Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Democrats at War? Let’s Compare and Contrast 2009 and 2017. – Mother Jones

Here's a headline currently running in the New York Times:

I don't have any beef with this. The Democratic base is demanding total war on Trump, and Democratic politicians have mostly gotten on board. What I do wonder, though, is whether the Times ever used language like this during the first couple of months of the Obama administration? Maybe they did, but via Google, here's a walk down memory lane as reported by the Times in early 2009:

Obama woos and visits and holds receptions and reaches out and sets a new tone. Republicans are "resistant," they skip briefings, they vote unanimously against budgets, and unanimously against the stimulus bill. But there's no war in those headlines.

Later, of course, we learned that there was a war. Before Obama was even inaugurated, Republicans met and agreed to form a united front that unanimously blocked every Obama initiative, sight unseen. The fact that the country was mired in the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression didn't matter. Their only goal was to prevent Obama from having any legislative successes.

The smoking guns that uncovered this strategy didn't come until later, but anyone reporting from Capitol Hill surely knew what was happening almost immediately. Republicans publicly spurned Obama's attempts to compromise. They voted against the stimulus bill unanimously in the House and nearly unanimously in the Senate. They launched the era of the routine filibuster on everything. They embraced the tea party within a month of Obama taking office.

In other words, it was all pretty obvious. And yet, coverage at the time tended to refer vaguely to a "breakdown in bipartisanship." Perhaps Democrats were pushing too hard? Maybe they were unwilling to compromise? Surely Republicans were sincere about their opposition to increasing the deficit?

So why the difference this time? Democratic activists have been pretty vocal about what they want, but then again, by this time in 2009 the tea party had already gotten its start. They were pretty vocal too.

My guess: as always, Republicans are given a pass for their ultra-conservative views, which might be a little crazy, but are still presumed to be deeply rooted and genuine. Democrats, conversely, are generally thought craven if they "give in" to their base. Democrats tend to be a bit wonkier and more policy driven than Republicans, and as a result reporters generally don't believe that they're truly passionate about their principles. The very fact that they're more willing to compromise proves this. So when they oppose Trump, they've "conceded" to their base; they're "mimicking" the Republican strategy; they're "quietly worried" that their base expects too much; they "still hope for compromise"; and "protesters are leading the politicians." In other words, it's pretty calculated, not at all like those Republicans with their deeply ingrained family values and distrust of government.

Blecch. Can you tell I'm annoyed?

Here is the original post:
Democrats at War? Let's Compare and Contrast 2009 and 2017. - Mother Jones

Democrats facing re-election are skipping out on town halls – New York Post

Democratic senators up for re-election are ditching in-person town halls avoiding voters nationwide displeasure with elected officials.

Only a few of the 10 Democratic senators who are on the ballot in 2018 are hosting such town halls, which in other election cycles were routine, the Associated Press reported.

Seems to me that all these members of Congress are afraid to face their constituents, Hillary Shields, a member of Kansas City Indivisible, said after Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) declined the groups invitation to attend a town hall.

President Trump won Missouri by more than 18 percentage points in the 2016 presidential election making the swing state a key target for Republicans to try to unseat McCaskill in 2018.

Here we are, and wed like a town hall meeting, West Virginia protester Cathy Kunkel told the wire service regarding her senator, Democrat Joe Manchin.

His constituents have a lot of questions. This is the first recess of the new Congress in the Trump administration, she added.

Manchin, too, has avoided holding a town hall.

Town halls hosted by Republican politicians have erupted as voters have expressed displeasure with the implementation of Trumps controversial agenda, including his pledge to dismantle ObamaCare, his travel ban, and the border wall with Mexico. Moderate Democrats appear unwilling to align themselves too closely to their base, for fear of alienating constituents who helped vote Trump into the Oval Office.

Congress is out of session this week in observance of Presidents Day, but will return to Washington next week.

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) hosted public events this week, but not town hall-style formats.

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) said hed host town halls next month, while Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) has hosted several telephone conference calls recently, according to a spokeswoman.

With Post wires

Read the rest here:
Democrats facing re-election are skipping out on town halls - New York Post

Weakened Democrats, Opting for Total War on Trump, Bow to Their Voters – New York Times


New York Times
Weakened Democrats, Opting for Total War on Trump, Bow to Their Voters
New York Times
Immediately after the November election, Democrats were divided over how to handle Mr. Trump, with one camp favoring all-out confrontation and another backing a seemingly less risky approach of coaxing him to the center with offers of compromise.
Powerless Democrats realize politics is localCNN
Democrats are asking all the wrong questions of wannabe party chairsNew York Post
Democrats tread lightly on primary challenge questionPolitico
Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) -NBCNews.com -Commonweal -Navy Times
all 333 news articles »

Excerpt from:
Weakened Democrats, Opting for Total War on Trump, Bow to Their Voters - New York Times

Can the Democratic Party Win Back Voters It Lost to Trump? – The Atlantic

Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill, who is up for reelection in the red state of Missouri in 2018, recently told a St. Louis radio host she may face a primary challenge. I may have a primary because there is, in our party now, some of the same kind of enthusiasm at the base that the Republican Party had with the Tea Party, she said during an interview earlier this month. Many of those people are very impatient with me because they dont think Im pure, she added.

Republican Lawmakers Face Hostile Town-Hall Crowds

As the Democratic Party contemplates whats next in the wake of its defeat in the presidential election, liberals may have to decide what matters more: Building a big tent party where far-left voters and moderate centrists can co-exist even if they occasionally disagree on policy and strategy, or focusing on the demands of the partys progressive base, potentially creating a more like-minded and ideologically rigid coalition in the process.

In an effort to persuade Democrats to embrace a big-tent strategy, Third Way, a center-left think tank, argues in a new report that voters arent necessarily rigidly attached to a particular party, and might be won over as a result. The report, titled Why Demography Does Not Equal Destiny, concludes that demographic change in the United States wont deliver Democrats a winning electoral coalition by default, but that there are still opportunities for the party to convince Americans to vote for Democratic candidates even if they havent always done so in the past.

There are definitely persuadable voters out there and the question we should be asking right now is: Who can be persuaded to embrace our vision of the future? report co-author Lanae Erickson Hatalsky of Third Way said in an interview. The idea that there was this rising electorate that would automatically deliver progressive victories wooed us away from doing the hard work of trying to find common ground with people since it seemed easier to just find people who agreed with us.

Erickson Hatalsky argues that voting trends suggest that some voters swing back and forth between the two parties rather than remain consistently loyal to one party or the other. For example, hundreds of counties across the United States flipped from voting for Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election to voting for Trump in 2016. Some congressional districts also delivered victory for Trump while at the same time reelecting Democratic members of Congress, like Cheri Bustos in Illinois and Matt Cartwright in Pennsylvania.

There are clearly people out there who have not decided that they vote for only one party, Erickson Hatalsky said. I think thats hopeful because it indicates that if the Democratic Party takes the time to listen to what it is that these people are looking for, we may be able to expand our coalition.

The report notes that there has been a rise in the number of voters who identify as independent in recent years, and suggests that they could be a potential target for the Democratic Party. Some political scientists, however, maintain that independent voters are really partisans in disguisepeople who may not want to publicly identify as a Republican or a Democrat, but nevertheless consistently vote for candidates of a particular party. Third Way has challenged this conclusion, and does so in the report by tracking how independents have swung as a voting bloc back-and-forth between voting for Democrats to Republicans in presidential elections dating back to 1976.

Independents lean toward one party or another, and vote for that party, over shorter time horizons, but this trend shows that over longer time horizons partisan loyalties are not fixed in place for independent voters, Erickson Hatalsky said.

But what if there isnt a significant number of voters available for Democrats to win over or win back? What if, instead, the partisan battle lines are now firmly entrenched, and spending time, energy, and effort trying to change hearts and minds proves to be a losing proposition for the party?

Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University, is skeptical that Democrats can significantly grow their base by converting large numbers of either Republicans or Trump voters. He believes Democrats would be more effective if they focused on increasing turnout of core Democratic constituencies, such as African American, Hispanic, and younger voters.

Theres a reason why campaigns are devoting more and more resources trying to energize the base rather than trying to persuade people. Its because trying to persuade people is extremely difficult in this day and age, Abramowitz said in an interview. Thats not to say there wont ever be any movement back and forth between parties, he added, but I just dont see there being any large number of movable voters.

Abramowitz notes that looking back at the voting behavior of independents spanning the past several decades may fail to adequately recognize that party loyalties are much stronger today than in the 1970s and 80s. Instead, he points to increasing ideological division among voters in recent years and what he calls negative partisanshipa phenomenon whereby animosity toward the opposing party becomes a driving factor behind how a person decides to voteto argue that there likely isnt a significant number of voters up for grabs.

Erickson Hatalsky acknowledges theres little evidence to suggest theres a whole swath of Democratic voters sitting at home who are just waiting to come out if we excite them. But, she added, if we are going to build a progressive coalition that can dig Democrats out of their hole at the state and local level and get them back into the White House, we cant write people off either. Voters who went for Obama and then Trump cannot be deemed unreachable for Democrats, and neither can voters in states that voted for Trump, but have continued to elect Democrats to Congress. To do so, is to accept permanent status as a coastal, urban, powerless party.

As the centrist wing of the Democratic party attempts to make its case, it will have to contend with an increasingly restive progressive base. A wave of protests across the countryincluding the Womens March and rallies in opposition to the first iteration of President Trumps travel banseem to have convinced at least some Democrats in Congress to become increasingly uncompromising in their opposition to the presidents priorities. Progressives are also organizing in the aftermath of the election with the explicit aim of launching primary challenges against Democrats they deem not rigid enough in their opposition to Trump.

If centrist Democrats want to ensure that the Democratic Party embraces a big-tent strategy, they will need to convince skeptical voters of the merits of the party. They may also need to convince progressive members of their own party of the merits of that strategy. And that could be a difficult task. Some progressive groups view Third Ways centrist political ambitions as emblematic of the type of establishment politics they believe failed the Democratic Party during the presidential election, and are likely to push back on, or outright reject, whatever the think tank suggests as a result.

But perhaps the most salient challenge for Democrats all across the partisan spectrum will be whether they can accept political realitywhatever that may beand what it dictates about the future of the political left, even if it contradicts their own vision of what the party should look like.

See the original post here:
Can the Democratic Party Win Back Voters It Lost to Trump? - The Atlantic

Sweden Democrats: Trump was right – Fox News

Two leading Swedish politicians have a message for President Trumps critics: Hes right.

Per Jimmie Akesson and Mattias Karlsson, both leaders of the Sweden Democrats, penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Wednesday supporting Trumps characterization of a Muslim immigrant-led crime crisis in Sweden.

Mr. Trump did not exaggerate Swedens current problems, Akesson and Karlsson wrote. If anything, he understated them.

Mr. Trump did not exaggerate Swedens current problems. If anything, he understated them.

- Per Jimmie Akesson and Mattias Karlsson, in Wall Street Journal op-ed

Trump was ridiculed by many after he gave a speech Saturday citing Sweden among a list of European countries affected by the scourge of Islamic terror. Referring to the massive number of Middle Eastern refugees that have poured into the country, Trump said Sweden was having problems like they never thought possible. Some Swedish politicians openly derided Trumps portrayal of the country but riots in a heavily immigrant suburb of Stockholm on Monday evening put an end to most of the mockery.

Swedish police were investigating a riot that broke out overnight in a predominantly immigrant suburb in Stockholm after officers arrested a suspect on drug charges.

Riots and social unrest have become a part of everyday life, Akesson and Karlsson wrote. Police officers, firefighters and ambulance personnel are regularly attacked. Serious riots in 2013, involving many suburbs with large immigrant populations, lasted for almost a week. Gang violence is booming. Despite very strict firearms laws, gun violence is five times as common in Sweden, in total, as in the capital cities of our three Nordic neighbors combined.

They added: Anti-Semitism has risen. Jews in Malmo are threatened, harassed and assaulted in the streets. Many have left the city, becoming internal refugees in their country of birth.

The Sweden Democrats duo ended the op-ed with a warning for the United States.

For the sake of the American people, Akesson and Karlsson wrote, with whom we share so many strong historical and cultural ties, we can only hope that the leaders in Washington wont make the same mistakes that our socialist and liberal politicians did.

CLICK TO READ THE FULL OP-ED IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

Read the original:
Sweden Democrats: Trump was right - Fox News