Mediaboss Marketing

Democrats risk losing election after election if they focus too much on winning back white blue-collar voters from PresidentTrump, according to progressives worried that young minorities are abandoning the party.

We are not going to get back to national majorities again without these voters, said Cornell Belcher, the top pollster who worked on both for former President Barack ObamaBarack ObamaTrump aims to use UN climate fund for coal plants: report Trump will ask Supreme Court to block judge's order on travel ban Axelrod: 'Implausible' POTUS didn't know about Trump Jr. meeting MOREs campaigns.

Belcher recently conducted focus groupsin Florida and Wisconsinfor theCivic Engagement Fund that point to the problems Democrats have with millennials of color. The group, founded by progressive leader Andrea Hailey, analyzes data from past elections to increase voter engagement.

Research conducted by the Brookings Institution shows that millennials will be the largest voting bloc in the U.S.by 2020. As of 2015, 44.2 percent of millennials are people of color.

You're damn right, I don't have any loyalty to Democrats, one participant in the Florida focus group said. If Republicans want to get real about shit that's happening in my community, I would vote for every one of them. Thenmaybe Democrats would take usserious too.

The Civic Engagement Funds work found that a number of black and Hispanic millennials either voted for a third-party candidate last year or stayed home.

In the focus group conducted by Belcher, millennials said they had no regrets about electing Trump through their actions.

Though they hold strong negative views of Trump and feel his presidency is an embarrassment, these voters do not regret voting third party or choosing not to vote in the 2016 election, the Civic Engagement Fund wrote in their report, provided to The Hill.

They view their decision as an effective means to shake up the system in 2016 and in future elections.

To win the voters over, theCivic Engagement Fund says Democrats shouldembrace issuesthat it says would appeal to young progressives.

In 2016, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonRussian lawyer who met with Trump Jr. was in touch with top Russian prosecutor Kushner scheduled to address congressional interns next week Artist fills a giant snow globe with Hillary Clintons unused election night confetti MORE did about as well as 2004 Democratic nominee John KerryJohn KerryWhite House says US-Russia cyber unit would not share intel 2 years in, Iran nuclear deal needs a healthy dose of transparency Progressives: Dems at risk of perennial election defeat MORE with black and Hispanic voters, but fell well short of Obamas numbers.

She won 88 percent of the black vote compared to just 8 percent for Trump. In 2012, Obama won 93 percent of the black vote compared to 6 percentfor Republican Mitt Romney.

In 2008, Obama won 95 percent of the black vote.

Clinton won 66 percent of the Hispanic vote compared to 28 percent for Trump. That compares to 71 percent for Obama in 2012 and 27 percent for Romney.

The drop in support from Obama could have cost Clinton, who won the popular vote over Trumpby 2.9 million votes, in key states.

In Milwaukee County in Wisconsin, Wayne County in Michigan and Philadelphia County in Pennsylvania, Clinton failed to turn out as many black voters as Obama. She lost all three states, the first Democratic presidential candidate to do so in decades.

The third-party vote also hurt Clinton, and the Civic Engagement Fund argues that an important number of those voters are millennials of color.

Belcher pointed to statistics thatshow that 8 percent of black voters ages 1829 voted for someone other than Clinton and Trump, while 6 percent of Hispanic voters of the same age group voted for someone other than the two candidates. In 2012, just 1 percent of black voters in that age group and 3 percent of Hispanic voters in that age group voted for third-party candidates.

Their breakaway cost Hillary the election, Belcher said.

In Florida, where Trump beat Clinton 48.6 percent to 47.4 percent, 3 percentofvoters backed a third party.

In Wisconsin and Michigan, 5percent backed a third party.

Its not about what Donald TrumpDonald TrumpRoger Stone says House testimony is delayed Russian lawyer who met with Trump Jr. was in touch with top Russian prosecutor Foxs Shep Smith on Trump Jr. meeting: Mind-boggling deception MORE did, Belcher said, making the point that Trump matched Romneys numbers in 2012. Its what she failed to do.

Belcher and others argue that its not just a matter of a natural drop in black voter support for Democrats with Obama, the nation's first black president, off the ballot.

Clemmie Harris, a visiting assistant professor of political science at Syracuse University who specializes in African-American studies, said he warned Kerry of the dangers for Democrats12 years ago.

He argued that the message Democrats used for past generations of minority voters might not work for millennial minorities.

I stated that the Democratic Party will likely continue to fail in its desire to attract younger generations of blackvoters because its strategies for outreach to the African-American community were based on a civil rights era paradigm, Harris said.

I pointed to the party's continued reliance on traditional modalities of black leadership from the baby boomer generation rather than build a new brand that would point towards the future by cultivating a new post-civil rights generation of African American leaders.

The pressure from progressives comes as other Democrats say the party must do more to win back white working-class voters from Trump who rolled up figures across the country that surprised members of both parties.

The tensions within the Democratic Party over these issues can be seen everywhere from Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersMajor progressive group endorses Martha McSally challenger OPINION | Sanders triumphs over Trump in healthcare's battle of ideas Progressives: Dems at risk of perennial election defeat MOREs (I-Vt.) rise in power to the debate over whether Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) should stay on as the Democratic leader in the House.

It is important for the Democrats to regain their standing with working-class voters, but not at the expense of other core constituencies like African-Americans or immigrants. That would be a huge mistake, said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. If the Democrats treat this as a zero-sum game, they will further hurt their coalition rather than strengthening and growing it.

Former aides to Clintonacknowledged that they could have done more in the campaign to win over young black and Hispanic voters.

There were a lot of levels of engagement, but ultimately I don't think we did enough,said one former Clinton campaign aide who dealt with millennial outreach.And I dont think we did a good job in creating a message that resonated with everyone.

An aide at the DemocraticParty also acknowledged the party's lack of focus on the key demographic."They're right. No doubt. And the numbers bear out."

Democratic National CommitteePolitical Director Amanda BrownLierman took it a step further.

It's not enough to show up at a black church or a historic black college every fourth October," she said. We want to be a presence every month, every year.

Brown Lierman said the party has taken steps to improving upon grassroots efforts in all 50 states andpromoting "the values we share"including healthcare, jobs and education as well as "pushing back against this administration's assault on civil rights.

Focusing on young voters can be a risky business.

Millennials are less likely to go to the polls than senior citizens. During the 2012 presidential election, 72 percent of Americans 65 and older cast their ballots, while only 41 percent of those 1824voted.

Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist, says the party needs to make a more concerted effort to get these voters to the polls.

Weve been looking for shortcuts when it comes to campaigning, Simmons said. Much of the focus is spent trying to turn out middle of the road, right-leaning swing voters and I think the balance is wrong. Were overloaded on swing voters but were under-resourced on base color persuasion.

Simmons isnt alone in that assessment.

Rep.EmanuelCleaver (D-Mo.) said in an interview that he and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus were sounding the alarm bells to the Democratic National Committee throughout the 2016 cycle and well before that to not just focus on persuading right-leaning voters.

Every member of the CBC was preaching that sermon for a decade, Cleaver said, adding that they were dismissed by the DNC because of polling, even while experts were saying the opposite.

Cleaver said ultimately, the millennials of color were not inspired.

That was not an inspirational election that we went through. It doesn't mean we lost them, he said. We just have to do more to get them active again."

View post:
Progressives: Dems at risk of perennial election defeat - The Hill

Progressives dial up pressure on Republican moderates over Senate health bill Miami Herald Moderate Republican senators who opposed the original Obamacare replacement bill will face increased pressure from health care advocates to hold the line next week in a possible vote on the revised legislation. Republican senators who are on the fence ... and more »

Originally posted here:
Progressives dial up pressure on Republican moderates over Senate health bill - Miami Herald

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Progressives are in a bit of a panic lately, looking at the results of a recent focus group study that shows their core base of millennials are abandoning the leftist ideology in droves, jumping out of the Democratic Partys ship to take their votes gasp! elsewhere.

Why? Apparently, millennials, and particularly millennials of color of which is 44 percent of that demographic are sick and tired of being taken for granted.

The chickens coming home to roost. Suddenly, blacks arent content to simply and automatically pull the poll levers for Democratic Party candidates, or progressives. Now, theyre demanding actual representation. Theyre decrying the feeling of being taken for granted, according to results from a focus group conducted by the Civic Engagement Fund in Florida and Wisconsin.

Heres the line that really slaps, though.

Youre damn right, I dont have any loyalty to Democrats, one participant in the Florida focus group said, in The Hill. If Republicans want to get real about shit thats happening in my community, I would vote for every one of them. Then maybe Democrats would take us serious too.

Whats astonishing about the statement is that Democrats, progressives and pretty much anyone running for political office with a left-leaning vision and platform could bank on the support of blacks and other minorities. The overall attitude was: Well, who else would they vote for a Republican?

This research shows yes. Maybe.

And consider this: The Brookings Institution reported millennials to be the largest group of voters by 2020 and in 2015, more than 44 percent of millennials were people of color, the Hill said.

Can you say President Donald Trump wins a second term?

We are not going to get back to national majorities again without these voters, said Cornell Belcher, the guy who conducted the focus groups for the Civic Engagement Fund.

Interesting. The gravy train for the Democrats appears to be coming to a halt. Todays minorities arent automatically voting left. And Republicans now have a sizable opening and its one that should start with a reminder of the history of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, and which party fought the hardest, with votes, for their passage. Hint: It wasnt the Dems.

Read the original here:
Progressives panic as millennials flee: 'You damn right, I don't have any loyalty to Democrats' - Washington Times

In recent weeks, a number of Venezuelan specialists on the left side of the political spectrum have published and posted pieces that place them in an anti-Chavista, ni-ni position that consists of a plague on both your houses with regard to Maduro and the Venezuelan opposition. Certainly,at this moment the Chavistas are playing hard ball; the options available to them are limited.

I consider myself a critical Chavista. Its not an easy position to be in, particularly because the last thing I would want to do is to act in any way that would favor the right (that is the Venezuelan opposition and its allies abroad). On the other hand, I have always opposed (even in my writing) the position of some people on the left who feel that U.S. leftists should not publicly express criticisms of socialist governments. Criticism (including public criticism) is necessary as it is part of the process of assimilating lessons.

The recent articles that harshly attack the Maduro government have been published in Jacobin magazine by Gabriel Hetland and another by Mike Gonzalez as well as Hetlands piece posted by NACLA: Report on the Americas in which he uses the expression que se vayan todos. More recently NACLA posted an interview with Alejandro Velasco that was originally published in the magazine Nueva Sociedad.

I know a number of people in Venezuela and academia in the U.S. and elsewhere who I used to see eye to eye on with regard to Chavez and I now find them expressing total rejection of and even animosity toward the government. The only thing that binds us now is our common support for the need to defend Venezuelan sovereignty, and sometimes not even that.

WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS OF THE NI-NI POSITION THAT I AGREE WITH AND WHAT ARE THE ONES I DISAGREE WITH:

AGREE:

1. CORRUPTION IS AN EXTREMELY SERIOUIS PROBLEM IN VENEZUELA, which the government has not done nearly enough to combat, though some timid measures have been taken (eg. over the last 6 months in the oil industry).

2. THE GOVERNMENT HAS VIOLATED CERTAIN DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES the decision to strip Henrique Capriles of the right to participate in elections on grounds of corruption; and the delay of the gubernatorial elections; but not the decision not to hold the recall in 2016 (since the opposition didnt have their act together on that one).

3. THE NEGATIVE ROLE OF THE STATE APPARATUS AND THE CHAVISTA ELITE - Velasco begins his interview with these words. I agree that the state bureaucracy and Chavista elite have stifled internal Chavista democracy and in doing so have discouraged mobilization. Nevertheless, I also recognize that this bloc (the Chavista bureaucrats) buttresses the Chavista hold on power as it has a mobilization and organizational capacity that would be lost should Maduro unleash a revolution within the revolution. Hastily turning power over to the rank and file would have disastrous immediate consequences. Thus, for instance, Chavezs decision to implement the Plan Guayana Socialista in which the workers chose the presidents (known as worker presidents) of state companies in the Guayana region was a failure because the labor movement in those firms, almost 100 percent Chavista, went at each others throats.

4. THE CHAVISTA MOVEMENT HAS LOST A LARGE NUMBER OF ITS ACTIVE SUPPORTERS. In addition to the factors named by the ni-nis (corruption, government bungling, etc.) there is the factor of desgaste (wearing down process over time) which is inevitable and doesnt in itself reflect negatively on the Chavista leadership. Eighteen years is a long time.

DISAGREE:

1. THE MADURO GOVERNMENT IS AUTHORITARIAN OR HEADING IN AN AUTHORITARIAN DIRECTION, which at this point is my most important disagreement with the ni-nis. Those who make this statement never acknowledge the importance of context. They recognize, though in some cases they play down (not so in the case of Hetlands Jacobin piece), the violent activity unleashed by the opposition, but dont relate the states police actions to the challenges it is facing. Just to provide one example. A totally anti-government hostile communications media encourages the audacity and extremism of the opposition for two reasons. First the police and National Guard are held back from responding firmly and without hesitation and thus they lose their dissuasive capacity. And second, the protesters themselves feel empowered. Both factors play on each other. In the U.S. or any other country, the corporate media (and some of the alternative media) would be completely sympathetic to the actions of security forces, even their excesses, in a situation of urban paralysis and urban violence over such an extended period of time (its been three and a half months). Furthermore, to use the term authoritarian when the local media is so supportive of the opposition, is simply misleading. It is true that the national TV channels (specifically Televen, Venevision, and Globovsion) are less hostile to the government than in 2002-2003 but they (perhaps with the exception of Venevision) are still more pro than anti-opposition. But almost all of the important written media both nationally and locally are vocally anti-government. And in the case of the international media, the bias has no limits.

Finally, there are valid criticisms of the Chavista-chosen methodology for the Constituent Assembly election to be held on July 30, but that doesnt make Venezuela authoritarian. In 18 years of Chavista rule, there has never been plausible evidence of electoral fraud. Compare that with the dubious legitimacy of last months elections in the state of Mexico City, hardly unique for that nation.

The real elephant in the room is the gubernatorial election of December of this year, which the Maduro government is committed to holding. Those contests, to be held in just five months from now, will measure popular support. And they will put to the test the democratic commitment of both the government and the opposition. In my opinion the radical fringe of the opposition would prefer to reach power through force in order to crush the Chavista movement and impose neoliberal policies shock-treatment style rather than reach power through electoral means, in which case their options would be more limited.

2. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT SINCERE ABOUT DIALGOUE, according to Velasco there is no evidence one way of the other on this one.

3. THE CHAVISTA RANK AND FILE HAS LITTLE REASON TO ACTIVELY SUPPORT THE MADURO GOVERNMENT and for that reason two million of them abstained in December 2015. Although obviously disillusionment is widespread, there are many important reasons for progressives and popular sectors to support the Maduro government: nationalistic foreign policy, rejection of neoliberal type agreements with international financial institutions, social programs that involve community participation; zero-sum-game policies that favor the popular sectors (example: the Bus Rapid Transit BRT that in Barcelona-Puerto La Cruz reserves one of two lanes on the main drag connecting the two cities to accordion-typebusesat the expense of automobile traffic); and finally Maduro (in spite of all of his shortcomings as an administrator and failure to take necessary bold decisions) has proven to be a fighter and to convince his base that hes not going to go down without a struggle to the end. He has also attempted to mobilize his base; the failure to attempt to do so by Lula and Dilma Rousseff is a major reason why the impeachment against the latter went through.

4. VENEZUELAS ECONOMIC DIFFICULTIES ARE NOT ABOUT LOW OIL PRICES BUT ABOUT GOVERNMENT INEPTNESS. In fact, there are three causes of the economic crisis and they all have approximately the same weight: low oil prices, the economic war (with Julio Borgess public campaign against multinational investments in Venezuela, the existence of an economic war is clearer to see than in the past), and erroneous government policies. With regard to the latter (and here I probably diverge somewhat from Mark Weisbrot), I believe that decisions on economic policies were necessary and urgent, but that there were no easy and obvious choices and any one that was made would have come with a price, both politically and economically.

5. GOVERNMENT INTRANSIGENCE IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE CHAVISTA LEADERS DONT WANT TO LOSE THEIR PRIVILEGES. This statement is misleading, even while there is undoubtedly an element of truth in it. But the statement assumes that Chavista leaders are all cynics and without any sense of idealism. Where is the scientific evidence to support this claim?

6. ATTORNEY GENERAL LUISA ORTEGA DIAZ REPRESENTS A NUETRAL POSITION WHICH THE MADURO GOVERNMENT IS UNWILLING TO TOLERATE. In fact, regardless of her motives, she has assumed an explicitly pro-opposition position. In such a critical situation in which the opposition openly proposes anarchy as a means to unseat Maduro, it makes sense that the Chavistas are attempting to remove her from office.

In short,I believe in the conclusive need to support the Venezuelan government in spite of the numerous criticisms that I have (some more profound than others). With that, I am not arguing for non-discussion of the errors. Everything to the contrary, the Venezuelan experience needs to be analyzed from a critical perspective, especially because of the plausibility of the criticisms formulated by critical progressives and the thorniness of many of the issues that have been raised. But there is a long tradition of purism on the left that runs counter to the position of critical support that I advocate.

First published by teleSUR English, adapted and expanded for Venezuelanalysis.

Here is the original post:
The Venezuelan Dilemma: Progressives and the "Plague on Both Your Houses" Position - Venezuelanalysis.com

The battle for the future of the Democratic Party is being fought at places like the Nathan Hale Veterans of Foreign Wars post in Huntington Station.

Thats where freshman Rep. Thomas Suozzi (D-Glen Cove) held a town hall Monday night. Yet despite Suozzis admirable commitment to near-monthly sessions, parked cars overflowed onto the grass, and attendees clamored for question time. Because a number of them were there to push him to support single-payer health care.

Suozzi represents one vision for how Democrats might emerge from the surprising political wilderness where they find themselves in the era of Donald Trump, considering the cascading miscues and enduring Russia scandal engulfing the Republican president. That vision does not include the more progressive dream of creating a single-payer health care system.

Suozzi is a self-described reasonable person, a pragmatic member of the Problem Solvers and Quiet Skies caucuses in the House of Representatives. He opened the forum touting bipartisan relationships hed developed so far in Congress, including joining a bipartisan gym crew.

He says there are issues he wont move on when Republicans come calling, including opposition to the GOP health care plan that looks to leave millions of Americans uninsured. Yet he remains sure that what may be a relatively moderate district would see tax increases or the threat of them as non-starters. Hence, his support of single-payer health care on an academic basis only.

Thats not good enough for members of the grass-roots Long Island Activists and other like-minded attendees, some of whom showed up to demand that Suozzi co-sponsor a House bill making single-payer a reality.

For people like Joseph Sarno of Dix Hills, Democrats need to fall in line for a more progressive platform. He and others implored Suozzi on that front on Monday, as they had in the past. Suozzi addressed one of Long Island Activists founders, Ron Widelec of Commack, by name.

But like much of national politics, the two sides are at an impasse. Should Democrats double down on the seriously progressive initiatives reintroduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders, seeing that as the way to combat Democratic apathy? Or is the lesson from the 2016 campaign that Democrats should tailor arguments to a more local tune, edging out wins wherever they can get them even if their ideology is not always perfectly consistent?

Armed with limited information gleaned from special elections and the reading of social media moods, partisans on both sides of the Democratic divide are preparing the way forward for the party into 2018 and beyond. They are weighing whether the losses of national-style Democrats in high-profile, well-funded races mean the party needs to find candidates more amenable to their regions. Or does the win of someone like Christine Pellegrino a Sanders delegate from West Islip with union backing who won a South Shore Assembly seat in a Trump district in a low-turnout race on May 23 imply that progressive ideals are winning?

That was all in the caldron for Suozzi to deal with on Monday. He noted that to change things, you need to win. The activists might add that to win elections, the candidates need to change. There does not appear to be much chance of rapprochement.

But in reality, there is plenty of room between the hard goal of single-payer health care and the moral nightmare of the GOP plan. That middle ground could be something both sides of the Democratic divide could support. Coming to some sort of truce on issues like this when it matters at election time will be the true test of 2018 and after for the party. If either side abandons the other, the wilderness may be unbroken.

Mark Chiusano is a member of Newsdays editorial board.

See the article here:
Suburban progressives want to push Tom Suozzi and the ... - amNY