What's the Earliest a Progressive Democrat Can Be Elected President?

by Thomas Neuburger

Among the many thoughts these rebellious times inspire is this one: How will it ever end?

It could end in mass and chaotic violence, of course, with anti-killercop protests hijacked by cop provocateurs and Proud Boy "bust 'em up" squads, followed by the inevitable law-and-order crackdown that shuts the whole thing off in a National Security State way — a crackdown that white and suburban liberals and conservatives alike will applaud till the sun sets in the west.

That's certainly one of the choices.

It could end like the sixties and seventies Movement ended, with a Jimmy Carter in the White House (our proto-neoliberal), followed by the end of the Vietnam War, a temporary end to the war on pot, the so-called "greening of America," and hippies going back to their day jobs with a sense of having won at least something for the effort.

But it won't — that's not one of the choices, simply because there's no slack in the schedule for the Late Seventies and Reagan Eighties breather that sent people dancing to Disco and off to watch, in envy and hope, the Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.

That's certainly not a choice given what's teed up for us today — relentless economic neoliberal misery; ongoing unrelieved anger and resentment; ginned-up battles between a "left" that pretends to stand for workers and doesn't, and a "right" that pretends to stand for freedom and doesn't; and the Big One, William Gibson's "Jackpot," the worldwide climate conflict that won't end till we stop feeding money to the Carbon Barons — and even then, if we don't start stopping soon, maybe never.

It could also end with the election of a true progressive president, a real FDR, an unbought, skillful champion of the people, who "welcomes the hatred" of the rich and destructive and means it. Not a pretender; the real thing.

When Is the Earliest the Nation Can Elect a Progressive Democratic President?

With the last thought in mind — it ends when we elect an actual progressive — let's see when's the earliest this could occur. (The following is borrowed and expanded from this insightful piece at Reddit's "Way of the Bern.")

Consider these scenarios:

• Trump wins in 2020. With no Democratic incumbent, a progressive can run and (if she's not sabotaged) win in 2024.

• Biden wins in 2020 and he or his VP (who will always have the inside track) loses to a Republican in 2024. A progressive can run, and maybe win, in 2028.

• Biden wins in 2020 but isn't on the ballot in 2024. His faux-progressive (neoliberal) VP wins in 2024 and but loses to a Republican in 2028. A progressive can run, and maybe win, in 2032.

• Biden wins in 2020 but isn't on the ballot in 2024. His faux-progressive (neoliberal) VP wins in 2024 and 2028. Then his or her same-stripe VP loses in 2032. A progressive could run in 2036.

• Biden wins in 2020 but isn't on the ballot in 2024. His faux-progressive (neoliberal) VP wins in 2024 and 2028. Then her same-stripe VP wins in 2032 and 2036. If her VP doesn't run, a progressive could run against a non-incumbent Democrat in 2040.

Exceptions:

• Biden picks a progressive VP in 2020, a real one, someone Sanders-like, who would run in 2024 if Biden doesn't.

But would anyone with sense take a bet he'll do that? Consider: Barack Obama put Biden where he is precisely to stop a Sanders-like candidate from winning. Why would Biden or the people behind him throw that gift away?

• Biden's same-stripe VP picks a progressive VP, a real one, someone Sanders-like, who might possibly be allowed to run in 2036.

That last is too far off to bet on, but I would take the bet that says neoliberals will make a hash of the climate emergency that's sure to show up by then, making all bets on democratic governance afterward moot.

We're left with these conclusions. We can run a progressive against a non-incumbent Democrat:

• In 2024, if Biden loses to Trump.
• In 2028, if Biden wins and his VP loses in 2024.
• In 2032, if Biden wins, his VP wins next, but loses in 2028.
• In 2036 or later in all other cases.

Do you see where this is headed? 2036 is more than a decade away. Because no progressive will win — and likely won't even run — against a Democratic incumbent, either the Democratic Party must self-reform, or a Republican must take the White House before a progressive Democrat can run.

In other words, unless the Democratic Party becomes suddenly anti-neoliberal, the answer to our initial question — What's the earliest a progressive Democrat can be elected president? — is Never or Too Late.

Not sure I like the look of that.
  

AOC Endorsed Bernie-- Bernie Says He's Going To Be Endorsing More Progressive Congressional Candidates. Wonder Who?

Within a couple of hours of the AOC endorsement video that went up on Saturday morning, there were over a million viewers across social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. I'd rather you just watch it again than read anything I could possibly say about it. I'd rather you share it with a friend or family member or colleague than even contribute to Bernie's campaign (although, you're welcome to do that too-- here-- if you're so moved).

Just before Saturday's big Bernie's Back Rally in Queens, Bernie and AOC sat down with Ryan Grim for an Intercept interview. Bernie, wrote Grim, "spoke in granular detail about what political revolution means to him. While he was eager to expound on the ability of an organized, working-class movement to overpower structural obstacles, he stopped short of endorsing new congressional primary challengers. He did say that he plans to become more involved in such challenges in the near future." He led the way among presidential candidates who have endorsed Marie Newman over reactionary anti-Choice, ant-LGBTQ, anti-immigrant, anti-healthcare Blue Dog Dan Lipinski-- who has now also been endorsed by Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker. (No one thinks Biden and Mayo Pete have the guts to endorse Lipinski.)

Bernie told Grim that the movement he's put together is something he would absolutely keep together, unlike how Obama had immediately shuttered the unprecedented grassroots army his campaign had mobilized, a terrible decision, pushed by Rahm Emanuel, that "took his 10-million-plus donors and volunteers off the political battle field... [and] handicapped his first-term agenda."

“I’m a great fan of Barack Obama, who’s a friend of mine. He and I have actually discussed this very issue. His view is, it’s hard to do it,” said Sanders. “I understand that. But the essence of my politics, and I think Alexandria’s as well, is that we need an ongoing grassroots movement of millions of people to pressure Congress, to pressure the corporate establishment, so that we can bring about the changes that this country desperately needs. So that’s why I have said that I will not only be commander-in-chief, I’m going to be organizer-in-chief.” (An aide to Sanders said the meeting with Obama came in the spring of 2018.)

After the interview, speaking before the crowd of more than 25,000, the largest of the campaign for any Democrat so far, Ocasio-Cortez officially endorsed the Vermont senator for president, giving a boost to a campaign that needs momentum after Sanders’s heart attack. Though Sanders has led fundraising, his main progressive rival, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), now regularly polls nationally and in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Ocasio-Cortez’s rise  is a manifestation of Sanders’s idea that by building a mass movement, working people can be lifted up. She was inspired by his campaign, volunteered for it, and then ran herself.

At the same time, she is a reminder of the limitations of what is considered possible on the inside: Sanders, after all, did not endorse Ocasio-Cortez until after her primary victory in 2018 over incumbent Joe Crowley, the longtime King of Queens.

The debate over the fate of Obama for America, Obama’s campaign arm, goes back to 2008, when Obama adjudicated an internal dispute within his operation by mothballing the organization and folding it under the auspices of the Democratic National Committee, which itself was forbidden from pressuring Democrats to push Obama’s agenda. Some in his orbit argued that Obama’s insider approach to the presidency needed to be complemented by robust outside pressure from grassroots organizers. But Obama believed that he and his team, led by Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, would be able to work more effectively with moderates and Republicans if grassroots activists weren’t pressuring them from the outside. That turned out not to be the case.

Rallies and protests are a critical element of outside pressure, but that pressure isn also expressed through primary challenges to incumbents unenthusiastic about the president’s agenda. To that end, Sanders said that he would be looking to get more involved in primaries in the weeks and months ahead. So far, Sanders has only endorsed one challenger, Marie Newman, who is taking on Rep. Dan Lipinski in Illinois.

Asked if he planned to endorse more primary challengers, Sanders said, “I think so. I think that we need to let elect a House and a Senate that is as progressive as it possibly can be, a House and a Senate that he is going to work with me in fighting for healthcare for all, to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, to deal with the global crisis of climate change. So I will do everything I can, and have over the last number of years, to get more people involved in the political process, and to elect people who are as progressive as possible.”

Ocasio-Cortez said that she, too, would be wading deeper into primaries in the coming weeks, and said that she had recently spoken to Jessica Cisneros, a challenger to conservative incumbent Rep. Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), backed by Justice Democrats as well as establishment outfits like EMILY’s List. “I’ve spoken with Jessica, I’ve spoken with several other folks engaged in this process,” Ocasio-Cortez said, suggesting an endorsement may be imminent. “It’s part of a continual consideration about not just, does the Democratic Party have the majority, but what does that majority look like and what will that majority fight for?”

“Right,” added Sanders.

“And too often that majority lets working people down,” Ocasio-Cortez continued, “and I think we have a responsibility to really look at the quality and the qualitative factors of the Democratic majority, and how we make sure that we continue to support a transformational Democratic Party.”

But while challenging Cuellar and Lipinski bucks the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which opposes all primary challenges, it doesn’t go the heart of the party establishment, since they are both conservative outliers in the House caucus. When asked about Rep. Richard Neal, (D-MA), however, Sanders declined to weigh in. The 30-year incumbent is chair of the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over Medicare for All, as well as any program related to tax policy. He is a public opponent of Medicare for All, and would be an obstacle under a Sanders presidency. Alex Morse, the Holyoke mayor challenging Neal, is a backer of Medicare for All, and the Holyoke city council passed a resolution endorsing it.

“I’m not gonna look at it race by race,” Sanders told me. “This is what I think: I think the last poll that I saw has over 70 percent of the American people understanding that healthcare is a human right, that we need to go forward with Medicare for All, and as president of the United States, trust me, I will remind every member of the United States Congress and their constituents about the need to take on the healthcare industry, and guarantee health care, to every man woman and child.” 

The thermometer on the right goes to a page-- click it-- that includes conservative outliers, all Blue Dogs and New Dems backed by Cheri Bustos, Pelosi and the DCCC as an institution of establishment conservatism and corruption... and each one being challenged by a progressive who backs Medicare-for-All, the Green New Deal and the core issues both AOC and Bernie are running on and working to govern on. I asked some of these candidates to weigh in on how an endorsement from Bernie might play out in their races. Kim Williams is the progressive candidate running for Congress in California's Central Valley for a seat currently held by Blue Dog Jim Costa, precisely the kind of incumbent actively opposing the reforms that Bernie and AOC are trying to put into place. "Under the so-called leadership of Democrat Jim Costa, California’s 16th district has some of the worst pollution and poverty in the country," Williams told us yesterday. "This is what happens when corporate Democrats value profit over people, and Valley voters are forced to choose between the party of Trump and a man who spent last Congress voting with Trump 47% of the time." Kim Williams is ready to stand with Bernie Sanders and the members of the Revolution to bring progressive change to the district and the country.

Shaniyat Chowdhury is from the next generation of American leaders. He comes from a working class family and was born and raised in Queens, New York. Formerly a legislative assistant in Albany, he worked for AOC's congressional campaign by day and supported himself working in a club by night. Today he's running for the southeast Queens congressional seat held by corrupt New Dem Gregory Meeks. Last night, he told us that "Bernie’s endorsement would mean the world to me. I was so heartbroken over our loss in 2016. It was the second time I was eligible to vote for a president but the first time I was invested in someone because he means every word he says. It’s the feeling of trusting someone who will fight with you that inspired me to work on policy on Albany, organize with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Tiffany Caban, and build movements with grassroots organizations. No one better understands outcome of decisions made for us than the people who want to inspire decision making for us. When Bernie talked about taking on billionaires, I felt motivated to challenge corrupt politicians who enable corporate greed. A true revolution is rooted in a working class agenda. NY-05 has some of the highest rates of crime, debt, poverty, health care disparities, homelessness, and pollution in the country. The rich and powerful should not benefit from our struggles. The vision for the district is ripe for everyday people ready to be at the table to make choices for ourselves. He endorsed Tiffany Caban because he understood the transformative justice we needed in our criminal justice system that specifically targets working class, people of color in NY-05. He stood with us before and we nearly won but definitely changed the narrative. We stood because we are strong. We shouted because we are brave. We fought because we believe. Bernie’s endorsement would mean that he is going to continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the working people of NY-05."

Eva Putzova, the progressive challenging "ex"-Republican-turned-Blue Dog Tom O'Halleran. Without members of Congress like her-- rather than the ultra-corporate O'Halleran-- the values and programs on which Bernie is basing his campaign, are just not going to get very far. Last night she told us that "One of the reasons I became a delegate for Bernie Sanders at the 2016 Democratic convention in Philadelphia was his strong public advocacy for raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour which dovetailed with the successful initiative campaign that I led in Flagstaff. During his campaign for President, Bernie came to Flagstaff and spoke before a large crowd and specifically endorsed our initiative. Bernie's values of economic, social, racial, and climate justice are the values that I espoused while on the Flagstaff City Council from 2014-2018 and currently advocate in my campaign for Congress in AZ-01. In addition, the "No More Wars" plank in my campaign platform also reflects Bernie's stated desire to extricate the U.S. from needless, wasteful, wars of choice. In all of these areas, my opponent, the blue-dog Democrat incumbent, comes up short. He voted to deregulate banks by weakening the Dodd-Frank Act and to criminalized immigrants and votes with Trump 40% of the time. More than half his campaign contributions come from corporate PAC's, including the arms, banking, private prison, and health insurance industries. When I am elected to Congress in 2020 and sworn into office in January 2021 I will be a strong, dependable ally for President Bernie Sanders progressive agenda!"

For her current seat on the Will County council, Rachel Ventura was endorsed by Our Revolution-- both state chapter and by the national organization in 2018. Even though she was outspent 3 to 1, Ventura won her race by knocking on doors--10,000 doors. Her margin of victory was 11 points because she campaigned as a "no strings attached" to the corrupt institutions and elected officials that run Will County and Joliet.

As an elected official Ventura has already made a mark. She successfully pushed for Will County to pass the Greenest Region Compact, a roadmap for energy efficiency and energy independence. She made a motion to move Will County to 100% renewable energy. After the motion failed, they settled on 50% renewables but she continues to fight even today for a better percentage. When the community of Fairmont was faced with a water shortage due to a shallow aquifer and lack of funds, Ventura fought off a privatization scheme from the private company Aqua. Fairmont recently put the finishing touches on a multi-governmental agreement to receive their water from Joliet’s public water system. Meanwhile the state of Illinois gears up to sue Aqua for lead poisoning in another nearby area of Will County.

When local activists from Our Revolution and Ventura met with Rep. Bill Foster to endorse Medicare for All, he said no. When the group asked for a follow-up meeting, they were stiff-armed. They rallied his office to show the people wanted this and he still said no. Ventura, as a single mother had gone without insurance for 2 years and started thinking about running. A month later, another group of activists met with Foster and asked him to support the Green New Deal. Foster rejected the notion with his typical list of excuses. Ventura’s campaign was launched on July 20th by the activists who participated in these two meetings.

Ventura’s brand as someone who is not for sale is strong and growing. She earns strong bipartisan support for being an assertive fighter who is always at the forefront in the fights for justice. When a young black woman was tackled for speaking out against a police shooting of a black man in Joliet, Ventura took to the podium in city hall to demand justice, calling for the replacement of the police chief. This fight is ongoing. When she called on city hall to adopt community policing with officers who live in the communities they serve, she herself was detained along with her two 9-year-old daughters for "questioning." When UAW Local 2114 went on strike at General Motors parts distribution warehouse in Bolingbrook Illinois, Ventura joined them on the picket line at least six times.

When Northpoint, a warehousing and distribution center wanted to set up shop in Elwood, Ventura joined the effort to fight back against un-ending truck traffic and sprawl that would destroy parts of the carbon-sequestering Tallgrass Prairie. The Northpoint project was defeated in Elwood and recently was re-initiated by the city of Joliet that wanted to annex the property and "OK" the project. Ventura again took to the podium in city hall to oppose the project even though it will cost her the endorsements from local building trades unions. She is now walking door to door to educate residents on this issue.

During the planning calls to hold global climate strikes, Ventura volunteered to host a climate strike in Naperville that drew 300+ people. She included activists and community members in the discussion before formulating her policy positions on criminal justice reform.

Ventura is actively reaching out to the communities that are often left voiceless in our political system. She has campaigned at the Puerto Rican Parade, multiple Fiestas Partrias events, in African American churches and mosques. She most recently attended Diwali, the Indian Festival of Lights. Ventura for Congress is a movement-based campaign that is founded on the idea that our government and our economy should work for everyone, not just the wealthy few. The 11th Congressional District is a D+9 district currently represented by New Democrat, Bill Foster. Foster is the 34th richest member of the U.S. House of Representatives with a net worth that is just over $9 million. He sits on the Financial Services Committee and has taken more than $1.4 Million from the banking and finance sector. He was one of the 33 Democrats who voted with the Republicans to gut Dodd Frank. He offended disabled people in the 11th district as one of the 11 Democrats who supported gutting the American’s With Disabilities Act. Perhaps the scariest thought is that, as a scientist and a business as usual man, he opposes the Green New Deal and favors “technological fixes” like carbon capture and enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The last thing we need when we get a president who supports the GND, is a scientist who opposes it.

Ventura is already endorsed by three local Our Revolution Groups, a Local DSA chapter, and, of course, Blue America PAC. Rachel told me that "Most importantly, in our door-to-door campaign, we have already gathered more than 3,000 signatures to get on the ballot, placed more than 500 yard signs and have a 65% support level from those who we have canvassed. We will have the endorsement of the people of Illinois’ 11th Congressional District. We would welcome an endorsement from the most popular senator in the United States."

The NRSC has this ridiculous truck driving around Colorado tying Andrew Romanoff to AOC. They have similar trucks in other states doing the same thing against progressive candidates. Andrew told me that the truck is a positive for his campaign, since it underscores that he's supporting issues that Colorado voters back, like Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal, which both of his conservative opponents, Cory Gardner (R) and John Hickenlooper (D), are adamantly against. Yesterday, while campaign in Montrose, he took moment to tell me that "I expected Mitch McConnell and the Republicans to attack us (although this looks more like a compliment!). I didn’t realize we’d have to fight Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee too. But that’s fine by me. I’m running to represent the people of Colorado-- not the party bosses and powerbrokers in Washington, DC."

Bernie's Speech Tonight About Where We Go From Here

In case you missed Bernie's speech about the future of the political revolution he launched, this was his speech Thursday:

Election days come and go. But political and social revolutions that attempt to transform our society never end. They continue every day, every week and every month in the fight to create a nation of social and economic justice. That’s what the trade union movement is about. That’s what the civil rights movement is about. That’s what the women’s movement is about. That’s what the gay rights movement is about. That’s what the environmental movement is about.

And that’s what this campaign has been about over the past year. That’s what the political revolution is about and that’s why the political revolution must continue into the future.

Real change never takes place from the top down, or in the living rooms of wealthy campaign contributors. It always occurs from the bottom on up-- when tens of millions of people say “enough is enough” and become engaged in the fight for justice. That’s what the political revolution we helped start is all about. That’s why the political revolution must continue.

When we began this campaign a little over a year ago, we had no political organization, no money and very little name recognition. The media determined that we were a fringe campaign. Nobody thought we were going anywhere.

Well, a lot has changed over a year.

During this campaign, we won more than 12 million votes. We won 22 state primaries and caucuses. We came very close-- within 2 points or less-- in five more states.

In other words, our vision for the future of this country is not some kind of fringe idea. It is not a radical idea. It is mainstream. It is what millions of Americans believe in and want to see happen.

And something else extraordinarily important happened in this campaign that makes me very optimistic about the future of our country-- something that, frankly, I had not anticipated. In virtually every state that we contested we won the overwhelming majority of the votes of people 45 years of age or younger, sometimes, may I say, by huge numbers. These are the people who are determined to shape the future of this country. These are the people who ARE the future of this country.

Together, in this campaign, 1.5 million people came out to our rallies and town meetings in almost every state in the country.

Together, hundreds of thousands of volunteers made 75 million phone calls urging their fellow citizens into action.

Together, our canvassers knocked on more than 5 million doors.

Together, we hosted 74,000 meetings in every state and territory in this country.

Together, 2.7 million people made over 8 million individual contributions to our campaign-- more contributions at this point than any campaign in American history. Amazingly, the bulk of those contributions came from low-income and working people whose donations averaged $27 apiece. In an unprecedented way, we showed the world that we could run a strong national campaign without being dependent on the big-money interests whose greed has done so much to damage our country.

And let me give a special thanks to the financial support we received from students struggling to repay their college loans, from seniors and disabled vets on Social Security, from workers earning starvation wages and even from people who were unemployed.

In every single state that we contested we took on virtually the entire political establishment-- U.S. senators, members of Congress, governors, mayors, state legislators and local party leaders. To those relatively few elected officials who had the courage to stand with us, I say thank you. We must continue working together into the future. This campaign has never been about any single candidate. It is always about transforming America.

It is about ending a campaign finance system which is corrupt and allows billionaires to buy elections.

It is about ending the grotesque level of wealth and income inequality that we are experiencing where almost all new wealth and income goes to the people on top, where the 20 wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom 150 million.

It is about creating an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent.

It is about ending the disgrace of native Americans who live on the Pine Ridge, South Dakota, reservation having a life expectancy lower than many third-world countries.

It is about ending the incredible despair that exists in many parts of this country where-- as a result of unemployment and low wages, suicide, drugs and alcohol-- millions of Americans are now dying, in an ahistorical way, at a younger age than their parents.

It is about ending the disgrace of having the highest level of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth and having public school systems in inner cities that are totally failing our children-- where kids now stand a greater chance of ending up in jail than ending up with a college degree.

It is about ending the disgrace that millions of undocumented people in this country continue to live in fear and are exploited every day on their jobs because they have no legal rights.

It is about ending the disgrace of tens of thousands of Americans dying every year from preventable deaths because they either lack health insurance, have high deductibles or cannot afford the outrageously high cost of the prescription drugs they need.

It is about ending the disgrace of hundreds of thousands of bright young people unable to go to college because their families are poor or working class, while millions more struggle with suffocating levels of student debt.

It is about ending the pain of a young single mother in Nevada, in tears, telling me that she doesn’t know how she and her daughter can make it on $10.45 an hour. And the reality that today millions of our fellow Americans are working at starvation wages.

It is about ending the disgrace of a mother in Flint, Michigan, telling me what has happened to the intellectual development of her child as a result of lead in the water in that city, of many thousands of homes in California and other communities unable to drink the polluted water that comes out of their faucets.

In America. In the year 2016. In a nation whose infrastructure is crumbling before our eyes.

It is about ending the disgrace that too many veterans still sleep out on the streets, that homelessness is increasing and that tens of millions of Americans, because of a lack of affordable housing, are paying 40, 50 percent or more of their limited incomes to put a roof over their heads.

It is about ending the disgrace that, in a given year, corporations making billions in profit avoid paying a nickel in taxes because they stash their money in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens.

This campaign is about defeating Donald Trump, the Republican candidate for president. After centuries of racism, sexism and discrimination of all forms in our country we do not need a major party candidate who makes bigotry the cornerstone of his campaign. We cannot have a president who insults Mexicans and Latinos, Muslims, women and African-Americans. We cannot have a president who, in the midst of so much income and wealth inequality, wants to give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the very rich. We cannot have a president who, despite all of the scientific evidence, believes that climate change is a hoax.

The major political task that we face in the next five months is to make certain that Donald Trump is defeated and defeated badly. And I personally intend to begin my role in that process in a very short period of time.

But defeating Donald Trump cannot be our only goal. We must continue our grassroots efforts to create the America that we know we can become. And we must take that energy into the Democratic National Convention on July 25 in Philadelphia where we will have more than 1,900 delegates.

I recently had the opportunity to meet with Secretary Clinton and discuss some of the very important issues facing our country and the Democratic Party. It is no secret that Secretary Clinton and I have strong disagreements on some very important issues. It is also true that our views are quite close on others. I look forward, in the coming weeks, to continued discussions between the two campaigns to make certain that your voices are heard and that the Democratic Party passes the most progressive platform in its history and that Democrats actually fight for that agenda. I also look forward to working with Secretary Clinton to transform the Democratic Party so that it becomes a party of working people and young people, and not just wealthy campaign contributors: a party that has the courage to take on Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the fossil fuel industry and the other powerful special interests that dominate our political and economic life.

As I have said throughout this campaign, the Democratic Party must support raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, and create millions of jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure.

We must ensure that women will no longer make 79-cents on the dollar compared to men and that we fight for pay equity.

We must fight to make certain that women throughout the country have the right to control their own bodies.

We must protect the right of our gay brothers and sisters to marriage equality in every state in America.

As the recent tragedy in Orlando has made crystal clear, we must ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons, end the gun show loophole and expand instant background checks.

We must defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership and make certain that that bad trade deal does not get a vote in a lame-duck session of Congress.

We must resist all efforts to cut Social Security and, in fact, expand benefits for our seniors and disabled veterans.

We must understand that the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street has to end, that we need to pass modern-day Glass-Steagall legislation and that we need to break up the biggest financial institutions in this country who not only remain too big to fail but who prevent the kind of vigorous competition that a healthy financial system requires.

We must aggressively combat climate change and transform our energy system, move to energy efficiency and sustainable energy and impose a tax on carbon. It means that, in order to protect our water supply, we ban fracking.

We must compete effectively in a global economy by making public colleges and universities tuition free and substantially reduce student debt.

We must join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all people as a right and not a privilege.

We must end the disgrace of having more people in jail than any other country on earth and move toward real criminal justice reform at the federal, state and local levels.

We must pass comprehensive immigration reform and provide a path toward citizenship for 11 million undocumented people.

We must take a hard look at the waste, cost overruns and inefficiencies in every branch of government-- including the Department of Defense. And we must make certain our brave young men and women in the military are not thrown into perpetual warfare in the Middle East or other wars we should not be fighting.

But the political revolution means much more than fighting for our ideals at the Democratic National Convention and defeating Donald Trump.

It means that, at every level, we continue the fight to make our society a nation of economic, social, racial and environmental justice.

It means that we can no longer ignore the fact that, sadly, the current Democratic Party leadership has turned its back on dozens of states in this country and has allowed right-wing politicians to win elections in some states with virtually no opposition-- including some of the poorest states in America. The Democratic Party needs a 50-state strategy. We may not win in every state tomorrow but we will never win unless we recruit good candidates and develop organizations that can compete effectively in the future. We must provide resources to those states which have so long been ignored.

Most importantly, the Democratic Party needs leadership which is prepared to open its doors and welcome into its ranks working people and young people. That is the energy that we need to transform the Democratic Party, take on the special interests and transform our country.

Here is a cold, hard fact that must be addressed. Since 2009, some 900 legislative seats have been lost to Republicans in state after state throughout this country. In fact, the Republican Party now controls 31 state legislatures and controls both the governors’ mansions and statehouses in 23 states. That is unacceptable.

We need to start engaging at the local and state level in an unprecedented way. Hundreds of thousands of volunteers helped us make political history during the last year. These are people deeply concerned about the future of our country and their own communities. Now we need many of them to start running for school boards, city councils, county commissions, state legislatures and governorships. State and local governments make enormously important decisions and we cannot allow right-wing Republicans to increasingly control them.

I hope very much that many of you listening tonight are prepared to engage at that level. Please go to my website at berniesanders.com/win to learn more about how you can effectively run for office or get involved in politics at the local or state level. I have no doubt that with the energy and enthusiasm our campaign has shown that we can win significant numbers of local and state elections if people are prepared to become involved. I also hope people will give serious thought to running for statewide offices and the U.S. Congress.

And when we talk about transforming America, it is not just about elections. Many of my Republican colleagues believe that government is the enemy, that we need to eviscerate and privatize virtually all aspects of government-- whether it is Social Security, Medicare, the VA, EPA, the Postal Service or public education. I strongly disagree. In a democratic civilized society, government must play an enormously important role in protecting all of us and our planet. But in order for government to work efficiently and effectively, we need to attract great and dedicated people from all walks of life. We need people who are dedicated to public service and can provide the services we need in a high quality and efficient way.

When we talk about a Medicare-for-all health care program and the need to make sure all of our people have quality health care, it means that we need tens of thousands of new doctors, nurses, dentists, psychologists and other medical personnel who are prepared to practice in areas where people today lack access to that care.

It means that we need hundreds of thousands of people to become childcare workers and teachers so that our young people will get the best education available in the world.

It means that as we combat climate change and transform our energy system away from fossil fuels, we need scientists and engineers and entrepreneurs who will help us make energy efficiency, solar energy, wind energy, geothermal and other developing technologies as efficient and cost effective as possible.

It means that as we rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, we need millions of skilled construction workers of all kinds.

It means that when we talk about growing our economy and creating jobs, we need great business people who can produce and distribute the products and services we need in a way that respects their employees and the environment.

In other words, we need a new generation of people actively involved in public service who are prepared to provide the quality of life the American people deserve.

Let me conclude by once again thanking everyone who has helped in this campaign in one way or another. We have begun the long and arduous process of transforming America, a fight that will continue tomorrow, next week, next year and into the future.

My hope is that when future historians look back and describe how our country moved forward into reversing the drift toward oligarchy, and created a government which represents all the people and not just the few, they will note that, to a significant degree, that effort began with the political revolution of 2016.

Thank you very much. Good night.

The future of our country is not-- cannot be-- Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. Nor can it be Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Rahm Emanuel, Patrick Murphy, Dianne Feinstein, the Clintons, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Claire McCaskill, the Blue Dogs, New Dems and the rest of the corporate whores and careerists who have infested the Democratic Party. What Bernie is asking of us is transformation and empowerment through participation. That's what his political revolution is all about... and it goes way beyond a campaign for the presidency in a fixed and utterly corrupt system that has to be changed.



There are still viable progressive candidates with primaries coming up like Alan Grayson, Tim Canova, Adam Sackrin and Alina Valdes in Florida, Zephyr Teachout, Jonathan Clarke and Eric Kingson [that video above is an ad Blue America will start running in Syracuse tomorrow] in New York, Pramila Jayapal and Angela Marx in Washington, Maria Chappelle-Nadal in Missouri, Tom Guild in Oklahoma and so on. And there are Berniecrats and progressives carrying Bernie's platform who have won their primaries and are facing tough races in November, like Bao Nguyen and Wendy Reed in California, Peter Jacob in New Jersey, Keith Mundy in Ohio, Mary Ellen Balchunis and Kerith Strano Taylor in Pennsylvania, and Tom Wakely in Texas. You can find them by tapping on this thermometer.

Hillary Clinton, Progressives & the Uphill Climb

What both parties will soon be filling your brain with (source)

by Gaius Publius

The increasing likelihood that Hillary Clinton may achieve the Democratic nomination for president without a serious challenge from the left has progressive discussion groups abuzz. There are, of course, a variety of opinions on whether this is good or bad. What I'd like to do here is define what "good" and "bad" mean in this context.

▪ One kind of "good" outcome for progressives would be for the nation to be governed from people-first principles. A bad outcome for progressives would be a continuation of money-first, "let no insider be prosecuted" governance — a continuation, in other words, of the last eight years.

This puts a lot of issues under one umbrella — most of them economic — like student debt, banker fraud, abuse by the national security state, abuse by police, wage depression, wage theft, accelerating income and wealth inequality, immigration policy (which has a strong economic aspect, since illegal immigration is economically encouraged by the very forces that decry it), and the like. Call these the Warren Wing concerns, spotlighted by a Piketty awareness.

▪ Another kind of "good" outcome, for Democrats, would be for the party to continue to hold the White House — keeping the Republicans out of power, at least on Pennsylvania Avenue — and perhaps to recapture the Senate, and even the House.

Notice that these "good" outcomes don't equal each other; nor do they necessarily include each other. The first "good" is a progressive good, the second is a party good. Is the Democratic party a progressive party? There's the source of the problem. Clearly it's not, at least to date, in a great many of its policies, starting with the current push to pass TPP, the next NAFTA-style trade agreement. What Obama is doing to pass TPP is beyond extraordinary, and it will take both progressives and Republicans in the House and (perhaps) the Senate to keep it off his desk. (Read the link to see what I mean by "beyond extraordinary.")

There's a reason there's a "Warren Wing" in the party, and a reason why it's opposed and hated by most of the party's leaders.

So your first bottom line is — Democrats are united in winning the White House. Progressives are divided in winning with Hillary Clinton. In a nutshell, that presents a problem for Democrats and for Hillary Clinton. It's possible she could lose if progressives don't support her in sufficient numbers.

What Do the Polls Say?

I'll just summarize this and let you click through, since I want to get you to the next section. There have been a number of polls on Clinton's popularity and electoral chances. The latest is from Gallup, an organization that does not "lean left." Their bottom lines are three:

• Clinton's favorable rating is 48%, her lowest since 2008
• 54% of Democrats prefer to have a competitive primary
• Still, 57% of Democrats want her as 2016 nominee

On the last point, if you drill down to "Democratic-leaning independents," that 57% becomes 53%. This makes a nice story: "A majority wants her as the nominee." Invert that, though, and it becomes: "Between 43% and 47% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents do not want her as the nominee."

Click through for the underlying data if you like. I hope, though, you see the problem. This could be "bad" in both senses above, since it opens the door to any Republican nominee who seems sane. It's a given that the Republican will be the most well-funded presidential candidate in the country's history, an instant advantage in a campaign marketplace that resembles product-perception manipulation more than anything related to ideas — what I'm calling a Campbell's Soup campaign.

How Upset Are the Most Upset Progressives?

In a word, very. I want to quote something I received via email from a respected progressive writer and thinker, reproduced with permission. It does not matter who wrote this. I can say personally that I've heard this view expressed a hundred times at and since the last Netroots Nation:

The economic left has no hope in this miserable process. HRC [Hillary Clinton] is a creature of Wall Street. It comes naturally to her, with her background in elite schools and her status in the political and wealth circles. It is utterly impossible to imagine that she will do anything for people past a tiny raise in the minimum wage. Her judicial appointments will be Stephen Breyer, not Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Her cabinet will be filled with people like Penny Pritzger and Larry Summers.

I simply won't participate. I won't vote and I won't help her. She has no charisma for the left, and little for anyone else. The Republicans will put up the usual clownish excuse for a leader, but it really doesn't matter. I expect more people than ever will just refuse to participate after a hate-filled campaign. The oligarchy will feed the serfs just enough to keep them from revolting, and enforce their will with the usual repressive police force. The recent publicity for murderous cops will die out, and soon they'll be killing poor whites too. It's going to be ugly everywhere....

"I simply won't participate." Read those paragraphs again, just to be sure you absorb what it says. It says quite a bit. You don't have to agree with the writer or her/his ferocity. Just know that this thinking — and feeling — is far more widely held on the activist and intellectual left than even the "left" understands. Why? Because progressives tend not to say this to progressives inclined to disagree ... or inclined to say back to them: "But ... Republicans!" They had that conversation years ago, and they're done with it.

It doesn't matter what I think of Hillary Clinton, nor does it matter what you think of her. I know quite a few people who think quite highly of her. The problem is those polling numbers, and all those progressives who don't think highly of her. They are going away and aren't coming back.

Do Voters See Clinton the Way Disaffected Progressives Do?

If you look at the charges leveled by the writer above, you'll see several that have almost entered the "mainstream" — the body of "what everyone knows to be true," whether true or not. She's:

• "A creature of Wall Street"
• An insider with a "background in elite schools"
• Someone with "status in the political and wealth circles"
• Likely to appoint the Robert Rubins and the wealthy, like "Penny Pritzker and Larry Summers"

Whether she is or isn't, does or doesn't do any of these things, that perception will likely stick, despite the attempt to swing her campaign — remember, this is nothing more than image manipulation — in a pro-populist (pro-Warren Wing) direction.

She can waffle on her policies, but that will confirm the concerns. She can state her policies explicitly — for example, would she veto TPP if it crosses her desk? — but even that may not be enough, because again, this is nothing more than an exercise in image manipulation, and you have to be believed to be successful.

And regardless of what she says or does, the Republican machine will find her most vulnerable positions (among other things), including those bulleted above, and hit the public with them constantly. If people are inclined to believe something, a manipulative ad campaign is halfway home, and Republicans are pros at this, masters with doctor's degrees in crowd manipulation.

What's the Answer?

The real answer, of course, is a primary in the Democratic party, with a candidate from the real (i.e., credible) left who will give voters a place to park an anti–neo-liberal, anti–Third Way protest vote. (I'll have more on Clinton as a proponent of Third Way policies later.) This would replicate what Sen. Eugene McCarthy did in 1968 — he gave Lyndon Johnson a realistic "sense of the party" in a way that polling could never do.

If Hillary Clinton survives a process like that, she may not be the most progressive candidate, but she will know the degree of Democratic support she has among progressives and those less progressive. Without a process like that, she enters the main event never having done battle, never having tested the degree of her real support among Democratic voters.

A surprise there would be a "bad" on both counts listed above.

GP

How WIll We Ever Know If America Gets A Left Again?

Tuesday I was laughing over a remark by Blue Dog co-chair John Barrow, a cowardly Georgia reactionary. In announcing 3 new Blue Dog recruits for Congress-- corporate shills Jennifer Garrison (OH), Gwen Graham (FL) and James Lee Witt (AR)-- he said, "Now, more than ever, the American people are tired of the gridlock in Washington that has been created by the extremes of the right and left." As I retorted, "many of the extremists on the right are his fellow Georgia congressmen like Paul Broun, Lynn Westmoreland, Tom Price, and Phil Gingrey. But who are the 'extremists on the left' Barrow is deriding? John Lewis?" Basically, there are none, and certainly not in either House of Congress. There are some solid left-of-center Democrats, but "extremist on the left" on a level of Broun or Gingrey (not to mention Bachmann, Gohmert, Stockman or dozens of neo-fascist Republican elected officials? Not a chance!

The video up top is an interview by Bill Moyers with political scientist Adolph Reed, Jr., whose provocative essay, Nothing Left-- The Long, Slow Surrender Of American Liberals was just published by Harpers. Reed's point is that the American left failed and basically doesn't even exist anymore, primarily because it neglected to build "broadly based, mass movements" that can change the terms of political debate... As any actual progressive will tell you, both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, are heavily indebted to Wall Street for their careers and are, at best, progressives in name only-- ... "they've done the Wall Street bidding... Wall Street controls the agenda." If "economic issues are the fundamental existential questions," as Moyers asserts, and the left can't even put the issue of economic inequality, back on the table, the left, as Reed asserts, "is no longer a significant force in American politics." Moyers explains, by way of introduction, that Reed "sees the populist, progressive wing of the Democratic Party giving up to the corporate wing putatively embodied in Hillary Clinton sailing forth surrounded by a mighty armada from Wall Street." So a conveniently paranoid callow corporate whore like John Barrow doesn't have much to worry about-- at least not from "extremists on the left"-- not when the House Democrats are being run by the likes of Steny Hoyer, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Crowley and Steve Israel-- basically your father's Republican Party!

BILL MOYERS: Well, what do you mean nothing left?

ADOLPH REED: Well, what I mean basically is that if we understand the left to be anchored to a conviction that the society can be made better than it actually is and a commitment to combating economic inequality as a primary one, the left is just gone.

I mean, there are leftists around, certainly. There's no shortage of them. And there are left organizations, and there are people who publish left ideas and kind of think left thoughts. But as a significant force that's capable of shaping the terms of debate in American politics, you know, the left has gone and has been gone for a while.

I often note that, you know, working people in America got more from Richard Nixon than we got from Clinton or Obama. And it's not because he was our fan, right, it's because, you know, the labor movement and what has since been called the social movement of the '60s were dynamic enough forces in the society that even Nixon, who called himself a Keynesian, felt that there was a need to respond to them.

So that's how we got occupational health and safety, affirmative action like other stuff. So it's not, and, see, this is the key point, I think, right. Because one of the ways that our politics have been hollowed and a source of the collapse of the left is a forgetting, right? A kind of social amnesia about what movement building is and how and what social movements are and how they're constructed.

BILL MOYERS: In this piece you write, "If the left is tied to a democratic strategy that, at least since the Clinton administration, tries to win elections by absorbing much of the right’s social vision and agenda, before long the notion of a political left will have no meaning. For all intents and purposes, that is what has occurred."

ADOLPH REED: Look, I've never wanted to dismiss electoral action. But the problem is that it can only be a defensive engagement for us now. Because the way that the center of gravity in American politics has moved right, we're kind of dealt out of it.

So the only option that there is for us in the electoral realm is going to be finding the less bad candidate.

And what that means is in that there's no possibility of being able to push any of the sort of progressive, egalitarian ideas that would've popped up in FDR's campaign in 1944, right, or even Truman's campaign in 1948.

What we can do is try to have some influence on the least worst, right. But, I would never argue that we shouldn't pay attention to electoral politics. But I think we need to understand that that can't exhaust the scope of our political activity.

And we've sort of fallen into a groove of putting all of our political hopes into electing Democrats and just seem to have a lot of, you know, difficulty just getting off the dime of about trying to build around campaign issues, right.

Like, single payer health care, right, was a moment that's come and gone. I mean I've been pushing off and on over the years for universal free public higher education.

…President Obama in the speech he gave a couple weeks ago, the ballyhooed speech where he mentioned the word "inequality" a couple times.

He leaves the podium in effect and goes straight to try to, you know, strong arm his own party to support Fast Track for trans pacific partnership.

So, I mean, what we've got is, like, a bipartisan neoliberalism, right, that's at the center of gravity of the American government. And to be clear, what I mean by neoliberalism is that, it’s two things.

It's a free market, utopian ideology. And it's a concrete program for intensified upward redistribution. And when the two objectives conflict, I mean, guess which one gets put-- on the shelf? But both parties are fundamentally committed to this. And at this point, and I think we've seen this much more clearly since the 2008 election, the principal difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Is the choice between a neoliberal party that is progressive on multicultural and diversity issues, and a neoliberal party that's reactionary and horrible on those same issues.

But where the vast majority of Americans live our lives and feel our anxieties about present and future and insecurity is not about the multicultural issues over which there's so there's so much fight. In the very realm of the neoliberal economic issues to which both parties are, in fact, committed.

BILL MOYERS: So, I hear you saying, Adolph, that while social and cultural factors are important to us, economic issues are the fundamental existential questions. And that the neo-liberal parties, both of them, devoted to promoting the interests of multinational companies and capitalism don't care what you think about cultural and social issues, as long as they control the process by which nothing interferes with markets.

ADOLPH REED: I think that's quite succinct.

BILL MOYERS: When Obama spoke about inequality and then a little bit later championed fast-tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Aren't… Don't you take some encouragement from the fact that soon after Obama spoke, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, minority leader of the House and majority leader of the Senate both said, no deal. We’re not for fast track.

ADOLPH REED: Right, right.

BILL MOYERS: You know why they did, apparently? Because 550 organizations in this country essentially representing the base of the Democratic Party said, no, Mr. President, we're not going with you. And so Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi responded. You must take some encouragement from that.

ADOLPH REED: Oh, absolutely. Totally.

BILL MOYERS: So it's not dead out there. It's not a cemetery.

ADOLPH REED: Well, it's not quite. But, I mean, the lesson I take from it, too, is that it's the organization that sort of brings them to where we'd like for them to be, right? It's a pressure from underneath. And, you know, and that's what largely hollowed out, right? I mean, except for you know, I mean, some issues.

BILL MOYERS: Why is that?

ADOLPH REED: Because Wall Street controls the agenda. I mean, I go back again to the primaries in '92. And I was calling friends of mine that I had, you know, long connections with, you know, again in the South, early on. And the word that came back was that Clinton's people had come through and had said from the outset, look, our guy's going to be the nominee. Don't ask for anything. If you don't get onboard, then you won't have any access later, after we win.

So access, which is a kind of crack cocaine, has become part of the problem.

…BILL MOYERS: And how do you change it?

ADOLPH REED: I'd say the first step has to be a focus on changing the terms of political debate. Because we've got to be able to put that issue back on the table, right? I mean, the issue of economic inequality, back on the table. I mean, even you know, the Democrats who raise it tentatively and back away as soon as they do.

Gore, with his odd little populist flirtation that he offered in the spring or the summer of you know, 2000, which provoked this torrent of outrage from the right wing. Saying that he's fanning the flames of class warfare, and that's not what we do in America, right? The same things happen, you know, with Obama. I can't even recall enough about the Kerry campaign, you know, to recall if he even made a gesture.

BILL MOYERS: You remind us of how leftist, progressive, liberals, a lot of everyday folks were swept up in the rhetoric and expectations surrounding Obama's campaign, his election, and his presidency. I'll bet you remember election night in Grant Park in 2008.

ADOLPH REED: Yeah, I do.

BILL MOYERS: Here it is.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: This is our time to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids, to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace, to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth that out of many, we are one. That while we breathe, we hope.

And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people. Yes we can. Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

ADOLPH REED: The clip is interesting, right? Because you think about the clip and his utterances, right, were a collection of evocative statements. But there was no real content there, right? I mean, he didn't say, I'm going to fight for X, and I have--

BILL MOYERS: Against inequality or for equality--

ADOLPH REED: Right, right.

BILL MOYERS: --or for wages, or--

ADOLPH REED: Right, right. So it was as he said himself in one or both of his books, his move is to encourage people to imagine a better world and a better future and a better life for themselves through identification with him.

BILL MOYERS: And you say in your article that his content, essentially, is his identity.

ADOLPH REED: Correct.

Is there anything we can do about it? Forget Democrats or Republicans. Keep just three things in mind: progressive, integrity and independent-mindedness… like these people and these people. Let's build a team in the Senate around Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and a team in the House around Alan Grayson and his allies.

Putting Together A Progressive Election Team

There are a lot of reasons I've grown to admire Alan Grayson over the years. He's an intrepid world traveler (and gave me the exact right tips for where to stay in Bandiagara and Sangha in Mali); he's a Joni Mitchell fanatic; he's as compassionate as he is brilliant; he never finches from a tough fight; and, most of all, of course, because of what he stands for in terms of the ordinary working families who can't go out and hire lobbyists to get their needs met in Washington. He's also the most astute political strategist I've ever met.

Blue America is trying to help Keith Ellison and Mike Obermueller, two Minnesota progressives, raise campaign dough this week. Keith has no reelection opposition and his constituents respect and admire him. Mike is in a grueling second run-- again with no help from the DCCC-- against entrenched right-wing extremist John Kline in the district just south of Keith's. Keith needs the campaign cash to help him climb the leadership ladder so his pro-family perspective-- rather than Debbie Wasserman Schultz's, Steny Hoyer's, Steve Israel's and Joe Crowley's Big Buisness perspective-- gets heard behind the closed doors where decisions are made in the Democratic Caucus. And he asked us to include Mike in the fundraiser.

The way this type of fundraiser is successful is to get as many progressive allies as possible to ask their own supporters to contribute-- not to your own campaign, but to someone else's campaign. We reached out to almost everyone we've ever helped raise money to help us with this. Grayson barely let me finish the request before he was asking me which day would be most useful and introducing me to his crack team of internet wizards to help. Yesterday he sent out a request and helped bring in over a thousand dollars in the first 30 minutes. He put it like this:

Depeche Mode: the most popular electronic music band in the world. 

Rep. Keith Ellison: the very popular Co-Chair of the House Progressive Caucus. 

…Blue America PAC is connecting those two dots this week, to raise some much-deserved contributions for Rep. Ellison's campaign… Whether or not you're a Depeche Mode fan, please help us make Minnesota bluer (Farewell, Michele Bachmann!) by contributing to Keith Ellison's and Mike Obermueller's campaigns. You'll be proud to support both of them.

Raul Grijalva was as enthusiastic to help and he's timing his own letter for tomorrow. But that was about it. Most of our other allies were all busy with their own campaigns. One even wrote me back, "can't help this week but can you do one of these things for us next week?" All those senators and congressmen we helped raise almost $3 million dollars for in the last few years. OK, you gotta do what you gotta do. But it really touched me profoundly today when Rob Zerban, a struggling candidate who the DCCC worked to undermine last year when he ran against Paul Ryan and still refuses to back this year, said he would be happy to send a letter to his own list of supporters. Today he did. He forwarded the Blue America letter to his very large mailing list along with this message:

I'm running for Congress because I know how important it is to fight for the values and beliefs that we share. Turning those values into policy solutions, however, is a team effort. That's what makes organizations like Blue America such an essential component of the progressive community.

  Blue America sent me the following email and I thought I'd pass it along with a quick message: We need more people in Congress willing to fight for the middle class like Rep. Keith Ellison does, and I'm confident that Congressional challenger Mike Obermueller will live up to our high expectations.

I hope you'll join me in supporting these two outstanding individuals as we continue to work together toward a bluer America.

That contest is still on and you can get into it here. If you want to help elect team-players Alan Grayson and Rob Zerban, they're both on the same Blue America 2014 page-- and we are so proud of both of them. Who remembers Sham 69? This is a way of saying "thanks" to anyone who contributed tonight: