Progressive Democrats Help Enshrine "Blue Lives Matter" Into Law

"Hands up, don't shoot" — this is one form of defiance against police at the Ferguson protests. It's only in the context of state-sanctioned murder that a symbolic act of surrender can be taken as defiance (source).

by Gaius Publius

The Blue Lives Matter movement is a political counterattack against the Black Lives Matter movement. It doesn't include the concept that black lives also matter (notice the catch phrase isn't "blue lives matter too"), but enshrines a defiant, contrary opinion thinly disguised in a superficially innocuous phrase. In the same way, "America First" or "Make America Great Again" is a thinly disguised, pretend-innocuous phrase that delivers a defiant and contrary message, in this case against ideas like "immigrants have human rights."

"Blue lives matter" conceals its hatred beneath its language — barely conceals — but conceals it cleverly enough that arguments based on words alone lead nowhere. In many respects the "blue lives matter" slogan is like the American Flag when worn by cops but not nurses — an innocent-looking symbol with an angry, defiant, threatening meaning that's been widely understood since hippie days.

Affirming that "blue lives matter" is tantamount to saying "Yes, cops can kill." Affirming the Blue Lives Matter movement, or in this case, voting for Blue Lives Matter laws, throws the Black Lives Matter effort to resist and criminalize police murder under the bus.

Raúl Grijalva, Keith Ellison, Beto O'Rourke, Ro Khanna and other noted "progressives" did just that recently by voting yes on the "Protect and Serve Act of 2018" (roll call here). Anthony Rogers-Wright, writing at Medium:

This Wednesday, with little attention, the House of Representative just passed the “Protect and Serve Act of 2018” sponsored by Representative John H. Rutherford (R-FL). The bill would make it a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for “knowingly causing serious bodily injury to a law enforcement officer, or attempts to do so.” It joins a host of others deemed “Blue Lives Matter” laws, which have been introduced and passed, in part as a reaction to rising defiance to documented brutality and racism practiced by law enforcement in this county.

This act encapsulates the essence of the "blue lives matter" movement. Why? Because cops lie when they commit their own violence, and resistance of any kind to police violence frequently spurs more police violence. Wright again:

Let us be clear: police departments across the country have justified brutality and murder by accusing their victims of assault, for actions as heinous as dodging a night stick or pushing back on a barricade that is crushing against a crowd. And we don’t need body cameras to know that law enforcement officials are not always honest about their actions that result in arrests and lethal force — assuming the cameras aren’t turned off as was the case with Stephon Clark in Sacramento. Cops in the U.S. already have more of a License to Kill than James Bond, and in many cases enjoy more impunity that he does (Bond at least, at times, faces some scrutiny from M for his actions.)

And now there's a federal law that can be added to the crimes laid against victims of police violence, thanks to Raúl Grijalva, Keith Ellison, Ro Khanna and others who supposedly, publicly "stand with the people." Shameful.

By the way, don't fail to note the irony in the name of the act. Whom does the law "protect and serve"? The police, of course, in a perfect inversion of the phrase's usual meaning. 

The Violence of the State and Non-Violent Protest

It's not just at Black Lives Matter marches and protests that police violence occurs. And it's not just people of color who experience it. Police are also front-line enforcers of many types of Establishment control (how often have you seen political protests treated as crimes against the state?), and police and military violence is frequently directed against anyone who opposes state violence.

 Pepper spray directed by police into the eyes of seated non-violent pro-Occupy protesters at UC Davis, punishment for the crime of opposing state-sanctioned rule by bankers

Consider Chelsea Manning and her years of torture for the crime of revealing crimes by the state, including, appropriately, torture and murder.

Or consider the police treatment of ex-CIA officer and Ray McGovern shown in the hard-to-watch video below, a 78-year-old retired national security officer abused for the crime of protesting the confirmation of CIA torturer Gina Haspel as, again appropriately, the next head of the CIA.

This is the direct violence of the state as executed by police and the military. The violence of the state comes from many other people in many other forms as well, including the building of pipelines that carry poisonous liquids and gases across land and water owned by those who oppose it. Those who resist these forms of indirect state violence, even passively and non-violently, are often treated with direct violence in response. This new law affirms the state's defense of its violence. And it will certainly be broadly applied.

An Interstate Law

Note also, as Rogers-Wright points out, that this creates a federal crime under interstate law:

For purposes of subsection (a), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that —

(1) the conduct described in subsection (a) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim —

(A) across a State line or national border; or

(B) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

(2) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subsection (a);

Which means it can and will be applied to protesters who cross state lines — and also applied in defense of victims who cross state lines, i.e., imported police and "deputized" mercenaries, even if the protesters are locals. How useful would this law as a way of further criminalizing water protectors and environmental activists who cross state lines and find themselves subjected to this?

Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protesters (source)

And this?

Source: NBC News

And dare to resist, as Ray McGovern "resisted" in the video above?

Messrs. Grijalva, Ellison, O'Rourke, Khanna: You will have much to answer for as this unfolds. 

A Note About Police Murder and the Gun Lobby

An full examination of the relationship of ideas between these elements — the NRA; public support for whites with guns; and police execution of blacks without guns — would be fascinating and productive.

The segment of society that loves guns and the NRA also loves whites who carry guns, yet fears with a passion blacks and those in the restless underclass who do the same. This is more than reminiscent of the pre-Civil War South and its roving gangs of escaped-slave hunters, aka Second Amendment–protected "state militias," whose job was to make sure any slave thinking of escape — or worse, of armed rebellion — is quickly reminded that those thoughts lead to death.

My own thoughts: Worshipers of guns and worshipers of violence by the state have much in common. Also, America's slave-punishing past is still with us, but with a greatly expanded list of victims.

I've been saying that the nation is in a pre-revolutionary state and predicting a "rolling civil war." I've called it that, a civil war, for a reason. This piece explains that reason.

GP
 

Paul Ryan Runs Away

Because Blue America has spent years trying to defeat Paul Ryan, about a year ago we got two consecutive call, one from former Ryan opponent and one from state Senator Chis Larson, asking me to call a very politicized progressive union iron worker in Racine County and help persuade him to run against Ryan. The Wisconsin Working Families Party had already done the heavy lift and they just needed me to push Randy Bryce over the edge. It was a pleasure talking with him over the phone; he was a Bernie guy who had the right answer on every single question. In introduced him to two political operatives who could bring his vision to reality-- Bill Hyers, the guy who made that first video, and David Keith, the guy Randy hired as campaign manager. (Alan Grayson this morning: "David beats Goliath.")

Bryce made it clear he wasn't dependent on the DCCC, that he and his team were running an independent campaign without the establishment interference. And he caught on like wild fire while the DCCC sat around scratching its ass and wondering if they could bottle whatever Bryce was doing. They could ask Jared Golden, the whip of the Maine state legislature and a candidate for Congress very much like Bryce. "I think this confirms that when Democrats put forward strong working class candidates, like Randy Bryce and myself, who have served our country in the military and who have a record of fighting for workers and labor, GOP incumbents like Paul Ryan and Bruce Poliquin are in trouble and they know it."

Paul Ryan and Bruce Poliquin have been working together in the House since 2015, and in that time they've added trillions to our national debt, given mega tax cuts to the super rich donors who prop up their campaigns, and tried to take healthcare from millions of Americans. And they've had so much fun, doing it together...

Or take it from another veteran and working class candidate, DuWayne Gregory, executive of the Suffolk Count legislature, the progressive running for Peter King's seat. "Paul Ryan’s retirement is the biggest signal to date that the blue wave is coming. But it will take more to move more entrenched establishment type likes Peter King out of office. Rumors are he wants to 'pass on' the 2nd Congressional District seat to his daughter as some type heirloom. I’m working as hard as I can to make sure that plan doesn’t happen and this district has a representative interested in serving the people not his own personal interests."

Yeah, because-- as we've been predicting for 2 months-- Ryan pulled out of the race today. No one's going to get the pleasure of watching Bryce beat him on election night in November. Although everyone-- except maybe Beltway types-- knows Bryce already won-- scaring the 48 year old Ryan into a premature retirement. Moments after Ryan's announcement this morning that he's not seeking reelection Bryce's campaign released the following statement. 

Paul Ryan decided to quit today rather than face Randy Bryce and the voters. With nearly $5 million raised to date, a strong field program aided by organized labor, a broad coalition of support locally and nationally,  Randy Bryce is incredibly well positioned to be the next representative for the First District. Electorates far more conservative than Wisconsin's First have already elected Democrats in special elections in Wisconsin and across the country.

WI-01 is far less conservative than many districts that have already turned blue, in and outside of Wisconsin, this year. PA-18 went to Trump by nearly 20 points and it's rated by the Cook Political Report as an R+11 district. WI-01 is rated R+5 and Trump won the district by just 10 points. Senate District 10 in Wisconsin, which went to Trump by 17 points, also flipped blue in a special election in January of this year.

The Bryce campaign has organized a robust, grassroots campaign. Randy has raised $4.75 million to date, with 75 percent of those donations coming in small-dollar increments of $200 or less. That support allowed the campaign to begin airing TV ads in the district at the beginning of March, so voters are already becoming familiar with Randy's story.  The campaign is also building a strong grassroots field program. Over 140 county captains have already been trained to serve as volunteer leaders in their areas.

Even earlier this morning campaign manager David Keith sent out his own note:

After 20 years in Congress rewarding billionaires like Charles and David Koch, Paul Ryan took one look at Randy Bryce and this campaign and is throwing in the towel.

Think about that for a moment. The most powerful Republican in Congress is retiring because he's too scared of Randy Bryce and the hundreds of thousands of working people who have built this campaign.

When ordinary people work together, we can do the extraordinary.

Now it's on us to send a U.S. Army veteran, cancer survivor, and union ironworker with one heck of a mustache to fight for working people in D.C.

...[O]ne of the Republicans running in Wisconsin's 1st Congressional District is an actual neo-Nazi.

I'd like to say he's unelectable, but look at who is in the White House. So, we can't take anything for granted. There's still time for Paul Ryan to get one of his rich buddies to run. And don't forget, this district has more registered Republicans than Democrats.

We still need to build this campaign and be ready for whatever comes next.

The little campaign that could! They chased Paul Ryan right out of Congress. Soon he'll be bumping into Steny Hoyer on K Street. Yesterday Axios was one of the first to ring the bell: "One of Washington’s best-wired Republicans said: 'This is a Titanic, tectonic shift. … This is going to make every Republican donor believe the House can’t be held.' The announcement will help Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in his fundraising because 'the Senate becomes the last bastion,' the Republican said." Yeah, it will also help Democratic candidates all over the country. Keith Ellison a few hours ago: "Speaker of the House Paul Ryan announced today that he will not seek reelection this November. After leading the charge to pass the historically unpopular GOP Tax Scam, targeting Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security for huge cuts to pay for it, and enabling Donald Trump’s divisive agenda, he sees the writing on the wall. Americans are fed up, and even the GOP Speaker of the House recognizes that our momentum is real. This is the clearest sign yet that we’re on the right track to win majorities in Congress this November, and now we just need to keep the pressure on."

The Fallout Begins

Insiders expect a flood of mainstream congressional Republicans to run for the exits now. The first out after Ryan was Dennis Ross (FL-15), minutes after Ryan's announcement. His central Florida district runs from Brandon and the suburbs east of Tampa north through Lakeland up to Groveland and beyond past Florida's Turnpike. Obama lost the district both time, Trump won by 10 points and the PVI is R+6. There were half a dozen Democrats competing for the nomination, though none of them have raised the kind of money it would take to make the district competitive. Ross' excuse for backing out was "Eight years takes its toll on you. When you feel like a stranger in your hometown, it’s time to say, 'There’s got to be an exit strategy at some point.'" And here's Paul Ryan's worthless, embarrassing bullshit from this morning is in the video below.

One Republican congressman-- feeling the angst-- told right wing propagandist Erick Erickson at a Safeway-- on condition of anonymity-- that "it's like Forrest Gump won the presidency, but an evil, really fucking stupid Forrest Gump. He can't help himself. He's just a fucking idiot who thinks he's winning when people are bitching about him. He really does see the world as ratings and attention... But dammit he's taking us all down with him. We are well and truly fucked in November. Kevin [McCarthy] is already circling like a green fly circling shit trying to take Paul's [Ryan] job... [Lord's name in vain], at least I'll probably lose too and won't have to put up with that shit... Judiciary is stacked with a bunch of people who can win re-election so long as they don't piss off Trump voters in the primary. But if we get to summer and most of the primaries are over, they just might pull the trigger if the President fires Mueller. The shit will hit the fan if that happens and I'd vote to impeach him myself. Most of us would, I think. Hell, all the Democrats would and you only need a majority in the House. If we're going to lose because of him, we might as well impeach the motherfucker. Take him out with us and let Mike [Pence] take over. At least then we could sleep well at night."

Unfortunately, not all defective Republicans are retiring. McCarthy and Scalise are already battling over the speakership and, less blatantly, Mark Meadows is making a play for the neo-fascist vote in that battle. He most have been happy to hear that Virginia Foxx won't be retiring. We asked her progressive opponent, Jenny Marshall, if there's any chance Foxx would follow Ryan out the door. No good news on that front: "Virginia Foxx has stated recently that she has no intention of retiring from Congress even with vast majority of people in our district wishing she would. I have spoken with many Republicans who would like to see someone new take her seat. They, along with the Democrats and unaffiliated voters who do not subscribe to her narrow view of the world want a representative who actually represents them and their communities. Virginia Foxx is bought and paid for and we all know it. It's time for a change-- whether she thinks so or not."

 


UPDATE: Ryan's Legacy-- POS

This evening New Hampshire congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter tweeted the naked truth about Ryan and his cowardly decision to retire: "Good riddance to Paul Ryan, the most overrated fraud in American politics." Lawrence O'Donnell was as savage on his MSNBC show. Before either of them, though, Ronald Brownstein eviscerated what was left of Ryan's reputation, noting that The outgoing House speaker, more than any other lawmaker, paved the path for congressional Republicans’ subjugation to the president and that he personifies the Devil's Bargain the GOP struck with Trump.

Paul Ryan... will leave Washington carrying a more tarnished legacy-- as the most important enabler of Donald Trump.

No one in the GOP was better equipped, by position and disposition alike, to resist Trump’s racially infused, insular nationalism, or to define a more inclusive competing vision for the party. Instead, Ryan chose to tolerate both Trump’s personal excesses and his racially polarizing words and deeds as the price worth paying to advance Ryan’s own top priorities: cutting spending; regulations; and above all, taxes. The result was that Ryan, more than any other prominent Republican, personified the devil’s bargain the GOP has signed with Trump. And his departure crystallizes the difficult choices Republicans face as Trump redefines the party in his belligerent image.

...[A]fter Trump took office, Ryan blinked at confronting the president’s appeals to white racial resentments. Pressed for reaction to comments like Trump’s reported description of African nations as “shithole” countries, Ryan managed to mumble the bare minimum of plausible criticism: “The first thing that came to my mind was very unfortunate, unhelpful.” For most people genuinely distressed by Trump’s remarks, “unfortunate” and “unhelpful” were probably not the first words that came to mind; “racist” and “xenophobic” were.

Even more consequential was Ryan’s refusal to challenge Trump on behalf of the young undocumented immigrants included in former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Though the speaker repeatedly promised the “Dreamers” that Congress would protect them, he has allowed the legislation that would have preserved their legal status to wither, after Trump and House Republican hardliners insisted on linking it to poison-pill provisions that would slash legal immigration.

...The result of all this inaction has been the transformation of the GOP majorities into the see-no-evil Congress, with rank-and-file Republicans and their leaders repeating the same mantra: Move along folks, there’s nothing to see here... Ryan more than any other Republican paved the path for this subjugation to Trump-- if only because he provided the most viable rallying point for an alternative, optimistic, inclusive vision and yet chose to submit. He leaves the party lashed to a volatile, impulsive leader who is systematically stamping it as a vehicle for white racial resentment, even as the nation grows kaleidoscopically more diverse.

The former head of the NRCC, Tom Davis of Virginia, pointed out that "Ryan's exit is a destabilizing blow to Republicans’ 2018 plans on nearly every front" and that "I don’t know what he was thinking. I think this was a huge miscalculation. I think this is the captain abandoning the sinking ship."

Jerry Nadler Will Chair The House Judiciary Committee, For The Trump Impeachment Hearings

On Wednesday morning the House Democratic caucus voted to replace John Conyers as Ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee with Jerry Nadler (D-NY). The secret ballot was 118 votes for Nadler and 72 for Zoe Lofgren (D-CA). Nadler won not because of any of the usual Democratic Party identity politics bullshit but because he's the best qualified member of the Judiciary Committee and the most capable member to lead an impeachment investigation into Trump which is likely to begin early in 2019.

As soon as Conyers was forced into retirement, Zoe Lofgren swooped in to claim the ranking member position. The problem for most members is that Lofgren is corrupt and interested in leading the Judiciary Committee because her major Silicon Valley campaign donors don't want to see any anti-trust activities that could impede their drives towards monopolistic dominance. She plays ball with them and it would have been catastrophic to make her chair of the committee. Lofgren is right under Nadler in seniority. The best members of the committee, with very little seniority, are Ted Lieu, Pramila Jayapal and Jamie Raskin. I'm sure the 3 of them will feature prominently in the impeachment hearings.

On Wednesday there was a demonstration of why Lofgren was so totally unfit for the job. Two reform-minded members of Judiciary-- Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and David Cicilline (D-RI)-- introduced, along with Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Mark Pocan (D-WI) crucial anti-trust legislation, the 21st Century Competition Commission Act (H.R. 4686), which would fund the creation of a new body charged with investigating the impact of corporate mergers and increasing market concentration. The representatives’ bill would model the new commission on the Temporary National Economic Committee that existed during President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration. The bill went right to the House Judiciary Committee where Lofgren could have easily put it on an endless backburner where she chair.

Ellison, the lead sponsor: "Monopolistic corporations have grown so big and powerful that they have hijacked our democratic process and our daily lives, leading us to a new Gilded Age. This sweeping bill aims to analyze all the ways monopolization has made our economy worse for working families, and help our government use existing antitrust laws to fix it." Jayapal agreed wholeheartedly: "Robust anti-trust laws help protect everyday people and ensure that hardworking Americans have good wages, and that businesses are incentivized to improve consumer services and provide competitive prices. I’m proud to cosponsor the 21st Century Competition Commission Act. If Republicans are serious about protecting Main Street, not Wall Street, they will join us in passing this bill to simply assess the scope of America's market concentration problem."

This is something likely to be voted on in 2019, certainly not before and will have to be signed into law after Trump has been consigned to the garbage pile of history. Although I did hear back from a very enthusiastic congressional candidate from Iowa, Austin Frerick, who told me that "My very first act of Congress will be to co-sponsor this legislation."

Tale Of 3 Purities... Plus Comrade Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III

Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson-- feh!

Three purity-related positions of Democratic establishment’s supporters:

• Loud labelling of Lefties for "purity"
• Louder and very purist labelling of Israeli policies’ critics as "anti-Semitic" and "dis-qualifying"
• Much less-loud hostility towards critics of donor cash to party, and party cash to consultants.

Lefties are justifiably annoyed by the (1) vs. (2) contrast, but the (2) vs. (3) contrast is very revealing.

What else do we know?

The cash flow, which is dependent on (3), is fundamental to most participants’ careers and status. In contrast, coddling of ever-more belligerent Israeli government policies flies in the face of these data points:

• A majority of Jewish-Americans (although not of Jewish-American big donors) disagree with Israel’s more-extreme policies, although a majority of that majority is cautious in publicizing much of their disagreements.
• Much of the establishment is descended from families who, until well after the European Jewish Holocaust, restricted Jews’ entry to top universities and career opportunities, and totally excluded them from social clubs, etc.

These contradictions are clarified by the recent visibility of Israeli-American mega-donor Haim Saban’s denunciations of Bernie Sanders-supporting DNC chair candidate Keith Ellison as “anti-Semitic”, etc.:

• Saban is reportedly the single biggest donor, to the Dem Party and, separately, to the Clintons.
• Saban fully shares Republican sugar-daddy Sheldon Adelson’s purity against criticism of Israeli policies (Quote: "no daylight between us on Israel")

What does this tell us?

Purist bashing of Lefties for criticism of Israel, serves:

• not only the (universally recognized) purpose of maintaining cash flows from Saban and other Jewish-American big donors,
• but also as camouflage for the more fundamental goal of purist bashing of Lefties for criticism of all donors’ (whether Jewish, Christian, Saudi Fundamentalist, Russian Orthodox, Chinese Confucianist, etc.) cash to party, and party cash to consultants.

Data supporting the above:

• Bashing Lefties for "anti-Semitism" has a proven track record of political (if not electoral) success. This contrasts sharply with Hillary’s (lack of) electoral success since saying, in 2008 debate with Obama: "Lobbyists are people too!"
• Denouncing purity against "lobbyists" was a classic "gaffe" (i.e.: exposing true beliefs), which most of establishment is smart enough not to repeat. Only “big donors” are more reviled, while "consultants" are catching up as people begin to recognize that they are largely also lobbyists (if sometimes only for themselves).

What could possibly go wrong from using ostensible protection of Jews as a weapon to shut down criticism of donor cash to party and party cash to consultants?

It’s not as though non-Jews, especially those of low-income and/or low-education, are receptive to arguments that "Jews control everything!" …right?

Meanwhile, forget about recusal, will Comrade Jeff Sessions resign as Attorney General after lying under oath to the Senate about meetings with Russians while he was working for the Trump campaign? (Lying to Congress is perjury, which is illegal... even for an Attorney General.) Late this evening, the Washington Post reported that "Justice Department officials" revealed that Sessions spoke twice with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak while he was part of the Trump campaign.

At his Jan. 10 Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat, what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign.

“I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

...In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.

Sessions responded with one word: “No.”

I guess this means the Republicans are going to find it a lot harder to keep cock-blocking an independent special prosecutor.

Obama and the Perez Election — Are the Democrats Trying to Fail?

Bernie Sanders: "Are they going to welcome into the Democratic Party the working class in this country and young people, or is it going to be party of the upper middle class and the cocktail crowd and the heavy campaign contributors? Which to a significant degree it is right now."

by Gaius Publius

[Obama] called DNC members himself [on behalf of Tom Perez], and had aides including confidante Valerie Jarrett, former political director David Simas and his White House director of political engagement Paulette Aniskoff working members by phone through the votes on Saturday afternoon.

—Politico

I recently wrote about the recent race for DNC Chair between Sanders-endorsed and CPC co-chair Keith Ellison on the one hand, and Obama- and Clinton-wing-endorsed Tom Perez on the other (see "Field Notes from the Battle Within the Democratic Party"), and concluded the following.

Four points:

• Whatever his other merits, there's no question that Tom Perez is running at the behest of the Obama wing of the party as a counter to Keith Ellison, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

• There's also no question, whatever the organizational merits of any of the DNC Chair candidates, that for medium- to low-information voters this is seen as a proxy battle between the Obama-Clinton wing and the Sanders wing of the Party (search here for the phrase "proxy battle").

• And there's absolutely no question that one of Sanders' big issues in the primary was (a) the role of money in politics, and (b) the role of money in the way the Party does business. Needless to say, that message resonated with a great many supporters who had no interest in seeing the Party's current leadership continue. That was not only true for all Sanders voters in the primary; it was true for many Sanders supporters who failed to turn out in general election as well.

• Which means, finally, that if Perez wins this contest, those medium- to low-information voters may well think the Party hasn't changed much after all, and just stay home again in 2018.

After all, don't you think that if every Sanders supporter had pulled the lever for Clinton, she'd have won in a landslide instead of lost in a squeaker?

Whatever the merits of the two leading candidates, Perez and Ellison, with respect to this position, it could not be more obvious that the Party establishment, including and especially its outgoing, still-popular, eight-year president, really really wanted Perez to win.

Why?

Control, the Appearance of Control...

For whatever combination of reasons, the need of many long-time Party insiders, from the county level up through the national level, for control of the Party is extremely great. This may be in part due to the nature of humans to protect territory, especially long-held territory. The local clique that has always run Cub Pack 257 our of your local church, for example, may resent like hell the influx of a group of new parents who start thinking, "Why are you running things this way?"

(And imagine their irritation if those parents discovered that much of their Cub Pack money went into the hands of a "preferred supplier" of equipment who happened to be married to the Assistant Pack Leader?)

Of course, organizations don't always end up filled with insiders holding tight to power for its own sake. My local HOA, for example, went in two years from having a self-protective, angry, clique-led insider club to a welcoming, "let's hear from the owners" inclusive leadership group — but only after a series of electoral coups took out the lower-level insiders and finally, the board chair himself (who suddenly discovered a need to move to a penthouse in a different city).

But it happens often enough, and it's certainly — and for those with eyes, obviously — happening inside the modern (post-Reagan) Democratic Party. There may be any number of causes, but the result is the same.

Control of the Party. However it came about — I have a private opinion on the source of this need for dominance — starting with Bill Clinton in the 1990s, when the Democratic Party reshaped itself in response to 12 years of Republican rule, hatred by establishment Democrats directed at those to their left grew fierce. It also became quite noticeable.

For example, Matthew Karp recently wrote at Jacobin:

Two stark facts have defined the 2016 Democratic primary since the campaign began last spring. The first is the remarkable success of self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders, who appears to be mobilizing far more support from lower-income voters than any other Democratic underdog in a generation.

The second fact, evident since the beginning of the campaign but even more visible in recent weeks, is the fierce determination of the Democratic Party elite to nominate Hillary Clinton.

With both Sanders and Donald Trump surging in the polls, many observers have framed the 2016 race as one that pits insurgent populist campaigns against consolidated party establishments. It’s easy for this kind of insider versus outsider analysis to become sloppy and conspiratorial. In fact, the contours of “the establishment” are often difficult to define, and a closer examination frequently reveals several different elite factions facing off against each other.

Yet there is abundant evidence that the Democratic Party elite has thrown its full weight behind Clinton — and against Sanders — in ways that surpass any other primary campaign in recent history.

I won't comment here about the reasons for this animus, but I will state it as a fact. "Third way," establishment Democrats, by and large, hate "the left." Jesse Jackson and his supporters used to be the incarnation of those "to the left," which explains and accounts perfectly for Bill Clinton's cruel and public Sister Souljah moment.

Today, Sanders and his supporters are the current incarnation. Establishment Democrats' need to keep control of the Party — to keep the rest of the Party in line and under their thumb — is still clearly one of their guiding principles.

Top Clinton fundraiser who whipped votes for Perez says Ellison was blocked to stop the left https://t.co/juxHQxjeoY pic.twitter.com/O8Kq2X6flK

— David Sirota (@davidsirota) February 27, 2017

The Appearance of Control. Once a leadership elite seeks that degree of control  — as linked just above, Chuck Schumer reportedly preferred to see Republican Pat Toomey re-elected to the Senate than let someone as independent as Democrat Joe Sestak into the insider club he's in charge of — the appearance of control is also critical. (It should be noted that Schumer was an early supporter of Ellison's candidacy.)

Much of the press commentary about this race, in attempting minimize the split between the Sanders wing and the Obama-Clinton wing, saw either of the choices, Perez and Ellison, as good ones for the Party. For example, US News concluded prior to the voting, "Ellison would likely serve the party well, and his Muslim faith would serve as clear symbolic counterpoint to the policies of the Trump administration. However, the party should resist the factionalizing between Sanders and Clinton supporters and focus on the candidate who can build the infrastructure, organization, messaging and fundraising networks to make the party more competitive across the 50 states." Nathan Robinson writes much the same in the piece linked near the end. Neither is alone in this view.

So if these two candidates were presented as roughly equivalent (note the word "presented"), why did winning DNC Chair matter so much that Barack Obama, personally, whipped for Perez? Two of the three answers are obvious — not only did control of the DNC matter to him and his fellow insiders, but the appearance of control matters as well.

Put crudely, a machine boss can't be seen to lose, even when next to nothing is actually lost. To those for whom power matters very very much, they can't even seem to be losing it.

...And Money

Which bring us to the final point, the third reason Obama-insiders wanted Perez to beat Ellison for this position. It's not just about control. There are real dollars at stake if power within the DNC, the smaller than 500-member insiders club, passes into the "wrong hands."

Remember my Cub Scout example above, the one about the "preferred supplier" of equipment being the spouse of a pack leader? What if that "preferred supplier" derived all of his income from dealings with the scouts? How motivated would his pack leader-spouse be to keep complaining parents, all of them, off of her pack committee? The answer is obvious. Very motivated.

Nomiki Konst, investigative reporter for TYT Network, who covered the DNC Chair contest closely (see also here), had this to say via email after the election (my emphasis):

I keep saying to any reporters who plan on writing about Bernie vs Hillary/Obama Wing proxy fight that this was actually a proxy battle between Unity democrats vs. HRC & OFA elitists.

Keith had so many establishment Dems and progressives. Unions and even most state party chairs.

Perez still won because he had elitists Dems -- the biggest bundlers and political operatives, as well as the president and VP, working on his behalf.

Remember, Perez had barely any union endorsements, a couple state Party Chair endorsements, did not have the minority leader of the senate and absolutely NO Sanders supporter endorsements.

And he still won by 35 votes.

"The biggest bundlers and political operatives" means, first, the bag men and women ("bundlers," collectors of the millions that come into Party hands) and, second, those to whom that money goes ("operatives," consultants, pollsters, campaign advisors and very well paid media buyers). "Bundlers and operatives" are, in other words, the suppliers and recipients of what, in a presidential election year, amounts to billions of dollars spent per candidate, and all the political favors big money purchases for its ultimate sources.

Konst highlighted that problem in a striking interview with Perez just a few days before the election (written up here):

Konst: Aren't conflicts of interest a concern? If you're going to change the culture on the ground, how do you change it without banning these conflicts of interest who want to keep the party bloated?

Perez: When you say that someone wants to keep the party bloated, I don't know. The people that I talk to want to build a Democratic Party that works for everyone. ... The folks that are running the Unity Commission, there's going to be a lot of different perspectives that are put to bear — that's what we want!

Konst (incredulous): Including consultants?

Perez: We have a big tent in the Democratic Party....

Keeping the party "bloated" means keeping corporate money, hedge fund money and cash from very high wealth individuals (example, Haim Saban) flowing freely into Party hands so it can just as freely pass out to the hands of its friends — who in turn help Party insiders stay in power.

Few will write the story this way — Konst is one of the exceptions — but following the "flow of funds" explains much of what's behind the fierce determination of Democratic insiders (that is, the 447 women and men who actually vote for DNC Chair) to keep things just as Nancy Pelosi wants — the way they are right now, thank you very much.

The miracle is that Ellison got even 200 votes at all, and lost by only 35. Still, despite the support of "unions and most state party chairs," he lost by a significant margin. Ellison gained zero votes from the crowded first round of voting to the two-person second round, while Perez sprinted to a win.

What's Next for Democrats?

What's next for Democrats deserves an essay by itself. But needless to say, an increase in #DemExit is one of the anticipated options, even by several of the delegates Konst interview on the floor at the DNC meeting.

A worst-case scenario is painted below. First, consider this from NBC News on whether the public views insiders of either party favorably, (my emphasis): "One sentiment that unites the fractured nation is fury at the establishment in Washington. Fully 86 percent of those surveyed said they believe that a small group in D.C. has "reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. That includes 88 percent of Republicans and 85 percent of Democrats."

Then consider how that broad unpopularity of insiders may intersect with this DNC election. Of that, Nathan Robinson, editor at Current Affairs, writes, "By failing to appoint Keith Ellison to chair the DNC, Democrats have written their suicide note."

Here's just a taste of the longer piece:

They Must Be Trying to Fail

At this point, one has to conclude that the national Democratic Party has a death wish. ...

[I]t was incredibly important that the Democratic Party take some steps to indicate that it cared about progressives. Since the election, it hadn’t been doing a very good job of this. (Nancy Pelosi’s insistence that nothing needed to change, and her rebuke to a young leftist, demonstrated the prevailing attitude.) Appointing Keith Ellison to chair the DNC was the perfect opportunity. After all, chairing the DNC is a pretty minor role. It would mostly have been a gesture of friendship and unity, showing that even after the catastrophic mistake of ignoring leftist warnings not to run Clinton, the party was capable of valuing its leftmost members.

But no. Instead of granting the tiniest possible concession, the party has decided to affirm precisely what Nancy Pelosi has indicated: democratic socialists and social democrats don’t belong in the party. It’s not for them. What the party does depends on what billionaire donors want it to do.

This is politically suicidal.

As if that wasn't enough, Robinson adds, "Now, progressives in the party are further alienated. Good luck getting them to vote for Democrats. ... The progressives needed to receive some kind of gesture. And they have received one: an enormous middle finger." Indeed.

Your Bottom Line

Consider these facts:

1. It clearly mattered very much, to Obama, to high Party insiders, and to the support ecosystem around them, that no one representing the Sanders camp be allowed real power in the Party. (Sanders himself is in charge of "outreach" and reports in that capacity to Chuck Schumer.) Even when the role is highly visible but "minor." The DNC Chair does have a modicum of control, unlike those who hold "messaging" roles, but even that much control won't be allowed.

2. Yet all you hear from Democrats, correctly in my view, is "Defeating Trump is Job One." The nation, indeed the world, is at a crossroads — on the climate front, a crossroads of world-historical proportions.

3. Yet there's an obvious disconnect between the Party's rhetoric and its actions. Is control of the Party more important than bringing in the groundswell of popular support needed to defeat the Republicans in all branches of government?

4. And people do notice that disconnect, more now than before. Some might even call it, not a disconnect, but a contradiction. Or hypocrisy. Some, those who couldn't pull the lever for Clinton, may even call it that at election time.

5. If so — if the insider-controlled Democratic Party puts its own need for party dominance over the needs of the nation — the nation and indeed the world will suffer greatly. Will insider Democrats suffer to the same degree as the rest of us? If they think they're getting what they want, no.

So a question for those who gaze into the future. None of this dire predicting is certain, but it's certainly possible. Will there be a price, for the Party and the world, attached to adherence to power at any price? If there is, establishment Democrats sure are flirting with it.

Again.

Scheduling note: My comments appear regularly here on Monday and Thursday, or Tuesday and Thursday if Monday is a holiday.

GP
    

Bernie Never Wanted A Cult Of Personality

It's easy to look at Republicans, especially Trumpists, and their information sources-- Fox, Hate Talk Radio, Breitbart...-- and dismiss them as ignorant morons incapable of abstract thought. Remember, abstract thought doesn't come easy to folks with IQs of less than 100-- and half the population, by definition, has 2-digit IQs. If you want to be honest, though, not everyone lacing the ability for critical thinking is a Trumpist... or even a Republicans. There are probably as many moron Democrats-- or almost as many-- as there are moron Republicans. A cult of personality is much easier than understanding complex and nuanced issues-- whether for Trump fans or, alas, Bernie fans. The difference, though, is that Trump encourages it every day and in every way. Bernie doesn't.

I don't know what percentage of Democratic politicians sided with Hillary over Bernie during the 2016 cycle. But let me guess: 85%. Just a guess. It could have been 90%. But let's look at it from a different perspective. Ask yourself how many Democratic politicians preferred Bernie's agenda and positions to Hillary's. That's where we see a more even split between the progressives-- the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party-- and the corrupt careerists of the establishment along with the Blue Dogs and New Dems-- the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, the Clinton wing. Now we're talking about a more even split-- 50/50? 60/40?

As you probably know, I dedicate a few hours a day talking with Democratic candidates and perspective candidates. Virtually all of them bring up Bernie's issues. Virtually none of them bring up Hillary's agenda. NONE.

Ted Lieu has probably been the most effective and galvanizing voice in Congress resisting Trump. He was just elected-- not selected-- regional vice chairman of the DCCC for the West Coast. Yesterday afternoon he told us why he's backing Jimmy Gomez for the CA-34 congressional primary. It makes a lot more sense than talking about who supported who in last year's primary election. "During these extraordinarily dangerous times, we need fighters like Jimmy Gomez in Congress. I served with Jimmy in the California Legislature and I know he will always and relentlessly fight for progressive values. More importantly, I need Jimmy with me as soon as possible so that we can keep punching back against the failing Donald Trump."

Bernie was the founder of the Congressional Progressive Caucus-- and it's first chairman. Last year his first endorsements came from the current co-chairs, Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison. The only other members who endorsed him were Alan Grayson (FL) and Peter Welch (VT). Since then, Berniecrats Pramila Jayapal (WA) and Ro Khanna (CA) have been elected to Congress ands have joined the caucus. Most of the other caucus members were Hillary backers, although a few, super-progressives, like Barbara Lee and Mark Pocan, stayed neutral and expressed equal admiration for both candidates. Today, the two freshmen with 100% Progressive Punch crucial vote scores are Pramila Jayapal, the Seattle Berniecrat, and Ruben Kihuen, a strong Clinton backer from the Las Vegas area. On policy, though, both are identical in their advocacy of what amounts to the Bernie agenda.

Conservative Democrats Tulsi Gabbard (HI) and Collin Peterson (MN) both endorsed Bernie during the primary, Gabbard in a very big way. Gabbard's Progressive Punch crucial vote score is a dismal 73.90, an "F" in one of the bluest districts in America. Perhaps it helps her get more bookings on Fox and helps enhance her friendship with Bannon, Adelson and the throngs of Islamaphobes and homophobes who recognize her as a kindred soul. Peterson, who hasn't been embraced by most Bernie supporters is even worse than Gabbard. His Progressive Punch crucial vote score for the current session is ZERO and for his whole career 39.75. Don't ask me what makes him a Democrat, but he virtually votes opposite of Bernie on every single important issue to come before Congress. So far this year there are 11 Republicans whose voting records are more supportive of Bernie's positions than Peterson is.

Nice of him to endorse Bernie for the Democratic nomination though. His western Minnesota district voted 61.6% to 38.4% for Bernie and against Hillary in the caucuses last year. Gabbard's district (basically all of Hawaii outside Honolulu) was even stronger for Bernie-- 69.8% to 30.0%. Just sayin'.

So what do you want-- a party that pledges fealty to a personality or a party that pledges fealty to a progressive agenda? Many Democrats who backed Hillary are good solid, sincere progressives who made a bad mistake for whatever reason. And there were many reasons-- from personal relationships to fear of the Clinton Machine to wanting to be with a winner. Terrible but across the country I'm seeing Bernie fans getting behind next-to-worthless candidates who, on some level, backed Bernie over Hillary but have, literally, nothing else to recommend them.

One of the worst examples from last year was contemptible corporate whore Shawn O'Connor in New Hampshire's first congressional district. One day O'Connor was campaigning on "compromising" with the Republicans by cutting Medicare and Social Security and, finally realizing that's a bad message for a Democratic primary, he endorsed Bernie and went around the state with him-- a Bernie low-point in my eyes. (No one's perfect.) Polling showed the million dollar self-funding Wall Street creep O'Connor losing the primary. Furious, he decide dot try to beat progressive Democrat Carol Shea-Porter (a Clinton backer with a solid progressive record) by running as an Independent and throwing the November election to Tea Party incumbent Frank Guinta.

He nearly succeeded. A worthless pile of garbage, O'Connor managed to grab 34,612 votes (9.4%)-- many of them from deluded Bernie fans-- giving Shea-Porter an uncomfortably close call in a district that went for Trump. Shea-Porter won 161,828 votes (44.2%) while Guinta took 157,011 votes (42.9%). Trump won NH-01 48.2% to 46.6%. It was a miracle Shea-Porter won.

When I interview candidates for Congress I ask them where they stood on the Bernie-Hillary primary. But the answer isn't determinative. If they were for Bernie, that starts out as a plus but it's not nearly as important as where the candidate stands on Bernie's issues, how they look on the courageousness scale and what kind of experience they've had. Example: Brianna Wu, one of the women targeted by Milo and the other Gamergate thugs, was an outspoken Hillary supporter. Today she's running for Congress against right-wing Democrat Stephen Lynch. In her official announcement of candidacy, she writes that "the contentious primary between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton revealed a deep divide that must be reconciled. There is a disconnect between those marginalized and our party leaders who vote too often as moderate Republicans. I personally supported Hillary Clinton in the primary, but today I see the vision of Bernie Sanders for America is one we must bring to pass. I believe today’s Democratic party is ill-equipped to fight the Trump administration’s assault on women, on people of color, on the poor, and on the LGBT community. We do have true progressives, but too often they don’t have the support of the party establishment." Her district is entirely within Suffolk County where primary votes pretty overwhelmingly went for Hillary over Bernie-- 78,083 (57.1%) to 57,872 (41.8%). Wu's statement about Bernie vision for America is similar to candidates I'm hearing from everywhere. Bernie fans would be making a big mistake to write them off as unworthy of support because it took them too long to understand why Bernie would have been a far better candidate than Clinton.

On an average tweet I post, I get around 7-800 impressions. There's a reason why these two from Saturday after the DNC election were so much more.

Sunday afternoon, Keith Ellison reached out to his supporters-- like myself-- with this message of unity in the face of Trumpism:

The Democratic Party finally has a leader-- a leader who has demonstrated time and again that he has what it takes to fight for all Americans. That leader is my good friend, Tom Perez.

I’m immensely proud of everything that our campaign accomplished, of how hard my staff, volunteers, and delegates fought. And now, I ask all those who love our country and believed in our vision to support Tom.

With Trump in the White House, at stake is the very essence of our democracy, and I want us to be able to look back at this moment and tell ourselves that we did the right thing and helped Tom succeed.

We must be united-- because we live in times when the judiciary is under attack, when the press is under attack, and hate groups are desecrating Jewish cemeteries and defacing mosques. Two Indian men were even shot down for looking ‘foreign’ in the eyes of the terrorist who shot them.

I look forward to returning to Congress and continuing to represent the 5th Congressional district of Minnesota. And I look forward to helping the Democratic Party in any way that I can. I urge all to do the same. Working people across this country are depending on us.

Crowds Are Packing Democrats' Town Hall Meetings Too-- Take Ro Khanna... Very Different From Mo Brooks

Buried in the new PPP poll about Trump's fights with the media was a question about town halls. PPP's conclusion is that "Members of Congress who dodge open town hall meetings may be opening themselves up to trouble with their constituents. 81% of voters think they ought to hold town halls, to only 5% who think their members of Congress should avoid them. That includes overwhelming majorities of Democrats (88/2), independents (81/2), and Republicans (73/11) who think members of Congress should make themselves available to the public in that way. Mitch McConnell (25/45 approval) and Paul Ryan (37/43 approval) are both unpopular, and Democrats hold a 46/43 lead on the generic Congressional ballot."

Crackpot and right wing extremist Mo Brooks (R-AL) is worried that some congressional Republicans are cowards and now getting cold feet after their encounters with angry constituents. He's freaking out that some of them won't help him kicking millions of Americans off healthcare. He was on the WBHP morning show Thursday and told the hosts that "there are a significant number of congressmen who are being impacted by these kinds of protests and their spine is a little bit weak. And I don’t know if we’re going to be able to repeal Obamacare now because these folks who support Obamacare are very active, they’re putting pressure on congressman and there’s not a counter-effort to steel the spine of some of these congressmen in tossup districts around the country." He called his colleagues' constituents all kinds of names. But speaking of cowards with weak spines, Crazy Mo, is too scared to meet with Alabama voters and adamantly refuses to have any town halls. He says he's worried someone may shoot him or his supporters or that Muslim terrorists will get them. Brooks, who represents a horribly backward Alabama district-- a hell-on-earth of poor white trash-- primarily in Huntsville, Florence, Scottsboro and Decatur across the northern 6th of the state, is in one of the safest seats in the country. Trump won it in November with 64.7% and ole Mo did even better.



Thursday the Blue America crew sat down with Ro Khanna and Ted Lieu for a few hours to talk policy. At one point, though, Ro told us about the town hall he had just had at Ohlone College in Fremont. He was only expecting around 250 people based on RSVPs. But when 900 showed up, they had to start opening overflow rooms. Although his constituents had very serious questions, the town hall didn't have much in common with the contentious town halls you've been seeing on TV with Republicans. What Ro had to say to voters primarily from Fremont, Newark and down the Nimitz from Milpitas and Santa Clara who packed the auditorium must have been music to their ears. The Democratic Party, he told them, needs it move in a more progressive direction.

In the 2016 Democrat vs Democrat general election, his long-time liberal opponent, Mike Honda, was a pledged Hillary delegate; Ro was a Bernie supporter. CA-17 isn't Trump country. Obama had beaten Romney there 71.9% to 25.5%. Hillary improved on that, eviscerating Trump 73.9-20.5%. Ro said where Hillary went wrong-- at least in the Midwest if not in California-- was when she started talking too much about Trump and stopped talking about how she was going to make people's lives better. "She was up when she was talking about making people’s lives better and unrigging the economy," he reminded the audience. The East Bay Times reported the next day that he "acknowledged the need to hold President Donald Trump accountable, and in response to a question from a member of the audience, he said he would support impeachment of Trump if an open and thorough investigation found evidence of violations. However, he said that right now, there are bigger fish to fry for Democrats, alluding to the 2018 mid-term elections."

“We are not going to win the next election, nor do we deserve to win the next election, by just focusing on Donald Trump’s missteps,” he said, adding that Trump voters were upset at leaders across the country, and felt the economy is rigged to favor a select few. He said Democrats cannot ignore those voters in their messaging.

“Shame on us if we don’t hear them,” he said, adding that his party must offer Trump voters a positive vision, with recognition of the “profound demographic changes” the country has seen.

“A vision that says, your life can still be good. Your kids’ life will still be good. We will help get your kids the skills to compete in a new economy. We’ll make sure that you don’t have to worry about retirement and health care,” he said.

Many in the auditorium seats flashed bright green signs that read “Agree,” and offered rounds of applause as Khanna said he believes the Democratic Party needs to be “far more bold, far more populist.”

The congressman said “it’s better in my judgement to have a slightly smaller party even, but a morally consistent party, than a party that doesn’t stand for anything,” a point he said the Republicans understand.

After Khanna said he supports a $15 minimum wage in response to a question, he doubled down on his idea that Democrats must be more bold in their actions.

He said he will be proposing a bill that would massively expand the earned-income tax credit to the tune of $1 trillion to help low- and moderate-income families, something he described as in contrast with “conventional” Democratic ideas, which would only offer a $60 billion expansion.

He chastised Republicans for claiming to want to help working-class families and the working poor, while pushing to give tax breaks to the wealthy.

When asked how his constituents can help create change, he said it’s important that they don’t underestimate the influence the average person can have, especially in the age of the Internet, when a viral blog post could get many more views than anything he says on the floor of Congress.

After spending about an hour in the main auditorium, Khanna traversed the campus to speak to another packed room, and reiterated many of the same points to that crowd.

Khanna told the crowds that he plans to hold monthly town hall meetings going forward to allow more people to engage, especially those who were locked out of Wednesday night’s gathering.

Ted Lieu and Ro Khanna are both avid supporters of Keith Ellison in today's DNC election, though neither has a vote. They both like Tom Perez but are certain that Ellison represents the progressive, grassroots vision of a more populist vision for the Democratic Party. I'm not certain when this document was released by Ellison of his first 100 days plan but it certainly in in synch with the messages we heard from both Lieu and Khanna Thursday, neither of whom shied away from the term "The Resistance."

Over the last several years Democrats have lost more than 940 state legislative seats, hundreds of congressional, senate and statewide seats and countless local races.

The job of the next DNC Chair is going to be incredibly challenging. It will require: juggling raising tens of millions of dollars; unifying Democrats; holding Trump, his cabinet and Republican-controlled states accountable; protecting the right to vote and creating opportunities to expand voting access; laying the foundation for redistricting; and recruiting, training and supporting candidates up and down the ballot.

This document lays out a framework for the first 100 days for the next DNC Chair.

ORGANIZING SESSIONS

All across America Democrats are mobilizing, energized and ready to take back our country. We need to harness this energy by holding organizing sessions in every single state so Democrats know what we are going to do to fight back the Trump administration and Republicans on a state and local level.

These organizing sessions will be collaborative and involve state and local party leaders, elected officials, labor, constituency groups and rank and file Democrats who want an active and meaningful role and voice in the party. We will work with state parties to hold organizing sessions in all 57 states and territories with the Chair and other senior DNC officials personally attending as many as possible.

We will pick locations across the country of strategic importance focusing on counties or locations where candidates did particularly well or poorly last election, and locations that are municipal or legislative priorities going into 2017.

ORGANIZING THE OPPOSITION

The DNC-- working hand in hand with state and local Democratic parties-- will seek to organize and channel the immense groundswell of opposition to President Trump and his policies.

The Democratic Party and its partners will support these activities and will create new opportunities to stand up against not only the dangerous policies of the Trump Administration but any Republican on a state or local level that makes it harder for Americans to achieve prosperity and inclusion.

These organizing rallies must involve unifying not only all Democrats, but Americans who are committed to building a world that promotes an economy that works for all Americans, not just the wealthy and corporations, and an agenda where we have liberty and justice for all.

INCLUSION AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Our party is at its best when it reflects the regional, racial, ethnic and overall diversity of the Americans we represent. We build an inclusive and accountable party by making sure that people have a seat at the table.

A 3,143-county strategy means that we bring everyone to the table. We will work to ensure that constituency caucuses are fully staffed and we have regular briefings and programmatic updates from the Chair and Department Directors to the DNC Executive Committee and state party chairs.

We will call a meeting of all of the caucus and council chairs to set metrics for evaluating the work that we are doing to ensure we are moving our party in a consistently inclusive and accountable direction.

...MESSAGING

We have already been holding Trump accountable on social media, via email and substantial research into his nominees. Our goal over the coming years is to hold every single Republican in the country accountable to the people they represent. Having two way communication from the DNC to partners across the country helps nationalize local fights and localize national fights.

We also need to aggressively remind voters for the Democratic Party and our candidates stand for. That means establishing an accessible and easily digestible version of our platform and disseminating it to county and state parties.

The DNC can help candidates get their message out by looking at bulk purchasing options, reducing any remaining barriers between the voter file and digital platforms and template pieces for down ballot candidates.