Category Archives: Democrat

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

President Donald Trump looks on during a campaign rally in Battle Creek, Michigan, December 18, 2019.

Leah Millis | Reuters

Now that we're just a few weeks away from the Iowa caucuses and the real start to the 2020 voting process, there are still three basic facts the Democrats need to accept if they hope to have any chance to win the White House.

If you are a Democrat reading this, I warn you that this isn't going to be easy. But no pain, no gain. So here goes:

Let's start with what is still the toughest pill to swallow for Democrats: Trump won the White House fair and square.

The two-plus years of laser focus and high hopes connected to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation were the clearest examples that all too many Democrats believe the only reason Donald Trump is president is because the Russians somehow helped him cheat. Even the release of the Mueller Report showing no direct evidence of that hasn't stopped this narrative from continuing to be promoted regularly.

But let's face it, this is a very good way for the Democrats to lose to Trump again in 2020. Just like in sports, the worst way to overcome a loss in politics is to go around believing you didn't "really" lose and no real improvements or changes need to be made by your team to win next time.

Now just imagine if the Democrats spent as much time and effort on winning back the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin as they have been in pursuing the Russia collusion obsession and the impeachment process. If the latest polls in those states tell us anything, those other efforts have only made things worse for the anti-Trump forces. It's time to cut bait on the stolen election illusion.

Whether they deserve it or not, Democrats have consistently been viewed by most American voters as the party that is more concerned with the poor and lower middle-income earners in this country. In many ways, that's been a golden ticket to victory for Democrats in almost every major election. They only seem to mess it up when a Democratic administration presides over a worsening economy, (like under Jimmy Carter in 1980), or when Democratic candidates latch on to non-economic themes like social issues or foreign policy.

The problem for Democrats now is not only the fact that the overall economy and Wall Street are strong, but even Americans further down the income scale are now experiencing record wage gains. In fact, new data shows that the labor market has become so tight that rank-and-file workers are now getting bigger percentage raises than the bosses and top management.

But all is not lost for Democrats when it comes to economics, thanks to the sticky issue of health care. As health care insurance costs continue to rise, voters from both parties are still ranking health care very high on their list of top concerns going into 2020.

Some of the Democratic presidential candidates have made 'Medicare for All' a key part of their campaign promises. But compare that to the way then-candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton actively paraded their health coverage plans around in 2008, and you can see how no Democrat has really mined this issue properly this time around.

This issue is simply not going away, and any Democrat willing to offer an attention-grabbing new idea on lowering insurance costs stands to gain substantially in the polls. Of course, that opportunity is also still available for President Trump. So the Democrats don't have any time to waste.

Even mediocre students of American history should know that politics in this country have always been nasty. If you don't believe that, do a little reading about the election of 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

But the nastiness has really only been effective when it's directed at opposing candidates or parties. One of the rules just about every major American politician has followed is to never actually go after the opposing candidate's or party's voters. It's an important distinction.

More and more these days, that rule is being broken and it's mostly being broken by Democrats. The most egregious example from 2016 was Hillary Clinton's description of Trump voters as a "basket of deplorables," a term those Trump supporters have since taken on as a badge of honor.

But in another example of not learning from 2016's mistakes, we're still seeing 2020 Democrats and their supporters following this line. That includes the Democrat with perhaps the best "nice guy" persona, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who recently said Trump voters are "at best, looking the other way on racism"when asked by a cable news host if casting a vote for Trump could be considered a "racist act."

So far, Buttigieg's comments are the most egregious slam on Trump voters from an actual candidate. But prominent liberals and Never Trumpers are increasing their attacks lately. Filmmaker Michael Moore said this week that since two out of three white men voted for Trump in 2016, that means two out of three white men in America are "not good people," and "you should be afraid of them." Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather said last month that Trump voters are part of a "cult," a comment that major news media outlets including CNN echoed days later. Never Trumper Republican Jennifer Rubin has recently been pushing the line that Trump voters are poorly educated.

If the DNC has any power to put a lid on these kinds of comments from Democratic candidates and their supporters, it needs to exert that power right now. The "we think you're stupid and we hate and fear you now vote for us" line has never worked because there's no way it can.

The above three points may seem very simple and logical, but anyone who has been watching the Democrats since 2016 knows that this is kind of like an intervention for a stubborn drug addict. Each of the above truths is something many Democrats have been fiercely fighting against for some time.

The irony is, they need to give up that fight to win the contest that should be much more important to them overall.

Jake Novak is a political and economic analyst at Jake Novak News and former CNBC TV producer. You can follow him on Twitter @jakejakeny.

Excerpt from:

Democrats need to accept these 3 truths to beat Trump in 2020 - CNBC

U.S. President Barack Obama signs the Affordable Health Care for America Act during a ceremony with fellow Democrats in the East Room of the White House March 23, 2010 in Washington, DC.

Win McNamee | Getty Images

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lost her gavel and regained it in this decade. Obamacare played a major role each time.

In 2010, a voter rebellion against the health-care law helped Republicans wallop Democrats and gain House control. Eight years later, Democrats made GOP efforts to scrap Obamacare the centerpiece of their campaigns and then won back the chamber.

"I'll just tell you that the lesson from all of this is that health-care policy is treacherous politics," said Carlos Curbelo, a former Republican congressman. He won Florida's swing 26th District in 2014 after a campaign in which he promised to repeal Obamacare, then lost his seat to Democratic Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell in 2018 following a vote to scrap the law.

In the nearly 10 years since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act became law in March 2010, it has gone from political anchor to tailwind for Democrats. President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement became one of the defining issues of the decade and shaped recent elections more than just about any other policy issue.

"Backlash to the ruling party's actions on health care were a significant part of both the 2010 and 2018 waves," said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of election forecasting site Sabato's Crystal Ball. He added that resistance to the law also probably helped the GOP in the 2014 midterms, especially after a messy rollout of the insurance exchange website in 2013.

Obamacare sentiment reflects broader trends in American political opinion, Kondik said. Voters often buck the party in power, so the Affordable Care Act was less popular under Obama but gained traction once President Donald Trump took office. Both Democrats and independents started to feel better about Obamacare after Trump entered the White House, driving the increase in popularity, according to monthly Kaiser Family Foundation tracking polls.

Democratic calls to maintain the law particularly its provisions protecting Americans with preexisting medical conditions appeared to resonate with voters when Republicans got a real chance to replace the health system.

"Health care was on the ballot, and health care won," Pelosi told reporters in November 2018 after Democrats flipped House control.

The landmark law better known as Obamacare offered new subsidies for buying plans, barred insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, allowed states to expand the joint federal and state Medicaid program for low-income Americans and let children stay on their parents' plans until age 26, among other provisions. Last year, 8.5% of the U.S. population was uninsured, down from 13.3% in 2013, before Obamacare fully took effect.

Before the shift, the Affordable Care Act appeared to hurt Democrats politically at the outset as Republicans billed it as a government takeover of health care.

While a plurality of voters approved of the law a month after its passage, sentiment changed before the 2010 midterm elections, according to Kaiser surveys. In October 2010, 44% had an unfavorable view of the law, while 42% saw it favorably.

In the 2010 elections, Democrats lost 63 House seats. Republicans flipped the chamber and kept control until this year. The GOP also gained six Senate seats.

The incumbent president's party almost always loses seats in midterm elections. Even so, Obamacare appeared to propel the Democratic drubbing.

Nearly half or 45% of voters said their 2010 vote was a message of opposition to Obamacare, according to exit polling cited by NBC News in 2014. Only 28% responded that their vote was a message of support for the law.

After Republicans took over the House in 2011, then the Senate in 2015, they tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act dozens of times. The party made opposition to the law a central part of its political messaging for years though Obamacare remained safe as long as its namesake president sat in the Oval Office.

The GOP gained another 13 House and nine Senate seats in the 2014 midterms. Following the election, then-House Speaker John Boehner said resistance to the health-care law drove the results.

"The American people have made it clear: They're not for Obamacare. Ask all those Democrats who lost their elections Tuesday night. A lot of them voted for Obamacare," he said in November 2014.

Exit surveys cited by NBC News suggest the health-care law had a smaller effect in 2014 than it did in 2010. Only 28% of voters said they wanted to express opposition to Obamacare, while 12 percent said they aimed to show support for the law.

When Trump won the White House and the GOP held control of Congress in 2016, Republicans finally got their chance to dismantle Obamacare. While the House passed a repeal bill in 2017, the Senate never could. The GOP fell one vote short in a dramatic late-night vote on a bill to roll back major parts of the ACA.

The Trump administration has managed to dismantle pieces of Obamacare, both through administrative and legislative action. The GOP tax law passed in 2017 to end the individual mandate, a divisive provision that required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty.

Public opinion around the law started to shift after Republicans gained control of the White House and Congress and started to propose their own alternatives to Obamacare. For nearly all of the stretch from February 2013 to February 2017, monthly Kaiser polls found a larger share of adults had a favorable view of the law than unfavorable.

But in every month since May 2017, Kaiser has found more adults like the ACA than dislike it. In November, 52% of adults surveyed by Kaiser had a favorable view of Obamacare, versus 41% who had an unfavorable opinion.

Curbelo said opposition to Trump, and his most prominent policy push in trying to unravel Obamacare, helped to drive a rough 2018 election for the GOP.

"A large part of the debacle that was that election, certainly in the House, can be attributed to health care," he said.

The former congressman said he does not regret his vote to pass the American Health Care Act, the House Republican ACA overhaul, even now knowing he lost his seat. Curbelo said the vote "was about keeping [his] word" to repeal and replace Obamacare, which he had promised to do since he first ran for Congress.

At the same time, the top Democrats running for the party's presidential nomination all support Obamacare. They only disagree on how best to improve the system.

Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., want a "Medicare for All" system to move quickly to insure every American. Former Vice President Joe Biden and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg want Americans to have the option to buy into public insurance while keeping the private system.

"There is a significant segment on the left who appears to believe the ACA was insufficient, and even the candidates who are more moderate on health care, like Biden and Buttigieg, who want to do more on health care than the ACA did," Kondik said. "So at the very least, there seems to be some broad consensus that a future Democratic president/congressional majority should build on the ACA."

As the popularity of Obamacare and the former president himself have grown, Democrats have become more comfortable tying themselves to the ACA and Obama. In a presidential debate in September, Biden pointed to the fact that Warren said she was with Sanders on health care.

"Well I'm for Barack. I think Obamacare worked," he said.

In releasing his health plan in July, Biden also defended the law passed when he was vice president.

"I understand the appeal of Medicare for All," he said. "But folks supporting it should be clear that it means getting rid of Obamacare, and I'm not for that."

Graphics by CNBC's Nate Rattner

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

Read the original:

A decade of Obamacare: How health care went from wrecking to boosting Democrats - CNBC

WASHINGTON The high costs of health care are a driving force animating House Democrats in the swing districts that will decide control of Congress next year, with the electoral consequences of their votes to impeach President Trump unclear and a court ruling that left the fate of the Affordable Care Act in limbo.

From the suburbs of Seattle, Chicago, Philadelphia and Richmond, Va., to East Lansing, Mich., and Southern California, first-term Democrats see the worries about health care that secured their 2018 elections playing out again in 2020, and they are eager to run toward them.

I have done 15 town halls in my district this year and the top issue I have talked about is lowering prescription drug costs, said Representative Andy Kim, Democrat of New Jersey, who has made addressing health care costs the central point of his legislative agenda and his re-election campaign. The cost side of things is something people see on a daily basis. Its something tangible that they understand is a problem.

The House majority in 2020 will be decided in roughly two dozen districts like Mr. Kims in south central New Jersey, where Republican voters outnumber Democrats, but where a Democrat nonetheless picked off a Republican incumbent in 2018. Democrats hope the debate over rising health care costs will give them a decisive advantage, especially in suburban districts where Mr. Trump, who has failed to deliver on his promises to lower drug prices, remains unpopular.

The Republicans relentless attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act when they were in charge helped Democrats take back the House in 2018. Now, even as the future of the law hangs in the balance in the court system, with an appeals court striking down the individual mandate last week but further delaying any resolution, much of the Democrats political message has moved from how to save health care to how to pay for it.

Im confident health care will be a huge part of the election discussion next year, said Nathan Gonzales, the editor of Inside Elections, a nonpartisan analysis of congressional races. Democrats want to talk about health care, in part because they believe it was a key factor in helping them win back the House in 2018.

Representative Abigail Spanberger, Democrat of Virginia, recalled how in 2017, when she was running for her first term, a major concern she heard from voters was the potential loss of protections for those with pre-existing conditions.

That was top of mind, she said. Then it would go into the cost of premiums and cost of prescription drugs. Now the starting point is the cost of drugs, and, Oh by the way, I want to make sure pre-existing conditions are protected.

House Democrats passed far-reaching legislation this month that would empower the federal government to negotiate lower prices for scores of prescription medications, all but force pharmaceutical companies to offer those prices to all consumers and cap out-of-pocket drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries.

Republicans have labeled the House bill a form of socialism, and they dislike the notion of the government negotiating directly with drugmakers, even though Mr. Trump was among the first people in Washington to promote the idea. The Republican-controlled Senate is unlikely to take up the House bill. But Democrats are set to run hard on it, providing them another point of contrast as they go back to their districts.

Over 80 percent of Americans believe that Congress should work to lower prescription drug costs for as many Americans as possible, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which has been tracking public opinion on health care issues for two decades. The foundation found that Americans viewed lowering prescription drug costs and continuing the A.C.A.s protections for people with pre-existing conditions as the most important priorities for Congress.

When Representative Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of Michigan, went looking for a district office in Lansing after her 2018 victory, she picked a building that housed a large health care center that served low-income residents, underscoring the central policy theme of her campaign. On a recent Monday morning, she attended a round-table event at the center with health care workers and Michigans governor. A patient advocate who lives in Ms. Slotkins district, Sarah Stark, held up vials of insulin that she said now cost her $335 each. People are losing their homes, and their ability to put food on the table, Ms. Stark said.

Ms. Slotkin said the single most common question she hears while speaking to constituents involves health care costs: People will pull me aside and clutch my arm and say: I cant afford my prescription drugs. My son is rationing his insulin. I cant afford my coverage. Im paying more in health care and prescription drugs per month than I am for my mortgage. Im underwater.

Voters cite the rising costs of insurance premiums, higher deductibles, surprise bills from out-of-network providers and price increases for popular and often lifesaving drugs. Even those with employer-based insurance, once viewed as protection against rising costs, have watched their average annual premiums increase by 54 percent over the last decade. Added up, rising health care costs are hitting nearly everyone, nullifying the nominal gains in their paychecks.

The Republican efforts at repeal and replace ironically highlighted the protections in the A.C.A. that would be lost and generated more public support for the law than at any time since its passage, said Mark A. Peterson, a professor at the Meyer and Renee Luskin School of Public Affairs at the University of California, Los Angeles. Now more attention has turned to the other live issue that remains, that has largely always been present and that the A.C.A. has done little to forestall, and in some cases is perceived to have made even worse: out-of-pocket health care costs for individuals and families.

Over the last few months, House Democrats, including many in their first term, have been churning out a slew of bills to address health care costs, holding town hall meetings in their districts on the topic, visiting health care centers and patient groups, and joining forces with advocates for lower drug prices.

Democrats are betting heavily that they have solidified an image as the protectors and defenders of the health care system, just as Republicans long dominated voters confidence on national security issues. They are aided in large part by their attacks on the pharmaceutical industry and a growing trend among Democratic candidates to loudly refuse drugmakers political donations. American voters have disdain for the pharmaceutical industry, according to polling by Gallup. The House Democrats playbook for 2020 will be to paint the Republican Party as doing big pharmas bidding.

The president has been playing Ping-Pong, said Representative Lauren Underwood, Democrat of Illinois. He stood in the House chamber and asked us for the authority to negotiate drug prices, and we delivered, and he walked away.

Health care, Ms. Underwood said, is central to her re-election campaign. She has written 30 pieces of legislation this year, much of it health care related, like a bill signed Monday by Mr. Trump that was designed to make a cheaper generic form of insulin available to consumers more quickly.

Representative Kim Schrier, Democrat of Washington and a pediatrician, said that making her constituents aware of the House prescription drug bill is her biggest campaign priority. She recalled a recent town hall event in her district, shortly before Mr. Trump was impeached, where she expected the impeachment proceedings to dominate the conversation. But what really got peoples attention was H.R. 3, she said, referring to the bill. That was like the grand slam.

Most voters had never heard of the bill, she conceded. This is why I am doing a lot of town halls, sending out mail to people in my district, and frankly it is what I will have to spend a lot of time on the stump and Facebook talking about, she said. Every time I am on TV, I talk about the cost of prescription drugs.

Another factor that has highlighted the high costs of health care is the back-and-forth over Medicare for All, which has been central to the Democratic primary for the White House. The debate shines a light on total spending, said Allison K. Hoffman, an expert on health care law and policy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

In our current system, the health care spending burden is divided among many parties, including employers, employees, the government and charities, she said. In Medicare for All, its all shifted to the federal budget, which makes people ask, Why are we spending nearly 20 percent of gross domestic product on health care?

Republicans, who are fully aware of the drubbing they took over their attempts to unravel the Affordable Care Act, insist that they will not be caught flat-footed again, and that the debate over Medicare for All only fortifies them this time around.

Republicans are on much better ground this cycle, said Bob Salera, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. Voters want bipartisan action to lower the cost of health care and prescription drugs, not socialized medicine.

Democrats like Ms. Schrier, who does not support the Medicare for All approach that has been embraced by several presidential candidates and large swaths of her party, may well find themselves caught between their most liberal constituents, who crave Medicare for All, and Republicans and more centrist Democrats who do not.

I know there is a big movement to blow up the system, but I dont know that we need to do that to make a meaningful change in peoples lives, she said.

View original post here:

Democrats Who Flipped Seats in 2018 Have a 2020 Playbook: Focus on Drug Costs - The New York Times

House Republicans are feeling good about their defense of President TrumpDonald John TrumpGermans think Trump is more dangerous to world peace than Kim Jong Un and Putin: survey Trump jokes removal of 'Home Alone 2' cameo from Canadian broadcast is retaliation from 'Justin T' Trump pushed drug cartel policy despite Cabinet objections: report MORE in this months impeachment vote, and now want to use the divisive fight to cut into the Democratic majority in next falls elections.

Republicans would need to gain about 20 seats to win back the House majority, something seen as a tall order by most political observers.

Much will depend on the presidential election, as a Trump victory would likely offer some coattails for Republicans. Yet Trumps low approval ratings and the possibility he could again win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote makes the GOP an underdog in seeking to end Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiPoll: More independent voters trusting of news stories Health care, spending bills fuel busy year for K Street Trump goes after Pelosi in early morning tweets complaining about impeachment MOREs (D-Calif.) second Speakership.

Gains by the GOP are much more likely, and Republicans are confident they can use the impeachment votes by many House Democrats against them starting with those representing districts won by Trump in 2016.

There are 30 such seats following Rep. Jefferson Van Drews (N.J.) decision to switch parties and become a Republican.

For the Democrats running in those 30 Trump districts, they now need to tell their constituents why they voted against their vote for president, and I think that's going to be a very difficult argument to make, especially with President Trump on the ballot, National Republican Congressional Committee Spokesman Michael McAdams told The Hill.

McAdams argues Democrats will be in a tricky position given GOP voters are energized by an impeachment they oppose. He also noted polling that shows independents opposed to impeachment.

Democrats recognize the threat, particularly in districts such as Rep. Joe CunninghamJoseph CunninghamHow the 31 Democrats in Trump districts voted on impeachment The Hill's Morning Report - Vulnerable Dems are backing Trump impeachment GOP claims vindication, but Van Drew decision doesn't spark defections MOREs in Charleston, S.C., and Kendra HornKendra Suzanne HornHouse votes to temporarily repeal Trump SALT deduction cap How the 31 Democrats in Trump districts voted on impeachment Pelosi, other female Democrats wear black to mark 'somber' Trump impeachment vote MOREs in Oklahoma City. Those two districts were surprises for Democrats in 2018, with Horn having flipped a seat that had been held by Republicans since 1975 and Cunningham won a district held by the GOP since 1981.

At the same time, they arent sweating too much about the possibility of losing their majority.

One Democratic operative pointed to a recent Politico-Morning Consult poll showing 52 percent of respondents support impeaching the president, as well as a funding edge for the party.

The source said they expect Democrats in swing districts to place a strong focus on health care and drug pricing.

We have a huge, huge, huge advantage on drug prices and health care and it's where we're going to spend our money money that we have more than they do," the operative said. We have more money on the hard side than they do, which obviously goes a lot further.

Given Van Drews party switch, just one Democrat Rep. Collin PetersonCollin Clark PetersonGabbard under fire for 'present' vote on impeachment Gabbard rips Pelosi for delay of impeachment articles The Hill's Morning Report - In historic vote, House impeaches Trump MORE (Minn.) voted against impeachment. Peterson represents a district Trump won by more than 30 points. Hes held it for decades, but is likely to face a tough challenge.

Of the 30 Democrats representing districts won by Trump, McAdams noted that Trump won 13 by more than 6 1/2 points.

He also said New Jersey, where Van Drew appeared to decide his best route to reelection was to run as a Republican, will be a key state. Democrats gained four seats in the state in 2018.

Conservative outside groups have also ramped up spending on anti-impeachment ad campaigns, hammering Democrats on their votes in districts they see as winnable.

Shortly after the Houses impeachment vote, American Action Network announced plans to spend an additional $2.5 million in 29 Trump-won districts held by Democrats, following an $8.5 million spending blitz in the weeks leading up to the articles of impeachment coming to the floor.

And prominent figures in the party have been making the rounds on cable news and taking to social media in an attempt to amplify their anti-impeachment messaging, taking aim at Pelosi and leaders of the inquiry including House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffTrump's tweets became more negative during impeachment, finds USA Today Trump attacks Democrats over impeachment following call with military members Saudi sentencing in Khashoggi killing draws criticism except from White House MORE (D-Calif.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold NadlerJerrold (Jerry) Lewis NadlerImpeachment's historic moment boils down to 'rooting for laundry' Impeachment just confirms Trump's leadership 2019 was a historic year for marijuana law reform here's why MORE (D-N.Y.).

House Minority Whip Steve ScaliseStephen (Steve) Joseph Scalise2019 in Photos: 35 pictures in politics A solemn impeachment day on Capitol Hill House votes to impeach Trump MORE (R-La.) said he expects moderate Democrats to try to separate themselves from the impeachment narrative as the election grows nearer.

There are a lot of Democrats today who voted for people who can't go back home and explain that vote, and I will challenge them if they're getting a lot of people criticizing their vote, I would challenge them to invite Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff to explain what was done today, he told reporters immediately after the impeachment vote.

The Democratic operative said if Republicans were that confident about winning back the majority in 2020, fewer would be retiring.

So far 25 Republicans have announced they will not run for reelection next year, including Reps. Will HurdWilliam Ballard HurdSunday shows - Republicans, Democrats maneuver ahead of House impeachment vote Texas Republican: You can oppose impeachment and disagree with 'some of this behavior' Sunday Talk Shows: Lawmakers look ahead to House vote on articles of impeachment, Senate trial MORE (Texas), Mark WalkerBradley (Mark) Mark WalkerA solemn impeachment day on Capitol Hill GOP begins impeachment delay tactics with motion to adjourn The Hill's Morning Report - Vulnerable Dems are backing Trump impeachment MORE (N.C.) and George HoldingGeorge Edward Bell HoldingMark Walker mulling 2022 Senate bid, won't seek reelection in the House North Carolina congressman says he won't seek reelection after redistricting Democrats likely to gain seats under new North Carolina maps MORE (N.C.).

Some represent districts that appear likely to be won by Democrats.

The Cook Political Report has Democrats favored to win two seats in North Carolina that will be easier pickups for the party because of new congressional district lines brought about by a court decision. The two seats are held by Walker and Holding.

Democrats are also favored to pick up a seat in Texas.

If impeachment is so great for them, why are all their members retiring and why are they are not raising more money two signs that look bad for them in flipping the House, the operative said.

Follow this link:

House GOP vows to use impeachment to cut into Democratic majority | TheHill - The Hill

To the Editor:

Re Democrats Sparred Over a Wine Cave. Its Billionaire Owner Isnt Pleased (news article, Dec. 22):

It is amazing how thin a skin some billionaires have. Criticize their opulence or even mention a wealth tax, and they are quickly insulted or get all jittery. I guess more money than most people can imagine is still not enough to feel secure.

However, the issue is not a $900 bottle of wine served at a fund-raiser for Pete Buttigieg, even though that sounds extravagant by any standard. The issue is money in politics.

I do not begrudge the wealthy their money and the lifestyle it buys. Opulence generates business and jobs, and capitalism has spawned a good life for the majority of us. However, there are too many around the world and here at home who continue to live in or near poverty. There simply needs to be a far better balance and a system free from the heavy influence in politics that concentrated and unfettered wealth brings.

If you do not want to end up as a political talking point, at least make your donations without the need to serve $900 bottles of wine.

Bruce NeumanWater Mill, N.Y.

To the Editor:

As someone who fervently hopes for a Democrat to beat President Trump in 2020, I am deeply troubled by the wine cave kerfuffle and the Democratic lefts purity test. If fund-raising among those with deep pockets is condemned as corrupt, Democrats are destined to lose.

The situation reminds me of what the Chinese call Ah-Q-ism after a fictional character by the author Lu Xun. Ah-Q rationalizes that he has succeeded despite his repeated failures because he has the moral high ground.

I fear this will be the Democrats fate in 2020; they will console themselves for having retained their purity while all of the values we Democrats hold dear will be trampled underfoot, not just for four years, but for decades to come because of Trumpisms victory.

Ginny MayerEdmonds, Wash.

Continue reading here:

Wine Caves and Purity Tests in Democratic Politics - The New York Times

Billionaire candidate Mike Bloomberg's presidential campaign may not be taking money from some of the most influential Democratic donors on Wall Street, but he is working hard to convince them he has a path to win the nomination.

Bloomberg and his team made their pitch Dec. 19 to at least 90 attendees, including many New York business executives, at a breakfast at his campaign headquarters in New York, according to people who attended. These people spoke on the condition of anonymity due the conversations being deemed private.

According to the people, Bloomberg himself prodded the financiers to open up their donor networks to the Democratic National Committee and state Democratic parties. Bloomberg donated more than $106,000 to the DNC in November, according to the group's most recent filing.

Bloomberg aides, however, focused on which states his campaign aimed to win in his quest for the Democratic nomination and the chance to take on President Donald Trump in 2020, according to the people.

The aides showed a map highlighting Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as states Bloomberg could pick up during the primary. Those states' primary contests are scheduled for March and April of next year.

Trump flipped those states to red from blue during his 2016 victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The Bloomberg aides also emphasized that they were focusing on a range of states that will hold their votes on March 3, also known as Super Tuesday.

Those who attended the event include investor Blair Effron, Blackstone Chief Operating Officer Jonathan Gray, real estate titan William Rudin, Signum Global Advisors founder and Chairman Charles Myers, along with Jerry Speyer, a real estate investor and co-founder of Tishman Speyer.

A Bloomberg campaign aide said others in attendance included Valerie Wilpon, wife of New York Mets co-owner Jeff Wilpon; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison Chairman Brad Karp; Kathy Chenault, wife of former American Express CEO Ken Chenault; as well as several local activists and community and religious leaders.

Bloomberg's outreach to key Democratic financiers shows that he is eager for their support and influence, even if he doesn't want their money.

Some of the people who attended the breakfast last week are backing other presidential candidates, including Effron, who recently decided he's going to open his donor network to former Vice President Joe Biden.

Yet many of the financiers left feeling impressed with the Bloomberg presentation. They departed believing that Bloomberg wanted them to privately spread the word to their allies in the business community about his campaign's operation and how he plans to move up in the primary field. Bloomberg is dedicated to self-funding his entire campaign.

"The path is to do 24/7 ads, both pro-Bloomberg and anti-Trump, and to be on the ground in all of the Super Tuesday states well before the other candidates," said one of the donors who attended. "The premise is basically that there are so many more delegates in those states than the first four. They want the NYC business leaders to be supporters. Not monetary but just getting the word out."

Marc LaVorgna, a spokesman for Bloomberg's campaign, confirmed that the meeting focused on the need for those in attendance to support the Democratic Party and how the former New York mayor could win the nomination.

"Mike made the case to a large, diverse group of politically active New Yorkers for, one, why he can win the nomination and is the candidate best positioned to defeat Donald Trump and two, why we want them to contribute to the Democratic Party across the country to help eliminate the financial advantage Trump and the Republicans have nationally," he said.

Bloomberg, who founded financial services and media company Bloomberg LP, has known several of these business leaders for years.

Bloomberg, after launching his campaign late in the game, is not participating in the February nominating contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.

Biden currently leads the Democratic field in national polling averages, according to Real Clear Politics. Bloomberg, former three-term mayor of New York, is fifth, behind Biden, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

Bloomberg, who has a net worth of just over $54 billion, has already spent tens of millions of dollars on TV ads while hiring campaign staff in the states he is looking to win. Bloomberg has spent at least $11 million on TV ads in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan, according to data provided by Advertising Analytics. In California, one of the most delegate-rich Super Tuesday states, Bloomberg has invested more than $10 million on ads.

Bloomberg's do-it-his-way approach goes beyond how he's handling his TV ads. The data-focused candidate is utilizing a technology company called Hawkfish, which he founded in spring of this year, to take on Trump and the Republican Party's digital operation, CNBC first reported.

The Bloomberg campaign explained that Hawkfish will be its "primary digital agency and technology services provider." Bloomberg has said he will spend over $100 million on anti-Trump digital ads. So far, he has spent $4.7 million on Facebook ads, along with another, $13 million on Google.

Original post:

Mike Bloomberg is trying to convince big-money Democratic donors that he can win in 2020, even though he isn't taking their money - CNBC