Mediaboss Marketing

The U.S. Democratic Party is one of the two biggest political parties in the United States. The other is the Republican Party. The U.S. also has several smaller political parties known as "third parties." Supporters of this party are known as Democrats.

Every four years the party holds a National Convention where they agree on their candidate for President. The Democratic National Committee coordinates most of the activities of the Democratic party in all 50 United States. There have been 15 Democratic presidents, the most recent being Barack Obama, who has served since 2009.

Sometimes Democrats are called "the left", "liberals" or "progressives", even though not all Democrats are left-wing or liberal. Many Democrats, particularly in the South and Rocky Mountains of the United States, are conservative or moderate). In the United States, each of the political parties are large coalitions that cover many different kinds of ideology. A mostly Democratic state is sometimes called a "blue state".

Generally Democrats support:

Most support for Democrats comes from states in the Northeast, and Pacific Coast areas of the USA, but there are Democrats elected to office in all other states too.

The symbol of the Democratic Party is the Donkey. Since the election of 2000, the color blue has become a symbol for Democrats.[source?]

Read more from the original source:
Democratic Party (United States) - Simple English ...

Story highlights As Congress heads into a summer recess set to feature intense lobbying, many Democrats have already endorsed the Iran deal. The Planned Parenthood debate is taking some attention away from Republicans' effort to turn up the heat on Democrats on Iran.

As Congress heads into a summer recess set to feature intense lobbying by both sides, many Democrats have already endorsed the agreement. On Thursday, after Obama gave a fiery speech warning of harsh consequences should Congress vote it down, two more Democrats who were wavering came out in support: Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire.

Republicans have scheduled a mid-September vote on a resolution to reject the Iran deal, which is expected to pass, and have eyed the August recess as the time to build up public pressure against the agreement. But with the latest string of Democrats coming out in favor of the deal, it is growing increasingly difficult for Republicans in the House and Senate to secure the votes they need -- 44 and 13 respectively -- from Democrats to help them override the veto Obama's promised.

Even the announcement Thursday night by New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, slated to become the Democratic leader in the next Senate, might not be enough to slow the White House's momentum.

READ: McConnell vows full debate on Iran, promises no government shutdown

He's the most influential Democrat to come out in opposition to the deal, a stance long sought by the agreement's opponents, many of whom are his constituents.

But the decision to make his position public on the heels of a string of endorsements was being seen in the White House as a signal that it has a veto-proof number of supporters and it was safe for Schumer to oppose the deal without jeopardizing the President's agenda.

"We're very confident that we can hold that veto, with the Democratic Caucus in the House and also the Senate," Ben Rhodes, the President's deputy national security advisor, told CNN on Wednesday.

In the House, the list of Democrats publicly opposing the deal is relatively short so far. It does, however, include a handful in senior positions -- New York's Steve Israel, Nita Lowey and, as of Thursday night, Eliot Engel among them, though House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has endorsed the deal.

The resistance from members of the President's party comes chiefly from those representing districts with significant Jewish constituencies, many of whom are fiercely opposed to the administration's foreign policy in the Middle East.

Go here to see the original:
White House sees Democrats lining up on Iran - CNNPolitics.com

As Congress heads into its long August recess, the White House and the American Israel Public Affairs Committeeare lobbying Democrats hard in anticipation of a September vote on the Iran nuclear deal. But both sides have given those Democrats who are set to oppose them a second option; they are asking them to at least delay announcing their decision until they get back.

The calculation for askingDemocratsto delay their announcementsis defensive:Neither side wants the other to establish momentum that would precipitate a cascade of commitments over the coming weeks

President Barack Obama and other top officials have been in near constant communication withHouse and Senate Democrats,through group and one-on-one interactions, to urge them to support the P5+1 deal with Iran and vote against theresolution of disapprovalput forthTuesdayby House Foreign Affairs Committee ChairmanEd Royce.Bob Corker, Royce's opposite number in the Senate, could introduce a companion version of the disapproval measure as early as later this week.

Members of Congressand theirstaffers tell us that the White House has asked Democratswho are expected to oppose the deal to hold off on announcing their positionuntil September, when Congress will be focused on the agreement. On the other side, AIPACand itslobbyists are now asking members who are leaning toward supporting the agreement to likewise hold off on their announcements until after the recess.

One pro-Israel lobbyist told us that AIPACis asking members who might support the nuclear deal to wait until after the Congressional recess for more information. Between now and Labor Day, Congress may learn much more aboutthe side agreementsreached between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iranover how inspectors will gain access to suspected sites andverify information about the history of Iran's nuclear program.

There are about two dozen Congressional Democrats who are being targeted heavily by both sides -- either party leaders orprominent figuresin the pro-Israel community who thought to have influence over other the thinking of their colleagues. Chief among them are Senator Charles Schumer of New York, Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland, and Jewish Democratic lawmakers such as SenatorRichard Blumenthal of Connecticut.

In an interview, Blumenthal declined to talk about his private conversations with the Obama administration or AIPAC, but he told ushe wont be swayed by either the White Houses political pressure or the $40 million lobbying campaign sponsored by AIPAC and other groups opposed to the deal.

Im going to be spending all of August talking to my constituents because I want to understand what they are thinking, he said. My overriding and single concern is what is the right thing to do for our nation.

Royce told us he isaskinghis Democratic colleagues to consider a bipartisan letter most of them signed earlier this year that laid out four conditions for a good agreement. Royce said on every single one of those conditions, from resolving outstanding questions about the history of Iran's nuclear issues to calling for "anytime, anywhere" inspections of suspected sites, the deal reached in Vienna last month does not meet the standards.

Royce also told us the second case he is making is to look at Iran's foreign meddlingtoday in Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. "As Iran continues with this aggression I think it potentially will impact the decisions of members of the House of Representatives," he said.

Original post:
Democrats Under Pressure to Stay Silent on Iran Deal ...

The Washington Posts Dan Balz and Karen Tumulty tell us who the real winners and losers are in the first GOP debate. (Jorge Ribas/The Washington Post)

CLEVELAND Donald Trump may top the polls in the contest for the Republican presidential nomination, but this weeks debate was a reminder that the party has able rivals who eventually could take him down and who also could mount a stiff challenge to Hillary Rodham Clinton in the general election.

Trump performed in typical style Thursday in the two-hour debate the same style that has helped him blow past the other candidates. But as the campaigns broke camp here Friday morning, the smiles on the faces of other candidates advisers told the fuller story of what happened on the stage at the Quicken Loans Arena.

[Trump roils first debate among GOP contenders]

Everyone came out a winner or so the rivals advisers proclaimed. Some of that bravado was typical post-debate hype, but some of it was grounded in reality. Trump may have been the center of attention, but others performed more effectively overall.

For months, Republican leaders have talked about the breadth, depth and potential strength of their candidates. As a group, the aspiring nominees are certainly more experienced and seemingly more ready for a national campaign than the collection of politicians who sought to deny Mitt Romney the GOP nomination in 2012.

Democrats have enjoyed the summer of Trump and hope it lasts long enough to inflict serious damage on the Republican brand. But they no doubt saw enough Thursday night to begin to worry about what a general election pitting a vulnerable Clinton against one of the non-Trumps could portend.

On Thursday, a national television audience likely a record primary-debate audience got its first real look at candidates such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. Even former Florida governor Jeb Bush probably isnt that well known, despite his familiar name.

[Winners and losers from the first Republican presidential debate]

In a field of 17 candidates, Trumps poll numbers are impressive. Hes getting a fifth to a quarter of the GOP vote in national polls. In those polls, his nearest rivals are drawing half or less of his support.

Read more here:
GOP debate contenders give Democrats reason to worry

The Liberal Democrats (often referred to as the Lib Dems) are a social liberal political party in the United Kingdom.[10][11][12][13][14]

The Liberal Democrats were formed in 1988 by a merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party (SDP). The two parties had formed the electoral SDPLiberal Alliance for seven years prior. The Liberal Party had been in existence for 129 years and in power under leaders such as Gladstone, Asquith and Lloyd George. Liberal Reforms led to the creation of the British welfare state. In the 1920s, the Labour Party replaced the Liberals as the largest opponent of the Conservative Party. The SDP split from Labour in 1981 because of the latter's move to the left.[15][16]

Nick Clegg was elected leader in 2007. At the 2010 general election, the Liberal Democrats won 57 seats, making them the third-largest party in the House of Commons behind the Conservatives with 307 and Labour with 258.[17] No party having an overall majority, the Liberal Democrats joined a coalition government with the Conservative Party, with Clegg becoming Deputy Prime Minister and other Liberal Democrats taking up ministerial positions.[18] At the 2015 general election, the party was reduced to eight Members of Parliament and Clegg resigned as leader.[19]Tim Farron won the subsequent leadership election.[20]

The party supports constitutional and electoral reform,[21]progressive taxation,[22]environmentalism,[23]human rights laws,[24]banking reform[25] and civil liberties.[26]

The opening line to the preamble of the Liberal Democrats constitution is "The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity."[27] Most commentators describe the party as centrist. In 2011 party leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said "But we are not on the left and we are not on the right. We have our own label: Liberal."[28]

There are two main strands of distinct ideology within the party, social liberals and the economic liberals, more commonly known as Orange Bookers. The social liberals were seen as being the more traditionally centre-left end of the party with Orange Bookers being more towards the centre. The principal difference between the two is that the Orange Bookers tend to support greater choice and competition and as such aiming to increase social mobility through increasing economic freedom and opportunity for those with more disadvantaged backgrounds, whereas the social liberals were more commonly associated with directly aiming to increase equality of outcome through state means. Correspondingly, Orange Bookers tended to favour cutting taxes for the poorest in order to increase opportunity, contrasting with social liberals, who would rather see higher spending on the disadvantaged to reduce income inequality.[29]

Being an Orange Booker and a social liberal within the party are not mutually exclusives. David Laws, one of the most economically liberal MPs in the party, said in Parliament "I am grateful to my Hon. friend for his kind comments about Gladstonian Liberalism. I hope that this is not only Gladstonian Liberalism, but liberalism tinged with the social liberalism about which my party is so passionate."[30] Indeed, the Orange Book, to which the term refers, discusses the need for a more complete liberalism for the party, more fully supporting the liberalism as a whole including social liberalism.

The social liberalism in the party stemmed from the start of the 20th-century when the Liberal party were bringing about many reforms, known as Liberal reforms, which are often viewed as the creation of the modern public welfare system in the UK. A major part of creating the liberal welfare reforms was taken by David Lloyd George, who later went on to become Prime Minister. They were also influenced by William Beveridge, who is credited with drafting further advancements of the welfare state, especially the National Health Service (NHS), and social liberal economist John Maynard Keynes. In February 2009, many social liberals founded the Social Liberal Forum, an internal party pressure group, to pursue social liberal policies within the party.

In a poll of Liberal Democrat members on 30 April 2011, 64% classed themselves as social liberal with 35% counting themselves as economic liberals. Other affiliations high on the list were progressive with 65%, social democrat 34%, 45% centre-left, 60% internationalist, 44% radical, 41% green.[31]

In December 2011, in a speech to the Demos think tank and the Open Society Foundation Clegg put forward his definition of the three main political traditions in Britain, saying:

Read more:
Liberal Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia