Is There Still Any Push For Progressivism-- Even Inside The Corporate Democratic Party?

Last night we noted that the Dems have a plan for another bailout. Former Congressman Alan Grayson, who likes Pelosi, waded through hundreds of pages and called me and said-- word for word: "This is a horrendous strategic mistake. People are suffering terribly-- far worse than in 2008-- and they deserve to have someone on their side." I feel pretty certain Grayson would have been on their side and voted against it-- but that New Dem Darren Soto, who represents his old Orlando district, certainly won't. Krystal Ball explained how it's just another useless messaging bill-- which is basically what all the Democratic staffer are saying as well-- that will never pass that but that shows Pelosi's contempt and disdain for progressives. You should listen to Krystal in the clip above... kind of sad, although it helps explain why there's so much talk on the left about the formation of a non-establishment third party lately.

How about the Working Families Party? Ah... yeah, how about them? A conservative Republican pretending to be a Democrat, Wlla Street shill Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, and her Democratic establishment attorney (Martin Connor, who was used by Melinda Katz last year to steal the Queens District Attorney race from Tiffany Cabán) succeeded in getting AOC kicked off the Working Families Party ballot line. The official GOP line (Caruso-Cabrera speaking): "The AOC campaign is in shock. She has hurt working people of the Bronx and Queens with her votes and creates disunity within our party. Her own campaign spokesman ran away from her in March. No wonder why pro-union forces don’t want her and neither do our neighborhoods."

The hapless Working Families Party State, through their NY Director Sochie Nnaemeka: "The Working Families Party is unwavering in our support for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and we believe the congresswoman is the leader her district and this country needs. Limits on petitioning due to coronavirus have led to numerous ballot challenges, including this one."

Back to the Pelosi proposal. She wouldn't go along with any of the progressive priorities, like temporary universal healthcare during the pandemic... nor recurring Universal Basic Income payments during the pandemic.. and, of course, no paycheck guarantee program to avoid further job losses, but she did give Hoyer what he most wanted most in the whole wide world: the lobbyist bailout. Lobbyists-- the most hated group in America by Democrats, Republicans and independents, but beloved by Stony Hoyer, the Representative of K Street! That's who Pelosi is bailing out? The thermometer on the right has candidates running in primaries against Pelosi's conservative incumbents. Please give them some support if you don't want to see the Democratic Party continue drifting ever rightward, ever more corporate and ever more corrupt.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus has the leverage-- the numbers-- to force Pelosi's hand, right? The answer is yes, they have the numbers to make her rewrite it. But do they have the cohesiveness? Or the will? They seem reluctant to use their power (to put it mildly). If you didn't listen to Krystal... do it now.

Common Dreams ran a statement from the American Economic Liberties Project urging Democrats to get a spine and vote no.

"This bill delivers charity in place of justice, and Congress should vote it down," said Economic Liberties’ Executive Director Sarah Miller. "Without addressing corporate power, additional aid to the people will ultimately end up in the hands of banks, monopolies, and landlords. While the need for humanitarian assistance is urgent, fundamentally this bill is not a serious attempt to grapple with power. It includes important programs, such as aid to states and localities, unemployment insurance, nutrition assistance, and hazard pay, but doesn’t address the roll-up of power happening throughout the economy that results in systemic exploitation of workers, consumers, small businesses, taxpayers, and communities."

"The bill has no prohibition on corporate mergers. It bails out corporate lobbyists and corrupt mortgage servicers. It funnels money to monopolistic insurance company executives. And it has no constraints on private equity firms currently using public money from the Federal Reserve to cherry pick corporate assets on the cheap. Even some of the positive aspects, like a provision authorizing crackdowns on price gouging, are poorly conceived, for example allowing the corporate lobbyist-dominated Federal Trade Commission to block state officials from acting.

"We opposed the first CARES Act because it encouraged, rather than put the brakes on, the consolidation of corporate power. That bill was structured to support massive aid to the stock market, and a trickle of aid to the rest of us. Progressives should demand this bill address the injustices deriving from this consolidation of power in addition to humanitarian needs.

"Our economy is being restructured whether we like it or not, so we need structural solutions to our current predicament. At the very least, the House should pass a merger moratorium, which is supported by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of Americans. And we encourage the House to pick up Rep. Pramila Jayapal and Senator Josh Hawley’s idea to have the government directly support payrolls," added Miller. Problematic provisions in the bill include:

• A Corporate Lobbyist Bailout: The bill makes Paycheck Protection Program funds available to 501(c)6 trade associations, which is the institutional vehicle for corporate lobbying.
• A Dark Money Group Bailout: The bill extends Paycheck Protection Program funds available to 501(c)4 trade associations, which is the institutional vehicle for dark money political spending.
• No Merger Prohibition: This bill has no mechanism to block or slow pandemic-related corporate mergers. Already, Amazon is rumored to buy AMC theaters, and Uber is in talks to buy Grubhub.
• Tax Cut for the Wealthy: This bill includes a repeal of the State and Local Tax Deduction, which primarily benefits the wealthy.
• Bailout of Mortgage Servicers: This bill extends Federal aid to mortgage servicers, who were the thinly capitalized entities at fault for the foreclosure crisis. These servicers have fought attempts at reform of their industry to make their business safer and are now demanding a no-strings-attached bailout.
• Subsidies for Health Insurance Monopolies: Rather than extending Medicare or Medicaid to the unemployed, this bill would fund COBRA, subsidizing health insurance monopolies and offering nothing to millions of Americans whose jobs never offered health insurance to begin with.

UNITY!!! Or Maybe Not? Can The Democratic Party Be Reformed?

This week, Bernie and Status Quo Joe named leaders of their "unity task forces" in the hope of bringing progressive voters back into the Democratic fold by November in the worthwhile attempt to dislodge Trump, albeit with the utterly worthless Biden. Quint Forgey, reporting for Politico yesterday, wrote that the purpose of the task forces are "to advise the Biden campaign on six key policy areas: climate change, criminal justice reform, economy, education, health care, and immigration. The task forces’ membership consists of a stable of prominent Democratic leaders and public policy experts, but its most notable appointee is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the progressive New York congresswoman and superstar of the party’s left wing who backed Sanders during the primary contest and has evinced skepticism toward Biden’s more moderate ideology." Do you think that will help? Obviously that will be up to Biden. If he actually follows through, it may. First problem: her co-chair is sold-out establishment hack John Kerry.

The other co-chairs include Chiraag Bains, director of legal strategies for the liberal think tank Demos; California Rep. Karen Bass; Ohio Rep. Marcia Fudge; Dr. Heather Gautney, a sociology professor and former Senate staffer; Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center; Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal; former U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy; union activist Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA; California Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard; and Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott. Sara Nelson, Pramila Jayapal, Heather Gautney, and Chiraag Bains are progressives. Biden and Sanders also named Carmel Martin of Biden for President and Analilia Mejia of Friends of Bernie Sanders as their respective campaign representatives "to coordinate and support the work" of the task forces.

The incorporation of Ocasio-Cortez and other high-profile progressives on the task forces in leadership capacities is certain to help assuage concerns from left-leaning Democrats that Biden will not heed their counsel when mounting his general election campaign against President Donald Trump. The groups are certainly not stocked with the party yes-men and shrinking violets that some liberals feared would fill out the advisory panels.

In a news release, the Biden campaign said the task forces “will meet in advance of the Democratic National Convention to make recommendations to the DNC Platform Committee” and to Biden directly. “Building upon the work of the Democratic campaigns to date, the ultimate goal of the Unity Task Forces is to develop the most successful possible agenda for Democrats in 2020,” the campaign said.

Biden said in a statement that a “united party is key to defeating” the president in six months, as well as “moving our country forward through an unprecedented crisis.” The task forces “will be essential to identifying ways to build on our progress and not simply turn the clock back to a time before Donald Trump, but transform our country,” he said.

“In the midst of the unprecedented economic and pandemic crises we face, the Democratic Party must think big, act boldly, and fight to change the direction of this country,” Sanders said in his own statement, adding: “I commend Joe Biden for working together with my campaign to assemble a group of leading thinkers and activists who can and will unify our party in a transformational and progressive direction.”

However... there is this:





This letter went out to Our Revolution groups from Jerry Perez on Monday:

My name is Jerry Perez and I am the field director of Our Revolution Los Angeles. Today, we announced that our members voted overwhelmingly to support forming a new party that is free from corporate interests and is accountable to the people. We are joining the Movement for A People's Party, and we'd like to invite other Our Revolution groups to join us with founder and executive director of MPP, Nick Braña for an informational call on Thursday at 5:30pm PST for a conversation about the People's Party.

We are building a mass movement that seeks to stop the exploitation of our communities, reject the money of wealthy special interest groups, educate and empower our constituency, train uncorrupted candidates accountable to the people's platform, and provide everyone with the tools to take control of their local politics. We will organize through electoral politics, nonviolent direct actions, and educational programs that further our movement and work toward our policy goals.

We are free to meet with you before Thursday's call so we can connect and address any questions you have. Please consider joining us.

This is going to be pretty awkward.

Gee, Everyone I know-- Except Myself-- Is Rallying Around Biden

In the Senate, from the right-wing fringe of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Joe Manchin (WV), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Doug Jones (AL)-- to the heart and soul of the progressive wing of the party-- Bernie (VT), Elizabeth Warren (MA), Tammy Baldwin (WI), Mazie Hirono (HI), Sherrod Brown (OH), Brian Schatz (HI)-- everyone is getting behind Biden's candidacy with endorsements. Same in the House. You get the Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the party, of course; garbagecrats like Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Kurt Schrader (OR), Henry Cuellar (TX), Wasserman Schultz (FL), Cheri Bustos (IL), Dan Lipinski (IL), Jim Costa (CA), Gregory Meeks (NY), Ami Bera (CA), Collin Peterson (MN), Gil Cisneros (CA) are a given. That's the Biden base. But almost all the progressives have signed on as endorsers now too-- Ro Khanna (CA), Andy Levin (MI), Jamie Raskin (MD), Ted Lieu (CA), Barbara Lee (CA). And while Rashida, Ilhan, Ayanna and Pramila aren't there yet, no one thinks they won't be and... Wednesday evening AOC became an official endorser as well. She was on Instagram with rapper Fat Joe for a livestream (below). First question was a choice: Trump, Biden or neither. AOC: "In November I'm going to be voting for Joe Biden."





I don't disrespect her-- nor Bernie-- for their choice. People who want to pick the lesser evil-- especially when the greater evil is Trump... well, that's their choice for whatever reasons. This week, Ranker.com looked at all the data they look at and came to the conclusion that Democratic base voters will overlemingly unite behind Biden, including Bernie and Warren supporters-- even if the party’s overwhelming dislike of Señor Trumpanzee does not translate into enthusiasm for his rival. So, whipping up enthusiasm for Biden is a real hurdle for the Democratic Party. Here's what Ranker's research drove them to suggest to the party: 

Energizing Biden’s Base

• Invest in Texas-- Ranker data suggests Biden is strongest in the Southwestern US, which includes delegate-rich Texas. Could Joe be the Democrat to take this longtime Republican stronghold? Only if his campaign invests significant time there.
• Buy ads on Hulu-- Biden fans are 5X more likely to love Tina Fey and twice as likely to love her iconic sitcom 30 Rock. They’re also 4X more likely to love Chris Rock, who will star on the newest season of Fargo whenever it returns from its coronavirus-induced suspension. Given that both these shows currently call Hulu home, reaching those viewers who haven’t opted out of ads seems like a good call for the Biden campaign.
• Host Saturday Night Live -- Why not? After all, Trump did it while running in 2015. Biden fans are twice as likely to love SNL, and many of their favorite actors (Chris Rock, Tina Fey, Amy Poehler) are all alumni. Be forewarned, though: SNL doesn’t have nearly the same appeal to fans of either Bernie or Warren, so don’t expect an appearance to change many minds.
• Appear on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver-- This is the show Biden fans are most likely to tune in to, which means an appearance from the former VP would likely fire up the base.

Reaching Sanders Supporters

• Make Waves in the Midwest-- Ranker users in the Midwest have a higher view of Sanders than users anywhere else. If Biden’s campaign is looking to make sure his supporters turn out in November, here’s where it should focus its time.
• Buy Ads on AMC-- Bernie Sanders fans are 6X more likely to love Bryan Cranston, best known for his role on Breaking Bad. Given that people are still tuning in to watch new episodes of the spinoff Better Call Saul, Breaking Bad’s original home AMC might be a good place to reach out to the Bernie faithful.
• Appear on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert-- Sanders supporters are 7X more likely to love CBS’s late night mainstay. An appearance by Biden, or by Bernie endorsing him, might inspire voters to embrace party unity.
• Reach out to Lady Gaga-- Lady Gaga has already filmed a PSA with Joe Biden, which suggests she would be open to playing rallies for him. That’s good news for campaign officials hoping to make inroads with the Bernie faithful, since Bernie Bros are 4X more likely to love the pop singer’s music.

Winning Over Warren Fans

• Work on West Coasters-- 67% of Ranker users from California, Oregon, and Washington view Warren highly. Efforts out West will do the most to bring Warren’s camp to the polls.
• Tough Crowd-- Overall, our data suggests the divisions between Democrats aren’t as deep as some fear; people who like any one of these three candidates are overwhelmingly more likely to also approve of the other two. However, the biggest division exists among Biden fans and Warren supporters, who are slightly less likely than Bernie Bros to approve of the former senator from Delaware.
• Appear on The Daily Show-- This classic comedy news show is the clear favorite among Warren supporters, which should encourage the former VP to stop by host Trevor Noah’s desk.
• Bruce Springsteen-- If you’re buying audio ads on platforms like Spotify, SXM, Pandora and IHeartRadio, you might want to make sure that people listening to The Boss, who are twice as likely to like Warren, also hear from Joe Biden.

Anyone-But-Trump 2020

• Reach out to the South-- Surprisingly enough, Ranker voters who dislike Trump are more likely to live under the Mason-Dixon Line than anywhere else (though that region does include more moderate states like Florida and Virginia). This suggests Biden shouldn’t give up on states that have gone red in the past.
• Target Pope Francis Fans-- Ranker readers who love the current Pope are 8X less likely to vote up the current president on any given Ranker list. That should indicate to the DNC that it’s time to start targeting users who watch Papa Francisco’s speeches on YouTube, follow him on social media, and visit Catholic websites and Facebook groups.
• Make Oprah VP (or at least a surrogate)-- Oprah Winfrey doesn’t appeal to any section of the party in particular, but she does seem to be a hit with those who dislike Trump (maybe that’s why there was a lot of chatter about Oprah herself running this year). Biden 2020 ads in her magazine and on her TV network might be a wise investment, and the party should certainly reach out to ask if Winfrey is willing to be a trusty campaign surrogate-- if not a running mate.
• Reach out to Beyoncé and Cardi B-- The whole world wide web seems to love Beyoncé, and our data suggests that this huge portion of internet users is also pretty staunchly anti-Trump. That’s also the case with Cardi B, a rapper who shares virtually zero fans with Donald Trump. Endorsements and appearances from both artists could fire up those who dislike Trump and push them to vote for Biden.

I'd guess a Democratic Party unity event on television that includes Bernie, Elizabeth and AOC, as well as Biden, Kamala Harris, Marianne Williamson, Andrew Yang, Beto, Gillibrand, Tom Steyer, de Blasio, Jay Inslee, Mayo Pete, Klobuchar, Gravel, Castro, Booker... maybe even Tulsi and... ugh, Bloomberg would go over like gangbusters-- especially if there were big name musicians and comedians. And maybe that would be a good opportunity time to drag out Republican candidates like William Weld, Joe Walsh and Mark Sanford as suprise special bonus guests if anyone wants to denounce Trumpanzee and endorse Biden.

Will Deeply Committed Progressives Vote For Status Quo Joe In November-- The Lesser Of Two Evils Play?

Bernie apparently got some policy concessions out of Biden-- enough for him to endorse him. Maybe there are more to come, but what Biden announced so far isn't enough for me to vote for him. (Note: I vote for candidates, not against someone who is worse. Over the decades, the Democrats have taken interpreted progressives willingness to vote for their putrid centrist candidates as an endorsement of putrid, centrist policies. If that's ok for you, go for it.) Anyway, I stuck up a quickie Twitter poll and a tiny majority of respondents said they had decided to vote for Biden, either on their own or because of Bernie. Almost as many people said they would not vote for him or had not yet decided.

On Tuesday, The Guardian published a column by Nathan Robinson asserting that Biden needs to win progressive voters over by doing a lot more and that "his 'concessions' so far have only demonstrated that he isn’t serious about listening to leftwing voters." Trump may lose-- how could he not?-- but there's no way Biden can win in anyway but by default. The enthusiasm gap for Biden is monstrous. At best, he's simply better than Trump, a lot better for some people, magically better for others. But he has nothing to offer anyone, except neoliberals eager to see the end of Social Security and Medicare and a balanced budget.

AOC is likely to endorse Biden as well but she said he has to be made to feel uncomfortable before there can be any real of party unity. Robinson wrote that "Many younger people share Ocasio-Cortez’s perspective; they are waiting to see what Biden can offer rather than reflexively supporting him because he is the Democrat" or even because Bernie endorsed him. "Why," asked Robinson, "is Biden struggling with young progressives?"

Well, one reason is that he has spent a lifetime opposing key progressive goals, and used to be proud of his reputation as one of the Senate’s “most conservative” Democrats. He was anti-abortion, pro-Iraq war and in the pocket of big banks. Even today, Biden says he has “no empathy” for young people who complain about indebtedness and precarity. He has told millennials who raise concerns about his environmental policies that they should “go vote for someone else.” Plenty have been willing to do just that. So while some commentators, such as Vox’s Matthew Yglesias, have suggested that activists and left media are responsible for Biden’s “unity problem,” the more blameworthy culprit is Biden himself.

In fact, it doesn’t seem as if Biden has much interest in solving his “unity problem.” In an ostensible effort to reach out to the left, Biden recently debuted new policies on healthcare and education. Did he adopt the policies recommended in the activists’ letter, namely Medicare for All and canceling all outstanding student debt? No, he did not. Instead, he merely proposed lowering the existing Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 60 and canceling tuition-related debt for students who attended public colleges who earn under a certain income.

The first of these policies almost seems like a deliberate insult. Biden’s response to those young people demanding a better health policy is to offer a policy that won’t help any of them for decades. And to understand just how pitifully stingy this “concession” is, remember that dozens of Democratic senators, including plenty of “moderates”, have already endorsed lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 55. You can find an op-ed in Forbes (not exactly the Democratic Socialists of America newsletter) suggesting 50 would be a better age. Bill Clinton proposed 55 in 1998, and Hillary Clinton advocated 55 in 2016. So Biden’s big concession to the left is actually more conservative than a centrist Democratic proposal! It’s not nothing, but it’s about as close to nothing as a policy can get without literally being nothing, and it shows that Biden isn’t serious about courting the left.

Remember, too, that we’re only talking about the platform. This is where negotiations start. By the time a proposal has gone through the political process, it inevitably gets watered down. Maybe, if we’re lucky, we’ll get the Medicare age dropped from 65 to 63 by the year 2030 or something. And even that prospect assumes that Biden is serious about fighting for his platform. At election time, politicians have an unfortunate habit of promising voters whatever they think voters want to hear. Needless to say, they don’t always follow through, and you’re often better off looking at their record than their rhetoric. From Biden’s record, it’s more plausible that he’ll follow through on his reported plan to put Michael Bloomberg and JPMorgan’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, in his cabinet than that he’ll overhaul the healthcare system.

The student debt plan is a disappointment, too. Why only public colleges, when so much unsustainable debt comes from private universities? Why only tuition-related expenses? Why is it means-tested? If Biden wants to impress the left, he will need a big, sweeping plan, not a plan with dozens of qualifiers and caveats that recalls Kamala Harris’s infamous proposal to forgive debt only for “Pell grant recipients who start a business that operates for three years in disadvantaged communities.

I actually really hope Biden embraces one of the big left policy proposals such as Medicare for All or the Green New Deal, because he can’t afford to write off progressive votes, and the stakes of this election are high. If Donald Trump is re-elected, it will be a disaster: he will be emboldened and more powerful, and will end his second term with almost complete control of the courts. Democracy as we know it may disappear altogether; U.S. militarism will escalate; carbon emissions will spiral out of control; and brutal new immigration policies will be introduced. Trump needs to lose, but Biden is already a weak candidate, and he will be even weaker if he can’t turn out the progressive base.

Many progressives are going to have a difficult time voting for Biden. He has shown contempt for them and betrayed many of the causes they care about. To make matters worse, Tara Reade’s credible sexual assault allegation against Biden will make it difficult for those who consider themselves allies of women and supporters of #MeToo to vote for him in good conscience. Biden has a long way to go to convince the left he’s worth supporting.

So far, though, it seems as if Biden is mostly concerned with reassuring rich Democratic donors and party bigwigs that he will keep his promise that “nothing would fundamentally change.” That could almost be Biden’s campaign slogan at this point. But it doesn’t seem like a winner. He will need to do better if he’s going to stand a chance of beating Trump.

Do Conservative Democrats Believe In Unity And Solidarity? Of Course They Don't

Sarah Ferris and Heather Caygle, reporting for Politico yesterday, wrote about how congressional Democrats-- most far to the right of Bernie-- are planning how to run with him at the top of the ticket. Some-- like way-to-the-right Blue Dogs Anthony Brindisi (NY) and Joe Cunningham (SC) have said they flat out will refuse to back him. Many others from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party want to write their own less progressive platform to run on. Ferris and Caygle wrote that "even as some Democrats privately test-drive rhetoric for sharing a Sanders ticket-- like how to talk up expanded health care, rural broadband or new workforce programs-- there are others who say they could have to strongly distance themselves from the Vermont independent if he wins the party’s nod."

“I’ve been consistent from day one that the answers to the problems that we all agree that we face today, the answers are not socialist economic policies,” said Rep. Max Rose of New York, a Mike Bloomberg backer, whose district went for President Donald Trump by 10 points in 2016. “That’s just not the case. And I stand by that.”

Sanders’ biggest supporters on Capitol Hill say he plans to make a concerted push to appeal to more of his congressional colleagues after Super Tuesday’s high-stakes contests. Much of that outreach, they say, will go toward finding common ground on policy and calming jitters among endangered House Democrats that a Sanders nomination would mean a down-ballot bloodbath.

Sanders maintains a relatively small group of allies on Capitol Hill, with just nine Democrats endorsing him in both chambers. But his supporters say momentum could shift toward him this week, with Sanders expected to do well Tuesday in delegate-rich states like California and Texas, potentially putting him on a path to winning the nomination.

“Everyone in this building is very good at politics, and it doesn’t take a lot to see that Sanders has a very good chance,” Rep. Ro Khanna of California, a national co-chair of Sanders’ campaign.

Khanna said some Democrats have approached him with concerns about Sanders’ bid, and that in some cases, he has relayed them directly to Sanders as they look to build a Capitol Hill coalition.

“We want to make members realize that whatever wing of the party they’re on, they’re welcome in the coalition,” Khanna said, adding that some of Sanders’ proposals-- like building rural broadband and investing in infrastructure-- could appeal to more moderate Democrats who have otherwise stayed far away from a platform centered on “Medicare for All” and a “Green New Deal.”

“People are beginning to see there could be a strong upside to a Bernie nomination as well, even though I understand many of them might be a little nervous,” added Rep. Jesús “Chuy” Garcia (D-Ill.), who officially endorsed Sanders last week.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is acutely aware of the anxieties swirling inside her caucus. The speaker has even declared that while the party will unite around its nominee, House Democrats will run on their own agenda-- one that helps them hold the GOP-leaning seats that delivered her majority in 2018.

“My responsibility is to make sure that those we elected last time return to Congress, keep the majority and add to our numbers,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday.

“We have to win in certain, particular areas,” she added. “We’re not about a popular vote in the country or in particular states in terms of the Electoral College. We are district by district.”

...Democrats may disagree on whether to back Medicare for All or focus on strengthening the Affordable Care Act, for example. But the Trump administration and several GOP-led states are currently in court trying to completely dismantle the Obama-era health law.

“I think the campaign will be an opportunity to contrast where Republicans stand on all these issues,” Cicilline said.

Several moderate Democrats have said they would focus on Sanders’ health care message-- the biggest plank of his platform and a key driver of his base.

“I think health care is a good direction, I just don’t like how he wants to get there. Same with some of his other ideas,” said Rep. Tom O’Halleran (D-AZ), whose district barely went for Hillary Clinton over Trump in 2016, and who has not yet endorsed a candidate.

“There are certainly parts of his agenda that are attractive to some people,” said freshman Rep. Susan Wild of Pennsylvania, noting the idea of universal health coverage is popular in parts of her purple district. But she said Democrats would need to find a way to achieve that outcome that doesn’t “burn the house down in the process.”

“I’m seeing it kind of like the process of legislation,” Wild added. “There’s going to have to be compromise all the way around.”

But not every Democrat is so optimistic that they can run with-- or run away from-- Sanders’ message and the “socialist” sobriquet Republicans are already trying to pin on every Democrat.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC), who offered a high-profile endorsement of Joe Biden ahead of the former vice president’s landslide South Carolina win, warned of “down-ballot carnage” if Sanders is the Democratic nominee.

“We want to see somebody on the ticket that will allow us to expand our numbers. Not having to run some kind of a rearguard campaign in order to keep from being tarnished with a label,” Clyburn said Friday on CNN.

The fears about keeping the House are most pronounced among the several dozen Democrats running in the most competitive seats, particularly freshmen, who have never run on the same ballot as Trump.

Freshman Rep. Tom Malinowski of New Jersey, whose district went narrowly for Clinton in 2016, said he would go into his race “with the same degree of confidence” regardless of who leads the ticket.

But he said Democrats would have a much simpler message-- and better odds of beating Trump-- if they have someone other than Sanders on the ballot.

“All we’ve got to do is to say, we’re not messing with the economy, we’re going to improve health care, and we’re going to give you a president who tells the truth, respects the law, and can be a good moral example for your kids,” Malinowski said.

“Why we would risk this extraordinary opportunity by nominating someone who has a tendency to divide our own side is beyond me,” he said, though he added that he would “absolutely” support Sanders if he is the nominee despite their differences.

Still, it’s not clear that Sanders will be welcome on the trail with the most vulnerable House Democrats.

“We don’t know who the nominee is going to be yet, so I think that’s kind of forward thinking,” said freshman Rep. Gil Cisneros, who flipped a GOP district in Southern California, after being asked multiple times whether he would campaign with Sanders. “But again, whoever the Democratic nominee is, Democrats in my district are going to rally around that individual.”

Cisneros, basically a waste of a seat, was a professional potato chip taster who won the lottery and self-funded $9,252,762 to win the primary and then the open-seat general. He quickly joined the New Dems, quickly started voting abysmally and now has an "F" rating from ProgressivePunch. This cycle-- despite immense PAC contributions-- he's being outraised by Republican Young Kim. Yesterday he endorsed Biden.

Does it feel odd to you that there are no progressive members of Congress saying they won't vote for Status Quo Joe if he-- not to mention Republican oligarch Michael Bloomberg-- manages to steal the election at the convention? And that there are no progressive congressional Democrats talking to the media about how they will have to run on a more progressive platform than the pile of status quo garbage either Biden or Bloomberg will put together?

Last week, Mehdi Hasan asked at The Intercept if we can all agree that everything we were told about Bernie by the press, the pundits, the politicians was wrong. "And not just wrong, but completely, utterly, demonstrably, embarrassingly, catastrophically wrong." Hasan's post was particularly looking at electability but also looked at the smear that Bernie's "policies are extreme and unpopular." Bernie, he wrote "is a socialist who backs radical policies too far to the left of not just the electorate as a whole, but even mainstream and moderate Democratic voters. Yet in Iowa and New Hampshire... a clear majority of caucus-goers and primary voters backed Medicare for All over the current private insurance system. In Nevada, too, 6 in 10 Democrats said they supported a Sanders-style single-payer health care system. At a national level, a (narrower) majority of Americans support Medicare for All, according to the latest Kaiser Family Foundation poll. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, then, it is Sanders, and not Biden or Bloomberg, who is the real centrist candidate-- in terms of pushing policies popular with most Americans."

A few days later, Scott Lanman and Stephanie Flanders went further, reporting that world-renowned economist Thomas Piketty, has explained how Bernie's agenda will be good for the American economy than the no fundamental change agenda Biden and Bloomberg and the transpartisan elites have in mind.

At the start of the 20th century, Sweden-- now held up as an egalitarian country-- was entirely controlled by wealthy elites and voting rights were determined by property. Within a very short space of time, and with little economic disruption, it became the social democratic nation that we now know.

This precedent bodes well for Mr. Sanders' policy goals of reforming American capitalism, Piketty suggested.





In his new book Capital and Ideology, Piketty examines the relationship between inequality and ideology, and how they shape each other.

The Sanders campaign has promised systemic change through economic policy to tackle inequality-- higher taxes of the rich, a wealth tax, a minimum wage, and “workplace democracy.”

Piketty, like Mr Sanders, advocates a progressive tax on wealth. “Remember that the U.S. is actually the country that invented progressive taxation of income and wealth in the 20th century,” he said.

Citing 30 years of data showing that U.S. workers have not seen any real per capita growth in that period, Piketty also said no country has a national determinism about economics and the US is not necessarily wed to its current system. Things can change very quickly.

“Warren and Sanders are not radicals, they are moderate social democrats by European standards… and the ideology of the U.S. is changing,” he said.

Piketty’s first book, 2014’s best-selling Capital in the Twenty-First Century, is said to have foreseen the Trump presidency-- predicting that voters who felt marginalised by globalisation would turn to radical solutions outside of the realms of traditional politics.

Could there be parallels in support for the Sanders campaign? A portion of the electorate that again feels left behind in a highly unequal society, who could turn away from "business as usual" solutions, and wants real structural change.

In a discussion with the Financial Times, Piketty described the two different policy reactions to this scenario-- the first wants to regulate the movement of goods and people, the other wants to regulate the movement of capital. One focuses on external factors (immigrants, unfair trade deals), the other on internal factors (inequality, education, health) advocating structural change at home.

At this early stage of the primary campaign it is still unclear whether the American voter will opt for the latter, and embrace Mr Sanders.

If Bernie Sanders Wins the Most Pledged Delegates, On Whom Should the Burden of "Unity" Fall?

Would these people accept an Establishment bargain with a "unity candidate"?

by Thomas Neuburger

“We are going to win this primary, but if we don’t, he will do whatever it takes to defeat Donald Trump. If the nominee is Bernie Sanders, will those Democratic insiders fully support a Bernie Sanders campaign? Will they put aside their personal animus?”
—Ari Rabin-Havt, Bernie Sanders' chief of staff

We're starting to see more and more questions from Democratic insiders about whether Bernie Sanders can "unify the party" if he wins the nomination. For example, in this piece from Ruby Cramer at BuzzFeed on the recent fight that broke out between ThinkProgress and CAP on one side and the Sanders campaign on the other, two quotes stand out (emphasis added):

"Sanders' brand is fighting the establishment. It's who he is. It's core to his appeal. But the landscape is different this time," said John Neffinger, a longtime progressive operative. "Voters have more choices, which argues for leaning into that strength, but they also want someone who can unite the party in the end."

and:

Ahead of his February campaign launch, a number of senior advisers, including [former Sanders adviser Mark] Longabaugh, whose consulting firm has since split with the campaign, warned that Sanders, a longtime independent who made a point of filing his 2024 Senate reelection paperwork as a third-party candidate on the same day he registered as a candidate in the 2020 Democratic primary, would need to work to unite the party behind him.

Which raises the question, if Bernie Sanders wins the 2020 Democratic nomination, on whom does the burden of "unity" primarily fall — Party operatives and insiders, or Bernie Sanders?

To ask that differently, if Democratic Party voters choose Sanders as their presidential candidate, do Democratic Party insiders have any right to resist or hobble his campaign in the general election?

Remember, that was what Sanders was tasked with in 2016 when he lost the nomination to Hillary Clinton. His job was to work as hard as he could to support her election, a job which he performed energetically and without reservation. Hillary Clinton and Party insiders didn't consider it their job to "unite" with Sanders and his program — the burden fell entirely to him to support her policy agenda.

Will It Work That Way in 2020?

Will expectations be different now that Sanders is leading? For a clue, let's turn to the very next paragraph of the BuzzFeed article:

Sanders advisers now describe a scenario where the senator captures the nomination with less than a plurality of support from Democrats — setting up the possibility of a multiple rounds at the national convention next summer.

"Multiple rounds" means only one thing — the superdelegates will have the upper hand, and if they do, they will know it going into the convention. If Sanders has a mere plurality, "Stop Sanders" insiders appear to have a plan (emphasis added):

Should no bargain be struck by the time of the first roll call vote at the 2020 convention in Milwaukee — such as a unity ticket between a pair of the leading delegate-winners — the nomination battle would move to a second ballot. And under the new rules crafted after the 2016 race, that is when the party insiders and elected officials known as superdelegates would be able to cast a binding vote.

Note that this "bargain" would be offered before the first roll call vote.

If Sanders enters the convention with a plurality of pledged delegates, but no majority, will he be told that the price for superdelegate support is to accept an establishment- and superPAC-supported candidate as his running mate, someone well positioned to sabotage his agenda should he leave or be forced out of office?

Or worse, would he be asked to be the running mate to a less-progressive candidate?

Will he be publicly vilified as "anti-unity" ahead of the general election if he fails to accept their "offer"? And if so, will Party insiders blame him for their own lack of energetic and whole-hearted support?

I guess only time will tell, but the signs aren't good at this point.

If Sanders enters the convention as the candidate with the most first-round votes, majority or not, I think the burden of "unity" falls squarely on the shoulders of the Party. More importantly, I think the voters will think that as well — something Party insiders should keep in mind as they contemplate their Stop Sanders options.
 

Democratic Unity?

The Democratic establishment will soon be appealing to progressives to come together and fight Trump with determined unity. I tend to agree. I hate lesser of two evils choices and tend not to take the bait... but Trump is so beyond the pale that I'm even prepared to recommend that people vote for the worst Democrats running, even right with Democrats who will shit on the Democratic Party's brand and, in the long run, do immense damage to the party and the country-- nightmare candidates like Jeff Van Drew (NJ) and Anthony Brindisi. Trump must be stopped and it it takes electing crap Blue Dogs... in districts where they are the only option, that's what we probably have to do. They were elected in their primaries and that's that.

On the other hand, it's... curious that Pelosi and her gang of political cutthroats see unity as a one-way street. The DCCC and other manifestations of a corrupt and putrid establishment still refuses to get behind the legitimate primary winners who they judge as too progressive. Pelosi and her sick and destructive crew have been belittling and attacking Alexandria Ocasio Cortez since she won her compelling victory against Wall Street puppet Joe Crowley 15,897 (57.48%) to 11,761 (42.52%). Rahm Emanuel protégée Tammy Duckworth belittled Ocasio's tremendous feat by saying her progressive platform couldn't win in the (white) Midwest, forgetting, apparently, that Ocasio's platform was essentially the Bernie Sanders platform which did win in the (white) Midwest, outright in Wisconsin (56.6% to 43.1), Minnesota (61.6% to 38.4%), Michigan (49.5 to 48.3%), Indiana (52.5% to 47.5%), West Virginia (51.4% to 35.8%) and North Dakota ( 64.2% to 25.6%).

As far as Pelosi, she called bitterly Ocasio's stupendous win an "outlier" and has refused to allow the DCCC she controls to endorse swing district primary winners running on progressive platforms-- particularly Kara Eastman (NE), Jess King (PA) and Dana Balter (NY). That's the heart of the one-way street mentality that loses the DCCC so many winnable races. She expects progressives to hold their noses and vote for crap candidates the establishment helped win primaries for, while she continues to sabotage candidates who won primaries against failed establishment candidates. Really sucks. Worse yet, the Berniecrat candidate for governor of Maryland, former NAACP president Ben Jealous , won his primary and continues to be undermined by establishment Democrats as former Democratic official keep endorsing Republican incumbent Larry Hogan, including former Maryland Democratic Party chairman Nate Landow, ex-Lt Gov Mickey Steinberg, ex-Speaker Clay Mitchell, ex-DNC Treasurer Scott Pastrick, retired federal judge Alex Williams and ex-House Majority Whip Bill Cox.

Blue America has revived the popular Act Blue page, Abandoned by the DCCC, that is devoted to congressional candidates who won their primaries and then shunned by the DCCC. Not included on the page are Democrats like Ocasio who are in solid blue districts, just Democrats who fit the Red-to-Blue standards but who have been left off the red-to-blue page which many contributors consider the green light to donate to candidates. Please consider contributing to these candidates, who probably need your help more than any other Democrats. They are running in tough districts and the DCCC is not helping them, while helping more conservative primary winners who won their primaries since these candidates won.

In the past couple of days, Becca Rast, campaign manager for Jess King, noted in her Twitter feed, that "Jess is demonstrating everyday that leading with values and honesty is what moves independents and Republicans, not running to the "center" with policy. Voters, regardless of party, are looking to vote for somebody who will fight for them." This flies right in the face of the DCCC, which has no interest whatsoever in values and honesty and insist candidates run to the center-- or right-of-center. One of the comments under the tweet validated Becca's perspective from an older man in the district who wrote that he hopes Jess know she stands a chance "I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Republican and I support Jess. Finding Lloyd Smucker is like Where's Waldo." In a second tweet, she noted that "every single @JessForCongress town hall this week so far has been DOUBLE or TRIPLE the size of our last event in that town. This is momentum. People are fired up and ready to thrown down for a candidate whois ready to stand up for the people! And in a third tweet, she addressed the argument over Alexandria Ocasio directly.

Don't think @Ocasio2018 is having an impact in red districts? A a Lancaster town hall, Jess just gave a shout out to her people-powered campaign and the audience exploded in clapping. People are FED UP by politicians in both parties who side with Wall Street.

Pelosi and the Old Guard should start paying attention, before it's too late.

If The Democratic Party Doesn't Stand For Something, It'll Just Turn Into A Clintonian Mush In A Big Pointless Tent

As I've been explaining over the last couple of weeks, when Blue America tries to get to know candidates as part of our vetting process, we basically try to understand where they are on the issues involving economic opportunity. Where do they stand on living wage vs minimum wage? How do we achieve universal healthcare? How do we come up with a fair taxation system? But we never even get to those questions if the candidate is anti-Choice, anti-LGBT or unsupportive of racism equality. I hate identity politics but and the reality of divisiveness used for political purposes isn't something you can wish away by burying your head in the sand.

Egged on by a fully corrupt Democratic establishment and donor class fearful of losing ground to the increasingly popular Bernie Sanders and his movement, the media has been trying hard to drum up an internal Democratic Party conflict over "unity." Scratch the surface and who do you find inciting the disunity? The Hillary dead-enders so aptly described in Jonathan Allen's and Amie Parnes' new book Shattered. If you don't want to read the whole book-- I don't blame you-- read Matt Taibbi's review in Rolling Stone. These are the people whose arrogance and incompetence helped pave the way for the worst thing that's happened to America since the Civil War.

What Allen and Parnes captured in Shattered was a far more revealing portrait of the Democratic Party intelligentsia than, say, the WikiLeaks dumps. And while the book is profoundly unflattering to Hillary Clinton, the problem it describes really has nothing to do with Secretary Clinton.

The real protagonist of this book is a Washington political establishment that has lost the ability to explain itself or its motives to people outside the Beltway.

In fact, it shines through in the book that the voters' need to understand why this or that person is running for office is viewed in Washington as little more than an annoying problem.

In the Clinton run, that problem became such a millstone around the neck of the campaign that staffers began to flirt with the idea of sharing the uninspiring truth with voters. Stumped for months by how to explain why their candidate wanted to be president, Clinton staffers began toying with the idea of seeing how "Because it's her turn" might fly as a public rallying cry.

...Most don't see elections as organic movements within populations of millions, but as dueling contests of "whip-smart" organizers who know how to get the cattle to vote the right way. If someone wins an election, the inevitable Beltway conclusion is that the winner had better puppeteers.

The Clinton campaign in 2016, for instance, never saw the Bernie Sanders campaign as being driven by millions of people who over the course of decades had become dissatisfied with the party. They instead saw one cheap stunt pulled by an illegitimate back-bencher, foolishness that would be ended if Sanders himself could somehow be removed.

"Bill and Hillary had wanted to put [Sanders] down like a junkyard dog early on," Allen and Parnes wrote. The only reason they didn't, they explained, was an irritating chance problem: Sanders "was liked," which meant going negative would backfire.

Hillary had had the same problem with Barack Obama, with whom she and her husband had elected to go heavily negative in 2008, only to see that strategy go very wrong. "It boomeranged," as it's put in Shattered.

The Clinton campaign was convinced that Obama won in 2008 not because he was a better candidate, or buoyed by an electorate that was disgusted with the Iraq War. Obama won, they believed, because he had a better campaign operation-- i.e., better Washingtonian puppeteers. In The Right Stuff terms, Obama's Germans were better than Hillary's Germans.

They were determined not to make the same mistake in 2016. Here, the thought process of campaign chief Robby Mook is described:

"Mook knew that Hillary viewed almost every early decision through a 2008 lens: she thought almost everything her own campaign had done was flawed and everything Obama's had done was pristine."

Since Obama had spent efficiently and Hillary in 2008 had not, this led to spending cutbacks in the 2016 race in crucial areas, including the hiring of outreach staff in states like Michigan. This led to a string of similarly insane self-defeating decisions. As the book puts it, the "obsession with efficiency had come at the cost of broad voter contact in states that would become important battlegrounds."

If the ending to this story were anything other than Donald Trump being elected president, Shattered would be an awesome comedy, like a Kafka novel-- a lunatic bureaucracy devouring itself. But since the ending is the opposite of funny, it will likely be consumed as a cautionary tale.

Shattered is what happens when political parties become too disconnected from their voters. Even if you think the election was stolen, any Democrat who reads this book will come away believing he or she belongs to a party stuck in a profound identity crisis. Trump or no Trump, the Democrats need therapy-- and soon.

These people are petrified that Bernie's revolution is taking over the Democratic Party and they're using their one and only weapon (aside from the corporate cash that keeps them afloat and motivates their existence)-- identity politics-- to fight back. The NY Times' Jonathan Martin, thrilled to emphasize that Bernie "is not even a Democrat," was their stenographer yesterday:

“This is very raw,” said Randi Weingarten, the head of the American Federation of Teachers, conceding that “after the presidential election, there is still this ongoing debate about identity politics versus economic opportunity.”

Mr. Sanders and the new leadership of the Democratic National Committee touched a party sore spot this week when they took their “Unity Tour” to Omaha to rally for a mayoral candidate who opposes abortion rights. Mr. Sanders, repurposing the themes of his presidential bid, told a crowd of about 6,000 on Thursday night that the candidate, Heath Mello, 37, would be a future star in the Democratic Party who could help break the grip of big money on the nation’s politics.

Ilyse Hogue, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, a prominent abortion rights advocacy group, called it a betrayal, especially of the women who have fueled the “resistance” that has energized Democrats since Mr. Trump’s unexpected triumph.

“It tells your most active political base that we’re just negotiable political property,” Ms. Hogue said of the statement sent by Mr. Sanders and Representative Keith Ellison, the Democratic National Committee’s new deputy chairman, who appeared with Mr. Mello. “Since the election, women have been engaged on the front lines of every progressive fight. So what message does it send for the party to start this tour with an anti-choice candidate?”

Mr. Mello, a practicing Catholic, supported a Nebraska State Senate bill requiring that women be informed of their right to request a fetal ultrasound before an abortion. The anger over that position reflects a long-running argument among Democrats over whether, or how much, to support candidates who depart from party orthodoxy on abortion.

But the ferocity of the dispute this time reveals a much deeper debate on the left: Should a commitment to economic justice be the party’s central and dominant appeal, or do candidates also have to display fealty to the Democrats’ cultural catechism?

An Omaha mayoral election on May 9 may seem an unlikely place for this fight to play out, but a collision was inevitable. Despite being the most sought-after Democrat in the country today, Mr. Sanders is actually an independent and self-described democratic socialist animated chiefly by class uplift. But the clamor for his attention comes as the party is increasingly defined by its positions on issues related to race, gender and sexuality.

The wounds from his clash with Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary clearly have yet to heal, in large part because the overarching debate between them has yet to be reconciled.

Mr. Sanders has emerged as the most popular active politician in America, according to a new survey by Harvard University and Harris Insights and Analytics, and his presence is demanded in Democratic campaigns no matter the political tint of the region. Yet his recent moves have infuriated some progressives.

First, Mr. Sanders campaigned with Tom Perriello, the Virginia Democratic candidate for governor who supported some anti-abortion measures during a single term in Congress (though Mr. Perriello has apologized for doing so).

Then Mr. Sanders pointedly declined to campaign for Jon Ossoff, a Democrat running for an open House seat outside Atlanta, deeming him insufficiently populist. (Mr. Sanders issued a statement on Friday offering his support for Mr. Ossoff.) Not only is the Ossoff race the highest-profile campaign of the moment, but the Republican nominee, Karen Handel, is loathed by the abortion rights movement for her role as an official at the Susan G. Komen foundation in separating that group, the nation’s largest breast cancer organization, from Planned Parenthood.

Then Mr. Sanders arrived in Omaha for Mr. Mello, after persuading the Democratic National Committee to make the rally a part of a party-sanctioned tour.

Coming against the backdrop of Mr. Trump’s election and the wave of new, female-led activism in opposition to a leader they believe is a repugnant misogynist, many female progressive leaders are adamant about keeping reproductive rights front and center. And they see the matter of Mr. Mello as an opportunity to send a statement to the party’s leadership.

“It is incredibly important that people within the progressive movement and Democratic Party realize that women are sick of this” stuff, said Erin Matson, a Virginia-based abortion rights activist, “and we’re not going to take it anymore.” (She used a more pungent word than “stuff.”) “What Bernie doesn’t seem to realize,” she added, “is that the abortion rights movement has really bucked up and gotten some tough ovaries in the last couple of years.”

Tom Perez, the party’s newly elected chairman, had been campaigning with Mr. Ossoff in Georgia when Mr. Sanders was in Nebraska. But in interviews leading up to the event, Mr. Perez was unapologetic about supporting Mr. Mello, who has recently said that although he personally opposed abortion, he would uphold abortion rights as mayor.

An aside here-- that's exactly what the dishonest and untrustworthy Perriello told me-- on tape-- to get a Blue America endorsement. And then he stabbed us in the back by voting generally with the Blue Dogs and specifically against Choice.

Yet after the backlash, Mr. Perez retreated. He conducted some quiet diplomacy, telephoning Ms. Hogue and Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, according to Democrats briefed on the calls. Casting aside their efforts at unity, Mr. Perez’s aides blamed Mr. Sanders for the event, putting out word that it had been the senator’s idea to include the rally on the tour and criticizing him for not vetting Mr. Mello.

By Friday afternoon, Mr. Perez had issued a far more strongly worded statement. “I fundamentally disagree with Heath Mello’s personal beliefs about women’s reproductive health,” Mr. Perez said. “It is a promising step that Mello now shares the Democratic Party’s position on women’s fundamental rights. Every candidate who runs as a Democrat should do the same because every woman should be able to make her own health choices. Period.”

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Perez further toughened his language, saying he respected those Democrats who “have personal beliefs” against abortion rights but warning them not to pursue such policies in office. “If they try to legislate or govern that way, we will take them on,” he said.

Not every liberal sees the issue as so clear-cut. Ms. Weingarten, who was a Clinton supporter, argued that the question of whether to focus on economic justice or social issues was “not an either-or” proposition. The red-and-blue-state tour that Mr. Sanders and the Democratic National Committee officials are on “conveys to the public that the Democratic Party is first and foremost a party of economic opportunity,” she said.

Bingo!

That back-and-forth is an extension of Democrats’ soul-searching after losing an election that they thought they would win. Many Democrats believe that Mrs. Clinton erred by not making economic populism more central to her campaign against Mr. Trump, relying instead on a mix of cultural liberalism and character attacks.

Just as the Republican establishment battled the nascent Tea Party over conservative purity after its 2008 loss, Democrats are enduring internecine strife over what it means to be a progressive.

“Anytime your party is out of power, you face a choice,” said Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist. “Do you want to hunt down heretics or seek out converts?”

Mr. Sanders and his supporters are the ones preaching inclusion, at least on social issues.

“Every single Democrat is not necessarily pro-choice,” said Nina Turner, a former Ohio state senator from Cleveland and an ally of Mr. Sanders. “And Democrats need to understand that, and not vilify people because of it.”

Absolutely-- and keeping them out of leadership positions is absolutely essential. They can be anti-Choice if they want to but if they are they can't be nominees of the Democratic Party. Is that so difficult to understand? As I explained the other day, the racists who once dominated the Democratic Party's congressional caucus are no longer welcome, nor should they be, as candidates. The party has to stand for something or it becomes irrelevant.

This morning, addressing this privately, author and native Nebraskan Mike Lux told a large group of activists why he wasn't withdrawing his support from Mello: "One of the hardest things about politics is the contradictions of it. Last year for me was the ultimate example. The issue I have spent more time on than any other in recent years is Wall St reform, because I think it is the financialization of the economy that is at the heart of the 1% having dominion over everyone else. There is no more core issue for me. I also care enormously about peace issues, which are so central to who lives and dies; and to fracking, which is poisoning the water for so many people in this country. Hillary sucked on all of those issues. But she was running against Donald Trump so I dropped everything to go help her in the general election.

"Politics is not pure, it is messy as hell. And progressives sometimes don't get to have completely progressive politicians to support. That is in absolutely no way to diminish the choice issue, it is so important and central. But the incumbent mayor in Omaha is a terrible person, worse than Heath on abortion, much worse on Planned Parenthood and family planning, and dreadful on everything else that matters to people on this list. I don't want to consign the people of Omaha to that awful mayor when there is someone much, much better on most things as the alternative to her."

Yep, "politics is not pure" and its a sign of maturity to deal with it from that perspective. I'm glad Blue America chose to not endorse Heath Mello for mayor (or Tom Perriello for governor) and I find Lux's argument acceptable-- even if it isn't one I'd adopt for myself or advocate for Blue America to adopt.