NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio unveiled his nationwide 'Contract with America', which he is calling "The Progressive Agenda to Combat Income Inequality". Like Newt Gingrich's Contract With America, the Agenda will be circulated in Congress and among the 2016 presidential candidates to sign. The idea is that combating income inequality has become a national issue, and those who refuse to sign will risk being voted out of office and/or primaried.
PLEASE SIGN ON and tell all future Congresses that we will only vote for candidates who will fight income inequality, as well as the other initiatives on the Agenda.
[You can read the full Agenda after the jump]
After you read the full Agenda, please consider signing on. Thanks!!
House Democrats control almost 2/3 of seats (121/188) representing 18 of the most export-dependent metros, and the amount of Democratic voters living in manufacturing-dependent cities keep on declining, already down 50% from 20 years ago.
Arguably, the labor unions have the strongest anti-TPP GOTV in those districts by far, & they'll eventually back down if she comes out pro-TPP since they don't have organic votes in those districts, and they won't be able to compete with her GOTV & comms. Without anti-TPP union GOTV efforts in those districts, there won't be enough incentive to vote against.
Fact is, she won't jeopardize House Dems since she'll need as many as she can get. Plus, she'll have bipartisan cred on two bipartisan initiatives in her first term: prison reform & TPP, and she'll even neutralize many GOPers.
To assuage progressives, she'll embrace EU Trade Envoy Cecillia Malmstrom's ISDS reform proposal. [this one is trickier though in terms of votes & targeted comms]
** This is neither pro-TPP or anti-TPP. Just my assessment.
Ana Marie Cox published an interesting and evocative article that raised valid points here and there. The piece is in the Daily Beast, titled Sorry, But Clinton's Inevitability is Not A Problem.
Whereas I like Ana Marie Cox, and I wholeheartedly believe she makes a deeply invaluable contribution to our democratic and political discourse, I become really, really unnerved by an under-examined absence of a historically-based philosophical conversation of what we truly mean when we talk of inevitability.
Where I feel we must start this discussion is asking ourselves this simple and straightforward question: what is the place the notion of inevitability has in our representative democracy? No one who speaks of inevitability asks this fundamental question, so I will pose it here. I will provide my own brief thoughts on the question, and I would be very interested to hear yours.
The city's new ID program allows for personal data to be destroyed at the end of 2016 in case a conservative Republican is elected president, the law's co-sponsor told The Post.
NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio just did an incredible thing for immigration reform.
When he passed the country's first municipal ID law for undocumented immigrants, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio inserted a clause that would wipe all personal information in case a deportation-happy Republican gets into The White House in 2016.
The NY Post's Tara Palmeri has the story [after the jump]:
DES MOINES, IOWA — In an expansion of the Run Warren Run effort in Iowa, MoveOn.org Political Action is announcing the hiring of Blair Lawton as the campaign’s Iowa field director and the hiring of four other field organizers. The group also announced the opening of a campaign office in Des Moines.
The announcement comes less than one month after more than 100 Iowans met in Des Moines to kick off the Run Warren Run effort in the state. Nationwide, more than 240,000 Americans have signed on to support the growing campaign, which is being run by MoveOn and Democracy for America.
Egberto Willies, host of Politics Done Right on KPFT 90.1 FM on Houston Public Radio, interviewed Charles Chamberlain, Executive Director of Democracy For America, on their joint presidential draft campaign with MoveOn.org to get Senator Elizabeth Warren in the 2016 presidential race
Watch MoveOn's first ad for their draft effort, and sign up at RunWarrenRun.org!
Senator Warren will be making her debut on The Late Show With David Letterman tomorrow night, September 3rd, at 11:35pm on CBS. http://bit.ly/...
In my last post, I focused on Jeb Bush as being a very formidable threat to Hillary should he decide to run in 2016. In this post, I will focus on the threat Rand Paul would pose to Hillary should he decide to run in 2016.
In the interest of making this post shorter than my last one, I brushed aside any rehashing or summary of the arguments I've made over there- with a few significant exceptions.
It is my firm belief that, if Republicans run a centrist Republican such a Jeb Bush in 2016, we as Democrats should prefer an Elizabeth Warren vs. Jeb general election battle, and not Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb. If the Republicans do run Jeb, and as I explain below that is pretty likely, then I fear there will not be a strong enough contrast in voters' eyes to make this an easy election for Hillary.
In contrast, I think a Warren vs. Bush electoral battle would mean a much clearer victory for the Democrats by a more significant margin. This is an increasingly progressive and populist electorate, and the perception (right or not) is that Hillary isn't either of these things. I personally believe Hillary is progressive on more issues than not, but in terms of public opinion, she rarely is associated with the progressive wing of the party- and, like it or not, this is the only thing that matters. In the case of the majority of the public thinking she's not a strong enough progressive, policy positions don't really matter all that much.