Mediaboss Marketing

Welcome to FiveThirtyEights weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): The 2020 Democratic field was once hailed as the most diverse ever. But now, even as many candidates try to position themselves as the best person to build on the Obama coalition of young people, women and nonwhite voters, the four front-runners are nevertheless all white, and three are men.

On Tuesday, Kamala Harris dropped out of the race, and candidates like Julin Castro and Cory Booker have all struggled to break out, languishing below 4 percent in the polls nationally. Harris, in particular, had a bruising race, once sitting at 15 percent nationally to only plummet to 3 percent before ending her campaign.

Is this surprising? What are some possible explanations?

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): My somewhat complicated theory is that Booker kind of lost the informal black candidate primary to Harris from 2017 to early 2019. Harris then got all the buzz as the most viable black candidate when she entered the race. But then she struggled. Im not sure if her campaign had the clearest of messages, but I also think she faced electability questions, which dog female candidates in particular.

julia_azari (Julia Azari, political science professor at Marquette University and FiveThirtyEight contributor): I think its pretty surprising that the top of the field is now dominated by white candidates. And I think there are a couple of explanations that dont fall under the usual electability catch-all, although that certainly deserves consideration, too.

One is that Obamas election removed the novelty of a person of color winning the nomination, which means its harder to frame media coverage in a way that doesnt have to tackle really tough questions about minority representation and what it might mean to actually address those inequalities.

Another explanation is because people have changed their views on race to more closely match their political parties, white Democrats have adopted (superficially at least) pretty racially liberal opinions, which means all the candidates can now talk about race and the concerns of black and Latino communities to various degrees. Obviously, with varying levels of success, but still, thats a big change from a few years ago.

geoffrey.skelley (Geoffrey Skelley, elections analyst): Joe Bidens standing in the race has been a big hindrance, too, because hes just so strong among older nonwhite voters, particularly black voters, who might have been a potential base for some of these other candidates.

meredithconroy: (Meredith Conroy, political science professor at California State University and FiveThirtyEight contributor): If I had to give a blanket explanation for why the nonwhite candidates arent polling well among Democrats, my answer is that there was never going to be a lot of room between a former VP (Biden) and former runner-up (Bernie Sanders). Beto ORourke, Elizabeth Warren, Harris and Pete Buttigieg all made inroads at some point, although only Warrens has really been sustainable. Why Castro and Booker havent (yet) is, in my view, related to their race and the electability overcorrection following 2016, or this idea that only a white, moderate male can take on Trump at the ballot box. Because sexism and racism motivated voters choice at the ballot box in 2016, I think Democrats are reluctant to be all-in for a candidate that will make those attitudes more salient in 2020.

julia_azari: Whats interesting to me about that, Meredith, is that this electability message seems to have somehow turned into one about race and less about gender.

sarahf: In other words, it should be equally surprising Warren has continued to do well?

julia_azari: Yeah, and while Amy Klobuchar isnt doing great in the polls, she hasnt really been attacked on her electability credentials (which is not to say that attacks on her havent been gendered). Similarly, Kirsten Gillibrand didnt drop out because of electability critiques. She lacked elite support and did poorly in the polls.

Thats not to say that women are doing great in this field; theyre not, as a group. But the fact that concerns over electability also affect Booker and Castro after Obama won big majorities is interesting to me. Perhaps a message Democrats took away from 2016 is to be generally cautious about demographics, but not ideology. I find that odd, but theres a lot going on.

sarahf: Whats so hard to untangle in all of this, too, is just how much of it is about the individual candidates and the competition they face. Like Meredith said at the outset, with both a former VP and a former runner-up in the race, did that ever really leave that much oxygen in the race for other candidates?

geoffrey.skelley: Sanderss appeal is just so narrow, though. His ceiling of support just isnt as high as some of the other candidates, which is why Bidens relative strength looms large to me. Hes taken hits in the race, but he hasnt really fallen down.

Perry has written about this before, but black voters have a pragmatic streak in the primaries, which means they have traditionally backed establishment candidates, which is one explanation for Bidens continued success.

But in a universe where there is no Biden running, I think someone like Harris or Booker fills that lane better than Sanders or Warren. Considering Harriss appeal earlier in the cycle among white college graduates, she mightve had the best chance, too, to weave together that same sort of coalition that boosted Obama in the 2008 primary. But obviously that didnt happen, and I think you can point to Biden as part of that, for eating up her support among nonwhite voters, and to Warren for grabbing college-educated voters.

perry: Would Stacey Abrams, Michelle Obama or Oprah have done better?

In other words, how big is the electability problem (a candidates gender and race) vs. the Biden problem (he is fairly popular with black people, even setting electability arguments aside)?

sarahf: In a race where a candidates perceived ability to beat Trump has been paramount, thats hard for me to answer. I do think its notable how the conversation around electability has centered less on what characteristics voters think are important for winning vs. what they say they believe their neighbors think is important, and how that limits their choice as a result. For instance, in magic wand polls, where respondents are asked who theyd make president if they had the power to magically bypass the election, Warren has routinely beaten Biden, which stands out to me as a pretty stark example of just how different the race could be if electability wasnt a factor.

julia_azari: I sort of doubt that any of those candidates would have done a lot better, Perry. Thats partly because the field is so crowded, and because there are so many existential questions about what the party should be doing.

meredithconroy: I think Abrams wouldve done fine, depending when she jumped in, because she has political experience. But I think Michelle Obama and Oprah wouldnt have done as well because Democrats are generally more wary than Republicans of outsiders and people without formal governing experience.

julia_azari: Would Abrams have cleared the field, though? I doubt it. Sanders and possibly Warren would probably still have run, and if theyre in, then Biden jumps in, too. And I dont see Buttigieg being put off by Abrams either.

geoffrey.skelley: Yeah, I dont think there was a single field-clearer out there. Someone with Bidens resume, maybe, if he or she were considerably younger and without as many failed presidential runs.

perry: Why Booker hasnt done better is super interesting to me as well. I dont think he actually has an electability problem, considering on the surface hes the most similar to the last Democrat who won black, male and running on a message of hope.

Yet, that hasnt worked for him. Maybe he has been unlucky (people found another Rhodes Scholar mayor). Then again, maybe its because hes been unable to pick a lane.

Buttigieg says Im young; Biden says Im experienced and electable; Warren and Sanders both say theyll bring big structural change.

Booker, on the other hand, says Im kind of left, but not that left, kind of young, but not that young, etc.

sarahf: And so you think its kind of inexplicable, Perry, that Booker hasnt done better given all that?

julia_azari: My hunch is that this is the year of the factional candidate.

perry: Yeah, that is my view as well.

sarahf: Wait, what does the year of the factional candidate mean?!?

perry: Buttigieg and Biden are running as decidedly center-left. Warren and Sanders to the left. Harris and Booker on the other hand have refused to pick a lane, and in my view, fusion is failing.

julia_azari: Yeah, its the year of the candidate who can excite some segment of the party, rather than someone who seems OK to most segments.

perry: Better said.

sarahf: But isnt trying to appeal to a wide swath of the party versus any one specific group kind of Biden and Buttigiegs whole appeal? Hence, the whole Vote for me, I wont rock the boat too much strategy?

Or would you say, no theyve still staked out an ideological lane more explicitly.

julia_azari: Look at the demographic trends. Biden does well mainly with older voters and minority voters, while Buttigieg really only does well with white voters, particularly those with a college degree. Which is similar to Warren, although she does a little bit better than him with nonwhite voters but not by much. Thats factional support!

perry: Additionally, Harris and Booker lost the black left to Sanders and Warren, while black voters who are not-that-left ideologically flocked to Biden. That same kind of ideological split exists among white voters, except Buttigieg has done better with more moderate white voters than Harris and Booker have done with moderate black voters.

I do think, in defense of Harris and Booker, perhaps a black candidate cant run on super-left platform and be seen as viable. Theres a reason why the Jesse Jackson model (a black candidate running on populist platform) has not been replicated and why there is no black Bernie Sanders-style candidate in the race.

sarahf: This theory of the year of the factional candidate is an interesting one and would also help explain to me why someone like Andrew Yang has overperformed expectations as an outsider-y type candidate in a field that has otherwise been not that receptive to candidates of color like Harris and Booker, who have taken a more middle-of-the-road approach. Tulsi Gabbard falls under this category as well I think, given her small-but-loyal fan base.

But this still doesnt explain someone like Castro, right? After all, he did make being super liberal a core part of his campaign at one point remember how he got everyone (except ORourke) to raise their hand at the first debate in support of making it a civil, not criminal, offense to cross the border without the proper documentation?

perry: In my view, Warren and Sanders dont leave a lot of room for other super liberal candidates.

meredithconroy: I mostly agree. But I think Castro was smart to carve out space for a candidate who openly supports issues of social and racial justice. He is championing issues that often get sidelined. Only it hasnt had much impact. Paul Begala, a former adviser to Bill Clinton, said that embracing progressive positions on things like immigration may not have done much to help Castro, given liberal voters loyalty to Sanders and Warren. So Castros poll numbers continue to languish.

sarahf: Thats the thing he missed the last debate and doesnt seem likely to make the next one in December either.

But OK, with Harriss departure from the race, does that mean there really are only four possible front-runners at this stage? Or do people think this could still change?

julia_azari: Klobuchar-mentum!

perry: After every debate, people in the media, myself included, say Booker and Klobuchar did well. Yet they remain stagnant in polls.

Do more donors support Booker now, in part because he would be one of the few minority candidates on the debate stage and is probably more viable than Castro?

Maybe. If I had to bet on a fifth candidate to emerge, I would bet on Booker.

But I am not confident of that bet at all.

julia_azari: I agree with Perry.

meredithconroy: Sanders, Biden and Warren have cemented themselves as front-runners, I think. which I think leaves room for one, maybe two more. I would bet on Buttigieg, Booker or maybe Yang? AM I TOO ONLINE?

geoffrey.skelley: The problem for Booker is he needs four qualifying polls for the December debate by Dec. 12, and he has zero at the moment. Maybe he can take advantage of Harriss exit to pick up some of her support not that there was a ton at this point but the problem is hes running out of time.

Yang, on the other hand, is currently one poll short of qualification and the Yang Gang is a legit financial resource he raised about $10 million in the third quarter, which could keep him going for awhile.

sarahf: How will you think about the race moving forward?

julia_azari: The big question for me is whether Castro or Booker picks up any steam as a result of Harris dropping out. Or Klobuchar.

geoffrey.skelley: Maybe the absence of a nonwhite candidate at the top of the polls causes some people to shift their support, but I think we should keep in mind that many of Harriss supporters will most likely flock to one of the other leading candidates. According to a recent poll from CBS News/YouGov that looked at who voters second-choice candidates would be in the early states, 80 percent of Harris supporters named one of the four leading candidates as their second choice.

julia_azari: Yeah, youre probably right.

Im on Twitter too much.

geoffrey.skelley: That said, I do think that Gabbard and Yang have very committed supporters who will keep them in the race for a while, but if Im trying to figure out if theres a nonwhite candidate who can actually win the Democratic nomination. That list may be empty at this point if Booker doesnt improve substantially.

meredithconroy: Big picture, the lack of nonwhite front-runners signals to me that a vast number of voters are reluctant to support a nonwhite candidate because they are worried about winning swing states. For voters who are more concerned with policy than beating Trump, my thought is they have probably already settled on Sanders or Warren, which leaves a candidate like Castro who also has a progressive agenda out to dry. Long term, it should be a wake-up call for the Democratic party as an organization. They need to continue to build a diverse bench and do more to elevate nonwhite and non-male candidates.

geoffrey.skelley: General election turnout really matters for Democrats. Yes, Hillary Clinton lost for multiple reasons in 2016, but one big reason was lower turnout among black voters. Now, I dont think anyone expected it to be at the same level as in 2008 or 2012 with Obama not on the ballot, but if you look at cities like Detroit, Milwaukee and Philadelphia, which were located in the three states that decided the election, black voter turnout was down in all three. Clinton only lost those states by a combined 78,000 votes or so.

So if youre a Democrat trying to figure out how to win electorally important and fairly white states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, turnout among nonwhite voters is key. The same is true if youre thinking about other potential swing states like Arizona and North Carolina.

Which means it should be at least somewhat concerning for the Democratic Party that there are really no viable nonwhite candidates left in the race two months before Iowa.

See the original post here:
How Did The Democrats End Up With A 2020 Field So White And Male? - FiveThirtyEight

Organized labor is the lifeblood of liberal politics in the United States. Unions backed Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal reforms, gave critical support to the fight for the Great Society and powered Democratic political victories throughout the 20th century. Even now, the Democratic Party is generally strongest in states where organized labor has the most influence.

Despite this clear, partisan incentive for pro-union policies, too many elected Democrats have failed to make labor enough of a priority. This was true under Jimmy Carter, when union membership began its precipitous decline, as well as under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Other levels of government led by Democrats have also drifted away from unions.

Under pressure from moderate Democrats in key swing districts, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to bring the White House-negotiated United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement to the floor before the end of the year. Moderate Democrats believe they can more easily win re-election with a bipartisan accomplishment under their belts. But passing it would hand President Trump a key political victory in the midst of impeachment proceedings, potentially undermining the entire Democratic ticket in 2020.

Theres also the labor question itself. Trump has sold the U.S.M.C.A. as a worker-friendly revision to the North American Free Trade Agreement. But union leaders and their Democratic allies say it needs stronger enforcement for labor rights and environmental protection. Rushing it now may undermine both. Its also not clear that this would actually help moderate Democrats. Passing a bill only validates Trumps oft-made claim that hes an expert deal-maker, and as the presidential election nears, bolstering the president means youre boosting his party.

Pelosis focus on trade comes at the expense of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, a broad package of pro-labor reforms introduced by Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia and co-sponsored by 215 members, which Pelosi has put on the back burner. The PRO ACT would eliminate right-to-work laws, impose new penalties on employers who retaliate against union drives and prevent employers from delaying negotiations on collective bargaining contracts. The bill has already passed out of the House Committee on Education and Labor, and while it wont become law under Trump, its still important it shows the partys commitment to the future of organized labor.

Pelosis narrow focus on the survival of moderate Democrats is understandable. Her majority rests on those moderates, who have followed her on impeachment despite real risks to their political standing. But the opportunity cost of that focus may be a chance to improve the vital relationship between labor and the Democratic Party.

Pelosis actions under a divided government are more defensible than those of Ralph Northam, the governor of Virginia, soon operating for the first time under unified Democratic control. With a liberal majority in the General Assembly, Northam intends to sign new legislation on gun control, voting rights and Confederate monuments (allowing localities to remove them without state authorization). Hell push bipartisan redistricting and fully implement the Affordable Care Act, with a state-based health insurance marketplace. He even wants to explore ways to expand access to preschool education. But on labor, Northam prefers the status quo. Last week, he told a group of lawmakers and business leaders that he could not foresee Virginia taking actions that would include repeal of the right-to-work law.

Right to work is a bit of misnomer. Under closed shop rules, new employees at unionized workplaces must join the union or at least pay dues. The reasoning is straightforward. Under federal labor law, nonunion workers are covered by the union contract. But negotiations arent cheap they take time and money. If everyone benefits, then everyone must contribute. Right-to-work laws essentially outlaw closed shops. Nonunion workers can claim union benefits without paying union dues or joining up, undermining the union in the process. It shouldnt come as a surprise that right-to-work laws are associated with low wages and lower rates of unionization. Virginia, incidentally, was named this summer as the worst state in the country to work.

A 2018 National Bureau of Economic Research study of the political effects of right-to-work laws found that they reduced Democratic vote share in presidential, congressional and state legislative elections, reduced Democratic turnout, dampened labor contributions to Democratic candidates, reduced the number of working-class candidates and moved state policy in a conservative direction. Repealing right to work wouldnt just be good for the states workers including the black Virginians who propelled Northam to the governors mansion and saved him in the midst of a blackface scandal it would strengthen the state Democratic Party and move policymaking to the left. Its in Northams interest as the leading Democrat in Virginia to want to end right to work and open a path for union growth in the state. And yet, as a moderate, business-friendly Democrat, he wont take the plunge.

Pelosi and Northam represent larger trends in Democratic politics: a long-term departure from labor that reflects on itself to undermine both. As unions get weaker, Democrats grow distant from organized labor. They are less likely to act on its behalf, which only makes the erosion worse.

Democratic inaction sits in stark contrast to the Republican Partys ruthless assault on labor. Since 2010, five more states have passed right-to-work laws. In one of them, Michigan, public-sector union membership declined by 34,000. In another, Wisconsin, overall union membership is down 133,000 since the beginning of the decade. Both declines contributed to Republican victories in these states, including the 2016 presidential race. As Tracie Sharp, president of the conservative State Policy Network, told The Wall Street Journal in 2016, When you chip away at one of the power sources that also does a lot of get-out-the-vote, I think that helps for sure.

Republicans and other conservatives know who their enemies are they know that organized labor is a key obstacle to dismantling the social safety net. The question is whether Democrats understand that their fortunes are also bound up in the fate of workers.

Excerpt from:
Do Democrats Really Know Who Their Friends Are? - The New York Times

One lesson of the past few weeks is that the Medicare-for-all debate has become a minefield for Democrats and its not clear that any candidate has a safe path through it.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has dropped 14 points since October 8, when she briefly led the Democratic field in the RealClearPolitics polling average. Most attribute her decline to her handling of Medicare-for-all the financing plan she released made her the target of attacks from the moderates, and then the transition plan she released, which envisions a robust public option in the first year of her presidency and only moving to Medicare-for-all in year three, left single-payer advocates unnerved about her commitment to the cause.

Then, on Tuesday, Sen. Kamala Harris dropped out of the race. Medicare-for-all had bedeviled Harriss campaign from the start. She was a co-sponsor of Sen. Bernie Sanderss bill and entered the race in January with a surprisingly full-throated endorsement of abolishing private insurance. Under criticism, Harris walked that back, eventually releasing a Medicare expansion plan with a long transition, dodgy financing, and a reimagined role for private insurers. The combination of policy reversals and botched rollout left Harris pinched between the moderates and the leftists, and undermined faith in her ability to govern on the issue Democrats rate as most important.

Id argue that Warren and Harris made the same mistake: they treated a question of symbolic politics like a problem of policy design. In Democratic Party politics, Medicare has become a which-side-are-you-on test. Are you with Sanders and the left, and against insurance companies, squishy moderates, commodified health care, and a politics of preemptive compromise? Or are you afraid that Sanders and the left are going to scare the country into reelecting Donald Trump and set health care reform back for a generation?

This is a fundamentally political question, and splitting the difference through complex acts of technocracy ends up alienating both sides. And I say that as a technocrat who thinks Warrens transition plan makes sense on its own terms and thought Harris ended up with a more interesting plan than she got credit for essentially inverting the debate by proposing a public health insurance system with a private option. But the reaction to both plans makes clear they missed the point.

The ferocity of this debate is at odds with the legislative reality. Even if a Democrat wins, Medicare-for-all will not pass the House and it will not pass the Senate. Im not a big fan of Medicare for All, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. When I interviewed the key Senate Democrats who will write the next health reform bill, none of them supported Medicare-for-all or believed it could pass.

The primary itself has been evidence of Medicare-for-alls long odds: A number of the co-sponsors on Sanderss bill, like Harris and Sen. Cory Booker, have made clear they dont actually support it as written. And a number of other senators the bill would need, like Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bennet, have come out in direct opposition to the legislation. Medicare-for-all would be a difficult lift even if the Democratic Party was united; its not going to pass with the party divided.

Democrats are setting themselves up for disillusionment, and possibly disaster. Either they will nominate a candidate who cannot deliver on their central policy promise or they will nominate a candidate whose victory will be a betrayal of liberal activists top policy priority.

So whats the way out?

On one level, I think this positions Sanders as perhaps Democrats best hope as a unity candidate. He is more acceptable to more Democrats than the elite conversation admits as political scientists John Sides and Lynn Vavreck show, a plurality of Biden supporters list Sanders as their second choice.

But Sanders also has a unique level of credibility with the partys more ideological left wing. His commitment to Medicare-for-all is sufficiently steadfast that leftists will believe him if and when he has to convince them that the compromised bill Congress is prepared to pass is the best bill theyre going to get. He wrote the damn bill; he might be the only one who can cut the damn deal. And if Sanders was able to get an ambitious Medicare-for-more plan through Congress and make it look like a compromise, itd be a tremendous legislative coup.

On the other hand, Warrens tumble will add to worries that Medicare-for-all makes Sanders an uncertain bet to win the presidency, and potentially boost former Vice President Joe Biden, who already leads among voters worried about electability.

The attacks on Medicare-for-all in the primary are a shadow of what would come in a general election, when the entire Republican Party, the entire health industry, and much of corporate America will devote billions of dollars to a 24/7 campaign of fearmongering and disinformation that dwarfs the genteel debates among the Democrats.

Theres a belief on the left that Medicare-for-all is extremely politically popular, and full-throated support for it is a political winner despite all the attacks that Republicans and industry will throw at it. The primary has been a soft test of that question. Warren and Sanders are the national advocates complete with large bases of support and the ability to command media coverage the policy never had in the past. The criticisms, meanwhile, are coming from other Democrats who at least claim to support Medicare-for-all as a goal, even if they favor a more incremental path on both substantive and political grounds.

The result is that net approval of Medicare-for-all has fallen 24 points among Democrats, and is underwater with both independents and Republicans. Part of the reason, surely, is that the health industry is running ads against the idea in early primary states. But that just underscores the point: Its hard to look at the polling of both Medicare-for-all and its advocates and be confident public support would hold under the kind of assault in the offing.

Adding to the trouble, a recent analysis by political scientist Alan Abramowitz found that Medicare-for-all was a liability for House Democrats who supported it in 2018. Even controlling for factors like the partisan lean of the district, political spending, and incumbency, candidates that backed Medicare-for-all performed significantly worse than those that didnt. Its hard pinning down causality when youre dealing with events as messy as House races, but Abramowitzs work will worry vulnerable congressional Democrats even as a big portion of the liberal base is making Medicare-for-all into the key litmus test.

Where does this leave Democrats? Im not honestly sure. The primary is riven by a deep, substantive disagreement over both the politics and the policy of health care. And theres good evidence that bitter primaries really do hurt parties in the general election. But the candidates whove tried to bridge the divide have suffered for their efforts. The party is likely to have to choose one path or the other, and the choice is going to hurt.

But itd be an awful legacy for the 2020 field if the fight between Medicare-for-all and Medicare-for-more ended up empowering the Republican agenda of Obamacare for none and Medicaid for fewer.

Read more:
Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and the 2020 Democrats Medicare mess - Vox.com

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Liberals are overreaching with impeachment, just like they did in my recall. It could cost them the 2020 election.

On Nov. 2, 2010, I won the first of three elections for governor in Wisconsin. That same day, someone registered the domain name RecallScottWalker.com. They were out to get me from day one. This is one of many striking similarities between the current impeachment process in Washington and the recall election in Wisconsin.

Since Donald J. Trump was elected president on Nov. 6, 2016, liberals have been preparing to impeach him. I remember running into protesters in Washington, D.C., the day after the inauguration. They had a massive march less than 24 hours after he took office.

In Wisconsin, I took office on Jan. 3, 2011. More than 100,000 protesters eventually occupied our state Capitol.

U.S. Rep. Al Green, Texas Democrat, is now pushing for impeachment for this fourth time. He started in 2017. Earlier this year, he said, Im concerned that if we dont impeach this president, he will get reelected. Hours after being sworn into Congress, U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib said, Were gonna impeach the motherf

The night when President Trump gave his first address to a joint session of Congress, I was on television with host Neil Cavuto. He mentioned that several members of Congress were going to boycott the speech and asked if I had ever heard of such a thing. I said, yes! He laughed. I knew exactly what he was talking about.

Shortly after the protests started, 14 Senate Democrats left the state to block a vote on our reforms. They fled to the neighboring state of Illinois (where they must have felt welcome as left-wing politicians who were afraid to make decisions to balance the budget and improve the economy). When I gave my budget address to the members of the state Legislature, all the Senate Democrats were gone.

[My favorite bumper sticker after we won said: 1 Walker Beats 14 Runners.]

After months of saying that an impeachment process must be bipartisan to move forward, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry on the day President Trump spoke to the United Nations in New York City. She had not even seen the transcript of the call with the president of Ukraine yet she was announcing an inquiry.

During the protests in Wisconsin leading up to my recall election, numerous voices on the left suggested that the effort might backfire. They urged Democratic leaders to wait for the 2014 reelection and use the energy of the protests to elect a Democratic governor.

Like Mrs. Pelosis switch, liberal extremists took over the movement. They wanted blood and they wanted it right away.

Many of these activists lived in liberal enclaves like Madison, Wisconsin. Years ago, then-Gov. Lee Sherman Dreyfus called the capital city, 30 square miles surrounded by reality. The only thing that had changed since then was the size of the city.

One of the few supporters I had on the staff of the University of Wisconsin Madison told of how depressed he was on campus and around town. Everywhere he looked there were Recall Walker signs. His attitude changed when he and his wife took a drive to a town miles away. Once they crossed the county line, they began to notice We Stand with Walker signs everywhere along their journey. It was then that they realized we had a fighting chance.

In many ways, the same is true today. Support or disdain for the president generally matches the geography of the Election Night map in 2016. Protesters from liberal enclaves like New York, Washington, D.C. and San Francisco believe that everyone hates the president. All of their friends and co-workers share that sentiment (or are afraid to say otherwise) and the same is true with their friends and followers on social media.

During the protests and the recall election campaign, we saw incredibly favorable coverage for the opposition. President Trump has to deal with elements of fake news each day. And it goes beyond traditional media outlets. Increasingly, people on social media tend to pick the news that associates with their point of view.

In the end, the protests and, ultimately, the recall energized our base. Surprisingly, it also turned off a majority of independent voters. They believed that the process was not fair. We won the recall election with more votes than in the original election.

I believe that the same thing can happen with President Trump. Recent polls in Wisconsin and other battleground states suggest that Democrats have overplayed their hands. The public is growing increasingly frustrated with the Do Nothing Democrats.

As we did during the recall campaign, the president should continue to show how he is fighting for the American people and winning. Not only will that energize Republicans, but it will also remind independents about what really is at stake in the 2020 elections.

Scott Walker was the 45th governor of Wisconsin. You can contact him at [emailprotected] or follow him @ScottWalker.

Continue reading here:
Democrats' Trump impeachment could cost them the 2020 election - Washington Times

Democrats are rightfully ecstatic that they won two of the three 2019 elections for governor in deep red Southern states, overcoming relentless campaign visits by President Donald Trump. But in truth, their twin triumphs had less to do with Trump and more to do with GOP Gov. Matt Bevin's toxicity in Kentucky and Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards's popularity in Louisiana.

Edwards and Democratic Gov.-elect Andy Beshear ran well ahead of Hillary Clinton's 2016 support virtually everywhere in their states. But the results also reaffirmed where Democrats' true opportunity lies in 2020: suburbs with lots of college-educated whites.

Democratic victories in Kentucky (where Trump won by a huge 30 points in 2016) and Louisiana (where Trump won by 20 points), are all the more impressive because turnout skyrocketed compared to the races four years ago. In Kentucky, the number of votes cast spiked 51 percent over 2015, and in Louisiana, votes cast surged 31 percent far higher than the 21 percent increase in Mississippi, where Democrats fell short.

Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.

But a closer look at the results suggests it wasn't necessarily higher turnout that put Edwards and Beshear over the top. In both Kentucky and Louisiana, turnout surged strongly in both heavily blue and heavily red parts of each state, suggesting both Trump and the Democrats were effective in galvanizing their supporters to the polls.

Instead, the difference-maker in both cases was big Democratic gains in those suburbs that have high shares of college-educated white voters. For example, Edwards won 57 percent in Jefferson Parish, just outside New Orleans, compared with 51 percent in his 2015 race. And Beshear took 42 percent of the vote in Boone County, just outside Cincinnati, Ohio, compared with 32 percent for Democrat Jack Conway four years prior.

Overall, Democrats' narrow wins in both races wouldn't have been possible without changing suburban attitudes. In the aggregate, blue gains in the 20 Kentucky counties and Louisiana parishes with the highest shares of whites with college degrees concentrated in the New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Louisville, Lexington and Cincinnati metro areas were barely enough to offset Republican gains elsewhere.

The continued migration of highly college-educated suburbs away from Republicans in the Trump era is welcome news for Democrats. The Kentucky and Louisiana results are a continuation of midterm gains for Democrats in places like the suburbs of Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Charleston and Oklahoma City.

However, robust turnout in more rural parts of Kentucky and Louisiana is a silver lining for Trump. More critically, Democratic gains among suburban college-educated whites and relative stagnation among other voters could actually widen Trump's advantage in the Electoral College relative to the popular vote.

Of the dozen states where college graduates make up over 40 percent of all eligible white voters California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Virginia none are likely to be decisive in the race for the Electoral College.

In other words, unless Democrats are able to retain support among other groups in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, they risk further adding to their vote-wasting problem in 2020, which could allow Trump to win re-election while losing the popular vote by 5 million or possibly more.

David Wasserman

David Wasserman, House editor for The Cook Political Report, is an NBC News contributor and senior analyst with the NBC Election Unit.

See the rest here:
Democrats are making big gains in the suburbs. Here's why that may not be enough to beat Trump. - NBC News