Mediaboss Marketing

This is a guest opinion column

I happen to be a Democrat through and through pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ rights, anti-death penalty, pro-taxing-the-rich, pro-criminal justice reform. So clearly I support candidates who share those values. But this Tuesdays primary election is less about arguing over policy positions and more about who you want representing those policies. So how do you decide who to support in the primary? Here are the top 10 things I look for in a candidate to support:

1) First and foremost, a great candidate is someone with the courage to run even (and especially) if the seat is not likely to be won. Running should never be about boosting your own brand or your own ego. Even when you cant win, running is about making the place you live a better place for everyone else to live. Every campaign is an opportunity to build community and empower residents to speak up for what they need and want.

2) An excellent candidate has a track record of involvement/service in the community, and/or expertise in areas over which the position has power. If a Google search of your name brings back no evidence of that, Im skeptical that this is more than a fleeting interest.

3) A candidate worth our support is willing to do the hard work that needs to be done even if its boring, painful, awkward, or monotonous. (This means doing the endless hours of fundraising calls, but also showing up to community events, putting down the microphone, and really listening to people about whats affecting their lives.) The truly dedicated will outwork the competition and out-slog the slog.

4) A great candidate can tell a compelling story. Communication skills are key for getting things done as an elected official, and the campaign is the perfect opportunity to show them off. If a candidate cant explain why a policy matters and why theyre the best person for the job, if they cant answer questions off-the-cuff in public forum, they probably wont be a very good leader once in office.

5) A candidate worth supporting is one who understands the political game - the rings that want to be kissed, the endorsements that matter, the machines that expect payment, the rivalries to balance - and yet isnt captured by that game. I dont like the political game, its dirty and benefits only the elite. But if a candidate doesnt understand it and cant play it (at least a little), they will get eaten alive once in office.

6) A candidate to believe in is one with focus and discipline. They make a plan and work that plan, willing to change tactics (or even change their mind!) when the situation truly demands it, but not easily distracted or discouraged by their detractors. If a candidate is constantly changing positions and releasing new messaging in response to what their opponent said, they probably dont have thick enough skin for this work.

7) An excellent candidate will have experience commensurate with the position they seek. Not everyone needs to be a lawyer or even have a degree, but if the job requires managing a staff, if it requires managing a budget, it wont be their first time. If you are going to be responsible for creating policy related to energy and utilities, for example, youd better be able to talk intelligently about how all that works.

8) Plenty of people can loudly lament problems and condemn enemies, but a stand-out candidate will be more interested in solving problems and building bridges. My ideal candidate is practical, willing to sacrifice purity of ideals in favor of making peoples lives better. I want someone who can propose novel policy solutions, but also get behind someone elses solution if its the one that can actually get passed.

9) An inspiring candidate is one who recognizes that this campaign (and policy making if elected) will be a team effort, not a solo act. Whether the campaign team is paid or volunteer, experienced or new, they will lead that team by being its hardest working member and its biggest cheerleader. Once in office, I expect theyll know how to surround themselves with smart advisors.

10) Last (and perhaps most unusual), when choosing who to invest in, I look at whether the candidate has supported other candidates (with time or money) in the past. If youve never given to someone elses campaign, how can you ask others to show up for you?

(You can find out which if any federal campaigns a candidate has donated to by searching at https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/ . You can find out the same about state campaigns at https://fcpa.alabamavotes.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/ContributionSearch.aspx You might be surprised to find, for example, that most of the Republican candidates for Governor and US Senate never gave a dime to Donald Trumps campaign.)

Tabitha K. Isner is a business analyst, ordained minister, foster/adoptive mom, activist for government transparency, and was the 2018 Democratic nominee for Alabamas 2nd Congressional District.

See the original post:
Guest opinion: 10 things to look for in picking a candidate - whether Republican or Democrat - AL.com

This is an opinion column.

In 2020, Donald Trump was the only issue on the ballot. Voters didnt turn out in record numbers because of their favored policies or enthusiasm over the Democratic ticket. In fact, it didnt really matter who was on the other side of the ballot from Trump. Now, its becoming uncomfortably clear that Democrats didnt send their best people.

President Joe Bidens approval rating has been under water since September of 2021. The manner in which hes failed has been truly spectacular.

Read more Cameron Smith columns:

His exit from Afghanistan was abysmal. His management of the COVID-19 pandemic has been rudderless. Biden has overseen a complete immigration mess at Americas southern border. His rhetoric in support of Ukraine has been admirable, but Biden clearly doesnt have an end-game. His energy policies have exacerbated American pain at the fuel pump. Biden even took three months to engage infant formula shortages across the country.

Worse still, the inflation he claimed to be transitory has moved from an esoteric economic concept into a painful reality hammering every family budget in America.

The president who told us that his election marked a time to heal has now decided to attack ultra-MAGA Republicans as dangerous extremists. Shockingly, six months of research by the Center for American Progress Action Fund determined that Democrats should use Trumps old campaign slogan as their anti-slogan.

Former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki claimed that ultra-MAGA is Bidens brainchild. He apparently added ultra to give it a little extra pop.

Wow. If that doesnt inspire confidence in Bidens leadership, Im not sure what will.

Clearly, the Democratic consultant class never learned from Hillary Clintons basket of deplorables fumble. Democrats heading into the 2022 midterms aspire to remind voters of 2020. Apparently Democrats: Still not Republicans was too on the nose.

We live in an era where many of us simply vote for our respective political teams regardless of performance. Our party is the righteous one, and the other is either materially misguided or downright evil. That said, most of us arent oblivious to reality.

The 2020 political narrative that Biden would be a moderate bridge to Harriss progressive future has been overtaken by a great number of events. The situational pressure has exposed both the president and vice president as deficient at governing.

Democrats have left themselves in a horrible political bind. They cant let Biden ride off into the sunset at the end of his first term without giving Harris a shot. In a bit of irony, Harris is even less popular than Biden.

Progressive Democrats had hoped that giving Harris a policy initiative to handle might bolster her credentials to be commander-in-chief. Sadly, her task was addressing the crisis at the southern border. Bidens epic failure on immigration is largely because he asked Harris to lead. To make matters worse, Harris rivals Biden as a word salad generator, a gift to any opponent with a decent media team.

Democrats should be thanking Trump and his acolytes because he continues to keep the national conversation focused on the 2020 election and the attack on the U.S. Capitol. That is precisely the distraction Democrats need to keep voters from evaluating their track record over the last few years. Ive never had a problem criticizing Trump for such unforced errors and leadership failures. Where are the Democrats being honest about Biden and Harris?

At what point are Democrats who so freely criticized Trump for a lack of competency and clarity going to admit the Biden administration is failing in ways that harm America regardless of our partisan perspectives. Im not asking any Democrat to support Trump or enthusiastically get behind a Republican, but, to borrow from Biden, Come on, man!

I understand if folks like Rep. Kevin McCarthy, Gov. Ron DeSantis, or Sen. Rick Scott give Democrats hives. Democrats werent going to vote for them anyway. Democrats do need to drag the Biden administration out of the ditch or find someone else quickly. Both parties need to move forward from 2020, address 2022 with sobriety, and put up candidates in 2024 who wont continue to fail our nation.

Smith is a recovering political attorney with three boys, two dogs, and an extremely patient wife. He engages media, business, and policy through the Triptych Foundation and Triptych Media. Please direct outrage or agreement to csmith@al.com or @DCameronSmith on Twitter.

Go here to read the rest:
Cameron Smith: Biden and Harris prove Democrats didnt send their best people in 2020 - AL.com

Nan Whaley| Akron Beacon Journal

During my time as the mayor of Dayton and as Ive traveled to all 88 of Ohios counties on this campaign, what Ive heard over and over again is that everyone, regardless of what they look like or where they live, wants to feel safe in their communitywhile also being treated with respect. Its not hard to believe both of these things at the same time, but too many politicians try to set up a false choice between the two.

It doesnt have to be this way. As governor, Ill fight to make sure every Ohioan feels both safe and respected.

After the murder of George Floyd, Dayton like so many other cities took a hard look at how we could improve the relationship between our police and our community, especially our Black community. Where so many other cities fell short, I believe we succeeded. Why? Because we brought together the people directly involved to tackle these tough issues.

Over the course of 10 months, more than 100 Daytonians met for hours every week to examine our public safety policies and make recommendations for improvement. The groups included folks from all walks of life: clergy, activists, public defenders, neighborhood leaders, and importantly Dayton police officers.

Democrats: Cranley selects Sen. Teresa Fedor, Whaley picks Cheryl Stephens as running mates

The result was hundreds of changes, including body cameras, better training and recruitment practicesand a new alternative responder model that will get people the help they need while allowing police to focus on their mission: preventing crimes. But just as important was the process itself. Not only did we build real trust between citizens and police, but we also empowered them to create these solutions themselves.

While challenges remain, we are seeing results. We have new citizen groups in place to continue to implement these policies and examine additional changes. In 2021, while so many other cities across the nation saw increases in violent crime, Dayton actually saw a significant decrease.

If we can bring people together in Dayton to tackle these issues, we can do it all across Ohio. As governor, Ill create a Cabinet Coordinating Council on Justice to better coordinate these efforts across agencies.

More: Ohio governor's race: Nan Whaley, John Cranley debate who'd be better to face Mike DeWine

Well provide better support to local communities to create innovative public safety and crime prevention programs, investigate potential problems, and recruit and train the best police officers, including setting up a new college loan forgiveness program for police.

My administration will work to reform Ohios juvenile justice system to provide better oversight and make our state a national leader in this area once again. Well ensure our prison system focuses on rehabilitation and that prison employees and incarcerated people are safe.

Finally, we will strengthen Ohios re-entry systems so that when people have served their time, they can successfully return to their families and become productive members of their communities.

These common sense, bipartisan solutions will make Ohio safer. Just like we did in Dayton, I believe we can bring folks together to get these things done.

I know that my opponents will try to lie about my record and divide Ohioans on these issues. So let me be clear: I have never and will never support defunding the police. Our police officers have some of the toughest jobs imaginable and I have incredible respect for them.

I was proud to organize mayors across the country to successfully fight for hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for local police departments.

I also know that truly supporting our police means keeping them safe. Thats why I joined with police in opposing the permitless concealed carry bill that Gov. Mike DeWine signed that will put officers lives at risk.

Ohio deserves better than fear and division. No matter where you live in our state, you deserve to feel safe. I believe that is possible if we come together, reject the divisive politics of a few extreme politicians, and fight for our communities.

Nan Whaley is the former mayor of Dayton and a Democratic candidate for governor.

Follow this link:
Democrat Nan Whaley vows to involve police in talks about better relations with public - Akron Beacon Journal

Oregon makes it easy to vote fill out your ballot at home, then pop it in the mail, no stamp needed.

But Oregon voters dont get a say in which Democratic or Republican candidates get nominated for governor, Congress or the Legislature unless theyre a registered member of one of those parties. And right now, a huge chunk of Oregon voters about 41%, or nearly 1.3 million are not. (About 34% of registered voters are Democrats and 24% are Republicans.) Registering without a party affiliation has become much more common since Oregon adopted automatic voter registration tied to getting or renewing an Oregon driver license or state ID.

You might be among the 1.3 million who are not registered with a major party and its easy to check. Simply go to oregonvotes.gov/myvote. Enter your first and last names and birthday and youll see whether your registration is current and which party, if any, you belong to.

Many unaffiliated voters are perfectly content with that status. They get to vote in the May 17 primary for state labor commissioner, county commissioners, city council members and other non-partisan positions, such as auditor.

But elections officials say the top complaint about perceived election unfairness in spring primaries comes from voters who are certain they registered as members of the Republican or Democratic parties and are outraged someone changed their registration and took away their ability to vote for or against a major party candidate.

The Oregonian/OregonLive and state and county elections officials looked into many such complaints in 2020 and found no cases where a voters party registration was changed by anyone but the voter.

The upshot: If you want to vote for or against Tina Kotek, Bud Pierce or any other Republican or Democrat next month, you should act now. http://oregonvotes.gov/myvote and consider changing your party registration if youre not satisfied with the current one. All you need to switch your party membership online is your birthdate and Oregon driver license or state ID number to verify your identity. But you must do it by Tuesdays deadline to affect which ballot youll receive later this month.

-- Betsy Hammond; betsyhammond@oregonian.com; @OregonianPol

Read the original post:
Want a say in who becomes the Democrat or Republican nominee for Oregon governor? Tuesday is the deadline to - OregonLive

April 21, 2022

April 21, 2022

There are plenty of reasons that President Biden and the Democrats are in trouble this November. The lingering pandemic and worsening inflation are up there, but the inability of congressional Democrats to capitalize on their narrow majorities in the House and Senate has been just as consequential. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has mostly kept her caucus in line, but in the Senate, two Democrats Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) are almost single-handedly responsible for torpedoing Biden's presidency.

And it may be prudent for Democrats to move on from them.

There is no legal mechanism to expel these miscreants from the party. But there are growing strategic reasons why Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and his allies should make life so unbearable for Manchin and Sinema (both of whom aren't up for re-election until 2024) that they leave the party sometime before the 2022 midterms if one last push for even a microscopic version of the Build Back Better social investment package fails because of them. Go on a judicial confirmation binge first, but don't be delusional about what can be achieved with Manchin playing impossible to get in what looks like a plan to run out the clock on behalf of his fossil fuel overlords.

First, Schumer could announce that the Democratic Party will not support re-election bids for Manchin and Sinema and will actively side with their primary challengers. Second, the paircould be stripped of their committee assignments, after which Biden could deliver a speech arguing that Democrats who deliberately sabotage their party over and over again are not welcome in the big tent. The DNC could formally censure both senators, as the RNC did with GOP Reps. Liz Cheney (Wy.) and Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) due to their support for the impeachment of former President Trump.

It is hard to imagine either Manchin or Sinema refraining from a party switch in the aftermath of such public and dramatic rebukes. After all, the fragile Manchin hardened his opposition to the president's signature legislative goal after his feelings were hurt by a December White House statement in which Jen Psaki accused him of "a sudden and inexplicable reversal in his position, and a breach of his commitments to the president." In early February, Manchin declared the framework "dead."

I know what you're thinking: That's deranged! Why would Schumer and the Democrats willingly give up their Senate majority? Wouldn't that be passing control of the Senate majority to Mitch McConnell and the Republicans without even putting up a fight?

The best retort is that Democrats do not really haveworking legislative control of theSenate anyway. While Manchin and Sinema have occasionally roused themselves out of torpor to vote for things like the Bipartisan Infrastructure package, their votes have been needed on only a few important occasions like the COVIDrelief bill from March 2021 and the 50-50 votes to make appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. You can throw in the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Jackson Brown, too, even though she got two Republican votes, since McConnell would have probably invented some kind of "no confirmations in the spring before a midterm election year" rule to prevent even giving her a committee hearing.

Are those achievements sufficient to justify the extraordinary amount of damage that has been done to the Democratic brand over the past year, almost all of it inflicted by Manchin and Sinema on their own party? Considering that Jackson will get outvoted 6-3 or 5-4 for the next 20 years, that the electoral glow from the American Rescue Plan faded months ago, and that the single most important piece of it increasing the child tax credit and turning it into an automatic monthly payment was allowed to expire by these same Democrats, I would argue no.

It air-fries my blood just gazing at the list of missed opportunities to transform America into a more equitable and livable country. Here is a partial list of things that have not happened almost exclusively because of Manchin and/or Sinema's opposition: a federal minimum wage hike;an extension of the Child Tax Credit payments;paid family and medical leave;D.C. statehood;voting rights protections;a ban on partisan gerrymandering;universal pre-K and subsidized daycare; and investments in encouraging adoption of clean energy technologies and electric vehicles.

But is that frustration worth the obvious downsides of voluntarily sacrificing the Senate majority this way? After all, onceManchin leaves the party or loses his seat in the Senate, it is likely gone for a generation. There is not one other Democrat roaming the Mountain State, which Trump won in 2020 by nearly 40 points, who could come anywhere near winning, let alone run a competitive race. PushingManchin out of the Democratic Party permanently changes the already tough calculus for securing a Senate majority.

There is no such problem withSinema. Arizona now sports two Democratic senators, and its ongoing demographic transformation will likely work in Democrats' favor in the long term, despite this year's difficult national environment. Losing her seat now might mean going without it for just two years, at a time when Democrats are likely to be in the minority anyway. Sinema has almost no chance of winning her Senate primary, and the country is too polarized now for her to run and win as an independent la Joe Lieberman in 2006.

What about the Democratic legislative agenda in the Senate? Won't it be sunk by handing the majority back to Republicans? It's a great question, to which I would respond: What legislative agenda? The two people who are holding it up are in the headline of this article, and neither has given any indication recently that they intend to budge.

Finally, let's be clear-eyed about the bleak landscape facing Democrats. If the election were held today, Republicans would easily win the House, the Senate, and a number of swing-state governorships. One recent poll showed that for more than two-thirds of respondents, non-economic issues are the most important facing the country, with a plurality citing "the government/poor leadership." That sounds a lot like frustration with the failure of Congress to act on key priorities, or any priorities at all.

Democrats can't run against themselves here, because most people don't care whether it is two or 50 of them holding up the show. The only way to rail against the "do-nothing Senate"is to make Republicans the villain, and the only way to do that is to give them a branch of government to play with for a few months. Make Mitch McConnell the face of Congress' refusal to act after the Supreme Court guts Roe v. Wade,as well as forhis branch'sinability to take radical action, like price caps, to battle inflation.

Do I thinkDemocratsshould do this before exhausting every possible effort to get Manchin on board with any piece of legislation that could be called Build Back Better? Obviously not, but I'd rather take the 10 percent chance that this gamble works rather than the 99 percent certainty that Democrats are going to get blown out of the water in November if they play out the string begging for scraps from other members of their own party. A handful of federal judges and some solar panel tax credits are going to seem pretty hollow when Democrats are staring down years in the Senate wilderness.

And if there's one sure thing about going on the warpath against Manchin and Sinema, it's that it would at least momentarily fill that void.

Follow this link:
Should Democrats force out Manchin and Sinema? - The Week