Mediaboss Marketing

The last decade has been rocky for Angela Brancato, who grew up in Chicago's Mount Greenwood neighborhood and then left with her fiance in 2007 for brighter job prospects in upstate New York and later North Carolina.

The prospects never materialized, and they returned in 2012 to Mount Greenwood, where she found part-time work at a neighborhood diner.

That's where she works today. She voted for Donald Trump. Two months after his inauguration, Brancato and other supporters in Chicago remain optimistic about his presidency.

"When (Barack) Obama ran, he ran on the idea of change," Brancato, 31, said on a recent morning before going to work. "The country certainly has changed in the last eight years, and it's not a change that I particularly care for."

Pockets of intense Trump support exist in the broad-shouldered city of deep blue Democrats, particularly in Brancato's Mount Greenwood on the Far Southwest Side, in Edison Park and Norwood Park on the city's Far Northwest Side and in sections of Sauganash/West Ridge on the Northwest Side neighborhoods with substantial populations of police and firefighters.

Trump won nearly 70 percent of the vote in three Mount Greenwood precincts and more than 50 percent in 15 other precincts in Chicago's 19th Ward, which includes the Beverly neighborhood. In five Edison Park and Norwood Park precincts, Trump gathered more than half the votes. He also got nearly 60 percent of the vote in three precincts in Sauganash/West Ridge.

Those Chicagoans who voted for the businessman say they did so to rev the economy, support law enforcement, shake up a stagnant political system, and check immigration and government growth. While Trump fumed over an investigation into his campaign's possible ties to Russian hackers and the Senate grilled his Supreme Court nominee, his Chicago supporters gave the new president incomplete ratings on his job performance.

Brancato said her vote came down to her economic distress and the Affordable Care Act, which became too costly for her to use. She said she and many others are fed up with politics as usual, that the education system is moving in the wrong direction and the country should be more conscientious on immigration.

"I voted for Trump because he's not really a Republican," said Brancato, who added that she voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and George W. Bush in 2004. She didn't vote in 2012. "I'm hoping and praying that he can somehow get these people who are so hopelessly block-headed to at least listen to each other."

'Dude, shut up'

Brancato is concerned, however, about Trump's unfounded and combative comments on voter fraud and surveillance on his phone, a continuation of her frustration with Trump's abrasive comments in the campaign.

"It would just be like, 'Dude, shut up,'" Brancato said. "'One of these days something's going to come flying out of your mouth and it's going to do irreparable damage.'"

She said Trump's allegations should be investigated fully and she remains concerned by indications that Russian hackers may have tried to influence the November election.

Down the street from Brancato, at United TV Service, owner Dave Benedict said he voted for Trump because he is taking "a businessman's approach to running the country." Like Brancato, he viewed Hillary Clinton as an extension of Obama's eight years as president, which Benedict viewed as a failure.

"He kind of has a trigger finger when it comes to his opinions," Benedict said of Trump. "He's not going to be politically correct. He's just going to tell you his opinion and that's the way it is."

Benedict, who said he voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 and John McCain in 2008, said it is too early to tell how effective a president Trump will be. Benedict said he would be concerned if proof emerged that Trump's campaign colluded with Russians to influence the 2016 election or if Trump's claim that Obama ordered surveillance on Trump's phone turns out to be false.

Former 19th Ward GOP Committeeman Steven Graves said it should come as no surprise that Trump did well in Mount Greenwood, "because this is a middle-class, hardworking neighborhood," where people are tired of "the same old same old," and believe Trump can deliver jobs, lower taxes, cut government, secure our borders and strengthen the military.

"I think they felt like they finally could hit back," Graves said. "I think his heart's in the right place and I think he's learning as he goes." But, Graves added, "when he says, 'Drain the swamp,' half the crowd is his crowd."

Trump's election came at a particularly volatile time in Mount Greenwood, where 90 percent of residents are white and many police officers reside in brick Georgians and trim ranches on narrow city lots. Three days before the election, police shot and killed Joshua Beal, 25, an African-American from Indianapolis, in Mount Greenwood.

Authorities have called the confrontation a road rage incident. The shooting, which remains under investigation, sparked protests that pitted police supporters against groups critical of the shooting.

Trump backers in law enforcement privately said they are aggravated their support is perceived as racist, when they maintain it is based on what they see as declining support from Obama and the likely continuation of that if Clinton had been elected.

Turmoil to empathy?

About 30 miles north of Mount Greenwood, in neighborhoods that include Edison Park and Norwood Park, Robert Athey said he voted for Trump as a way to curb a federal government that was overreaching. Athey, who served as the Midwest representative of the U.S. secretary of labor in 2002-09, also said the Affordable Care Act was unaffordable.

Athey, of Norwood Park, also said that Obama and Clinton, as secretary of state, mishandled the U.S. response to Syria's civil war and Clinton in particular showed incompetence in the 2012 terrorist attack on U.S. government buildings in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead.

About Trump's performance, Athey said the Democrats have instituted "a war" against the president since his election. They can "attack the personality and avoid the policy," he added. It is too early to say much about the job Trump has done in office, he said.

But Athey acknowledged that Trump has hurt himself with Twitter posts and unfounded comments. His best explanation for the content of Trump's more controversial statements is that the administration is "so overwhelmed by the attacks that ... he gets ahead of himself on issues that don't matter."

"I kind of wish he wouldn't do it," Athey said. "It kind of dilutes his message and the message of the people who work for him."

He and other Trump supporters said backers of the new president tend to keep a low profile largely because, as Athey said, "the liberal media made Trump out to be the most horrible person in the world and people are reluctant to express their support."

Suzzanne Monk, who with her husband, Alexander Duvel, owns Worlds of Music Chicago in the North Center neighborhood, said their support for Trump led to bullying that is prompting them to close the musical instrument store by the end of April, convert it to an online business and leave Chicago.

In a letter she sent to several media outlets, Monk wrote that "because we support Trump, we no longer feel proud, or safe, being in this city." Duvel filed a police report in August citing harassing texts and phone calls.

Monk also contends the main reason for closing the store is that prospective customers have been intimidated "merely for associating with us."

Those whom Monk specified as harassing and intimidating the couple deny the claim. They say Monk and Duvel brought the problems on themselves for aggressive and offensive social media commentary and videos attacking liberals.

Benedict, the electronics repair shop owner in Mount Greenwood, said he has not been harassed or lost business for supporting Trump. Brancato said she also has not been harassed, although her fiance, who works in a more politically liberal neighborhood of Chicago, keeps quiet about his Trump support.

Edison Park Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Melissa McIntyre said business owners avoid political conversations with customers out of a sense of professional protocol, and that it was unlikely any would suffer negative consequences if they publicly declared their support for Trump.

On the other hand, she said, some residents were angry with a local restaurant that participated in A Day Without Immigrants on Feb. 16 by closing for the day to demonstrate how important immigrants are to America's economy.

"People said they'd never go there again," McIntyre said.

Since Monk's story gained media attention on March 17, she said she has received an outpouring of support. Her "Save Music Store from Trump Haters" GoFundMe campaign, started in January, raised more than $17,000 as of Tuesday afternoon. Monk said about $9,000 has arrived since Saturday.

She acknowledged that unrest over the Trump presidency may have engaged people more in public affairs.

"I hope that can transform," Monk said, "and keep bringing the dialogue and bring America back together."

Chicago Tribune's Annie Sweeney contributed.

tgregory@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @tgregoryreports

View original post here:
Pockets of strong Trump support in deep blue Democrat Chicago ... - Chicago Tribune

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) Aaron P. Bernstein/ZUMA

At the start of Monday's hearing on Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, laid out why the hearing was so important.

Schiff, a former federal prosecutor, offered a detailed timeline of Russia's role in the election during a 15-minute opening statement ahead of the committee's questioning of FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers. The American public will never know whether Russian meddling swung the election, Schiff said, but there are some things that are known that deserve further exploration.

"What was happening in July/August of last year? And were US persons involved?"

"We do know this: The months of July and August 2016 appear to have been pivotal," Schiff said. "It was at this time that the Russians began using the information they had stolen to help Donald Trump and harm Hillary Clinton. And so the question is why? What was happening in July/August of last year? And were US persons involved?"

Schiff laid out details from the series of memos authored by a former Western intelligence operative detailing possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence. He highlighted the behavior of former Trump campaign national security adviser Carter Page, who reportedly traveled to Moscow on what Schiff described as a "trip approved by the Trump campaign" and met with the CEO of a Russian corporation who is reportedly a "former KGB agent and close friend" of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Schiff also pointed to allegations in the memos that the Trump campaign was offered documents damaging to Hillary Clinton in exchange for, as Schiff put it, "a Trump Administration policy that de-emphasizes Russia's invasion of Ukraine and instead focuses on NATO countries not paying their fair sharepolicies which, even as recently as the President's meeting last week with Angela Merkel, have now presciently come to pass."

Prior to the hearing, Trump tweeted that allegations that his campaign colluded with Russian officials are "FAKE NEWS" and that Democrats "made up and pushed the Russian story as an excuse for running a terrible campaign."

Schiff closed his statement by pointing out why the Congress must thoroughly investigate Russian interference in the election. "Only by understanding what the Russians did can we inoculate ourselves from the further Russian interference we know is coming," Schiff said. "Only then can we help protect our European allies who are, as we speak, enduring similar Russian interference in their own elections."

Read the full statement below:

Read the original post:
Here's the Democrats' Best Case for a Trump-Russia Investigation - Mother Jones

To tackle concerns aboutcollege affordability, a Democratic legislator is proposing to makepubliccolleges and universities tuition-free for all Californians,and wants to tax millionaires to do it.

The measure, which echoes calls for tuition-free college by former presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), is the latest in a flood of legislationthat's been introduced this year to address concerns about the rising costof attending college.

The state's 1960 Master Plan, which created a framework for higher education institutions, was meant to "make college affordable for everybody. That was going to be the California dream," Assemblywoman Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-Stockton), the proposal's author,said in an interview.

"Now we find ourselves in the position where that dream isnt being fulfilled," she said.

Eggman'sproposal would impose a 1%tax on incomes over $1 million to help pay for the approximate $2.2-billion price tag to cover tuition and fees for all in-state students in conjunction with existing aid.

"We know the very wealthy continue to control a huge amount of the states wealth, this countrys wealth, while the middle-class continues to get squeezed more and more," Eggman said.

New taxes generally face a steep climb in the Legislature, where a two-thirds vote is required for passage. But Eggman said her bill, AB 1356, would also be coupled with a constitutional amendment that would put the tax before voters for ultimate approval.

Doing so, she said, ensures "a greater buy-infrom the general public."

A recent survey by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 68% ofDemocrats, 20% ofRepublicansand 42% of independents support increased taxes to pay for higher education.

Eggman's tuition-free proposal takes a different approach from her colleagues, who unveiled a sweeping plan last week to make public colleges debt-free for nearly 400,000 students from families that make up to $150,000 per year. That measure aims to chip away at some of the associated costs of going to college, such as living expenses and textbooks.

Eggman said she envisions the two proposals complementing each other.

She also said she anticipates critiques her "clean sweep" plan to wipe tuition away for all Californians would benefit wealthy residents who don't need such assistance.

People may say "'millionaires kids might use it,'" Eggman said."Well, theyre paying for it, too."

Read more:
This California Democrat is proposing a tax on millionaires to make public colleges tuition-free for in-state students - Los Angeles Times

Welcome to Clout Street: Morning Spin, our weekday feature to catch you up with what's going on in government and politics from Chicago to Springfield. Subscribe here.

Topspin

Ald. Ameya Pawar, a Democratic candidate for governor, said hes willing to discuss term limits for state officialsbut doesnt think the debate is worth holding up a state budget.

Pawar limited himself as an alderman to two terms, and he's serving in his second now. In speaking on WGN-AM 720, when asked if he thought Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner had done anything correctly, Pawar voiced support for term limits for governor and legislative leaders.

But we need to also then discuss if we want term limits for rank-and-file legislators. Do we want powerful politicians that we elect or do we want powerful bureaucrats? Pawar asked.

Its not a panacea. Its certainly not a panacea that creates new jobs. Its a political move. Its a public policy change one thats worth debatebut certainly not one thats worth holding up a budget over, he said.

Rauner has made term limits on Illinois politicians among the issues he has viewed as a prerequisite for his support for raising taxes as part of resolving the states historic budget impasse.

The Northwest Side alderman has modeled his progressive agenda on Franklin D. Roosevelts Great Depression-era economic and social programs known as the New Deal.

Automation and trade have gutted lots of local economies, and we need to talk about that. And we cant let another generation of people wither on a vine and expect them to hear Democrats and expect them to vote for Democrats, Pawar said.

Its my job to go out and talk to everybody. Im going to go to every county in the state, all 102, and go have a conversation whether theyre red counties or blue counties, he said. I dont believe you write people off based on who they voted for in the last election. And as the leader for the entire state, you dont pit people against one another. You go and hear them out and make decisions to invest in communities and bring them together.

Pawar acknowledged the wealth of businessman Chris Kennedy, who has entered the race, and potential candidate J.B. Pritzker, who has launched an exploratory committee. But he said it was more important to have foot soldiers. The alderman said he plans on largely raising small donations while fielding volunteer supporters. He said he has volunteers committed in 61 counties across Illinois.

Pawar has raised $71,310 in his campaign fund for governor, including $40,300 deposited Friday, state campaign disclosure reports showed. (Rick Pearson)

What's on tap

*Mayor Rahm Emanuel's schedule wasn't available.

*Gov.Rauner is scheduled to appearat Atlas Tool Works in Lyons in the early afternoon and atthe Governor's Conference on Travel and Tourism in the evening.

*Illinois Comptroller Susana Mendoza willappear before the City Club of Chicago.

*Spring has sprung.

From the notebook

*Hoop dreams: The University of Illinois isnt in the big tourney, but it is part of the hoops field in the National Invitational Tournament.

The Fighting Illiniplay Monday night at home against the Boise State Broncos.

Of political note, the president of Boise State is Robert Kustra, a former state lawmaker and Illinois lieutenant governor underGov. Jim Edgar. Kustra, by the way, has a doctorate from the University of Illinois.

The Kustras will be cheering their team on from Idaho. (Rick Pearson)

*The Sunday Spin: On this week's show, Chicago Tribune political reporter Rick Pearson's guests were Mike Gelatkaof the Illinois Gaming Machine Operators Association, Democratic governor candidate Ald. Ameya Pawar, and Tribune reporter Hal Dardick.Listen to the full show here.

What we're writing

*State Sen. Daniel Biss expected to announceDemocratic governor bid Monday.

*Rauner asks state Supreme Court to get involved in fight with union.

*Emanuel challenges Trump budget proposalon its values, priorities.

View post:
Morning Spin: Democrat who wants matchup with Rauner would ... - Chicago Tribune

Donald Trumps populist victory has turned conventional political wisdom on its head. Going into the election, the media and the electorate largely believed Hillary Clinton would crush Trump and become the first woman president. But as the night of November 8 wore on, it became clear that Trump would edge Hillary out. He ended up winning the Electoral College, but lost the popular vote by a record 2.1 percent. In contrast, George W. Bush lost the popular vote by just one half of one percent.

Democrats have won the popular vote in six of the last seven elections: 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012, and 2016. This is an astonishing feat, which in any other country would have solidified them as the party in power for the foreseeable future. But because we have the Electoral College, the deficiencies in the Democratic coalition are thrown in contrast better than they would be elsewhere.

November 8 revealed that the Democratic base is retreating to urban areas (mostly along the coasts). Their decision to cut bait with working class whites was a mistake. And the Obama coalition disintegrated as soon as Obama was off the ballot. Unless Democrats address these issues, they can expect to see even more losses over the next four years.

The following two points are not mutually exclusive: power ebbs and flows between the two major parties, and parties can die. The valley that the Democratic Party currently finds itself in may very well be the former situation. But there is a possibilityhowever outside the norms of what weve come to expect from two-party politicsthat the Democratic Party is facing extinction.

The identity crisis facing Democrats is completely different than the one facing the Republican Party. It is even different from the battle for the soul of the Republican Party that came out of the Tea Party movement.

The Tea Party, as Rob Tranciski points out, essentially matched conservative-leaning districts with conservative representatives, especially post-Obamacare when the unpopularity of the law translated into Republican electoral victories. In the Obama era, the fight over the Republican Party was usually between the establishmentthe career politicians in Washington who served as party thought leadersand the base, or the grassroots voters and activists.

These two factions were often at odds over policies like entitlement spending, defunding Planned Parenthood, and, we now know, free trade deals. But despite these conflicts there was never much dispute over most of the core principals of the party: small government, respect for individual autonomy, Second Amendment rights, Supreme Court appointments, and federalism. Cohesiveness on these issues was showcased at the 2012 and 2016 party conventions, as well in outside forums like CPAC, the March for Life, or NRA-sponsored events.

The issue today in the Republican Party is whether or not it will convert en masse to Trumpism and its hostility to immigration, free trade, NATO, and an introverted foreign policy. But as a whole, there are more holdouts to Trumpism than the media and liberals like to admit.

Contrast those issues with the ones facing Democrats: a shrinking base, a shattered coalition, and policies that push people out of the party. One of the main reasons Hillary lost was because of increasing polarization between urban and rural areas. Clinton easily won large metropolises like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. She even ran ahead of Obama in those places. But voters further removed from an urban core outvoted the cities and put Trump over the top.

There are number of reasons for this discrepancy. One, Hillary was not Obama, a fact often lost on Democrats during the campaign that is now painfully obvious. The coalition Obama assembled for his two terms was formidable while it lasted. But without him on the ballot, the coalition either stayed home or backed Trump.

A few weeks after the election, The New York Times interviewed a number of less-than-enthused Milwaukee residents about why they voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, and why they stayed home last year or cast a protest vote. To these voters neither Trump nor Hillary were palatable, and for some the thought of voting for another Democrat felt self-defeating because of the stagnation of their communities during the Obama years.

Others felt like they couldnt vote for either candidate so they wrote in non-presidential candidates. This drop off in Wisconsin clearly cost Clinton the state: Trump won by just 27,000 votes. This theme came to the fore in the other closely won Trump states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. When it came time to vote for Hillary, the enthusiasm gap was very real.

Secondly, the policies of the Democratic party increasingly serve as an ideological purity test that lies outside the political mainstream. Internal dissent is often not tolerated. The party position on divisive issues like transgender bathrooms, wedding cake mandates, sanctuary cities, unlimited and unrestricted abortion access, and illegal immigration is mismatched with public opinion. Moderate Blue Dog Democrats, once a large part of the Democratic coalition, are all but extinct. This leaves a party consumed by progressive policies but without a counterbalancing ideology to keep the party apparatus in check.

Finally, the decision to excise the white working class from the Democratic coalition proved to be a fatal mistake. The Clinton team assumed it would win the Blue Wall states on the backs of reliable white working class voters who have voted Democratic since 1992 (and in some states, like Wisconsin, since 1984). But her rhetoric on coal, globalism, social issues and Trumps temperamentcombined with the fact that she campaigned around those statesdoomed her campaign from the start.

Trumps message of economic nationalism, protectionism, and America First was enough to carry Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania and proved the wall wasnt meant to last.

Thus, Clintons defeat can be simplified into three core issues: ideological extremism, a deliberate decision to campaign around a crucial part of her base, and the enthusiasm gap. But in a sense, those causes of defeat are also symptoms of defeat. Clinton campaigned the way she did because she was convinced the Democratic Party had a lock on certain demographics and trendsthe so-called demographic destiny theoryso the party could move in any direction and only make electoral gains.

The enthusiasm gap was explained away by saying that turnout is always lower in the midterm elections anyway, and Democrats could count on their base to come out for presidential elections. These assumptions were clearly the wrong ones to make. But it led the party to move far enough left that the middle was up for grabs. And Trump was able to capture it.

The debate among Democrats now is how far left to go, or whether to come back to the middle. There isnt yet much of a consensus (although if Tom Perezs election to DNC chair means anything, the party is feeling compelled to go wide), but pushing even more left will lead to the death of the Democratic Party as we know it, even if its replacement retains the name.

Assuming the party fails to course correct, which is well within the realm of possibility, it will inevitably become filled with progressive candidates and a base eager to vote them into office. Conservatives sometimes joke that there isnt much of a difference between a Democrat and a progressive to begin with.

But the key difference is that progressives follow the policies of American liberalism to its logical conclusions. Under progressivism, liberal openness to charter schools becomes a doubled-down commitment to failed public education and its unions. Religious liberty compromises become government-coerced mandates. Popular restrictions on abortion become a hill to die on for unlimited abortion rights. Supreme Court appointments hinge on the mood of the day. Of course, Democrats and liberals already spar with the right over these issues. But as a whole, the party has not completely moved away from its foundations.

This, then, is how the Democratic Party dies. Its death wont be like the Federalist Party or the Whigs, both of which existed under certain conditions and evaporated when those conditions disappeared with the evolution of the republic. Todays Democratic Party will die by hollowing itself out to progressive ideology and leaving moderate and historically liberal voters behind.

Democrats are learning the hard way that coalitions are not built on identity, but on ideology. The further left the party moves, the more voters are up for grabs by Republicans. If the party moves far left enough, it might continue to call itself Democraticbut in reality it will be the Progressive Party of America. What 2016 showed is that the Democratic Party as we know it is going extinct.

Continue reading here:
Is The Democratic Party Going Extinct? - The Federalist