Mediaboss Marketing

RICHLAND, Ky. Several months after losing her state legislative seat representing a district outside Lexington in Madison County, Rita Smart still feels the pinch of the loss.

The former Democratic member of the Kentucky House of Representatives is sitting in the parlor of the beautifully appointed bed-and-breakfast, the Bennett House, that she owns and runs with her husband. She says: It was tough. I lost by 76 votes. Her voice trailed off at the mention of the remarkably close total.

By all accounts, she was a competent legislator. She is a small-business owner and spent three decades working for the University of Kentucky College of Agriculture.

She is polite, circumspect, and bewildered. I just cannot understand how I lost, she said.

In truth, she didnt her party did. The Democratic Party has suffered broadly in the middle of the country in the last few years, largely on the backs of its pull left under the presidency of Barack Obama. Though progressivism fit well for Democrats in urban areas, it fell flat and was widely rejected in places like Madison County.

It is not that voters liked or loved Republicans or found them more virtuous; it is that they found Democrats less aligned with their values, more likely to look down their noses at them, and not at all interested in listening to their plight.

Republicans at least made it OK to be in a church pew every Sunday, own a gun for protection and hunting, and not share all their money with everyone else.

Kentucky Republicans were handed a bucket of ice water last fall when they won the state House in a landslide that fit in nicely with their previous wins in the governors office and the majority in the state Senate.

The last time Republicans held the majority in the Kentucky state House was in 1921. Before the Democrats lost it in the fall, it was the last lawmaking chamber in the South still controlled by a Democratic majority.

Smart wasnt the only one to lose her seat. The speaker of the Kentucky House lost, along with 15 other incumbent Democrats. It was an honest-to-goodness wave election in this state, preceded by wave elections in 2010 and 2014 that placed Republican majorities in state legislative bodies across the country, as well as in the U.S. House and Senate. Democrats have lost more than 1,100 legislative seats since 2009.

That is a lot of voter angst toward one party. The question is when will the Democrats be ready to learn from it? The answer is unclear. Activists in the party seem more than happy to keep going left, but do they go at their own peril? They seem to believe Hillary Clinton was rejected because she was not left enough, ignoring the fact that most of the middle of the country where the election was won and lost is pretty moderate.

Smarts loss to Republican C. Wesley Morgan last year was not about her not representing her state and her district well; it was about the image the national party projects, and voters in the middle of the country have been rejecting that for nearly a decade.

The Democrats currently lack the ability to win back power because their concentration of power is in 94 counties across the country, according to an analysis by Dave Wasserman, U.S. House editor of the Cook Political Report.

If the Democrats were to branch out and employ a message and language that suit voters in Madison County, representatives like Smart would still be working in the state legislature and likely continuing to do a good job.

They still havent found their center nearly a year after Donald Trump stunned most Democrats. If they find it, Republican seats will start to be winnowed away. If not, the Republican Party will still chip away at seats like Smarts in every state across the country.

Salena Zito is a CNN political analyst, and a staff reporter and columnist for the Washington Examiner. For more information, visit http://www.creators.com.

Published: August 17, 2017 3:01 AM EDT | Updated: August 17, 2017 8:01 AM EDT

We recently asked you to support our journalism. The response, in a word, is heartening. You have encouraged us in our mission to provide quality news and watchdog journalism. Some of you have even followed through with subscriptions, which is especially gratifying. Our role as an independent, fact-based news organization has never been clearer. And our promise to you is that we will always strive to provide indispensable journalism to our community. Subscriptions are available for home delivery of the print edition and for a digital replica viewable on your mobile device or computer. Subscriptions start as low as 25 per day. We're thankful for your support in every way.

Originally posted here:
Kentucky shows why Democrats need a new message to attract moderate voters - Philly.com

Aug. 17, 2017 at 5:51 AM

The Peoples Climate Movement march in April in Washington.

What are the chances that Democrats will take over Congress next year? Obviously, its early, and polling isnt going to give us a very reliable picture just yet. But the number of candidates from each party getting in line to run can give us some useful hints about how things will shake out.

Last year, I wrote a few pieces about the numbers of candidates who had filed to run for Congress. Since 2010, there had been more Republicans than Democrats filing to run for Congress in every election cycle.

Ed Kilgore ran a similar analysis recently at New York Magazine, drawing from a longer time series made available by the Campaign Finance Institute. The main finding was that Democrats hold an enormous advantage in early candidate filings for the 2018 midterm elections. In particular, if we limit the analysis to the number of challengers to House incumbents who have filed for next year and have raised at least $5,000 in an effort to narrow our sample to truly viable candidates we see a record advantage for Democrats right now.

Number of House challengers who raised at least $5,000 by June 30 of year prior to election

Source: Campaign Finance Institute

But what exactly does this mean? Yes, Democrats had twice the number of challengers that Republicans did in 2006 and then took over the House in that election, while a similar advantage yielded similar payoffs for Republicans in 2010. But should we necessarily expect an advantage in the number of early candidates to lead to election victories?

In the chart below, I have plotted the Democratic advantage in early House challengers against the number of House seats won by Democrats since 2004. As the chart suggests, while there is a pretty small number of data points, this is a very strong relationship. Each additional percentage advantage in early candidates yields about 2.5 additional House members in the election.

Why do we see such a strong relationship? Its not precisely that the number of candidates causes a party to win more seats. After all, there are only so many House seats in play. What a large number of challengers does create is a better recruitment environment. If there are several challengers from whom to choose in a particular race, a party can pick the strongest nominee.

Political science research suggests that the recruitment of high-quality candidates explains a good deal of election outcomes if a party can convince a large number of skilled and experienced candidates to run for office, those candidates tend to do better and the party tends to win more seats. Indeed, the recruitment of quality candidates helps explain the development of the incumbency advantage in 20th century American politics. Finding strong candidates was Newt Gingrichs approach prior to the 1994 Republican landslide, just as it was Rahm Emanuels strategy for 2006.

Other factors will affect just how successful those recruitment efforts will be, of course. If a House member looks safe and the political fundamentals (including the state of the economy and the presidents popularity) dont look like theyre going to make incumbents unpopular, it will be hard to convince, say, a state legislator in a safe district to jump into a difficult and expensive congressional race.

But the environment right now suggests that Republican incumbents are vulnerable. President Trumps approval ratings are in the mid-30s, even amid a strong economy, and its hard to see how the environment will improve much for the GOP by next year. And one way Democrats have been responding to Trumps various norm violations is by running for office.

Of the 237 House challengers who raised at least $5,000 for the 2018 midterms by the end of June, 209 of them (88 percent) are Democrats. If we were to plug that into the regression line above, it suggests Democrats would pick up 93 House seats. This figure seems highly improbable given the number of seats that are actually competitive, as Kilgore and Kyle Kondik note. But it does suggest strong potential gains for the Democrats next year.

Of course, its still early, and the people who went to rallies last January and said Hell yes, Im running for Congress! might ask What was I thinking? by the time next January rolls around. And its hard to know just what the political system will look like by this time next year given the rapid pace of events lately. But indicators thus far suggest a strong year for the Democrats.

Visit link:
The Sheer Number Of Democrats Running For Congress Is A Good Sign For The Party - FiveThirtyEight

The Democratic National Committee is jumping into the ongoing waves of protests that have followed Saturdays events in Charlottesville, launching a#RiseAndOrganize campaign to direct activists toward electoral politics.

In addition to calling on Republicans to denounce Trump, the next step is getting people to commit to vote, explained DNC chief executive Jess OConnell. This is a galvanizing moment.

The DNC has spent weeks on a Resistance Summer campaign, one of several simultaneous national efforts to galvanize protesters and get them working on achievable political wins. The #RiseAndOrganize campaign, explained OConnell, would involve Democrats finding the best opportunities to grill their representatives in public, as well as talking to people on the sidelines about the need to get involved.

Using the message #RiseAndOrganize Democrats will communicate with their family, friends, neighbors and community and send a message Do not lose hope, Do not give in to fear,the DNC explained in a memo announcing the campaign.

More than 100 events were already being planned for the weekend, with a goal of hitting all 50 states. All summer, the existing network of progressive groups has been organizing people to attend congressional town hall meetings, as well as vigils after major events. Scores of gatherings to condemn the violence in Charlottesville, in which a woman was killed, were put together within hours of the news breaking, with more vigils following on Sunday.

But the progressive groups that organized those vigils have wildly diverging views of political action. In Durham, N.C., where a Confederate statue was pulled down by a cheering mob, the city has arrested Maoist activists who had worked only in fringe politics. In Birmingham, Ala., the leading Democratic candidate for a special U.S. Senate election offered to speak at a vigil in the citys Five Points district, but decided against adding a political tinge to it.

The #RiseAndOrganize push is the latest example of the Tom Perez-era DNC taking cues from political protests, in the hope that people will soon be ready to pivot from marches to voter canvasses. At the same time, in a series of interviews, White House political strategist Steve Bannon argued that Democrats would lose votes if they became the party of identity politics and protests.

The longer they talk about identity politics, I got em, Bannon told the American Prospects Robert Kuttner. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.

One focus of many of the vigils and of a new resolution from some members of the Congressional Black Caucus is whether Bannon should be fired from the White House.

Continue reading here:
Democrats launch #RiseAndOrganize campaign to build on Charlottesville protests - Washington Post

Congressional Democrats are taking aim at a host of statues of Confederate figures standing in the U.S. Capitol, escalating demands for their removal after violent clashes at a white-nationalist march in Virginia over the weekend.

While some Democrats have sought to keep attention focused on President Trump and his equivocal response to a rally where a counterprotester was allegedly killed by marcher who is a Nazi sympathizer, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called for the immediate removal of a dozen statues of Confederate figures included in the National Statuary Hall Collection.

That collection includes two statues selected by each state, and the presence of Confederate political and military leaders among them as well as other figures with well-known discriminatory views has previously attracted protests.

But the events in Charlottesville have galvanized activists who have pushed for the removal of those symbols from public spaces, and Trumps tweets Thursday decrying the effort put the debate over iconography front and center for many Democrats.

There is no room for celebrating the violent bigotry of the men of the Confederacy in the hallowed halls of the United States Capitol or in places of honor across the country, Pelosi said.

A spokesman for House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) indicated that congressional Republicans would not intervene to remove the statues without the states consent. These are decisions for those states to make, said the spokesman, Doug Andres.

But Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said Wednesday he would introduce legislation that would mandate the removal of those statues, saying they should not be afforded such a rare honor in this sacred space.

They are, unequivocally, not only statues of treasonous Americans, but are symbolic to some who seek to revise history and advance hate and division, he said.

Bookers proposal comes after other calls for the elimination of Confederate iconography from the Capitol and other federal property. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, for instance, successfully petitioned last year to have the state flag of Mississippi, which includes the Confederate battle herald, removed from display in a tunnel in the Capitol complex.

Separate efforts have aimed to remove the display of Confederate flags at federal cemeteries and to rename military posts that carry the names of Confederate generals.

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), who has previously led efforts to attach a provision to prevent the display of Confederate flags at federal cemeteries to spending legislation, said Thursday that he anticipated that push would expand to other places under federal purview.

The deadly violence in Charlottesville reminds us how dangerous it is to indulge in revisionist history or euphemisms about what these symbols mean, he said. Theres an interest at looking at all of it, not just the statutes or the military bases, but all of it.

But the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate struck a wary note Thursday, warning members of his party to keep their focus on Trump rather than on efforts to scrub Confederate monuments. At a news conference Tuesday, Trump said both sides were to blame for the violence in Virginia and that some very fine people were among the white-nationalist marchers, who were drawn to Charlottesville by an effort to relocate a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.

[Trump mourns loss of beautiful statues and monuments in wake of Charlottesville rally over Robert E. Lee statue]

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Trumps tweets Thursday attacking efforts to remove the Confederate statues represented an attempt to divert attention away from the Presidents refusal to unequivocally and full-throatedly denounce white supremacy, neo-Nazism, and other forms of bigotry.

While it is critical that we work towards the goal of Senator Cory Bookers legislation, we must continue to denounce and resist President Trump for his reprehensible actions, he said.

A poll released Thursday showed reasons for Democrats to proceed carefully. A NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll indicated that more Americans are dismayed by Trumps response to the violent march than are supportive of efforts to remove or relocate Confederate monuments.

Just over half of poll respondents said Trumps response to Charlottesville was not strong enough, compared to 27 percent who felt it was sufficient. But 62 percent of respondents said statues of Confederate leaders should remain as historical symbols including 44 percent of Democrats.

Democrats have taken aim at Trump: More than 60 House Democrats signed on to a censure resolution floated on Wednesday, and one member, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), said he would introduce articles of impeachment over Trumps Charlottesville response.

But Pelosi endorsed only the push to remove the statues Thursday, though she and other top leaders have previously handled the issue with kid gloves.

When Pelosi served as speaker, she quietly had the Lee statue moved from Statuary Hall, just off the House chamber, to a less prominent place in the Capitol crypt. But other statues remained in the hall, including that of Alexander Stephens, a Georgian who fiercely defended slavery and famously invoked the peculiar institution as the basis for the secession of the Confederate states.

Our new government, he said in 1861, is founded upon ... the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

And in 2015, when the issue of the Confederate statues was last thrust into the spotlight by the murder of nine South Carolina churchgoers at the hands of a white supremacist, top Democrats pushed to remove the Confederate flag from public places but stopped short when it came to the statues.

I think that we need to make sure the states understand who they have here, said then-Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

Kimberly Kindy and Ed OKeefe contributed to this report.

Read more at PowerPost

Originally posted here:
After Charlottesville, Democrats in Congress focus on Confederate statues - Washington Post

Mr. Menendez stands accused of using his position to advance the interests of Dr. Salomon Melgen, a friend and political patron, in exchange for luxury vacations and hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign support.

Mr. Menendez has repeatedly declared his innocence This is not how my career will end, he said when the indictment was handed down and vowed to win acquittal and then re-election in 2018. He raised more than $2 million for his campaign in the first six months of 2017.

Even a bribery conviction would not automatically force Mr. Menendez from office, under the Senate rules. He would either have to voluntarily resign his seat, or two-thirds of his Senate colleagues including at least 15 Democrats would have to vote to expel him.

Democrats largely have met Mr. Menendezs coming trial with silence, happy to let the daily torrent of Trump administration news overshadow it, refusing to speculate about the senators future even as some, most notably Mr. Torricelli, have begun to position themselves should Mr. Menendez step aside or be convicted.

But as the trial nears, Mr. Menendezs uncertain fate has been the subject of growing consternation and conjecture, from the courthouse in Newark to the corridors of the United States Capitol, especially after Dr. Melgen, an ophthalmologist, was convicted this spring in a separate case of defrauding Medicare of nearly $100 million.

The jury found Dr. Melgen, 63, guilty of all 67 counts. He faces spending much of the rest of his life in prison, which could add pressure to cooperate with prosecutors, although there is no evidence that has happened. Dr. Melgen and Mr. Menendez are co-defendants, and a person familiar with Dr. Melgens legal strategy said there were no circumstances under which he would testify against the senator.

Patricia Enright, a spokeswoman for Mr. Menendez, said it would not matter even if he did: There is nothing that Dr. Melgen could provide the government that would help them or bolster their case.

There is also no evidence any plea discussions have occurred for Mr. Menendez. There has never been a conversation between the Justice Department and Senator Menendez and his team about anything other than a trial, said a person familiar with Mr. Menendezs legal strategy.

Jury selection will begin on Tuesday, nearly two and half years after he was indicted, with opening statements slated for Sept. 6. The trial is expected to last one to two months.

Under New Jersey law, if Mr. Menendez does exit the Senate before his term is complete, the governor would appoint a temporary replacement who would serve until the 2018 election. For now, that would give the appointment to Mr. Christie, who could appoint anyone even himself.

Mr. Christie, a former federal prosecutor, has refused to address the topic.

Im not going to answer questions about a vacancy in the United States Senate, which presumes the finding of guilt by a jury, before anyone has even heard one stitch of evidence, he said earlier this summer. Its not appropriate. I wont engage in it.

Adding to the intrigue: Mr. Christies term ends in January, and a Democrat, Philip D. Murphy, is the heavy favorite to succeed him. Some Democrats are already discussing running out the clock to block a G.O.P. appointment.

I dont think Menendez has to run out and resign if hes convicted, said Brad Woodhouse, a political strategist and former spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, calling that a knee-jerk reaction.

The campaign arm of the Senate Democrats declined any comment on Mr. Menendez, his coming trial or what would happen should he be convicted.

Republicans, however, said they were readying to attack if Senate Democrats execute such a delay. Were going to make it hurt as much as we can if these guys waver on expelling him, if convicted, said Bob Salera, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

One significant development in Mr. Menendezs favor is the Supreme Court decision last year to throw out a corruption conviction against the former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell. The ruling narrowed the grounds on which prosecutors can convict politicians of selling favors.

Abbe Lowell, Mr. Menendezs lawyer, said in July that the McDonnell decision fundamentally changed the legal landscape since the senators original indictment, but the judge has rejected attempts to stop or delay the trial. Mr. Lowell is one of the nations most prominent trial lawyers; among his other clients is Jared Kushner, the senior White House adviser and the presidents son-in-law.

Some Democrats said they were on edge about Mr. Menendez, worrying about everything from the delayed sentencing of Dr. Melgen until after Mr. Menendezs trial to the pace of fund-raising for the senators legal defense.

Mr. Menendez raised a little more than $10,000 in the first six months of the year, compared with more than $2.6 million in 2015 and more than $1 million in 2016.

Michael Soliman, a political adviser to Mr. Menendez, said the senator focused on raising money for his re-election instead because he had raised enough in his legal defense fund to cover his legal bills. Re-election cash must be raised in smaller increments, he said, You cant do it overnight.

Mr. Soliman said Mr. Menendez plans to run for re-election regardless of what comes out at trial.

Prosecutors have alleged the senator pushed a port security deal on Dr. Melgens behalf, to change a Medicare policy that would have benefited him and that he helped get visas for Dr. Melgens college-aged girlfriends, who were models in Brazil, Ukraine and the Dominican Republic.

If youre going to go up against him, Mr. Soliman said, get ready for the toughest political campaign of your life.

Visit link:
At Senator Menendez's Trial, Stakes Are High for Democrats - New York Times