Democratic Victories In Virginia, New Jersey, And Elsewhere Sign Of Repudiation Of Trump, And Beginning Of Impeachment Move

Yesterday was a glorious day for Democrats across the board.

Ralph Northam won the Virginia Governorship, and the Democrats also won the Lieutenant Governorship and State Attorney Generalship, as as well as switch the control of the House Of Delegates in a massive defeat for Republicans. The Lieutenant Governor is Justin Fairfax, first African American in that position in Virginia history.

A transgender woman in Virginia defeated a rabid homophobe for a seat in the House of Delegates. And the boyfriend of a woman murdered on live television in 2015, ran on the gun issue and won a seat in the House of Delegates in her memory. Two Latinas were also elected to the House of Delegates, as well as a Vietnamese Asian American woman for the first time in Virginia.

New Jersey saw the repudiation of Chris Christie’s lieutenant governor, by Democrat Phil Murphy. And an African American woman was elected Lieutenant Governor.

Maine expanded Medicaid over the objections of right wing bully Republican Governor Paul Le Page.

New Hampshire saw Manchester’s Mayoralty fall to the Democratic nominee.

Minneapolis, Minnesota City Council saw the election of a transgender African American woman.

St. Paul, Minnesota and Helena, Montana elected African Americans to the Mayoralty of both cities, a first for both .

Charlotte, North Carolina Mayoralty went to an African American woman.

Two small cities in Georgia elected an African American woman Mayor, and two African American men won that office, one in a city in Georgia, and one in South Carolina.

Hoboken, New Jersey elected a man of the Sikh religion as its Mayor.

A woman was elected Nassau County, New York (on Long Island) County Executive for the first time, and a rare case of a Democrat winning that position.

The State Senate in Washington State went to a Democratic majority, making the entire Pacific Coast “Blue”, in California, Oregon and Hawaii, along with Washington State.

City Mayors, all Democrats, were reelected in New York City, Boston, and Detroit and a lesbian Mayor elected in Seattle, among other places.

Growing numbers of incumbent Republicans are deciding not to run for reelection, creating more open seats and making likelihood of Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives in 2018 much more likely.

Suburban areas across the nation are growing more Democratic on paper, after massive victories all over the nation.

Northern Virginia has become more powerful in numbers and percentage, overcoming southern and western sections of Virginia, making Virginia clearly a Blue State in the future.

With many Republicans now planning to retire, expect more criticism of Donald Trump, and a growing shift toward impeachment of Trump, since retiring politicians have an independence not seen otherwise, so just as John McCain. Jeff Flake. and Bob Corker have come out against Trump, more can be expected in both houses of Congress.

And for many Republicans who remain, they may prefer Mike Pence in the White House when they are running for reelection, and since Trump shows no loyalties to the party which gave him their nomination, why should they feel an obligation to support him through thick and thin?

84 comments on “Democratic Victories In Virginia, New Jersey, And Elsewhere Sign Of Repudiation Of Trump, And Beginning Of Impeachment Move

  1. Pragmatic Progressive November 8, 2017 4:54 pm

    Top issue with Virginia voters was healthcare. People like their Obamacare and don’t want it repealed, they want Medicaid expansion, etc.

  2. Southern Liberal November 8, 2017 4:56 pm

    Many of the winners are young and new to politics. This is not the picture painted by critics of the Dem Party as being a closed club. Dems are open to new faces who are proud to be Democrats and run as Democrats.

  3. D November 8, 2017 5:13 pm

    I will probably have more than one response to this blog entry from Ronald. But, let me offer the following for the midterm elections of 2018:

    • U.S. HOUSE—Democratic Pickup
    The 2017 elections rendered a preview reminding me what 2009 turned out to be for 2010—a wave for the White House opposition party which wasn’t just local but very national. I anticipate the +24 seats for which Democrats are needing to flip to win over a majority will get reached. That number is liable to be met with a bonus—taking the minimum 218 into the 220s, perhaps, but could go into the 230s and, if it’s a fantastic year, the 240s. That is, somewhere around 15 to as much as 25 states would deliver an average of two Republican-held House seats which would end up as pickups for Democrats. That would yield anywhere between +30 to +50.

    • U.S. SENATE—Tossup (Advantage: Democratic Pickup)
    If the Democrats flip the U.S. House, and do so with anywhere between a net gain of +30 to +50, no Democratic-held U.S. Senate seat is going to flip Republican. They will all get retained. This is in line with the midterm waves for the 1994 Republicans, the 2006 Democrats, the 2010 Republican (who flipped the Senate not in 2010 but 2014). The Democrats will go in with 48 seats. If the special in Alabama, scheduled in December 2017, flips Democratic, the Senate will end flipping with the House. The order is Nevada and Arizona. (It is no coincidence the latter’s Jeff Flake chose to not run for possible re-election.) Following are Texas, Tennessee, and Nebraska. Surprise me with another state, which would emerge, and it would be just a matter of further Democratic gains that, at this point, I wouldn’t anticipate but wouldn’t stun me. A delicious possibility in all this would be an unseating of the very creepy Ted Cruz in Texas.

    • GOVERNORS—Democratic Pickup (Majority 26)
    With Phil Murphy flipping New Jersey from Republican to Democratic, the governors count goes to Republicans at 33 to Democrats at 16. (Alaska is independent.) To have a national wave election, as mentioned especially with the U.S. House, will be unavoidable with also the governor mansions. They would be part of that wave. The Ds need a net gain of +10. If the House is garnering +30 to +50, for a majority pickup, the Ds will reach majority pickup of state governorships. So, look first to the 2016 Democratic states in the column for Hillary Clinton which have Republican governors. In addition to now-decided New Jersey, this is applicable to Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Vermont. If all were to switch, that would be a gain of D+8. Then look to the states which flipped Republican to carry for Donald Trump. Five of his six pickup states have Republican governors: Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. If all were to switch, that is +5 and a cumulative total of D+13. Next are states trending away from the Republicans which could be in position to flip for a Democratic presidential pickup winner: Arizona, Georgia, and Texas. So, those are +3 and a cumulative D+16. And then one can look at states that are Core Republican, for presidential elections, which are on a pattern of electing governors from the White House opposition party. These are ones which would get dismissed by most. But, the pattern is there and established since the 1990s or earlier. This is applicable to: Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wyoming. They are +5 for a cumulative D+21. Now, I would not anticipate all to fall. But, when needing a net gain of +10, and for there to be a consideration of up to 21, and a midterm wave election is taking shape, this leaves winning over a majority of governorships very doable for the Democrats.

    I have not followed enough of the state houses. So, I will not comment. But, what happened in 2017 Virginia and the state of Washington, as examples, is encouraging. This doesn’t speak to the divide in the Democratic Party, during and after Election 2016, and for what it means for the presidency. This recognizes that Donald Trump, as the current U.S. president who is affiliated with the Republican Party, is the type of leader whose low job-approval performance—now in the 30s percentile range—is creating this kind of wave taking shape to move against him and his party. (There are already a lot of announced Republican retirements coming in 2018. Those incumbents sense what it is likely coming. And their retirements mean they are bailing.)

    2018, following what just played out in November 2017, will be a really good year for the Democrats. And then, after November 6, 2018, a discussion moves to focusing on 2020.

  4. Rational Lefty November 8, 2017 5:43 pm

    Second that, Southern Liberal. I think that the party is less divided than many pundits are saying.

  5. Rustbelt Democrat November 8, 2017 8:04 pm

    All of these wins are historic. This is what America is about.

  6. D November 8, 2017 8:22 pm

    The following is a very good win…

    Prosecutor Who Convicted White Police Officer for Killing Black Teen is Re-elected in Contentious Race

    By Maryem Saleh (11.07.2017)

    Stephanie Morales is one of only a handful of prosecutors who has prosecuted and won a conviction in a case of a white police officer who killed a black person. On Tuesday, she won her re-election campaign in Portsmouth, Virginia, an indication of public support for a strong response to police violence.

    Morales, who was an assistant commonwealth attorney before being elected top prosecutor in a 2015 special election, defeated attorney T.J. Wright V, who has five years of experience as a family law and criminal defense attorney. Unofficial elections results from the City of Portsmouth on Tuesday night showed Morales with 17,594 votes to Wright’s 10,290 votes, with all 32 precincts reporting.

    Her election sent a message that “if someone runs on a platform of integrity, of independence from special interests and holding police accountable — you can run on that platform and you can win,” Michael Kieschnick, whose PAC Real Justice, founded by veterans of the Bernie Sanders campaign, backed Morales, told The Intercept as election results were coming in.

    Her victory comes on the heels of a contentious campaign in which she lost the support of influential local Democrats who accused her of using her office improperly.


    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Stephanie Morales re-elected Portsmouth commonwealth’s attorney

    By Scott Daugherty (11.07.2017)

    A career prosecutor elected almost three years ago to serve out the term of her predecessor won re-election Tuesday.

    Commonwealth’s Attorney Stephanie Morales defeated defense attorney T.J. Wright with about 63 percent of the vote, according to the registrar. She received about 7,300 votes more than her challenger.


  7. Pragmatic Progressive November 8, 2017 8:58 pm

    As an added bonus, this election spells the end of gerrymandering in Virginia. For nearly a decade, the GOP have rigged legislative districts in the state to shut out Democrats, employing a strategy largely developed by Gillespie himself. Now, with a Democrat at the helm for the 2020 census, Republicans will be forced to draw fair maps.

  8. Princess Leia November 8, 2017 9:10 pm

    Pragmatic – That’s an example of things I keep in mind when I vote.

  9. Rustbelt Democrat November 8, 2017 10:11 pm

    Hear hear for Tom Perriello. There are a thousand and one reasons for a night like Tuesday’s, most importantly the candidates themselves. But Perriello put party and principle above self and that shouldn’t be forgotten.

  10. Former Republican November 8, 2017 10:16 pm

    For once, Democrats actually fielded candidates in races that they normally forfeit. We need more of this.

    I realize it is necessary to carefully marshal our resources, but we shouldn’t be afraid of failure, either. Even when you run and lose, you learn which message work and you develop a network of volunteers and supporters.

  11. Rustbelt Democrat November 8, 2017 10:27 pm

    A diverse slate helped too. A Democratic socialist unseated the House GOP Majority Whip by a huge margin for a seat in Virginia’s House of Delegates.

  12. Pragmatic Progressive November 9, 2017 12:16 pm

    Same here, Leia.

    For example, the role of Lt. Governor. Justin Fairfax’s job will be important for progressive issues. In the case of a state Senate tie, the lieutenant governor is allowed to cast a vote. That’s crucial for causes like expanding Medicaid, an effort that Virginia state Republicans have blocked repeatedly.

  13. Former Republican November 9, 2017 12:17 pm

    Exactly, Rustbelt! The wins showed why we’re a big tent party. Democrats of all stripes won, literally. A lot of thanks needs to go out to all the grassroots groups that organized to make the wins possible. Candidates were backed by Our Revolution, Indivisible, Emily’s List, Democratic Socialists of America, etc.  

  14. Rational Lefty November 9, 2017 5:00 pm

    Five takeaways from Virginia’s election.

    1. Primaries can be good for our party. Tuesday night, I was proud to see my former boss, Tom Perriello, getting well-deserved praise for his tireless work on behalf of the Democratic ticket and particularly House of Delegate candidates. Former Obama speechwriter and co-host of Pod Save America, Jon Favreau, tweeted, “Democrats everywhere could learn something from the way (Tom Perriello) threw everything he had into campaigning for his primary opponent.”
    Democrats can also learn something from the primary campaign that Ralph and Tom ran in the first place. When Tom entered the race, some Virginia Democrats worried a primary would hurt our chances of winning in November. Not only did this primary not damage our party, it made us stronger. Ralph and Tom engaged in a substantive conversation about the issues most important to Virginia Democrats, which ultimately resulted in the most progressive nominee and platform in Virginia history. Both campaigns also helped get Democratic voters excited and engaged early in the year, and turnout in the Democratic primary was historically high, a trend that continued on Election Day, when turnout was higher than it’s been in 20 years.
    In 2018 and beyond, we should not be scared of primaries. We should encourage substantive and rigorous debates, and then unify to defeat Republicans. After Ralph Northam won the primary in June, Tom immediately offered his full-fledged support. He then led Win Virginia, a Political Action Committee committed to electing Democrats across the Commonwealth, and attended over 100 events supporting Democratic candidates up and down the ticket. He also helped raise $500,000 in direct contributions to Democratic candidates and committees in Virginia.
    2. Compete in every zip code with candidates who look like all of America. Democrats fielded 54 challengers this fall, more than doubling the previous cycle, and leaving only 12 Republican incumbents unopposed. Nearly all overperformed, many in districts that hadn’t seen a Democratic challenger in more than a decade. Over half of the new challengers were women, more than a quarter were candidates of color, and nearly a dozen were millennials. It is clear that from the numbers that House of Delegate campaigns, with dynamic candidates and intensive focus on local issues, drove turnout much higher.
    Only a few weeks ago, almost no one thought that Democrats could win back the House of Delegates. The most optimistic projections were that Dems might gain a few seats. Tom Perriello, who helped orchestrate down-ballot victories across the state with Win Virginia, was one of those who felt otherwise. Throughout the primary campaign he told town hall audiences that with the right candidates stepping up Dems could harness anti-Trump movement energy to take back the House.
    And the right candidates did step up. In Prince William County, Danica Roem will become the first transgender lawmaker after defeating Bob Marshall, an extreme conservative culture warrior who refused to debate Roem while misgendering her in the press. In Henrico, first time candidates Schuyler VanValkenberg and Debra Rodman picked up House seats that Democrats had not contested since 2007. In Virginia Beach, Kelly Fowler decided to run after attending the Women’s March in January and took down a four-term incumbent considered unbeatable one year ago.
    Many of these candidates never considered running prior to Donald Trump’s election. Many of the groups that bolstered their campaigns — Indivisible, Run for Something, the Arena, and Win Virginia– were similarly born from the Resistance. While there are substantial forces within the party benefitting from inertia and the status quo, the DNC and Tom Perez also deserve a lot of credit for setting a new tone that fosters innovation. Susan Swecker and the Democratic Party of Virginia deserve credit for putting mission first and working seamlessly with new candidates and groups to enhance the existing party structure, rather than engaging in internecine turf disputes.
    3. Democrats are winning the economic argument. Ed Gillespie spent most of his campaign appealing to white tribalism after his initial economic arguments fell flat. Last spring, he unveiled a tax plan that resurrected the disastrous Bush tax policies that bankrupted the middle class, pensions, and the federal budget to concentrate wealth in the hands of the richest few. It bombed. One primary opponent dismissed it as “phony math,” and the other came within one percentage point of besting him for the nomination while running on a neo-Confederate platform.
    Meanwhile, Ralph Northam was the first nominee in Virginia history to support a $15/hour minimum wage and debt-free community college, along with universal access to early childhood education. Tom ran in the primary on the same platform. The only thing more striking than Virginia Democrats running on this platform was that Republicans did not run a single ad criticizing Northam for being too liberal on economic issues. Instead, they realized that these issue are popular with Virginia voters.
    4. The Republican Party is the party of “identity politics.” As the decades-long alliance of the Southern Strategy and corporate America has frayed, Republicans who want to win realize only one of those groups has an actual base of voters. Forced to confront the fact that there is no longer a constituency for a pro-corporation, trickle-down economics platform, Republicans in Virginia fell back on race-baiting.
    Perhaps no one embodies Corporate Republicanism more than Ed Gillespie, but after the terrorist attack in Charlottesville, he abandoned his “tax and spend” attacks on Democrats. While carefully condemning hate groups without condemning Trump, he then embraced their agenda – raising the spectre of mythical sanctuary cities in Virginia while defending Confederate war memorials. In his native New Jersey accent, Gillespie even cut a direct to camera ad arguing, “I’m for keeping ‘em up; he’s for taking ‘em down.”
    In essence, Virginia proved that Senator Flake was right, and we should expect more retirements to come in rapid succession. As similar tactics in New Jersey showed, Republicans are increasingly stuck with two options: lose their dignity (along with elections) or get out. A third path, of rejecting race-baiting and the Koch-fueled extremism of the modern GOP in order to tilt back to the middle, is both imperative to Republicans and our Republic, but continues to be ignored.
    5. Democratic voters will show up if you give them a reason. An “Inclusive Virginia” opposition to Donald Trump’s agenda and the divisiveness he represents was enough of a governing philosophy to turn out voters, persuade independents, and assemble a winning coalition. But there were other important factors motivating the record turnout we saw yesterday, all bolstered by a growing recognition that state politics matter, especially in the Trump era. From exit polls, it is clear that health care, and particularly Republican efforts to sabotage Obamacare, was the primary issue driving turnout. Northam’s consistent message of expanding access in Virginia in repudiation of these efforts undoubtedly boosted his margin, as did his unwavering defense of women’s reproductive health rights.
    Guns too were on the ballot – not as a referendum, but as a key part of Northam’s message of support for common sense gun reform, including limiting access to assault rifles. His ‘F’ rating by the NRA apparently worked in his favor, as exit polls showed support for gun reform motivated base turnout, in contradiction of the traditional Virginia wisdom that centrist Dems should stay away from guns.
    Due in part to strong work by the organization Virginia 2021, there was also an unprecedented focus on gerrymandering and its insidious effects on our democracy. Northam’s victory on Tuesday means that in 2021 legislative maps will be drawn by a non-partisan committee instead of gerrymandered to favor Republican interest. Between now and 2020 every state will elect Governors and state legislators with the same power — the results will determine the rules under which a decade of American elections are conducted.

  15. Southern Liberal November 9, 2017 7:11 pm

    Re: Roy Moore

    The sickest thing about all this is that Moore might–probably will–win anyway.

  16. Rational Lefty November 9, 2017 7:17 pm

    Fanatical evangelicals will support him, regardless. That’s just the upside down world we live in.

  17. Pragmatic Progressive November 9, 2017 7:24 pm

    When the leader of the GOP – Trump – can assault women sexually and still be accepted as president and leader of the GOP you know they are a very sick party.

  18. D November 10, 2017 6:11 pm

    Senate Republicans ditch fundraising pact with Moore

    By Alex Isenstadt and Gabriel DeBenesetti (11.10.2017)

    The Republican Party’s Senate campaign wing on Friday severed its fundraising agreement with Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore.

    Federal Election Commission paperwork filed on Friday showed that the National Republican Senatorial Committee is no longer listed as part of a joint fundraising committee with Moore’s campaign.

    It’s the most concrete step Senate Republicans have taken to separate themselves from Moore.


  19. D November 11, 2017 3:40 am

    Here is an interesting interview discussing some results from Virginia…

    ‘Democrats Have a Big Night, and a Bigger Fight Ahead’

    By The Real News (11.09.2017)


    AARON MATÉ: Yeah, Zaid. Let’s talk about one of them in Virginia. Lee Carter, he was backed by the Democratic Socialists, ran as a Democrat, received no help from the state Democratic party, but he still won.

    ZAID JILANI: Yeah. Lee Carter actually he did get a little bit of help at the tail end. I think there was a mailer or something. It was a small amount of money from the Democratic party. Basically what happened was he was running against … For instance, there’s a lot of energy monopolies in Virginia. There are a number of companies that people protest saying that they basically have carte blanche to raise rates and things like that.

    He was very strongly opposed to them. The Democratic party is sort of on one hand or the other about those sort of things. Northam, for instance, refused to distance himself from a number of the fossil fuel, utilities in the state. He was very opposed to them. Actually, I think after he won the Democratic primary because he was running as a Democrat … For the most party they really didn’t help him. They didn’t really send people out to his district or anything like that.

    He built this campaign off of small donations and just local support. Yeah, actually the Republican that he defeated last night was no small fish either. This was the Republican whip in the House of Delegates so one of the senior people in the Republican leadership was the person he defeated. He openly ran his campaign saying that he doesn’t really think the Democrats or the Republicans are doing a whole lot standing up for the issues that he was running on, pro worker issues, pro environment issues.

    His win was an extreme surprise. I don’t think anyone thought that district was even vulnerable to anyone. Now we have a young guy who is an openly Democratic Socialist person. I’m sure we’ll see a lot from him going forward to see how he serves as the first Socialist lawmaker in the Virginia legislature.


    Video follows…

  20. Rustbelt Democrat November 11, 2017 12:43 pm

    Paul Schwarzmann talked to some Republicans in Virginia who voted a straight Democratic ticket on Tuesday.

    Michael Ross has been a loyal Republican for as long as he can remember. But voting in Virginia’s gubernatorial election Tuesday, the retired advertising executive said he rejected every Republican on the ballot and chose Democrats — whether he knew anything about them or not.
    His reasons were not rooted in any particular candidate, issue or a change in political philosophy, but in an ever-expanding antipathy toward President Trump and the party that propelled him to the White House.
    “I’ve been with the Republicans my whole life, but what the party has been doing is appalling,” said Ross, 72, as he was about to get a haircut Wednesday in Lorton, a suburb about 20 miles south of Washington. “It’s completely divisive, and the politics of this country has gone berserk. Trump has demonstrated that he doesn’t deserve to be president.”

  21. Princess Leia November 11, 2017 12:46 pm

    Thanks for that Rustbelt. As I’ve said before, it’s a sign that some people are regretting their decisions last November.

  22. D November 11, 2017 5:04 pm

    Thank you, for the link to that piece, Rustbelt Democrat!

    I appreciate, and I agree, with the following video on Hillary Clinton:

  23. Southern Liberal November 11, 2017 7:36 pm

    Agreed, Rustbelt. He should join the Democratic Party or shut up. I’m sick of his back seat driving.

  24. Princess Leia November 11, 2017 8:06 pm

    Jimmy Dore is a conspiracy theorist and not a reliable source of information.

  25. Ronald November 11, 2017 9:41 pm

    D, I really object to this Jimmy Dore video, as I do NOT think Hillary Clinton was or is going crazy.

    This kind of BS gets us nowhere, and instead, we should be focusing on Trump who is already crazy.

    And realize Bernie Sanders often acts far from sane, and is far from a perfect candidate in his life.

    I do NOT have respect for Jimmy Dore, after having watched him a number of times, and for him to say Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar, is totally a disgrace!

    Rarely am I that upset by any video, but this really tops the list as infuriating!

  26. D November 12, 2017 7:54 am

    Princess Leia writes,

    “Jimmy Dore is a conspiracy theorist and not a reliable source of information.”


    Jimmy Dore is a comedian—and has been one for roughly 30 years (he was born in 1965 and is 52 years old)—and he is a political commentator.

  27. Princess Leia November 12, 2017 10:41 am

    D – Democrats amongst our circle of family and friends are –
    a) Center left and range in age from 40s to 70s and have been voting for Democrats all their lives.
    b) They trust mainstream news except for Fox.
    c) They consider the blogs the Professor lists (Think Progress, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, etc.) to be reliable sources for additional information for the left.
    d) They’ve watched the videos you post here and consider them biased and consider the mocking tone used as unprofessional.

  28. Princess Leia November 12, 2017 12:05 pm

    Thanks for that Rational Lefty. True progressive news informs their listeners or readers about joining organizations like that as a way to fight back against Trump and the GOP. They tell about joining the protests, going to town halls, calling your members of Congress, visiting district offices, etc.

  29. Princess Leia November 12, 2017 1:17 pm

    Re: Charlottesville

    I think so as well. Trump not standing up against Nazis angered people of all political stripes.

  30. Princess Leia November 12, 2017 1:38 pm

    Like I’ve said time and again, if we had to lose to a Republican in 2016, I would have much rather lose to someone sane, like John Kasich. I don’t agree with him on policy issues but I felt that he wouldn’t start a nuclear war over a Tweet. Trump’s hot-headed personality is why he’s so scary to many people, and it’s not just Democrats.

  31. Pragmatic Progressive November 12, 2017 3:03 pm

    Another thing many people don’t like about Trump is that he’s ignorant of the Constitution and has no experience about how government works.

  32. D November 12, 2017 6:07 pm

    Princess Leia writes,

    “D – Democrats amongst our circle of family and friends are –
    a) Center left and range in age from 40s to 70s and have been voting for Democrats all their lives.
    b) They trust mainstream news except for Fox.
    c) They consider the blogs the Professor lists (Think Progress, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, etc.) to be reliable sources for additional information for the left.
    d) They’ve watched the videos you post here and consider them biased and consider the mocking tone used as unprofessional.”

    I will respond to each point.

    A) I am not here to be a member of a circle. In fact, I was not conscious of such a thing until this was mentioned a few months ago.

    This is not where I am coming from. I am present because I like, and have always appreciated, the overall content of “The Progressive Professor.” It is as simple as that.

    Regarding the Democratic Party being “center left.” That depends on current politics. I don’t perceive the Democratic Party—as to the influence for its leadership—to be center or left. They are left only on social issues. But, social issues, for policies, are not all that counts. The Democratic Party is on the economic right. They are pro-war. They are, just like Republicans, supportive of surveillance. They are every bit supportive of the Patriot Act. They are neoliberals.

    Take a look at the recent controversy over DNC chairman Tom Perez and who he has on his committee—a whole bunch of corporate and lobbyist figures—and this is the current Democratic Party in leadership. (Who pushed for Tom Perez to be DNC chair? Barack Obama.)

    B) Mainstream news media is biased. This includes, from linear television, not just Fox News but also CNN and MSNBC and the broadcast networks. (They push corporatism. Chuck Todd does it on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”) This also includes newspaper publications. The editorial content. And I also do not go along with mainstream media because I consider their ownership and what may motivate what they present, and their coverage, on the air. For example, Comcast owns MSNBC. And Comcast definitely does not want Net Neutrality. Has Net Neutrality, for all the millions spent by Comcast for lobbying against it, been covered by MSNBC? From newspaper publications, “Washington Post” is owned by Jeff Bezos of Bezos has CIA connections. I don’t think this is appropriate. And it does not inspire confidence and trust.

    C) This is Ronald’s blog site. What recommendations for additional sites he includes is a choice, belonging to him, for the overall content and layout of “The Progressive Professor.”

    D) The videos that I have posted here are from progressives’ points of view. By “progressive,” I am referring to progressives who want the kind of leadership which used to exist from past Democratic Party U.S. presidents like Franklin Roosevelt—who may be the greatest president in U.S. history—and not neoliberal Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Progressives believe this is the direction, which would include transformative leadership, needed for the Democratic Party. Progressives do not believe it is okay for Democratic leaders to deliver right-wing policies. (Here is President Obama, from December 2012, one month after he was re-elected: “The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican.” .)

    The “biased” and “mocking” that you feel is “unprofessional” is supported with content to support these opinions which come from progressives’ points of view. (By the way: I don’t consider MSNBC’s Joy Reid to be free of bias or mocking with her tweets, from Twitter, on Bernie Sanders or his primaries voters. In fact, back in 2010 she was praising Sanders. And those tweets, her hypocrisy, were exposed this past summer on Twitter. So, I reached the conclusion that, because she is employed by Comcast, Joy Reid says whatever Comcast pays Joy Reid to say. In other words: I don’t take her seriously.)

    The videos I have posted are criticisms. If criticisms about problems and/or failures—and there are not always successes—in the Democratic Party bother you, then perhaps what you are really thinking is that there should never be criticism of the Democratic Party. (Or: For there to be any criticism of the Democratic Party, there should be qualifiers, the criticisms should be brief, and then they should stop.) I disagree. In fact, based on what went on with the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries—that they were rigged—and that Hillary Clinton lost the general election to Donald Trump, I think not being critical of party leadership (where is the Democratic Party’s Autopsy Report on Election 2016?) is being unthinking. And if one is unthinking, because fealty to one‘s preferred political party feels more important to that person, well that is not progressive. That cannot be progressive.

  33. Former Republican November 12, 2017 6:25 pm

    D – It’s simple. If you don’t like the Democratic Party, don’t vote for them, and quit whining about something you don’t like. Join a third party that is closer to your values.

  34. Princess Leia November 12, 2017 6:28 pm

    D – I’m just telling you how Democrats that we know outside this blog feel. Democrats that we know outside this blog aren’t upset with the party.

  35. Pragmatic Progressive November 12, 2017 6:46 pm

    I think that there is a generational thing going on here. Except for Southern Liberal and Rational Lefty, we, and our friends and family, are in our 60s and 70s. People our age tend to be supportive of the party.

  36. Rustbelt Democrat November 12, 2017 6:57 pm

    Exactly, Pragmatic. I get the impression that young Americans don’t seem to have party loyalty that older Americans do.

  37. Princess Leia November 12, 2017 7:01 pm

    Pragmatic and Rustbelt – Democrats we know our age aren’t skeptical of the party.

  38. Rational Lefty November 12, 2017 7:11 pm

    The base of the Democratic party is in the middle, not off to the extremes.
    Bernie Sanders’s Army Is Not the Democratic Base
    The party’s most reliable voters are older black women. So why do some journalists suggest otherwise?
    The New York Times on Sunday, in a story titled “Democrats in Split-Screen: The Base Wants It All. The Party Wants to Win,” described a “growing tension between the party’s ascendant militant wing and Democrats competing in conservative-leaning terrain.” The reporters, Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin, cited Senator Bernie Sanders as a leader of the former group and Georgia congressional candidate Jon Ossoff as representative of the latter. At one point, the piece referenced “tension between Mr. Ossoff’s message and the appetites of the national Democratic base.”
    Hours after the Times article was published, FiveThirtyEight statistician Nate Silver took issue with such framing, igniting a Twitter debate over who, exactly, comprises the Democratic “base.” This may seem like a matter of semantics to some, but to others it’s a loaded term whose definition has real implications for the future of the Democratic Party—not just in courting new voters, but in not taking for granted its longtime supporters.
    Arguably—given that she won the Democratic primaries by a healthy margin—Clinton had more base support. Mostly women. Mostly nonwhite.
    — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) June 11, 2017
    The Times was hardly the first publication to substitute Sanders supporters for Democratic base voters. In an article about Senate Democrats last month, the Huffington Post made reference to “their restless progressive base, which would like to see the party embrace Sanders-style economic populism.” But as National Journal politics editor Josh Kraushaar‏ observed on Sunday, Hillary Clinton actually tied Sanders in last year’s primary among voters who called themselves “very liberal.” (She won “somewhat liberal” and “moderate” voters by big margins.)
    If you define D base as “very liberal,” Dems divided in 2016 primaries. Sanders 49.9%, Clinton 49.8%
    — Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) June 12, 2017
    That Wall Street Journal analysis of the 2016 Democratic primary is strong evidence against the claim that Sanders, who isn’t even a registered Democrat, represents the party base. As the Journal noted, “Sanders won big margins among independents who cast ballots in Democratic contests. But he lost Democratic Party members by close to 30 percentage points.”
    “If you’re talking about the Democratic Party base, it’s actually kind of more of a Clinton base,” Silver said on a FiveThirtyEight podcast on Monday. “If you’re talking about liberal activists or progressive activists, it’s a slightly different connotation.”
    “I think there’s a lot of reporting that wants to kind of play up the conflict between the Bernie wing of the party and the establishment, which kind of leaves out the fact that Hillary Clinton had a lot of support from people who are kind of classically part of the Democratic base, including African-Americans, women, Hispanics, older Baby Boomers,” Silver said. “I mean, these are very, very major parts of the Democratic coalition.” He acknowledged “fairly clear evidence that the Democratic Party as a whole is moving to the left, and the influence of Bernie Sanders and politicians like him is an important reason for that,” but said “the notion that anyone who pushes back against that is the establishment and not part of the grassroots is wrong.”
    “I think in most areas of the country, the base of the Democratic Party is moderates,” said Jim Kessler, co-founder of the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way. “I’ve always felt that the Democratic Party has to row with two oars with equal fervor. We can’t win with just liberals.” Earlier this year, he cited exit poll data showing most Democratic voters identify as “moderate” or “conservative.” “I think it would be a dangerous experiment to say the party could move much further left and appeal to as broad a group of people,” Kessler told me.
    The debate over who comprises the Democratic base isn’t just about defining the party’s identity, both ideologically and demographically, but about whether certain Democratic voters get enough recognition for their loyalty in the voting booth. No group of voters is more dependably Democratic than black women, who voted overwhelmingly for Clinton over Sanders, by a three-to-one margin, even as he narrowly won younger black voters. In the general election, black women “were by far Clinton’s strongest supporters, at 94 percent,” according to The Washington Post.
    “I think the most reliable Democratic voters out there are older black women,” Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told me. “While the Bernie coalition doesn’t vote Republican, some them do flirt with third parties, while the older black women don’t.” Lake said her description of the Democratic base would include self-described liberals, unmarried women under 55, and people of color in general, but she stressed, “The strongest part of our base is older African-American women.”
    And yet, dozens of prominent black women in politics recently sent a scathing letter to Tom Perez, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, saying the party hasn’t reciprocated their commitment to it, and that they will no longer be “silent partners.” “The Democratic Party has a real problem. The data reveals that Black women voters are the very foundation to a winning coalition, yet most Black voters feel like the Democrats take them for granted,” they wrote. “The Party’s foundation has a growing crack and if it is not addressed quickly, the Party will fall even further behind and ultimately fail in its quest to strengthen its political prospects.” The signatories, which included several state senators and representatives, called on the DNC to meet with black women leaders. Perez promised to do so, telling the Post in a statement, “While black women are at the core of our party and of the resistance, they are too often taken for granted. We must change this.”
    “I think a really important lesson we must learn from the last election is that women of color are our base of support—our tried and tested Democratic supporters,” said Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense who is mulling a Democratic bid for Congress in Colorado. “They are influential voters. They should be influential within the party.”
    Specifically, black and brown women. They should get to pick the next Presidential nominee for Dems.
    — Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) June 11, 2017
    Citing the Perez-Sanders “unity tour,” Watts says the Democratic Party’s post-election leadership has been lacking in gender diversity. “It doesn’t feel very unifying when the stars are mostly male,” she told me. “I would like to hear a whole lot more from Kamala Harris and Maxine Waters and Pramila Jayapal.”
    One prominent black woman in the Democratic Party isn’t as concerned. Donna Brazile, the former DNC chair, said it’s “not my view” that Sanders and his supporters are inappropriately used as shorthand for “the Democratic base,” to the exclusion of groups like black women. “Base is as broad and diverse as the party itself,” Brazile told me in an email. “From millennials to non white voters, Democrats have an opportunity to expand and attract the kind for voters needed to win at the grassroots level. The most important challenge facing the party is its ability to recruit candidates that will inspire a new generation of voters to register and get out to vote.”
    In other words, the big tent must get even bigger. The challenge for party officials is to make everyone underneath it feel welcome.

  39. Ronald November 12, 2017 7:14 pm

    I hate to see all of you arguing, when we need to accept different views, so I feel D has his points to make, and has his right to have them, and the rest of you also have that right, but let’s not become engaged in disputes that divide us, and accomplish nothing except rhetoric, and instead work together for the goal of getting progressives in office to change the nation in 2018 and beyond.

  40. Princess Leia November 12, 2017 7:21 pm

    Thanks for that Rational Lefty. Democrats we know outside this blog are as this says from the article:

    “I think there’s a lot of reporting that wants to kind of play up the conflict between the Bernie wing of the party and the establishment, which kind of leaves out the fact that Hillary Clinton had a lot of support from people who are kind of classically part of the Democratic base, including African-Americans, women, Hispanics, older Baby Boomers,” Silver said. “I mean, these are very, very major parts of the Democratic coalition.” He acknowledged “fairly clear evidence that the Democratic Party as a whole is moving to the left, and the influence of Bernie Sanders and politicians like him is an important reason for that,” but said “the notion that anyone who pushes back against that is the establishment and not part of the grassroots is wrong.”
    “I think in most areas of the country, the base of the Democratic Party is moderates,” said Jim Kessler, co-founder of the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way. “I’ve always felt that the Democratic Party has to row with two oars with equal fervor. We can’t win with just liberals.” Earlier this year, he cited exit poll data showing most Democratic voters identify as “moderate” or “conservative.” “I think it would be a dangerous experiment to say the party could move much further left and appeal to as broad a group of people,” Kessler told me.

  41. Rustbelt Democrat November 12, 2017 7:45 pm

    Those quotes nail it. That’s why you have some Democrats like Joe Manchin in the party, for example. He’s from West Virginia and West Virginia has gone very red in recent decades, which means any Democrat from that state has to toe a very thin line in representing his state in Congress. Therefore, to expect Manchin to vote like Bernie or Elizabeth Warren is just fantasy. And while Manchin does vote with Republicans more than other Democrats, he still votes with Democrats more than 80 percent of the time. If Manchin is replaced, it will be that much harder for Bernie Sanders and other progressives in Congress to get anything done. And he will be replaced by a teabagger, who will vote with Republicans far more than Manchin did.

  42. Ronald November 12, 2017 8:17 pm

    Rustbelt Democrat, on your last point, I totally agree that the Democratic Party has to be a “Big Tent” party!

  43. Southern Liberal November 12, 2017 8:54 pm

    D has mentioned that he/she identifies as independent.

    This talks about independents:

    From the article:
    Younger people, whites and men—groups that skew toward Sanders—are significantly more likely to identify as independents than older voters, people of color and women.

    Most of us here are in the opposite groups: mostly older, mostly women.

  44. Southern Liberal November 13, 2017 12:19 pm

    Leia’s correct. We’re into political activism and interact with other Democrats in our community through meetings, social media, etc. Not everyone out there who is progressive or liberal hates the party and they are committed to working hard to ensure that Democrats take back Congress in 2018.  

  45. Pragmatic Progressive November 13, 2017 12:21 pm

    D keeps talking about social issues have become a high priority for the Democratic party. Well, that’s because of the changing demographics of the party over the decades. Many of the winners of the recent election are representative of that change. Issues that matter to them are under constant attack by Republicans, which is why those issues constantly tend to be front and center.

  46. Former Republican November 13, 2017 4:42 pm

    A lot of blogs we read are talking about not being afraid to run Democrats here, there, and everywhere.

    What do Democrats stand for?
    For those of us who are true party loyalists, this question is easy to answer. Democrats are the big tent party of inclusion. They believe that a rising tide lifts all boats and that we are stronger together. They believe in policies that benefit the middle class. They believe the rich and corporations should pay their fair share in taxes. They believe in the value of social welfare programs that help the poor, working class, and senior citizens. They believe that immigrants have and will continue to make our country great. They believe in a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions and to receive equal pay for her work. They believe in marriage equality and transgender rights. They believe that Black Lives Matter and that we need criminal justice reform. They believe that voting should be made easier and not harder. They believe in diplomacy rather than preemptive war. They believe that climate change is real and that we have an obligation to address it for future generations. And they believe that a country that engaged in open cyber warfare against the United States should not be rewarded for its actions.
    For a nation that leans center-left, these policy positions now resonate with the majority of Americans for the very first time. However, the question that has now arisen in Democratic circles is what to do when these policy positions don’t resonate with the local populations. After all, all politics is local. Is it really worth the Democratic Party investing time, resources, and most importantly money in local races in notoriously conservative areas?
    It is on this issue that there are two trains of thought, the first being that these areas are lost causes. This view emphasizes that in these areas, thanks in large part to partisan gerrymandering, the Republican candidate will win simply because he has an (R) next to his name. These are areas that makeup “Trump Country”, regions denoted by strong Evangelism, a strong dislike for immigrants, overt patriotism and machoness, a strong skepticism of intellectualism, and an open disdain for any and all Washington politicians, specifically Democrats. With a worldview that is hardly recognizable to Democrats, these areas seem almost like an entirely different country with little or no common ground.
    ln the age of Trump, the Republican Party has shifted to the far-right in an effort to appease its xenophobic, misogynistic base and it is this base that largely makes up Trump Country. It is this very base that supports Republican candidates and policies, regardless of how hurtful they will be to the same supporters that helped elect them in the first place. Republicans in these areas support a pedophile senatorial candidate in Alabama. They support an assaulter Congressman in Montana. They support a tax plan that hurts the upper middle class and increases the deficit. And they continue to support the most corrupt administration with a president with more allegiance to Russia and Vladimir Putin than the United States. As any CNN interview or New York Times article tells us, these people are all in and have no regret for their support of today’s Republican Party. With all this being said, the argument against investing in these regions is centered on the idea that there is simply no way to win these people over.  
    And yet, these areas can and should be contested.
    The reason these areas are the way they are is that they have been ignored for so long that they don’t know what a Democrat is or what they stand for. This argument stems from the idea that voters in Trump Country consistently vote against their own self-interests exactly because they’ve never heard a Democrat provide them with an alternate option. It’s easy to demonize a Democrat if the only ones you ever see are on Hannity. However, it’s a lot different if you see a Democrat run for the local school board. This is someone you see out in the community. Their child attends the same school as your child. They may even attend your church. When this happens, when Democrats are visible, it forces people to realize that they actually may have a choice in who they vote for rather than voting for a candidate by default.
    Democratic candidates in Trump Country will not win in 2018. They might not win in 2020, 2022, or 2024. But it’s important to run in these areas to sow the seed for future generations. Americans have extremely short-term memories when it comes to politics. Many people today would be shocked to learn that George H.W. Bush actually won the state of California in the 1988 election. In just 30 years, the state of California has gone from a red state to a bastion of liberality. This didn’t just happen because people wrote off the state entirely. It happened thanks to a continued effort to swing the state blue combined with racist, Republican-generated legislation in the form of Prop 187. By publicly attacking the state’s entire immigrant community, California Republican ignored demographic trends and essentially ensured that the state would turn and remain blue for the foreseeable future.
    This is why Democrats need to contest races everywhere, including Trump Country. What the recent Virginia elections showed us is that even some traditional Republican-leaning regions are rebelling against the modern-day GOP. Trump represents a repugnant stench that will stick to the GOP for a generation or more. His base may continue to support him, but it is that same base that watches Fox News and has an average age of 68 years old. The base is dying. Yes, it is a long, drawn-out death, but not only are they dying but their antiquated views are slowing dying with them. When Orange County goes blue in a presidential election for the first time since 1932 and when a Democrat candidate wins in Nassau County, there is something positive to be said for campaigning in traditionally Republican areas. Both these areas had a steady string of Democratic candidates campaign there over the previous decades, and it was these candidates whose hard work laid the foundation for those two monumental victories over the past year. 
    That right there shows the importance of running candidates everywhere, including the reddest of the red areas. It might not yield immediate results but we are now at a time in our nation’s history when we need to plant as many seeds as possible. Everyone needs to be aware of what Democrats stand for, especially at the local level. Even if a candidate loses by 40 points when he previously lost by 45, that 5 point gain can lead to a profound shift in a generation if Democrats continue to campaign in that region. Donald Trump and those close to him committed treason and the entire Republican Party allowed it to happen. As all this comes to light, typical Republican voters in Trump Country will have a lot of soul-searching to do to decide if they will continue to support a political party that actively engaged in treason against the United States of America. As long as they have a viable alternative, for the first time in their lives, they will consider voting for a Democratic candidate.
    As long as they know who that Democratic candidate is and what he or she stands for.

  47. Rustbelt Democrat November 14, 2017 5:09 pm

    Professor - 

    This Cenk Uygur’s Young Turks show that D watches used to be on MSNBC. I didn’t like his blowhard style and was glad when they dumped him.

    He, and some other progressive pundits out there who have been constantly bashing the Democrats ever since Obama’s presidency, are ex-Republicans. That’s why we, and other Democrats we know, are under the impression that they still harbor some Republican bias towards Democrats.

  48. Southern Liberal November 14, 2017 7:51 pm

    LOL! Our local paper had an article today about people putting write in votes on the ballot. Write ins included Andy Griffith, Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, Santa Claus, Jesus.

  49. Pragmatic Progressive November 14, 2017 10:52 pm

    When I was watching MSNBC last year, my opinion is that they screwed over Hillary.

    The general trajectory of the station went like this. In the primaries, the story was all about Bernie and his youthful revolution, with all Hillary conversation focused on her apparent deficiencies: Why don’t young people like her? Why isn’t she more inspiring? What is she so unlikable? Why can’t she reduce her message to soundbites the way Bernie can?

    If you watched the primaries through the lens of MSNBC, you’d be pretty convinced that Bernie was winning. Rarely was it mentioned that she had a substantial lead and, what’s more, there was a bad faith assumption that what support she had was unenthusiastic. There was never an attempt to find her supporters, and ask why many had retreated to the sidelines.

    In the general election, the myriad Trump outrages were covered, but Trump surrogates were always brought in to defend their candidate, which generally meant leaning heavily on hyperbolic, anti-Clinton talking points. With a few notable exceptions, their outrageous, mean-spirited claims were rarely challenged. What’s more, the email scandal was never put in context—namely that it grew out of the protracted and partisan Benghazi hearings which were a known GOP witchhunt (and of which she was, again, found to have done no wrong) and that Colin Powell, himself, also used a private email account. (The “private server” sounded nefarious—and was always treated as such—but if you looked closer, you’d see that it had been set up by Bill Clinton years earlier and just happened to be where the Clintons conducted their personal business.)

    One of the worst MSNBC offenders was Andrea Mitchell, who relentlessly grilled Hillary about her emails and seriously engaged with absurd conspiracy theories about Clinton’s health. Other offenders included Chris Matthews, who was nominally pro-Hillary during the general election, but couldn’t quite conceal his glee over Trump’s larger than life personality and populist tendencies. Other Hillary foes on MSNBC included Mark Halperin, a known Trump lackey, and Meet the Press‘s Chuck Todd, who routinely salivated all over Trump campaign director Kellyanne Conway. (“Don’t forget to enjoy the moment,” he sweet-talked her the night before the election, after congratulating her on a what a great job she had done.)

    The redoubtable Chris Hayes was certainly anti-Trump, but never fully pro-Hillary. (He was a Bernie guy.) Rachel Maddow was a little better on that front, but never as enthusiastic as I might have hoped.

    Only Joy Reid and Lawrence O’Donnell were committed, enthusiastic Hillary truth-tellers. (I won’t say supporters, they just saw her without the cynicism and entrenched negative bias of their colleagues.) Joy Reid, in particular, was the only MSNBC host who could take on the unfair and transparent tactics of Trump surrogates with facts and the appropriate amount of disgust.

    The truth is, Hillary was at a disadvantage across all cable news, even without the help of biased hosts. Her surrogates tended to be reasonable people, who answered direct questions, stuck to the facts, and played by the rules. While Trump surrogates tended to be blowhards and liars, who never answered direct questions and pivoted to anti-Hillary talking points.

    Because of all that, I pick and choose which hosts I now watch on the channel.

  50. Rational Lefty November 15, 2017 12:10 pm

    She was speaking at UVA yesterday. Young ladies interviewed by local news were talking about being inspired by her, talking about being angered by the sexism she had to endure, talking about the important need for more women in politics. All of which I say a hearty, “Amen!”

  51. Rustbelt Democrat November 15, 2017 4:48 pm

    Whenever Trump tries to act like Dr. Jekyll, many pundits in the media try to normalize him. As Lawrence, Rachel, Joy, Chris Hayes, and the blogs we read say, Trump should not be normalized.

  52. Rustbelt Democrat November 15, 2017 5:13 pm

    Ali Velshi and Stephanie Reule have been good when it comes to debunking lies told by Trump supporters and Republicans.

    Ari Melber, who has taken over the 6 pm time slot, is a host I enjoy as well.

  53. Pragmatic Progressive November 15, 2017 5:26 pm

    I’m glad to see Ari get his own show. He’s an example of the kind of hosting I like – no yelling, intelligent commentary.

  54. D November 15, 2017 6:11 pm

    I have responses to the following people:

    Ronald writes, “D, I really object to this Jimmy Dore video, as I do NOT think Hillary Clinton was or is going crazy.”

    I am sorry the video upset you, Ronald.

    I want to make sure to note that the full 100 percent of content—every word written or spoken—from linked articles or videos I post does not mean that I automatically agree with that full 100 percent.

    I wrote that I agree and appreciate the video; but, I meant most especially the parts in which Jimmy Dore delved into Hillary Clinton’s record, including how she was during the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries vs. what she said during the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries (and this is supported with the videos shown within this video); her post-Election 2016 attempts to smear Bernie Sanders and his primaries voters; and that, with the recording of this video, from this past September, Hillary Clinton was promoting her book, “What Happened,” while Bernie Sanders was getting over a dozen Democratic incumbents U.S. senators to publicly support Medicare For All. I am in agreement with Jimmy Dore’s overall criticism—that she had just about every advantage and is not a victim. While he comes down on Hillary Clinton, I do not agree with Dore trying to diagnose her. But, I agree with his criticism. I especially agree with and appreciate the following spoken by Dore:

    “Even while I was on the board of Walmart, I pretended I was a Democrat. Even when I was gutting welfare, and exploding the prison population, and calling black people ‘super predators,’ I was still a Democrat. Even as my husband [Bill Clinton] made a secret deal to privatize Social Security, and repeal the New Deal banking regulations, which would crash our economy 10 years later, I still called myself a Democrat. Even as I went along with Dick Cheney and George [W.] Bush, [for] an illegal war in Iraq, I called myself a Democrat. Even when I voted to screw people with a bankruptcy reform bill—that means a bank can hound you until your death—I called myself a Democrat. Even as I voted for the Patriot Act, which created the United States into a surveillance state, I called myself a Democrat.”

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Princess Leia writes, “I’m just telling you how Democrats that we know outside this blog feel. Democrats that we know outside this blog aren’t upset with the party.”

    I recommend you read the following linked article. It should also be of interest to every person here at “The Progressive Professor.”

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Pragmatic Progressive writes, “I think that there is a generational thing going on here. Except for Southern Liberal and Rational Lefty, we, and our friends and family, are in our 60s and 70s. People our age tend to be supportive of the party.”

    U.S. politics are changing. We are not, here in 2017, where we were politically in, say, 2007, 1997, 1987, 1977. It isn’t just “generational”; it is reality for people, especially the youngest voting-age group of those between 18–29, for where they are in their lives on, say, economics, but also costs involved with college combined with what jobs pay and, well, a car (maybe), and where to live (mom and dad—near, at, or past age 30!). It isn’t just costs. It is debt. Taking on the debt, barely into adulthood, to better their lives with a college education. And how long that debt lasts. That jobs, well-paying ones, coming out of college, are not guaranteed to happen a relatively short time later—and, yet, they still have to live. Things like that.

    This is why I wrote, in response to another blog entry by Ronald, that I think we are in a [realigning] period—and a realigning period involves the nation’s and the people’s politics. This also impacts party politics. That is, if both major parties don’t fall so badly out of touch that a realigning period goes against them. Due to money in politics—the No. 1 problem in the U.S. for our politics because it is corrupting—I sense we are in a realigning period not like one which can before it.

    An important note about people in their 60s and 70s: The 65+ voting-age group are No. 1 in their category carried first by Republicans. The 18–29 voting-are group are No. 1 carried by Democrats. In 2004, when Democrat John Kerry did not unseat Republican president George W. Bush, the only voting-age group he carried nationally was 18–29. In 2008, a Democratic pickup year for Barack Obama, he won 18–29 by a much stronger margin than John Kerry and won pickups of those in the in-between age groups of 30–44 and 45–64 nationwide. The only voting-age group nationally carried by John McCain, who failed to hold the White House in the Republican column, was those 65+.

    This does not mean that 65+ voters, voting Democratic, are to be dismissed. This does not mean 18–29 voters, voting Republican, are to be dismissed. No one is to be dismissed. And I am not saying any such thing. But, the information is there. Exit polls, from past elections (especially presidential), are available on the Internet.

    When it comes to present and near-future politics, the Democratic Party is not getting party base support, regarding voting-age groups, from those 65+. I’m sorry if this sounds unpleasant. I felt it personally when I moved from the voting-age groups of 30–44 (in the primaries) to 45–64 (in the general) with Election 2016. But, I don’t want to pretend that I don’t know this information.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Pragmatic Progressive writes, “D keeps talking about social issues have become a high priority for the Democratic party.…”

    The Republican Party is the oppositional party to the Democratic Party when it comes to the two major political parties. I expect opposition to act like opposition.

    The Republican Party is the one which is recognized as being on the right. The Democratic Party is the one which is recognized as being on the left. Generally, that is.

    What I am saying is that the Democratic Party is on the left for social issues and policies—yes, at least with ideas (not always with execution)—but they are not that way on other issues, like economics, national security, and the military industrial complex (including wars). Not when they are empowered. Not when they are in the minority. (They are not resisting President Donald Trump on tax breaks for the wealthy or giving even more millions—or is it billions?—to the obscenely overfunded military budget.) So, it is not that “social issues have [become] a high priority for the Democratic [Party].” It is that the Democratic Party—in terms of overall policy positions—have not been an oppositional party to the Republican Party on economics, national security, and the military industrial complex (including wars).

    I will also add that, when it comes to social issues with specific policies, the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. “Obamacare”) is not on the left but on the right. It is connection with policy ideas from the right-wing Heritage Foundation. (The mandate. No drugs re-importation. No public option let alone single payer.)

    Let me ask you a question: Do you think it is okay that, one month after his 2012 re-election, Barack Obama said his policies were “moderate Republican?” (This came from a [Democratic] Party president.)

    Bottom line: It is not enough to say what the Democratic Party is about; to present nice speeches with lovely platitudes and sweet pieces from the likes of places many here have cited (with links). What matters are policies and, when empowered, what they actually do. (It also matters, when not empowered, what they actually do.)

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Southern Liberal writes, “D has mentioned that he/she identifies as independent.…”

    This is incorrect.

    From many postings, including when I go over elections which include exit polls, I have included information regarding self-identified Republicans, self-identified Democrats, and self-identified independents.

    I recently posted a report from Gallup on Party ID. Included was independents having a higher percentage than Republicans and Democrats. (Lately, Gallup has conducted mostly polls.)

    I don’t use the word “self-identified” to describe myself for my voting. I am a human being first and foremost. And then everyone else about me. But, when it comes to politics, I use the word “prefer.” I prefer, or that I have a preference, for the Democratic Party over the Republican Party.

    A part of the reason is this: I live in Michigan. I was born in 1971. When I registered to vote, in 1992, at age 21, I was asked if I wanted to declare a party. I wasn’t sure. So, I asked if it was required of me. I was told it was not; that I was being asked for statistical reasons; and that I can, as I did, leave it “undeclared.” A few years later, Michigan changed its voting registration to not include the question and to not register people with including registering with a party. The state’s primaries are open. I support open primaries. (I do not support closed primaries.)

    I have membership in the Democratic National Committee. I receive DNC mailings, including surveys and other content. I have donated money to the DNC. I donated money to the 2008 general-election campaign for Barack Obama. Afterward, I focused donation of money to individual candidates who I chose to support. I certainly donated to Bernie Sanders in 2016. In between 2008 and 2016, I also donated to the U.S. House election races for Alan Grayson and Tim Canova of Florida. (I want ex-DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz out of Congress!) In 2010, as a favor to a friend (who did not ask me to donate money, specifically, but to please be supportive of her friend), I donated money anyway to the general-election campaign for Beth Krom, the Democratic nominee who did not unseat Republican incumbent John Campbell for U.S. House from California #48. (This is—or maybe I should say “was”—a district partly covering Orange County, California. I don’t usually keep track of drawn districts.) I don’t recall, right now, but I may have also donated to the 2012 general-election campaign, for U.S. Senate, for Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. (I knew that Warren would unseat Republican incumbent Scott Brown. So, that may be “no”; but I wanted Warren elected so that may be “yes.”) These names and figures are ones which immediately spring to mind, with what I am remembering, as I am writing this and getting it ready to post. (I was a late bloomer to donating.)

    I hope you are clear with this.

  55. D November 15, 2017 6:26 pm

    Corrections on wording:

    “(Lately, Gallup has conducted mostly polls.)”


    Monthly polls on Party ID.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    “And then everyone else about me.”


    And then everything about me.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    I quickly want to mention the following: I switched this year from PC to Mac. My smartphone is an iPhone. This works for me personally. But, when it comes to auto-spelling, the Mac can really trip one up. I apologize for all mistakes.

  56. Ronald November 15, 2017 6:45 pm

    D, I want to thank you for your clarifications, and know I deeply appreciate all of your contributions, and totally understand your views, and appreciate your contributions to candidates you believe in.

    Hillary Clinton and her husband, Bill Clinton, had plenty of negatives, and as I have stated many times before, I would have preferred Joe Biden. i was never much of a fan of President Clinton, and wish someone else had been elected President in 1992, such as opponents Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa or Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska.

    What I want most is that all who write on here avoid name calling and accusations, and instead, have a vigorous debate without maligning anyone.

    We can all agree to disagree agreeably!

  57. Former Republican November 15, 2017 7:43 pm

    Biden was our first choice too. What we wanted was someone who would build on Obama’s successes, which is why we went for Hillary in the primary, since Biden didn’t get in the ring.

    And speaking of Biden, he was on the Today Show this week, taking questions and answers from the studio audience. Sure sounded like he’s thinking about running in 2020.

  58. Southern Liberal November 15, 2017 10:45 pm

    Sure, some Democrats are wealthy, but I’m not nor are most of the Democrats I know. And certainly the vast majority of the nearly 66 million who voted for Hillary aren’t wealthy. And so what if there are wealthy Democrats? I am happy that there are wealthy progressives that can donate $2700 (per election) to a candidate or more if they donate to local, state and national party organizations. Those donations support the grass roots on the ground efforts to elect progressive candidates.

  59. Princess Leia November 15, 2017 10:52 pm

    Obamacare – People like it. It’s having record enrollment. People want it improved, not repealed.

    Sometimes, D, I wonder if you and us are watching the same Congress. Democrats are speaking out against the tax bill, talking about how it only benefits the rich.

  60. Pragmatic Progressive November 16, 2017 12:12 pm

    Re: Generational thing –

    I’m not talking about which party age groups vote for. I’m talking about young people have a tendency to be apolitical. My daughter, Rational Lefty, initially used to be like that. She’s since learned that it’s important to vote in every election, whether it be for your local School Board member or for President. She’s also learned that she can help the party by being more actively involved in the party – volunteering, attending meetings, etc.

  61. Rational Lefty November 16, 2017 12:13 pm

    I agree with Leia. When I hear Democrats and Republicans on TV talking about issues they don’t sound similar at all.

    Also I am sick and tired of the “neoliberal” insult. I want peace on earth, a clean environment, etc., but I am pragmatic, and know that we won’t achieve that with Republicans continuing to hold office, and life has taught me that change is incremental.

  62. Southern Liberal November 16, 2017 5:28 pm

    Turnout is key to the victories this month. In Virginia, New Jersey and several other states, Democrats won in a wave because a lot of people who don’t usually turn out decided to make an anti-Trump and anti-GOP statement. They supported all Democrats; they didn’t cherry-pick based on their rating on the “progressive purity” meter. Telling people that Democrats aren’t worth voting for is not helpful; it depresses turnout, causing Republicans to win, causing any progress made to go backwards.

  63. D November 16, 2017 11:27 pm

    Southern Liberal writes, “Turnout is key to the victories this month.…”

    I took a look at the numbers from the Bush and Obama presidencies (Elections 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012) and compared participating votes cast for U.S. House from those presidential elections followed, two years later, by their midterm elections cycles (2002, 2006, 2010, and 2014).

    The reason to use as example the U.S. House is that 100 percent of the 435 congressional districts are on the schedule in both midterm and presidential election cycles. (They cannot avoid both types of elections. And, with the U.S. Senate, one-third are on the schedule for elections every six years because full terms are a period of six years.)

    These numbers come from Here were the participating votes—specifically for U.S. House—in presidential vs. midterm elections:
    • 2000: 98,799,963 | 2002: 74,706,555 (75.61%; –24.39%)
    • 2004: 113,192,286 | 2006: 80,975,537 (71.53%; –28.47%)
    • 2008: 122,486,293 | 2010: 86,784,957 (70.79%; –29.21%)
    • 2012: 122,346,020 | 2014: 78,235,240 (63.94%; –36.06%)
    • Presidential: 456,924,562 | Midterm: 320,702,089 (70.18%; –29.82%)

    The point is this: In presidential years, you have the fullest of turnout that we will get. But, in midterm elections, there has been an approximately 30-percent decline from those who voted for U.S. House in a presidential to a midterm election. With a presidential election, self-identified Republicans and self-identified Democrats typically have a size of the vote where their numbers are close to each other. (Usually within 5 points.) In midterms the size of the vote from their numbers, reported in the exit polls, are usually further apart. (Not as easily determined. But, 2017 Virginia was 11 and New Jersey was 15 points.) And it is typically the White House opposition party which wins midterm elections.

  64. Princess Leia November 17, 2017 12:12 pm

    Excellent post, Southern Liberal! 🙂

  65. Former Republican November 17, 2017 12:51 pm

    MSNBC showed video of another focus group of Trump voters. They’re having buyer’s remorse. They don’t like his behavior and they don’t like that he conned them about jobs.

  66. Rational Lefty November 29, 2017 5:09 pm

    Speaking of phones, I’m a recent smartphone convert. Mine is an Android powered smartphone, serviced through Tracfone. The thing I like about Android is that they have a wide range of prices to choose from, especially if you need to be frugal about your expenses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.