Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump.

Following his failed attempt to pass a new health care law,President TrumpindicatedWednesdaythathe wanted to start working more with Democrats. Of course, this comes after he failed to get Republicans on board with his Obamacare replacement-- and after he blamed Democrats for stalling his agenda.

Still, among those Democrats the White House called up was US RepresentativeStephen Lynch, of Massachusetts. Lynch is one of his party's few moderates left in the US House, and evenhe declined the White House's invitation.

Advertisement

There are at least three logical reasons why Democrats, except in some limited cases, will not be working with Trump anytime soon:

1. Trumps approving rating is really bad

This week Trumps approval rating dropped to35 percent in the Gallup poll,the lowest for any modern president this early in an administration. Anunpopular president hasless political clout on Capitol Hill. In other words, Trump cannot persuade Democrats that working with him will make them more popular back at home.

Get Political Happy Hour in your inbox:

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

One exception is the group of10 Democrats in theUS Senatewho are up for reelection next year in states that voted for Trump. This group might be looking for ways to at least appear open to working with Trump. But even then, if his popularity continues to decline, it still might be better to just stay away from the White House.

2. The Democratic base wont let them

Few Democrats have more credibility with the party's base than US SenatorElizabeth Warren. But remember the backlash she encountered when she initially said she was open to voting forBen Carsonas Trumps Secretary of Housing and Urban Development?Warren quickly changed her mind.

The Democratic base is firmly against Trump. In fact, the latest polling shows that just12 percent ofDemocrats approve of Trump.Not only is there little incentive for Democrats to work with Trump, there's considerable risk in their own party if they do so.

3. Trump has not been stressing issues where Democrats are likely to work with him.

Advertisement

Trump has lamentedthat no Democrat indicated they would support his health care bill, but he shouldnt be all that shocked. Democrats are not inclined to vote to repeal Obamacare, and they arent inclined to vote for a Supreme Court nominee that Trump has billed as very conservative.Even thoughPresident Obama talked about tax reform,there's little evidence to suggestTrump is willing to meet Democrats halfway on this issue.

If Trump really wants buy-in from Democrats, he could simply change the issue set -- and he might be ready to do so. In recent days Trump signaledhe wants to do a big infrastructure billsooner than originally planned. Trump'sadviser and son-in-law,Jared Kushner,met with senatorsThursdayto discuss bipartisan criminal justice reform.

Read this article:
3 reasons why Democrats aren't working with Trump - The Boston Globe

With Democrats defending 25 seats in 2018, a competitive race against Sen. Ted Cruz would be a major boon to the party. | AP Photo

Democratic Rep. Beto O'Rourke is expected to announce Friday he will challenge Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for Senate next year, people familiar with the decision confirmed.

O'Rourke, if he declares, would be the first Democrat to announce his intention to challenge Cruz. Rep. Joaquin Castro is also considering a Senate run. With Democrats defending 25 seats in 2018, including 10 in states won by President Donald Trump, a competitive race against Cruz would be a major boon to the party. Only two other GOP-held seats, Arizona and Nevada, are currently expected to be competitive. Democrats would need to pick up three seats to win the majority.

Story Continued Below

The announcement is expected to come at a rally in El Paso, according to the Houston Chronicle, which first reported the news. A spokesman for ORourke did not immediately return a comment.

O'Rourke wouldn't confirm he was running Wednesday but also didn't refute the Houston Chronicle story, saying only he hasn't talked to the newspaper.

"I don't want to say anything publicly about a decision to run until I can do it in front of the people I represent," O'Rourke said.

O'Rourke did say he has talked to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer recently but wouldn't divulge details. The Texas Democrat said he has not spoken with Sen. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of Senate Democrats' campaign arm, since last year.

But O'Rourke didn't pass up a chance to slam Cruz, saying he's sure the controversial Republican is beatable even in deep-red Texas.

"He's been running for president for four years while he should've been serving the people of Texas," O'Rourke said.

Castro told POLITICO he hasn't ruled out also running for the Texas Senate seat, saying he still plans to announce his decision at the end of April.

In an interview this month, O'Rourke insisted a Democrat can win in the conservative bastion.

"People have just come to take it as an article of faith that a Democrat can't win," O'Rourke said. "I don't think there's anything real magical about this."

A spokeswoman for Cruz declined to comment.

The immediate challenge for O'Rourke will be fundraising: Cruz ended 2016 with $4.2 million in his Senate campaign account, far more than the $399,000 O'Rourke had in his coffers as of last Dec. 31.

O'Rourke first won his El Paso-based and majority Latino House seat in 2012, after upsetting Rep. Silvestre Reyes in a Democratic primary. Hillary Clinton won 68 percent of the vote in O'Rourke's district last year.

Read this article:
Democrat O'Rourke to take on Cruz for Senate in 2018 - Politico

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said Monday that he intends to filibuster the nomination of President Trumps Supreme Court nominee Hon. Neil Gorsuch.

The announcement of a Democrat coming out against Gorsuch is not a notable news item, but Nelson is seen as a centrist. Republicans were relying on centrists like Nelson to carry the Colorado jurist to the 60 votes needed to avoid a Democratic block.

Nelson made the announcement in a statement released from his office. He said he met with Gorsuch and entered the hearings with an open mind. His concerns seemed to echo those of his colleagues on his side of the aisle.

The judge has consistently sided with corporations over employees, ad in the case of a freezing truck driver who, contrary to common sense, Judge Gorsuch would have allowed to be fired for abandoning his disabled rig during extreme weather conditions, he wrote.

The Wall Street Journal reported that as of Tuesday afternoon, more than two dozen Senate Democrats said they would vote no on Gorsuchs nomination. No Democrat had said he would vote yes.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee said in a statement reported by Politico that in 2006 Nelson voted for cloture to end the filibuster on Judge Alitos nomination. The same year, Nelson joined his Senate colleagues to confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in a unanimous vote. Clearly Nelson has been in Washington way too long and is forgetting he represents Florida, not Washington liberals.

Gorsuchs confirmation to the high court appears to be very likely. He will benefit from a Republican-controlled Senate. He needs 60 total votes. Republicans hold 52 seats. Ten Democrats represent states that voted for President Trump in November. And, Republicans can go nuclear and change the rule to confirm Gorsuch to a simple majority.

Supporters of Gorsuch said Democrats tried their best to land blows against Trumps nominee. Perhaps one of the Democrats most effective exchange during the confirmation hearings came in a line of questioning from Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn.

Franken asked Gorsuch how he could rule in favor of a company that fired a truck driver who abandoned his trailer on the side of an interstate on a -14 degree night. Alphonse Maddin, the driver, noticed that his trailers brakes were frozen and his heater did not work.

Maddin unhitched his trailer and drove off to wait somewhere warm. Gorsuch wrote that the company gave him the legal option to wait with his trailer.

I had a career in identifying absurdity, Franken, a former member of Saturday Night Live, said. I know it when I see it, and it makes me question your judgement.

KRAUTHAMMER: GOP SHOULD CHANNEL CLINT EASTWOOD IF DEMS FILIBUSTER GORSUCH

Franken announced that he would not support Gorsuch.

Pam Keith, a 2016 U.S. Senate candidate considering a bid against Nelson, said in a text message to Politico that Nelson VERY much is feeling the pressure, as are many Dems in DC.

Bottom-line is that the base is far more strident than they are, Keith continued. The grassroots could give a damn about collegiality' or decorum in the halls of Congress. I think the leaders are learning that the appetite for outright obstruction is as high on our side as it ever was for the Tea Party.

Edmund DeMarche is a news editor for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @EDeMarche.

See the article here:
Key Democrat comes out against Gorsuch, may be indicator of things to come - Fox News

There are three in Minnesota the 1st, 7th and 8th districts plus Nevada's 3rd district and New Hampshire's 1st. These five districts are arguably the core of the Trump Democrat group, places where Trump appears to be stronger than the sitting representative.

It's hard to imagine the White House would see a benefit in moving to the center on policy and strategy to pick up five votes. And even if the herd of Trump Democrats is bigger, such as the 15 districts where Trump did better than he did nationally, it's not a big gain.

In order to make a real a difference in Trump's House tally and build a sustainable coalition, he would likely have to reach a larger group of Democrats. To do that, he would probably need to move more dramatically to the center on policy.

And, of course, actions have reactions. A pivot to the center could in turn push away other House Republicans who feared a backlash in their home districts, particularly in strongly conservative districts. The nation's partisan divide is deep and potent.

When you look at the math and the possible action and reactions, you begin to understand why building a centrist coalition would be so difficult for the White House.

The numbers suggest there aren't a lot of potential Trump-friendly Democrats wandering around Washington. And trying to create a herd of them would likely create another set of problems for Team Trump.

See the original post:
Trump Says He'll Work With Democrats, But Will Democrats Work With Him? - NBCNews.com

Natalie Matthews-Ramo

In the hours after his American Health Care Act foundered on the shores of Nopesylvania, Donald Trump insisted he was not mad at Paul Ryan. He claimed he did not fault the Freedom Caucus. He promised he bore no ill will toward the Tuesday Group. Instead, the presidents ire was reserved for the Democratic Party.

Katy Waldman is a Slate staff writer.

We had no Democrat support, he fumed on TV. The losers are Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, because now they own Obamacare. This is not anything but a Democrat health care.

What is a Democrat health care? It is, presumably, the handiwork of the Democrat Party, which is both one of the United States two major political parties and an insult cast in the furnaces of midcentury partisan discourse. As Hendrik Hertzberg documented for the New Yorker in 2006, politicians like Joe McCarthy and Bob Dole used the term, which lowers a guillotine blade between democratic principles (good) and Democrats (bad). George W. Bush favored it as well. The epithet has an unlovely sound; it fairly screams rat, Hertzberg observed. At a slightly higher level of sophistication, he continued, its an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation.

Most important of all, the name accomplishes the objective of getting under Democrat(ic) skin. Left-wing politicians look pedantic when they bother to correct the record, and they look weak when they allow their adversaries to dictate what they are called. Over the years, Democratic National Committee delegates have tried to dream up an equivalent taunt. One proposal, to call the GOP the Publican Party, ironically evoked Roman tax collectorsand also conjured, for me, the delightful prospect of a Pelican Party, which would scoop all Americans into its capacious beakbut the committee rejected it.

The fact that a motion must pass through a committee before Democrats can drop a burn may encapsulate something essential about the Democrats. But anyhow, the reason the committee balked was because, in one delegates words, Republican is the name by which our opponents product is known and mistrusted. A few years later, progressives unsuccessfully proposed Republicants and, riffing on the GOPs growing reputation as a tent for snake-oil salesmen, Republicons.

This is all very dumb. The Republicans express their contempt for the Democrats by purposefully getting their name wrong, and the Democrats, when they havent somehow convinced themselves that the most wounding option is to get the Republicans name right, are volleying back lame puns. It is far better to dismiss the opposition with a careless or absurdist errorRepublicanist, maybe, or the GOB. (The GYP or GOOP or Gee Oh Pee Pee falls into sandbox territory.)

The name itself doesnt matter. What the Republicans have that the Democrats dont is coordination. Liberals must choose one epithet and employ it at every opportunity.

The Republicanist proposal on tax reform leaves much to be desired.

Democrats or Propublicans, we are all Americans first.

When it comes to keeping this energy plan cost-effective, we look forward to working out a solution with our counterparts in the Gee Yop.

I have to disagree with my colleague Sen. McConnell of United Russia.

Alternatively, Democrats could take a cue from Sen. Chuck Schumer. The Senate minority leader recently told his colleagues that the Republican Party might as well be called the Trump Party now. Could there be any crueler gibe?

More:
Republicants, Republicons - Slate Magazine