As we enter the beginning of the 2018 midterm election battle, after the four special elections resulted in the Republicans keeping their seats, although by greatly reduced margins, the question arises whether it is time for a complete change in Democratic Congressional leadership in the House of Representatives.
The Democrats in the House chose to keep their long time leadership in January, at the beginning of the 115th Congress, so it would be unprecedented to change the leadership before the 116th Congress meets in January 2019.
But the question arises, are Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Jim Clyburn, who have been the top three leaders for more than a decade, and are in their late 70s, the way to the future of the Democratic Party?
The age issue arises too, as by 2020, all three Democratic leaders will have reached the age of 80!
Nancy Pelosi was a great Speaker of the House from 2007-2010, but it has been eight years since then by next year, and it is unprecedented in history for a Speaker who has lost his power and position to stay on as leader, and for now a total of eight years since losing the majority.
The only exception is Sam Rayburn who twice lost the Speakership in 1947-48 and 1953-54, but then came back to power after two years out of power each time.
Fresh blood is needed to help promote the change that is desperately needed, or else the Democrats will remain in the minority for a long time.
Democrats Face a Challenge of Mobilization, Not Just Persuasion
by Nancy LeTourneau
June 23, 2017 8:00 AM
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/06/23/democrats-face-a-challenge-of-mobilization-not-just-persuasion/#.WU0E9UEt1Uw.facebook
Most of the discussion on the left about what Democrats should do going forward has focused on how they can persuade Trump (or Romney) voters to support them. One person who is going in a whole different direction is Steve Phillips, author of the book Brown Is the New White: How the Demographic Revolution Has Created a New American Majority.Â
I suspect that you can guess where he’s focused based on that title. But regardless of whether or not you agree with his overall point, he is spot on when he says that midterm elections aren’t about persuasion, but mobilization. That is essentially what Archie Parnell did in the special election in South Carolina’s 5th district with regards to African American turnout. He didn’t win that race, but lost by only 3 percent in a district that is rated R+9, and in which Donald Trump actually improved on the margins of Mitt Romney and John McCain.
A recent report by Phillip’s organization, Democracy in Color, presents some compelling data about what happened in 2016. Here is how they document the problem with African American mobilization in two states that have gotten a lot of attention:
(See graphs in article)
In other words, if African American voters had the same turnout in those two states in 2016 as they did in 2012, Hillary Clinton very likely would have won both of them.
That wouldn’t necessarily address the problems we’ve seen in gerrymandered House districts or state legislatures, but it could be huge for governors races. That’s where the report points to some interesting possibilities in 2018.
(See graph in article)
You might want to keep an eye on Stacey Abrams, Andrew Gillum and David Garcia. We often hear questions about where the next generation of leadership might come from in the Democratic Party. These are three potential candidates to fill those shoes. And they all happen to be running for governorships in states that are either officially swinging or on the cusp of doing so because of changing demographics. With candidates like that and some serious voter mobilization in communities of color, Democrats could revive talk about what an “Obama coalition†would mean for the future.
Speaking of Pelosi:
Democrats Should Do to McConnell What the GOP Does to Pelosi
by Nancy LeTourneau
June 22, 2017 8:00 AM
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/06/22/democrats-should-do-to-mcconnell-what-the-gop-does-to-pelosi/
The three leaders of the Republican Party right now (Trump, McConnell and Ryan) pose very different threats. The threat Trump poses as president is on obvious display for everyone but his most ardent supporters. His lies are blatant and his attacks are vicious, but childish. In many ways Trump would be forgettable in any public office other than the one he now holds. As the executive in charge of the entire federal bureaucracy and the leader of America’s foreign policy, we’re seeing how dangerous it is to have someone as mentally unbalanced as Trump in that role.
Ryan is the only real ideologue of the group. His philosophy is rooted in the survival of the fittest as espoused by people like Ayn Rand. While that is a challenge, it is his youthful-looking sincerity as he obfuscates and lies that poses the real threat. That worked so well that most of the media even bought into the idea that he’s some kind of policy wonk with his power point nonsense.
Mitch McConnell is no ideologue. He rose to power in the Republican ranks by raising money and defending the right to do so by any means necessary. Jordan Weismann has a pretty good run-down on the way in which McConnell poses a threat.
Over the years he has masterfully twisted the rules of Senate procedure to the GOP’s advantage by breaking Washington norms that voters fundamentally don’t think or care much about, in part because they make for dry copy and soporific television. Our national aversion to process stories helped the Kentuckian gum up President Obama’s political agenda and deny him a Supreme Court appointment. And now it may allow him to pass a health care bill by stealth.
Given how we’ve seen the Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare unfold, I think it is safe to say that McConnell poses a bigger threat to our democracy than Ryan. With the latter, his ideologically-based approach appeals to those who already agree with him. When he lies and obfuscates, it is possible to call him out. As a result, the American public was pretty energized in fighting back when the AHCA was making its way through the House.
As Weismann suggests, McConnell’s approach relies on complicity from the public in order to be successful. Neither voters nor the media are willing to engage on the minutia of congressional processes to hold him accountable. That is what Mike Lofgren was on to way back in 2011. He walked through the strategy as well as why it works with both the public and the media.
A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress’s generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.
A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters’ confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that “they are all crooks,†and that “government is no good,†further leading them to think, “a plague on both your houses†and “the parties are like two kids in a school yard.†This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s – a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn (“Government is the problem,†declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).
The media are also complicit in this phenomenon. Ever since the bifurcation of electronic media into a more or less respectable “hard news†segment and a rabidly ideological talk radio and cable TV political propaganda arm, the “respectable†media have been terrified of any criticism for perceived bias.
The media is never going to tackle this threat because their only tools are to lay out the process in a technical way and readers just aren’t interested. Democrats tend to either craft ideological arguments against each position or critique the process is a technical way. Neither of those ever get the public engaged in the root of the problem.
In the wake of the special election in Georgia yesterday, there is some talk about how Karen Handel ran endless ads linking Jon Ossoff to Nancy Pelosi. As Kevin Drum pointed out so effectively, Handel wasn’t making a direct connection to the policy positions of Pelosi. What Republicans have done over the years is make the minority leader the symbol of the threat Democrats pose to conservative values.
That made me realize that McConnell poses a threat to “people who genuinely value the tenets of democracy, meaning no more than the passionate desire to settle differences by debate and argument, rather than by power and cruelty and clan.â€
My suggestion is that Democrats should start making that argument against McConnell (which, unlike the attacks against Pelosi, has the benefit of being true). Then in 2018, every Democratic candidate for Senate could make the case that a vote for their opponent is a vote for McConnell and against our values in a democracy. This is one time when I don’t mind taking a page out of the Republican playbook.
All That Stands Between Democrats And A Massive Freakout Is This Man
The pressure is on Ralph Northam to score a win in his race for Virginia governor. Barack Obama is going to come off the sidelines to help.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ralph-northam_us_594c176ce4b01cdedf01fb00
Maybe the GOP’s Deathcare bill, as I’m calling it, will wake people up, show them that the Republicans are the party of Scrooges.
I think that this is a good sign – Half of Americans want Democrats to control Congress according to new polling.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/22/half-of-americans-want-democrats-to-control-congress-poll.html
In agreement with this:
Trump’s Attack On Nancy Pelosi Is Why Democrats Would Be Dumb To Dump Her
By Sarah Jones on Thu, Jun 22nd, 2017 at 1:45 pm
When a man with the strategic sense of Donald Trump attacks someone, it’s because they are effective, not because they are not good at their job.
http://www.politicususa.com/2017/06/22/trump-attacks-nancy-pelosi.html
President Trump, who likes to say Democrats are obstructing him while he whines about why no one will work for him, demonstrated precisely why his false claims for unity are falling flat by tweeting Thursday morning, “I certainly hope the Democrats do not force Nancy P out. That would be very bad for the Republican Party – and please let Cryin’ Chuck stay!â€
When a man with the strategy sense of Donald Trump attacks someone, it’s because they are effective, not because they are not good at their job. Donald Trump would very much like the resistance to be less organized, so he’s trying to undermine the leaders of the resistance in the House and Senate by latching on to internal criticism of Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in the wake of Karen Handel’s win in the very red district of Georgia.
Some Democrats are blaming Pelosi for the “loss†in Georgia, but it was actually not a loss at all, according to the math. Jason Easley broke down in these pages, “Three different examinations of the performance of Democrats in the special elections revealed that the Democrats are performing better than expected in these elections and are in a position to win back the House in 2018…
The lessons for Democrats are that the map is broad in 2018. There should be an emphasis on competing across the country, and that the question isn’t if they will gain seats in 2018 but will they gain enough to take back the majority. Democrats were not expected to win in the heavily Republican special election districts, but if they replicate the same 15 point gain in the midterm elections, they will win back the House, and deal a fatal blow to the Trump agenda.â€
Democrats who hear President Trump echoing their sentiments might want to check themselves. None of the special elections were supposed to be even in play for Democrats, in fact that is why the people were chosen from those “safe Republican districts†for Trump’s cabinet.
The fact that they are in play is proof that the Democrats are on the right path. Are they doing everything perfectly? No. But to suggest they need new leadership when they are advancing on safe Republican territory and forcing Republicans to spend millions to defend safe districts is purely emotional.
It’s disappointing to lose, but I never expected Jon Ossoff to win, as I said in our Politicus Podcast hours before the polls closed. The win was a district that was strongly Republican, that Karen Handel barely won and it was a fight. Certainly that is not as satisfying for the resistance as a win would have been, but the math tells the real story and it’s not pretty for Republicans.
It’s disturbing to see Democrats attacking Nancy Pelosi like Donald Trump is. Republicans tried to run against Nancy Pelosi in Georgia’s special election – they are that devoid of ideas and policies they can tell the people about. Why did Republicans choose Nancy Pelosi after their other favorite fictional boogeyman under the bed President Obama is no longer available?
Well, both are minorities. In Pelosi’s case, the former Speaker of the House managed to get Obamacare through a rigorous process of debate and sunshine, and then got it passed by keeping the Democratic caucus unified. It’s clear by looking at the last two Republican speakers that this feat is something worth respecting, and is, in fact, in addition to her being a woman, the reason why they attack her.
They attack Pelosi because their base finds it easy to hate women in power and Pelosi is effective enough to warrant the need to undermine her.
Democrats might want to avoid mimicking President Trump, who foolishly is pretending to believe that Pelosi is helping the Republican Party. In fact, running against Pelosi does not move voters, and meanwhile, she keeps Democrats on point in the House.
President Trump mocks Democrats and makes fun of them like a two-year-old child, so the next mainstream media pundit who suggests that Democrats aren’t working with Republicans needs to explain in what way Republicans have expressed an ounce of unity. Let it not be forgotten that President Obama not infrequently chose Republicans for positions he thought they were best suited, whereas in the Trump administration, we have a who’s who of radical extremists who are at times completely unfit for their position.
The media, Republicans and some Democrats are hyping the ‘Time to get rid of Pelosi’ narrative based on not one actual reason that is based in fact. Get rid of her because Republicans demonize her like they demonized Obama and Clinton?
Maybe Democrats should try having their people’s back for once. That might be different and certainly more successful than caving to every ridiculously transparent Republican narrative, which are – DUH – designed to hit and undermine the most effective Democrats.
Lastly, women see this for what it is. Republicans are attacking the most powerful and competent Democratic woman, just like they did to Hillary Clinton – and women are in no mood for the Democratic Party to stab them in the back by betraying Nancy Pelosi just because Republicans don’t like her.
If there is any doubt as to how angry women are, look at the box office this summer and ask yourselves, why is Wonder Woman outperforming the male dominated summer blockbuster season. If Democrats fail to stand up for and by Nancy Pelosi, who by the way showed how this is supposed to go when she stood by President Obama when he was under attack, they will see women revolt against the party.
Thanks for that Southern Liberal. That nails how the rest of us women here – Pragmatic, Rational Lefty, and I, feel about this as well.
I fully understand what a number of you have posted here, but my argument is NOT against a woman or an African American (Clyburn) but rather the need for fresh leadership, which should certainly include a woman and an African American or Latino or Asian American.
Age is an issue, whether we want to believe it or not, and with all three Democratic leaders nearing 80, sorry, it is time for a new generation, just as it would be for the White House a better idea to pick someone much younger than the 70s in age.
Realize I am in my early 70s and saying this!
I guarantee you they will just attack the next person. They are trying to demonize the party and liberals and progressives as a whole. For instance, in that Georgia election, news is that they stooped extremely low and used the D.C. shooting as an attack ad against the Democrats, claiming that Ossoff = extremism. I’m very much in doubt as to how we can fight such nastiness.
The GOP base is full of people who’ve listened to nearly forty years of Democrat-bashing from Ronald Reagan, the religious right, talk radio, Fox News, and GOP elected officials and admakers. These are voters who believe the worst stereotypes of Democrats. It’s an uphill battle for any Democrat to overcome those stereotypes.
If we are going to continue as a democracy we’re going to have to figure out a way to oppose that propaganda.
Maybe we need to get nasty. With Trumpcare slashing Medicaid, Democrats need to put out some ads showing grandma getting kicked out of her nursing home.
MSNBC is adding Hugh Hewitt to their programming on Saturday morning. I hope they aren’t replacing Joy’s show with him, getting rid of someone liberal/progressive for someone conservative.
http://www.salon.com/2017/06/23/new-msnbc-host-hugh-hewitt-is-sean-hannity-in-glasses_partner/
If they start messing with their primetime lineup, dumping off Lawrence or Rachel, they’re going to lose me as a viewer.
Trumpies we know frequently post on Facebook, Twitter, etc. about liberals/progressives coming after your guns, hateful anti-abortion messages, etc. Yet, Bernie and others on our side, say we should reach out to them. Well, I’m sorry, that’s something I can’t do. I’m at the point where I’ve given up trying to understand or reach out to them. As Pragmatic said, they’ve listened to anti-liberal/anti-progressive hatred for years. It’s become too ingrained in them.
Incidents like this don’t help our side’s reputation: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/23/politics/johnny-depp-apology-donald-trump-assassination/index.html
This graphic from Mother Jones sums up how Americans are in a nutshell: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8o8IDfKmJzQ/WU2GiG4hDzI/AAAAAAAAFgQ/GAP-YjZeMugaCetJ8RlFHpdUh5fMVz11QCLcBGAs/s1600/Trump%2Bor%2BComey.gif
Last November, with “The Progressive Professor†having at least one thread to discuss Election 2016 outcomes, I wrote that Chuck Schumer (D–New York) and Nancy Pelosi (D–California #12) should not be leading the Democratic Party in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House.
I have two videos.
Here is the first…
http://youtu.be/u2fd-kj-5-M
Here is the second…
http://youtu.be/6lIHinWOUT8
D – Who do you propose should be our new leadership?
Another question D – How do you propose we fight the nastiness that the Republicans resort to, such as labeling Democrats/liberals/progressives as violent extremists?
To Win in 2018, Democrats Need to Go on the Offensive in the Voting Wars
If Republicans succeed in rigging the 2018 election, Trump’s unpopularity won’t matter.
by Mike Males
June 14, 2017
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/06/14/to-have-a-chance-in-2018-democrats-need-to-go-on-the-offensive-in-the-voting-wars/
In the wake of accumulating scandals and low popularity plaguing President Donald Trump’s White House and the failures of the even more unpopular Republican Congress, Democrats eagerly anticipate huge electoral victories in the 2018 midterm elections, perhaps taking both the House and Senate.
Democrats’ high hopes for 2018 overlook one huge complication. Republicans may not allow anything resembling a free election in the 27 states where they hold complete legislative/executive control or veto-proof legislatures — or nationally, if Congress (under Section 1, Article 4 of the Constitution) imposes voting restrictions on states. Montana’s special congressional election, in which Republican billionaire Greg Gianforte defeated Democrat Rob Quist despite choke-slamming a reporter on the eve of the election, received a ton of national news coverage. But what didn’t get enough attention is that Gianforte was helped by the record-low turnout Republicans had hoped for, proving yet again that Democrats depend on vigorous voter participation.
Despite some promising recent Supreme Court rulings, Democrats may not be able to count on the judiciary to protect the right to vote. Chief Justice John Roberts declared that “nothing should be read†into the Court’s decision to let stand the Fourth Circuit’s rejection of North Carolina’s brazenly racist voting law based on narrow issues of standing, not merits.
The Court—whose newest member, Neil Gorsuch, harbors evident support for Republican-instigated voter suppression—may soon have another seat for a right-wing ideologue to fill. That eventuality, despite an encouraging ruling against gerrymandering (in which Gorsuch didn’t participate), would likely mean the rubber-stamping of almost all voter suppression tactics by the Court.
To provide the rationale for suppression, Trump has appointed a “Presidential Commission on Election Integrity†stocked with key politicians committed to disenfranchising the Democrats’ young, urban, nonwhite base. The commission chair is Vice President Mike Pence, and co-chair is Kansas Secretary of State Chris Kobach, the most extreme official champion of drastic limits on voting based on blatantly false fear-mongering.
Kobach, among many demagogueries, baselessly accused supposed illegal Somali voters of stealing an election, promised he would prosecute “hundreds†of “likely†illegal-immigrant voters, and was the source for “the president’s unsupported claim that millions of illegal votes tipped the popular vote in Hillary Clinton’s favor.†Kobach also baselessly claimed that out-of-state residents voted illegally in New Hampshire to defeat Republicans.
Armed with prosecutorial authority (the only Secretary of State so empowered) to investigate electoral fraud in his six years in office—during which a total of four million Kansans voted in general elections—Kobach identified a whopping nine cases to prosecute. Famous for being laughed out of court and destroyed by informed reporters, Kobach’s electoral “fraud†convictions consist mainly of catching elderly whites voting twice—not illegal immigrants or city-dwelling vote packers. Judges who ruled against Kobach in voting rights cases accused him of engaging in “word play meant to present a materially inaccurate picture,†including misrepresenting studies that actually show noncitizen and illegal voting near zero.
Trump’s voter-fraud commission also includes J. Kenneth Blackwell, whose former tenure as Ohio’s Secretary of State and as Bush/Cheney campaign chair brought “thousands of complaints of fraud, malfeasance, or incompetence.†Between Kobach and Blackwell, Trump’s commission is set up to weave vast conspiracies of immigrant and urban voter fraud demanding “solutionsâ€: white-friendly ID laws, voter roll purges, and other selectively repressive legal procedures along with administrative shenanigans designed to manufacture long voter lines, truncated polling periods, and chaos in cities and on campuses.
North Carolina’s voter ID law provides the legal model, crafted from carefully researched bigotry. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals findings in NAACP v. McCrory should be required reading for liberals who think 2018’s elections will be free and fair. “Before enacting that law,†the court found in a detailed ruling, North Carolina’s Republican legislature
requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans . . . With race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans . . . [and] retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess.
North Carolina Republicans studied five aspects of voting procedure: types of ID, early voting, same-day registration, out-of-precinct ballots, and pre-registration for teenagers. Without presenting “even a single individual who has ever been charged with committing in-person voter fraud†resulting from these procedures, the legislature then acted with “surgical precision†to restrict or eliminate only those used more by African Americans and young people.
When research showed that African Americans were more likely to use the first seven days and “souls to the polls†Sundays for early voting, Republicans eliminated only the first week and one of the Sundays of early voting. Research also showed whites were more likely to use absentee ballots, so Republicans exempted absentee voting from ID requirements — even though lawmakers “did have evidence of alleged cases of mail-in absentee voter fraud.â€
Explicit voter suppression, outlawed by the Voting Rights Act and other civil rights era victories, has been supplemented by procedural suppression. Blackwell’s “intentional misconduct and illegal behavior†in Ohio leading up to the 2004 presidential election was a clinic in administratively manufactured chaos, as Mark Crispin Miller argued in a 2005 Harper’s magazine investigative piece. These concerns were backed by a federal judge’s denunciation of Blackwell’s “vigorous, indeed, at times, obdurate opposition†to compliance with state law in Ohio’s 2004 election.
As Miller noted in but one example, Blackwell engineered:
a wide discrepancy between the availability of voting machines in more minority, Democratic and urban areas as compared to more Republican, suburban and exurban areas. . . . At Kenyon College in Gambier, for instance, there were only two machines for 1,300 would-be voters, even though a surge of late registrations promised a record vote. Gambier residents and Kenyon students had to stand in line for hours, in the rain and in “crowded, narrow hallways,†with some of them inevitably forced to call it quits. In contrast, at nearby Mt. Vernon Nazarene University, which is considered more Republican leaning, there were ample voting machines and no lines.
If Trump is allowed to appoint another reactionary ideologue to the Supreme Court, or if Congress (citing the predictable “findings†of Trump’s fraud commission) enacts national restrictions on student, minority, and urban voting, then the Republicans’ past success at election-rigging will come to look like child’s play. Millions or tens of millions of Democratic votes in 2018 and beyond could simply disappear. Assuming Republicans “just wouldn’t do that†is a bygone luxury. Democrats must prepare for the worst.
But what do they do? Democrats’ voter registration, ID, and turnout drives are viable strategies; Republicans may not be able to implement widespread suppression measures in time for the 2018 election. However, more vigorous action is needed. That, as Phil Keisling argued in January, means a proactive response to expand voter rights, not continued—and potentially futile—defensive reactions.
Nineteen states allow voters to propose constitutional amendments via initiative petition by gathering requisite signatures, circumventing the legislature and governor and forcing a public vote (California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and South Dakota). Of these, the last 12 currently are Republican-dominated.
A powerful strategy, ideal for mobilizing activists, would be to launch initiative petitions in targeted states proposing constitutional amendments to create a system of universal voter registration (implemented in Oregon and variously approved in seven other states) and voting by mail (as is now done in Oregon, Colorado, and Washington) while prohibiting various forms of voter suppression. Companion state-constitution amendments could be initiated to create independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions to draw legislative and congressional districts to abolish gerrymandering, and to require the state’s presidential electors to vote for the national popular vote winner (states allowing constitutional initiatives by citizens hold 232 of the 272 electoral votes needed to elect the president).
None of this would be easy. These reforms would engender volcanic Republican opposition. But that could in turn further energize progressive activists and contribute to higher voter turnout in 2018. What’s clear is that it’s time—past time—to act. If Democrats’ voting is severely curtailed in 2018 and 2020, the party’s last chance to rescue anything resembling democracy may be lost for decades.
Agreed with that Pragmatic. We face more issues than just getting fresh blood.
Princess Leia asks, “Who do you propose should be our new leadership?†follows by “Another question D – How do you propose we fight the nastiness that the Republicans resort to, such as labeling Democrats/liberals/progressives as violent extremists?â€
• Q#01—Bernie Sanders.
• Q#02—This is nowhere near the No. 1 issue. The No. 1 issue is whether the Democratic Party, in its current incarnation—full of corrupt corporatists (the DLC, Third Way, Bill/Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama “Democratsâ€)—should be rescued…or whether they should go the way of the Whigs so an actual progressive party would replace it.
The GOP’s wealthcare bill shows that it is they that is the party that is corrupt, not the Democrats. Democrats aren’t the party taking away healthcare from 22 million people.
Rational Lefty,
The Democratic National Committee rigged their party’s 2016 presidential primaries.
The Republican Party did not do that.
Republicans have a good shot at losing in 2018 because of wealthcare. Don’t believe me? Look at the protests and angry town halls. In fact, Rachel Maddow’s show featured some last night, 6/26/17.
D – The fact is, most Democratic voters don’t believe that conspiracy.
We’ve mentioned about the rigged primaries to our friends and family who are Democrats. They consider it hogwash.
One of the most corrupt Democrats, the disgraced DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz—who was forced to step down just after the WikiLeaks DNC e-mails exposed the rigging of the party’s 2016 presidential primaries—will once again get primaries in 2018. Here, in two parts, in an interview with Tim Canova.
http://youtu.be/eGSKiIjhB8c
Here is the second part…
http://youtu.be/-4-7ccbPVMI
They’ve watched the programs you’ve posted here. They consider them to be biased.
This lady’s blog, which we recommended to them, expresses their progressive/liberal/left-wing views: https://www.facebook.com/SmartypantsBlog
The Winning Progresive.org blog, that now only exists on Facebook, that is run by a husband and wife in Pennsylvania, also expresses their views: https://www.facebook.com/WinningProgressive
We also recommended that blog to them.
If Cenk and his cohorts were really serious, all over their website would be attacks on:
1) Citizens United
2)The Koch Brothers and the Mercers
3) Trump
4) GOP
And links to Indivisible: https://www.indivisibleguide.com/
I see none of that, therefore, I can’t take them seriously.
This sums up how I feel. I don’t think Justice Democrats is going about it the right way. Indivisible and Our Revolution are the better options.
http://www.progressiveways.com/2017/04/05/not-endorsing-justice-democrats/
Our local blog’s comments regarding the issue of dumping Pelosi: http://bluevirginia.us/2017/06/good-reason-know-dumping-pelosi-rotten-one
From Rustbelt Democrat’s linked piece: “If I were [Nancy] Pelosi, even this late in the game, I would fight back and take the battle straight to the Republican base.â€
Nancy Pelosi is having a major problem with the [Democratic] base. It is a lack of confidence in her leadership. The real reason she still holds it is with organizing in campaign donations for elections. The Democratic Party—which is entrenched in more money, more money, more money—is desperate. They are fighting against the left direction the people are wanting to go in—which very much includes single payer (which Nancy Pelosi doesn’t support)—and so they’re lost. They are not that smart in the first place. If they were, they would not have endorsed Hillary Clinton before the primaries began in Iowa on February 1, 2016 and, after the general election on November 8, 2016, they would not have elected as their party’s congressional leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. They went with re-electing Pelosi because of money, money, money.
Agreed Pragmatic. If Cenk and company truly cared about this country, they should be informing their viewers about the resistance – telling them about the protests, the town halls, encouraging them to call their Congressperson.
Former Republican writes, “This lady’s blog, which we recommended to them, expresses their progressive/liberal/left-wing views: https://www.facebook.com/SmartypantsBlog â€
I have come across posts about pieces written by Nancy LeTourneau.
I’m sorry to have tell you that I am not impressed by her.
D – The point of the article that Rustbelt posted is that the Republicans demonize Democrats. They are going to teach their base to hate the new person as much as they hate Pelosi now. It’s about the need for the Democrats, and their supporters, i.e., us voters, to fight back against the lies that Republicans make up about them.
The only reason for that is because she’s not an ultra left, hate both parties blogger. None of the blogs we like are.
She is center-left, like us and like most Democrats we know.Â
Like us and others amongst our family and friends who are Democrats, she is in favor of protecting welfare programs (Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security) and protecting political rights of historically marginalized groups (black and Hispanic people, women, gays).
For foreign policy, like us and others amongst our family and friends who are Democrats, she believes in the use of diplomacy, if possible.
On climate change, also, like us and others amongst our family and friends who are Democrats, she believes that we should wean off of fossilfuels, move towards green energy.
Rational Lefty writes, “Like us …she is in favor of protecting welfare programs (Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security)…â€
Medicare and Social Security are not “welfare programs.â€
From http://www.federalsafetynet.com/welfare-definition.html …
The definition of welfare includes government programs to support low-income Americans. The programs provide a safety net to individuals and families to protect them from poverty. There are 13 programs that provide benefits for basic necessities such as food and housing. Welfare also includes the Medicaid Program with provides health care to low-income Americans. The common element to all the programs is that they are means-tested – in order to qualify for benefits the individuals and families must have income from jobs or self-employment at below a defined level. Income above the means-tested level means the individual or family does not qualify for benefits. The means-tested levels are unique per program (see U.S. Welfare Programs). Also common to the Programs is that they are free to low-income Americans – there is no past contribution or taxes paid that are necessary to qualify. These two elements, means-tested and non-contributory, define the programs as welfare.
Large programs not defined as welfare
The definition of welfare does not include the programs of Social Security, Medicare or Unemployment. These programs are not means-tested – they are available to all Americans regardless of income level. The programs are also contributory in nature. To qualify Americans must have contributed to the programs through the payroll taxes they pay. Because the programs are not means-tested and are contributory, they are not considered to be Welfare Programs. See further discussion of this distinction on the Entitlements Program Page.
…
Rational Lefty writes, “The only reason for that [that D is not being impressed by Nancy LeTourneau] is because she’s not an [ultra-left]…
She [Nancy LeTourneau] is center-left, like us and like most Democrats we know.”
Political terms are nowadays skewed.
I decided to ask five people, from outside “The Progressive Professor,” what is really meant by the use of the term “center-left” here in 2017?
Here are the results from five respondents (hereafter labeled as Rs):
R#01: “[Center-left] means a person [who] is comfortable with the economic status quo, with wars, and is not homophobic. [That person has] a comfortable life with health insurance, a job that provides for [one’s] family; kids [are] in a good school district; [that person lives in a] safe neighborhood. [That person wants] equal pay for women and [persons of color]. [That person has] a gay friend and a black friend. [That person does not] want to rock the boat. [That person] will vote for [his] party’s nominee, believing that [that] politician is also center-left, and is really, really, really trying to do the right thing. It’s those other [politicians], or the other [major political] party, that is the problem. [That person will] bow to authority. [Also: That person’s] stock portfolios are doing well. [That person has not] felt any real pain, [and is not an] evil Republican.”
_____________________________________
R#02: “Well, considering those who call themselves by that name (DLC/Third Way types)…are to the right of Ronald Reagan, it really doesn’t mean all that much. They think that being OK with abortion and gay marriage makes them eligible to call themselves “leftâ€, while supporting the same corporatist [policies] and warmongering imperialism as the Republicans (who are now John Bircher fascists, for the most part).”
_____________________________________
R#03: “[Center-left means] technically nothing. It’s cover for rightwing economics without racist rhetoric. [It] shares the oppression of the right’s economic theories.”
_____________________________________
R#04: “Corporate media defines these artificial categories. | We know they want to paint anyone that supports single payer as ‘far-left.’ They want those that support deregulation known as a ‘centrist.’ They want to define those that favor smaller government, privatization and low taxes as ‘centrist.’ | It’s pure [b.s.]….’
_____________________________________
R#05: “In the United States, ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ don’t have much meaning. | ‘Right’ means Republican. | ‘Left’ means Democrat. | ‘Center-left’ means Conservative Democrat. | ‘Far-left’ [among other terms] is a pejorative used by Conservative Democrats to demonize those who object to their neoliberal economic policies.”
For the primary, her preferred candidate, if he had run, would have been Deval Patrick.
Â
While she likes some of Bernie’s ideas, one of her issues with him is that his proposals would not have been able to get through Congress.
 Â
She had some concerns about some of his proposals that he hasn’t addressed.
She disagrees with him on some issues.
She goes into detail about that here: http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2015/07/i-wont-be-supporting-sanders-in-primary.html
We had some of the same issues with Bernie’s ideas as well, which is why we decided to choose Hillary in the primary. If he had run, our choice would have been Joe Biden.
This is what we mean when we talk about being center left: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre-left_politics
This explains about the ideologies of the Democrats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)
That’s why it’s considered a big tent party.
That also shows the policy positions of the party on issues.
This shows the ideologies and the policies of the GOP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)
When we compare the policy positions mentioned in those links, our views are in line with the Democrats on issues.
Princess Leia and Pragmatic Progressive,
I stand by what I wrote and posted about Nancy LeTourneau.
Princess Leia and Pragmatic Progressive,
I also am in agreement with much of what I had posted from those five respondents.
LOL! And we’re in disagreement with what those 5 wrote.
Southern Liberal – coughThey’reUninformedcough 😉
Nailed it RD. 😉
D – You’re talking to people who have been lifelong Democrats here. The oldest of us voted for JFK when we turned 18. The youngest of us voted for Bill Clinton when we turned 18.
The only one of your R’s that somewhat nails our lifestyle is #1. We are middle class, white collar, college educated, small town USA people but we’re not into the stock market. Â
We are anti-intervention but not anti-war. WW2 was necessary for the U.S. to partake in. Civilization was at stake. No subsequent war the U.S. has been in comes anywhere close in consequence or importance.
Considering the fact that four of us are women, we feel that, when “identity politics” are demonized in an effort to appeal to white men, it’s women and minorities who lose out. We will fight tooth and nail with anyone who wants to throw women’s rights and civil rights under the bus.
Thank you for that Former Republican.
This is how I view it –
If you’ve ever watched Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman, we and some of our family and friends are like her and some of her family and friends, liberal on many issues of our day.
Other family and friends of ours are like some of the characters in her town – ignorant and prejudiced.