Daily Archives: January 14, 2020

Episode 25: The Endorsement

A Special Collaboration With The Timess Editorial Board

Watch the full episode on FX, Hulu, and in these areas outside the U.S.

Producer/Director John Pappas

Between coffee-shop chats in Iowa and stump speeches in New Hampshire, candidates for the Democratic nomination for president visited The New York Times last month for a series of on-the-record conversations with the editorial board.

For up to 90 minutes at a time, the leading Democrats in the race defended their records, sparred with the board over policy, and made their pitches for the chance to challenge President Trump in November.

Watch the freewheeling conversations in a special, hourlong episode of The Weekly on Sunday, Jan. 19, at 10 p.m. ET on FX, and streaming the next day on Hulu and see which candidate The Times editorial board will endorse for the 2020 Democratic nomination.

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from The New York Times newsroom.

For their conversations with the Democratic candidates, the regular members of the board were joined by other opinion writers and editors. James Bennet, the editorial page editor, recused himself from any involvement in the 2020 elections. His brother, Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, is running for the Democratic nomination.

[The full episode will be available to Times subscribers in the U.S. on Monday, Feb. 24.]

Every day this week, well publish one or two of the board's conversations with the Democratic candidates. Check back tomorrow for new transcripts and video.

Senator Bernie Sanders

The good news is, and it is very good news, is that our younger generation today is the most progressive young generation, I suspect, in the history of this country.

Read the full transcript.

Tom Steyer

I think, as a country, we have some huge tasks. One is, honestly, to save the world. People are unwilling to face the fact that we have to save the world and it has to be us.

Read the full transcript.

Senator Cory Booker

Look, I have this firm belief that if America hasnt broken your heart, you dont love her enough.

Read the full transcript.

Senior Story Editors Dan Barry, Liz O. Baylen, and Liz DayDirector of Photography Sam ChaseVideo Editors Geoff OBrien and Evan WiseAssociate Producer Brennan Cusack

Follow this link:

The Weekly | Vetting the 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates - The New York Times

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley raised eyebrows earlier this week when she told Fox News that Democrats were mourning the death of top Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani.

Georgia Republican Doug Collins took it up a notch Wednesday night:

Fox Business host Lou Dobbs clearly didnt have a problem with that hot take from Collins, as you can see from the interview:

Other Republicans followed suit. Among them: Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, who contended in a Thursday press conference that Speaker Nancy Pelosi was defending Soleimani.

Of course, on the matter of the treatment of Gold Star families those who have lost family members in battle Donald Trump has himself come under sharp rebuke for his attack on the Khan family. Nobody mentioned that on the Fox show, though.

Needless to say, Collinss comment sparked a serious backlash.

Who is running against this craven un-American ignorant ahole named Doug Collins? I will max out to you tomorrow, tweeted former United States Attorney Preet Bharara. I happen to be a Democrat and I prosecuted terrorists for living. Sent many to prison for life. I dont know what Doug Collins has ever done to for America except preen and sound stupid.

And heres what Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) had to say on CNN when she was asked about the comments: Im not going to dignify that with a response she said. I left parts of my body in Iraq fighting terrorists. I dont need to justify myself to anyone.

Watch this clip from the interview:

They werent the only ones taking Collins to task. Twitter TWTR, -0.27% was ignited by his inflammatory comments:

By midday Friday, Collins was showing signs of having been chastened by the criticism, saying he, in fact, does not believe Democrats are in love with terrorists:

This Key Words item was initially published on Jan. 9. It was been updated.

Read more from the original source:

Prominent House Republican Doug Collins walks back his insistence that Democrats are in love with terrorists - MarketWatch

This is just a wild card, and it makes the election itself hostage to decisions made in Tehran. If, God forbid, a jetliner filled with American passengers mysteriously blows up midair in October, like Pan Am Flight 103 did over Lockerbie, Scotland, in the 1980s, voters may well blame Trump, even before anyone knows for sure who is responsible. But its easy to think of other scenarios that benefit Trump.

Gail: Oh God, Bret, youre making me feel even worse about the possible downside of 2020. This is why Im suddenly checking the N.B.A. standings and looking forward to spring training.

Bret: Rest assured that no matter what happens this year, the Knicks will embarrass us. The key for Democrats isnt so much to take a position on Suleimani as it is to convey a sense of sobriety when it comes to questions of peace and war.

Gail: Well, thats certainly fair. And not too tough. If you look at the contenders, theyre not exactly a bunch of what-the-heck-lets-party people.

Bret: If I wanted the Democratic nomination (I dont!), or were a Democrat (Im not!), Id say something along these lines: Suleimani killed Americans, and on my watch anyone who kills Americans is a dead man walking. Period. But the goal of saving American lives requires prudence and vision, not bravado, impulse and political calculation. As president, I will oppose Irans dangerous behavior at every turn, whether against us or our allies. But Im not going to hazard our position in the region, or risk a reckless war, or ruin the chances for a negotiated nuclear deal, just to kill one evil but easily replaceable man. And, unlike Trump, Im going to listen closely to my soldiers and diplomats before I go around signing kill orders just because I like feeling tough.

Gail: I would definitely vote for you, if youd just consider embracing Medicare for all and a tax hike for the wealthy.

Bret: Heaven forfend, Gail. We need further tax cuts to keep this incredible economic expansion going, and Health Savings Accounts for All so that we can finally get away from the third-party payer that has bedeviled our health delivery systems for so long.

Read this article:

The Odd Couples of the Democratic Party - The New York Times

Of course there will be those who simply follow the presidents lead, he noted. But I think most people probably have a wait-and-see attitude, which is, Well, hes got to prove to me that hes really Republican now, and this just wasnt done opportunistically, which I dont think hes going to be able to prove, because thats exactly what this is, Mr. Richter said.

Ron Filan, Mr. Van Drews campaign manager, said in a statement, If David has any question as to Congressman Van Drews relationship with the voters of South Jersey, Id invite David to sign up for a ticket and see the response Jeff Van Drew gets when President Trump comes to support him in Wildwood later this month.

Mr. Richter is doing what any textbook would probably advise at a moment like this: Drum up ones lifelong Republican bona fides. Remind voters of all the times the other guy stood with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Stay optimistic that Republicans in this district care about the issues and the principles they believe in.

But this is not a textbook time.

At a gathering of local Republicans at a Margate City restaurant this week, Mr. Richter introduced James Toto, a Somers Point councilman who was among the first officials to endorse him.

Mr. Toto should say hes still all in for Mr. Richter. That Mr. Van Drews switch meant nothing, that of course hed love to oblige the president, but that he already pledged his support elsewhere.

But after Mr. Richter walked away, Mr. Toto, leaning against the bar, admitted he was no longer so sure.

I support our president. And this is what the president wishes, he said of voting for Mr. Van Drew.

Mr. Toto then clutched his chest. How, he asked, do I go against what the president stands for?

Read more here:

He Was Cruising in a G.O.P. Primary. Then Trump Endorsed an Ex-Democrat. - The New York Times

Iowa state Auditor Rob Sand is seen in his office at the Iowa State Capitol in Des Moines. Multiple presidential campaigns have sought Sand's endorsement in the final stretch before next month's caucuses, which he has declined to give. Clay Masters/Iowa Public Radio hide caption

Iowa state Auditor Rob Sand is seen in his office at the Iowa State Capitol in Des Moines. Multiple presidential campaigns have sought Sand's endorsement in the final stretch before next month's caucuses, which he has declined to give.

A wide open competitive presidential primary should be a moment of opportunity and peak political leverage for ambitious and aspiring politicians in places like Iowa. But one of the most sought-after Democrats in the first-in-the-nation caucus state isn't interested in endorsing a presidential candidate.

As the youngest of a handful of Democrats in statewide office in Iowa, state Auditor Rob Sand, who was elected in 2018, is often mentioned as a potential future U.S. Senate or gubernatorial candidate.

But despite getting courted by candidates ranging from Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, Sand says endorsements "barely" matter "at all."

"I think it's a bigger deal to the candidates than it is to caucus-goers," says Sand, who says his sister supports Warren and that if he endorsed another candidate, it wouldn't sway her at all.

With only a year of experience as auditor and two young kids at home, Sand says he's not interested in being tied to a presidential campaign.

"If I could snap my fingers and know that the person that I determined was the best candidate was going to somehow magically win the Iowa caucuses and become the nominee, I would take this much more seriously," Sand says. "But part of the reason the Iowa caucuses are good to have go first is because Iowans take this seriously."

Prior to becoming auditor, Sand, 37, was an assistant attorney general and led a nationwide lottery-fixing investigation. Originally from Decorah, a college town in rural northeast Iowa, Sand was elected by defeating a Republican incumbent in year that also saw Iowa's GOP governor, Kim Reynolds, win.

Sand, who's a bow hunter, hasn't offered any presidential candidates a trip to his deer stand in urban Des Moines. The city has been trying to control the deer population.

While Sand hangs out in the deer stand on a recent day, he sends some emails from his phone and checks his social media accounts. He's live-streamed his quest for a haircut while traveling in rural Iowa and tweets often about his favorite food: gas station breakfast pizza. (In Iowa it usually comes with cheese sauce, eggs and a breakfast meat like sausage or bacon.)

"You get a nice piece of breakfast pizza with some firm crust underneath, that's a really good version of breakfast on the go," Sand whispers in the deer stand.

Sand has previously pointed out before that presidential candidate and former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg hasn't tried breakfast pizza from the gas station chain Casey's. During an interview with Iowa Public Radio last month, Buttigieg was asked about that challenge.

"Is that what it's going to take to get the Rob Sand endorsement?" Buttigieg asked with a chuckle.

"Organizational heft and reputations on the line"

While Sand may doubt the value of his endorsement, any edge a campaign can get matters in a field this big, said Lily Adams, communications director for California Sen. Kamala Harris' now-defunct presidential campaign. Adams was also Hillary Clinton's Iowa communications director in 2016.

Adams says campaigns want a good mix of endorsers who are not just going to be a name on a press release, but will also "put their organizational heft and reputations on the line to get out people on caucus night."

"[That's] when you are going to need everybody in that room to be advocating for you," Adams says.

While not decisive, endorsements hold some sway with caucus-goers, such as Christopher Marks, a mental health counselor.

After seeing a state lawmaker who had endorsed Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar introduce her at an event in suburban Des Moines last week, Marks says that support "didn't hurt" for him.

"I think it carries more weight to me than Kevin Costner coming out for Pete. This is where I live. This is where I'm from," Marks says. "These are the people that represent me. And if they say they represent her that means something to me."

After several hours in Sand's deer stand, the sun starts going down, ordinarily prime time for deer to appear.

"I endorse this location for deer to visit within the next 40 minutes," Sand whispers.

But no deer ever show up. Sand says it's proof his endorsement doesn't really matter.

Go here to see the original:

Why The Most Coveted Democratic Endorser In Iowa Isn't Picking Sides - NPR

Stephanie Valencia, a co-founder and the president of EquisLabs, a Democratic firm studying Latino voters, told me that dislike of Trump is not enough to guarantee bigger turnout. Democrats cannot afford to rest on the fact that Latinos hate Trump and question his moral character and question his handling of the issues that matter to them, she said. We need an aspirational vision of what this country can be, and not just how we are going to stop Trump from being president.

The other challenge facing Democrats is that both non-college-educated and college-educated white voters in the Sun Belt have traditionally leaned more conservative than they do in the Rust Belt. In 2018 exit polls, Trumps approval rating among both groups was higher in the Sun Belt than in the Rust Belt, with the gap especially wide among college-educated white voters.

Read: Brace for a voter-turnout tsunami

Still, Democrats wins in suburban House races across the Sun Beltas well as the results of the Senate contests in Texas, Arizona, and Nevadashowed clear cracks in the once-impregnable Republican dominance among white-collar Sun Belt voters.

Hausman argues that Democrats must now try to capitalize on those openings and capture state legislative chambers there. Frey agreed, noting that having control of redistricting could provide Republicans their final wall against the growing diversity that is mostly driving the population growth in the Sun Belt. Focusing primarily on suburban seats within major metropolitan areas, Hausmans group is mounting an effort to flip Republican-controlled chambers in Texas, Arizona, North Carolina, and Florida.

Democrats are focusing heavily on those same diverse and white-collar areas this year as they target Republican-held House seats in North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas, as well as GOP-controlled Senate seats in Arizona, Colorado, Texas, and Georgia. On the presidential level, they envision Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina as fallbacks if they cant recapture any of the Rust Belt battlegrounds from Trump. (Democrats are also hoping to significantly improve their presidential performance in Texas and Georgia, though both remain long shots for 2020.)

Nicole McCleskey, a New Mexicobased Republican pollster, acknowledged to me that a recoil from Trump, particularly among women, has hurt the GOP in the Southwest suburbs. But she remains optimistic that the GOP can hold Texas and Arizona in both the Senate and presidential contests, noting that Republicans easily carried the governors elections in both states last year, despite the nationwide Democratic tide.

Once those suburban voters put a face to what the Democratic Party is really about, it becomes a much more uphill struggle for them, she told me. In these suburban areas, when you start talking about what does Medicare for All mean for you, cost for you, I think it changes the face of what this election is about.

See the rest here:

Democrats Future Is Moving Beyond the Rust Belt - The Atlantic

Despite the diplomatic frills and savoir-faire, the United States has committed itself to a policy of extortion for decades: threats and mounting sanctions designed to bring Iranian civil society to its knees.

The U.S. governments targeted assasination of Iranian General Qassim Suleimani, characterized by the Trump administration as a preemptive defensive strike after the death of a military contractor, was the latest U.S. military provocation against Iran. A gleeful John Bolton, former assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, congratulated all involved in eliminating Qassem Soleimani, calling the assassination a decisive blow that he hopes will lead to regime change in Tehran.

While war hawks like Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer salivated at the prospect of another war, Democrats were quick to feign outrage over the killing of Suleimani, leaning into what they characterize as Trump's strategic failures: Elizabeth Warren described the incident as reckless. Biden's said Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox. And Cory Booker criticized a president who has had, really, a failure in his Iranian policy and whos had no larger strategic plan. Former Obama aides, meanwhile, have been swift in blaming this latest provocation on President Trumps 2018 withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly referred to in the United States as the Iran nuclear deal.

Signed in 2015 after almost two years of negotiations, the JCPOA eased the U.S.-led sanctions regime imposed on the Islamic Republic by successive administrations since 1979 in exchange for severe restrictions on Irans civilian nuclear energy program. Democrats in Congress and running for president have told the U.S. public that by ripping up Barack Obamas signature foreign policy achievement just to tar his predecessors legacy, Trump undid a deal that was working. But how was the deal so easy to undermine? How have the most hawkish elements of the Republican party reasserted themselves at the highest level of a supposedly isolationist administration?

The answer is that Obamas legacy was to momentarily sideline the neoconservative project in the Middle East without questioning its key premises. The Democrats damned the Iran dealthey damned it with faint praise, veiled racism, and colonial arrogance. In fact, the Democrats have been undermining the cause of peace with Iran since before the JCPOA was a glimmer in John Kerrys eye.

In 2010, Obama was asked by a reporter for BBC Persian if he saw any contradiction between his conciliatory Persian New Year address (a gesture of goodwill on the hallowed spring equinox that his administration had already been established as an annual tradition) and the draconian sanctions hed just imposed against Iran, sanctions his administration would tout as crippling. He replied that what the Iranian government has said is, its more important for us to defy the international community, engage in a covert nuclear weapons program, than it is to make sure that our people are prospering. Heres the thing: Iran wasnt engaging in a covert nuclear weapons program, and every single U.S. intelligence agency would have told him so.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went further the following year, telling BBC Persian that eventually the Iranian people will be free, they will not be oppressed by the kind of totalitarian regime that currently rules Iran. In other words, without declaring it the stated policy of the U.S. government that the Islamic Republic is illegitimate and should be overthrown, Clinton nevertheless suggests that it would be a nice idea. The de facto endorsement of regime change by Clintons State Department is echoed in the public position of her counterpart in the Trump administration, Mike Pompeo, who has said that the objectives are to change the behavior of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Then as now, the administrations rationale presents Iranians with a particularly cruel catch-22: No matter what the facts are, we know your government is up to no good, and if ordinary Iranians dont like it, you can just overthrow your supposedly totalitarian government. The logical conclusion of this paradox is, of course, regime change.

Obama and Clinton could have just said that Iran wasnt developing nuclear weapons. Instead, they repeatedly reminded Iran, the government and its people, that all options are on the table, a genocidal threat of preemptive military invasion justified by the image of a scary Islamic Republic whose fanatical leadership is a death cult, secretly pursuing nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map. They affirmed the fiction that a nuclear-armed Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, a claim that is predicated on the Islamophobic assumption that the government of Iran is suicidal and simply cannot be trusted with a nuclear deterrent against belligerent aggressors constantly threatening to bomb it. Only a view of the Middle East steeped in racism can explain the automatic according of victim status to Americas junior partner in the Middle East, an outpost of white supremacy apparently entitled to undeclared nuclear monopoly as carries out its settler-colonial expansion.

The nuclear deal was conceived in sin, an imperialist shakedown to guarantee U.S. and Israeli regional hegemony without becoming embroiled in another protracted military engagement. During her failed 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton reminded Iranians that the United States would be able to totally obliterate them. This menacing disclosure was an effort on Clinton's part to get back to what worked during the Cold War, as she put it in remarks during her campaign. Despite the diplomatic frills and savoir-faire, the United States has committed itself to a policy of extortion for decades: threats and mounting sanctions designed to bring Iranian civil society to its knees.

As Kerry, newly sworn in as Secretary of State, began talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in 2013, Democrats who opposed negotiations with Iran found the image of Iran as an irrational actor quite useful. Sen. Cory Booker and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, the latter currently running for president, were vocal critics of Obamas Iran policy from the right. When Booker (who just dropped out of the presidential race) ultimately declined to buck Obama, it was begrudgingly and with half a heart. He wrote by way of explanation that while negotiations with Iran have only delayednot blockedIrans potential nuclear breakoutwe have now passed a point of no return that we should have never reached, leaving our nation to choose between two imperfect, dangerous and uncertain options. He urged that we must be more vigilant than ever in fighting Iranian aggression.

And before Gabbard finally came around, she earned considerable attention from conservative media for her record of voting with Republicans on anti-Iran legislation aimed at scuttling diplomacy and for her hawkish rhetoric parroting GOP talking points about the worlds leading state sponsor of terrorism. She was lauded on the right for her concerns about the deal, which she voiced on Fox News and as a speaker at the 2015 conference of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Andimplicitly but undeniablyshe supported efforts to undermine the deal by attending Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus address to Congress on the invitation of Republican leaders that same year, a speech openly aimed at rebuking Obamas Iran policy and boycotted by 56 of her colleagues, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), both of whom are running for president. Gabbards recent attempts to reposition herself as an anti-war politician notwithstanding, the only extended discussion of Iran policy during last years Democratic primary debates revealed how much ground the party shares on the need to actively restrict Irans sovereignty.

Booker was the only then-candidate who said at the June 26 debate that he would decline to rejoin the JCPOA to allow for the opportunity to leverage a better deal. Gabbard ceded that changes to the deal would be necessary after rejoining: It was an imperfect deal, there are issues like their missile development that need to be addressed. We can do both simultaneously to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

In a September 2019 interview with CNN, Gabbard claimed with great confidence and urgency that Iran is moving forward towards developing a nuclear weapon. However much Rep. Gabbard, who is not running for reelection in Hawaii, may differentiate herself from the mainstream of the foreign policy establishment, she remains in lockstep with her partys overwhelming instinct to play up the threat of a nuclear Iran without a deal in place in hopes of frightening conservatives back towards the JCPOA.

It was unavoidable that this racist caricature of suicidal mullahs, hellbent on Israels destruction knowing full well that assured US retaliation means it would entail their own, informed the Democratic response to US withdrawal from the deal. Nowhere was the folly of this gambit more grotesquely typified for the Trump era than in the decision by Daily Show alumnus John Oliver and his producers at HBOs Last Week Tonight to buy ad time for a pro-Iran deal PSA in April of 2018 during Sean Hannitys time slot on Fox News, when the president is presumed to be watching. Oliver is the current golden child of a satirical news subgenre whose previous poster boy, Jon Stewart, was beloved by Democrats and even called to testify before Congress on issues close to their hearts. Like Stewart and Stephen Colbert, he is influential among liberals and symptomatic of their ideological blind spots.

0 is less than 10, an actor dressed as a cowboy repeats in the ad: 10 is the number of years the deal would have constrained Irans insatiable hunger for nukes due to its so-called sunset clauses (this is not true), and 0 how many years it would take Iran to develop one without it (this, too, is not true). The Iran deal may not be perfect, the cowboy concedes, but it restricts Irans ability to start making a bomb. The spot concludes with a black-and-white image of a mushroom clad. Even in supposed defense of the bill, the liberal framing validates the most fevered neoconservative fantasy of all, that a sovereign Iran is an existential threat to the United States, Israel and 'global security,' whatever that is.

In an interview with CNN, after he was barred from entering the United States where he had planned to to address the United Nations Security Council, Zarif delivered a pointed summation of Iranian attitudes in light of offenses committed by past and present administrations: The United States has to wake up to the reality that the people of this region are enraged, that the people of this region want the United States out, and that the United States cannot stay in this region. The retaliatory strike against US bases in Iraq marks a dynamic shift in U.S.-Iran relations, one which may potentially transform the region.

Trump has already promised further sanctions against Iran. As Democrats decry the presidents strategy as misguided, it is worth remembering that the first major violation of the nuclear deal occurred with their full support back in 2017, when every Senator save for Sanders and Kentucky Republican Rand Paul voted in favor of a sanctions package targeting Iran along with Russia and North Korea.

Now, at the current point in the administrations Maximum Pressure campaign, which has targeted food and medicine and sought to bring the Islamic Republics oil exports to zero, it is unclear what there is left to sanction. What should be clear to anyone seeking to meaningfully counter the momentum of military conflict is that diplomacy cannot be war by other means. An agreement between those who live in fear of annihilation and their prospective annihilators is no less coerced than any promise youd make with a gun to your head. As long as the United States attempts to dictate the future the Middle East in any capacity, half-measures in the name of progress will be undermined by the very relationship of domination that persists.

Read this article:

Top Democrats Say They Support the Iran DealBut Here's How They've Undermined It - In These Times

While the conflict with Iran has recently led the news, for the previous five months, impeachment dominated the news and obsessed the chattering classes. Left-leaning pundits and hardcore Democrats were certain that impeachment would destroy President Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpCoalition forms to back Trump rollback of major environmental law Canadian CEO blasts Trump over downed plane in Iran: 'I am livid' Business groups worry they won't see a Phase 2 Trump-China trade deal MORE but the polling numbers say something very different. Impeachment has changed nothing.

Trumps RealClearPolitics approval average has gone from 43.8 percent at the end of July to 45.2 percent today. His polling average against his top rival (former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenSanders fires back at Trump: Polling surge 'means you're going to lose' Buttigieg picks up Iowa congressman's endorsement ahead of caucuses Kerry: Sanders is 'distorting' Biden's record over vote for Iraq war MORE) has improved, if slightly. The last five head-to-head polls give Biden a 48.5 percent to 44 percent advantage, against a 51 percent to 44 percent advantage in July.

These improving numbers for Trump do not mean that impeachment has benefited him; in fact, the proportion of voters who support impeaching Trump has gone up. According to polling averages calculated by the site FiveThirtyEight, opposition to impeachment exceeded support from March through the end of September 2019. In July, an outright majority opposed impeachment; however, support for impeachment is now greater than opposition and has remained so since September.

How can this be the case if impeachment is the towering moral test breathlessly covered day after day? Simple: The public views other issues as more important.

Politico and Morning Consult found in November that impeachment was next to last on issues of importance for the public and there is little likelihood impeachment is going to climb in importance. Since Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiDemocrats scramble to rein in Trump's Iran war powers Pelosi: Trump is 'impeached for life' Trump hits Senate for giving impeachment 'credibility' by holding trial MORE (D-Calif.) announced the start of the impeachment inquiry, Trump has negotiated a modest initial trade deal with China. Household income is rising, with a larger proportion going toward lower-income households. Unemployment remains low, and the stock market rose nearly 30 percent in 2019.

Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenLocal New Hampshire SEIU branch bucks national union to endorse Sanders Warren: 'Disappointed' to hear Sanders urging volunteers 'to trash me' Sanders fires back at Trump: Polling surge 'means you're going to lose' MORE (D-Mass.) can claim all she wants that the Iran crisis was engineered by Trump to distract from impeachment, but the fact is that impeachment is not and has not been a top priority for the public. Whether or not Trump was trying to distract from impeachment (and there is no evidence to support that contention), he certainly didnt need to.

Impeachment is and always has been about satisfying the demands of Democratic voters who detest Trump. Democratic voters not only favor impeaching Trump 84 percent to 11 percent but also oppose Trump by similar margins on job approval (91 percent disapprove) and practically all significant issues. For the top issues outside the economy, Democrats disapprove of Trump by an average of 80 percent. On the economy Trumps best issue Trumps Democratic disapproval is still 67 percent. Anything that Trump does will be opposed, and any action that strikes at Trump will be supported. Any Democratic member of Congress who opposes impeachment is almost certain to lose their party primary.

Republican voters similarly support Trump on all significant issues and oppose impeachment in numbers that essentially mirror Democratic numbers. Republican voters oppose impeachment 81 percent to 13 percent. Remarkably, they approve of Trump on the top five policy issues by the exact mirror opposite of the Democratic average (GOP approval average: 80 percent).

Impeachment is only going to get worse as an issue for the Democrats.

From the start, Trump was not going to be removed from office. While impeaching the president requires only a majority vote in the House, removal requires a two-thirds majority (67 votes or more) in the Senate an absolute impossibility. The squabbling over the structure of the trial in the Senate is inane and pointless. No matter how the trial proceeds, Trump will be acquitted, and voters on the fence about Trump will consider impeachment to have been a massive waste of time.

Furthermore, the delay in forwarding the articles of impeachment to the Senate just pushed impeachment into the election year. Its easier than ever to make the argument to independent voters that the decision to keep or remove Trump should rest with our roughly 135 million active voters, not 100 senators.

Congressional Democrats have done what their voters wanted they impeached Trump. The longer they drag the process out, the more trouble they are creating for themselves.

Keith Naughton, Ph.D., co-founder of Silent Majority Strategies, is a public affairs consultant who specialized in Pennsylvania judicial elections. Follow him on Twitter@KNaughton711

Link:

Impeachment moved nobody but threatens trouble for Democrats | TheHill - The Hill

Since Donald Trumps election in 2016, the left has obsessed over which voters to mobilize and how to do so. One camp wants to concentrate on moderate white voters. Another says white suburban women are the key to victory in 2020. Yet what may be the most effective use of resources is to reach out to a group of voters few strategists are talking about: infrequent voters, who are disproportionately women, people of color and young people.

In 2018, I was part of an experiment to turn out these voters in the midterm elections by listening to the issues they care about. Seventy percent had never cast a ballot in a midterm election. One in five were new voters. The result? They greatly over-performed and voted at far higher rates than they had in the past. And in so doing, they offered valuable lessons for how Democrats can win in November.

My organization, Community Change Action, along with three others reached out to infrequent and never-voters in Michigan, Nevada and Florida. A typical get-out-the-vote campaign would ignore these voters, who are often deemed as too hard to reach and not worth the effort. Any such campaign that did do outreach would emphasize TV ads and mailers. If by some miracle the campaign included a face-to-face canvass, outside firms would be hired and college students imported from other parts of the country.

Instead, we tried something different. We trained people in these swing states to knock on the doors of the people they know, or call or text them with selfie videos where theyd say: Im a voter. Come join me at the polls. Then these people would contact their own neighbors and friends, and so on. This is grass-roots organizing, which has won big progressive victories in the past.

More than 62,900 of the Nevada voters in the experiment cast ballots before Election Day. This is a 937 percent increase in early voting for this cohort compared to 2014. Young voters in the state (35 and under) actually turned out at a rate similar to all voters. To engage young Latino voters, we held parties outside polling places with mariachi bands, taco trucks and bounce houses for children. One young woman showed up at a local partners office because she had been called so often. She hadnt voted in 2016 but said she now wanted to encourage other people like her to go to the polls.

In Florida, Latinos in the experiment voted at a rate 11 percentage points higher than Latinos statewide. Local partners there trained immigrant mothers, Dreamers and college students to knock on their neighbors doors. We saw similar increases in all three states for African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders and young people.

In Michigan, we did a randomized test comparing the impact of our friends-leveraging-friends-to-vote program to a typical turnout campaign. Voters in our test had higher turnouts than voters reached by a traditional campaign and those in a control group. The friends and family approach was especially potent with voters who were considered less likely to vote.

In Detroit, on Election Day in 2018, a dozen black women of all ages sat around plastic folding tables calling friends and family to make sure everyone in their congregation and on their voter lists voted. On every call, they asked: How many people went with you to vote? And who else can you give a ride so they can vote?

Our approach was fueled by a simple belief that when you add new voices and change the electorate, you can shift what is politically possible. We found that our model was equally effective at turning out both voters of color and white voters. We didnt have to choose between them or sacrifice older voters for younger ones. Engaging these voters is not a mutually exclusive proposition. Our community leaders intentionally talked to anyone who was not politically active.

This method of deep organizing blows up business-as-usual electoral politics. It threatens the huge paychecks of political consultants and strategists on both sides of the aisle who parachute into communities for elections. The progressive political industry spent $5.7 billion on congressional races alone in 2018. Much of that went to the usual Beltway power brokers who focus on tired attack ads or the vote for so-and-so emails. Our model, however, keeps money and power in the communities whose votes will change the electorate.

Voters want authenticity, not scare tactics or laughable digital and TV ads that even my 10-year-old daughter calls phony. Infrequent voters have sophisticated reasons for staying home and they see right through these tactics. Progressives need to invest in models of engagement that cut through the noise of electioneering and bring new people into political life.

If Democrats had used this model in 2016, they would have needed fewer than 10,000 people in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to commit to moving friends and family members who are not politically engaged to the polls in order to deliver the 79,000 votes needed to have changed the result of that election.

Expanding the electorate matters more than ever before. Some congressional races in 2018 were decided by razor-thin margins. If Democrats are to stand a chance in 2020, they need to invest in strategies that will shore up their base while also bringing in people who rarely or never vote. This has to start before the primaries and not be left as a last-ditch effort during closing arguments in October.

Our approach, though, isnt about talking reluctant voters into casting a vote once, but about building a democracy in which each person matters and stays engaged in authentic participation long past Election Day.

As a community organizer who has worked for decades to build power from the ground up, I know that simply electing candidates who say they support the issues my community cares about isnt enough. It is foolish to believe they will follow through without being pushed. We have to build a movement with the scale and depth to compel our leaders to pass the bold changes we need.

At churches and block parties and in classrooms, our experiment offered this call to action: You are the most qualified person to engage the people you love. Together we can imagine a new kind of government. Strengthening our democracy isnt just about Election Day. It is also about building community ties that pull people sitting on the sidelines into public life.

Originally posted here:

What if Democrats Tried Real Outreach? - The New York Times