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.

Children Of The Revolution

“In America,” wrote the Our Revolution team in a mass e-mail this morning, “we often make the mistake of overvaluing the importance of individual leaders and undervaluing the impact of grassroots movements. One of the most destructive consequences of this tendency can be seen in the dangerously naive comments of out-of-touch politicians and pundits who think the underlying problems that led to the election of Donald Trump will magically disappear if we are able to simply find the best candidate to beat him next November. At Our Revolution, we know that simply defeating Trump is not enough to transform our corrupt system… The only way to challenge the structural forces that threaten our survival as a society is to build a grassroots movement powerful enough to challenge establishment control over our politics and economy… [W]e are building a national grassroots network of powerful local groups who are fighting to win progressive issue fights, elect progressive champions, transform the Democratic party, and be ready to fight alongside President Bernie Sanders to make lasting structural change. The future of progressive America depends on our ability to mobilize a movement powerful enough to help our next president defeat the corporate elites who will do whatever it takes to maintain the status quo… During the first six months of 2019, our grassroots movement mobilized to get a record number of House Democrats to support Medicare for All by taking on the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies; we organized workers to fight plant closures by General Motors and other major corporations; we fought to rollback the DCCC Blacklist and other Democratic Party policies designed to favor establishment politicians over progressive challengers; and we won elections up and down the ballot from the LA School Board to the Philadelphia City Council. Grassroots movement-building matters. We have a responsibility to every person in America to do everything we can to build a grassroots movement powerful enough to challenge entrenched corporate power and win. That’s what Our Revolution is all about.”

Until 2016— more than a decade after our founding— Blue America had never endorsed a presidential candidate. Bernie was our first. This year we’re waiting and watching, impressed by Bernie and by Elizabeth Warren and open to hear the messages of other candidates who stand a chance of beating Trump next year. Meanwhile, we’re back to our regular mission: recruiting and supporting progressives for Congress.




If Bernie or Elizabeth becomes the next president— or they merge their efforts and become a winning ticket— their agenda is going to be very hard to fulfill without a supportive Congress. That isn’t going to be a Congress led by Mitch McConnell. Nor a Congress led by Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer (nor by their hand-picked heirs, Cheri Bustos and Hakeem Jeffries).

Meagan Day, writing for Jacobin asserted that “Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the United States. If he were to make it through a crowded Democratic Party primary field, successfully dodging attacks from party elites who recognize he’s not their ally, there’s no question that he could win the presidency in 2020. It’s an exciting prospect for those of us who believe, as Sanders once put it, that ‘this is class warfare, and we’re going to stand up and fight.’” In her post, Here’s What Bernie Could Do in Power, she notes that the Supreme Court is likely to be a stumbling block for “decades to come” and that “a majority of Congress will likely be composed of some combination of conservative Republicans who are bent on austerity and centrist Democrats who are more than willing to meet them halfway. Even if their numbers increase exponentially, progressives like Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who share Bernie’s economic and social justice agenda, will be in the minority under a Sanders administration.”

We should have healthy reservations about what a lone democratic socialist could accomplish at the helm of the capitalist state. In this political environment, what could Sanders do besides fight and loose, negotiate and concede, inevitably disappoint?

Executive orders are powerful tools for the president, who often issue hundreds of them for both good and ill. There are the soaring heights of Lincoln’s famous Emancipation Proclamation, and there’s also Trump’s recent directive permitting more federal logging on public lands. Franklin D. Roosevelt used 3,522 executive orders to do things like create the Civil Works Administration, which gave jobs to the unemployed, and the Rural Electrification Administration, which brought power to the rural poor; he also used an executive order to initiate the internship of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Executive orders are ephemeral: they can be reversed by the president who comes next, overturned by the Supreme Court, and in some cases nullified by new legislation. To make lasting change, we can’t rely on directives from a single politician. We need a mass movement from below that can send progressive and democratic-socialist representatives into the state, while mounting protests, strikes, and other disruptive activities that create crises outside of the state, to which officials are forced to respond.

But building that movement is not mutually exclusive with aggressive executive action. If a hypothetical President Sanders were to pass hundreds or even thousands of orders intended to curb the power of capitalists, it would be a major boon to extra-parliamentary movements.

First, ambitious executive orders can expand the popular imagination and raise expectations. Policy ideas that once seemed unfeasible can be instantly legitimated, and so can the politics that animate them. Second, adjustments made by executive order that mitigate ruling-class power make it easier for workers to organize and participate in political activity aimed at longer-term change.

The Right has caught onto the fact that dramatic shifts in policy have enormous potential to alter the balance of power. Donald Trump’s barrage of executive orders is a case in point. From instituting a discriminatory travel ban to ordering the construction of a border wall, he has moved political goalposts and established horrifying norms in American politics, even as fights have ensued in the courts and in Congress.

A President Sanders wouldn’t be able to bring society’s masters to heel alone, but he would be obligated to use every tool at his disposal, including executive orders. Here are just a few examples of the kind of measures he could issue in office. This list is far from comprehensive, but it demonstrates the power of a single president to intervene and to create new political possibilities— in this case for the many, instead of the few.

CLIMATE

By executive order, a president could set aggressive greenhouse gas and energy use reduction goals across the federal government, including the military (the Department of Defense is one of the world’s worst polluters). He could direct all appropriate executive branch agencies— including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Interior Department, and the Army Corps of Engineers— to account for the greenhouse gas impacts of any proposed infrastructure project, and declare that any project with the potential to exacerbate climate change should be rejected.

“This will inevitably lead to litigation,” explains Basav Sen, Climate Justice Project Director at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). “Courts will eventually allow some of these projects to proceed, but this is a very important delaying tactic, and it creates a roadblock because the industry will have to fight a court battle against the federal government for every piece of harmful infrastructure they try to build. Some of them will be blocked and all of them will be significantly slowed down, sinking capital and making it harder to build new fossil fuel infrastructure.”

Sanders could also issue an executive order directing federal agencies to account for environmental justice impacts of all proposed infrastructure projects, Sen adds, and then reject the ones which do disproportionate harm to communities of color and the poor.

He could also issue an executive order to rejoin the Paris Climate Accord. “The Paris agreement is fundamentally flawed,” says Sen. “Its goals are not ambitious enough and it is entirely voluntary. But that being said, it is still important for us to be part of the global community of responsible nations, and actually engage with this process and contribute in the ways that we can to global climate action.”

A President Sanders could establish an interagency task force to lay out the parameters of a Green New Deal. He could also stop all lease sales for coal, oil and gas extraction, uranium mining, and other forms of mining and logging on federal land. Finally, he could bar any company with environmental violations in the last ten years from securing federal contracts. Taken together, these executive orders would push American climate policy in a dramatically more sustainable direction, making it harder for business to degrade the planet for profit.




Foreign Policy

The United States has the most far-reaching military presence in world history. By executive order, President Sanders could “withdraw troops from countries around the world where they are deployed,” says Phyllis Bennis, Director of the New Internationalism project at IPS, including places where they are “carrying out assassinations and other so-called counterterrorism actions, which are in violation of international law and which are not keeping us safer and are not keeping people in other countries safer.

Sanders could issue an executive order declaring the official termination of the “Kill List,” a database of individuals that the Pentagon has flagged for capture or murder. He could also end all secret bombing campaigns. “In 2017 alone, there may be as many as six thousand civilians who have been killed in US-led coalition bombings in Iraq and Syria,” says Bennis. “It’s horrific. Secret bombings are clearly not secret to the people who are being bombed,” and yet they occur constantly, wasting money to destroy lives. As commander in chief, Sanders could end them unilaterally.

President Sanders could issue an executive order reestablishing the legitimacy of the War Powers Resolution, which requires Congressional consent to make war. Presidents have been violating this law for decades. The first successful assertion of Congress’s power to override executive warmaking since 9/11 came last year, when Sanders himself invoked the War Powers Resolution in a bill to end US support for Saudi intervention in Yemen. Sanders could issue an executive order establishing a policy of abjuring any military intervention not authorized by Congress, publicly affirming the antiwar and pro-democratic principles that would motivate his own compliance with the War Powers Resolution.

Sanders could also declare that no individual who has worked for a defense contracting company can be appointed to a federal agency. Issuing an order like this “would have the effect of redefining publicly what American interests are,” says Bennis. “Do the interests of the Pentagon reflect the interests of corporations, or of the US people?”

While the power of the purse belongs to Congress, Sanders could establish a commission to conduct a top-to-bottom review of the military budget, with a view to radically scaling it down. President Trump recently ordered a task force to identify bloat in the US Postal Service— why not create one to assess the most frivolous and destructive military the world has ever encountered?

Finally, the Pentagon currently has a program to provide free and low-cost military equipment to US law enforcement agencies. “That’s how you got an armored personnel carrier in the streets of Ferguson after Mike Brown was killed,” says Bennis. “And when they had it, they used it.” President Sanders could issue an executive order discontinuing this program, forestalling efforts to militarize domestic police and make war in American streets.

Criminal Justice

The structure of the criminal justice system poses unique challenges for the executive branch, since most of its activity occurs under state and local jurisdiction. Still, a president could chip away at the foundation of mass incarceration through certain executive orders, and could use others to send a powerful message.

Sanders could issue an executive order directing his Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to shutter federal private prisons completely, including immigrant detention centers, and cut all contracts with private prison companies.

Sanders could also issue an executive order directing the Department of Justice to abandon mandatory minimum sentences in federal prosecution, and to pursue non-carceral solutions for low-level offenders. The president also has the power to grant clemency to federal prisoners by executive order: President Jimmy Carter pardoned draft dodgers en masse in the wake of the Vietnam War, and Obama did the same for hundreds of drug offenders in his final days in office. Obama’s commutations applied selectively to inmates who had completed ten years of their sentence and who had behaved well in prison. Sanders could finish the job by pardoning every federally incarcerated drug offender sentenced under the draconian requirements of the War on Drugs, no matter how much of their sentence they’d served or whether they’d gotten a GED or held a job— criteria that were important to the Obama administration.

Similarly, while presidents can’t decide on absolute funding amounts, they can set priorities for how that funding is used within agencies. “The Department of Justice can say we’re not going to spend this billion dollars that would otherwise go to the Drug Enforcement Agency for law enforcement on pursuing and prosecuting drug dealers,” says Kara Gotsch, Director of Strategic Initiatives at The Sentencing Project. “Instead we want that money to be shifted. We want to take a billion dollars and invest in an intervention program trying to divert people with substance-use disorders into treatment, a community health-based approach. There’s so much that can be done at the administrative level to reprioritize strategies on how we address crime.”

Sanders could issue an executive order directing all agencies to stop civil asset forfeiture, the practice of seizing someone’s property merely on the suspicion that they’ve committed a crime. Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, placed limits on it, but they were rolled back. Sanders could declare an immediate end to the civil asset forfeiture across agencies, from the DEA and the FBI to the Department of Homeland Security.

By executive order, Obama “banned the box,” meaning the tick-box that compels federal employment applicants to disclose their criminal records. Trump has not rescinded the order yet, but he’s likely to get around to it sometime. If he does, Sanders can reissue the order with an extra provision: ban the box for federal contractors as well, since they are nearly as many of them as there are direct federal workers.

Finally, Sanders could take some risky moves with executive orders in an attempt to break new ground around criminal justice issues. For example, last year Sanders introduced a bill in the Senate to withhold federal anti-crime funding from cities that use a cash bail system. While funding is primarily the jurisdiction of Congress, an executive order could be a powerful gesture to legitimate the movement to end cash bail. In 2017, Trump issued a comparable order stripping sanctuary cities of eligibility for federal grants. Though it was swiftly declared unconstitutional by the courts, it had a major impact on the political atmosphere, escalating anti-immigrant sentiment and validating the idea that undocumented immigrants endanger US citizens.

If Sanders were to try the same tactic for cash bail, it might get struck down— but it would put the injustice of the cash bail system in the national spotlight, strengthening congressional efforts to pass a bill like his No Money Bail Act.

Economy

The United States is full of places that banks have decided it’s unprofitable to serve. This forces people to turn to predatory payday lenders and check-cashing operations, spending an average of 10 percent of their income on the exorbitant fees that “alternative” financial services charge. There’s a solution to this problem within our reach: federal law already requires the US Postal Service to have a brick-and-mortar post office in every zip code, and 60 percent of them are in zip codes with only one or no bank branches. President Bernie Sanders could issue an executive order directing the post office to begin offering public banking, ensuring that nobody will be kept from traditional financial services.

Besides simply avoiding certain neighborhoods, banks also engage in discriminatory lending. While they’re no longer allowed to deny loans to African Americans on racial grounds, for example, they can run complex risk-assessment algorithms that perpetuate racial bias, and simply hide behind the numbers when the fairness of their lending policies is questioned. Sanders could issue an executive order requiring all financial supervisory agencies to prioritize documenting and combating lending discrimination, not only reaffirming the spirit of the Fair Lending Act but also leaving a paper trail of disparate outcomes and potential corporate violators.

The Volcker Rule, which prohibits banks from using depositors’ money for the kind of risky speculation that led to the 2008 economic collapse, made Wall Street angry. Under Trump, federal bank regulators were put to work rewriting the rule to give bankers more leeway. Sanders could issue an executive order instructing all of these agencies— the Fed, the SEC, and the FDIC— to leave the Volcker Rule intact. And while he’s at it, Sanders could issue an order prohibiting Obama-style appointments of Wall Street bankers, lawyers, and lobbyists to agencies tasked with overseeing the finance sector.

In 2014, Obama issued an executive order setting the minimum wage for federal employees and contractors at $10.10 per hour— four dollars less than what analysts at MIT determined constituted a living wage. Sanders could issue an executive order correcting the problem, establishing a task force to determine the real living wage across the United States and setting the federal worker minimum accordingly.

Finally, Sanders could issue an executive order establishing new priorities across federal agencies that administer social programs. Last April, Trump issued an order stating that “many of the programs designed to help families have instead delayed economic independence, perpetuated poverty, and weakened family bonds” and instructing agencies to adhere to what it called the “Principles of Economic Mobility”: strengthening work requirements, reserving benefits only for the poorest (means-testing), reducing “wasteful spending by consolidating or eliminating Federal programs that are duplicative or ineffective” (austerity), and empowering the private sector to step in and solve problems currently delegated to the federal government (privatization).

Sanders could immediately reverse that order and issue one of his own, instructing agencies wherever possible to operate according to “Principles of Economic Equality,” such as universal program design instead of means-testing, decommodification instead of privatization, and redistribution instead of austerity.

Canceling Student Debt

Americans hold more than $1.5 trillion in student debt. It keeps tens of millions of people from buying homes and starting families, and locks them into jobs they don’t want, often more than one at a time, scrambling to make payments before interest gets out of control. What could a President Bernie Sanders do by executive order to address this crisis? For one thing, he could issue an executive order directing his secretary of education to erase all debt from fraudulent for-profit colleges.

During Obama’s tenure, activists pressured his education secretary, Arne Duncan, to cancel all the federally held debt incurred by students who pursued degrees at fraudulent for-profit colleges like Corinthian and ITT. But Duncan demurred. One of the rationales he gave, according to Ann Larson of the Debt Collective, was that the Department of Education didn’t have a mandate for such a dramatic move, since its leaders aren’t elected. An executive order from Obama would have undermined that rationale— but none materialized.

But that would still be only a drop in the bucket. What about students with degrees from typical nonprofit universities who are struggling to find a foothold due to their student debt burden? In 2015, 70 percent of college seniors graduated from nonprofit colleges with student debt.

Larson says a president could do something about that, too. “When Congress was first given the power to issue and collect student loans in 1958, the Department of Education also received a power from Congress called ‘compromise and settlement,’ which allows them to waive the right to collect on them,” says Larson. “And then the Higher Education Act in 1965 solidified that power in the hands of the secretary of education.”

Sanders could issue an executive order directing his secretary of education to immediately write off all student loan debt for which the federal government is the creditor, which is the majority of student loan debt in the United States. The executive order could also direct the Department of Education to assume all the debt of borrowers who owe money to private lenders, and write that off too, reducing Americans’ student loan burden from $1.5 trillion to zero.

According to economists’ estimates, immediate cancellation of all student debt would deliver a major windfall to the American economy, reducing unemployment by roughly 0.3 percent and boosting GDP by almost a trillion dollars over the next decade.

Democratic socialists have a far-reaching program for political change that needs to be measured in decades, not years. We can’t expect this change to happen overnight, nor for it to be enacted by a single politician. As Eugene Debs said, “I would not lead you into this promised land if I could, because if I could lead you in, someone else would lead you out.”

But much can be done in the present to both ameliorate suffering and pave the way for future transformations.

We know that reactionary measures from the top can sow division and resignation among working people, and present formidable material obstacles to resistance. By the same token, bold progressive action from the top can foster the emergence of socialism from below— as long as it is undertaken in the spirit of a slogan Sanders used during his 2016 campaign: “Not Me, Us.”

And, in the meantime, we’ve got to do everything we can to elect a Congress that shares progressive Democratic values. That starts with primaries, replacing the heirs to the American Liberty League— the conservative Democrats who sold themselves to the business elites to fight FDR and the New Deal— with Democrats who embrace the values espoused by Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, as well as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie. How about Briana Urbina in and Steny Hoyer out? Marie Newman instead of Dan Lipinski? Shaniyat Chowdhury instead of Gregory Meeks (NY), Eva Putzova instead of Tom O’Halleran (AZ) and Michael Owens instead of David Scott (GA)? And there are plenty of others we’re looking at now— Henry Cuellar, a reactionary in south Texas, Eliot Engel in the north Bronx and Westchester, who does more for the Likud Party than for the Democratic Party… See that ActBlue thermometer on the right, that’s where you can help move the political revolution inside Congress along— primaries first and then replacing Republicans with progressive Democrats after.

We've Got To Clean Up Congress-- After Lipinski, Let's Start With California

Wasserman Schultz and Bustos-- feel inspired yet?

Selecting Blue Dog and Rahm Emanuel protégé, Cheri Bustos as DCCC chair was a catastrophic mistake the House Democratic caucus made. This week, Our Revolution made a good case about why Bustos should not be heading the DCCC. Last month, they delivered tens of thousands of signed petitions directly to Bustos protesting the much-0hated DCCC Blacklist and their policy of discouraging primaries. "She promised," wrote the Our Revolution communications team, that she would have "a follow-up meeting to discuss reforming this undemocratic policy which favors incumbents over progressive challengers." But "Bustos just backed out the meeting with Our Revolution leaders. Not only did she cancel our meeting, Rep. Bustos also announced that the DCCC was going to continue to throw big dollar fundraisers for incumbents like Rep. Dan Lipinski, an anti-choice member of Congress who opposes Medicare for All..."

Lipinksi's opposition to Medicare-For-All is one of the problems from a long list of problems with the guy, who's record is also homophobic and anti-immigrant. He's out of synch with his own district and the DCCC should be strictly neutral in the contest between Lipinski and progressive challenger Marie Newman.

Our Revolution also wrote that "this week, after we announced we were going to protest the fundraiser, Bustos withdrew her involvement-- this is a victory, but crucially, she maintained that the DCCC could offer Lipinski financial support to defeat primary challengers. We need leaders who care more about policy than party affiliation. That’s why Our Revolution is lifting up progressive candidates even if it means taking on incumbent Democrats."

Being a Democrat who opposes Roe v. Wade doesn’t reflect the values that the Democratic Party claims to uphold.

Being a Democrat who opposes Medicare for All doesn’t help 30 million people without health insurance and the millions more who are underinsured.

It’s not just Lipinski, and it’s not just on issues of women’s choice and health care.

Being a Democrat who takes money from the fossil fuel industry doesn’t help us transform our energy system to save us from environmental catastrophe.

Being a Democrat who takes money from Wall Street doesn’t help working people who are being ripped off by corporate shareholders.

Our Revolution is one of the groups fighting to transform the Democratic Party, elect progressive champions and push for policies that will change people's lives. I want to go through the whole 53 member California House legation as a kind of guide to see who's doing a good job and who isn't.

Let's start with the easiest part of this: there are no California Republicans in Congress doing a good job, not even a mixed job. They all suck and suck badly. Now for the California Dems. Worth reelecting (above and beyond the call of duty):

• Ro Khanna (CA-17)
• Ted Lieu (CA-33)
• Barbara Lee (CA-13)
• Judy Chu (CA-27)
• Mike Levin (CA-49)
• Katie Porter (CA-45)
• Katie Hill (CA-25)
• Mark DeSaulnier (CA-11)
• Alan Lowenthal (CA-47)
• Jimmy Gomez (CA-34)
• Karen Bass (CA-37)
• Maxine Waters (CA-43)
• Jared Huffman (CA-02)
• Nanette Barragán (CA-44)
• Mark Takano (CA-41)

Doesn't matter one way or the other, unless a real good opponent comes along

• John Garamendi (CA-03)
• Mike Thompson (CA-05)
• Doris Matsui (CA-06)
• Jerry McNerney (CA-09)
• Josh Harder (CA-10)
• Jackie Speier (CA-14)
• Eric Swalwell (CA-15)
• Anna Eshoo (CA-18)
• Zoe Lofgren (CA-19)
• Grace Napolitano (CA-32)
• TJ Cox (CA-21)
• Salud Carbajal (CA-24)
• Adam Schiff (CA-28)
• Brad Sherman (CA-30)
• Linda Sanchez (CA-38)
• Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-40)
• Susan Davis (CA-53)

Should be primaried and defeated ASAP

• Jim Costa (CA-16)
• Nancy Pelosi (CA-12)
• Ami Bera (CA-07)
• Lou Correa (CA-46)
• Scott Peters (CA-52)
• Pete Aguilar (CA-31)
• Julia Brownley (CA-26)
• Tony Cardenas (CA-29)
• Juan Vargas (CA-51)
• Jimmy Panetta (CA-20)
• Norma Torres (CA-35)
• Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
• Gil Cisneros (CA-39)
• Harley Rouda (CA-48)

For Those Who Believe The Democratic Party Is Salvageable...

As you may-- or may not-- know, the DNC has been working to heal the wounds left from Wasserman Schultz's reign of terror, particularly over how she worked to undermine Bernie's campaign and rig the primaries for Hillary, making the party weak and un-unified and giving Trump more opportunities to gain ground. Over the weekend the 8 Bernie appointees to the Unity Reform Commission-- Our Revolution Board Chair Larry Cohen, Our Revolution President Nina Turner, Our Revolution Board members Lucy Flores, Jane Kleeb, and Jim Zogby, as well as former Berkeley Mayor Gus Newport, Jeff Weaver, and Nomiki Konst-- participated in the last of 5 meetings on how to reform the DNC. These were some of the top recommendations that came out of their work:

• Reducing the number of unpledged, "superdelegates," in the presidential nominating process by 60 percent.
• Electoral reforms and a process for rewarding states that have same day registration, same day party change, open primaries, other measures that increase civic participation
• Commitment to re-evaluating allocation formulas so primary and caucus winners receive more pledged delegates
• Commitment to reexamine the primary calendar, and offer incentives to states to ensure the calendar is appropriately spread out so voters in each state receive the necessary exposure to the candidates
• Steps toward transparency and greater inclusion in Democratic National Committee spending including the creation of an Ombudsman Committee and strengthening the conflict of interest provision.

Larry Cohen, who served as Vice Chair of the Commission, reported that the "proposals, assuming adoption by the DNC in 2018, lead to a Democratic Party that would be a beacon in voting rights and transparency. Much of the attention of the Unity Reform Commission is on the Presidential nominating process, particularly the cut in unpledged superdelegates on the first ballot from 715 to less than 300. Just as important, the reforms mandated for party caucus and primary reform provide for same day registration and same day party registration. Similarly party leadership elections must be open and transparent rules for nominations and deadlines must be simple not controlled by insiders. In all of our recommendations we are saying to party officials in all states: This party must be inclusive in building membership and leadership-- no barriers."



Our old friend, Norman Solomon, one of the authors of the 2016 Autopsy, isn't as high on the Commission's work. He pointed out to the Real News Network that the chair of the commission is Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, a co-founder of Precision Strategies, a consulting firm that in the years 2015 and 2016 received more than half a million dollars from the Democratic Party. "Dillon, holding a gavel, oversaw a discussion about a series of proposals to basically cut back on what one Bernie Sanders supporter on the commission referred to as 'outright corruption of the Democratic Party,' involving consultants. So, the very measures that were aimed to eliminate financial conflicts of interest between the party and high-rolling consultants, those proposals were being overseen by a chairperson who had received a great deal of money, including in the four-month period between February and June of 2016, 230,000 dollars to the consultant firm that she co-founded. You look at the big picture, and you see that there’s a lot of money that keeps flowing to Clinton-aligned political consultants from the Democratic Party, and the majority on this commission clearly does not want to shake up that game, much less end it."

Keith Ellison is in a bind and a box, really, when he lost a close election nine months ago to be chair of the Democratic National Committee to Tom Perez. Then Perez immediately invited him to be deputy chair. In that role, Ellison is supposed to be a team player, but when it comes down to these nitty gritty power issues, he’s pretty much in a hamstrung position. So, we know that in 2016 at the national convention, 712 of the delegates were superdelegates. That’s 15 percent of the total. There’s a proposal on the table, and it looks like it’s now being recommended by the Unity Reform Commission, to cut that number back to perhaps about 250 or 300 superdelegates.

Just to sort of recap, superdelegates means that people get to vote for the nominee for president at the national convention without any accountability or relationship to what voters or caucus members have voted for. A good example is that 11 weeks before a single vote was cast in a caucus or primary in the Bernie Sanders/Hillary Clinton battle, Hillary Clinton had already lined up half of all the superdelegates. It’s as though in a race, the starting gun goes off and immediately one of the candidates, one of the people in the race in an instant is far ahead of the other.

That’s the way the corporate forces like it. Naturally, the superdelegates being made up largely of members of Congress who are Democrats, Democratic governors, not that there are many of those anymore, others who are on the Democratic National Committee, including a lot of lobbyists and elite insiders. They love being able to put their money down literally and figuratively with endorsement quickly for their preferred candidate. It puts them ahead as media frontrunner immediately. They’re part of the delegate count as superdelegate and also gives enormous fundraising advantage. It likes to or is aimed to put forward the image that perception as reality idea that hey, there’s a frontrunner. There’s a sort of inevitability.

Another way to put it is the superdelegate battle is the question of whether corporate power in the party is going to continue to dominate. As we say in the Autopsy report, “Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis,” it’s really not possible for the leaders at the national level of the Democratic Party to have a close working relationship with the base when it’s afraid of the base. I think what’s happened here at this final meeting of the Unity Reform Commission is a further indication that those in control of the DNC by a small but significant margin are afraid of the grass-roots. They did everything they could for this ostensibly open meeting to prevent access by the public to even show up at the meeting.

...[M]ore than half, and we saw this on a number of votes today, more than half of the commission is composed of people who, when push comes to shove, when the chips fall, they make the chips fall in a way that protects corporate interests that prevent transparency or accountability about the hundreds of millions of dollars that are spent by the Democratic Party. It reminds me of something that Bernie Sanders said more than six months ago in speaking to a reporter from The New York Times Magazine when he put it this way, there are people in the Democratic Party who don’t mind being on the Titanic as long as they have a first-class cabin.

There are vested interests, both personal interests of lucrative contracts and power and so forth in and in relation to the DNC as well as the big Wall Street and big bank firms and so forth. And they want their party. It’s sort of a tacit division of labor. There’s an unspoken sense that yeah, you have African Americans and Latinos and lower, working class people. You want them to turn out and vote but when it comes to the policies, those policies that will be pursued by the Democratic Party are largely circumscribed by the donor class.

So, it’s talk about you support the working class. Have the ship steered by the donor class, by Wall Street. This is so corrosive because when you get real about politics and power and the future of the country, there is no way to split the difference and say we’re going to help the big bankers. We’re going to help the multimillionaires and billionaires and we’re going to help the working class. This Democratic Party has a split identity. There’s the rhetoric that says we’re for the working people. There’s the overarching policy and control the DNC that’s vested in those who feel a direct kinship, a connection with and often are of the banker and donor and Wall Street class. That’s a part of the battle that I think is being fought and must be fought.

Another Big Win For The Bernie Wing Of The Democratic Party-- This Time In Birmingham, Alabama

Alabama is a badly gerrymandered state in one very predictable way: packing. The racist GOP-controlled state legislature created one congressional district, AL-07, that twists and turns and shoots out tentacles to segregate as many African-Americans in one district as humanly possible. Alabama's population is 26.5% black and has a PVI of R+14. AL-07, which manages to combine black neighborhoods of Birmingham, Montgomery, Tuscaloosa and Selma with the Black Belt rural counties in the western part of the state, is 64% Black and has a PVI of D+20. Trump won Alabama with 63% of the vote. Hillary won AL-07, 69.8% to 28.6%. This "packing" by the Republican legislators has made it all but impossible for Democrats to compete effectively or realistically in AL-01, AL-02 and AL-06, all of which have been made far whiter and far redder through the pernicious and clearly racist gerrymandering.

A one-party Democratic district, AL-07 has long been a terrible anti-progressive bastion. In 1992 AL-07 elected an old time populist to Congress, Earl Hilliard, the first person of color since Reconstruction to represent Alabama in Congress. Eventually, he was defeated by an especially vile scumbag from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, Artur Davis, a young, slick arch-conservative, who beat Hilliard with the help of AIPAC and establishment whites in Birmingham who were interested in electing an Uncle Tom type to the seat. Davis was a play-thing for the GOP in Congress, voting against Obamacare (the only black Democrat in Congress to do so) and against hate crimes legislation and generally playing the role of one of the Dems always ready to help the GOP make their legislation "bipartisan"-- the worst of the worst. In fact he eventually switched parties and became a Republican (after losing the gubernatorial nomination to Ron Sparks in 2010, Sparks even winning Davis' own district). Good to see him out of Alabama politics and out of Democratic politics-- the DCCC always labeled him "a rising star"-- and out of Congress?

Well... yes, but... Davis was followed in the AL-07 seat by another conservative Democrat, Terrycina "Terri" Sewell, a worthless member of the New Dems, maybe not as bad as Davis but-- BAD.

So what brought on this sad little history of AL-07 lesson? Tuesday night Berniecrat Randall Woodfin unseated William Bell, the 2-term establishment incumbent mayor of Birmingham who was backed by Sewell. And on Tuesday night Our Revolution President Nina Turner said "Our Revolution is excited to congratulate Randall Woodfin on his victory tonight. From knocking on doors to sending text messages, and making calls, Our Revolution invested in Woodfin’s campaign because he truly believes investing in people is how we build better cities. In my travels to Birmingham, I saw firsthand, Randall’s passion and commitment to the people of his city. We look forward to the Woodfin team bringing a new spirit of community and compassion to city hall. This isn’t just a victory for Birmingham, it’s a victory for all of us... Randall Woodfin will be a mayor committed to enacting a progressive agenda that will truly serve the needs of all Birmingham residents. Tonight’s win is just one example of why progressives must invest and support local races all across the country."

Bernie had personally endorsed Woodfin-- who, last year, had been Clinton's Alabama state director-- and recorded an ad for him. The Working Families Party and other progressive national groups helped Woodfin beat the 68 year old Bell by an eye-popping 24,910 (58) to 17,353 (41%) in the runoff. At the same time, 2 longtime Birmingham City Council members, Johnathan Austin and Kim Rafferty, lost their re-election bids while a former council member, Roderick Royal, lost in his effort to return to office, narrowly beaten by John Hilliard. Woodfin ran aggressively on a progressive Berniecrat agenda that Birmingham voters loved.

Repellent Republicans Are Way More Repellent Than Repellent Democrats-- And There Are Plenty Of Repellent Democrats

Our Revolution is asking Democrats to cosponsor 8 specific bills that mae up the progressive legislative agenda. Their pitch is good: "Resisting the Trump administration and Republican Congressional agenda is only part of how we can move our country forward. Now is the time for Democrats to campaign on a bold agenda and fight to create an America that works for everyone. If Democrats want to win in 2018 and take our country back from the billionaire class and Republicans, they need to start by supporting legislation that speaks to the real concerns facing the American people. We're fighting for a Congress that will put people before profits to create an America where everyone, regardless of the age, race, gender or economic status has access to health care, free college tuition, a livable planet, and a job that pays a living wage. The Democratic Party Platform makes it clear that Democrats must fight for these issues as a party. We’re asking all House Democrats to commit to supporting our #PeoplesPlatform bills by signing on as a co-sponsor when Congress comes back in session in September."

Some of the worse excuses for Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- Blue Dogs like Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Stephanie Murphy (FL), Sanford Bishop (GA), Lou Correa (CA), Brad Schneider (IL), Vicente Gonzalez (TX) and New Dems like Ami Bera (CA), Jim Himes (CT), Ann Kuster (NH), Ron Kind (WI), as well as a few unaffiliated conservaDems Like Raul Ruiz (CA) and Jacky Rosen, have signed on to just one bill. But there are only 8 ultra-conservative fake Democrats-- generally the worst of the worst-- who have refused to sign on to any:

• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)
• Stephen Lynch (MA)

They all have the worst ProgressivePunch scores and high rankings on the Trump adhesion scorecard. When Paul Ryan wants to be able to say one of his toxic, anti-humanity bills is "bipartisan," he calls Kevin McConnell and tells him to dig up Sinema or Peterson or "ex"-Republican O'Halleran or any of the crooked monkeys on that list and get them to cross the aisle. They do it all the time-- with impunity. They know Pelosi will never discipline them in any way-- and neither will the voters. This cycle only two-- Lipinski and Lynch-- have a primary opponent trying to hold them accountable. (You can help Lipinski's primary opponent, Marie Newman, here, at a special ActBlue page.)

That all said, as the headline indicates, the repellent Republicans are even more repellent. And yesterday Republican Party strategist Katie Packer, explained why in an OpEd for US News, A Repellent Brand of Republican. She focused on Bannon's Alabama Senate candidate, neo-fascist sociopath Roy Moore. "My impression of Moore," she wrote, "is that of a candidate who, based on his public statements, longs for the America we see on shows like Leave it to Beaver. That show depicts a time when men were the heads of the house, women knew their place and children didn't question, they just obeyed. A time when homosexuality was whispered about but never displayed publicly. A time when women didn't pursue careers but stayed home, kept the house clean and had dinner on the table for their man. All with perfect hair, high heels on her feet and a string of pearls around her neck. My impression is that the preacher dad of Ariel in the movie Footloose could have been based on Roy Moore. And I don't think I'm alone. I think a lot of younger voters and female voters will share that view when they get to know Mr. Moore."

This is a problem for the Republican Party. For the last 5 years, I have been sounding a warning bell for Republicans. That if we as a party don't do more to reach women, minorities and millennials then we will find it hard to win national elections. I don't believe that being the party of old, white, cranky, rich men is a long-term recipe for success.

...The Republican coalition is getting older and whiter just as the general electorate is getting a lot more vibrant and colorful. Many Republican voters, and even Democratic voters, were adamantly and angrily opposed to gay marriage 10 years ago. But today their views have softened. They may still oppose it or feel uncomfortable with it, but most of them have a family member or close friend who is openly gay, maybe even married to their partner. They might still vote for a candidate who opposes gay marriage but probably don't appreciate their friend or family member being disparaged or belittled in the public square. Sadly, this rhetoric about fake marriage was not disavowed by candidate Moore.

In fact, Moore seems to embrace a 1950s Baptist Sunday School view of America and demands that everyone subscribe to that vision or keep quiet. But this vision of America doesn't make room for minorities, career minded independent women, gay people or others who were outside of the 1950 mainstream. I know a lot of Republicans and even some independents who voted for Trump in 2016 because they believed he would "shake things up" and that he was "better than Hillary." And Trump did himself a favor in the general election by not engaging in a culture war with Clinton that might have forced those on the moderate to liberal side of abortion rights and gay rights to reject him as a candidate. A Republican Party that is already carrying significant baggage brought on by the president, cannot afford to reignite the culture wars with hateful, divisive rhetoric directed at those who disagree with them.

Moore may win the primary, in spite of the fact that even Trump has rejected his candidacy. And if he does, he will likely win the general election too. If so, he will become another face of the Republican Party that repels many voters nationally. Not insignificantly, this will embolden Steve Bannon and his Breitbart cronies who are willing to take on the president who gave them their power and their stage, and continue their takedown of the Republican Party. All of those things are bad for the GOP in the long term.

So, on behalf of those who still identify as Republicans, who care about the Grand Old Party and what it stands for, but aren't sure how much more they can take, I'm begging the Republican primary voters of Alabama to reject this brand of Republican.

Reading her piece, you might come to the conclusion that the only other Republican in the "brand" she's discussing is Bannon. Not a word about her party's former vice presidential nominee who was in Alabama this week-- along with Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert-- campaigning for Moore. And Moore's erstwhile primary opponent, Rep. Mo Brooks, who finished 3rd, has now endorsed Moore. Nor are they the only ones going in a Bannon direction instead of a McConnell/Trump direction. Perhaps Katie's discussion of the repellent brand could have mentioned that Republican members of Congress on the Moore bandwagon include Mark Meadows, chairman of the Freedom Caucus, and right-wing loons like Steve King (IA), Thomas Massie (KY), Ted Yoho (FL), Jim Jordan (OH) and Jody Hice (GA). On top of that, a whole constellation of Republican Party superstars have come out for Moore: Roger Stone, Richard Viguerie, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Brent Bozell, Erick Erickson, Sean Hannity, Mike Huckabee, James Dobson, Alan Keyes, Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty, Chuck Norris, even Trump's own Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Ben Carson, as well as nearly all the crackpot GOP outside groups, from the violently homophobic National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, and the Senate Conservatives Fund to the radical Gun Owners of America. That's some brand! Meanwhile-- and worth noting and connecting the dots-- Germany votes tomorrow and there is little doubt that the Bundestag will have actual Nazi members again, perhaps has many as 50-- first time since the 1940s.

Flipping A Central New Jersey Suburban District From Red To Blue-- Meet Peter Jacob

Last cycle Peter Jacob was another official candidate of the Democratic Party who the DCCC adamantly ignored. The Democratic Party establishment in Kings Landing sure didn't like anyone getting behind Bernie, the way Peter did! But he didn't let them get him down and, with a completely grassroots campaign he took on rubber-stamp backbencher Leonard Lance in his north central New Jersey district that stretches from the border with Pennsylvania (Hunterdon and Warren counties), clear across the state through Somerset and Morris counties and all the way into Essex and Union and the Elizabeth suburbs. This is a moderate, swingy area filled with independent voters repulsed by Trump. Although McCain and Romney had both won the district, last year Hillary beat Trump 48.6% to 47.5%. Distaste for Trump is much stronger now, and voters were paying attention when Lance, in the most craven way, flip-flopped on healthcare, first voting for TrumpCare in committee and then, when he became fearful for his own career, switching and voting against the bill on the floor.

As Peter pointed out at the time, "Lance endorsed Donald Trump within 24-hours of becoming the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee. Many in New Jersey boast that Congressman Lance is a moderate, but this endorsement proves that Congressman Lance will do anything to get re-elected. While serving in the New Jersey state Legislature, Congressman Lance was seen as someone who was pro-environment, pro-choice, and reached over the aisle to get things done. Congressman Lance was initially equivocal about the construction of a natural gas pipeline in our District, and now takes credit for it’s delay as strong local opposition rises and election season is here-- all the while supporting legislation that makes it easier to construct such pipelines in the first place. It is little wonder why the League of Conservation scored his lifetime voting percentage at just 23% on pro-environment legislation. In 2014, his pro-environment score was a mere 6%! Consistently providing contributions to Congressman Lance’s campaign has paid off for the dirty energy industry to have him support their agenda.  Congressman Lance voted to cut off all funding for Planned Parenthood, including clinics that provide health care with no abortion services. Time and time again, Congressman Lance has proved that he isn’t a leader for our District and our nation. Like Trump, he will say anything at any time out of convenience. Congressman Lance toes the party line as Washington becomes more divisive, partisan, and extreme... In my opinion, Congressman Lance’s immediate endorsement of Trump is a result of a ‘tea-party’ candidate, David Larsen, who has challenged him in every primary since 2010. Larsen came within single-digit points of defeating Congressman Lance in the 2014 primary. Congressman Lance’s endorsement of Trump is a political move to help secure the Republican nomination and putting an end to this perennial candidate."

He added that Lance's backing for the Lord of Bedminster-- which is in the district-- was "ironic considering Congressman Lance is the kind of bought-and-sold politician that Trump himself has spoken out against, at least during his primary race; one entirely beholden to special interests rather than the interests of the people... We don’t need any more career politicians in Washington who solely serve special interests. We deserve public servants who will place people over politics and put the public back in public service." We caught up with Peter this week and asked him to bring us up-to-date since the 2016 campaign. Below is his guest post.

Fight Forward with the People's Platform
-by Peter Jacob,
Candidate for U.S. Congress
7th District of NJ
www.Jacob2018.com

We are, each and every one of us, witnessing in real time some very, very real transformations to our society, our government, and our planet. It so often feels like any given day is a completely different world from the one preceding it. Inequality is skyrocketing. Real opportunity for millions of us is drying up along with vast quantities of precious resources. The drums of war are being beaten again by an even larger and richer military industrial complex than the one that sent us into Iraq. Every single day we are given yet another example of how those are supposed to be serving the public are only serving themselves. What will tomorrow bring?

We have the ability right now to decide the direction we take, together. Recent history has shown us exactly what happens when societies become this unjust. When so much of the wealth of society becomes controlled by so few people, we can guarantee the extremes of humanity are soon to follow. People inevitably start to feel desperate. They then often have to decide between one of two paths; one littered with false idols and false prophets with false promises, or uniting together to create true and lasting equality, justice, and peace.

We know that every four generations, the following story plays out: crisis levels of greed and corruption cause the hording of wealth, the hording of wealth creates massive inequality and instability, recession and depression occur because of lack of wealth in the middle and lower classes, followed by a massive conflict. The last time this happened was the Global Great Depression followed by World War II. We can trace this cycle all the way back to the dawn of the market economy and we know what phase we are in now. We are most assuredly heading for a reset; likely a very big one.

This is not meant to convey fear, but to inspire action. We are the fourth generation in the cycle. We can choose the path towards equality, justice, and peace. We know the last ‘fourth generation’ today as the Greatest Generation. Not because they won a war, but because they defeated tyranny! They saw what happens when greed takes over policy and passed just laws to make sure economic criminals could no longer rob us of our homes, retirements, and votes. They created wonderful programs that infused wealth back into the working class and created prosperity that we still enjoy today. We need to be the next Greatest Generation.

That is why I’m vying a second time for United States Congress. Our 2016 campaign saw us come closer to defeating our big pharma, big telecom, and big oil-funded incumbent opponent than any challenger in the history of our district. That was due in largest part to the drive and energy of our 1,400 campaign volunteers, and the support of thousands of small dollar donations that averaged $17 apiece. In just the first month of our 2018 campaign, our average donation has skyrocketed to $140, with over 200 new volunteers joining our cause.

People across the entire political spectrum are uniting with our message, and realizing that the status quo is no longer working. Libertarians, Tea Partiers, moderates, independents, and democratic socialists were all represented at our campaign events because of two simple questions that we posed to voters: Is government working for you? Who is it working for?

This campaign, we are focusing on what our policy ideas are going to do for the lives of people right here on the local level. We are going to break the belief that responsible government of, by, and for the people is some far off pipe dream, and show what can happen when the powerful tool of democracy is set free from the cancer of special interest cash that has enslaved it.

That is why we are running squarely on ‘The People’s Platform’ as created and promoted by Our Revolution. So far, the Platform includes Medicare for All, fully funded public colleges and universities, $15 minimum wage, strict protections for women’s reproductive rights with the EACH Act, the Automatic Voter Registration Act, and bold, drastic measures to combat the exponential climate crisis.

Of course, this is all coupled with the firm assertion that we will be able to solve these major problems only after we are able to once again utilize the power of democracy for the good of the people. Simply put, if we want to solve anything, we must also solve money in politics. The only way government begins to work for the people is when the people’s voices aren’t drowned under a tsunami of donor and lobbying cash. We must pass a Constitutional Amendment that clearly states that the spending of money is not a protected form of speech, and that corporations do not have the same rights as people. We must go further in crafting a fully publicly funded and transparent electoral system, banning the use of partisan gerrymandering and the ability for politicians to pick their voters.

Our 2016 campaign was the first and only one in New Jersey endorsed by Senator Bernie Sanders’ “Our Revolution,” and has recently sparked the interests of Democracy For America, the Progressive Campaign Change Committee, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Our support is growing. Our energy is multiplying. Our message is resonating. The distrust and anxiety caused by our current state of affairs is making 2018 is a golden opportunity for concerned, passionate, caring Americans to have a major impact on the next steps we take as a people. We will be spending every single second of every single day showing them that they do have a voice. All they have to do is use it. What will tomorrow bring?

One District At A Time? How About Mark Meadows' District In North Carolina? Meet Matt Coffay

Matt Coffay, a farmer who founded the Asheville chapter of Our Revolution, is running for Congress... and he's about as good a candidate as the Democratic Party is going to find-- not just in North Carolina, but anywhere in the country. His district, though, is a tough one. The Republicans in the North Carolina legislature carefully cut most of Asheville out of the 11th congressional district to create what they thought would be a "safe" Republican seat. It was won in 2012 by right-wing extremist Mark Meadows, one of the founding members of the Freedom Caucus, which he now chairs. Last November the district was the strongest in the state for Trump, who out-performed Romney there and beat Hillary 63.2% to 34.0%. We asked Matt how he thinks he can win in such difficult political terrain. His response is below in the form of a guest post. If you like what you read-- and what you hear in the video above-- please consider contributing to his campaign here and learning more about his campaign here.


How We Win in NC-11
by Matt Coffay



I’m not a politician. I grew up in a working class family, and have always had to work hard to make ends meet from month to month. For the past few years, I was a full-time farmer, putting in 80 hour weeks to earn a living; now, I work for a nonprofit, trying to help make it easier for young people to get started farming.

The fact that I’m not a politician has put me on the receiving end of a lot of skepticism. Particularly when it comes to the usual suspects in a Congressional race-- the local political journalists, the strategists and consultants, district party members, policy autodidacts-- I’ve been told by a lot of people, “you can’t win in the 11th. Not the way the lines are drawn.”

In 2016, Pompeo won Kansas’ 4th Congressional district by 31% of the vote. Earlier this month, Thompson, a progressive, closed that gap in his race against Estes to less than 7%. That’s a difference of 24 points.

Meanwhile, in NC-11, Mark Meadows won by a spread of 28% last year. But NC-11 isn’t an R+28 district: it’s rated at R+13. There hasn’t been a meaningful campaign run against Meadows since the one in 2012 by Hayden Rogers, and even that campaign had some serious issues surrounding Rogers’ timeline when declaring his candidacy.

Rogers lost by 14%. That’s what this district should look like, all other things being equal.

But, as we’ve just seen in Kansas, all other things aren’t equal. A progressive can close the gap by 24 points in just a few months. With a year and a half to go until next November’s election, that’s exactly what we plan to do here in western North Carolina.

Of course, moving the needle that far in the opposite direction doesn’t just happen on its own: we need to raise a lot of money-- which we fully intend to do-- and we need to create the biggest grassroots campaign that North Carolina has ever seen. Field work and voter contact are going to be at the center of this campaign; meanwhile, Meadows absolutely won’t engage in either.

But aside from just getting out the vote in an unprecedented way, there’s something else that we have to do if we really want to flip this district. We have to actually stand for something. We need to show the people of western North Carolina that we have vision, and that we’re not just here for politics as usual. We have to show them that this isn’t a question of D or R-- it’s a question of populism versus corporatism.

People are tired of partisan bickering; and, in this part of the country, they’re tired of corporate Democrats pretending to care about the needs of rural, working class people. I can tell you firsthand that the Democratic party has left this part of the country behind, as it has many other rural areas. Take a look at the 1992 electoral map of Bill Clinton’s victory, broken down by county, and compare it to the 2016 map of Hillary’s loss. The shift from blue to red is frightening. You can explain away the loss of state legislature and Congressional seats with gerrymandering; but, you can’t account for that kind of a shift in votes for president without acknowledging some serious shifts in America’s political landscape.

Trump won because he ran as a populist. He won rural votes because he told people things that Republicans don’t usually say. He told them NAFTA was the worst trade deal in history, and that he had a plan to bring back rural jobs. He told them he was going to give them the best health care they’ve ever seen, and that he’d never impose cuts to Social Security.

Of course, he had no actual plan, and he’s since backpedaled on those promises. Instead of bringing jobs to Southern Appalachia, he’s cut funding to the Appalachian Regional Commission. And far from giving people the best health care, he’s attempted to push a bill through the House that would dramatically roll back health coverage for millions of Americans.

But his message resonated with people here. And so did another populist message: the one coming from Bernie Sanders.

While Clinton beat Sanders in North Carolina 54-40%, the Vermont Senator won the 11th district by more than 10 points. People voted in the primary who have never voted in a primary in their lives.

Sanders did so well in NC-11 because he ran on issues like wealth and income inequality, job creation, raising the minimum wage, and access to health care. Clinton did poorly in both the primary and the general because she failed to engage people on those issues the way that Sanders and Trump did. A recent VICE article by Alex Thompson shows that there are Republican voters in NC-11 who, when asked about it, want single-payer health care; and, according to a Gallup poll, nearly half of Republican voters nationwide want Medicare for All. The same, tired rhetoric coming from centrist Democrats is not going to get anyone to the polls, or engage any of the more than 200,000 unaffiliated voters in this district.

I’ve had plenty of people tell me that you can’t run on a progressive platform in a rural area. While it may be true that the word “progressive” isn’t something that rural, traditionally conservative voters are fond of, it’s clear at this point that a populist message can connect with people in places like NC-11.

That’s why we’re going to stand up and say that we need to do something about the rampant wealth inequality in this country. We need a $15 minimum wage. We need Medicare for All. We need infrastructure investment in Western North Carolina, and we need the jobs that that investment will bring.

And that’s how we’re going to win.

-Matt Coffay
On Twitter- @matt_coffay

Mark Meadows and Matt Coffay-- NC-11 gets a real choice