Mediaboss Marketing

This week, as the unbeloved American Health Care Act did its best impression of Jason Vorhees, Democrats were reminded of their dire need to win some elections. They won't send a Democrat (probably Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez) to Congress from California's safe 34th District until June 6; Jon Ossoff, who is still narrowly favored to win Georgia's 6th District, won't face a runoff until June 20.

That means the next state that will potentially change the majority in Congress is Montana's At-Large District, where Democrat Rob Quist is running an aggressive if creaky campaign to beat Republican businessman Greg Gianforte. For weeks and especially after a stronger-than-expected Democratic showing in Kansas's far more Republican 4th District local activists have raised money while hinting that Democrats might want to help out.

But as Politico's Elena Schneider points out, Democrats have made a fraction of the investment that Republicans have in Montana's race. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has put $200,000 into Montana's operation; between them, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the Congressional Leadership Fund have earmarked 10 times as much money to save the seat.

Here's the problem: Democrats, in defending their priorities, keep arguing that jumping in too early will nationalize the race. As one strategist put it to Schneider, "you dont want it to be a strict Democrat-versus-Republican because Trump did win."

Based on having covered most of this year's special elections on the ground, including Montana's, this is starting to sound like something you can only believe if you're addicted to the defensive crouch or if you never leave D.C. Three reasons:

Republicans nationalize every Trump state (or Trump district) race anyway. Here are the latest spots from the NRCC and CLF in Montana.

Here is the latest CLF ad in Georgia.

The eagle-eyed reader might notice a pattern. Neither Democrat has run as a Pelosi ally; Ossoff, somewhat famously, has rarely mentioned that he is a Democrat. But nothing stops Republicans, whose polling finds that Pelosi remains well-known and toxic in red districts, from making a Pelosi-shaped paddle and repeatedly whacking their opponents with it.

Voters don't really know who's funding the campaign attacks they see. One striking aspect of seeing elections on the ground is seeing how local news TV and newspapers cover campaign developments. If the president tweets about a race, an action that costs no money, it makes the lead of the TV news. If a surrogate comes in for a rally, it's got a fighting shot at the front page.

But you rarely if ever see local news write up a big partisan investment in a race. It's simply not interesting, unless you're a political junkie, or unless the ads are coming from a surprising source; think here of the super PACs that spring up because a multimillionaire wants them to. Party committees can also alter their identity by creating front groups, like the Republican Governors Association did when it (successfully) invested millions to flip Vermont's state house. Its ads for now-Gov. Phil Scott never mentioned that he was a Republican they ran under the banner of "A Stronger Vermont."

Democrats have a brand problem that dodging a fight will never fix.In 2008 not really so long ago Democrats won off-year special elections for Congress in Louisiana and Mississippi. One of the victors was Don Cazayoux, who took over a seat vacated by a Republican who saw the bright lights of a lobbying career. In a district where the national party regularly lost, Cazayoux ran as a pro-life, pro-education funding, tough-on-crime Democrat who favored expanding health-care coverage.

Democrats have not really competed for that seat since 2008. (Cazayoux lost a three-way November race when another Democrat ran as a spoiler.) But it was not so long ago that a populist message, which smoothed over cultural issues, could put together a coalition with enough white voters to win tough rural seats.

In 2017, Democrats are despondent about their chances of winning rural seats and the national party has moved left on issues such as abortion and immigration. But from many appearances, the party has triaged rural seats. The secretive autopsy report, prepared for the DCCC by Rep. Sean Maloney (D-N.Y.), argues that some extremely rural districts where New Deal and Great Society Democrats won for years are now unwinnable.

To progressives, it doesn't feel like Republicans share this despondence. They compete in the suburbs; they compete in the cities where they can (Omaha, Indianapolis, San Diego). They let the party's brand shift from race to race, and are nimble about it. But running through each race, they let it generally be known that a Republican is going to be easier on your wallet than a Democrat. There's an existential argument here that Democrats have not really engaged in for years.

More here:
Democrats, stop pretending you'll 'nationalize' a race if you fight for it ... - Washington Post

Across the country, environmental activists held rallies and marches Saturday urging action on climate change. In Maine, a rally was held outside the State House, with a march circling Capitol Park and passing the Blaine House, the governors official residence.

We are growing stronger by numbers and we are going to take back the control of protecting our Earth for future generations, said Sarah LaChance of 350 Maine, one of the organizers of the event.

The Natural Resources Council of Maine and the Maine Conservation Alliance helped organize the march and rally. Organizers stressed that elected officials need to act on climate change to protect the states natural resources and its future.

Some political leaders attended the event to lend their support.

My message is really very simple. Climate change is not a Democrat or Republican issue, said Republican state Sen. Roger Katz of Augusta.

Katz told the crowd they need to stay organized and make their views known to lawmakers as they consider legislation addressing climate change.

We will fight climate change, we will enact policies that do it, we will march and we will make a difference, said Democratic House Speaker Sara Gideon of Freeport.

Gideon told the rally the issues are personal to her, and that she has often spoke with her son about the need to pass legislation to mitigate climate change.

Richard Nelson, a lobsterman from Friendship Harbor, said failure to protect the environment is affecting state fisheries, and government at all levels needs to act.

Acidic waters make it more difficult for shellfish to produce their shells and makes lobster more vulnerable to prey and have less energy for reproduction, he said.

Others, like Melissa Mann with the Maine Conservation Alliance, said its clear states need to act, because the federal government wont.

President Trump is not going to protect people and our environment from the threats of climate change, she said, despite the fact that the majority of U.S. citizens believe climate change is happening and we need to act now.

Several speakers also urged those attending the rally to take the time to testify on several bills up for public hearing at the Legislature later this week.

See the rest here:
'Not a Democrat or Republican Issue' Activists, Lawmakers Rally ... - Maine Public

It tells you something about the state of the party when the main voice calling Democrats to sanity isnt even a member: Its Sen. Bernie Sanders, that proud Socialist.

Dont get us wrong: Bernies economics are as cockeyed as ever. Still, hes been playing the moderate against Democrats current chairman, Tom Perez, and a former one, Howard Dean who was himself once the partys presidential runner-up.

Sanders disagreement with Perez actually started while the two were doing a series of joint speaking gigs, a supposed unity tour. At the senators request, the two added a rally for Heath Mello, a promising candidate for mayor of Omaha, Neb.

Then pro-choice hard-liners noted that Mello used to be a pro-lifer and still says hes personally opposed to abortion for religious reasons. Ilyse Hogue, the head of Naral Pro-Choice America, denounced both Sanders and Perez for backing candidates who substitute their own judgment and ideology for that of their female constituents.

Perez instantly surrendered, saying: I fundamentally disagree with Heath Mellos personal beliefs on abortion, congratulating him for giving up on writing those beliefs into law and warning, Every candidate who runs as a Democrat should do the same.

Should every voter whos uneasy cheering for Planned Parenthood switch to the GOP?

Look: Democrats never would have passed the ObamaCare law without the votes of sort-of-pro-lifers like Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.). (Of course, several of those politicians felt betrayed when Team Obama used it to mandate abortion and contraceptive coverage, but thats another story.)

You just cant exclude people who disagree with us on one issue, Bernie warned. He stuck with Mello, because 1) mayors dont have much to do with abortion anyway, and 2) the left will never win majorities if it insists on thought control.

Which brings us to his flap with Dean.

After UC-Berkeley nixed that speech by conservative firebrand Ann Coulter, the one-time Democratic Party boss, presidential wannabe and Vermont governor tweeted: Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.

He was dead wrong, of course, and his tweet got pretty much everyone legal scholars, fact-checkers, pundits, pols, on both the left and right to correct the record: Not only does the First Amendment make no exceptions for hate speech, its whole purpose is to make sure Americans can say hateful, unpopular things.

Heck, why would anyone need a Constitutional right to say only things no one objects to?

As Sanders put it: Ann Coulters outrageous to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation.

When even Bernie Sanders says youve gone off the deep end, you can be pretty sure you have. Too bad so many Democrats need the reminder.

Go here to read the rest:
Even Bernie Sanders thinks Democrats have gone too far | New ... - New York Post

WASHINGTON -- A senior administration official said Thursday the White House plans to push its tax overhaul without any support from congressional Democrats.

It's a sign of the intense partisanship over President Trump's outlines for cutting tax rates in hopes of stimulating faster economic growth, increasing business activity and helping the middle class. The proposal unveiled Wednesday would also repeal several taxes that target the wealthy but eliminate many deductions they use. Democratic lawmakers say the plan would favor the wealthy and blow a deep hole in the federal budget.

Play Video

President Trump says his tax plan is going to put people back to work, but some important details were missing from the one-page blueprint that c...

An independent estimate by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates federal revenue would plunge $5.5 trillion over a decade under the Trump plan, likely causing the deficit to balloon. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has suggested faster economic growth of 3 percent or more would replace the lost tax revenue, a position most budget experts dispute.

The administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss private deliberations, suggested Thursday that the White House might also find a way to work around a Senate rule that requires a 60-vote majority to pass bills that increase the deficit over the longer term. Under the rule, measures passed by a simple majority that increase the deficit expire in a 10-year window.

The official indicated that the administration might not necessarily need to follow a 10-year window, noting that budget forecasts are often inaccurate. It was unclear how the suggested maneuver would overcome Senate procedure.

Republicans currently hold a 52-seat majority in the Senate, leaving them in need of support from at least eight Democrats under the rule.

Play Video

Amid President Trump's effort to overhaul the tax system, Democrats are pushing to know what Mr. Trump would stand to gain if his policies are en...

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he planned to pass a tax overhaul without Democratic support, but only if it didn't add to long-term deficits.

"Regretfully we don't expect to have any Democratic involvement in" a tax overhaul, McConnell said. "So we'll have to reach an agreement among ourselves."

The Trump tax outline would reduce the top corporate tax rate by 20 percentage points, to 15 percent, and enable private business owners to claim the new lower rate for their incomes. The number of tax brackets for individuals would be reduced from seven to three, with the top tax rate lowered from 39.6 percent to 35 percent. It would roughly double the standard amount taxpayers could deduct.

Play Video

The Trump administration released details of its proposal to overhaul taxes in the U.S. CBS News chief White House correspondent Major Garrett re...

The measure would eliminate the estate tax and reduce taxes on investments primarily paid by the wealthy. It would further reduce the tax burden for the rich by eliminating the alternative minimum tax, which ensures the high-income can't get away with paying little to no taxes.

Senate Democrats quickly came out against the proposal.

"This scheme is a massive tax giveaway to millionaires, billionaires and big corporations at the expense of middle-class families," said Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa.

2017 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

See the rest here:
Trump admin. to push ahead with tax overhaul without Democrat support - CBS News

For the eight years Barack Obama was president, Republicans argued aggressively and persistently that they should be trusted with the leadership of our nation instead. After winning majorities in both houses of Congress during the Obama years, the GOP outlined an agenda they promised to follow through on as soon as they re-took the White House.

Donald Trumps victory in 2016 finally gave them that opportunity.

In these first 100 days, however, President Trump and the Republicans in Congress have been stymied by a fundamental truth: its much easier to be in the opposition than it is to actually govern.

The chaos emanating from the White House and within the Republican caucus on Capitol Hill demonstrates how deeply the GOP started believing its own political hype so much so that the party failed to realize how truly difficult the ideas it was promoting would be to implement (for example, insuring everyone while lowering costs and keeping the popular aspects of ObamaCare).

President Trump and the Republicans in Congress have been stymied by a fundamental truth: its much easier to be in the opposition than it is to actually govern.

We now have a government run entirely by Republicans that is floundering, unable to achieve big legislative victories and without a strategy to turn that around, heading very quickly into a midterm election year where voters are going to expect much more progress.

The confirmation of Neil Gorsuch was the high point for the administration in its first 100 days a campaign promise quickly fulfilled. But things go rapidly downhill from there.

President Trump has attempted to check off many of his agenda items using executive action, which the White House is trumpeting as real progress. But on two of his signature orders, he learned firsthand that the judiciary is indeed a co-equal branch, and those EOs were stayed because of serious legal questions based in part on his own inflammatory public statements. His words really do matter.

Turning overseas, we tumble to some of the worst moments of the first 100 days. President Trump has governed based on a caricature of what he appears to believe strong foreign policy is: bragging about raw use of military power, acting dismissively towards diplomacy, and bullying our friends and our adversaries.

Mostworrisome,the administration has failed to outline detailed strategies to address any of the serious foreign policy challenges we face. Slogans are not strategy.

At the same time, the administration is doing real damage on the world stage. It is true that countries probably believe President Trump is more willing to use military force than President Obama was. But the Trump administration is also increasingly viewed as dangerous and unpredictable unaware of the basics of international politics or simple facts, led by someone lacking a core set of principles who believes erratic behavior in foreign affairs is a good thing.

President Trump and his team have upset some of our closest allies, including the United Kingdom, Germany, South Korea, and Australia. These unforced errors have consequences, because as powerful as we are, we cannot solve the worlds biggest challenges alone.

As we grapple with the start of the Trump presidency, my Democratic Party has had its own growing pains in determining the best ways to rebuild our ranks.

How do we re-constitute the norms and institutions of public service that have been so eroded since President Trump came onto the scene?What do we have to offer as a party to the American people in places like my home state of Ohio? And are we still a big tent open, as I believe we should be -- to strong principled candidates without any one issue serving as a litmus test (including abortion)?

If the first 100 days taught us anything, its that we all have a lot more work to do.

Republicans, you asked to be put in the game, and the American people said yes. Its time to stop fumbling the football. If you dont, 2018 is coming fast, and you risk being back on the sidelines.

Marie Harf joined the network in January 2017 and currently serves as a contributor for FOX News Channel (FNC), offering national security and political analysis across FNC and FOX Business Network's (FBN) daytime and primetime programming.

Go here to see the original:
Marie Harf: A Democrat's honest take on Trump's first 100 days - Fox News