Mediaboss Marketing

President Donald Trump looks on during a campaign rally in Battle Creek, Michigan, December 18, 2019.

Leah Millis | Reuters

Now that we're just a few weeks away from the Iowa caucuses and the real start to the 2020 voting process, there are still three basic facts the Democrats need to accept if they hope to have any chance to win the White House.

If you are a Democrat reading this, I warn you that this isn't going to be easy. But no pain, no gain. So here goes:

Let's start with what is still the toughest pill to swallow for Democrats: Trump won the White House fair and square.

The two-plus years of laser focus and high hopes connected to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation were the clearest examples that all too many Democrats believe the only reason Donald Trump is president is because the Russians somehow helped him cheat. Even the release of the Mueller Report showing no direct evidence of that hasn't stopped this narrative from continuing to be promoted regularly.

But let's face it, this is a very good way for the Democrats to lose to Trump again in 2020. Just like in sports, the worst way to overcome a loss in politics is to go around believing you didn't "really" lose and no real improvements or changes need to be made by your team to win next time.

Now just imagine if the Democrats spent as much time and effort on winning back the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin as they have been in pursuing the Russia collusion obsession and the impeachment process. If the latest polls in those states tell us anything, those other efforts have only made things worse for the anti-Trump forces. It's time to cut bait on the stolen election illusion.

Whether they deserve it or not, Democrats have consistently been viewed by most American voters as the party that is more concerned with the poor and lower middle-income earners in this country. In many ways, that's been a golden ticket to victory for Democrats in almost every major election. They only seem to mess it up when a Democratic administration presides over a worsening economy, (like under Jimmy Carter in 1980), or when Democratic candidates latch on to non-economic themes like social issues or foreign policy.

The problem for Democrats now is not only the fact that the overall economy and Wall Street are strong, but even Americans further down the income scale are now experiencing record wage gains. In fact, new data shows that the labor market has become so tight that rank-and-file workers are now getting bigger percentage raises than the bosses and top management.

But all is not lost for Democrats when it comes to economics, thanks to the sticky issue of health care. As health care insurance costs continue to rise, voters from both parties are still ranking health care very high on their list of top concerns going into 2020.

Some of the Democratic presidential candidates have made 'Medicare for All' a key part of their campaign promises. But compare that to the way then-candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton actively paraded their health coverage plans around in 2008, and you can see how no Democrat has really mined this issue properly this time around.

This issue is simply not going away, and any Democrat willing to offer an attention-grabbing new idea on lowering insurance costs stands to gain substantially in the polls. Of course, that opportunity is also still available for President Trump. So the Democrats don't have any time to waste.

Even mediocre students of American history should know that politics in this country have always been nasty. If you don't believe that, do a little reading about the election of 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

But the nastiness has really only been effective when it's directed at opposing candidates or parties. One of the rules just about every major American politician has followed is to never actually go after the opposing candidate's or party's voters. It's an important distinction.

More and more these days, that rule is being broken and it's mostly being broken by Democrats. The most egregious example from 2016 was Hillary Clinton's description of Trump voters as a "basket of deplorables," a term those Trump supporters have since taken on as a badge of honor.

But in another example of not learning from 2016's mistakes, we're still seeing 2020 Democrats and their supporters following this line. That includes the Democrat with perhaps the best "nice guy" persona, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who recently said Trump voters are "at best, looking the other way on racism"when asked by a cable news host if casting a vote for Trump could be considered a "racist act."

So far, Buttigieg's comments are the most egregious slam on Trump voters from an actual candidate. But prominent liberals and Never Trumpers are increasing their attacks lately. Filmmaker Michael Moore said this week that since two out of three white men voted for Trump in 2016, that means two out of three white men in America are "not good people," and "you should be afraid of them." Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather said last month that Trump voters are part of a "cult," a comment that major news media outlets including CNN echoed days later. Never Trumper Republican Jennifer Rubin has recently been pushing the line that Trump voters are poorly educated.

If the DNC has any power to put a lid on these kinds of comments from Democratic candidates and their supporters, it needs to exert that power right now. The "we think you're stupid and we hate and fear you now vote for us" line has never worked because there's no way it can.

The above three points may seem very simple and logical, but anyone who has been watching the Democrats since 2016 knows that this is kind of like an intervention for a stubborn drug addict. Each of the above truths is something many Democrats have been fiercely fighting against for some time.

The irony is, they need to give up that fight to win the contest that should be much more important to them overall.

Jake Novak is a political and economic analyst at Jake Novak News and former CNBC TV producer. You can follow him on Twitter @jakejakeny.

Excerpt from:
Democrats need to accept these 3 truths to beat Trump in 2020 - CNBC

U.S. President Barack Obama signs the Affordable Health Care for America Act during a ceremony with fellow Democrats in the East Room of the White House March 23, 2010 in Washington, DC.

Win McNamee | Getty Images

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lost her gavel and regained it in this decade. Obamacare played a major role each time.

In 2010, a voter rebellion against the health-care law helped Republicans wallop Democrats and gain House control. Eight years later, Democrats made GOP efforts to scrap Obamacare the centerpiece of their campaigns and then won back the chamber.

"I'll just tell you that the lesson from all of this is that health-care policy is treacherous politics," said Carlos Curbelo, a former Republican congressman. He won Florida's swing 26th District in 2014 after a campaign in which he promised to repeal Obamacare, then lost his seat to Democratic Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell in 2018 following a vote to scrap the law.

In the nearly 10 years since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act became law in March 2010, it has gone from political anchor to tailwind for Democrats. President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement became one of the defining issues of the decade and shaped recent elections more than just about any other policy issue.

"Backlash to the ruling party's actions on health care were a significant part of both the 2010 and 2018 waves," said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of election forecasting site Sabato's Crystal Ball. He added that resistance to the law also probably helped the GOP in the 2014 midterms, especially after a messy rollout of the insurance exchange website in 2013.

Obamacare sentiment reflects broader trends in American political opinion, Kondik said. Voters often buck the party in power, so the Affordable Care Act was less popular under Obama but gained traction once President Donald Trump took office. Both Democrats and independents started to feel better about Obamacare after Trump entered the White House, driving the increase in popularity, according to monthly Kaiser Family Foundation tracking polls.

Democratic calls to maintain the law particularly its provisions protecting Americans with preexisting medical conditions appeared to resonate with voters when Republicans got a real chance to replace the health system.

"Health care was on the ballot, and health care won," Pelosi told reporters in November 2018 after Democrats flipped House control.

The landmark law better known as Obamacare offered new subsidies for buying plans, barred insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, allowed states to expand the joint federal and state Medicaid program for low-income Americans and let children stay on their parents' plans until age 26, among other provisions. Last year, 8.5% of the U.S. population was uninsured, down from 13.3% in 2013, before Obamacare fully took effect.

Before the shift, the Affordable Care Act appeared to hurt Democrats politically at the outset as Republicans billed it as a government takeover of health care.

While a plurality of voters approved of the law a month after its passage, sentiment changed before the 2010 midterm elections, according to Kaiser surveys. In October 2010, 44% had an unfavorable view of the law, while 42% saw it favorably.

In the 2010 elections, Democrats lost 63 House seats. Republicans flipped the chamber and kept control until this year. The GOP also gained six Senate seats.

The incumbent president's party almost always loses seats in midterm elections. Even so, Obamacare appeared to propel the Democratic drubbing.

Nearly half or 45% of voters said their 2010 vote was a message of opposition to Obamacare, according to exit polling cited by NBC News in 2014. Only 28% responded that their vote was a message of support for the law.

After Republicans took over the House in 2011, then the Senate in 2015, they tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act dozens of times. The party made opposition to the law a central part of its political messaging for years though Obamacare remained safe as long as its namesake president sat in the Oval Office.

The GOP gained another 13 House and nine Senate seats in the 2014 midterms. Following the election, then-House Speaker John Boehner said resistance to the health-care law drove the results.

"The American people have made it clear: They're not for Obamacare. Ask all those Democrats who lost their elections Tuesday night. A lot of them voted for Obamacare," he said in November 2014.

Exit surveys cited by NBC News suggest the health-care law had a smaller effect in 2014 than it did in 2010. Only 28% of voters said they wanted to express opposition to Obamacare, while 12 percent said they aimed to show support for the law.

When Trump won the White House and the GOP held control of Congress in 2016, Republicans finally got their chance to dismantle Obamacare. While the House passed a repeal bill in 2017, the Senate never could. The GOP fell one vote short in a dramatic late-night vote on a bill to roll back major parts of the ACA.

The Trump administration has managed to dismantle pieces of Obamacare, both through administrative and legislative action. The GOP tax law passed in 2017 to end the individual mandate, a divisive provision that required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty.

Public opinion around the law started to shift after Republicans gained control of the White House and Congress and started to propose their own alternatives to Obamacare. For nearly all of the stretch from February 2013 to February 2017, monthly Kaiser polls found a larger share of adults had a favorable view of the law than unfavorable.

But in every month since May 2017, Kaiser has found more adults like the ACA than dislike it. In November, 52% of adults surveyed by Kaiser had a favorable view of Obamacare, versus 41% who had an unfavorable opinion.

Curbelo said opposition to Trump, and his most prominent policy push in trying to unravel Obamacare, helped to drive a rough 2018 election for the GOP.

"A large part of the debacle that was that election, certainly in the House, can be attributed to health care," he said.

The former congressman said he does not regret his vote to pass the American Health Care Act, the House Republican ACA overhaul, even now knowing he lost his seat. Curbelo said the vote "was about keeping [his] word" to repeal and replace Obamacare, which he had promised to do since he first ran for Congress.

At the same time, the top Democrats running for the party's presidential nomination all support Obamacare. They only disagree on how best to improve the system.

Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., want a "Medicare for All" system to move quickly to insure every American. Former Vice President Joe Biden and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg want Americans to have the option to buy into public insurance while keeping the private system.

"There is a significant segment on the left who appears to believe the ACA was insufficient, and even the candidates who are more moderate on health care, like Biden and Buttigieg, who want to do more on health care than the ACA did," Kondik said. "So at the very least, there seems to be some broad consensus that a future Democratic president/congressional majority should build on the ACA."

As the popularity of Obamacare and the former president himself have grown, Democrats have become more comfortable tying themselves to the ACA and Obama. In a presidential debate in September, Biden pointed to the fact that Warren said she was with Sanders on health care.

"Well I'm for Barack. I think Obamacare worked," he said.

In releasing his health plan in July, Biden also defended the law passed when he was vice president.

"I understand the appeal of Medicare for All," he said. "But folks supporting it should be clear that it means getting rid of Obamacare, and I'm not for that."

Graphics by CNBC's Nate Rattner

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

Read more here:
A decade of Obamacare: How health care went from wrecking to boosting Democrats - CNBC

House Republicans are feeling good about their defense of President TrumpDonald John TrumpGermans think Trump is more dangerous to world peace than Kim Jong Un and Putin: survey Trump jokes removal of 'Home Alone 2' cameo from Canadian broadcast is retaliation from 'Justin T' Trump pushed drug cartel policy despite Cabinet objections: report MORE in this months impeachment vote, and now want to use the divisive fight to cut into the Democratic majority in next falls elections.

Republicans would need to gain about 20 seats to win back the House majority, something seen as a tall order by most political observers.

Much will depend on the presidential election, as a Trump victory would likely offer some coattails for Republicans. Yet Trumps low approval ratings and the possibility he could again win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote makes the GOP an underdog in seeking to end Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiPoll: More independent voters trusting of news stories Health care, spending bills fuel busy year for K Street Trump goes after Pelosi in early morning tweets complaining about impeachment MOREs (D-Calif.) second Speakership.

Gains by the GOP are much more likely, and Republicans are confident they can use the impeachment votes by many House Democrats against them starting with those representing districts won by Trump in 2016.

There are 30 such seats following Rep. Jefferson Van Drews (N.J.) decision to switch parties and become a Republican.

For the Democrats running in those 30 Trump districts, they now need to tell their constituents why they voted against their vote for president, and I think that's going to be a very difficult argument to make, especially with President Trump on the ballot, National Republican Congressional Committee Spokesman Michael McAdams told The Hill.

McAdams argues Democrats will be in a tricky position given GOP voters are energized by an impeachment they oppose. He also noted polling that shows independents opposed to impeachment.

Democrats recognize the threat, particularly in districts such as Rep. Joe CunninghamJoseph CunninghamHow the 31 Democrats in Trump districts voted on impeachment The Hill's Morning Report - Vulnerable Dems are backing Trump impeachment GOP claims vindication, but Van Drew decision doesn't spark defections MOREs in Charleston, S.C., and Kendra HornKendra Suzanne HornHouse votes to temporarily repeal Trump SALT deduction cap How the 31 Democrats in Trump districts voted on impeachment Pelosi, other female Democrats wear black to mark 'somber' Trump impeachment vote MOREs in Oklahoma City. Those two districts were surprises for Democrats in 2018, with Horn having flipped a seat that had been held by Republicans since 1975 and Cunningham won a district held by the GOP since 1981.

At the same time, they arent sweating too much about the possibility of losing their majority.

One Democratic operative pointed to a recent Politico-Morning Consult poll showing 52 percent of respondents support impeaching the president, as well as a funding edge for the party.

The source said they expect Democrats in swing districts to place a strong focus on health care and drug pricing.

We have a huge, huge, huge advantage on drug prices and health care and it's where we're going to spend our money money that we have more than they do," the operative said. We have more money on the hard side than they do, which obviously goes a lot further.

Given Van Drews party switch, just one Democrat Rep. Collin PetersonCollin Clark PetersonGabbard under fire for 'present' vote on impeachment Gabbard rips Pelosi for delay of impeachment articles The Hill's Morning Report - In historic vote, House impeaches Trump MORE (Minn.) voted against impeachment. Peterson represents a district Trump won by more than 30 points. Hes held it for decades, but is likely to face a tough challenge.

Of the 30 Democrats representing districts won by Trump, McAdams noted that Trump won 13 by more than 6 1/2 points.

He also said New Jersey, where Van Drew appeared to decide his best route to reelection was to run as a Republican, will be a key state. Democrats gained four seats in the state in 2018.

Conservative outside groups have also ramped up spending on anti-impeachment ad campaigns, hammering Democrats on their votes in districts they see as winnable.

Shortly after the Houses impeachment vote, American Action Network announced plans to spend an additional $2.5 million in 29 Trump-won districts held by Democrats, following an $8.5 million spending blitz in the weeks leading up to the articles of impeachment coming to the floor.

And prominent figures in the party have been making the rounds on cable news and taking to social media in an attempt to amplify their anti-impeachment messaging, taking aim at Pelosi and leaders of the inquiry including House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffTrump's tweets became more negative during impeachment, finds USA Today Trump attacks Democrats over impeachment following call with military members Saudi sentencing in Khashoggi killing draws criticism except from White House MORE (D-Calif.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold NadlerJerrold (Jerry) Lewis NadlerImpeachment's historic moment boils down to 'rooting for laundry' Impeachment just confirms Trump's leadership 2019 was a historic year for marijuana law reform here's why MORE (D-N.Y.).

House Minority Whip Steve ScaliseStephen (Steve) Joseph Scalise2019 in Photos: 35 pictures in politics A solemn impeachment day on Capitol Hill House votes to impeach Trump MORE (R-La.) said he expects moderate Democrats to try to separate themselves from the impeachment narrative as the election grows nearer.

There are a lot of Democrats today who voted for people who can't go back home and explain that vote, and I will challenge them if they're getting a lot of people criticizing their vote, I would challenge them to invite Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff to explain what was done today, he told reporters immediately after the impeachment vote.

The Democratic operative said if Republicans were that confident about winning back the majority in 2020, fewer would be retiring.

So far 25 Republicans have announced they will not run for reelection next year, including Reps. Will HurdWilliam Ballard HurdSunday shows - Republicans, Democrats maneuver ahead of House impeachment vote Texas Republican: You can oppose impeachment and disagree with 'some of this behavior' Sunday Talk Shows: Lawmakers look ahead to House vote on articles of impeachment, Senate trial MORE (Texas), Mark WalkerBradley (Mark) Mark WalkerA solemn impeachment day on Capitol Hill GOP begins impeachment delay tactics with motion to adjourn The Hill's Morning Report - Vulnerable Dems are backing Trump impeachment MORE (N.C.) and George HoldingGeorge Edward Bell HoldingMark Walker mulling 2022 Senate bid, won't seek reelection in the House North Carolina congressman says he won't seek reelection after redistricting Democrats likely to gain seats under new North Carolina maps MORE (N.C.).

Some represent districts that appear likely to be won by Democrats.

The Cook Political Report has Democrats favored to win two seats in North Carolina that will be easier pickups for the party because of new congressional district lines brought about by a court decision. The two seats are held by Walker and Holding.

Democrats are also favored to pick up a seat in Texas.

If impeachment is so great for them, why are all their members retiring and why are they are not raising more money two signs that look bad for them in flipping the House, the operative said.

Go here to read the rest:
House GOP vows to use impeachment to cut into Democratic majority | TheHill - The Hill

To the Editor:

Re Democrats Sparred Over a Wine Cave. Its Billionaire Owner Isnt Pleased (news article, Dec. 22):

It is amazing how thin a skin some billionaires have. Criticize their opulence or even mention a wealth tax, and they are quickly insulted or get all jittery. I guess more money than most people can imagine is still not enough to feel secure.

However, the issue is not a $900 bottle of wine served at a fund-raiser for Pete Buttigieg, even though that sounds extravagant by any standard. The issue is money in politics.

I do not begrudge the wealthy their money and the lifestyle it buys. Opulence generates business and jobs, and capitalism has spawned a good life for the majority of us. However, there are too many around the world and here at home who continue to live in or near poverty. There simply needs to be a far better balance and a system free from the heavy influence in politics that concentrated and unfettered wealth brings.

If you do not want to end up as a political talking point, at least make your donations without the need to serve $900 bottles of wine.

Bruce NeumanWater Mill, N.Y.

To the Editor:

As someone who fervently hopes for a Democrat to beat President Trump in 2020, I am deeply troubled by the wine cave kerfuffle and the Democratic lefts purity test. If fund-raising among those with deep pockets is condemned as corrupt, Democrats are destined to lose.

The situation reminds me of what the Chinese call Ah-Q-ism after a fictional character by the author Lu Xun. Ah-Q rationalizes that he has succeeded despite his repeated failures because he has the moral high ground.

I fear this will be the Democrats fate in 2020; they will console themselves for having retained their purity while all of the values we Democrats hold dear will be trampled underfoot, not just for four years, but for decades to come because of Trumpisms victory.

Ginny MayerEdmonds, Wash.

See the rest here:
Wine Caves and Purity Tests in Democratic Politics - The New York Times

California is a near daily punching bag for White House, so it figures that the largest tax overhaul in decades pushed through by President Trump would take aim at this deep blue state. But Democrats are now working to rid the rules of a particularly galling feature targeting Golden State residents.

By a slim margin Democrats in the House voted to remove a cap on deductions based on state and local taxes collectively known as SALT. Under the Trump rules, a taxpayer can deduct up to $10,000 in such levies, a critically low amount in high tax states such as this one and New York, New Jersey and Illinois. Guess what? These state also happen to reliably vote Democratic, meaning the lower number is a slap at Trump foes.

Why it matters here should be clear. Housing prices mean new buyers have high property tax bills along with state incomes taxes. Holding these SALT levies to $10,000 means that taxpayers are denied thousands more in deductions they took in years past. A state report last year estimated that Californians will pay $12 billion more in taxes.

What the House Democrats did is to undo the cap but with an addition. The super-wealthy earning $100 million or more wont be in line for sky-high deductions as before.

The vote wasnt an easy one. Numerous study groups say that the deductions are a gift to upper income groups who are more likely to have bigger property and sales tax bills. That worried some Democrats and led progressive members to oppose the changes. But the Trump deduction cap harms many more than a plush segment of society.

In an opinion piece in the Times of San Diego, local Rep. Mike Levin, a Democrat, noted that 58,000 people in his coastal district making less than $100,000 per year will lose out due to the SALT deduction changes. Home sales may be harmed if buyers cant look forward to tax benefits that make a buy pencil out.

The future of the House measure is dim given the GOP majority in the Senate. But theres every reason to demand changes in politically contrived tax law.

This commentary is from The Chronicles editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters.

Read the original here:
Editorial: Democrats are pushing the right fix to a Trump tax law - San Francisco Chronicle