The following article by Democratic strategist Mike Lux, Leo Hindery, Jr. and Michael Wessel (author notes below), is cross-posed from HuffPo:

Last week’s Brexit vote was just the latest example — albeit a giant one — in this wild political year when workers have been sending the clear message that status quo economic policies are unacceptable. Politicians here in America and in Europe ignore the concerns of workers at their great peril. For the Democratic Party in this country in 2016, the lessons are especially clear.

In the 35 years since Ronald Reagan became president, we’ve seen a steady erosion in the attention political leaders have given to the economic and political concerns of the working class. From the dramatic decline of union membership to the excessive deregulation of Wall Street; from trade deals that enrich multinational corporations but not American workers to a lack of antitrust enforcement that’s allowed near-monopolies in too many sectors; from a lack of significant wage increases for all but the top 10 percent of Americans to ever-escalating inflation in the costs of health care, groceries and college, our political system breakdown and our persistent “trickle down” sense of economics have combined — and conspired — to weaken the well-being of most American working people and retirees.

And now they’re angry, in ways that once hardly seemed imaginable.

A ridiculous huckster and nativist named Donald J. Trump is only days away from officially being the Republican Party nominee for president. And in the United Kingdom, Brexit has just validated that working class anger isn’t only an American phenomenon and concern.

The Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign need to understand that this reality matters, and that — in spite of some national polls showing a significant lead right now — beating Donald Trump in 2016 will be no easy lift. For all the people Trump has offended over the last year and for all of his racism and misogyny, for all the mistakes he has made in recent weeks, he is in a near tie with Secretary Clinton in several key swing states, and is still within striking distance nationally. And don’t forget that Trump outperformed his polling numbers throughout much of his primary run.

Democrats at all levels are going to need a big turnout of our base, as well as a message that appeals strongly to working class swing voters.

The good news is that the Democratic Party Convention platform being developed in advance of Philadelphia is a sign of things moving very much in the right directions. On a wide range of economic issues, the current draft sections of the Party platform are more responsive to working families’ concerns than we’ve seen in decades. There is great language on toughening up our trade deals and making them more focused on workers and their continued fair employment and less focused on just further enriching big business. There are calls for a new Glass-Steagall Act, for breaking up “Too Big to Fail” banks, and for a Financial Transactions Tax. A $15 minimum wage indexed for inflation is demanded, as is, importantly, a new large-scale jobs program to include major spending on infrastructure through a new infrastructure bank with a ‘buy domestic’ demand and worker protections.

Read more…

The following article by William A. Galston, senior fellow, governance studies at Brookings, is cross-posted from Brookings.

Although a few political analysts have been focusing on the white working class for years, it is only in response to the rise of Donald Trump that this large group of Americans has begun to receive the attention it deserves. Now, thanks to a comprehensive survey that the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) undertook in collaboration with the Brookings Institution, we can speak with some precision about the distinctive attitudes and preferences of these voters.

There are different ways of defining the white working class. Along with several other survey researchers, PRRI defines this group as non-Hispanic whites with less than a college degree, with the additional qualification of being paid by the hour or by the job rather than receiving a salary. No definition is perfect, but this one works pretty well. Most working-class whites have incomes below $50,000; most whites with BAs or more have incomes above $50,000. Most working-class whites rate their financial circumstances as only fair or poor; most college educated whites rate their financial circumstances as good or excellent. Fifty-four percent of working-class whites think of themselves as working class or lower class, compared to only 18 percent of better-educated whites.

The PRRI/Brookings study finds that in many respects, these two groups of white voters see the world very differently. For example, 54 percent of college-educated whites think that America’s culture and way of life have improved since the 1950s; 62 percent of white working-class Americans think that it has changed for the worse. Sixty-eight percent of working-class whites, but only 47 percent of college-educated whites, believe that the American way of life needs to be protected against foreign influences. Sixty-six percent of working-class whites, but only 43 percent of college-educated whites, say that discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities. In a similar vein, 62 percent of working-class whites believe that discrimination against Christians has become as big a problem as discrimination against other groups, a proposition only 38 percent of working-class whites endorse.

This brings us to the issue of immigration. By a margin of 52 to 35 percent, college-educated whites affirm that today’s immigrants strengthen our country through their talent and hard work. Conversely, 61 percent of white working-class voters say that immigrants weaken us by taking jobs, housing, and health care.

Seventy-one percent of working-class whites think that immigrants mostly hurt the economy by driving down wages, a belief endorsed by only 44 percent of college-educated whites. Fifty-nine percent of working-class whites believe that we should make a serious effort to deport all illegal immigrants back to their home countries; only 33 percent of college-educated whites agree. Fifty-five percent of working-class whites think we should build a wall along our border with Mexico, while 61 percent of whites with BAs or more think we should not. Majorities of working-class whites believe that we should make the entry of

Syrian refugees into the United States illegal and temporarily ban the entrance of non-American Muslims into our country; about two-thirds of college-educated whites oppose each of these proposals.

Opinions on trade follow a similar pattern. By a narrow margin of 48 to 46 percent, college-educated whites endorse the view that trade agreements are mostly helpful to the United States because they open up overseas markets while 62 percent of working-class whites believe that they are harmful because they send jobs overseas and drive down wages.

It is understandable that working-class whites are more worried that they or their families will become victims of violent crime than are whites with more education. After all, they are more likely to live in neighborhoods with higher levels of social disorder and criminal behavior. It is harder to explain why they are also much more likely to believe that their families will fall victim to terrorism. To be sure, homegrown terrorist massacres of recent years have driven home the message that it can happen to anyone, anywhere.

We still need to explain why working-class whites have interpreted this message in more personal terms.
The most plausible interpretation is that working-class whites are experiencing a pervasive sense of vulnerability. On every front–economic, cultural, personal security–they feel threatened and beleaguered.

They seek protection against all the forces they perceive as hostile to their cherished way of life–foreign people, foreign goods, foreign ideas, aided and abetted by a government they no longer believe cares about them. Perhaps this is why fully 60 percent of them are willing to endorse a proposition that in previous periods would be viewed as extreme: the country has gotten so far off track that we need a leader who is prepared to break so rules if that is what it takes to set things right.

Anyone who has been wondering about Donald Trump’s capacity for statesmanship and global economic leadership will find an instructive read this morning at HuffPo, Lee Moran’s “Angry Scots Troll Donald Trump Over Brexit Gaffe: The Donald got his facts wrong. Again.”

In his first international trip as the leader of the Republican party, Trump demonstrated remarkable insensitivity to, as well as ignorance of the serious concerns of Scots and Brits about their economic future. Trump’s Scottish debacle was a consequence of his poor timing and judgement in re-opening the Trump Turnberry Golf Resort, while the Scots voted on European Union membership.

If you thought that the leader of the GOP would at least be well-informed enough to know how Scots voted on the issue, you would be very wrong. Trump tweeted “Just arrived in Scotland. Place is going wild over the vote. They took their country back, just like we will take America back. No games!” It was not well-received. As Moran writes,

Trump also faced a backlash after tweeting that people in Scotland were “going wild” following the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union…Many Scots are angry at his tweet because most actually voted to remain inside the EU.

…All 32 council areas and a total 62 percent of Scots backed the UK to remain in the EU, according to the BBC. It was in contrast to the U.K. as a whole, which voted 52 percent to 48 percent for “leave.”

Dozens of Twitter users branded Trump a “moron,” “weapons-grade plum” and “idiot” — including British pop star Lily Allen, TV presenter Sue Perkins and comedian Peter Serafinowicz.

Add to all of that the callousness of opening a luxury golf resort designed to serve as a playground for the wealthy at a time when millions of working people in the UK are concerned about their economic security as their country prepares to leave the European Union. Not exactly the signature of a serious world leader. Oh well, at least they’ll have a fancy golf resort for the elites.

The last thing the UK and Europe need at this political moment is a visit from the world’s most famous immigrant-basher. The UK’s outgoing Prime Minister David Cameron described Trump’s Muslim-bashing as “divisive, unhelpful and quite simply wrong” and Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said his comments were “repugnant and offensive.”

There is a fair amount of media hand-wringing about the Brexit vote and the possibility that it may mean working people in the developing countries are leaning more favoraby toward immigration restrictions and trade protectionism, which Trump has supported. It will take some better polling to verify any such trends, and Clinton has the time to tweak her message accordingly.

What is clear is that Trump has once again damaged his credibility with ill-considered comments. No doubt many Europeans are this morning experiencing enhanced appreciation for the prospect of Hillary Clinton’s leadership — instead of the disastrous alternative.

Findings from a National Survey of Hispanic Women

A recent poll of Latina voters commissioned by American Women, Voto Latino Action Network and iAmerica Action[1] highlights the important role of Hispanic women in this year’s presidential elections.
These women are strongly positive toward Hillary Clinton and Democrats; meanwhile, they view Donald Trump very hostilely, not surprising in the wake of his incendiary rhetoric on immigration.

Latinas face a great deal of stress around money and family, with a diverse set of concerns that covers not only economic challenges but also family and balancing their responsibilities at work and at home. Latinas, and particularly millennial Latinas, are more likely to report earning less than $15 an hour. They want to support candidates whose policy agenda will allow them to achieve a bright future, including equal pay, college affordability, paid sick days and family leave, affordable childcare, and reproductive rights.

Moreover, Latinas express more enthusiasm for voting in the 2016 elections than in the 2014 mid-term elections, driven by very polarized feelings about the political parties and candidates.

The following are key findings from a national telephone survey of 400 Latina registered voters conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. The survey was run in parallel with an online survey of 800 registered voters nationally.

84% of Latinas View Trump Negatively
These women come to this election with very polarized feelings toward the political parties and candidates at the top of the ticket. Latinas express strong favorable feelings for the Democratic Party, President Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton alike, while white men and women view them negatively. At the same time, Latinas hold a negative view of the Republican Party generally, but reserve their harshest sentiments for the presumptive Republican nominee. An overwhelming 84 percent of Latinas view Trump negatively.

Latinas show intense support for pay equality, college affordability, and reproductive health policies
Given the concerns facing Latinas and their hope for the future, it is not surprising that they strongly favor candidates who advocate for college affordability, pay equality, and paid sick and paid family leave in the workplace. The intensity of support is notable here, with nearly 8 out of 10 Latinas who say they would be “much more likely” to support a candidate for elected office who took these positions.
Latinas also strongly support policies to protect women’s reproductive health, with large majorities more likely to vote for a candidate who will protect women’s access to birth control and abortion. This includes 69 percent of Latinas under the age of 50 and 54 percent of older Latinas. Likewise, half of Latinas say they are less likely to vote for a candidate who supports defunding Planned Parenthood and passing a ban on abortion.

Overwhelming support for immigration reform policies among Latinas
Not surprisingly, strong majorities of Latinas favor policies that would provide not only allow undocumented immigrants to stay in the country and gain legal resident status, but also provide a path to citizenship. Two-thirds of Latinas strongly favor a path to citizenship, with more than nine out of ten (92 percent) favoring the policy overall. Just 13 percent of Latinas support building a fence along the border with Mexico; 83 percent oppose the plan.

Latinas express strong intention to vote in 2016
Latinas have an opportunity to be a key bloc in this year’s elections. In this survey, 59 percent of Latinas report voting in 2014; now, nearly 81 percent say they are “almost certain” to vote in 2016.

Read more at GQR here.

“We have a mission, a mandate, and a moral obligation to speak up and speak out until the House votes to address gun violence. We have turned deaf ears to the blood of the innocent and the concern of our nation. We will use nonviolence to fight gun violence and inaction.” – Rep. John Lewis (D-GA).

Above, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) joins Rep. John Lewis and other Democratic members of congress during their sit-in to protest Repubican inaction and NRA obstruction of gun safety.

In his CNN Opinion post, “How Clinton can redraw the map,” Howard Dean credits Hillary Clinton with making some strategic moves which can help secure working Democratic majorities down-ballot for decades to come. As Dean writes,

Most presidential campaigns follow the same playbook. Candidates parse the map into red states, blue states and so-called “swing states”–and they focus their time and resources exclusively on that third category.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is rejecting that strategy in favor of a much broader one. The plan that Clinton began to execute this week is a 20-year strategy to create a new vision for America.

To fulfill it, she is dispatching staff to all 50 states and is working to identify and organize supporters in each one.

It’s not just about winning the presidency for the Democrats. Clinton’s vision includes strengthening the party down-ballot:

On the same day Americans cast their vote for president this November, they’ll also be voting for senators, representatives, governors, state legislators and city council members. A 50-state strategy means that Democrats can focus attention and resources further down the ballot. We can’t forget that the outcomes of those local races matter too if we’re going to truly make a difference in people’s lives…Every Democrat that she helps get elected to offices across the country this year, the deeper the bench will be for many elections to come. They will become the foundation of a potent legacy, not just for the party, but for a consequential presidency.

“She understands that what happens between now and November is not just about 2016 or even 2020,” adds Dean. “If we really want a political revolution, we have to build it block by block–nurturing strong Democratic organizations in each of the 50 states.”

For too long Democrats have accepted weak party organizations in many states. All too often we read reports about Democrats failing to field candidates, sometimes even in competitive districts. The DNC and Democratic leaders simply must do more to help local party organizations build their strength.

Clinton understands that Democrats have a unique opportunity this year, with an extremely weak Republican presidential nominee serving up daily outrage and myriad disasters. Many Republicans are coming around to the belief that a “cleansing” defeat in the 2016 presidential election may serve their long-range interests by reorienting their party to succeed amid demographic change.

It’s a small window of opportunity in an historical context. It’s good that Clinton recognizes the importance of strengthening the Democratic Party at the state and local level — and the rare chance to do it in a big way this year.

“In her campaign, Clinton will show up everywhere and take no voter for granted,” writes Dean. “That’s why solidly red states like Georgia, Utah and Arizona already appear a few shades more purple.”

Strategically, a presidential candidate has to focus more time, energy and resources in identifiable battleground states to win the electoral college majority. But governing effectively will also require Democratic majorities in the Senate and House. Putting an end to the GOP’s reign of Gridlock, Obstruction and Paralysis will also require major Democratic gains in the state legislatures of America. Having a presidential candidate who gets this — and commits to do something about it — is a big plus.

The following article by Democratic strategist Robert Creamer, author of Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, is cross-posted from HuffPo:
We will not know all of the facts surrounding the unfathomable tragedy in Orlando for some time – perhaps, many days.
But one thing is certain: intolerance and hatred inevitably lead to violence and death.
That is why our primary response to the horrific massacre at the Pulse nightclub must be to rededicate ourselves to creating a culturally diverse society that is based on tolerance and respect for other religions, sexual orientations, races and life styles.
In America the one thing we must never tolerate is intolerance itself.
All of us must extend our sympathy and support to those who are directly affected – and, frankly to the entire LGBT community that was, in fact, the intended victim of this horrible attack. This was an attack on an LGBT club during Pride Month.
The shooter, Omar Mateen, sent messages indicating that it was his allegiance to ISIS that lead him to murder fifty of his fellow human beings. Whether he was motivated by ideological commitment or his own hatred of gays and lesbians, or both — that motivation can never trump the fundamental sense of human empathy that provides the foundational principle of a civilized society.
Whatever his motivations, the shooter himself obviously bears complete responsibility for actions that ended the hopes and aspirations of so many brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, boy friends and girl friends, sons and daughters.
But while the shooter is directly responsible, political decisions – and America’s political culture – are also culpable. And we dare not allow the forces of intolerance to exploit the Orlando mass shooting and throw gasoline on the fire of intolerance itself.
In recent years, instances of mass violence that were born of intolerance, have increased:
• The shooting of African American worshipers at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston;
• The murders at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs;
• The mass shootings by Islamic extremists in San Bernardino, Paris and Brussels;
• The Boston marathon bombing.
They all have one thing in common. All of them resulted from actions by those inspired by hate filled rhetoric and intolerance.
Islamic extremism is a major driving force. But let’s remember, that the data shows that in the United States itself you were more than 7 times as likely to be killed by a right wing extremist than a Muslim terrorist in the 13.5 years following 9/11.
The New York Times reported that a study by UNC Professor Charles Kurzman and Duke Professor David Schanzer, showed that Islam-inspired terror attacks “accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years.” Meanwhile, “right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities.”
In point of fact, there is no fundamental difference between the murders by Islamic extremists, or white racists, or anti-abortion extremists. They are all acts rooted in intolerance and bigotry and we must create a society that refuses to tolerate those acts – or the intolerance and bigotry that lead to them.
For much of the last year, many on nativist right – particularly Donald Trump – have spewed out hate-filled, intolerant rhetoric like a geyser. Trump has made it seem increasingly “normal” in American political discourse.
Quite apart from wrong-headed policy proposals, the hateful, intolerant political environment that this rhetoric spawns, creates the conditions that make hate motivated political violence more – not less likely. It is reckless and dangerous.
In particular, Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric legitimates the narrative that groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda use to recruit impressionable young people.
Then of course there is the issue of assault weapons – and the fact that it is simply too easy for people who are planning violent acts to get their hands on guns in the United States.
The purpose of an AR-15 – or any similar rapid fire assault weapon like the one used by the shooter in Orlando – is to allow the shooter to enter a “target rich” environment and kill dozens of people in seconds. Storm a nightclub where 300 people are enjoying the evening, and you can easily use an AR-15 to kill 50 people and wound 53 others.
Assault weapons are designed for military use – to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time possible. There is simply no justification for their sale to the general public.
During the administration of Bill Clinton, assault weapons were banned by Congress. That ban expired and the GOP Congress has refused to renew it. The GOP Congress even refuses to stop individuals on the terrorist watch list from obtaining these weapons and other firearms- although they may be banned from flying on commercial aircraft. That is simply inexcusable.
Assault weapons should be banned in the United States for all but military and police use. You can’t use them to shoot deer. You can only use them to kill other human beings.
And it is obviously time to enact universal background checks for the purchase of all guns – a position supported by 80% plus of the voters.
Gun violence has to stop. Congress must act now.
And most important, the Orlando massacre should serve as the event that forces America to launch a new war – a war on intolerance, hatred and bigotry.

Recent reports of scant contributions to the Trump campaign mask a serious problem for Democrats who hope for a landslide victory that will return balance to the U.S. Senate, House and state legislatures: Republican fat cats are shifting their political contributions to down-ballot candidates.
As a consequence, Democrats should prepare for record-level funding of Republican congressional and state legislative candidates. Ned Resnikoff reports at International Business Times:

Conservative billionaires may be withholding their support from Donald Trump, but don’t expect them to sit out the 2016 election entirely. Instead, some of the key donors on the right have signaled their intention to focus on down-ticket races. That means an unprecedented flood of outside money could be coming soon to a congressional district near you.
Leading the charge are Charles and David Koch, the libertarian philanthropists responsible for crafting the right wing’s most expansive donor network. While the Trump campaign has attempted to broker an alliance with the Koch Brothers, Charles Koch said on Thursday that he would be staying out of the presidential election. For most of the past year, the Kochs have been almost completely absent from the Republican nomination process, even as Koch-backed organizations have poured resources into a handful of congressional races.
Millions of dollars in outside spending already have flooded into this year’s Senate race in Ohio between incumbent Republican Rob Portman and former Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat. Americans for Prosperity, one of the Koch Brothers’ flagship organizations, has so far spent more than $1.7 million in support of Portman, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Another Koch-backed group, Freedom Partners Action Fund, has spent more than $3.7 million.
That sort of money can be a lot more effective in a down-ballot race than in a presidential election, Sunlight Foundation spokesperson Josh Stewart told International Business Times…”Fewer dollars can go a longer way,” Stewart said. “It takes relatively little investment to have a significant impact, especially in House races.”
…That might help explain why Freedom Partners and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce each has dedicated nearly $3 million to re-electing Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Penn. Both groups are also spending to help Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., fend off a challenge from former Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold.

Trump has a major door commitment from Sheldon Adelson, who has pledged to spend about $100 million to help Trumps’s campaign. But other conservative mega-donors, in addition to Charles and David Koch, such as North Carolina’s GOP sugar-daddy Art Pope, have said they will not be investing in Trump and will be channeling their political contributions down-ballot.
Democratic strategists are aware of the problem. As Tai Kopan explains at CNN Politics in her post, “GOP donors look past Donald Trump and down ticket“:

Democrats are aware of the potential influx of cash into states and prepping for it…”We totally recognize and take seriously that the dumpster fire that’s shaping up at the top of the ballot could definitely direct some more resources toward these Senate races with an eye toward keeping the majority, and I think our recognition of that has actually been borne to bear with how well have done on fundraising,” said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee press secretary Lauren Passalacqua in an interview.

The DSCC has also reserved $50 million for the “Party of Trump” campaign linking the GOP nominee to senate candidates who are supporting him.
The other factor that ought to worry Democrats is that the shortfall in funding for Trump may not present as much of a problem for him as expected, since he is extremely effective in securing free media coverage, even though most of it is bad. If his new management team cleans up his act, he may be able to leverage his media skills in a new, more productive way.
It is sometimes persuasively argued that money isn’t always a pivotal force in politics, and indeed there are plenty of examples of candidates who were grossly out-spent who won their elections. But the converse is also true.
The possible down-ballot shortfall in funding for Democratic candidates presents a unique and historic opportunity for Sen. Bernie Sanders, as he searches for a meaningful role for the coalition that empowered his candidacy. As Brent Budowsky, a former aide to Democratic Senator and Vice Presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen has suggested,

Sanders should…reconstitute his campaign as a people’s PAC to raise substantial money from small donors that would be used to support liberal candidates running for the House and Senate against Republicans…With this people’s PAC project…Sanders would keep a political staff to run the program outside his Senate office, raise somewhere between $100 million and $300 million from his small donors, travel across the country to rallies in support of liberal candidates, and do national talk shows on a regular basis to support the cause.

It’s difficult to overstate the importance of the difference between a Democratic presidency that has a working congressional majority and one that does not. It is really the difference between a hopeful progressive future and one of continued legislative obstruction and social and economic sagnation. If Democrats fail to win back working congressional majorities in this year of nearly unprecedented Democratic opportunity, it will be a tragic waste of political power.
Sen. Sanders has the chance to play a pivotal role in making sure the next president will have a congress that is ready to invest in infrastructure and secure a range of Democratic reforms. If he rises to this challenge, he just might do more to create a truly progressive future for America than any of the other presidential candidates of 2016.