to accept provisions that one government unilaterally wants to impose on the other, Luis Videgaray, Mexicos Foreign Minister, saidWednesday.

AThursdaymeeting between Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, DHS Secretary John Kelly and Mexican officials did not seem to thaw the ice.

Trump has vowed to use a renegotiation of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to force Mexicos hand. But Legomsky warned that Mexico has similar leverage to retaliate, both by adopting punitive import taxes on U.S. goods and by scaling back law enforcement efforts that have stemmed the flow of drug and human trafficking to the U.S. border.

Given the anti-American sentiment that Trump has already whipped up in Mexico, and the additional anger that mass deportations would engender, any or all of those retaliatory measures are politically realistic, he said.

Will it backfire on Republicans?

A tough law-and-order approach to immigration was the ballast of Trumps successful presidential run, and the effort to make good on his campaign promise has energized the conservative base. The strategy is particularly appealing in the white, working class communities that have suffered disproportionately from globalization and flocked to Trumps vow to put Americans first.

But there are also risks for the Republicans who embrace a strict enforcement strategy, especially if its seen to dismantle families within a growing ethnic electorate. Democrats have won the Hispanic vote by an overwhelming margin in the last three presidential cycles, and Republican leaders have scrambled for ways to narrow the divide.

After Obamas resounding win in 2012, GOP leaders drafted an autopsy report which, in part, urged the party to emphasize a tone of tolerance and respect toward Hispanic communities. The study was done at the request of Reince Priebus, then-chairman of the Republican National Committee and now Trumps chief of staff.

Democrats are already pouncing on the new deportation rules as evidence that Republicans have rejected their own advice.

This is not about smart politics for the Republican Party, said the Democratic aide. This is about a small group of ideologues that are trying to ram through an agenda while the Republicans have the House and the Senate and the presidency.

Read this article:
Five tough questions for Trump on immigration - The Hill