ACTION REQUIRED

Follow Population Alert on

Questions?

• HomeUpRepublican Tax Cut Scamjustifiably use ELECTORAL COLLEGEReasons given for voting for TrumpTrump’s drastic Campaign PromisesHow Millionaires don't pay TaxTrump wouldn't just let Obamacare die, he'd kill it himself.Trump wouldn’t be President if not for Robert MercerHorowitz's supporters take over the White HouseKochs buy the 2016 Election for $889 mil.Trump's Lies thru June 2017Lame FECwarped Heritage Foundation84% Republicans get their news from FoxACTION REQUIREDSuper Pac Secrecy18 CEOs Stealing TrillionsRobots taking jobs - Social RevolutionSenators against Background ChecksMedicaid Coverage GapAnti-Parks Republicans •
•  •

Will the WOMEN'S MARCH fizzle like OCCUPY WALL STREET?

Is protest broken? Disruptive tactics have failed to halt the rise of Donald Trump.
Movements ranging from Black Lives Matter to Environmentalism are leaving activists frustrated.
Meanwhile, recent years have witnessed the largest protests in human history. Yet these mass mobilizations no longer change society.
Now activism is at a crossroads: innovation or irrelevance. Read END OF PROTEST
 
The 24 vulnerable House Republicans Who Voted For Trumpcare
 
Here's a MODEL FOR ACTION :-
One representative from the Sierra Club acted as a catalyst and facilitator to inspire local action against a Coal Polluter.
 YEARS OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY 
We must train leaders to go to the FRONT LINES
(  in SWING STATES )
   
    Here's a Parody Ad – that ran on Fox News –that Turns Trump Campaign Rhetoric on Its Head --
 (Scheduled to run between 7 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. EST during “Fox & Friends,” the AD likely was seen by millions of Republican Voters)
How can we reach Trump supporters when
 84% of Republicans get their news from Fox News ?
   
    When the Republicans took power in 2004 the first thing they did was to reward the Banks (who had financed their election) with a Bankruptcy Bill --
(to allow banks to hound you till your death if you don't file for Bankruptcy by selling your house first).

Were there any ADs on TV in the Swing States telling voters of this ? No!
Don't wait till 3 months before the next election.
How do we show Republicans in these Swing States these repressive Bills and acts in Congress (and Committee),
that are against their interest,  -- as they happen!
 
And don't wait till 3 months before the Election.
   
    Somebody needs to be continually rebutting FOX LIES. Republican Voters are not watching MSNBC so it needs to be TV ADS in Swing States especially!
More than a how-to manual for organizers, NO SHORTCUTS is how to build working-class power.
A dozen case studies of Unions and Social Movements seeking to effect change
  Ralph Nadar has the PLAN -- the book: "Action for a Change "
     
    Some supporters of President Donald Trump believe just about everything he says, even when he’s wrong. And Trump himself seems to have absolute confidence in his own beliefs ? again, even when he is demonstrably wrong.

But there is a psychology lesson that could help explain it, according to Cambridge University-educated actor Stephen Fry, who was voted the most intelligent person on TV in the United Kingdom.

For example, researchers found students who were least proficient often overestimated their own abilities.

“The skills they lacked were the same skills required to recognize their incompetence,” Fry said. “The incompetent are often blessed with an inappropriate confidence buoyed by something that feels to them like knowledge.”

That’s now known as the Dunning-Kruger effect.

In a new clip that Pindex put together, Fry also explains how Salience Bias and the power of repetition help shape views more than facts.

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance,” Fry says in the clip. “It is the illusion of knowledge.”
 
     

115th Congress Members Guide with Elections and Demographic Data by District

Democrats need to win 24 seats to take control of the House in 2018 and defend 12 seats in districts that Trump carried.

                              House Republicans who hold seats that voted for Hillary Clinton

Florida's 27th Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Florida's 26th Carlos Curbelo
California's 21st David Valadao
Virginia's 10th Barbara Comstock
Minnesota's 3rd Erik Paulsen
Colorado's 6th Mike Coffman
California's 39th Ed Royce
California's 49th Darrell Issa
Illinois's 6th Peter Roskam
California's 25th Steve Knight
California's 45th Mimi Walters
Arizona's 2nd Martha McSally
New York's 24th John Katko
Texas's 23rd Will Hurd
Washington's 8th Dave Reichert
California's 10th Jeff Denham
Pennsylvania's 7th Pat Meehan
Texas's 32nd Pete Sessions
California's 48th Dana Rohrabacher
Texas's 7th John Culberson
Kansas's 3rd Kevin Yoder
New Jersey's 7th Leonard Lance
Pennsylvania's 6th Ryan Costello

            House Democrats who hold seats that voted for Trump

Minnesota's 7th Collin Peterson
Minnesota's 8th Rick Nolan
Minnesota's 1st Tim Walz
Pennsylvania's 17th Matt Cartwright
Wisconsin's 3rd Ron Kind
Iowa's 2nd Dave Loebsack
New York's 18th Sean Patrick Maloney
New Hampshire's 1st Carol Shea-Porter
New Jersey's 5th Josh Gottheimer
Arizona's 1st Tom O'Halleran
Nevada's 3rd Jacky Rosen
Illinois's 17th Cheri Bustos

                                                          65 Swing Districts

State District Category Median income (dollars) Bachelor's degree Unemployment: All 16+ year olds Non-Hispanic White VAP % Black VAP % Hispanic VAP % Asian VAP % Foreign-born rate Language other than English at home Less than 9th grade High school graduate (includes equivalency) Some college, no degree Bachelor's Plus
 Oregon 4 Left Behind $43,138 15.4% 10.4% 87.1% 0.8% 5.8% 2.4% 5.3% 7.7% 2.7% 27.2% 29.0% 25.3%
 Maine 2 Left Behind $43,404 14.5% 7.9% 95.5% 0.6% 1.0% 0.7% 2.7% 6.5% 3.6% 37.6% 20.3% 22.2%
 Illinois 17 Left Behind $44,116 12.0% 9.3% 80.4% 10.1% 7.1% 1.2% 5.0% 8.9% 4.2% 35.5% 24.3% 17.9%
 California 36 Diverse, Fast-Growing $45,295 12.6% 13.8% 48.8% 4.2% 41.6% 3.4% 22.5% 40.7% 10.2% 26.5% 25.0% 20.3%
 Ohio 10 Non-Conformist  $46,703 16.1% 8.9% 77.7% 16.3% 2.1% 2.2% 4.2% 5.8% 2.8% 28.7% 23.9% 27.9%
 Michigan 6 Left Behind $47,498 16.1% 8.6% 84.2% 7.8% 4.5% 1.6% 4.4% 7.0% 3.3% 30.8% 23.8% 26.1%
 Arizona 2 Diverse, Fast-Growing $47,507 18.8% 8.8% 67.0% 3.9% 23.5% 3.0% 11.1% 22.1% 3.9% 21.5% 27.2% 32.4%
 Arizona 1 Diverse, Fast-Growing $47,531 14.3% 11.9% 54.8% 2.3% 18.8% 1.7% 6.4% 27.6% 5.9% 27.0% 26.0% 23.5%
 Illinois 13 Left Behind $48,127 17.8% 8.2% 81.6% 10.0% 2.8% 3.9% 5.1% 7.3% 2.6% 31.3% 22.3% 29.6%
 Pennsylvania 17 Left Behind $48,600 13.3% 8.7% 85.9% 5.4% 6.3% 1.7% 5.7% 9.3% 3.3% 40.8% 18.2% 20.6%
 Wisconsin 3 Left Behind $49,851 15.6% 5.7% 94.0% 1.0% 1.8% 1.8% 2.4% 5.8% 3.1% 35.0% 21.4% 23.7%
 Texas 23 Diverse, Fast-Growing $50,003 13.7% 7.8% 28.0% 3.2% 66.6% 1.4% 17.0% 55.5% 14.6% 26.4% 20.6% 21.1%
 Minnesota 8 Left Behind $50,464 15.1% 6.6% 93.7% 0.9% 1.2% 0.7% 1.7% 3.4% 2.2% 33.7% 24.8% 22.2%
 Arizona 9 Diverse, Fast-Growing $50,832 22.5% 7.5% 62.4% 5.1% 23.3% 5.1% 14.5% 26.1% 5.3% 19.8% 24.3% 36.0%
 New York 21 Left Behind $51,255 12.4% 8.5% 91.2% 3.3% 2.9% 0.9% 3.5% 5.7% 3.5% 35.8% 19.2% 22.3%
 Iowa 2 Left Behind $51,261 17.3% 5.2% 88.9% 3.3% 4.2% 2.3% 4.6% 7.6% 3.4% 32.3% 21.2% 27.2%
 Michigan 9 Left Behind $51,550 17.6% 9.3% 82.0% 10.5% 1.8% 3.8% 10.9% 13.2% 3.6% 28.3% 23.1% 28.7%
 Ohio 1 Non-Conformist  $52,272 20.3% 9.1% 72.8% 20.5% 2.3% 2.8% 5.3% 7.3% 2.9% 29.2% 19.5% 32.4%
 New York 24 Left Behind $53,034 16.6% 7.5% 85.1% 7.4% 3.4% 2.4% 5.7% 8.5% 3.0% 29.7% 18.3% 29.4%
 Nevada 4 Diverse, Fast-Growing $53,073 12.7% 11.3% 51.7% 14.0% 24.4% 6.0% 15.9% 27.7% 6.0% 30.3% 26.5% 19.4%
 Iowa 1 Left Behind $54,028 17.1% 4.9% 91.7% 2.9% 2.7% 1.3% 3.3% 5.5% 3.2% 34.2% 21.3% 25.1%
 California 10 Diverse, Fast-Growing $54,111 11.9% 14.2% 49.5% 3.2% 36.8% 6.9% 20.3% 38.8% 11.2% 28.5% 25.0% 17.3%
 Oregon 5 Left Behind $54,112 18.4% 9.5% 80.3% 0.9% 12.5% 2.8% 10.1% 17.3% 4.7% 25.2% 27.1% 28.7%
 Pennsylvania 16 Non-Conformist  $54,296 16.1% 8.0% 77.1% 6.2% 14.4% 1.8% 7.2% 19.0% 7.1% 37.1% 15.2% 24.9%
 Washington 3 Left Behind $54,685 15.1% 9.2% 84.8% 1.4% 6.7% 3.3% 8.2% 12.1% 3.2% 27.4% 28.8% 23.3%
 California 3 Diverse, Fast-Growing $56,306 14.8% 11.2% 52.8% 6.4% 24.6% 11.7% 18.3% 30.7% 8.2% 23.8% 26.4% 24.0%
 New York 19 Left Behind $57,566 14.7% 8.5% 87.1% 4.4% 5.9% 1.6% 6.4% 9.3% 3.1% 32.0% 18.5% 27.2%
 Nebraska 2 Non-Conformist  $58,344 24.6% 5.3% 77.6% 9.2% 8.6% 2.9% 8.3% 13.0% 4.3% 21.7% 23.7% 37.6%
 Pennsylvania 15 Left Behind $58,384 16.7% 7.4% 80.4% 4.3% 12.1% 2.6% 7.6% 16.2% 4.1% 35.6% 16.3% 27.8%
 Iowa 3 Left Behind $58,545 22.4% 5.2% 87.5% 3.6% 5.1% 2.7% 6.4% 9.3% 2.9% 28.7% 21.3% 31.5%
 New Jersey 2 Non-Conformist  $58,584 16.3% 10.9% 69.8% 12.6% 13.0% 3.9% 10.5% 19.2% 5.6% 34.9% 19.0% 24.2%
 Massachusetts 9 Left Behind $62,099 20.1% 8.0% 89.4% 2.7% 3.8% 1.3% 9.1% 13.7% 5.2% 28.2% 19.1% 32.7%
 Nevada 3 Diverse, Fast-Growing $63,360 20.8% 8.5% 61.9% 6.7% 14.4% 13.5% 18.0% 24.6% 2.7% 25.0% 26.9% 31.6%
 Michigan 8 Thriving Suburban $63,541 22.9% 7.6% 84.8% 5.2% 4.0% 4.1% 7.1% 8.9% 1.7% 22.2% 23.7% 38.7%
 Texas 32 Non-Conformist  $63,573 26.7% 6.6% 55.5% 11.7% 22.6% 8.0% 20.6% 32.6% 7.2% 17.8% 20.0% 42.1%
 California 7 Diverse, Fast-Growing $65,159 21.4% 11.1% 58.8% 7.2% 14.6% 14.9% 18.3% 26.4% 4.6% 21.1% 26.5% 32.1%
 New York 11 Diverse, Fast-Growing $65,480 19.8% 7.5% 64.4% 7.1% 14.4% 13.4% 29.5% 40.7% 6.6% 29.7% 16.1% 32.6%
 New Hampshire 2 Left Behind $65,822 21.2% 5.7% 92.6% 1.1% 2.6% 2.4% 5.6% 7.8% 2.5% 29.4% 18.7% 34.5%
 Kansas 3 Thriving Suburban $66,525 28.7% 5.8% 76.0% 8.5% 9.6% 4.1% 9.7% 14.1% 3.4% 19.1% 20.8% 44.9%
 New Hampshire 1 Left Behind $67,706 22.4% 5.8% 92.7% 1.3% 2.7% 2.2% 5.8% 8.0% 2.5% 28.2% 19.4% 35.2%
 Connecticut 5 Thriving Suburban $67,805 19.7% 8.5% 74.6% 6.3% 14.5% 3.4% 13.6% 24.2% 5.1% 28.6% 17.6% 34.8%
 Colorado 6 Thriving Suburban $69,909 26.8% 6.7% 66.3% 8.8% 16.8% 5.6% 14.7% 22.5% 3.9% 19.9% 22.6% 40.9%
 Connecticut 2 Left Behind $71,458 18.9% 7.7% 84.6% 4.0% 6.5% 3.1% 7.0% 11.7% 2.7% 30.0% 19.3% 33.7%
 California 25 Diverse, Fast-Growing $72,342 18.1% 9.9% 48.0% 7.8% 33.1% 8.5% 20.7% 31.4% 7.2% 22.8% 26.0% 26.9%
 New Jersey 3 Non-Conformist  $73,485 21.3% 8.8% 78.5% 10.1% 6.4% 3.4% 8.3% 11.7% 2.5% 32.7% 19.5% 32.1%
 Washington 8 Non-Conformist  $73,749 21.4% 6.9% 77.4% 2.6% 8.3% 7.8% 12.4% 17.7% 3.5% 25.4% 23.8% 32.3%
 Michigan 11 Thriving Suburban $74,873 26.6% 6.2% 82.3% 5.1% 2.8% 8.3% 12.7% 15.3% 1.8% 20.2% 20.4% 45.4%
 California 49 Thriving Suburban $74,916 25.6% 7.1% 64.9% 2.8% 22.8% 6.9% 17.1% 25.3% 5.5% 16.7% 21.2% 41.7%
 Pennsylvania 6 Thriving Suburban $75,159 25.4% 6.1% 86.2% 4.1% 4.7% 4.1% 7.0% 10.2% 2.5% 28.9% 14.7% 41.8%
 Minnesota 2 Thriving Suburban $75,564 26.2% 4.9% 85.9% 3.6% 4.5% 4.3% 7.8% 10.6% 2.0% 23.8% 21.7% 37.5%
 Pennsylvania 8 Thriving Suburban $77,839 22.8% 6.8% 87.2% 3.5% 3.9% 4.5% 8.4% 11.2% 1.9% 30.7% 17.6% 37.4%
 New York 18 Thriving Suburban $78,021 19.8% 7.7% 72.3% 9.1% 14.1% 3.2% 11.9% 21.1% 3.8% 26.9% 19.6% 34.8%
 Minnesota 3 Thriving Suburban $79,517 31.3% 4.9% 82.9% 5.9% 3.2% 6.5% 10.9% 13.7% 1.8% 18.4% 20.7% 47.0%
 California 39 Non-Conformist  $79,814 26.5% 8.0% 34.8% 2.3% 30.0% 30.8% 32.9% 48.2% 6.2% 18.4% 21.8% 39.6%
 Pennsylvania 7 Thriving Suburban $80,607 24.1% 6.3% 86.7% 5.3% 2.8% 4.4% 7.2% 11.3% 2.8% 28.6% 15.6% 41.5%
 California 48 Non-Conformist  $81,680 27.8% 7.4% 59.2% 1.2% 18.5% 18.6% 24.7% 34.1% 5.6% 15.2% 21.8% 43.5%
 New York 1 Thriving Suburban $87,272 18.5% 6.2% 78.5% 4.7% 11.9% 4.0% 12.3% 18.2% 3.4% 29.4% 18.2% 34.5%
 New York 2 Non-Conformist  $88,543 17.0% 6.6% 66.5% 9.5% 20.2% 3.1% 17.2% 24.9% 5.7% 32.3% 18.2% 28.6%
 Illinois 6 Thriving Suburban $91,507 30.4% 6.3% 80.1% 2.6% 8.1% 8.4% 14.4% 19.9% 2.4% 17.5% 19.1% 50.5%
 California 45 Non-Conformist  $92,378 31.9% 6.4% 55.7% 1.8% 17.0% 22.9% 28.2% 36.9% 3.5% 13.2% 19.6% 52.2%
 New Jersey 5 Thriving Suburban $92,550 28.4% 6.8% 72.5% 4.9% 12.1% 9.8% 19.9% 25.4% 3.3% 24.9% 16.2% 45.5%
 New York 4 Thriving Suburban $94,770 22.1% 6.7% 61.0% 14.2% 17.6% 6.2% 21.9% 28.9% 5.5% 25.1% 16.4% 39.9%
 New Jersey 11 Thriving Suburban $100,923 30.6% 6.6% 76.7% 3.7% 9.3% 9.3% 17.6% 23.1% 2.6% 23.2% 14.2% 51.2%
 New York 3 Thriving Suburban $101,806 27.2% 6.0% 72.3% 3.2% 9.2% 14.0% 21.8% 28.9% 4.0% 20.5% 13.8% 51.1%
 New Jersey 7 Thriving Suburban $102,551 29.1% 6.4% 74.8% 4.5% 10.8% 9.0% 17.7% 23.4% 3.0% 22.1% 14.7% 50.7%

How Democrats can win the House majority By Washington Post, James Hohmann June 2017

They divided the swing districts into four categories:-

  1. Thriving Suburban ,
  2. Left Behind ,
  3. Diverse/Fast-Growing , and
  4. Non-Conformist Districts.

The numbers underscore how different even the 23 GOP-held Clinton districts are demographically:-

bulletMany are suburban and overwhelmingly white.
bulletOthers are rural and heavily Latino.

Within the broad categories, there are stark differences on :-

bulletincome,
bulleteducational attainment and
bulletemployment rates.
bulletDemographics:-
bullethow many people moved into a district over the past year,
bulletwhat percentage of residents have access to broadband Internet and
bullethow many houses are vacant.

More than half of adults in New Jersey’s 7th District, for example, graduated from college. Only 17 percent in California’s 10th District did.

“The most important takeaway is that there is no one kind of voter or district that can deliver the House for Democrats in 2018,” . “There’s been a lot of focus on suburban districts. There’s no doubt that those are important, but there are not enough of them to win the House.”

Democrats still would not win the House even if they could get every single 2016 Clinton voter who backed a Republican House candidate to cross over and without winning over Trump voters.

Moderate Democrats worry that the party will squander precious pick-up opportunities in the midterms, and even allow Trump to get reelected in 2020, by nominating unelectable liberals.

Third Way believes Democrats must embrace ideological diversity to take back legislative seats that were lost during the Obama era at the federal and state level. “There are a lot of different kinds of candidates and policies we’re going to have to welcome into the coalition to win,” Hatalsky said. “There’s no single kind of candidate that would resonate in all these places. The idea that we just need one kind of candidate – is not borne out by how different these districts look.

We need to take a wider look at the kind of candidate and agenda by District.

source