Mediaboss Marketing

As Democrats look at a White House in disarray, a president with approval ratings in the 30s and the very real prospect of taking back the House in 2018, one political mission rises above all others: Dont screw this up.

But can a divided party focus enough to achieve what will still be a difficult goal? And can it avoid falling into the same kinds of conflicts that embroiled the Republicans when Barack Obama was president?

We in the media have a bias that leads us to notice signs of intra-party division, because that means conflict, and conflict is the foundation of all drama. Not only that, there are some people for whom intra-party conflict is an organizing force, something they actively seek out. And they tend to be the ones who are loudest about expressing their views. David Weigel reports from the Peoples Summit conference in Chicago, where Bernie Sanders was cheered and videos of Hillary Clinton were presented so that the crowd could boo:

Nearly a year after effectively conceding the Democratic presidential nomination, Sanders was the star of this years Peoples Summit, which has quickly become the countrys largest progressive political conference. At least 4,000 people trekked to Chicago for a weekend of teach-ins, panels and dance parties. In a Saturday-night speech, Sanders planned to tell activists to charge ahead because ideas that, just a few years ago, seemed radical and unattainable, are now part of Main Street discussion.

But as Sanders used his star power to unite activists behind the Democrats, some debated whether the Democratic Party could ever be fixed to their liking. Faced with unified Republican control of Washington, progressives were less interested in simple unity than in a purity that they believed could win.

The New York Times called this a widening breach in their party. But Im not so sure. Theres no question that there are many left activists out there whose goal is to upend the Democratic Party. They believe that the party is hopelessly corrupt and that supporting its candidates is next to useless in achieving progressive goals. That makes them similar in some ways to the tea party activists who emerged after Obama was elected. The difference, however, is that the tea party essentially took over the entire GOP. And there is almost no chance that the left activists will do the same to the Democratic Party.

Former labor secretary Thomas Perez narrowly defeated Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) for chair of the Democratic National Committee following a contentious battle over the fate of their party. Ellison called on his supporters to rally behind the new chairman. (Alice Li/The Washington Post)

Why? Because there is no reason to believe that most Democrats are itching for that kind of upheaval. And theres an interesting contrast with what began in 2009. There was no real substantive difference on policy between the tea party and the establishment GOP; they both wanted tax cuts, an attack on the safety net, the gutting of environmental regulations, the destruction of reproductive rights, and so on. The differences were about attitude and tactics. They argued about questions such as: How far should we go to achieve our shared goal of destroying the Affordable Care Act? Is it a good idea to shut down the government? How about defaulting on the debt?

But the differences between left activists and establishment Democrats are mostly about substance and arent really that large. Should we have single-payer health care or some kind of Affordable Care Act-plus? How high should the minimum wage be? Should we make college free for everyone? Those questions become tactical when you pose them as What should Democrats advocate for in elections? but at heart theyre about policy. And that actually serves to make the arguments less vituperative than they might otherwise be, when no one is advocating a kamikaze mission to plunge the global economy into chaos.

Now lets be honest: For some people, fighting against the power is about not only substance but also identity. Its the thing that gives their work purpose, so an alliance with more centrist elements is by definition a betrayal. Id include Sanders in that group, despite his occasional efforts to help mainstream Democrats get elected. Its why he refuses to become a Democrat himself. Sanders doesnt know how to work from the inside and doesnt want to; hes been an outsider for his entire career, and he isnt going to change now.

Which is fine. You can argue that he and other left activists are succeeding, in that the Democratic Party of today is noticeably more progressive than it was just a few years ago. A $15-an-hour minimum wage has become the consensus position for Democrats, as have paid family leave and more government involvement in health care. Dont be surprised to see multiple contenders for the 2020 presidential nomination embrace marijuana legalization and single-payer.

The Democratic electorate the audience both forces are trying to persuade is perfectly open to more moves to the left on substance, but its also pragmatic in a way that makes outright revolution against the party a tough sell. For instance, right now, Democrats, even extremely liberal ones, want to win. The liberal blog Daily Kos has raised just short of a staggering $2 million for Georgia House candidate Jon Ossoff, whos nobodys idea of a fire-breathing liberal.

Or note this: Even in the Trump era, many Democrats realize that compromise is sometimes unavoidable. Even now, faced with the most horrifying president any Democrat can remember, the partys voters are split about down the middle (see here or here) when polls ask whether their leaders should try to work with Donald Trump or resist him on everything. Thats far more openness to compromise than Republican voters ever showed when Obama was president.

We havent had a real practical test of the power of the anti-establishment left, and one has to acknowledge that before the tea party took down people like Eric Cantor in primary elections, no one thought it was possible. But are rank-and-file Democrats filled with rage at their partys leadership? Theres very little evidence that they are. And if they arent, they wont want to burn their party down. Theyll just want to get as many Democrats elected as possible.

The rest is here:
Are Democrats really that divided? Here's what's going on. - The ... - Washington Post (blog)

Four members of special counsel Robert Mueller's team on the Russia probe have donated to Democratic presidential campaigns and organizations, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

Michael Dreeben, who serves as the Justice Departments deputy solicitor general, is working on a part-time basis for Mueller,The Washington Postreported Friday.

Dreebendonated$1,000 dollars to Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonThe Memo: Trump allies turn fire on Mueller Feehery: Checks and balances Likely W.Va. Senate GOP rivals spar in radio appearances MOREs Senate political action committee (PAC), Friends of Hillary, while she ran for public office in New York. Dreeben did so while he served as the deputy solicitor general at the Justice Department.

The political affiliations of Mueller's team have been spotlighted by former House SpeakerNewt Gingrich(R-Ga.) an ally of Trump.

After initially hailing Mueller's appointment as special counsel, Gingrich questioned for former FBI director's abilityto be impartial on Monday because of "who he is hiring."

Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair. Look who he is hiring.check fec reports. Time to rethink.

Two other members of Mueller's team also have donated to Democrats.

Andrew Weissmann, who serves in a top post within the Justice Departments fraud practice, is the most senior lawyer on the special counsel team,Bloomberg reported.He served as the FBIs general counsel and the assistant director to Mueller when the special counsel was FBI director.

Before he worked at the FBI or Justice Department, Weissman worked at the law firmJenner & BlockLLP, during which hedonated six timesto political action committees for Obama in 2008 for a total of $4,700.

James Quarles, who served as an assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, has donated to over a dozen Democratic PACs since the late 1980s. He was also identified by the Washington Post as a member of Mueller's team.

Starting in 1987, Quarles donated to Democratic candidate Michael Dukakiss presidential PAC,Dukakis for President. Since then, he has also contributed in 1999 to Sen. Al GoreAl GoreFour members of Mueller's team have donated to Democrats OPINION: Don't repeat the mistakes of Clinton and 1998 with Trump Overnight Energy: Coalition bucks Trump, commits to Paris climate goals MOREs run for the presidency, then-Sen. John KerryJohn KerryFour members of Mueller's team have donated to Democrats Kerry: New Iran sanctions may be dangerous Trump reignites debate over travel ban MOREs (D-Mass.) presidential bid in 2005, Obamas presidential PAC in 2008 and 2012, and Clintons presidential pac Hillary for America in 2016.

He also donated to two Republicans, Rep. Jason ChaffetzJason ChaffetzFour members of Mueller's team have donated to Democrats Rep. Trey Gowdy wins Oversight gavel Sessions rejects request to testify before Oversight on Fast and Furious MORE (R-Utah) in 2015 andSen. George Allen (R-Va.) in 2005.

Several of the figures on Mueller's team are well known and respected for their work at the Department of Justice.

Dreeben has reportedly received bipartisan praise for his handling of the departments criminal appellate cases, the Post reported.

Weissmann is well-known for his work in the investigation on Volkswagen cheating on their diesel emissions tests, which they pleaded guilty to earlier this year.

Mueller, who formerly served as FBI director, was first appointed by Republican President George W. Bush in 2001.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel last month.

Read the rest here:
Four members of Mueller's team have donated to Democrats - The Hill

State Senate Democrats introduced legislationMonday tochange the rules governing recall elections to remove a lawmaker from office, potentially helping one of their own survive an effort now underway in Southern California.

The proposal, contained in one of the bills enacting a new state budget, comes after backers of aneffort to remove state Sen. Josh Newman (D-Fullerton) from office have submittedmore than 31,000 voter signatures to trigger a special election.

"Recalls are designed to be extraordinary events in response to extraordinary circumstances and it's in the publics overwhelming interest to ensure the security, integrity and legitimacy of the qualification process," said Jonathan Underland, a spokesman for Senate President Pro TemKevinde Len(D-Los Angeles).

The bill would effectively give people new ways to block recall efforts by allowing a 30-day window for any voterswho signed the petition to change their mind and have their signature be removed. Elections officials would then have 10 days to update their tally, and each signaturewould have to be verified manually.The proposal would then give lawmakers 30 additional days to review the financial impact of a recall election.

In total, all of that could delay any special election to remove a lawmaker by more than two months. And the language of the legislation makes the change apply to the current effort to recall Newman.

Supporters of the effort to oust Newman, a freshman senator who eked out a narrow win last fall, blasted the budget-related bill as a blatant effort to protect a single lawmaker.

"They can't simply rewrite the rules," said Carl DeMaio, a former San Diego city councilman and current radio talk show host who's leading the effort. "They want to push this election off for as long as possible."

DeMaio predicted a lawsuit will be filed to block the change from taking effect, assuming it is signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown later this month. The recall campaignhas focused almost exclusively on Newman'svote in favor of the$52-billion transportation plan that hinges on an increase in gas taxes, scheduled to take effect in November.

Republican legislators were equally critical of achange in state election law being added to state government's annual fiscal plan.

"The Democrats know the gas tax is toxic and Newman will likely lose," said Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes (R-Yucca Valley). "They control every thing in California and need to rig the system to protect their political power."

Newman, who said he didn't participate in writing the provision, said recall proponents are falsely promoting their signature drives as a way to stop the gas tax -- and that voters should be given a chance to strike their signature from the petition if they were misled.

"What we're seeing in my case is how susceptible this system is to manipulation, to distortion," he said.

Update 3:05 p.m. This story was updated to include comments from Assemblyman Mayes and Senator Newman.

Here is the original post:
Democrats seek a change in California recall elections, and it could help an embattled state senator - Los Angeles Times

Despite the daily drip about Russia and the Trump administration, national Democrats who hope to exploit Republicans vulnerabilities in 2018 are focusing theirmessaging squarely on health care before theJuly 4 recess.

Just minutes after former FBIDirector James B. Comey concluded his testimony Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee in which he said the president lied to the America people the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee blasted out a release.

The subject? Nevada Sen. Dean Hellers reported support for phasing out Medicaid expansion.

The Senate Democrats campaign arm issued no public statements about the Comey hearing.

Democrats are careful to say that just because Russia isnt a major campaign issue todaydoesnt mean it couldnt be a year from now. The 2018 cycle is still young, as is the unraveling of detailsabout Russias involvement in last years election.

But for now, many Democratic strategists and lawmakers say, the ins and outs of Russias meddling in U.S. politics is not the most pressing issue for voters.

Literally, I have gotten zero questions about Russia. Zero, Rep. Cheri Bustos said Thursday as she was leaving the Capitol after the last votes of the week.

The Illinois Democrat was describingthe interactions she has had so far this year at her Supermarket Saturday events, where she swings through grocery stores to chat with constituents in the aisles.

One of three co-chairs of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, Bustos is the only Midwestern member in House Democratic leadership.Trump narrowly carriedher district last fall.

Things that Washington, D.C., is obsessed about, in some cases, are barely even a blip in a rural area like mine, shesaid.

Health care is the issue her constituents have raised the most, Bustossaid. People with pre-existing conditions are freaking out, she said.

The Democratic super PAC Priorities USA released a messaging guidance memolate last month with a similar conclusion. Nearly half of the presidential-year voters surveyed expressed concern about Republicans supporting the GOP health care bill; only 35 percent had concerns about Republicans opposing an independent investigation into the Kremlin and Trump.

Its not to say Russia is not relevant, its just not as pertinent to peoples lives, a longtime Democratic strategist said.

New York Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, who conducted an internal review of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committees 2016 election efforts, said he doesnt like to veer too far from the bread-and-butter issues that worry families in his district.

Its hard to compete with somebodys mortgage, or their retirement or the cost of their kids college, Maloney said as he exited the Capitol ahead of the weekend break.

We should not assume that ordinary Americans understand this and care about this as much as people in Washington, he said of Russia. Maloney said that while his constituents take the Russian election interference seriously, theyre also wary of Washington.

They are understandably suspicious about how politics can get played in this town. And they see that as being at odds with whats important at their own families kitchen tables, Maloney said.

A distraction is how Bustos characterizes the Washington frenzy over Russia.Part of her job as DPCC co-chairwoman is helping the party craft its message, especially in rural and swing areas of the country like hers.

I just say, This is distracting members of Congress from what we need to be focusing on, Bustos said, rattling off a list of other priorities such asa farm and infrastructure bill that she wants Congress to get done.

Maloney cautioned that its too soon to tell whether Russia will emerge as a more salient campaign issue. The facts may be so serious that they cannot be ignored, he said.

That uncertainty over whats going on with Russia is one reason some Democrats are finding it more helpful to talk abouthealth care.

Right now, the story is that something very troubling is happening in Washington, D.C. The middle and end of this story we just dont know yet, said a Democratic strategist who works on Senate campaigns.

The troubling aspects of the GOP health care plan, at least from the Democrats perspective, are much more clear-cut. And for a party largely ondefense in Senate races next year in states that Trump won (and where he remains popular), Democrats see health care as a strong offensive message, especially against their top two targets, Heller and Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake.

Earlier this year, the DSCC released non-skippable YouTube ads attacking the GOP health care plan for hurting older Americans and those with pre-existing conditions. Majority Forward, a nonprofit allied with Senate Majority PAC, also made health care the subject of its ads in Arizona and Nevada released earlier this year.

But Russia continues to dominate the news cycle.

At some level this is all a gift to Republicans because it takes focus off of this disastrous health care bill, Connecticut Sen. Christopher S. Murphy said Thursday.

So itll be up to Democratic groups to find ways to communicate their health care message to voters this summer.

Its important to let people know that as these investigations are going on, Trump and the Republicans are trying to pull the health care rug out from under the Americans, said Maryland Sen.Chris Van Hollen, the DSCC chairman.We need at least bifocals here.

The party can and should keep its eye on both things, said Jesse Ferguson, a veteran of the DCCC and Hillary Clintons campaign.

Its a false choice between talking about health care and talking about Russia, Ferguson said. In fact, he said, the two messages even amplify each other.

Democratic campaigns arent ignoring Russia completely, and with the liberal base motivated on the issue Indivisible and MoveOn.org both called for impeachment proceedings immediately after the Comey hearing they cant afford to.

The DCCC called on Republicans to support a bipartisan, independent committee to investigate Russias interference in our democracy after the Comey testimony. A smattering of Democratic House challengers released similar statements.

Russia is more salient in some districts than others. In its Thursday statement, the DCCCtook a shot at California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes, whose conduct in the Russian investigation has earned him a spot on the committees target list in 2018. Increased attention on Russia has also helped put the district of another California Republican, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,on the map.

American Bridge, a liberal super PAC, is the rare Democratic outside group that has invested in paid communications on Russiathis year.

But its also beenvocal about health care. Its partnering with House Majority PAC on its Congressional Accountability Projectthis summer.

Make no mistake, pocketbook issues like health care ought to be front and center in Democratic messaging, American Bridge President Jessica Mackler said in an emailed statement. But Democrats can also walk and chew gum at the same time.

The Trump administrations Russia scandal must be investigated and Republicans who refuse to do their job and demand an independent investigation should be held accountable. We can do both, Mackler added.

Democrats see the Russia developments taking a toll on the presidents popularity and boosting their party inthe generic congressional ballot (with a longtime Democratic strategist pointing to the nearly 8-point edge his party has in FiveThirtyEights generic ballot tracker as a good sign for 2018).

In the end, the Trump administration, and their contortions and their lying about what happened, is feeding the perception they cant be trusted, Ferguson said. That perception makes it impossible for them to sell their health care agenda to the American people, he added.

Bridget Bowman contributed to this report.

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

Read the original here:
Democrats Stick to Health Care Message Amid Russian Intrigue - Roll Call

Three years and a Donald Trump presidential campaign later, the senator is less constrained about dropping so-called "f-bombs" in private or in public. Speaking to the Personal Democracy Forum last week, Gillibrand used the word twice. Last month in a New York Magazine interview, the senator dropped three f-bombs. She's not alone. Earlier this year, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez, in a speech in which children were not just present but actually on stage, attacked President Trump as someone who "doesn't give a s*** about healthcare," while also saying "your g**damn right," Trump is a liar. Beto O'Rourke, the Texas Democratic Congressman challenging Sen. Ted Cruz accused Cruz of "sure as s*** not serving" his constituents. And Kamala Harris, the California Democratic senator, reportedly also used the f-word at a public event in San Francisco.

If this language is something of a new normal among Democratic politicians, their reactions represent a new normal, as well. In the past, politicians typically apologized for such language.

In part, that may be because past instances were mistakes, where a politician said the wrong thing while speaking passionately on an issue or opponent.

In today's Trump-changed political environment, this language is no mistake; it is intentional, calculated "spontaneity" designed to draw headlines and demonstrate outrage to similarly minded activists and donors -- using some of Trump's methodology to show their strong resistance to him.

After the titillating "sugar rush" these Democrats get from the sensationalism of using naughty words, there does not appear to be any substance behind it aside from projecting some sort of "authenticity" for speaking in the same way voters angry at Washington do. Democratic politicians using this language not only run the risk of distracting from their anti-Trump message, but may wind up looking like they're trying too hard, a phoniness voters can spot a mile away.

These were key messages Democrats used to ingrain into voters' minds that Trump was too callous and profane to serve as president.

Now? More and more Democrats appear to be in a non-stop limbo contest of words, knowing the lower they go, the more headlines and clicks they can get.

If anything, the number of Democrats following the example of their party leaders and potential 2020 candidates using this, and possibly other Trump tactics, will only increase.

That Trump's campaign and presidency has forever altered the Republican Party is seen as a given. Less discussed is how the Trump-era has already affected how Democrats campaign and how they are trying to use Trump's own tactics against him.

More here:
F-bombs could backfire on Democrats (opinion) - CNN.com - CNN