Mediaboss Marketing

The Obama-Trump voter is either the author of our current political crisis or, a marginal, irrelevant freak whos been as overrepresented in political commentary as disaffected male comedians have been in half-hour dramedies.

It all depends on when and whom you ask. On November 9, it looked like a critical mass of white, working-class Obama voters in the Midwest decided to vote for the kind of change Barack couldnt believe in. One month later, some studies argued that this was a geographic illusion: Obama counties did switch to Trump, but only because so many traditionally Democratic voters stayed home.

By spring of 2017, however, a consensus formed in favor of the first hypothesis: In a few razor-tight swing-state races, Obama-Trump voters were decisive. Now, the only question was whether Democrats should care. In the Washington Post last week, Dana Milbank answered in the negative: New data from the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group showed that there were fewer Obama-to-Trump voters than popularly believed, and that most of these voters were less Trump Democrats than they were Obama Republicans people who were willing to turn left to express their displeasure with the smoldering ruins of the George W. Bush presidency, but who are otherwise more at home in Red America.

There are swing voters in every election. The fact that the latent conservatism of white Obama voters in the Rust Belt combined with Clintons idiosyncratic weaknesses, mistakes, and improbable misfortunes tipped the last contest to the GOP is of no great consequence, Milbank argues. The Democrats should just focus on improving the turnout rates of the groups that agree with them and avoid nominating the subject of an active FBI investigation in 2020 instead of pandering to a bunch of Trump Democrats who barely exist. As Milbank writes:

These people arent Obama-Trump voters as much as they were Bush-Obama voters. This is important, because it means Democrats dont have to contort themselves to appeal to the mythical Trump Democrats by toughening their position on immigration, or weakening their support for universal health care, or embracing small government and low taxes. What Democrats have to do is be Democrats.

The New York Times Nate Cohn begs to (partially) differ. Cohn accepts that white, working-class Obama-to-Trump voters made up a tiny slice of the national electorate. And he agrees that most of these voters lean Republican, oppose the Affordable Care Act and liberal immigration policies, and were attracted to Trump primarily on the basis of his reactionary racial politics.

But Cohn insists that such voters were, nonetheless, decisive and that a small, but significant subset of the demographic appears to be winnable for Team Blue:

The [Cooperative Congressional Election Study] found that 26 percent of Obama-Trump voters identified as Democrats in their postelection studythats a significant share who continue to identify with the Democratic Party despite voting for Mr. Trump.

Democrats were probably still winning a lot of these voters in 2016. The results speak for themselves to some extent. Jason Kander lost his Senate race in Missouri by just three percentage points, even as Mrs. Clinton lost by 20 points. Even Democrats who didnt run ahead of Mrs. Clinton over all like Tammy Duckworth in Illinois, Russ Feingold in Wisconsin or Katie McGinty in Pennsylvania nonetheless ran far ahead of Mrs. Clinton in traditionally Democratic, white working-class areas.

Mrs. Duckworths performance is probably the most telling. She won Illinoiss 12th Congressional District a downstate, working-class district now held by Republican Mike Bost by nine points. Mr. Trump won it by 12 points.

Cohn further notes that a significant portion of the Republican Obama-to-Trump voters saw little appeal in the GOP before the populist demagogue came onto the scene: A Pew Research Center study found that 18 percent of non-college-educated white votes who leaned Democratic in late December 2015 ended up identifying as Republican-leaning one year later. Which is to say: They switched parties only after the Republican Party nominated an idiosyncratic celebrity who promised to protect entitlements, deliver universal health care, pass a $1 trillion infrastructure stimulus, and restrict the freedom of corporations to move overseas.

In my view, Cohns analysis shows that Milbank is both right and wrong. On the first count: It makes little sense for the national Democratic Party to make winning over the typical Obama-to-Trump voter its guiding ambition. The Democrats are never going to be number one with whites who believe they are oppressed by racial minorities.

But Milbank is wrong to suggest that Democrats can comfortably ignore all Obama-to-Trump voters, and to imply that the only alternative to ignoring them would be to embrace small government conservatism.

Heres the thing about non-college-educated white people in America: Theres a lot of them. And the design of our Constitutional system amplifies their clout not just in the Electoral College, but also in the House and Senate.

The Democratic Party has no major problem at the presidential level. Theyve won the popular vote in six of the last seven elections, and lost the Electoral College in two of those by freakishly tight margins. Team Blues crisis is in the states, and theres no way out of that crisis without winning more working-class white voters than they did during the Obama years. This will continue to be the case, even as America grows more diverse and urban: The structure of the Senate ensures that predominately white, rural states will continue to exert great political influence, no matter how absurdly unrepresentative (of the nation as a whole) their populations become.

To build sturdy Senate majorities and liberate poor and nonwhite Red State residents from reactionary rule Democrats are going to need to win over more non-woke white people. This should be possible, given how unpopular the GOPs fiscal agenda is. In political scientist Lee Drutmans analysis of the Voter Study Group data, most culturally conservative voters in 2016 espoused left-of-center views on economic policy. Just 26.5 percent of the entire electorate expressed broadly conservative positions on pocketbook issues.

If Team Blue is gonna try to add some economically liberal, cultural conservatives to its big tent, the ones who identified as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents before 2016 seem like prime targets.

And, contra Milbank, health care may be a winning issue for Democrats with such voters. Its true that 75 percent of Obama-Trump voters supported repealing the Affordable Care Act, according to CCES data. But Donald Trump and most other Republicans didnt say that they wanted to replace Obamacare with a less generous, market-based program that would leave more people uninsured, because cutting taxes on the rich is more important than guaranteeing Americans affordable health care. Rather, they promised to deliver care that was cheaper, better, more patient-centered, and universally accessible than that which the Affordable Care Act had provided.

A recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found that only 10 percent of Republicans wanted the GOP to replace Obamacare with a program that does less. And yet, every health-care plan Trump & Co. have pushed over the past six months would have done exactly that. The public is broadly aware of this, which is why Trumpcare has proven to be the least popular piece of major legislation in at least three decades.

Last month, a Vox/Survey Monkey poll found that one in seven Trump supporters feared that the GOP health-care bill would hurt them. These voters were, in the aggregate, poorer and less economically secure than the presidents other supporters. Critically, their fear of Trumpcare appeared to be alienating them from the president more broadly: Compared to other Trump backers, they were less confident in the presidents economic management, and more concerned about the Russia scandal and the administrations alleged ethical violations.

Recent focus groups with Obama-to-Trump voters produced a similar finding: When these voters were informed that Trump was pushing a conventionally conservative Republican agenda, they became more skeptical about the authenticity of their populist champion.

Further, a growing body of evidence suggests that foregrounding the GOPs grotesquely regressive plans for our health-care system would boost Democrats fortunes in a wide variety of 2018 districts. To take just one example: The first publicly released poll of New Jerseys 11th district finds that longtime Republican incumbent Rodney Frelinghuysens support for Trumpcare (a.k.a. the American Health Care Act) has put his seat in jeopardy. As Farleigh Dickinson political scientist Dan Cassino writes:

In the modified voter list sample, Frelinghuysen is down nine points against an unnamed Democratic challenger, 37 to 46. That, in and of itself, is surprising for an incumbent whos won every re-election bid by a wide margin.

Whats more surprising is the effect of his vote on healthcare. Embedded in the survey was an experiment: half of the respondents (412 respondents) were asked about their vote choice in next years election early in the survey, and the other half (398 respondents) were asked only after being asked Frelinghuysens AHCA vote. Respondents disapproved of his vote by a wide margin, 60 to 24, and while Frelinghuysen was down by 9 points among respondents who werent primed with his healthcare vote, the unnamed Democrat was up by 20 points, 50 to 30, among respondents who were asked about healthcare first. To put it simply, his vote on healthcare is costing him 11 points overall in the district, much of that among independents. In the baseline condition, independents favor him over the Democrat by 14; when primed with the AHCA vote, they prefer the Democrat by 15.

Democrats need to win more (non-woke) white people. Upon obtaining federal power, the Republican Party made cutting Medicaid to finance a tax cut for the rich its top legislative priority. The vast majority of Americans did not appreciate this.

Before Team Blue resigns itself to permanent irrelevance in rural America, it should try to make that last fact matter in 2018.

After Trump defended the very fine people at a neo-Nazi rally, the 41st and 43rd presidents joined other Republicans to repudiate bigotry.

Trumps response to Charlottesville led CEOs to distance themselves from the president.

He finished fifth at the GOP district convention and was attacked by out-of-state conservatives as a RINO, but John Curtis prevailed in the primary.

Shell temporarily fill the role vacated by Anthony Scaramucci.

Jerry Drake Varnell would have never tried to blow up a building without the FBIs help, his family says.

Donald Trump didnt just say something outrageous. He contradicted his own correction of an earlier outrageous statement. This is new and disturbing.

Helping an abnormal president appear sane is not a noble task.

And the GOPs heinous health-care bill may allow the Donkey Party to win them back.

Some argued that he was right to attack the left, but many Republican lawmakers reiterated that the violence was caused by white supremacists.

All of Mitch McConnells fundraising and Trumps endorsement only won Luther Strange a second-place finish and a runoff fight with Judge Roy Moore.

Ending cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers would inflict real pain on Americans.

Its a bold idea, and it faces steep hurdles.

The president condemned neo-Nazis and white supremacists but defended the right-wing protesters who simply wanted to preserve their history.

Like all New York mayors, he cant help seeing a future POTUS in the mirror. But theres no reason to think voters will agree.

Lisa Theris, 25, was found naked on a rural Alabama highway.

Many of Trumps closest allies want the Breitbart mastermind gone, while others reportedly worry about the mischief he could make in exile.

In a deep-red House district, the mayor of Provo is the front-runner but is under attack as a RINO.

The ex-Trump staffers confirmed that they had a child together last week, with Delgado coming forward with her side of the story for the first time.

See more here:
Trump Democrats Are Rare But Electorally Important - New York Magazine

Having been gobsmacked not once but twice by Donald Trump, Democrats at last are moving beyond resistance to confront their core challengereviving the partys competitiveness across middle America.

First, Democrats were flabbergasted by how easily Trump wrested the Republican presidential nomination from a least a dozen more qualified contenders, even though he was not really a Republican, a conservative, or a politician. The second and deeper shock came when Trump stole a victory in the Electoral College despite trailing Hillary Clinton badly in the popular vote.

Democrats braced for the worst, hunkering down to stop a demagogic assault on constitutional democracy. Despite the GOPs shameless complicity in Trumps political vandalism, the nations political and civic institutionsyes, including a free pressthus far have held up pretty well. Trumps failure to engineer an Obamacare repeal or get traction in Congress on any of his other top priorities has reinforced the sense that he may not be able to inflict as much damage as originally feared. Things could changeespecially on foreign policy, where Trump isnt so constrainedbut his administration is beginning to look more shambolic than sinister.

Still, the Trump scare has concentrated Democrats minds in useful ways. Its brought home the realization that the party must expand its appeal geographically as well as demographically to contest Republican dominance of national and state politics. Democrats need to start winning in the red zone.

That will require reaching beyond core partisans and making new arguments to moderates, independents, and disaffected Republicans. One thing Democrats agree on, left to center, is that the party needs to offer voters a positive case for change, not just complaints about GOP extremism.

Thats why Democratic congressional leaders recently came out with their Better Deal agenda. While it mostly reprises populist clichs from the 2016 electionthe rigged economy, and a softer version of Trumps anti-trade stancethe document advances a new theory for why U.S. economic growth has slowed down since 2000 and why wage gains have lagged: The concentration of power in a few corporations has stymied competition across the U.S. economy.

Whatever the merits of that viewit seems plausible in some sectors like financial services or Big Beer, less so in the robustly competitive and innovative tech/internet sectorthe Better Deal reflects the outlook of Democrats from deep blue strongholds and allied interest groups and donors. As such, it has limited relevance to the challenge of winning converts among voters where were not winning: the suburbs, exurbs, small cities, and towns and rural communities between the coasts and outside the big cities.

For that, the party will have to look to leaders who win elections and govern effectively on the nations competitive political terrain. In August, a diverse group of themgovernors, state officials, mayors, and members of Congresslaunched a new platform for staging a Democratic turnaround.

New Democracy is a home base and support network for pragmatic leaders committed to making Democrats a truly national party again. Key figures include Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper; Mayors Steve Benjamin of Columbia, Mitch Landrieu of New Orleans, and Michael Hancock of Denver; U.S. Reps. Jim Hines of Connecticut, Terri Sewell of Alabama, John Delaney of Maryland, and Stephanie Murphy of Florida; former Obama Cabinet officials Tom Vilsack and Ken Salazar; and, Oregon Treasurer Tobias Reed and Georgia State Rep. Scott Holcomb.

These leaders use radically pragmatic means to advance progressive goals. They are known as effective problem-solvers, not ideological warriors.Instead of indulging in populist us versus them rhetoric, they emphasize voters shared aspirations for stronger and broader economic growth. They reach across cultural divides by stressing the common rights and obligations of citizenship rather than the narrower demands of interest and identity groups.

Crucially, these leaders arent interested in waging sectarian battles with other factions over control of the Democratic agenda. While opposed to political purity tests, they understand that Democrats are in the minority because the partys pragmatic wing has shrunk, and needs to be rebuilt. They seek not to impose their views on others, but to build a bigger Democratic tent.

New Democracy provides a platform from which these leaders can develop new ideas and narratives about where Democrats would lead the country; recruit and support like-minded candidates; and start building grassroots support among citizens fed up with the ideological and partisan trench warfare that has paralyzed government in Washington and in too many states.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't).

Subscribe

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

This last goal is crucial. As polarization has deepened across U.S. society in this century, political energy, activism, and dollars have migrated toward the right and left poles. This has opened doors to political intolerance and extremism, a new political tribalism that leaves Americans who are not singularly motivated by ideology or partisanship without a political home.

On this score, its no accident that mayors play a key role in New Democracy. As Washington sinks deeper into partisan paralysis, the impetus for creative governing in America has moved from the federal to local governments. Metro regions have become our real laboratories of democracy, as leaders by necessity pursue collaborative strategies to attract innovative businesses and nurture start ups, build modern infrastructure, improve urban schools and help workers get new skills, and test new approaches to combatting crime and poverty. National Democrats have a lot to learn from accountable local leaders who are rebuilding public confidence in progressive government from the ground up.

Whether hes been defanged or not, Donald Trump occupies the White House for the same reason Republicans dominate national and state politicsbecause too many Democrats complacently assumed that the nations changing demographics would guarantee them electoral majorities. Now its clear that the party cant win by energizing a base that isnt big enough.

The pragmatic leaders of New Democracy are determined to broaden the partys base the old-fashioned wayby wooing and winning voters everywhere with more persuasive arguments for change.

Read more from the original source:
How Democrats Can Take Back Middle America - Daily Beast

With Republicans trying to celebrate their day at the Illinois State Fair nearby, House Speaker Michael Madigan's Democrats at a hearing Wednesday picked apart Gov. Bruce Rauner's changes to legislation to reshape the state's school funding system.

The House later is expected to debate and reject legislation that reflects Rauner's version, an attempt by Democrats to embarrass Rauner on what is supposed to be a celebratory day for Republicans at the fair. The Senate has already voted to override the Republican governor's veto, but doing so in the House would require GOP lawmakers to defy Rauner to join Democrats.

Without a new formula in place to divvy up education money, the state is unable to cut checks for schools. That's left districts scrambling to cut costs in an effort to keep their doors open if an ongoing political fight means they have go months without state funding.

"Yesterday, I denied stamps for our kindergarten teachers to send welcome letters to parents," said Sandoval School District 501 Superintendent Jennifer Garrison told the House hearing. "This is not on us, this is on the legislature to solve."

Under Rauner's changes, Chicago Public Schools would get $463 million less in state money this year compared to the Democrat-approved version, according to an analysis by the Illinois State Board of Education. That money would be redistributed to other districts, meaning more than 97 percent of school districts would see more money this year under Rauner's plan than the legislation backed by Democrats.

"There's no reason why we should be putting districts against each other," said Rep. Will Davis, a Democrat from Homewood who sponsored the bill vetoed by Rauner. "Why are we unnecessarily taking dollars from one district just because the governor has a problem with that district? Maybe he and the mayor need to sit in a room and hash out their problems, but there's no reason why schoolchildren throughout the state of Illinois should be subject to whatever their issues are. And clearly they have some issues."

Garrison and other education officials criticized Rauner's amendatory veto, saying he risks undermining other provisions that would bring greater equality to how funds are distributed and help ease local property tax burdens. While they acknowledged some of their schools would see an initial bump in funding under his plan, they said other changes in his veto mean districts that lose even a handful of students would be financially penalized in future years. They said some of his changes also seem to pit the school districts against business development.

Under both the Democratic-passed bill and the governor's version, the amount of state money schools receive would depend in part on the assessed value of property in the district. The less available property wealth in a district, the more state money it could receive.

But unlike in the Democratic bill, Rauner's version would count the assessed property value that includes TIF districts and in areas that have mandated property-tax caps. School districts can't tax the growth of property value in those areas but still would receive less state money.

Rep. Jeanne Ives, R-Wheaton, questioned the superintendents' prediction of a loss of state money under Rauner's version, saying the Illinois State Board of Eduction has not produced any numbers to back up those claims.

"Nobody knows what the numbers will be in 2020," Ives said.

At one point, she asked a group of education officials testifying before the committee a question, and Ralph Martire, executive director of the liberal Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, leaned in to talk to the panel.

Ives said Martire's offered counsel was an indication that members of the panel could not answer questions on their own. That prompted a rebuke from Davis, who said the comment was insulting and that panelists are allowed to consult with advocates and lobbyists.

"Is this really what it's deteriorating to in state government? Really?" Canton Superintendent Rolf Siversten asked Ives. "You are embarrassing yourself."

Ives said that she was "standing up for taxpayers across the state who are funding enormous systems that fail to educate children."

mcgarcia@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @moniquegarcia

The rest is here:
Madigan's Democrats criticize Rauner's education plan on Republicans' day at the fair - Chicago Tribune

Donald Trumps comments on the weekends violence at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, claiming both sides were to blame for the clashes have attracted ire from Republicans and Democrats alike, including former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

In the aftermath of Trump's reportedly unscripted press conference, Sanders tweeted that the president was embarrassing our country and the millions of Americans who fought and died to defeat Nazism.

Related: Watch Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson defend Trump on Charlottesville in bizarre slavery segment

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Other leading Democrats have condemned Trumps comments. Democratic Senator Brian Schatz tweeted: "As a Jew, as an American, as a human, words cannot express my disgust and disappointment. This is not my President."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement that the president had made comments showing what he really believes.

The President's continued talk of blame 'on many sides' ignores the abhorrent evil of white supremacism, the statement reads.

U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions about his response to the violence, injuries and deaths at the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, as he talks to the media in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York City on August 15. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Republican heavyweights also lambastedthe president's stance.Republican Speaker Paul Ryan tweeted:White supremacy is repulsive. This bigotry is counter to all this country stands for. There can be no moral ambiguity."

Senator John McCain criticized the president, directly calling on him speak out against bigotry. "There's no moral equivalency between racists [and]Americans standing up to defy hate [and] bigotry. The President of the United States should say so," he tweeted.

A White House insider revealedtoCNN reporter Jeff Zeleny that the conference, in which Trump said alt-left protesters had chargedat the group of white nationalist demonstrators, had been wholly the presidents own initiative. "That was all himthis wasn't our plan," the official told Zeleny.

In the Trump Tower conference, the president appearedto return to his initial position on the riots, a switch from Saturday, when he called racism evil. Im not putting anybody on a moral plane, Trump said. You had a group on one side and group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs. There is another side, you can call them the left, that came violently attacking the other group. You had people that were very fine people on both sides.

Not all those people were neo-Nazis. Not all those people were white supremacists. Many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E Lee."

See original here:
Democrats and Republicans Condemn Trump's Remarks After Charlottesville Violence - Newsweek

The News Tribune

Pierce County Democrats repeatedly violated campaign finance laws attorney general The News Tribune The Washington State Attorney General's Office says Pierce County Democrats repeatedly violated state campaign finance laws by failing to properly report thousands of dollars in spending and donations. The attorney general's complaint, filed Monday in ... and more »

See the rest here:
Pierce County Democrats repeatedly violated campaign finance laws attorney general - The News Tribune