Mediaboss Marketing

New York Times

Move Left, Democrats New York Times The Democratic National Committee will choose its next leader on Saturday, and when it does it should choose a leader who will resist the pressure to pursue the wrong white people. Hundreds of articles have been written about the imperative of ... What are Democrats' chances for a House majority in 2018?Washington Examiner What's Going On In The First House Elections Of The Trump EraFiveThirtyEight all 6 news articles »

Go here to read the rest:
Move Left, Democrats - New York Times

Former Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean spoke by video link to a forum on the party last year in Denver.

WHY HAVE DEMOCRATS struggled to defeat President Trumps most objectionable cabinet nominees? Because Hillary Clintons 3 million popular vote margin obscures this nettlesome fact: Outside California, Massachusetts, and New York, Donald Trump won by 4 million votes.

Across the map, political polarization and demographic sorting are shrinking the party. Since 2006, the Democrats have lost 10 percent of their seats in the Senate, 19 percent in the House, 20 percent in state legislatures, and 36 percent of governorships. In 2018 the Democrats must defend 9 seats in states Trump won. And in states controlled by Republicans, the GOP is legislating to weaken unions that support Democratic candidates.

Advertisement

In much of America, a parody of Democrats prevails: Champions of big government. Practitioners of identity politics. Enablers of welfare cheats. Enemies of traditional values. Hand-wringers with no respect for our past or faith in our future.

However fraudulent, Trumps promise to make America great again addressed the displacement many Americans feel. True, this came with racial animus. But their longing and fears are real. Trump gave them a vision; the Democrats never found one.

Get Arguable with Jeff Jacoby in your inbox:

Our conservative columnist offers a weekly take on everything from politics to pet peeves.

These voters made him our president. Yet only Clinton addressed their anxieties with realistic proposals. This disconnect captures the Democrats quandary.

Two Americas perceive different realities the Democrats coastal, urban, better-educated, and more diverse enclaves; the GOPs whiter, less-privileged, and more traditionalist landmass. Critical is a distrust of elites and Washington, D.C. as proponents of activist government, Democrats suffer from both.

The result is programitis an afflication suffered by Democrats who describe their agenda in discrete pieces, eschewing a larger vision. But a party without a narrative has overlearned its lesson.

Advertisement

Transcending demographics, race, and culture is imperative. Here the overlap between Trump and Bernie Sanders instructs. However different, both men promised to help those displaced by economic change. Among these voters, government was not a poison pill. But in November, Barbara Boxer told me, [They] didnt hear us speaking to them.

To be heard, Democrats must invoke government to serve American exceptionalism: helping unleash the potential of every person wherever or whoever they are to lift themselves and their country. Only then do their means cohere in a vision.

In this narrative, government exists not to reorganize a free society, but to strengthen it. The ends are moral and pragmatic. Which child could become the next Bill Gates or Jonas Salk, or that teacher, mentor, businessperson, or parent who helps our community thrive not just the one we see, but the country we share? Every wasted life diminishes our economic and human capital, to everyones loss.

Democrats can repeal the forces of automation and globalization that beset struggling families no more than Trump can. But a responsive Democratic party can provide education and retraining for the new economy; strengthen public schools; diminish student debt; and make college free for those in need.

Universal health care prevents illness from ruining lives and draining our collective wealth. Rebuilding infrastructure roads, airports, internet access, energy grids creates jobs and strengthens our economy. Tax breaks? Former Democratic National Committe chairman Howard Dean suggests they go to businesses that invest in regions left behind.

This vision of national renewal cuts across age, ethnicity and class. Further, Dean believes, Trump is repelling young people who embrace inclusiveness, reproductive choice, and combating climate change. Last years election showed them that disengagement breeds disaster; now the party must become their vehicle.

Candor might help. The young know we are saddling them with debt; few think entitlements can survive. Yet Democrats have ignored massive deficits while using Social Security to frighten Mom and Pop.

Ducking hard facts may serve their short-term interests. But disingenuousness invites distrust among the young. Only responsible tax and budgetary policies, and measures to save entitlements from crisis or privatization, will address their and our reality.

Where should Democrats take this vision? Everywhere.

As DNC chair, in 2006, Dean recruited candidates and rebuilt the party nationwide. His 50 state strategy invested in races for Congress, state legislatures, and local office, ignoring critics who accused him of squandering resources.

The result? Democrats captured the House, the Senate, and a majority of governorships and state legislatures. Crucial, Dean relates, was refusing to cede territory or ignore loyal constituencies gaining seats in places like Kansas proved critical to success.

This means avoiding ideological litmus tests Montana is not Massachusetts. But Deans model gave Barack Obama the Democratic Congress that helped create his legacy. Triumphant, the party narrowed its focus to reelecting Obama. Now his legacy is at risk.

The party of national renewal must be a national party.

Continued here:
Renewing the Democrats and America - The Boston Globe

In a recent article,Washington Post reporter David Weigel argues that the critical stance of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) towardPresident Trump is harmful to Democrats. Weigel says:

Trump feeds off mainstream Republican opposition. we should not stop remembering how he changed party politics. Trump smashed the mainstream consensus of political science that nominees need party elite support to succeed. Instead,he ran as a figure outside the normal party system, pulling in voters who did not consider themselves Republicans.

Weigel is certainly right that Trump won the nomination without GOP elite support while using anti-establishment rhetoric and taking some unorthodox stands. But there is little evidence that he won by mobilizing voters who did not consider themselves Republicans.

[The prospects of a quick Obamacare repeal are sinking fast]

There have been campaigns in both parties in which an outsider or underdog candidate won disproportionate support from independent voters in the primaries in a battle against an establishment favorite: Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders vs. Hillary Clinton, John McCain vs. George W. Bush, Bill Bradley vs. Al Gore, Gary Hart vs. Walter Mondale. All of the outsiders/underdogs lost except Obama, who did have significant elite support, albeit less, initially, than Clinton.

Trumps story is quite different. He won not chiefly by attracting new non-Republican voters but by appealing to existing GOP voters who received no clear signal as to who the best alternative was. Perhaps Trump would have won even if the Republican elite had coalesced around an alternative, but that was not what happened.

First, Trump did not win by luring independents into the primaries. The first chart below shows the proportions of the primary or caucus vote cast for Republicans in the 17 states that had exit polls in 2012 and 2016. (Source: exit polls archived on CNNs Election Central.) Although turnout grew from 2012 to 2016, the independent share of the GOP primary vote did not greatly increase. In a majority of states, it was lower in 2016 than in 2012. This should not be surprising, because in 2016 there was a Democratic nomination contest to attract some independents, while in 2012 all of the action was on the Republican side.

[Republicans used to fear Russians. Heres what they think now.]

More important, as the second chart based on the 26states with exit polls in 2016 shows, Trump won broadly similar levels of support from Republican andindependent voters in GOP primaries.

In fact, in a majority of states in which exit polls were conducted, Trump won more support from Republican identifiers than independents. The GOP candidate who won disproportionate support from independents in 2016 was Ohio Gov. John Kasich, not Trump. (Many states lacking exit polls held caucuses in which Trump fared poorly.)

[Senate Democrats are battling every Trump nomination. Heres how that can hobble Trumps policy agenda.]

Trump was not a party regular and didnt run as one.Yet his message appealed to many traditional Republicans.

In the general election, he won a very narrow victory based on consolidating support from 90percentof Republican voters, many of whom had not supported him in the primaries and had misgivings about him. That being the case, the claim that it is bad news for Democrats or those worried about Trumps actions if McCain (or other prominent Republicans) are visible critics of the president is not supported.

David Karol is an associate professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland at College Park.

View original post here:
No, Republican opposition to Trump won't hurt Democrats - Washington Post

Having had their electoral lunch unexpectedly eaten in November, Democrats across the nation are in more disarray than Bob Dylans hair, with factions riding off in different directions. There are all manner of sub-sets and niche gripes, as you would expect in an outfit as big as the Democrat Party. But the main demarcation organizes around a split between the full-goose bozo Sandersista ideologues and the lets-just-win-and-keep-power branch that occasionally makes limited concessions to reality. A recent example of this in Florida is the noises made by some ambitious Democrats, with the backing of some party activists, that they will offer primary opposition to incumbent Democrat U.S. Senator Bill Nelson in 2018.

This one takes a little probing to understand. After all, Bill Nelson is the only Democrat to hold a statewide office in Florida. Purple Florida is a toss-up state. But the governor, the entire state cabinet, and the other U.S. Senator are all Republicans. The bland and inoffensive Nelson has maneuvered this environment well. He has held elected office in Florida since 1978, when he won a seat in the U.S. House from the Orlando area. After 12 years in the House and a half dozen as Floridas Insurance Commissioner, Nelson won an open seat in the U.S. Senate in 2000 when Connie Mack retired. Nelson won reelection to the seat with 60 percent of the vote in 2006 and in 2012 with 55 percent of the vote, though in neither cycle against a really first-rate Republican.

Nelson is often described in the press, and by voters who follow these things, as a moderate. But this label is more on the basis of style than voting record. Nelson is mild-mannered, not a flamethrower or ideological loudmouth. He has a good-ole-boy drawl and he doesnt wear Che Guevara sweatshirts on the Senate Floor. But a quick check with those ideological rating agencies that score voting records shows that in most of his many years in the Senate, Nelson has had a more liberal voting record that the average Democrat Senator. For example, in the National Journals ranking of Senate votes in 2013, Nelson has a more liberal voting record than either Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. The American Conservative Union gives Nelsons voting record a lifetime conservative score of 28.4, while Republican Florida Senator Marco Rubios lifetime conservative score is 97.2. Some moderate. Drawl or no, Nelson has been a reliable vote for the left for a long time.

Loyal leftist or no, Nelson has gotten a lot of votes from moderate Republicans and independents. And these folks will make up a bigger fraction of the election in off-year 2018 than they would in a presidential year. So what gives? The Democrats have 23 Senate seats to defend in 2018 (not to mention those of the independent Bernie Sanders and Maines junior senator Angus King), the Republicans only 10. So why give the push to a proven winner with statewide name recognition who has always been a reliable vote for the Democrats agenda?

In order to answer this I pestered some party activists and consultants, who talked on condition that I not use their names. What I learned was there is indeed a feeling among some Florida Democrats that Nelson would be vulnerable in 2018 against his likely opponent (likely for now), current Florida Governor Rick Scott, whose final term expires in 2018. Nelson, one summed it up, just doesnt look fresh he doesnt appeal to young Democrats.

Sounds like judging a politician by standards more applicable to fruit or pastry. But perhaps it makes sense. Nelson will be 76 in 2018, and would be 80 when the 2018 Senate term expires. Hardly in the first bloom of youth. But Senators in their eighties are not uncommon. John McCain is 80, and appears as ornery and disputatious as he was when he was 60. When one sees Nelson on the tube or in person, he does not appear like a man who will soon be ordering a walker and an ear-trumpet. And while Scott is a decade younger than Nelson, the Fountain of Youth contingent might consider him also somewhat less than daisy fresh, as much of a Mustache Pete as Nelson.

Recent political history favors outsiders, so there is time for someone in this category to pop up and take the Republican senatorial nomination. But if the Rs put up Scott, the Democrats may well be overestimating Scotts political power. Scotts record as governor holds appeal for conservatives, but hes a weak campaigner, tentative and inarticulate on the stump. And his electoral record is less than impressive. Scott was a successful businessman and political rookie when he narrowly beat Florida Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink for the governors office in 2010. In 2014 Scott won re-election to the governors job by beating Charlie Crist (yes, that Charlie Crist) by one point. Scott currently doesnt poll as well as Nelson does. Were not talking a political powerhouse here.

Democrats are impressed by how much campaign cash Scott would be able to raise for the 2018 race. But they may be overestimating the importance of this. If youre not the political flavor of the month, even if you have a solid record as a former Florida governor, money may avail you little. I call the jurys attention to Jeb! Bushs operatically unsuccessful presidential campaign in 2016, when he collected and spent an amount equal to roughly half the national debt and got nothing for it.

A more important factor may be how popular Donald Trump is in the fall of 2018. A popular Trump would raise the proposed of all Rs, and Scott was one of Trumps early supporters.

The ambitious Democrats saying they might take on Nelson include Nova Southeastern University law professor Tim Canova, who, with Bernie Sanders endorsement, ran against South Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the 2016 primary and lost. Former U.S. Senate candidate Pam Keith and Orlando State Senator Randolph Bracy also say they have been urged to run by others and are considering.

Democrat would-be challengers natter on about the next generation of leadership. Florida Republicans find comfort in the prospect that if a proven Democrat walks the plank in favor of a challenger who is barely known outside of his (her) zip code, or even gets beat up in a primary battle, the next generation of leadership in the U.S. Senate will likely be Republican times two.

Read the original:
Loyal Democrat Bill Nelson to be given the push in Florida? - American Spectator

Immigrants around the mouth of the Columbia River and their employers are expressing increasing anxiety about Trump administration rhetoric on deportations. Its important to place these worries in context, separating truth from myth as the nation feels its way forward toward a new equilibrium on this most fraught of issues.

Some Northwest coastal industries are more reliant than others on immigrant workers. But its fair to say first-generation Americans documented and undocumented are widely dispersed within our economy. Agriculture, shellfish and the hospitality sector particularly depend on hardworking immigrants. In some instances, these jobs pay considerably better than minimum wage, but have undesirable hours or working conditions that dont appeal to native-born Americans with wider options.

While there are few indications that last Thursdays A Day Without Immigrants jobs walk-off resulted in serious business disruptions in the Columbia-Pacific counties, theres no doubt that permanent removal of these workers and their families would have serious negative impacts.

Is there reason to be concerned about such a disruption?

Rumors to the contrary, there has so far been little match between the intensity of President Donald Trumps anti-immigrant language and on-the-ground actions by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. For example, in the week of Feb. 5-11, ICE says it arrested 680 individuals in targeted enforcement operations. None of these publicized arrests occurred in Oregon, Washington state or elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest. (There may have been other minor arrests here that ICE doesnt consider to be a community arrest, the kind of large-scale bust that creates a corresponding level of hard feelings.)

The 680 number is remarkably consistent with the number of such arrests made in President Barack Obamas first year in office 675 a week. However, Trumps order targets even those who violated a misdemeanor law against crossing the border illegally, while Obama focused on immigrants convicted of serious crimes, those considered threats to national security, and recent arrivals.

Its possible to believe the U.S. should regulate who comes in and stays here, and yet also believe it would be inhumane and economically self-sabotaging to kick out productive immigrants who hold down jobs and raise kids here. Pragmatically, low-population counties like ours lack the excess workforce to fill the vacancies that would be created by wholesale deportations. Even with its undocumented immigrants, Clatsop County has close to full employment.

There has to be a middle course.

Level-headed Republican and Democratic U.S. senators developed such a compromise years ago a path to normalization for immigrants committed to decent, long-term lives here. Its time for the nations business leaders to press our businessman president to recognize the reality of this situation. We must find ways to address labor needs while making sure we know and control who enters the country.

Stay on topic - This helps keep the thread focused on the discussion at hand. If you would like to discuss another topic, look for a relevant article.

Share with Us - We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article, and smart, constructive criticism.

Be Civil - It's OK to have a difference in opinion but there's no need to be a jerk. We reserve the right to delete any comments that we feel are spammy, off-topic, or reckless to the community.

Be proactive - Use the 'Flag as Inappropriate' link at the upper right corner of each comment to let us know of abusive posts.

Visit link:
Immigration reform remains necessary - Daily Astorian