Mediaboss Marketing

Six months after President Trump breached long-standing political boundaries to win the White House, the nations major political parties still muddle in his wake.

On the sun-swept lawn of the Hotel del Coronado two weeks ago, national Republican leaders sipped cocktails and listened to San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, one of the partys brightest lights in the most populous state, praise a brand of moderate Republicanism that looks nothing like the versions coming out of Washington either the populism of the president or the more orthodox conservatism of congressional leaders.

A week later, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez talked in a Sacramento interview of the remarkably constructive debate under way in his party, characterizing its divisions as largely in the past. Within hours, he and other party leaders were booed as they welcomed delegates to a state convention that would be filled with persistent internal warfare on healthcare and other issues.

No political party is immune to disagreement; indeed the path to power often relies on combustible ideological diversity. But Democrats and Republicans alike seem particularly adrift and quarrelsome these days.

Part of the reason is the magnetic power of Trump, who has attracted Republicans and repelled Democrats with such force that the parties often seem to be defined solely in relation to him, for or against. That has left both parties images blurry rather than sharp.

Steve Schmidt, a Republican strategist who ran Arizona Sen. John McCains 2008 presidential campaign, sees both parties as having left their anchorages without new destinations in sight.

The political parties have become divorced from their ideological roots; we saw that in the last election, he said. The Republican Party has become unmoored from the intellectual foundation of conservatism. Democrats are divorced from the realities of working people in their party, badly out of step.

Both, he said are held in contempt, as they should be.

Indeed, a poll published in April by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found Americans viewing both parties in a more negative light than three months earlier.

Only 40% of Americans had a favorable view of Republicans, down from 47% in January. Forty-five percent of Americans had a positive view of Democrats, down from 51% in January.

For Republicans, the path to full control of Washington led to the partys divisions.

Republicans seized the Senate and House by electing candidates driven by differing emphases: tea party ardor, pro-business tax-cutting fervor or culturally conservative social views. (What was once a Republican orthodoxy, rigorous opposition to deficit spending, has mostly been lost).

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) has pressed tax cuts that primarily benefit wealthy Americans and cuts to programs for the less well-off, including support for the poor or sick, and reforms to Social Security.

Trump came into office advocating the opposite: protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and spending on infrastructure. That view was embraced by his target audiences, voters in the industrial Midwest and Northeast who had previously sided with Democrats.

Trump since has leaned in the direction of congressional Republicans on healthcare and the budget, to the point that his budget has been criticized by some centrist Republicans as too draconian.

Trumps supporters, of course, see his singular ideology as the way the party should go.

It would be hard to say that Donald Trump isnt the Republican Party, said Ron Ferrance, GOP county chairman in Luzerne County in northeast Pennsylvania, which voted for President Obama in 2012 and flipped to Trump last November.

Trumps version of Republicanism is so popular in that economically stressed county that voters still have Trump signs in their yards, Ferrance said. Some of the appeal centers on Trumps deviation from the partys traditional stances on issues such as trade and immigration.

The main thing that people want in our area is to put America first and to feel safe, he said. Hes going to deliver that. Thats going to give him the buoyancy in 2020.

Across the country in California, however, Mayor Faulconer argued for a Republican Party that sticks to jobs and sets aside hotter issues. He suggested although he was not indiscreet enough to say so outright that it was the only path forward in areas where Republicans are not already dominant.

In an interview, Faulconer touted his citys close business ties with nearby Tijuana hardly the build the wall message emanating from the president.

Asked about the discrepancy, Faulconer said that the areas Latino community helps define us.

Good quality jobs for both sides of the border, he said. That works for us.

Democrats have no clearly defined leader or universally accepted direction aside from opposition to Trump.

Democrats essentially remain in the box where Hillary Clinton spent the general election: able to unify Trump opponents, but unable to craft a message for those not motivated by distaste for him.

The Democrats are closer to where the electorate is headed, but have shown a tin ear and an inability to understand the groups that formed the backbone of the Democratic Party for decades, said veteran Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart.

The deepest Democratic schisms involve whether to focus on liberal social issues or the economic struggles of blue-collar and middle-class Americans. During the presidential campaign, many voters saw the party as more intent on social issues, an image disputed by Democrats but pushed by Republicans.

The Democratic Party, especially the presidential campaign, lost its core economic message last year; Trump sort of outmaneuvered us among Democrats and independents, said Ohio Democratic Party Chairman David Pepper, who has spent the last few months in what he calls kitchen conversations with voters.

Supporting the civil rights of Democratic voter groups is admirable, he said, but we cant let them bait us into getting away from our core message and I think that does happen.

Party leaders in interviews expressed concern that the lesson may not have been learned.

Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., and an unsuccessful candidate this year to head the Democratic National Committee, pointed to the issue of trade. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) energized a wide swath of Democrats by blaming trade deals for gutting jobs in the Midwest. That does not reflect reality, the mayor said, even if the idea has been embraced by many Democrats.

Weve got a lot of wins on the board from globalization, he said of his city. Weve got auto workers making Mercedes cars that are sold to China. Globalization doesnt have to be a disaster for working people.

But what could be disasters, he said, are seemingly unimportant economic developments touted by the partys more elite factions, such as ride-sharing and driverless vehicles. The first threatens demand for cars, the second threatens demand for drivers, a significant employment option for blue-collar workers.

Nobody in the political space is wrestling with it, he said.

Perez, the national Democratic chairman, has spent months traveling the country to buck up Democrats with a relentless focus on what he sees as Trumps failings. Yet he sees his own partys failings as well.

Just fighting against Donald Trump isnt enough, and Ive heard that clearly from voters, he said. Ive heard from voters that they dont know what the Democratic Party stands for and thats why were out there.

What it stands for, he says, is economic opportunity, good jobs for everyone, ladders of opportunity for everyone healthcare a right for all, not a privilege for the few.

When we get out there and fight for those values, thats how we succeed.

But divisions persist over those very issues. In the weeks leading to special House elections this spring, party activists feuded over whether candidates were supportive enough of abortion rights or populist enough in their economic leanings. At town halls, veteran Democrats such as California Sen. Dianne Feinstein were excoriated by more liberal Democrats for not supporting universal healthcare. (She favors repairing Obamacare.)

At a Los Angeles town hall meeting featuring California Sen. Kamala Harris, Kristin Morley, a real estate agent from Valley Village, said she feared that clashes among Democrats would doom the party in coming elections by dissuading some from showing up to vote.

In some activist groups to which she belongs, even the popular Harris has been sharply criticized for warning against ideological litmus tests, she said, adding: I am terrified by the fact that there is such division in the Democratic Party.

cathleen.decker@latimes.com

Twitter: @cathleendecker

ALSO:

For Democrats in California, a generational shift pulls the party left, with danger and opportunity ahead

Rep. Adam Schiff calls for unity in speech that suggests ambitions for himself

The latest from Washington

Updates on California politics

View original post here:
In President Trump's wake, divisions mark both Democratic and Republican parties - Los Angeles Times

The Assemblys higher education committee passed an amended version of a Republican-backed campus speech bill Tuesday that requires University of Wisconsin System institutions to punish students who take part in disruptive protests.

Changes to the legislation spelled out more specifically the types of disruptions that could lead to discipline for UW students and employees. They also toughened penalties for those who run afoul of the new rules by requiring universities to expel any student who violates the policy three times.

First Amendment advocates had warned that the bills original language was unconstitutionally vague and raised concerns that its mandatory punishments would treat all disruptions with the same severity as the at-times violent demonstrations that have prompted Republican lawmakers across the country to introduce similar legislation.

The amendments and the bill itself passed the Assembly Committee on Colleges and Universities on party-line votes.

Much like a lengthy public hearing on the bill weeks earlier, the sometimes heated debate during Tuesdays meeting often touched on pitched partisan battles over higher education nationally.

Republican members argued that their ideas are under fire on college campuses from left-leaning students and faculty, saying the legislation was needed to preserve open debate at UW institutions and protect the free speech rights of controversial speakers.

Rep. Joan Ballweg, R-Markesan, said the bill would ensure there is no idea or issue that will be shouted down in a public forum.

Democrats painted the legislation as an unnecessary overreach by Republican lawmakers who want to shut down protests they disagree with.

There is no problem that youre trying to solve here, other than an agenda issue for your party, said Rep. Terese Berceau, D-Madison.

The amended bill directs the UW Board of Regents to create a disciplinary process that sanctions students who engage in violent or other disorderly conduct that materially and substantially disrupts the free expression of others. The legislation previously barred a wider range of disruptive speech that Kremer acknowledged was too vague.

It also states that System institutions must strive to remain neutral on public policy controversies.

Another amendment requires universities to launch an investigation and hold discipline hearings if they get two or more complaints alleging someone violated the policy.

Democrats cautioned that the requirement could open the door to students filing complaints against people they disagree with creating, according to Rep. Dana Wachs, D-Eau Claire, a constant kerfuffle on our campuses about what somebody said.

Lawmakers in several states often, but not always, Republicans have introduced similar legislation in an effort to crack down on protests that they say use a hecklers veto to shut down talks by controversial speakers.

They cite as examples the high-profile demonstrations that led college officials to cancel talks at the University of California-Berkeley; in Wisconsin, lawmakers have criticized a protest that disrupted a lecture by conservative commentator Ben Shapiro for several minutes at UW-Madison.

Language in the Wisconsin bill mirrors model legislation proposed by the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute.

A Senate version of the bill has been referred to that chambers Committee on Universities and Technical Colleges.

UW System administrators have not taken a position on the bill, though they asked lawmakers at the public hearing to dial back its mandatory punishments for students who violate the policy.

The UW-Madison faculty advocacy group PROFS has registered against it, saying in a statement Tuesday that UW institutions should be given the autonomy to address their own speech issues.

Rep. Jesse Kremer, R-Kewaskum, who co-authored the legislation along with Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, and the chairpersons of the Assembly and Senate higher education committees, said existing UW policies have not been sufficient in protecting free speech.

Its not working weve seen that, Kremer said.

Excerpt from:
Republican bill to penalize disruptive speech on campus moves forward in Legislature - Madison.com

Susana Martinez and Brian Sandoval were swept into office as part of the 2010 GOP wave two Hispanic governors in Western states who each had the potential for political stardom.

Ms. Martinez has struggled in New Mexico, fulfilling her campaign promise of fighting against tax hikes but failing to get the states economy moving again. The unemployment rate has fallen just 1 percent since she took office in 2011 and is among the bottom third of the country.

Mr. Sandoval, meanwhile, is riding high in Nevada, politically speaking, despite or perhaps because he broke his no-new-taxes promise. His states unemployment rate, which topped out at nearly 14 percent in 2011, is now under 5 percent, and hes managed to score some conservative victories on social policies like school choice.

Seventeen new Republican governors were elected in 2010 as part of the national GOP wave, and like their congressional counterparts, they promised to usher in a new era of booming economies, slimmer government and a bulwark against President Barack Obama.

Most have been successful in reviving their economies, and many made major strides in conservative policies such as limiting the power of public employee labor unions. But theyve not always been rewarded by their own voters.

The class of 2010 did very well. They put in place some substantial tax cuts, said Chris Edwards, who studies state governors for the Cato Institute. But he added: States get into fiscal trouble because of a lot of things outside of their control, like oil prices in a state thats dependent on oil, like Oklahoma. Sometimes they have to do things that are unpopular to balance that.

The wave of new GOP governors included a dozen who captured seats from Democrats or independents, including the big states of Florida, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Five other GOP governors won seats that had been held by a Republican who was term-limited or lost in a primary.

Jon Thompson, communications director for the Republican Governors Association, said it was Republican governing in these states that helped President Trump take the White House.

Without Scott Walkers success in Wisconsin, Rick Snyders success in Michigan and John Kasichs success in Ohio, it would have been a lot tougher for Donald Trump to win these states in the 2016 presidential election. These governors ushered in a new wave of Republican power, and it culminated with the election of President Trump to the White House in 2016, he said.

Governors shot out of the blocks with a series of big promises.

In Wisconsin, Mr. Walker promised to bring the public sector labor unions to heel after a bitter battle that saw him have to win in the legislature, then in the courts, and then survive a recall election. Gov. John Kasich won a similar showdown in Ohio, though voters later overturned his new law.

In Iowa, Gov. Terry Branstad promised 200,000 new jobs by 2016. He and his critics debate whether hes reached that goal, but as Mr. Branstad departs for a new job as the Trump administrations ambassador to China, theres little doubt the economy is humming: Unemployment in the state has shrunk from 5.6 percent to 3 percent.

Gov. Rick Scott also promised 700,000 jobs would be created in Florida, and hes nearly doubled that, with 1.3 million private-sector jobs added between January 2011 and January 2017. Unemployment, which was a staggering 10.5 percent in January 2011, was just 5 percent at the beginning of this year.

Other GOP governors took on social issues, with Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam pushing charter schools and Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin winning a bill pushing the states health department to create an abortion-free society curriculum for high school students.

In Michigan, Gov. Rick Snyder steered clear of hot-button issues, instead putting his effort into cleaning up the troubled city of Detroit. He put the city into managed bankruptcy in 2013, appointed an emergency manager to handle city assets and struck a deal with public-sector unions over benefits.

Within 16 months the city was out of bankruptcy, and Mr. Snyder gave talks around the country about how he achieved such a feat, even stirring up rumors of a presidential bid in 2016 that did not come to fruition.

Mr. Walker and Mr. Kasich did both mount presidential bids that stumbled, while South Carolina Gov. Nikki R. Haley, also part of the class of 2010, was mentioned as a potential vice presidential pick. Instead, she has become President Trumps ambassador to the U.N.

The governors have struggled with some issues including whether to embrace Obamacares expansion of Medicaid. Only six of the 2010 GOP governors agreed to some sort of expansion, while the others declined it, saying they feared putting their future budgets in jeopardy.

Of the 17 GOP governors newly elected in 2010, all but one won re-election in 2014.

Mr. Thompson said that it was Republicans economic agenda that brought them political victory.

While Republican governors have been successful on multiple avenues of reform, a main focus was making their states strong engines of economic growth, and on that policy, they have exceeded expectations, he said.

The exception was Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania, who faced challenges on both the right and the left in his state legislature. Mr. Corbetts biggest downfall was slashing funding to public education, which Democratic challenger Tom Wolf hammered him on during the election. But his relationship with Republicans in Harrisburg was also frosty. He was the first Pennsylvania governor to lose re-election in over 40 years.

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley also departed early, resigning earlier this year over reported ethics and campaign violations.

Most of the rest of the Class of 2010 is term-limited and unable to run again, save for Mr. Walker in Wisconsin.

Democrats say this is a good thing for them looking toward 2018.

I think that in terms of popularity, in measures of how voters think about it, youve had GOP governors for eight years, and people are tired of those governors, said Jared Leopold, spokesman for the Democratic Governors Association.

He said hes seeing Republican candidates drift even further toward the right than their sitting Republican governors, something he thinks will turn off voters.

Whats interesting in the 2018 class running to replace these guys is theyre far more to the right than these sitting governors, he added. The people of those states dont believe those have been successful.

Sticking to campaign promises hasnt always been easy, however, nor has it been a path to political success. In Kansas, Gov. Sam Brownback pushed a major cut on personal income tax and eliminated income tax on profits for limited liability companies. The state has struggled with budget shortfalls and elimination of other services as a result.

His political standing is so low that analysts said it nearly dragged down the GOP candidate in a special congressional election earlier this year.

One difference between the successful and the struggling governors is the nature of the legislatures they deal with.

Voters tend to reward governors who find ways to work with their statehouses, said Nathaniel Birkhead, a professor at Kansas State University who studies state legislatures.

Governors might be better off to find balance with legislators of [a] different party, he said. While we expect fidelity to campaign promises, we tend to reward those who compromise.

Even those states where the legislature is controlled by the same party as the governor can prove to be obstacles, particularly when the legislatures are considered strong compared to the chief executive.

In Nevada, for example, Mr. Sandoval wanted to enact major tax cuts to help fund his public education program, but the state legislature forced him to negotiate. He ended up agreeing to extend existing taxes that had been set to expire during his term.

Mr. Sandoval later agreed to the largest tax increase in the states history, yet remains one of the most popular governors nationwide.

Jon Ralston, a top political analyst in the state, said Mr. Sandoval did pursue conservative policies such as school choice, but the tax battle overshadowed that. Fortunately for Mr. Sandoval, hes been blessed with a business climate thats attracting major businesses to the state, thereby boosting his standing.

It doesnt hurt that hes also been able to charm his legislature and his voters.

The guy is just so likable in addition to getting so much done, Mr. Ralston said. Even though he passed the largest tax increase in state history, with a Republican-held legislature, he remains one of the most popular governors in the country. Who else could do that?

Ms. Martinez, meanwhile, has faced a Democratic legislature and frequently battled it.

She upheld her campaign promise of not raising taxes, even vetoing the legislatures budget in April because it called for tax hikes. Lawmakers sent her a new bill last week with more taxes something the governor has said she will not support.

I think I could say that, as far as I can tell, New Mexicans would have been more satisfied if the governor had found a way to cooperate more, said local pollster and analyst Brian Sanderoff. People get tired of the gridlock and fighting. They have worked together on some issues, and shes found success there.

One such area is the voter ID law that restricts illegal immigrants from obtaining a drivers license. Ms. Martinez repeatedly pushed the issue, which finally passed in 2016 with the cooperation of the state legislature.

Part of Ms. Martinezs success, however, is due to the Department of Homeland Security, which claimed the states ID law failed to comply with the Real ID Act and would not be accepted in federal buildings or airports starting in 2018.

See original here:
Republican governors elected in 2010 delivering to their states what Congress hasn't - Washington Times

Right now, congressional Republicans are in about the best possible position on health care: They showed that they can pass something (anything!) in the House, and now no one is paying any attention to it any more.

Its unlikely, though, that the Senate will end up doing nothing with the American Health Care Act, the Republican bill that passed the House earlier this month. Meaning that the party will again have to grapple with a complicated, deeply unpopular bill that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office figures will mean 23 million fewer people with health insurance in 10 years time.

New survey data from the Kaiser Family Foundation, though, serves as a reminder that pushing forward with the legislation could be politically problematic well past this year.

Only Republicans have a broadly favorable view of the legislation, with two-thirds of them holding that position. Democrats and independents, on net, view the AHCA more unfavorably than favorably. Only about 3-in-10 overall view it positively.

By contrast, nearly 50 percent of respondents held a positive view of the Affordable Care Act (better known as Obamacare) the legislation that the AHCA would replace. Three-in-10 hold strongly favorable views of Obamacare; 4-in-10 hold strongly negative views of the AHCA.

And thats why the AHCAs unpopularity is so problematic.

Obamacare is about as popular now as it has been at any point since its inception in 2010. Generally, opinions have been pretty consistently split, with about half the country viewing it negatively and half positively. The percent viewing it favorably now, though, is seven points higher than those viewing it unfavorably, one of the widest margins in the foundations polling.

Those views are not universally held, though. By party, theres a distinct split.

If that graph looks familiar to you, its because it strongly mirrors approval ratings for the man behind the name Obamacare, Barack Obama.

Theres a different scale there; Democrats like Obama more than Obamacare. But the pattern is the same: A broad partisan gulf, with favorable views rising among Democrats and independents over the last few years of Obamas time in office.

So far, were seeing a similar split in partisan views of Donald Trump. Republicans view him very positively and Democrats very negatively, without much movement up or down among either group.

So if the AHCA were passed and partisan views of it held in the way that views of Obamacare did? Congressional Republicans would be passing legislation that starts out less popular than Obamacare and which will likely be mired in the same partisan trenches over the length of its existence. Sure, theyll say, people will come to like the improved health-care plan that is much better than Obamacare. To which theres an easy response: As more people got coverage under Obamacare, views of the program didnt move much. It was only when the risk to Obamacare from Republican control of Washington emerged that the program became popular on net but even now, its only barely above water.

There is one key difference. A number of polls over the course of the last eight years determined that the Affordable Care Act was more popular than Obamacare indicating that views of the legislation were a function of partisan views of Obama himself. Perhaps views of the AHCA will be separated from views of Trump. After all, three-quarters of respondents in the foundations poll figured that none or only some of Trumps campaign pledges made it into the AHCA itself. His ownership of it is less obvious.

Oh, and theres another key difference: It has to pass. With poll numbers like these, that should certainly not be considered a certainty.

View post:
A new reminder of the possible political disaster looming for Republicans on health care - Washington Post

Common Dreams

The Republican Party's Sickness of the Soul Common Dreams Sometimes people look at the cruelties in Republican policies and ask, How can these people live with themselves? Here's how: By telling elaborate lies and fictions so you don't have to face the cruelty and consequences of your own deeds every time ...

Read the original post:
The Republican Party's Sickness of the Soul - Common Dreams