Reforming The Police, Part II-- No More Bully-Boy Brutality Towards Citizens

The Tipping Point by Nancy Ohanian

Part I of this series on police reform is here. It was somewhat ironic yesterday when a GOP flack for the NRCC, Michael McAdams, put out a statement for Tom Emmer (R-WI) oil response for Democrats looking at ways to reform out of control police departments. He said "No industry is safe from the Democrats’ abolish culture. First they wanted to abolish private health insurance, then it was capitalism and now it’s the police. What’s next, the fire department?" The irony, of course, that the only party trying to abolish the fire department is the GOP, which has tried in several jurisdictions to privatize it, the same way they're trying to abolish the post office and privatize that.

Politico began their coverage of the bill with a somewhat startling headline: "Black Americans want to stop being killed": Democrats unveil sweeping police reform bill". The bill-- the Justice in Policing Act-- was unveiled by Karen Bass, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, along with Hoyer and Pelosi. Bass, an L.A. congresswoman and former Speaker of the California Assembly told the media that "The world is witnessing the birth of a new movement in our country. A profession where you have the power to kill should be a profession where you have highly trained officers accountable to the public." As of now, what the bill does is:

• Ban no-knock warrants
• Ban chokeholds
• Require body-cams
• Mandate a national police misconduct database
• Demilitarize police
• End racial profiling
• Limit qualified immunity, making it easier to sue cops who unjustly injure, brutalize or kill citizens
• Make lynching a federal crime (something that has passed both chambers but is being blocking by racist Kentucky Senator Rand Paul)

Just to give you an idea of how hard this is going to be to get to Trump's desk, let's remember that Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy went from this:

to this tweet yesterday:

and is now a puffed-up, liveried Trump butt boy. The clossest any Republican got to helping with writing the bill was ex-Republican Justin Amash (now an independent) who co-wrote a section with Ayanna Pressley that partially repeals qualified immunity but my sources on Capitol Hill tell me not even Amash will vote fo it.

By Washington standards, this is a pretty progressive bill and it will be hard enough to get the Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party to get onboard without trying to gut it, let alone any Republicans. Pelosi and Hoyer appear-- at least for now-- to be on the side of progressives here so who knows? Maybe they can turn it into a freight train that the Blue Dogs and New Dems will either hop on or get splattered by. Still, it's hard to imagine hard core conservative Democrats like Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY), Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ), Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT) or Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK) backing this bill.


Robin Wilt is running for the seat representing Monroe County, New York and she's firmly on the side of reform-- very firmly. Last night she told me that we're in "a pivotal moment in history where those in the future will ask if you were with the dissenters-- who took to the street to unequivocally assert that Black Lives Matter-- or on the sidelines tacitly supporting an unjust status quo. My opponent, Joe Morelle, has chosen to be on the wrong side of history. Despite this transformative legislation being supported by 166 members of the House of Representatives and 35 Senators, as well as a broad coalition of civil rights organizations including: Demand Progress; Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; National Action Network; National African American Clergy Network; NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund; the National Coaliton on Black Civic Participation; Black Millennial Convention; and the National Urban League-- my opponent has remained silent. As Desmond Tutu famously opined: 'If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.' Over the past two weeks, the people of Rochester and Monroe County have taken to the streets to protest by the thousands. Joe Morelle had the nerve to show up at those protests for a photo opportunity. It is craven to be in a position to do something to help address the practices that lead to the unjust taking of Black lives, but then stand idly by when the opportunity is presented to take action. It is particularly cynical to do nothing after signing a toothless resolution that mouths the words that you support police accountability and reform. The people of the 25th Congressional District can’t endure any more of Joe Morelle’s empty promises and self-serving, performative allyship. We need courageous leadership that will allow us all to breathe."

Tomas Ramos is the best suited of all the candidates running in NY-15 to represent the South Bronx. Last night he told me that "'Defund the police’ or 'abolish the police' does not mean that when we wake up tomorrow and there are no law enforcement mechanisms there to protect the population. Rather, defunding the police is a concept which involves community led initiatives and ideas of what 'law enforcement' should look like rather than punitive racist policing measures. It is a multi-tiered plan that involves all community stakeholders and to reinvest police funding into community based entities. These progressive policies are a far cry from where modern American policing is derived from-- the slave patrols of the antebellum period, which ultimately sought to apprehend, and return runaway slaves and to maintain a form of discipline for the enslaved population. These efforts are important because it will lead to community based solutions rather than the traditional bureaucratic gridlock which does not effectively benefit the community and does not tear down the essence of systemic racism. Ruben Diaz Sr. an opponent of mine in this race has been endorsed by the NYPD’s strongest police union the PBA. Needless to say, my opponent does not share the same views as I do when it comes to this concept."

UPDATE: FLORIDA



Adam Christensen is the progressive Democrat running for the open seat in north central Florida in the Gainesville area. Early this morning he told me that he and his volunteers stand with the Black Lives Matter movement "and we want our actions to show that, not just our words. The Republican Party of Florida, including opponent Judson Sapp, have been completely silent on the issue of police brutality and refuse to even have the conversation about any changes we can make in the police system. People in this district and the entire country deserve better, because right now they have Congressman Ted Yoho representing them, who just voted against making lynching a federal crime. The entire system must have a complete overhaul. We first must require demilitarization of the police. Officers do not need to be armed with military-grade equipment for civilian issues. The next necessary task is reallocating funds from police departments to social programs meant to act as first responders rather than police. These social programs would include mental health experts and others meant to de-escalate situations. Police are trained to use a firearm and make an arrest, while also being forced to respond to every call. Imagine calling for help with a mental health issue, and instead of getting help, someone shows up, slaps handcuffs on you and takes you to jail. This could further damage someone’s mental state, rather than help fix the issue. We also must require police training  to expand de-escalation and inclusivity training. There are currently 34 states that do not require this training. The last thing we must do is hold police accountable. 99% of cases of police shootings end with no charges being filed. The majority of police who get fired as punishment for their actions later get re-hired by a different police force. The reason these tragedies keep occurring is because there is no accountability for police officers. It’s time we police the police."

"Don't Shoot!" by Nancy Ohanian

Reforming The Police Has To Include Keeping Racists And Bullies Off The Force-- And Firing The Ones Who Are There Now

Last week, the NYC police union endorsed 3 contemptible candidates for Congress-- "ex"- Republican Michelle Caruso-Cabrera against AOC, anti-Choice/anti-LGBTQ fanatic Rubén Díaz, Sr. against Tomas Ramos and conservative IDC-er David Carlucci against Mondaire Jones. This exactly aligns the police union-- once again-- with the Wall Street banksters. The police union are a bunch of scumbags coast to coast. In fact, there have been increasing demands that the AFL-CIO kick them out of the umbrella union. In Seattle, that's already moving along.

"AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka," wrote Candice Bernd, "has refused to expel the International Union of Police Associations and other law enforcement unions from the U.S.’s largest labor federation. Trumka told Bloomberg Friday that he won’t cut ties with police unions because 'police officers and everyone who works for a living has the right to collective bargaining' and that the 'best way to use our influence on the issue of police misconduct is to engage with our police affiliates rather than isolate them.' He told labor leaders and reporters Wednesday that 'the answer is not to disengage and condemn' police unions, while imploring labor organizers to fight racism. Trumka has praised the Minnesota Federation of Labor’s ousting of the openly racist Minneapolis Police Officers Federation President Bob Kroll. He also said the labor movement must play a leading role in the racial justice movement 'because protesting racial brutality, whether at the hands of a police officer, or a neighbor, or an employer, is not only the right cause. It’s a responsibility.'"

"I Can't Breathe" by Nancy Ohanian

Protesters set the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the AFL-CIO, aflame Sunday night, smashing in its windows and graffitiing its gold 16th Street entrance with 'Black Lives Matter.' While the motivations for the arson remain unclear, the action has put the federation’s partnership and affiliation with police under further scrutiny.

...U.S. police departments remain one of the heaviest unionized sectors in the country, representing hundreds of thousands of cops at the state, federal and local levels. The national largest police union, the Fraternal Order of Police, has more than 340,000 members. Former Minneapolis Police Department officer Derek Chauvin, who killed George Floyd last month, was a union member.

By continuing to affiliate with police unions, Trumka and other labor leaders are betraying the demands of protesters and some of the federation’s own affiliates, including the United Auto Workers Local 2865, who want the organization to take a stand and let go of hundreds of thousands of unionized officers. Trumka’s reticence comes as the 2018 Janus vs. AFSCME Supreme Court decision continues to erode some public-sector union rolls.

Still, racial justice activists say now is exactly the moment to “disengage,” and that the federation has done so before, pointing to the AFL-CIO’s disaffiliation with the Teamsters and other unions.

...[A]ctivists have pointed out that police unions don’t show up regularly in solidarity for the broader labor movement; instead they actively repress working people by routinely beating and murdering them in the streets. Police officers have long been used to break strikes and kill striking workers, as they have done during historic labor uprisings such as the 1897 Lattimer Massacre, the 1921 Battle of Blair Mountain and the 1937 Little Steel Strike in Chicago.

Police unions largely work to protect their own. The contracts they bargain keep racist officers who have killed and abused immune from accountability. They maintain policing’s structural system of white supremacy while maintaining wages and benefits that often exceed those of public servants like emergency medical technicians and child care workers.

To be sure, Trumka has called out police-perpetrated violence in the past. After the Ferguson uprising of 2014, Trumka noted that Darren Wilson and Michael Brown’s mother were both union members, saying, “Our brother killed our sister’s son,” last September. “We do not have to wait for the judgment of prosecutors or courts to tell us how terrible this is.” During his tenure as president of the United Mineworkers of America, he criticized police for brutalizing a striking miner during the 1989 Pittston Coal Strike.

Still, amid the historic uprisings of the past two weeks, simple criticisms and affirmations of anti-racism without bold action sound like mere lip service to many in the streets.

If the [Seattle] MLK Labor council votes to disaffiliate the Seattle Police Officers Guild on June 17, it would be the first significant expulsion of a police union from an organized labor council anywhere in the country.

That said, I have very mixed feelings about defunding police departments, likely to be a major losing issue for Democrats. In fact, I think police officers should be paid more-- with grants from the federal government. Why more? Simple: bigger salaries would attract better officers, as in not racists and bullies. These are the average annual salaries for police officers in the 10 states that pay them the least, states where the police departments and the KKK have horrifyingly similar membership:

• Mississippi- $36,290
• Arkansas- $40,570
• Louisiana- $42,470
• South Carolina- $43,520
• West Virginia- $44,450
• Georgia- $44,700
• Tennessee- $45,370
• Alabama- $46,510
• Kentucky- $46,720
• North Carolina- $47,340

Higher pay for police officers (as well as for public school teachers) will be worth the money and, in the case of the police, come with strict enforcement of rules against predatory behavior against civilians. Jail time for "bad apples" must become standard, the way it is for other criminals.

Yesterday, The Atlantic issued a podcast, Would Defunding Police Make Us Safer?, that included Alex Vitale, author of The End of Policing. Vitale explained that the central argument of his book is that "policing is an inherently problematic tool for the state. Policing is a tool of violence that has historically been used to facilitate gross inequalities and systems of exploitation like slavery, colonialism, the breaking of unions, and the suppression of workers’ rights movements. And so then to say that that tool is best suited to solve a broad range of community problems is misguided. And further, [the idea] that we can fix that problem with a series of superficial procedural reforms really misunderstands the nature of that institution and the missions that our elected officials have given to it... Racism is baked into the institutional mission set by our political leaders, including President Obama. So this reform cannot possibly give us any relief. Neither can having police-community encounter sessions, which they did in Minneapolis. Or instituting accountability mechanisms that were largely procedural in nature: body cameras, new use-of-force policies, de-escalation training. There’s absolutely no empirical evidence that this makes any more than a superficial difference in the way policing is conducted."

He explained that in NYC, for example, the police budget is $6 billion-- more than the Department of Health, the Department of Homeless Services, the Department of Youth Services, and the Department of Employment Services combined. NYC is attempting to cut the Education Department by over $600 million. But the proposal for the police department is a cut of $23 million.

There’s kind of a continuum for understanding what “defund the police” means, and it doesn’t really mean that tomorrow the police budget is zero. There are actually dozens of campaigns that were underway before the events in Minneapolis that were calling for defunding policing, but [they] took the form of things like we want to halt new hiring, we want to get a handle on overtime, and we want to close down certain problematic programs, like the gang unit, and shift those resources into community needs.

So this is not about: Tomorrow, there are no police. There are folks, though, for whom defund the police is also about thinking about a bigger vision of a kind of world where we don’t rely so heavily on policing and prisons, and that comes out of the prison- and police-abolition movement that’s emerged over the last 20 or so years.

...[J]ust defunding the police by itself is almost never what people are calling for. What they’re calling for is a redistribution of resources, because communities do have problems. They have problems of violence. They have problems of disorder. They need help, but they don’t need help from the police in many of these cases. So it’s got to be about redistribution, not just defunding. It needs to be targeted and specific.

Police unions are a separate problem, one that was well-examined by a team of NY Times writers Saturday in a piece called How Police Unions Became Such Powerful Opponents to Reform Efforts. "Over the past five years, as demands for reform have mounted in the aftermath of police violence in cities like Ferguson, Mo., Baltimore and now Minneapolis," they wrote, "police unions have emerged as one of the most significant roadblocks to change. The greater the political pressure for reform, the more defiant the unions often are in resisting it-- with few city officials, including liberal leaders, able to overcome their opposition. They aggressively protect the rights of members accused of misconduct, often in arbitration hearings that they have battled to keep behind closed doors. And they have also been remarkably effective at fending off broader change, using their political clout and influence to derail efforts to increase accountability. While rates of union membership have dropped by half nationally since the early 1980s, to 10 percent, higher membership rates among police unions give them resources they can spend on campaigns and litigation to block reform. A single New York City police union has spent more than $1 million on state and local races since 2014."

With the police union backing Carlucci and Díaz, Sr. against progressive reformers Mondaire Jones and Tomas Ramos and with the union backing Caruso-Cabrera against AOC, it's more important than ever to contribute to Jones and Ramos (here) and to AOC here. Back to The Times:

It remains to be seen how the unions will respond to reform initiatives by cities and states since Mr. Floyd’s death, including a new ban on chokeholds in Minneapolis. But in recent days, unions have continued to show solidarity with officers accused of abusive behavior.

The president of a police union in Buffalo said the union stood “100 percent” behind two officers who were suspended on Thursday after appearing to push an older man who fell and suffered head injuries. The union president said the officers “were simply following orders.”

All 57 officers on the Emergency Response Team, a special squad formed to respond to riots, had resigned from their posts on the team in support of the suspended officers, according to The Buffalo News.

Unions can be so effective at defending their members that cops with a pattern of abuse can be left untouched, with fatal consequences. In Chicago, after the killing of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald by officer Jason Van Dyke, it emerged that Mr. Van Dyke had been the subject of multiple complaints already. But a “code of silence” about misconduct was effectively “baked into” the labor agreements between police unions and the city, according to a report conducted by task force.

...When liberal politicians do try to advance reform proposals, union officials have resorted to highly provocative rhetoric and hard-boiled campaign tactics to lash out at them. This past week, the head of the sergeants’ union in New York posted a police report on Twitter revealing personal information about the daughter of Mr. de Blasio, who had been arrested during a protest.

...At times, the strident leadership appears to beget still more strident leadership. In 2017, Chicago’s Fraternal Order of Police elected a new president who denounced a federal Justice Department investigation prompted by the shooting of Mr. McDonald as “politically motivated” and pledged to fight the “anti-police movement.” That president was ousted this year by a candidate who had derided the ensuing consent decree as “nonsense” and criticized his predecessor for failing to stand up to City Hall.

While statistics compiled by the group Campaign Zero show that police killings and shootings in Chicago have fallen following a set of reforms enacted after a federal investigation, advocates worry that the union will undermine them in contract negotiations. Police unions have traditionally used their bargaining agreements to create obstacles to disciplining officers. One paper by researchers at the University of Chicago found that incidents of violent misconduct in Florida sheriff’s offices increased by about 40 percent after deputies gained collective bargaining rights.

“By continuing to elect people who stand for those values, it more deeply entrenches the break between the community and the police,” said Karen Sheley, director of the Police Practices Project for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. “It makes it far more difficult for reform efforts to go forward.”

A Warning: The Most Right-Wing Democrat In NYC-- A Trump Supporter, No Less-- May Slip Into Congress

Hasn't the Bronx suffered enough?

If you're new around here, you may have missed our discussions over the years about Rubén Díaz., an ultra-conservative career politician in the South Bronx. As I mentioned last time, the south Bronx congressional district from which Jose Serrano is retiring, doesn't have many white Conservatives. In fact, only 2.5% of the district's population is white. And when Republicans run there, it's just a publicity stunt. NY-15 is the bluest district in America. Obama won it with 95% the first time he ran and with 97% the second time. In 2016, Trump only took 4.9% of the vote, his worst performance anywhere in the country. This cycle, though, conservatives might get lucky. One of their own is running for the open congressional seat... and running as a Democrat. City Councilman Rubén Díaz Sr., New York's most right-wing Democrat, has a chance to slip into the seat. Ironically, NY-15 is right next to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's district and Díaz enjoys telling everyone he's the opposite of her. He sure is. He's a 76-year-old, cowboy hat-wearing Pentecostal minister known for his constituent services and controversial statements on social issues and makes his path to victory clear-- a split among half a dozen progressive and mainstream candidates could leave the crackpot with a primary win.

Díaz was the only Democrat in the state Senate to vote against a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in 2011. And he has been sharply criticized in recent months for saying the City Council is "controlled by the homosexual community"; he was subsequently stripped of his chairmanship of the For-Hire Vehicle committee and urged to resign by the City Council Speaker Corey Johnson.

There are 15 Democrats competing in the primary-- 11 of whom have raised at least enough money to file an FEC report ($5,000)-- and 7 of the 11 having raised at least 10 times that amount. There are also two full-on progressives in the race-- Tomas Ramos (who has been endorsed by Blue America) and Samelys Lopez.

Yesterday, writing for Newsweek, Adrian Carrasquillo warned that Díaz is poised to win. That's because all the other Democrats are taking a small piece of the non-Díaz vote, leaving Díaz with a good shot to win.

"He would instantly become Donald Trump's favorite New York congressman," strategist Eric Koch of anti-Diaz super PAC Bronx United told Newsweek, adding that Diaz Sr. would be an unreliable Democratic vote in the House caucus.

To complicate matters, he has a son, Ruben Diaz Jr., who is his namesake and a Bronx borough president many call the most popular politician in the borough. Diaz Jr. is regularly asked to comment on his father's actions, as he did disapprovingly when Diaz Sr. invited Senator Ted Cruz to visit the Bronx, but the consensus is that his son is a political plus for the reverend.

..."There's a cruel irony that a Trump Republican could represent the most Democratic district in America," said Ritchie Torres, an opponent who has raised six times more money than Diaz Sr. and has $800,000 more cash on hand, according to the latest public filing.

While outside groups bristle at Diaz Sr.'s place in the modern Democratic Party, they don't get a vote in the community where he has devoted his time and resources for decades.

Diaz Sr., who is Puerto Rican, has a background that still matters in a historically Puerto Rican part of New York, which includes Hispanic evangelicals and seniors who are his base. New York political experts said the pastor, who can be seen wearing a baby blue cowboy hat on the New York City council website, is a master of constituent services.

"He has always had a great constituent service mechanism," said Jennifer Blatus, a political strategist who interned with Diaz Jr. "He's really good at connecting with the community, he knows who his base is, he knows how to reach them, his son is wildly popular, they have the same name and half the people that vote for him might think they're voting for Rubencito."

Diaz, who said he was a victim of anti-black discrimination while in the Army, was addicted to drugs and pleaded guilty to heroin and marijuana possession in 1965 before finding salvation in Jesus Christ, ministering to people who also needed to turn their lives around, and opening senior centers in the Bronx in the 1970s and 1980s.

An analysis of his spending by The City found that Diaz Sr. had spent $31,000 on gifts before the crisis struck New York, including buying Thanksgiving turkeys, Christmas toys, and gift cards from iconic New York standby, Western Beef.

"That is what I have always done," Diaz Sr. said when the legality of such gifts was questioned. "Giving back to the people and trying to help the community. This is nothing new to me."

Blatus said Diaz Sr. has a lot of different tactics to help meet the needs of seniors, like having volunteers give older constituents a ride to the voting booth.

"He's fully bilingual, he's from Puerto Rico, he knows what hardship is, he can relate to these people," she said.

"The Diaz name has value not just because his son is the borough president, but because it has been a fixture in that community both politically and spiritually," said Hank Shienkopf, a veteran of New York politics since 1969, who grew up in the district, and helped elect Diaz Jr. as Bronx borough president.

Shienkopf said it's important to understand that local residents don't judge Diaz Sr.'s controversial statements because they feel they are the ones being discriminated against by a system that has never helped the Bronx. "If there is anything that is true about politics in New York City, it's that change is the only constant," he said. "But this is the one place where there hasn't been a change in their economic status."

That's not enough for his opponents, who believe the election falling during a crisis has helped Diaz Sr.

"You have a homophobe, misogynist, who's anti-choice and could win here but it's been hard to get people to focus on this seat," Melissa Mark-Viverito, a former New York City council speaker also running in the 15th district race to replace retiring Representative Jose Serrano told Newsweek.

His opponents are keeping score of his transgressions.

Diaz, who once compared abortion to the Holocaust, drew widespread condemnation in 1994 when the Gay Games were coming to New York City and he wrote in a column that the 20,000 athletes "are likely to be already infected with AIDS or can return home with the virus."

Diaz Sr. also was strongly criticized for saying the city council was "controlled by the homosexual community" last year and for refusing in 2005 to endorse Michael Bloomberg or Democrat Fernando Ferrer in the mayoral race because their support of abortion rights and same-sex marriage meant "they have nothing to offer me according to the Bible."

Neither Diaz responded to Newsweek's request for comment.

Bronx United released a digital ad highlighting his previous comments that if you dare to sympathize with Trump or wear a MAGA hat you are labeled a racist.

A national coalition launched by Victory Fund last week, which backs LGBTQ candidates and supports Torres, included NARAL Pro-Choice America, Latino Victory Fund, Congressional Hispanic Caucus BOLD PAC, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, and Human Rights Campaign to raise the alarm that Diaz Sr. wants to represent a district they argue has politically moved away from him.

But outside efforts over the next month may not matter. Experts said campaigning has been fundamentally changed because of the pandemic and there won't be traditional street or park events in the month before the primary. That means Diaz Sr. could be headed to Congress after all.

"The district has been devastated by the virus, but also devastated by poverty for the last 25 years, so the question is where were these people when the Diaz's were here?" Shienkopf said. "Who is standing up to scream about it? Diaz keeps proving he's the one that can yell the loudest, so that gives him some standing."

Can America Evolve Towards A Country With A Humanitarian Bottom Line Rather Than Just A Financial Bottom Line?

I was on the phone with Marianne Williamson this morning and she was talking to me about how we have to change our country's priorities and the need to go from an economic bottom line to a humanitarian bottom line. During her presidential campaign she said that "The first pillar of a season of moral repair has to do with economic justice-- has to do with recognizing that we have created a wealth inequality greater than anytime since 1929, we have decimated America's middle class, and we must take immediate action to fix this. We should repeal the 2017 $2 trillion tax cut, which gave 83 cents of every dollar to the very richest individuals and corporations; although, we should put back in the middle class tax cut."

She went on to advocate specific programs:

We should stop all the corporate subsidies, such as $26 billion that we gave to oil and gas alone last year. For what reason?

We also need to make the United States government able to negotiate with huge pharmaceutical companies to lower drug prices. The US government cannot negotiate for lower drug prices, even though we have people in the United States even today who are dying because they cannot afford their insulin.

‍We should also say to those who have a billion dollars in assets that 3 percent tax on those assets is reasonable and 2 percent for those who have over $50 million-- that is reasonable as well.

As she said, "We have near 93 million people who live near poverty in the United States today. That means million upon millions of people, tens of millions of people who live, every single day, in chronic tension and economic anxiety, not knowing really what will happen if they get sick, not knowing what will happen if one of their children get sick, not knowing how they will send their children to college or not knowing how they themselves will get out from under the burden of their college loan. We need to change this. Bad public policy created all this and good public policy will make it right."





After Marianne ended her presidential campaign she decided to do what she could to help progressive congressional candidates who are running on platforms that she feels are about creating that good and reparative public policy. You may have noticed that this week centrist Democrat Amy Klobuchar, a top contender to be Biden's VP pick, followed Marianne's lead and announced that she is trying to help down-ballot candidates, what Politico referred to as kicking off her next act. The effort to raise funds, the snazzily dubbed "Win Big Project," began Friday by endorsing a slate of a dozen House and Senate candidates. All of them are centrists or candidates from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, like reactionary Blue Dogs Anthony Brindisi (D-NY) and Xochitl Torres Small (D-NM).

Klobuchar's are the kinds of candidates who have worked hand-in-hand with the Republicans to create the bad public policy Marianne has steadfastly derailed. And none of Klobuchar's endorsed candidates are anything like the dedicated progressives Marianne is helping raise funds for-- the list of which you can see by clicking on the thermometer on the right. I asked several of those candidates what makes their own campaigns different from the campaigns of conservative Democrats being supported by the corporate and political establishment.

The first response was from Liam O'Mara, a progressive congressional candidate in Riverside County who won his primary and is challenging right-wing crook and Trump enabler Ken Calvert. "Marianne is right to say that we need a moral renaissance in this country," he said. "All our great religious and philosophical traditions give us a sense of right and wrong which is rooted in justice and compassion for others. None of them could be used to justify the neofeudal outcome of Republican tax policy. The GOP claims the mantle of liberty while it strips that liberty from Americans by steadily lowering our living standards and reducing us to virtual paupers, dependent on the largesse of powerful special interests and the billionaire class. Americans should not have to live on their knees, begging for crumbs from the table of the super-rich. Our Founders fought a revolution motivated by the Enlightenment ideal that all human beings were born free and equal in dignity and rights. It is well past time we realised the promise of that revolution, and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is also the law of the land."

Mark Gamba's all-mail primary is 2 weeks from Tuesday. He told us he couldn’t agree more with Marianne on this. "I have long advocated that we should measure America’s success on a Gross National Happiness Index rather then the GDP which only measures outcomes for the wealthiest and has little relevance to the rest of us and certainly doesn’t measure economic justice. Concepts like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal which look to invest in the vast majority of people and the health of the nation, rather than the wealth of the 1% are exactly what we need to enact to bring our country out of the economic tragedy millions are suffering due to the pandemic. It will require a significant change in Congress however to make that a reality. The neo-liberals will use this crisis to further their agenda of concentrating wealth and power at the top. Everyone below the top 10% have been getting poorer, relative to the cost of living, since the Reagan era. It is critical that we raise the minimum wage to a living wage and tie it to the cost of housing so that it never stagnates again. It is beyond time to tax capital gains at the same rate we tax other income; to increase the tax rate on anyone making more than $10 million a year to at least 50% and to close the loopholes that allow companies like Amazon to pay nothing in taxes while creating another instant billionaire who treats his employees poorly. According to The Guardian: 'Some of the richest people in the U.S. (Bezos in particular) have been at the front of the queue as the government has handed out trillions of dollars to prop up an economy it shuttered amid the coronavirus pandemic. At the same time, the billionaire class has added $308 billion to its wealth in four weeks-- even as a record 26 million people lost their jobs.' This is why all the candidates in this post need the support of every American who hopes for progressive change, I for one do not take a penny of corporate money so that I can be free to fight for the changes Marianne and I have outlined."

Julie Oliver is the progressive Democrat running against a Trumpist crook in central Texas, Roger Williams. "Our economy was already in a slow-motion crisis that the coronavirus has hit the fast-forward button on so we must rebuild that economy to ensure that it prioritizes people first," she told me. "Rebuilding the American economy for the long term is going to take a massive WWII-style mobilization. We need to repeal the GOP tax cuts for multinational corporations, tax the rich and corporations, and invest in world-class, high quality healthcare, education, and clean energy infrastructure."

"As a country we need courageous leaders who can't be bought and who will put people first, not corporate interests. Marianne, wrote Arizona progressive Eva Putzova, "has been such a leader, which is evident from her dedication to help elect a brand-new Congress. Poverty in the United States is deep and widespread. People are living paycheck to paycheck, always one crisis away from a total financial collapse. In my congressional district, it is impossible to not focus on the tragic consequences of our government’s official policies of the past toward Native Americans: first policies of annihilation, then displacement and assimilation. To this day we treat Native lands as a national sacrifice area by enabling resource extraction that comes with environmental degradation and water contamination and neglect to invest in basic infrastructure that would be unacceptable elsewhere. We are talking about running water and paved roads. Our priorities must shift and this is why I’m challenging the incumbent whose timid leadership fails to address the greatest challenges of our times and to uplift the most vulnerable among us."

Tomas Ramos, the best of the candidates to to represent the open South Bronx seat that Jose Serrano is giving up, reminded us that "It's easy to blame Trump for the economic crisis that we're in but these series of events unfolded in the 1980s under Reagan. There was a redistribution of income from the have-nots to the haves. The Bush II administration made some enhancements, and under Tump we're continuing to see a redistribution of American capitalism, which has exhausted its ability to reproduce itself through tax cuts. The trickle down analogy is a farce, because all it did was the opposite, it manipulated the effect of wealth which rose to the top 0.1 percent. When Reagan applied this tax cut policy, the American economy was operating with the premise of global profits and surpluses. This helped fuel the demand for international exports, ultimately these surpluses helped spur on subsets such as the derivative economy. After 2008 recession it was clear that the American economy can no longer support these subsets economies. If these catastrophic economic policies continue, then it will further stagnate the incomes of the middle class and the working class. The COVID-19 crisis is a clear indication that we must reinvest in the human capital and not the on the future value of an economic indicator."

Michael Broihier is a progressive Democrat Marianne has endorsed for the Kentucky Senate seat held by Mitch McConnell. Mike told me that "Marianne is spot on; the great tragedy of this pandemic, after the loss of life, will be a rush back to the comfort of business as usual. As a farmer, I know how little a roaring stock market means to rural voters. In a state with the nation’s fifth worst economy and double the national average of people working at the minimum wage, the health of the Dow-Jones or S&P means little. And, the failure of a health care system tied to employment is self-evident when 30-million Americans become unemployed in a manner of weeks." He elaborated:

Sadly, those people who routinely had to chose between rationing their prescriptions or paying the rent were invisible to career politicians of both parties until Washington career politicians began to fear the Senate gym being looted for hand-sanitizer and toilet paper. But even with a mounting death toll their first instinct was to bail out their rich and corporate donors and that tone deafness is not lost on working America. Even the paltry, one-time payment to citizens smacks of desperation-- not leadership-- as they fail to grasp the enormity of the challenges ahead.

In my race, I face the DNC’s handpicked candidate, who has refashioned herself as a pro-Trump moderate who thinks the Senate Majority Leader is stopping the president from draining the swamp. A candidate who said she would have voted to elevate Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. This is what Washington establishment Dems think is what is needed-- another a get-along Democrat absent of vision or the moral courage to lead the country towards a more just and equitable future.

Queens progressive Shan Chowdhury is exactly the kind of young, working class leader who would make Congress a vehicle for the aspirations of American families rather than for sleazy corporate interests. This morning he said that "My race is critical in having to choose what is economically feasible vs. what moral is morally feasible. My opponent, Gregory Meeks is a corrupt corporate Democrat from the Republican wing of the party. He is the chair of subcommittee for House Financial Services of Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions. Time and time again since he’s even in office, he’s bailed out the big banks when working people needed help the most. I on the other hand, am fighting for progressive policies built on moral imperatives to protect working people from corporate harm. Homes and jobs should not be lost because of how irresponsible my opponent’s donors are with handling money."

Robin Wilt, a former Bernie DNC delegate, is fighting for a better Rochester and Monroe County. She and Marianne see eye to eye on shifting societal priorities and this morning shared that "Our campaign is all about elevating the voices of and empowering the 99%. For far too long, the establishment has cynically ignored anyone who wasn’t a corporate donor or political elite, and developed policies that cater to the interests of the monied few, as opposed to the interests of all of the people that they serve. As a result, our society was left vulnerable to collapse amid the current crisis. My opponent, as part of the neoliberal power structure in Albany for over thirty years, has not only been complicit, he has been an architect of these failed policies."

By contrast, the policy centerpieces and priorities of our campaign are those issues that have been far too long subverted by lickspittle corporate appeasers-- like my opponent-- who do not have the backbone to fight on behalf of the communities they represent: We proudly support healthcare and housing as human rights and champion Expanded and Improved Medicare for All, regardless of immigration status, and a Federal Homes Guarantee. We recognize that our existence on this planet is at grave risk and will fight for a Green New Deal that centers the communities that have been at the mercy of polluters and promises a future free from carbon dependence while bolstering our economy. We understand that everyone deserves a quality education, regardless of their zip code, and we support tripling Title I funding, tuition-free pre K- 16 public education, and eliminating student debt. We support a path toward citizenship for the millions of undocumented residents of our country, restoration of DACA, and economic justice for migrant and farm workers. We recognize that endless war, mass incarceration, and mass detention are all sustainable symptoms of our prison and military industrial complex, and will dismantle the systems that engender this injustice. We understand that there is an electoral industrial complex that disenfranchises our most vulnerable communities and will champion a new Voting Rights Act that ensures equal access to the ballot box, and we will remove money from politics by overturning Citizens United.

In short, we are running a people-centered campaign that recognizes that we are only as strong as our most vulnerable communities and that there is no moving forward when we continue to leave people behind.

No, Bernie Should Not Drop Out Now-- It's Never Been About HIM, It's Always Been About US

Long-time DWT readers will probably remember David Segal, a super-progressive Rhode Island state legislator who Blue America backed in his 2010 fight for an open congressional seat. Currently he's executive director of Demand Progress. Yesterday, along with Sam Adler-Bell, he penned a persuasive OpEd for Business Insider, Bernie Sanders should stay in the Democratic race. Acknowledging-- basically-- that unless the Daniel Radcliffe and Geraldine Viswanathan characters in the first season of Miracle Workers, "12 Days," decide to save the world, November is going to offer Americans another lesser of two evils choice for president. With conservative Democrats from the Republican wing of the party-- like Claire McCaskill, Neera Tanden-- and all the NeverTrump Republicans who dominate MSNBC, barking loudly for Bernie to drop out, Segal suggests that "would be a mistake, not only for the progressive forces he represents, but for the Democratic Party and the country."

Ending the primary over coronavirus concerns is a mistake

First, let's address what might appear the strongest argument against continuing the primary: that continuing the contest endangers voters amid the present coronavirus crisis.

It is straightforwardly true that holding normal elections right now is a grave threat to public health. Even when proper precautions are taken, polling places-- through which hundreds or thousands of people pass on a single day-- could become concentrated sites of infection.

However, ending the presidential primary will not solve this problem; many states have ballot measures, referenda, and other local contests occurring simultaneously with the presidential primary.

Unless officials are planning to suspend all democratic processes between now and the resolution of the coronavirus pandemic (a terrifying and probably unconstitutional precedent in many states), Sanders's presence in the primary is not the deciding factor as to whether Americans will need to vote during the outbreak. This is a structural problem that must be solved regardless of the Sanders campaign's decisions.

Every state should be concentrating on making voting by mail available and accessible. Rhode Island, for instance, advanced such measures on Monday; its Board of Elections is seeking to move the primary from April to June and will strive to maximize the use of absentee ballots. The moment calls for making voting easier for everyone, not arbitrarily ending one electoral contest.

A joint statement from both campaigns calling for delaying primaries until June, enabling mail voting in every state, and encouraging supporters to vote by mail rather than in person would be powerful and persuasive to the DNC, election officials, and voters.

Sanders staying in would be better for party unity

Second, figures like Jim Clyburn have argued for weeks that Sanders should drop out to allow the party to unify behind Biden and avoid a long, divisive primary like 2016.

To begin with, however, it's not clear that hastening a heightened focus on a contest between Donald Trump and Joe Biden is in Biden's best interest.

Trump has demonstrated a predisposition to launch vicious attacks on Biden, whether based on mental acuity, potential family conflicts of interest related to a Ukrainian oil company, or as he otherwise sees fit. If Biden can't weather a robust debate about the Democratic Party's platform with his (actual) friend Sanders, that does not bode well in a contest against Trump.

Moreover, it may be better for party unity if Sanders stays in.

Hasty calls from establishment figures for Sanders to drop out are exacerbating polarization within the party. Sanders's base-- of young and disaffected voters-- already distrusts Democratic insiders.

From their perspective, the DNC and various moderate figures have waged an "anyone but Bernie" campaign from the beginning of the 2020 contest. Bridging that divide is the obligation of every Democrat hoping to defeat Trump, including and especially those who disagree with or dislike Bernie Sanders.

To that end, as the likelihood of a Sanders victory declines, Biden and Sanders ought to begin an intentional, de-escalatory, public conversation during which Biden makes explicit policy and personnel assurances to Sanders, while Sanders begins the process of leading his supporters toward Biden. This cooperation would strengthen the resolve of the Sanders base to remain active through November.

How to come together

We suggest guarantees not just of policies but also regarding key personnel decisions because the latter are more enforceable and structural, and one cannot trust that policy promises will be acted upon in good faith unless one trusts the personnel in charge of executing them.

Plutocrats who have been reported as possible senior appointments in a Biden administration like JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, billionaire former mayor Michael Bloomberg, Morgan Stanley executive Tom Nides, and Bank of America executive Anne Finucane should be established as no-goes.

Furthermore, amid this COVID-19 crisis, Sanders is well positioned to demand that top appointments to the Department of Health and Human Services, including those who oversee Medicaid and Medicare, are people with a proven commitment to the public's interest-- and not insurance and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists or executives.

In general, personnel appointees should be conditioned on their willingness and ability to implement a progressive policy agenda.

Only this kind of explicit and orchestrated unification process-- founded on substantive, actionable agreements, rather than mere rhetoric-- can best position Democrats to win in November.

Bringing progressive voices to the convention

For supporters of the Sanders agenda, the argument for his staying in is more straightforward, but no less crucial: Sanders must continue to collect delegates for the convention.

If he were to leave today, Sanders would have around 20% of delegates at the convention. If he continues to garner a sizable minority of the vote-- as recent polling suggests he will-- he'd end up with more like 35% to 40%. (And while his odds are indeed long, the aperture through which he might secure the nomination has not completely closed.)

The convention, in whatever COVID-19-adapted form it takes, makes determinations not just about the Party's nominee, but also about other critical matters like the Party's platform and rules. It's imperative that the progressive wing be duly represented in those processes.

To be sure, many of Biden's rank-and-file voters are pretty progressive too. If exit polls are an indication, many of them support Sanders's more robust agenda, including Medicare for All.

Many Democrats have approached the primary from the perspective of electability alone and become convinced that Biden is a safer bet, but most of these voters also like Sanders. But Biden's convention delegate bloc is likely to be disproportionately composed of party insiders, some with attachments to corporate and ideological foes of the progressive movement. Thus, a convention without Sanders's delegates would not represent the true political priorities of the Democratic base.

Finally, in the unlikely event that the convention was tasked with choosing somebody other than Biden or Sanders as the nominee, it would be all the more important that progressives have proportional representation among convention delegates so that such a process could incorporate the input of an ideological cross-section of the party.

These are strange and terrifying times. An unprecedented public health crisis has become entwined with and amplified by existing deficits in our democratic institutions and our social safety net. Now, more than ever, it's vital that the Democratic nominating contest be one all voters can trust, and whose aim is to arrive at a nominee and platform that represents every Democratic voter.

Under most scenarios, this is an outcome over which the Biden and Sanders camps have substantial control. To achieve it, we believe that Bernie Sanders must stay in this contest. 

Maybe Segal and Adler-Bell know something I don't, but I've been following the detestable Biden closely since the 1970s and he's never going to give up on the plutocrats who backed his campaigning he's never going to embrace anything remotely progressive, especially now that he won a Democratic primary as a status quo candidate, something that he no doubt thinks will be even more attractive in a general election.

He isn't going to give anyone any guarantees and will be happy to tell any Bernie diehards-- as he already has-- to go vote for someone else. Which is precisely what this diehard for the policies Bernie represented plans to do. Segal began his career in elected office as a Green on the Providence City Council. It sounds like he's made his choice to vote for the lesser evil. I'm sure many Americans will but I doubt enough will to defeat Trump. Biden's one chance will be that Trump defeats himself... if the two of them are still alive in November. Do you agree? Vote by clicking on the Blue America Bernie Congress thermometer on the right and giving what you can to Bernie and the congressional candidates running on the issues that propel his campaign.

"Bernie," explained Oklahoma City progressive congressional candidate Tom Guild, "is a true progressive champion. He has changed the collective mind of America and now a majority support many of his ideas such as Medicare for All. We owe him a tremendous debt of gratitude. He wants us to pay it forward and that’s exactly what I plan to do. It is very difficult being a candidate, especially one who has the collective opprobrium of those who control the agenda and levers of power in the Democratic Party, the economy of America, and the corrupt political system. It’s such a personal decision and I trust and applaud whatever path he and Jane decide to take. He is worth his weight in gold in so many ways including fighting for our shared progressive goals, like the Green New Deal, that may literally save our planet for future life and habitation. On the one hand, it would break many hearts to lose him as a major presidential contender. On the other hand, he’s more than earned the right to make whatever decision he feels is best for him, his family, and people like us who are his extended family. Peace, love, and justice will conquer all. I think Bernie and I share the same complaint that it sure is taking a helluva long time!"

Chris Armitage, the progressive in the Spokane area running for the congressional seat occupied by Cathy McMorris Rodgers, would rather see Bernie stay in the race. "I imagine this is an incredibly difficult decision for someone who has spent a lifetime fighting for justice. When Bernie came here in 2016, 14,000 people showed up. I think he can do a ton of good work supporting races like ours where he can be a galvanizing source for unbought downballot candidates."

Tomas Ramos, the best of the candidates running in the open Bronx congressional district, is even more adamant about Bernie staying in the race. "Let me be clear-- Bernie Sanders should not drop out of the Democratic race. Back in 2008 it was not until the final day of the primaries (June 3rd) that Obama was declared the presidential candidate. Right now Bernie has amassed 885 delegates to Biden's 1180, the narrative of the corporate media has been, 'Biden has swept the last two weeks at the polls'. This is a half truth, the delegates are disbursed proportionally and not based on a winner takes it all system. Bernie's chances to win the nomination has become increasingly difficult-- not impossible. He has the most important asset, his base of supporters who are forever galvanized. As a community organizer and candidate I understand the hardships of building a movement, however I also know that there are folks that are counting on me to amplify their voices. This is what Bernie has done for so many disenfranchised Americans, he has given them hope that one day their voices will truly matter. In this time of crisis we are experiencing how the lack of social safety nets can ravage not just the economy but more importantly our humanity. Bernie's message throughout the course of his political career has been consistent, to create a movement that is representative of the needs of the poor and working class. Bernie's challenges in his race is representative of the race that I am faced with in my district-- the establishment vs. the insurgent. But neither of us should or will drop out, there is too much at stake."

"Bernie's the candidate," said San Francisco progressive Shahid Buttar, "with far and away the most support among the younger generations whose active participation in the November election will be crucial to a Democratic victory. He should absolutely stay in the race, both to give those generations a reason to stay involved, and to stretch the debate at a time when we need bold policy solutions to our mounting and compounding social crises. Our campaign to replace Pelosi will be strongest in November if Bernie is at the top of the ticket. Having helped his campaign secure a resounding victory in California, we're eager to help him get there. Even if he steps aside, however, Bernie will enable opportunities for our campaign. Already, the national movement he inspired has seized on our campaign as an aligned opportunity to build a new paradigm in the shell of the crumbling consensus on corporate rule. His vision has unleashed the aspirations of a generation, and those genies aren't going back into their bottles."

Besides, as Eric Lach wrote in regard to the Biden campaign yesterday for the New Yorker, "All year, Democrats argued over what 'return to normal' politics really meant. What would a return to normal be for undocumented immigrants, or the uninsured, or people whose lives were being constricted by student loans? But now, with many Americans shut up in their homes, or soon to be, many voters continue to say that a return to normal sounds pretty good."

There Really Is A Lot More To 2020 Than Just Electing A President

Brianna Wu sent this homemade kitchen video out to her supporters acknowledging that many of us felt discouraged on Wednesday morning after the Super Tuesday results in some states-- like Massachusetts, where she lives. "But," she wrote, "I'm also optimistic about what we can achieve. Fighting for progressive values means a lot more than just winning the Oval Office. The president cannot write and pass legislation, and we need progressives in office all the way down the ballot to get Medicare for All passed, to enact a Green New Deal, and to restore our democracy."

I wondered how widespread that kind of optimism was yesterday. So I reached out to some of the congressional candidates who have been endorsed by Blue America and asked them. Robin Wilt, up in Monroe County, New York, is someone who thinks things through carefully from every perspective. She's someone who will make an absolutely outstanding Congress member. And she's a dedicated Berniecrat. She told me "It's not just Bernie; it’s all of us. We can’t forget that it wasn’t simply the Executive Branch that enabled the rampant wealth inequality, military adventurism, climate crisis, and other regressive policies that we are experiencing today. In fact, the House of Representatives is referred to as 'the People’s House' because the framers wanted it to be the body of the federal government that is most sensitive to voter opinion. With members representing individual localities rather than states at-large, with terms limited to just two years, and with every vacancy requiring a special election, rather than appointment to be filled, one would assume that the U.S. House, more than any other body, would reflect the political attitude of the national electorate. Of course, with the disproportionate influence of the monied elite, we know that not to be true."

  "In the documentary Knock Down the House," she continued, "Alexandria Ocasio Cortez observed that 'For one of us to get it through, a hundred of us have to try.' True to that mantra, we have unapologetic Berniecrats contesting establishment Democrats all over the country. My own race represents a fight to give voice to the voiceless of NY-25. Pay careful attention to the establishment’s criticism of Bernie Sanders-- that he won’t help their down-ballot cronies. We need to ensure that we support the down-ballot races that will provide Bernie the legislators that he needs to pass his progressive agenda."

At the other end of New York state, in the Bronx, another deep thinker, Tomas Ramos, is contesting an open deep blue seat in a crowded primary. "The essence of democracy is not just rooted in the presidency," he told me. "The framers created a representative democracy, not a despotic crown. It is the responsibility of the Congress to create laws and 'check' the constitutionality of the judiciary and presidency. I am running for NY-15 because we are the poorest congressional district and our representative (for the last 30 years) has not invested in nor allocated the resources that we need to create thriving communities."

Another guy who speaks with forethought is Mark Gamba, major of Milwaukie, Oregon and candidate for a seat held by venal Blue Dog Kurt Schrader. "America’s Constitution was written with the intent to limit the overgrowth of power in any one branch of government. Unfortunately, the presidency has been turned into a flashy celebrity position instead of a solid team player. Meanwhile, much of the real work that keeps our society functioning is done in Congress. That is why it is SO VITAL that we pay close attention to who is running for Congress and vote for folks in both the House and the Senate who will represent a bold climate agenda, healthcare for all, and income equity to name a few of our pressing issues. Brianna Wu has it exactly right-- Progressive Congress-- An America for ALL.

San Francisco progressive, Shahid Buttar beat out the Republican who wanted to run against Nancy Pelosi and will face her in November. He told me that he's "committed to making Bernie our next President because we need his vision in the White House. I also know that without major changes in Congress, Bernie will struggle will implement his visionary agenda. We need to capture Congress to re-align it with the American people and human rights. That, in turn, will require ending a few careers-- including that of corporate Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. I'm not running for Congress to start a career. I'm running for Congress to continue my service to my neighbors, our communities, and our Republic."

The Democratic Establishment Freak-Out

That depends on what you mean by "Democrats"

That there is a Stop Bernie movement among the Democratic Party leaders instead of a Stop Republican Oligarch Michael Bloomberg Movement tells you all you will ever need to know about the Democratic Establishment. As a cohort, they are less than worthless. Joe Biden was their anointed Jeb Bush for the 2020 election cycle. And now they are reduced to whining that Tom Steyer's money in South Carolina is obliterating a firewall among elderly rural African-American voters and putting the final nail into Biden's political coffin. Maybe they should have realized that, politically speaking, Biden has been a zombie/corpse for decades.

With Mayo Pete demonstrating the hollowness of his flimsy support outside of wine cellars, their new best hope is the free-spending-- on them-- Republican oligarch. This is the lowest the party establishment has ever sunk. Believe me, none of them were happy yesterday when they woke up to Matt Viser's Washington Post delineation of the massiveness of Bernie's win in Nevada the night before. Let's hope Bernie smashes the party establishment to smithereens on the day after the convention and breathes new life into a wearing, geriatric Democratic Party.

The next Stop Bernie attack will be that if he's on the top of the ticket, incumbents in red and purple districts could lose. The most Republican-voting assholes among Democrats in Congress, Blue Dogs Anthony Brindisi (NY) and Ben McAdams (UT), have both said they won't vote for Bernie. Neither, however, votes for virtually anything that's important to Democratic voters. So why should anyone care if they lose their seats? It's arguable that the Democratic Party will be much better off without members in Congress like Brindisi and McAdams, especially if they can pick up actual Democrats in other GOP-held districts, like, for example, Kara Eastman in Nebraska, Mike Siegel in Texas, Jon Hoadley in Michigan,  Jennifer Christie in Indiana, Tom Winter in Montana, Chris Armitage in Washington, Liam O'Mara in California, J.D. Scholten in Iowa...

Progressives in the House tell me that Brindisi is the worst Democrat in Congress and they all actually hope he's defeated just so that they won't gave to hear him constantly whining about how anything they try to do for the American people will cause him to lose his re-election battle. One senior Democrat told me he had never hoped for a colleague to lose before, but "I'd rather see a Republican in that seat than Brindisi. He's the worst lily-livered excuse for a Democrat I've ever seen." Meanwhile McAdams openly boasted that if Bernie or Elizabeth Warren wins the nomination he would distance himself from them. "My ideas are different than theirs," he said. "So as long as people understand that I’m going to be independent of any candidate and really be true to my district, I think that’s most important." But he isn't true to his district-- not at all. There are 4 counties or parts of counties that make up his district (UT-04). Salt Lake County has 5 times the number of voters than the other 3 combined. Here's how they voted in the 2016 Democratic caucuses, when Bernie was up against the status quo conservative Democrat McAdams backed:

• Salt Lake- Bernie 78.8%
• Utah- 85.3%
• Sanpete- Bernie 84.9%
• Juab- Bernie 77.5%

Yeah, so... so much for this lying sack of excrement being true to his constituents or his district, unless he's talking about the Republicans in his district. His district wants change and Biden is the no-change candidate. In 2016, they voted so overwhelmingly for Bernie because Bernie was-- and still is-- the change candidate. McAdams is a liar, trying to justify being so outrageously out of step with Democrats and independents in Utah.

OK, back to that report from Mike Debonis and Michael Scherer in The Post about the establishment's newest gambit to derail the working class champion. (If you don't want to read it, just approach Joy Reid if you dare; she's got a sickening version of it on infinite replay.) Debonis and Scherer wrote that "many Democratic House and Senate candidates are approaching a dramatic shift in their campaigns, as they recalibrate to include praise of capitalism and distance themselves from the national party. Top campaign strategists from both parties view Sanders’s success as a potentially tectonic event, which could narrow the party’s already slim hopes of retaking the Senate majority and fuel GOP dreams of reclaiming the House, which it lost amid a Democratic romp in 2018."

The most obvious people to go to to bolster this talking point would be representatives of Team Hillary and-- where that differs at all-- to the Republican wing of the party, like Rahm Emanuel. They went to one of Rahm's would-be clones. "I can tell you that there are a lot of down-ballot jitters based on my conversations with my former colleagues," said Steve Israel," who led the DCCC through some of its biggest losses in contemporary party history. He was kind enough to validate some GOP propaganda for them: "Trump is going to offer the American people this choice: Do you want to continue building the economy or do you want to lurch toward socialism? And that is a real powerful argument in the Democratic districts that Trump won in 2016."

Internal polling and analytics completed last week by former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg’s campaign projected that Sanders may be the only presidential candidate to win delegates in every state and district on March 3, delivering him a lead of 350 to 400 out of 1,357 delegates set to be awarded unless race dynamics change, according to a person familiar with the data who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak publicly.

Because of Democratic rules that give no delegates to candidates who scores less than 15 percent of the vote in a state or congressional district, Sanders could build a delegate lead far greater than his advantage in the popular vote.

If Democrats are awakening to a recognition that Sanders could pull away from the rest of the field, there is far less consensus about whether his nomination will help President Trump win reelection. Sanders’s power to turn out young and blue-collar voters or suburbanites is not fully tested, the ceiling of Trump’s support is poorly defined in a two-way race and the senator from Vermont has not yet been subjected to a negative paid advertising effort.

“Our data shows that all of our potential nominees, including Sanders, have a pathway to victory, but it isn’t guaranteed,” said Guy Cecil, chairman of Priorities USA, a Democratic super PAC that has polled heavily in the key presidential swing states. “This election will be close regardless of who we nominate.”

But there is far less flexibility for candidates in smaller districts. That has prompted Republicans to celebrate as they look to reclaim ground they lost in 2018 when largely affluent suburbs rebelled against the GOP in a protest of Trump.

“The Democrats’ embrace of socialism is going to cost them their majority-- I mean, it’s as simple as that,” said Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “Bernie is about as good a contrast as we could have ever hoped for.”

Bear in mind that Tom Emmer-- and the economic royalists inside the Democratic Party-- are repeating, virtually word for word, what the conservatives said about FDR, who they also-- unflinchingly and 4 two decades-- labeled a Socialist!!!!! I might remind you that, in every possible way, Michael Bloomberg is the perfect antithesis of Franklin Roosevelt. This is what happened when the conservatives, in some cases of both parties, went to the voters with the Socialism!!!! message against FDR and the Democratic Party:

1932

• Presidential popular vote- FDR wins 22,821,277 (57.4%) to 15,761,254 (39.7%)
• electoral vote 472 to 59 (GOP carried 6 states)
• Senate- 58-37 (GOP lost 11 seats)
• House- 313-117 (GOP lost 101 seats)

1936

• Presidential popular vote- FDR wins 27,747,636 (60.8%) to 16,679,543 (36.5%)
• electoral vote 523 to 8 (GOP carried 2 states)
• Senate- 74-17 (GOP lost 5 seats)
• House- 334-88 (GOP lost 15 seats)

1940-- when the VP nominee was an actual Socialist

• Presidential popular vote- FDR wins 27,313,945 (54.7%) to 22,347,744 (44.8%)
• electoral vote 449 to 82 (GOP carried 10 states)
• Senate- 66-27 (Dems lost 2 seats)
• House- 267-162 (GOP lost 7 seats)

1944

• Presidential popular vote- FDR wins 25,612,916 (53.4%) to 22,017,929 (45.9%)
• electoral vote 432 to 99 (GOP carried 12 states)
• Senate- 58-37 (no net change)
• House- 242-191 (GOP lost 18 seats)

Alan Grayson (D-FL) is taking a time-out from Congress. I spoke with him yesterday and he told me that "In every election cycle for many years now, the GOP tries to play mind games with Democrats to turn them against their own leaders, whom the GOP says are never 'moderate' enough to win-- except when they do. And whenever those Democratic leaders actually are progressive, the GOP finds willing co-conspirators in that mind-game among right-wing Democrats. The term 'unelectable' is simply a weapon that right-wing Democrats deploy against progressives, time after time after time. You could make a good argument that Trump actually is further to the right than Bernie is to the left. Where, oh where, are the 'moderate' GOP politicos, wringing their hands over that? Why is it that when Bernie says something lefty, he’s called a socialist, and when Trump does something racist or crazy or just stupid, he’s 'motivating his base?'"





I asked a few members of Congress and some candidates for Congress how they see this dynamic themselves. I started with Los Angeles' liberal lion, Ted Lieu, who endorsed Kamala Harris with whom he had worked closely on several of his legislative priorities both in Sacramento and in Washington. He hasn't endorsed anyone since she withdrew and told me that he will support whoever wins the Democratic nomination. He added that he also noted "that the conventional wisdom of Washington insiders was wrong about Obama, wrong about Trump and currently contradicted by the actual voter data when it comes to Sanders. For 5 years the polls have shown Sanders beats Trump in head to head matchups. And in a recent Emerson poll this month, it shows Sanders was the only Democratic candidate to beat Trump in a head to head matchup. The notion that in November a voter will turn out and vote for Sanders and then somehow vote for the down ballot GOP congressional candidate is simply not supported by the data."

Tom Suozzi is a New Dem from Long Island, a serious legislator with serious ideas about how to serve his constituents. We don't agree on issues as much as Ted Lieu and I do but we do agree about the whole party coming together after Bernie is the nominee. Tom endorsed one of the other presidential candidates but told me yesterday that "A big problem in America today is that too many people view their fellow Americans with contempt. It is ok to disagree and disagree strongly, but contempt will destroy us. Just because you don’t agree with someone in their choice of candidate or their position on a particular issue, it does not mean it is ok to view them with contempt. If we are to defeat Donald Trump, we need everyone from Bernie and AOC, all the way to Bloomberg and Biden and everyone in between. If we can’t hold that coalition together, we lose. Campaigns are tough, and candidates and their surrogates play to win, but everyone must recognize that when the dust settles, we need to unite behind the winner, even if it wasn’t your first choice. If we don’t, then Trump wins again." I have no doubt that Tom Suozzi will be enthusiastically introducing Bernie to his constituents when Bernie visits Huntington and Hicksville next fall.

Tomas Ramos, a Bronx-based Berniecrat who is campaigning for an open congressional seat on the same set of issues Bernie is campaigning on, told me last night that "The notion that if Bernie is at the top of the ticket we lose Congress is simply not true. Bernie created a movement the first time around and now the movement has only gotten bigger, with young and old people alike. When I’m out door knocking I ask my voters who are they supporting for president, the common answer is Bernie. People are more excited for Bernie than ever before. The voters in my district know that we need to beat Trump and they know that Bernie is the guy to do so."

Liam O'Mara, a history professor taking on Trumpist Rep. Ken Calvert in Riverside County, California, pointed out that "Democrats have struggled to hold onto congressional majorities, but one key reason for that is their tepid stances on the issues, their frequent preference for right-wing economics, and their refusal to push for policies which are broadly popular. Congress often has an approval rating in the single digits. The drift to the right since the late 1980s has been a demonstrable failure. We have lost most statehouses and most presidential elections, and struggled to hold onto either chamber of Congress. Something has to give. The way forward for Democrats is to embrace progressivism. This isn't the 1970s-- the country has caught up with the progressive agenda on a wide range of issues. Most Americans oppose corporate money's control of our elections. Most Americans support single-payer health care. Most Americans oppose our interventionist foreign policy and our many wars. Most Americans accept the consensus on global warming and want serious action. Most Americans distrust the bankers who keep crashing our economy, and the neoliberal trade deals that have undermined workers, and want better oversight. The list goes on and on. Sanders is doing well because people are tired of the same old message. He is bringing new people into the political process, talking about issues that affect most of our lives, and he's been winning over independents and even conservatives. If Democrats really want to control Congress and the White House, there is a path to both available. I can tell you that in my own race, running a respectful campaign which will talk to anyone and focusses on policy rather than partisanship has been resonating. It is something we should see more of in this country, not less.

Milwaukie Mayor Mark Gamba, running for the Oregon seat held by Blue Dog Kurt Schrader, who agrees with Republicans on crucial issues more than with Democrats. " Look, people get all caught up in a variety of complicated theories about what some candidate will or won't do to down ticket races," Gamba told me yesterday. "I think it's much more simple than that. The vast majority of the American people have been getting screwed by neo-liberal, profits first, policies enacted by both Republicans and 'centerist' Democrats for over 40 years. For simplicity's sake, let's call that the status-quo. In 2016 they were desperate for that to change. They still are. Trump has proven himself to be even more blatant about screwing everyone but the 1%. The way we bring out an excited electorate is to offer them real solutions to their problems-- Sanders offers that. So do about 100 people running tough races against incumbent members of the status-quo all over America. What the talking heads are truly frightened of, is Sanders AND an army of like-minded people getting elected and enacting real change that supports the 99%, taxes the bloody rich for a change, stops climate chaos and reduces the constant misery for a few hundred million Americans. So we will continue to see all kinds of half assed theories telling us why electing Sanders will doom us all. Never forget that the talking heads and the media conglomerates they work for are all part of the 1%.

Kim Williams is the Central Valley progressive running for the seat occupied by Blue Dog Jim Costa. "Since last summer," she explained, "I’ve knocked on thousands of doors. I’ve heard people’s stories, shook their hands, and listened to their dreams for their children. None of these conversations align with the establishment’s understanding of America. One hundred and forty million Americans have been left behind. They don’t see themselves in the booming economy and they don’t see themselves in the national news. Sanders is the only candidate that acknowledges the very real challenges people face and actually offers solutions. It’s absurd to keep attacking him on his electability when he keeps winning, and it’s ridiculous to suggest that he’s never really been attacked when the media has been unrelenting in their negative coverage. But while pundits panic over the presidential election, we see something very different on the ground. Being a progressive candidate with a policy platform that aligns with Sanders has been a tremendous asset, not a burden. In fact, if someone wanted to coin a phrase for down-ballot races, I think referring to candidates as “Bernie Democrats” would actually be quite powerful. It immediately conveys policy positions and lets normally disenfranchised voters know you’re on their side. This might shake the establishment, but it energizes the majority. And they will ultimately decide who represents them."

Arizona workers rights champion and progressive candidate for Congress, Eva Putzova, was a Bernie delegate to last cycle's DNC. Today she's running on an Arizona version of that platform. "The assertion that a Sanders nomination wlll result in Democrats losing congressional seats is ridiculous. The opposite is the case," she said. "In my district, the momentum generated by Sanders campaign is already firing up the base of the party-- youth, people of color, women, workers and climate activists, and even moderates who are starting to realize that Sanders is fighting to make their lives better and more secure. From my perspective, and that of my campaign, if Sanders wins the nomination it increases my chances to win the primary in August and the general election in November. I share Rep. Lieu's assessment that voters who turn out for Sanders will not vote for GOP candidates down-ballot. All Democrats, particularly progressive Democrats, will benefit if Sanders is at the top of the ticket."

"In NY-25, the issues that comprise Bernie Sanders’s platform are the ones that most enthuse our Democratic base," said Rochester progressive Robin Wilt. "As I go door-to-door, Bernie’s platform resonates with the voters whom I engage. I want to clarify that when I mention the Democratic base, I’m not talking about the elite Democratic establishment that comprise fewer than 1% of our Democratic electorate. We recently had occasion to histogram the age of the Democratic Committee in the jurisdiction of Brighton, NY, where I serve in town government. Both the mean and the average age were…wait for it… 62 years of age. The Democratic elite are not representative of the registered base of Democrats. They never have been, and they never will be. When we continue to ignore the voice of the overwhelming majority of the electorate, in favor of amplifying the voices of the establishment that increasingly does not resemble the registered base, we risk mistaking the will of party operatives with the will of the people. I was at the rally at Queensbridge Park. I have been canvassing my Congressional District. The masses believe in the future promised by Bernie Sanders, not the cynicism expressed by an increasingly detached party elite."