Political Retaliation: Cuomo Proposes Kicking Third Parties Off the NY Ballot

Zephyr Teachout ran against Andrew Cuomo in 2014. Working Families Party endorsed Cuomo then, but not in 2018.

by Thomas Neuburger

A Very Short Story in Three Short Acts

Act I. Monica Klein tweeted this on April 1, 2020:

"No other state in America has ballot requirements as strict as @NYGovCuomo is proposing.

While some Democrats push for fair & open elections, NY's Gov is kicking 3rd parties off the ballot."

Act II. Klein's tweet was in response to this, from Jimmy Vielkind, also on April 1, 2020:

"Minor parties including the @NYWFP [Working Families Party] have been screaming for days that lawmakers would revive the recommendations (which they loathed) of a commission that increased ballot access requirements.

It’s in one of the #nybudget bills, as, Bill Hammond notes"

Here's what Bill Hammond noted:

Found in the newly amended Transportation and Economic Development bill.

Nothing improves public confidence in the state's democratic process like jamming through major changes to the democratic process in the last-minute budget rush. https://t.co/VaYiyGBlpv pic.twitter.com/86aultx6ju

— Bill Hammond (@NYHammond) April 1, 2020

I guess making it harder to get on the ballot and squashing third parties is all part of improving public confidence in the democratic process. pic.twitter.com/nhbJIHFitj

— Bill Hammond (@NYHammond) April 1, 2020

Act III. Would it surprise you to learn that the WFP endorsed Andrew Cuomo in 2010 and 2014, but not in 2018?

New York politics got a lot more interesting over the weekend. The left-wing Working Families Party (WFP) endorsed Cynthia Nixon in the governor’s race rather than siding with Andrew Cuomo, the powerful incumbent. The WFP’s defection from Cuomo, who the organization supported in 2010 and 2014, means the contest is going to be more competitive than observers originally thought. How it develops over the next six and a half months will reveal fundamental truths about our state’s most powerful interests—and ourselves.

In an effort to minimize the WFP’s endorsement of Cynthia Nixon, two major unions—SEIU 32BJ and the Communications Workers of America—left the organization in protest. Other labor leaders aligned with Cuomo are likely to either follow suit in deed or in action.

Note the retaliation of labor unions "aligned with Cuomo" who started withholding support (and most likely funding as well) from the WFP.

One of Trump's worst qualities is his rapey-ness. It seems the Democrats are offering one of those as well, but the country may not be buying.

Another is retaliation. Is there any question that Andrew Cuomo, if he gets national executive power, will rule with an iron fist?

Will Cuomo be the next Daddy mainstream Democrats offer to voters to "save" them? If so, look out.
 

Why Did The Working Families Party Push Anti-Choice, Anti-LGBTQ, AIPAC-Supported Jumaane Williams On Progressives?

by Patty Murphy


Jumaane Williams, the NYC Councilman with a checkered progressive record is running for his third office this year and appears to have cut a deal with WFP to get there.

You may recall, no electeds were willing to challenge Gov. Cuomo, out of fear of retribution this year. After considerable pushback from its progressive base, some of whom felt the party betrayed them over the years, the Working Families Party split from Cuomo and lost almost all its union funding. WFP backed Cynthia Nixon and Jumaane Williams, even though pro-choice activist and self-described queer, Cynthia Nixon, resisted endorsing Williams until a few weeks before the election (which many speculate is because of his bad record on LGBTQ and choice issues, unaired personal issues, as well as conflicts between the campaigns).

While Cynthia Nixon was tirelessly campaigning across the state-- leaving no communities out of her strategy-- Jumaane Williams never made it to the 2nd largest African American region in NYC (South East Queens), and as a result lost it to a conservative white woman named Kathy Hochul, from Buffalo. Williams is touting his “success” in the LGs race-- a very different race-- as a qualifier for NYC Public Advocate. But the politics are different. Williams was a protest vote. The Public Advocate’s race is made up of at least 7 qualified candidates from NYC, many from his borough of Brooklyn and many who have a much more progressive record than Williams. Furthermore, Williams needs to reach a fundraising threshold in NYC to receive matching funds, and has shown to be a bad fundraiser and takes special interest and corporate money. With actual competition, this makes him a weak candidate. But let's discuss how he’s bad on issues.

Williams is known for showing up in photo opps and at protests when press arrives, but just how progressive is he? And why would WFP put its reputation on the line with a candidate who is verifiably not progressive?

The Deal: WFP cut a deal to support Jumaane Williams in Public Advocate's race in exchange for their own institutional interests. Williams would not get off the WFP line in November, but WFP had made a deal with Governor Cuomo to give him the line for the general election. The only way Williams would get off the line after losing the primary was to have WFPs support in the Public Advocate’s race just a couple weeks later. This is inherently corrupt and undemocratic.

Furthermore, WFP-- a membership organization-- had absolutely no process for candidates. WFP didn't send a questionnaire, they didn't interview, they never told candidates (many who they have worked closely with) when and how they were voting-- despite requests by candidates. They endorsed just over a week after the general election, all behind closed doors with political leadership who have separate motives. Given the issues with Jumaane’s record, it's pretty shocking that they would put themselves out there with such a vulnerable and non-progressive candidate who has a tough race. it is a crowded left field, with at least three African American candidates as of now, 2-3 from Brooklyn alone and unions will either stay out or will be split.

But, more importantly-- this is an Independent nonpartisan special election where parties cannot get involved. If progressives only follow the rules when it doesn’t serve their self interests then we will never be able to build a stronger democracy. It is very clearly against the rules stated in the charter for a political party to work with candidates in this race. And the Campaign Finance Board of NYC is very strict.

WFP has also latched onto progressive groups to use them for field and petitioning, as their funding and own field efforts have suffered severely in recent years. So forced affiliate groups like NYPAN to undemocratically endorse. These groups are being called out for bias and may lose other progressive support.

AIPAC: Just last week, Jumaane Williams went to an AIPAC event, taking pictures with its political director. When called out, Williams’ message was about meeting with everyone. In the photos, he wore a “stay woke” button with his AIPAC badge, against the AIPAC backdrop, with its leadership. At a recent DSA endorsement meeting, his response over AIPAC was stating he has debated Mort Zuckerman on TV.

REAL ESTATE MONEY: Despite promising to not take real estate money in his LGs race, to receive DSA endorsement, Williams not only took over $30,000 from a major real estate developer family, he won’t give it back. When pressed, he says “he doesn’t know who the donors are.” The Ratners are one of the most well known political donors in NYC and developed the Barclays center and pushed for rezoning for major development in the area of Brooklyn. Bruce Ranter is known as a paid-to-play real estate developer. This is a controversial issue-- and a family that has an entire political office devoted to giving donations to politicians in exchange for favors. It’s highly unlikely the Ratners gave money to an anti-Cuomo candidate without cutting a deal with him for something in advance. Which is probably why Jumaane has resisted giving the donations back.

CHOICE & LGBTQ issues: Williams’ personal opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion lost him his first run for City Council Speaker in 2013 and again this year when he ran for Speaker. Receiving LGBTQ groups push back, Williams abstained from a bill in 2014 to allow transgender people to change sex on their birth certificate. In progressive New York City, it is unheard of-- even with Republicans-- to be anti-choice and anti-LGBTQ (whether personal or not).

IRRESPONSIBLE-- 27 SCHOOL ZONE SPEEDING TICKETS IN 5 YEARS: Williams earned 27 speeding tickets in school zones in 5 years, 18 tickets of which were in the last 2 years. He was the only Democrat to vote AGAINST lowering the speed limit in NYC. (As a side note: this is one of the biggest reasons why Republican Sen. Marty Golden lost his Senate seat to Andrew Gounardes-- winning the Democrats control of the NYS Senate.)

CORRUPTION: Williams hired his friend, rapper, Kristofer Bain to work on his council campaign, then in his office. Soon after, Williams sent $60,000 in city funds to a nonprofit Bain left to work for. Bain and Williams also were investors in a restaurant that went under, where taxes are still owed.

BAD LANDLORD, BUT CLAIMS TO BE TENANTS RIGHTS ACTIVIST? Williams claims to be a tenants rights activist but also has evicted many of his tenants for being late on rent or short $300, further unleashing lawyers on the tenants demanding they also pay late fees and legal fees.

URGED AMAZON TO MAKE NYC DEAL: Williams signed a letter inviting Amazon to NYC, but now that he is being called out, he claims it was to "open a conversation” with Amazon. The letter’s language was very clear-- it urged Amazon to move to NYC. Furthermore, beyond his defense, any progressive would understand what Amazon represents and their history of these tax deals in other communities. They’ve driven up homelessness, exploited workers and killed small businesses. Progressives understand this, tax deal or not.

With a record like this, it's baffling why the WFP would line up for Jumaane Williams if it weren't for the political deal they made. If they indeed believed in Jumaane Williams, they wouldn't be lining up the political machine-- including the Brooklyn County Boss, Frank Seddio-- and would be open to having debates and sharing questionnaires.

We regret being duped by the WFP, who attempted to re-invent Jumaane Williams as a progressive when he is just another self-serving politician.

Independent progressives actually have a real choice in Nomiki Konst who has distinguished herself as an advocate for party reform and has taken on special interests and corporations as an investigative reporter. She has the intellectual capacity and the fierce independence from the political machines to truly use the office as a powerful vehicle for progressive change.

Pick A Side: Joe Lieberman Or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Conservatives want members of Congress to look like the mug on the right, never like the young woman on the left

Connecticut Democratic primary voters basically kicked Joe Lieberman out of the party by denying him the 2006 Democratic nomination for the Senate seat he had held since 1994. He ran on the Connecticut for Lieberman Party that year. He would like to see Joe Crowley, who lost the Democratic renomination bid on June 26, do the same thing. Crowley outspent his progressive opponent Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez $1,410,228 to $30,94, but she worked harder and smarter and beat him 15,897 (57.48%) to 11,761 (42.52%). Ever since her inspiring victory over an avatar of the grotesquely corrupt status quo establishment, the grotesquely corrupt status quo establishment and their media lapdogs have gone on the attack against her and other progressive reformers working to displace other incumbents associated with the grotesquely corrupt status quo establishment. So, no one should be surprised that Joe Lieberman, now a lobbyist working for the ultimate grotesquely corrupt status quo establishment law firm, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, who's best known client is... Don the Con, the illegitimate "president." Lieberman is also the co-chair of the American Internationalism Project, part of the far right American Enterprise Institute.

Lieberman represents a very special kind of bipartisanship-- the opposite of the kind of bipartisanship practiced by legislators like Alan Grayson, Pramila Jayapal, Ted Lieu and Karen Bass (entailing working across the aisle to find issues that both parties can support for the good of their constituents)-- and instead can be defined as selling out your own party's values and principles and embracing those of the other party. That, in fact, sums up Joe Lieberman's entire political career. Example: while actual Democrats were trying to stop the confirmation of anti-education extremist Betsy DeVos of Secretary of Education, it was Lieberman who introduced her to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension committee. A high ranking staffer for one of the committee members-- hint: not Doug Jones (D-AL)-- told me that members were revolted when Lieberman came into their offices and even more revolted when Trump announced he was likely to replace James Comey as FBI Director with Lieberman.

No one was surprised when Lieberman, writing for the conservative Wall Street Journal-- of which Grason quipped, "the Wall Street Journal: you can always tell whom they fear by whom they smear"-- a couple of days ago went on a vicious, McCarthyite attack against Ocasio-Cortez. "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hurts the party, Congress and even America," he wrote. What he meant by "the party" isn't open to the reader's interpretation, although it should be since the Democratic Party now has the most inspiring weapon in politics since Bernie Sanders-- something that petrifies both of the grotesquely corrupt status quo establishment parties. Lieberman, 76 and... tired, defines the grotesquely corrupt status quo establishment as "the mainstream," so he isn't reaching when he writes that "Ocasio-Cortez advocates [policies] so far from the mainstream, her election in November would make it harder for Congress to stop fighting and start fixing problems." He didn't acknowledge the dysfunctional state of Congress today, not the role Joe Crowley-- not to mention his own decades-long role-- has played in that dysfunction.

He then went on to try to make a case for Crowley doing what he did-- running as an independent in the general. "On Election Day, his name will be on the ballot as the endorsed candidate of the Working Families Party. But for Mr. Crowley to have a chance at getting re-elected, he will have to decide if he wants to remain an active candidate. I hope he does." The Working Families Party" has pleaded with him not to further disgrace them by running against Ocasio-Cortez. The heart of Lieberman's OpEd, was his attack on policies that benefit anyone other than the grotesquely corrupt status quo establishment. Keep in mind, Lieberman was one of the most anti-Bernie "Democrats" in the country during the 2016 election cycle. Here he was on Fox News:

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a proud member of the Democratic Socialists of America, whose platform, like hers, is more Socialist than Democratic. Her dreams of new federal spending would bankrupt the country [wrong] or require very large tax increases [wrong], including on the working class [wrong]. Her approach foresees government ownership of many private companies, which would decimate the economy and put millions out of work.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez didn’t speak much about foreign policy during the primary, but when she did, it was from the DSA policy book-- meaning support for socialist governments, even if they are dictatorial and corrupt (Venezuela), opposition to American leadership in the world, even to alleviate humanitarian disasters (Syria), and reflexive criticism of one of America’s great democratic allies (Israel).

She has received the most attention for calling to “Abolish ICE,” Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This makes no sense unless you no longer want any rules on immigration or customs to be enforced. I have not heard anyone say that. Nonetheless, at least three credible candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination rushed to endorse Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s position.

Republicans are calling Ms. Ocasio-Cortez the “new face” of the Democratic Party. That’s why Nancy Pelosi has tried to put distance between Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and House Democrats. “They made a choice in one district,” Mrs. Pelosi said. “It is not to be viewed as something that stands for anything else.” She knows that if Democrats are to regain a majority, it will be by winning swing districts with sensible, mainstream candidates. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is making that task harder across America.

Joe Crowley’s re-election would be evidence that Democrats are capable of governing again. His voting record shows that Mr. Crowley is a progressive [laughably wrong]. I know him as a bridge builder and problem solver, which is exactly what Congress needs more of in both parties.

Crowley has refused to remove his name from the Working Families Party ballot slot, despite the Working Families Party asking him to. We asked some of the Blue America-endorsed candidates for their perspectives on this. First to respond was Tom Guild who is running on very similar all-American, working family issues that Ocasio ran on-- in Oklahoma City. They work as well among voters there than they work in the Bronx and Queens. "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a breath of fresh air," he told me. "She prevailed against big money and is not responsible for the problems that others have created-- paralysis, placing our democracy at risk by coveting and hoarding big donor money, and selling out working people and the middle class by doing the bidding of the modern moneychangers in the American political temple. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Crowley is the same old, same old and a charter member of the DC Swamp. Progressive change will make things better for people who are struggling to survive and throw the corrupt moneychangers out of the temple. Alexandria beat the tired and failed political establishment playing by their rules, and may be able (with a little help from her friends) to shake up Washington and get the country moving in a positive direction. Experience makes it crystal clear that for many years Lieberman and Crowley made a functioning national government dysfunctional. Why would we want to go back to that future?

Kansas Democrat James Thompson made an addition after the post was completed: "My first thought is who cares what Lieberman thinks? He is a corporate crony owned by the establishment in both parties. If Ocasio is the breath of fresh air then Lieberman is the dying breath of a decaying establishment that can’t see past its next Corporate PAC endorsement." And then there's this nice video, nice message from the Sanders Institute. I bet you can guess why we're running it here, right?

Randy Bryce-- On The Environmental Challenges That Face Us All

Let me put the bullshit smear about Randy Bryce favoring tar sands to bed right here and now. A political operative being paid to smear Bryce in progressive circles-- something that helps no one but Ryan-- has been running around making up stories about how he was pro-tar sands pipeline and basing it on "his union was for it and he's for his union, so therefor..." The assertions didn't jibe with Randy's very vocal backing for Bernie in Wisconsin, even after his union endorsed and started working for Hillary, nor did it fit in with discussions I've had with Randy before he declared his candidacy for Paul Ryan's congressional seat. His dedication to clean energy and to an environmental agenda to fight global warming, precluded backing tar sands pipelines. Endorsements by Blue America, the Working Families Party and DFA don't go to pro-tar sands candidates.

According to a statement to DWT from Working Families Party's Wisconsin Director, Marina Dimitrijevic:

We take our candidate vetting process seriously, and especially for high office. When Randy was considering getting into the race, climate was one of many topics we covered. He's firm in his opposition to the construction of dirty energy pipelines. He also wrote in his endorsement questionnaire in support of transitioning to 100% renewable energy by 2050. Who could be a better messenger to make the case for clean energy jobs instead of dirty pipeline jobs than someone like Randy?

Randy is the real deal. We don't endorse in every race, but we do when we see someone who shares our values so whole-heartedly and can win. Randy is not just any candidate. He has been involved in the Wisconsin WFP since we launched. I don't know many federal candidates who have been actively involved in building the institutions of the progressive movement than Randy.

Beating Paul Ryan is going to be an uphill battle. He'll have all the money in the world from every polluter, banker, union buster, and every other corporate interest. Our early endorsement helps make sure we have the time to build the kind of massive organization that will it will take to rival all that money.

The first time I talked to Randy about it he told me, simply that he'd "turned down 100K working in Canada on the tar sands while I was collecting unemployment because I didn’t want to make money by contributing to the project." Last night he gave me a more formal statement:

Combatting Climate change is one of my top priorities and it will be a major focus for me as a member of Congress from southeast Wisconsin. Along with that, we must immediately reduce our reliance on fossil fuels by investing in clean, renewable energy. We can create millions good-paying jobs by transitioning to a clean energy economy in which windmill and solar panel construction, installation, and maintenance employ my brothers and sisters in the labor movement.

Transporting fossil fuel presents a critical, and immediate environmental danger, whether by pipeline, ship, rail, or road. We need to have strong federal standards and protections to ensure that our natural resources and public health are protected. I do not trust that the CEO’s and corporate boards care about these matters, and as a member of Congress I will be on the side of our communities when a potential hazard is identified.

I have specific concerns about alternative dirty energy projects which are becoming all too popular. For example, tar sands are an especially dirty form of oil that are all too often categorized as clean by the entities looking to profit at the expense of our health and safety. As an ironworker, I was once offered the opportunity to work on one of these tar sands projects and immediately turned it down. My first concern is always the ability to take care of my family, and I need work to do so. However, I was taught to have courage in my convictions and in order to do so-- and to set a good example for my son-- I turned down this opportunity.

I am extremely concerned about the environmental impact of fracking, which reports suggest are now causing earthquakes and contaminating ground water. I’m deeply concerned that this dirty process-- and similar dirty processes-- disrespect and deny protections to indigenous nations. We must protect treaty rights and the rights of indigenous nations as we work together to build a bigger table, at which we can all succeed.

Let’s be honest, folks running for political office all too often say the right thing and then go to the capitol and carry out the wishes of the fat cats. As I’ve told folks every day on this campaign, I pledge to not take campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry-- their executives or their political action committees. I will hold true to this as candidate for Congress, and as a Congressman, after we repeal and replace Paul Ryan, who benefits from the greed and profits of big oil and the fossil fuel industry.

Jan Schakowsky's Illinois district is very close to WI-01. In fact it was Jan who proposed the Congressional Progressive Caucus endorse Randy (which it did-- unanimously). She's known to usually favor female candidates but at a meet and greet for Randy in DC this week, she was practically in tears introducing him. "The residents of Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District deserve a representative that will show up and fight for them. As a veteran, ironworker, and cancer survivor, Randy Bryce understands the challenges Wisconsinites face daily. His sleeves are rolled up and ready to work.”

Yesterday Ruben Gallego, a progressive Democrat from Phoenix also spoke up for him: "I am excited to endorse Randy Bryce for Wisconsin's first Congressional District against Speaker Paul Ryan. Randy comes from a working class background and has served his country. As a fellow veteran, I know Randy has the training, toughness, and hard work mentality to fight for the people in Wisconsin. His leadership and values are needed in Congress more, now than ever."

Warning To Establishment Democrats-- Working Families Party Triumphs In Connecticut House Race

Something very nice happened in Hartford, Connecticut Tuesday. There was a special election for an open state House seat from which the Democrat, Douglas McCrory, had resigned after winning a state Senate seat. And the winner-- in an overwhelmingly Democratic city-- was not the candidate endorsed by the Democratic Establishment, but a Working Families Party progressive candidate, Joshua Hall, a vice president of the Hartford Federation of Teachers and former treasurer of the state Democratic Party.

The Hartford race had the flavor of a Democratic primary, pitting Hall against Rickey Pinckney Sr., the Democratic-endorsed candidate, and a petitioning candidate, former Rep. Kenneth P. Green, D-Hartford. Hall is only the second candidate to win a Connecticut legislative seat as an WFP candidate, the first in the House.

A registered Democrat, Hall said he will be a member of the House Democratic majority. Edwin A. Gomes of Bridgeport, who won a special election to the Senate on the WFP line in 2015, is a member of the Senate Democratic caucus... Unofficial results showed Hall with 625 votes to 512 for Pinckney and 367 for Green.

“The thing for me is to make sure the state budget isn’t balanced on the backs of working families,” Hall said. “I think that’s the most critical. thing, not compromsing anything with regard to that.”

Hall had a narrow lead until the returns came in at 9 p.m. from the Rawson School in Blue Hills, a middle-class neighborhood in the city’s predominantly black North End, and cheers erupted at the WFP headquarters.

“Joshua Hall’s victory comes at a time when more strong, progressive leaders are sorely needed in Hartford and in our state,” said Lindsay Farrell, the executive director of the WFP. “The city is in fiscal crisis and without state help, Hartford residents will be hurt by deep cuts, the effects of which will resonate across the region.”

The Hartford race exposed tensions between Democrats and the Working Families Party, a labor offshoot that fashions itself as the progressive conscience of Connecticut politics.

Pinckney’s campaign, which had the support of city and state Democratic leaders, hit Hall with a mailer questioning his Democratic bonafides in a city with an all-Democratic legislative delegation.

“Working Families Party? Not on our watch,” said the mailer. “There are only 26 registered Working Families members in our district. Only 26. Don’t let them steal our seat.”

Normally the Working Families Party just endorses Democrats, sometimes really unsavory corrupt conservatives, but has been veering in a far more progressive and proactive direction in the last few years.

The Working Families Party makes little effort to enroll party members. With rare exceptions, it has existed to push and prod Democrats, rewarding allies with cross-endorsements in general elections, backing progressives in Democratic primaries and, as is the case in the Hartford special election, occasionally directly opposing a Democratic nominee it finds wanting.

“Ultimately, we are an independent organization,” said Lindsay Farrell, the executive director of the WFP. “We feel, when the Democratic Party has gotten it wrong, we’ll do our own thing. This is one of those times. I can’t speak to whether or not that’s going to hurt our relationship. It’s up to them whether that hurts our relationship. That’s up to them.”

Questioning the Democratic bonafides of Hall is misleading, she said, given that all three candidates are registered Democrats who would be a member of the House Democratic caucus. Sen. Edwin A. Gomes, D-Bridgeport, won a special election on the WFP line, then resumed life as a Democrat in good standing.

...“Democrats don’t own the seat. The voters own the seat,” Farrell said of the Hartford race. “The voters are allowed to make a choice about issues and the qualifications of the candidates.

Marc DiBella, the city’s Democratic chairman, said the WFP should not be surprised when Democrats defend their nominee as the only Democratic Party-backed candidate in the race. He said the mailer was accurate and reflects some of the frustration Democrats feel toward the Working Families.

They stress their Democratic relationships when it suits them, as it does in solidly Democratic Hartford, he said.

“They want to have their cake and eat it, too. There is that frustration. ‘You get to have it both ways,’ ” DiBella said. “There is some bad blood between the Working Families Party and the Democratic Party in Hartford-- and some other places.”

The WFP and its labor backers opposed the budget deal crafted last year by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and the legislature’s Democratic majority, who opted for spending cuts, including the elimination of jobs, instead of raising taxes on the wealthy as sought by labor and the WFP.

The Working Families targeted House Speaker J. Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden, backing a liberal challenger for the Democratic nomination, Joshua Elliott. Sharkey ultimately didn’t seek re-election in 2016, sparing Democrats and the WFP a high-profile battle at a time when fractures are evident in the House Democratic caucus on the topic of taxes and spending.

Last year, Lori Pelletier, the president of the Connecticut AFL-CIO, also urged union members to boycott the Democrats’ annual fundraising dinner to protest the budget, and she led a demonstration outside the event. Pelletier later was snubbed when she sought a seat as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

Nick Balletto, the Democratic state chairman, recently acknowledged in an interview with CT Mirror that he refuses to recommend consultants who work on WFP campaigns to be hired by Democratic candidates.

Six years ago, the Working Families played a key role in electing Malloy, who supported the WFP’s call for a paid sick days law. The party organized for Malloy and gave him its cross endorsement.

Without the 26,308 votes cast for Malloy on the WFP line, the Democrat lost by nearly 20,000 votes to Republican Tom Foley. With those votes, Malloy won by 6,404 votes out of 1.1 million cast, the narrowest gubernatorial victory in Connecticut in 56 years.

Malloy delivered on his promise to pass a paid sick days law and also won passage of a $10.10 minimum wage, but he and the WFP have since parted ways over taxes.

To pass a budget this year, Democrats can ill-afford disunity. The Senate is evenly split, meaning Democrats’ only edge is the ability of Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman to break ties as the presiding officer. The new House speaker, Joe Aresimowicz of Berlin, has the smallest working majority in the history of the House.

Democrats have a 78-71 advantage, with two vacancies. After two special elections Tuesday, the margin is likely to return to 79-72, the results of the November election. In a chamber where 76 votes is a majority, Aresimowicz can afford only three defections on the budget.

And this...

"Party Unity" Is Just A Term To Make Progressives Support Establishment Crooks-- Rhode Island Edition

Back in September we introduced an unlikely primary winner, when progressive grassroots Democrat Marcia Ranglin-Vassell beat the entrenched Rhode Island House Majority Leader John DeSimone, an anti-Choice conservative with a miserable environmental record, a failing grade from the ACLU and an NRA-friendly record on guns. He's been in the legislature since 1992. Since the district is solidy blue, we figured the primary told the whole story and that the race was over. We were wrong.

Sore loser DeSimone can't believe he was beaten... let alone beaten by, as he put it so dismissively, "some woman from Jamaica." And with no money. He's flipping out and is running a write-in campaign against her now. Rhode Island's Working Families Party is trying to rally voters for her but DeSimone has a big name in that district. As they put it this week in a message to their followers:

DeSimone’s outrage is just another example of voters deciding they want progressive change, and politicians ingrained in establishment politics fighting against them.

Marcia won the primary because, as she put it, "This election was about a choice: Do you want to stay in the past 24 years, or do you want to move to the future? And they sided with me."

We support Marcia because she’s committed to making progressive change across the United States, like fighting for a $15 minimum wage, giving more funding to public education, and implementing sensible gun violence prevention measures. Marcia has seen these issues affect her community firsthand and has promised to fight for making the lives of the people in her district better.

We need more people like Marcia in office-- people who will advocate for fundamental human rights, opportunity, and safety. Marcia needs our support right now in this tight race and last minute funding could make all the difference.

Please consider a last minute contribution to Marcia's campaign tonight by tapping on the thermometer on the right. This one's all about building a progressive base inside the stinking, corruptly-led Democratic Party. Marcia told the media last month that she "ran for State Representative because for too long we've had politicians who only help themselves and their well-connected friends. I believe we need a government that actually fights for all of us. The voters spoke in September and made it clear they want change. I'm disappointed that John is ignoring their will but I will run my campaign on the issues that defined the primary: the need to raise our minimum wage to $15 an hour so families can provide for themselves, the need for ethical oversight of our government to fight corruption and restore trust, and the need to implement common-sense gun reform to help make our streets safe and to protect our children..."

A Guest Post From Jesse Myerson: The Political Revolution: Where From Here?

Beyond Bernie, What?

Since mid-April, when Hillary Clinton handily won the New York primary, variations on that question have animated discussions all over the country among activists, Sen. Sanders’ detractors as well as his supporters, who recognize that his run’s successes present an opportunity. Attending that opportunity, however, comes a burden. The political terrain opened up by social movements over the last five years demands the formation of a politicized constituency to inhabit it, and the Sanders campaign hinted at such a project’s near-term viability.

Developing a strategy for electing a socialist government is now an urgent matter.

Not that implementing that strategy should take priority. Any chance the left has of obtaining power is premised foremost on groundwork that must continue to be done outside the electoral sphere: labor and community organizing, base-building, political education, mass spectacle, direct action, grassroots leadership development, and so forth. Even if the left were to achieve electoral success, it would be fleeting and unsustainable, if we’d abandoned political groundwork to attain it.

Still, the reverse is also true: we risk losing the political ground we’ve been gaining if we don’t undertake an effort to populate it. Unfortunately, existing institutional avenues for achieving left electoral success are woefully deficient.

The Problem with Socialist Parties

In Parliamentary systems that operate on the principle of proportional representation, the leftist electoral strategy is simple: join or start a party and campaign on its line. If you only manage to get 2% of the vote, you are awarded 2% of the representation. If you get a plurality of the vote, you get to try to form a government.

A First-Past-The-Post system like ours strongly discourages this approach. Here, whoever wins an election, whether in a squeaker or a blowout, gets 100% of the representation. No representation whatsoever is awarded a loser, whether their campaign mobilized no voters or 49.9% of them.

In certain races in leftist pockets of the country, such as Socialist Alternative member Kshama Sawant’s Seattle City Council district, a leftist party may be able to pull a majority, and in such cases it should. Scaling up to national or even statewide races, though, it runs a risk that parties in a Parliamentary system don’t have to worry about: throwing the election to the right. If Socialist Alternative were to increase its share of the vote and begin running in more ideologically diverse electorates, the likely result would be increasing right wing majorities in government. The electoral odds confronting third parties do not generally admit of present success in gubernatorial, senatorial or presidential contests.

For organizer Waleed Shahid, the impediment posed by the winner-take-all approach is counteracted by an advantage US parties have over their Parliamentary counterparts. Whereas in proportional representation systems “parties develop candidate-lists up and down the ballot from school board to parliament,” here “candidates can theoretically gather the required number of signatures on an official party form and be placed on a ballot in a primary election.” An insurgent faction of “Sanders Democrats” could take on the party elite, leaving the Democratic Party to serve “a purely administrative function to foster electoral functions of the state, rather than a programmatic or disciplinary role.”

It is tempting to consider this option in the wake of Donald Trump’s populist conquest of the majority of the Republican establishment, its prominent politicians and major institutional constituents. What is a US political party anyhow, Trump’s success challenges us to ask, but a group of people who can be defeated through collective action?

Shahid proposes a new “party” which takes the form of a faction within the Democratic Party, like a left Tea Party. Such a form might maintain “its own accountability mechanisms, membership models, and decision making structures” without sacrificing “the existing tools of the major party’s administrative machinery: primaries, ballot access, petitions, conventions, and the party line vote used by an increasing number of voters.”

Not everyone is on board with this strategy.

The Problem with the Democratic Party

Shortly after the New Hampshire primary, Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow, made a peculiar political endorsement. She forcefully condemned Hillary Clinton, but declined to endorse Bernie Sanders, preferring instead to endorse the idea of a political revolution. Why promote a candidate’s catchphrase and not the candidate himself? Because of his ballot line: “it would be easier,” according to Alexander, “to build a new party than to save the Democratic Party from itself.”

Paul Heidelman, a proponent of the strategy of splitting completely from the Democratic Party, invites us to consider the socialist effort in the 1960s-70s at party realignment. Bayard Rustin, Michael Harrington and others advanced a strategy of expelling the Dixiecrat faction of the New Deal coalition, thinking this would liberate the Democratic Party to pursue social democracy. In the end, though they managed to shed the South, the Democrats did not become more socialist.

In predicting otherwise, Heidelman argues, Rustin and Harrington ignored the essential core of the Democratic Party: its funding base. Since the Great Depression, the Democratic coalition included those segments of the capitalist class most easily able to absorb the tighter labor markets the New Deal sought: capital-intensive and multi-national firms, like oil companies and international commercial banks. These interests were only induced to go along with the program because the alternative seemed to be mass insurgency, courtesy of a militant labor movement. When, a generation later, the oil sector threatened to abandon the Democratic Party, the counter-threat of working-class insurgency had dwindled, setting the stage for the the Carter Administration’s energetic pivot rightward, toward deregulation, austerity, and militarism.

Even if Sanders had been elected President, he would still be the titular head of a party whose major funding centers, and therefore whose major politicians, would be hostile to his agenda. The Sanders campaign’s small-dollar fundraising success was a marvel to behold, but normal Democrats don’t put up those numbers, so the party is, for the moment, still beholden to its moneyed interests. “Should he become president,” wrote Alexander, “he would also become part of what he has otherwise derided as ‘the establishment.’” Indeed, as tantalizing as Trump’s example of party-conquest may be, his prospects of advancing his agenda through a ruling coalition remain dubious.

There is also a more mundane reason for the left to want distance from the Democratic Party than its unreliability as a champion of working class interests: it is bedeviled by deep unpopularity. The latest from Gallup indicates that although the Party’s favorability rating has risen “slightly” since its historic low of 36% in November 2014, “both parties remain unpopular relative to their historical performance.” It is sensible to suppose that the unusually high degree to which Sanders is not a Democrat boosted his Democratic candidacy.

In the interest of its program and its political prospects, the left should seek a greater degree of independence from the Democrats than Shahid’s Progressive-Caucus-but-better offers.

The Problem with the Working Families Party

The Working Families Party is supposed to provide just such a vehicle. To be sure, it is the best attempt we currently have at operating within-and-without the Democratic Party. Through its shrewd use of fusion voting, WFP became a major force in New York politics and has expanded to nine states and is implementing a “pipeline project” to make politicians of grassroots leaders. However, as Shahid, a WFP organizer, writes, “Neither the WFP nor a prior, important effort to similarly challenge the two-party system --  Rebuild the Dream--  have generated the kind of momentum and mass participation of the Tea Party.”

For obvious reasons, the burden cannot fall to Shahid to give an account of why this should be.

As recently as 2013, the WFP was showing signs of powerful ascendency. A wave election swept Bill de Blasio and other WFP-nurtured politicians into office in New York City, defeating a powerful business-friendly Democrat who early on was considered the inevitable victor. The New York Times declared “A New Era for Progressives.” Here was a model capable of electing governments farther left than normal Democrats.

But only a year later, the model collapsed. For months leading up to its 2014 convention, the WFP searched for a viable progressive challenger to Andrew Cuomo. The Governor was a perfect WFP Primary election target, despised by liberals not only for his plutocrat-friendly policies but his tacit support for throwing the Senate to the Republicans, via the “Independent Democratic Conference”-- a group of four State Senators who, elected as Democrats, promptly turned coat.

At last, shortly before the convention, a solid candidate emerged in the figure of anti-monopoly law professor Zephyr Teachout, now a candidate for Congress. Despite the raucous ovations she garnered at from grassroots members at the convention, the party endorsed Cuomo, upon the prevailing of the executive leadership of the state’s largest union, 1199SEIU--  and Mayor de Blasio. Wisely, Cuomo did not show up in person to the convention, remotely delivering a speech that outlined his concessions, above all that he would restore to New Yorkers the Democratic majority they had elected by reigning the IDC back.

Party members who had boo’d through the video knew what was coming. They very next morning, Cuomo revealed his level commitment to the deal: “It’s very simple at these political conventions: you either win or you lose. Uh, and I won.” Not only did he win, he won ugly, sinking millions of dollars into a fake “Women’s Equality Party” designed to resemble and thus siphon votes away from WFP in the general election. Moreover, he convinced 1199SEIU and other unions that had supported him to cease paying WFP dues. As for the IDC, its leader, Bronx Sen. Jeffrey Klein wasted no words: “Nothing changes.” Voters justly knocked WFP down one ballot line for four years.

Ironically, Heinelman’s injunction to socialists that we ought to beware of funders is apt not only when the funders are organized capital, but even when they are organized labor. Union leaders, after all, represent the interests of a specific membership, not the working class writ large. If you have to deal with the governor for the sake of your members’ livelihoods, you don’t think he can be beaten, and you know he’s a vindictive demon, you, and thus the party you anchor, are at his mercy.

So the WFP is changing models. New chapters are staring up in states like Wisconsin and Nevada. Fusion voting is not an option in those states, so the WFP exists not as a ballot line, but as something closer to what Shahid calls for, an organization within the Democratic coalition. I am not privy to the party’s finances, but it appears to be in the unenviable “Do More With Less” mode.

If reliance on labor unions for funding is a liability, albeit a smaller one than reliance on capital, political independence will have to be driven substantially by small dollar donations. Here is where even the WFP’s new model provokes doubt. The type of exuberant small-dollar fundraising Sanders has accomplished requires something WFP lacks and the Tea Party had: an emotional connection with a mass of people.

Shahid points out that the Tea Party’s decentralized, open-source structure facilitated the kind of mass rallies and listening-session shout-downs that propelled 2010’s far-right electoral insurgency. I share his regard for decentralization, and admire many of the strategies advocated by the Momentum model of organizing (with which Shahid is affiliated) for achieving it. The Sanders campaign shows, though, that if there is energy around a project, it decentralizes spontaneously. People who were inspired to participate in the Sanders “movement moment” formed their own outfits, chapters, and networks, which become a sort of “Greater Campaign Area”--  People For Bernie, Labor for Bernie, Bernie Sanders’ Dank Meme Stash, and so forth. If an open source structure provides a conduit for left political power, it is the emotional connection with a mass of people which provides the propulsion.

Resonant iconography is critical to fostering emotional connection. In a presidential campaign, the iconography inevitably revolves around a single icon: the candidate, who can symbolize many things to many people. In the absence of a candidate, though, iconography formation demands a more deliberate approach. The Tea Party claimed a historical lineage, which had a widely resonant iconography built in--  imagery, sounds, and dramatizations that inherently bespoke an appeal to insurgency, with the strong value of liberty from tyrannical government at its core.

If the Working Families Party has a symbolic logo, much less an animal to compete with a donkey and elephant, or any other type of mascot, symbol, anthem, costume, custom, ritual, ceremony, idiolect, etc.--  it is unknown to this long time WFP supporter. The name itself limits the appeal of the party: not only are there millions of people who don’t identify primarily as workers, there are millions more who don’t identify as families. An iconography revolving around a candidate or an historical event admits of mass, diverse emotional investment, and thus decentralized funding; it is not at all clear that an iconography-less Working Families Party does.

The Problem With The Tea Party

Though there is much to admire about the swiftness with which the Tea Party insurgency was able to advance a political program (however odious the program itself), it is easy to overstate the desirability of replicating its model.

Its chief deficiency was that it happened in a single wave. The Summer 2009 shout-downs may have propelled a crop of politicians embracing the Tea Party iconography into office in 2010 in sufficient numbers to impose a ruthless program of austerity, but by 2012, notwithstanding Ted Cruz’ attainment of a Senate seat, the Tea Party label all but ceased to be a force at the ballot box. If the left is going to implement a socialist program, it will need a sustained effort that builds on its own success in cycle after cycle.

To this end, the Tea Party lacked some crucial attributes: a coherent political critique, transformative vision and understandable program. Its critique took the form of a freewheeling, seething opposition to social welfare broadly and President Obama singularly. Its vision, freedom from Big Goverment, was never especially vivid, and it thus was never able to articulate a program capable of achieving it--  policies to overhaul, institutions to erect or abolish, etc. That the 2010 insurgency was able to yield severe budget cuts and the defeat of the proposed Public Option component of Obamacare was no mean feat, but these policy outcomes were also already GOP priorities. That is, “Tea Partiers” were, from a policy perspective, like mainstream Republicans, only more so.

A wave of sentiment provoking a political lurch rightward followed by an erosion of power is nothing like the sustained, transformative change the left seeks. The Tea Party was effectively too open source, lacking a central pillar capable of sustaining the decentralized insurgency. If the left replicated its model, we would wind up assisting the realization of the liberal agenda--  regulated access to market-based services--  rather than advancing our own program of guaranteed economic rights, directly provided by the public sector.

A Strategy for Political Independence

I’d like to offer a strategy for political independence, not as a blueprint, but as a provocation for discussion. I think it may be viable in the main, and that we may have a considerable amount of the necessary infrastructure already in place.

The strategy revolves not around a party but a national inter-partisan slate (and, once elected, caucus). Candidates could run for office at any level, but to achieve the greatest national significance with the smallest voting bodies, it might be wise to focus on the US House. They would share a core message, a basic program, and an explicit affiliation with one another under a common banner, maybe even with shared campaign ads. To maximize its degree of independence from any party’s funding base, the caucus should fastidiously maintain a diversity of parties-- perhaps there could be a bylaw stipulating that no more than 20% of a given slate’s candidates would appear on the same ballot line. A given slate might feature primarily Independents, some Greens in areas where local chapters are strong, some from socialist parties, some people running on the Working Families line, and a deliberately small number of Democrats.

For unity as its own entity, the slate/caucus would require a broad vision, a program for achieving it, a stated commitment to values/principles, and, critically, an iconography which resonates with these. Much of this may already exist in embryo.

The “divest-invest” framework has attracted social movements from climate justice to the Movement for Black Lives, and the Sanders campaign occasionally employed it, conceptually if not by name. It is capable of linking the diverse interests of social movements into a narratively coherent critique, vision, and program. Broadly speaking, the left wants to divest from prisons, policing, border enforcement, war, energy extraction, and the surveillance state, and invest in guaranteeing everyone the essentials for a dignified life: healthful food, comfortable housing, quality healthcare, student-centered/directed education, meaningful work, leisure time to build family, community, and culture, and the energy and communications tools required to do it.

The call to divest from the enforcement regime and invest in people’s livelihoods articulates commitments to freedom and dignity. To these, a third pillar might be added in commitment to democracy: unconditional universal enfranchisement, public election funding, a much more decisive system of participatory budgeting, federal standardization of election procedure, and so forth. Freedom, dignity, democracy. Divest-invest-enfranchise. Make love, not war, and power to the people.



In addition to this program, which is adaptable to local circumstances and priorities in every community in the country, the caucus could unite around a set of values/principles. Two closely related examples come to mind that pervade social movement spaces and the young activists propelling the Sanders campaign.

The first is “targeted universalism,” characterized by a devotion to the interests of the people who live farthest on the losing ends of various hierarchies, double standards, and violent relations-- the “margins of the margins.” Without this anchor, universalism is often carried adrift by the prevailing currents of bigotry. It tends to become abstract: “All lives matter.” The slate should demonstrate this commitment not just by enshrining it officially in its documents, but by realizing it in the figures it elevates to “party” leadership.

The second is what movements tend to call “accountability” and Sanders supporters tend to call “integrity.” His demonstrated inability to be bought by, and indeed his hostility toward, wealthy interests clearly ignited Sanders’ popularity and fundraising.

To bind the program and principles, a unified iconography is necessary. I am nowhere near capable of offering up a comprehensive scheme in this division, but for my own part, I am a fan of birds. A great deal of the symbology already employed by youth-led social movements and the ones from which they derive inspiration is already about freedom and dreams. What could signify those more vividly than birds? Birds mean renewal, birds mean grace. As Bernie Sanders pointed out when he summoned one to his lectern in Oregon, birds mean peace. “Hope is the thing with feathers.” Flocks of birds operate as a collective mass, following rotating leadership. Birds have vision wide enough to survey all the terrain visible from the sky but sharp enough to peer down at particular areas of focus. My two cents.

With these points of unity in place, a diverse slate of candidates might successfully organize as a left political faction, independent of any one party or funding center. Eventually, when powerful enough, it might become a party in its own right, seeking a ballot line and full realignment resembling what the Republicans achieved in the mid-19th Century.

Problems With The Strategy

I look forward to being alerted to many problems with my idea that I can’t see. One that I can is, as always, the funding question. A pool of small-dollar donations is ideal for political independence, and I hope the form I propose would be well-suited to generating one, but even a large pool would be unlikely to be able to truly sustain a major political operation by itself. If the caucus were to grow in scale, it would likely need to think of other sources for funds. Might union reform caucuses be able to shoulder some burden? A politicized federation of co-ops, land trusts, and other “new economy” institutions and organizations? What could a left formation produce that people might want to buy-- music, fashion, software, or something else millennials are good at?

Strategic discussions about leftist political operation will become increasingly vital in our newest “new normal.” I hope this essay will prove useful in provoking more of them, and that critics of what I’ve written will not be shy about identifying its deficiencies. And I hope that, if anyone reading is already busy building something like what I’ve outlined, they’ll let me know how I can be useful.

Can Bernie Pull It Off Today? The Whole Establishment Is Gunning For Him

I'm sure Trump gets a million voters at every rally he does, by 28,000 was pretty impressive for Prospect Park, as 27,000 had been in Washington Square Park. Today's the day of reckoning for New York Democrats. There are no independents voting today to steer them away from making a tragic error. It's all up to New Yorkers. Are they going to pick a selfless man of the people or a ruthless, grasping, self-serving life-long elitist? It shouldn't be a difficult choice. But the Real Clear Politics average bespeaks badly of what the result may be. Hillary has maintained a double digit lead in every poll this month. The average polls shows her beating him 53.7% to 40.9%, although Bernie's camp says their internal polling shows it much closer. Can he win today?

The Working Families Party, usually firmly allied with the Democrats-- too often slavishly so-- has, at great cost to itself, broken with the New York party bosses and has been organizing for Bernie. If he wins today, it will be in no small part be due to the exertions of the WFP.

The SEIU, the Hotel Trades Council, the United Federation of Teachers, all notoriously in the pockets of Democratic Party bosses, have stopped supporting the Working Families Party financially. Hopefully that will make them freer to stop endorsing DINOs and career corruptionists like Chuck Schumer, Joe Crowley, Andrew Cuomo, Steve Israel, Sean Patrick Maloney and the rest of the garbage that comes along with being a Democrat in New York. Mother Jones carried a piece yesterday calling the WFP Bernie's Secret Weapon, pointing out that it "has lent its considerable mobilizing power to" his insurgent campaign.

New York Republican consultant, Bill O'Reilly, says the WFP Has "the best political operation in New York" and referred to them as "a mighty machine." Their members are unable to vote in the primary; only Democrats can.

For months, the party has been engaged in voter outreach on Sanders' behalf-- knocking on doors, phone banking, talking to local leaders, and helping Sanders draw local endorsements. Bill Lipton, the WFP's New York state director, says the party has been able to use the momentum behind Sanders to recruit thousands of volunteers. The WFP recently helped the campaign draw 1,500 supporters to a rally in Brooklyn, where it was able to recruit hundreds of volunteers. "Like 600 or 700 of them, two hours later they were out door knocking with canvass sheets," says Lipton.

The coordination with the WFP also extends to the Sanders campaign's strategy for winning delegates ahead of the Democratic Party's July convention. "The campaign has a strategy around that which we're plugged into," Lipton said, but wouldn't elaborate further. Robert Becker, deputy national field director for the Sanders campaign, calls the WFP "a very valuable partner in our efforts here."

"Most state parties around the country have become just shell vehicles for executives to raise money for their own re-election or for their allies," says Lipton. "We have an actual state party that has organizers, and people who know how to run campaigns, and people who know how to knock on doors, and mobilize volunteers."

The polls generally show a tightening race in New York, although a poll released Thursday puts Clinton 17 points ahead of Sanders. Having served as a US senator from New York for eight years, Clinton has a built-in advantage in the state. And New York plays to Clinton's strengths: She has generally done well in states with large African American populations and in closed primary contests like New York's, where independents and Republicans cannot vote. "New York was never really in question," says Scott Levenson, a Democratic consultant in New York City. If Sanders comes within seven points of Clinton on Tuesday, he says, that will count as a win for the senator.

If Sanders and WFP do pull of a symbolic victory, it would be an embarrassment for the state's Democratic establishment, many of whose county-level Democratic leaders are supporting Clinton. "This will get down to old-style street organizing and turning people out," says New York Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf. If the WFP turns out a lot of young voters for Sanders and cuts into Clinton's lead among minorities, "there's going to be a lot of embarrassed Democratic leaders."

With the stakes so high, there's tension between the two camps. Even though the New York Democratic establishment has grown accustomed to the WFP's role in party primaries, "that doesn't mean it doesn't leave a bad taste in peoples' mouths," says Jay Jacobs, the chairman of the Nassau County Democrats on Long Island and a super-delegate who supports Clinton. "But I guess that's politics, right?"

Sanders' relationship with the Democratic Party has become an issue in the race. At the Democratic debate Thursday night in Brooklyn, the moderators noted that Sanders has not raised any money for the Democratic Party this year, while Clinton has. Sanders responded that in the past he has raised millions for his colleagues in the Senate.

But in his campaign for the presidency, he's actively fundraising for the WFP. Sanders supporters received an email on Thursday asking them to donate $3, to be split between Sanders, Zephyr Teachout, a progressive Democratic congressional candidate in upstate New York whom Sanders has endorsed, and the WFP. The email came from "Bernie Sanders for Working Families Party."

"We're working closely together and some resources are coming to us because of emails," says Lipton, "but it's a relatively modest amount."

Jacobs, a former chairman of the state Democratic Party, is irked by what he believes is the shortsightedness of the WFP's decision to back Sanders, who he thinks is unelectable in key swing states in November. "They are looking to, I think, more send a message, and maybe even win a nomination," Jacobs says. But if they win, he says, they will have saddled the Democratic Party with an unelectable nominee. "Ohio is not voting for Bernie Sanders, a socialist candidate. I'm sorry, they're not going to do it. You barely can get them to vote for Barack Obama."

The WFP is currently limited to New York and a handful of other states, but it aims to expand into new states. Over the next few years, the party hopes to run progressive candidates against Democrats in primaries across the country in order to push the party to the left, much as the tea party's primary challengers in recent years have pushed the Republican Party rightward. If the party is able to propel Sanders to an upset win in New York, or even a close second-place finish, it would mark a triumphant entrance for the WFP onto the national stage.

Corrupt party bosses like Schumer, Cuomo, Jacobs, Kathleen Rice, Israel... hope to see the WFP fail today so they can reassert their monopoly on political power, which they prefer to share with establishment Republicans than with progressives and reformers of any kind. Massive cheating on behalf of their candidate has already begun, of course. Whatever happens in New York today, it's on to Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Maryland, Connecticut and Delaware a week from today. Lend a hand?

Can Anyone Really Be Surprised That Cuomo's Man Jeffrey Klein Sold Out The New York Senate Democrats... Again?

Andrew Cuomo, Jeffrey Klein-- same, same

Blue America didn't get involved with all that many state legislative races this cycle. But one we did work on was in the Bronx, for a reformer and former New York Attorney General, Oliver Koppell, who ran against an extremely corrupt fake Democrat from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, state Senator Jeffrey Klein. The New York State Senate had been under Republican control for decades until 2008, when a majority of Democrats were elected. However, because small factions of conservative state senators elected as Democrats have split off and voted with Republicans, the balance of power has been constantly shifting between Democrats and Republicans. Klein, who deserted his Democratic Senate colleagues with three other "Democratic" senators in 2012 to vote with Senate Republicans, is now extorting a leadership position with mainstream Senate Democrats as a price for returning to the Democratic fold. Predictably, New York's corrupt conservative governor, Andrew Cuomo, and-- more distressingly-- the Mayor of New York City, Bill De Blasio, and the pathetic cynics and suckers who call themselves the Working Families Party supported Klein’s Machievellian power play-- which anyone with a 3-digit IQ knew was a total ruse.

This is from the joint statement Cuomo and Klein released in June that killed Koppell's chance to beat the anti-working family faction:

Senator Jeffrey D. Klein said, “The Independent Democratic Conference has served as a strong, stabilizing, sensible force for governing in New York State for four years... Yet as we reflect on these past achievements, it is also clear that core Democratic policy initiatives that the IDC championed remain unfinished. As Democrats, the IDC remains committed to the fight for an equal education for all New York students-- which the Dream Act would provide, protecting a woman's right to choose, increasing workers' wages, and enacting meaningful campaign finance reform. I agree with Governor Cuomo that these are progressive priorities we must pass.

“Therefore all IDC members are united and agree to work together to form a new majority coalition between the Independent Democratic Conference and the Senate Democratic Conference after the November elections in order to deliver the results that working families across this state still need and deserve.”

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo said, “I applaud the IDC’s decision. There is no doubt that we have accomplished much for the state over the past four years. We have transformed the state government from dysfunctional to highly functional, a deficit to a surplus, and losing jobs to gaining jobs. There is also no doubt there are progressive goals that we have yet to achieve and that we must accomplish next January.”

Klein, who spent $1.7 million to Koppell's $94,000, won the primary, 65-32%, although Klein lost Riverdale, by far the most enlightened and best educated part of the district. In the general election last Tuesday, 3 Democratic incumbents were defeated, Cecilia Tkaczyk (Albany area), Terry Gipson (Dutchess County) and Ted O'Brien (Rochester suburbs), which landed Republican Leader Dean Skelos a 32-31 seat majority. Cuomo didn't do anything to help the Senate Democrats because he is more comfortable with conservatives controlling the upper chamber while liberal Democrats control the Assembly.

On Tuesday night before the votes were even counted, Klein, firmly allied with Cuomo, was already offering his services to Skelos. Yesterday he publicly proposed an alliance between the IDC and the Republicans. Predictably real Democrats-- not the Cuomo variety-- are furious. And no one more willing to express it openly than our old pal, Oliver Koppell who was so badly betrayed by Cuomo, DeBlasio and the Working Families Party.

"As a condition for support in the Primary from Governor Cuomo, Mayor de Blasio, and the Working Families Party, Jeffrey Klein issued a statement on June 25th conveying that the IDC would form a new coalition with State Senate Democrats to achieve unfinished 'core Democratic policy initiatives.' His candidacy in the Primary further emphasized his commitment to vote with mainstream Senate Democrats. Yet as soon as Republicans earned a State Senate majority with 32 seats on November 4th, Klein chased after their power and once again betrayed Democratic voters by offering to re-partner with Republicans.

"Klein has again demonstrated that his motivation in forming the IDC was never about an idealistic bipartisan State Senate-- it was about personal power. Let's not forget that the Democrats won the Majority in 2012. Senator Klein's partnership with the Minority Republicans stripped the Senate Democrats of the Majority and put it squarely in the hands of Skelos and Klein. That power was used to deny New Yorkers an adequate increase in the minimum wage and passage of the Women's Equality agenda, the DREAM Act, GENDA legislation, a moritorium on fracking, and campaign finance reform with public financing.

"Klein handed the Majority to the Republicans which enabled them to raise the millions of dollars that funded so many Republican State Senate victories on November 4th. Klein now seeks to continue to increase the power of Skelos and Senate Republicans at the expense of fellow Democrats."

As long as grassroots Democrats keep countenancing these sleazy careerist political hacks calling themselves "Democrats," the party-- whether in Albany or DC-- is doomed to the kind of revulsion from enough voters to give the Republicans opportunities to win power. It's the Jeffrey Kleins, Steve Israels, Joe Crowleys-- allies, by the way-- who keep Democrats from participating in elections by making it impossible to simultaneously maintain a sense of human dignity and vote.