DemProgStrategist
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.
Poll 42 votes Show Results Will Hillary come out pro-TPP? Yes No Not Sure This analysis convinced me. This analysis is absolute crap. She'll be pro-TPP and work with the EU's Trade Envoy on TTIP to reform the ISDS provision Of course she will- her corporate donors will profit off of it! I am unfamilliar with the TPP and trade issues in general, so I don't know enough either way. I have no stance on this issue- I am indifferent, and I just don't care. What the fuck is the TPP and the TTIP? What's the difference? It will pass because no one listens to the voters. I don't follow trade issues, only domestic issues. So I wouldn't know. She should- it will be political suicide if she doesn't. She should not- it will be political suicide if she does. 42 votes Vote Now! Will Hillary come out pro-TPP? Yes 13 votes No 8 votes Not Sure 5% 2 votes This analysis convinced me. 0% 0 votes This analysis is absolute crap. 5% 2 votes She'll be pro-TPP and work with the EU's Trade Envoy on TTIP to reform the ISDS provision 0% 0 votes Of course she will- her corporate donors will profit off of it! 11 votes I am unfamilliar with the TPP and trade issues in general, so I don't know enough either way. 0% 0 votes I have no stance on this issue- I am indifferent, and I just don't care. 0% 0 votes What the fuck is the TPP and the TTIP? 0% 0 votes What's the difference? It will pass because no one listens to the voters. 4 votes I don't follow trade issues, only domestic issues. So I wouldn't know. 0% 0 votes She should- it will be political suicide if she doesn't. 0% 0 votes She should not- it will be political suicide if she does. 5% 2 votes
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.
Poll 3 votes Show Results Is the idea of inevitability compatible with the idea of democracy? Yes. We are concerning ourselves with a non-issue here. No, and our passive acceptance of inevitability is dangerous. I reserve judgement I am equivocal on this. I am of both minds, and see the validity of both arguments. The question is poorly constructed This issue is irrelevant. It is obfuscation. Philosophical discussion is a luxury our modern practice of politics cannot afford Inevitability and democracy are incompatible, but we cannot afford to think like that in 2016. We'll have time later for that. Doesn't matter- this country's electoral process is overwhelmingly influenced by political elites anyway. This is exactly the question we should be asking ourselves. This conversation is so important. Why did we have the American Revolution if we didn't have a problem with inherited monarchy? Times change, and we must change with it. I don't care what the Founders thought of political dynasties. Dynasties make this country function. Whatever works, works. Who cares about the phiosophy? Regardless, dynasties are a provably bad way to smoothly run a democracy. They create perverse bureaucratic incentives which make our government's adaptability to new political realities inefficient. 3 votes Vote Now! Is the idea of inevitability compatible with the idea of democracy? Yes. We are concerning ourselves with a non-issue here. 0% 0 votes No, and our passive acceptance of inevitability is dangerous. 2 votes I reserve judgement 0% 0 votes I am equivocal on this. I am of both minds, and see the validity of both arguments. 0% 0 votes The question is poorly constructed 1 vote This issue is irrelevant. It is obfuscation. 0% 0 votes Philosophical discussion is a luxury our modern practice of politics cannot afford 0% 0 votes Inevitability and democracy are incompatible, but we cannot afford to think like that in 2016. We'll have time later for that. 0% 0 votes Doesn't matter- this country's electoral process is overwhelmingly influenced by political elites anyway. 0% 0 votes This is exactly the question we should be asking ourselves. This conversation is so important. 0% 0 votes Why did we have the American Revolution if we didn't have a problem with inherited monarchy? 0% 0 votes Times change, and we must change with it. I don't care what the Founders thought of political dynasties. Dynasties make this country function. Whatever works, works. Who cares about the phiosophy? 0% 0 votes Regardless, dynasties are a provably bad way to smoothly run a democracy. They create perverse bureaucratic incentives which make our government's adaptability to new political realities inefficient. 0% 0 votes
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.
Poll 73 votes Show Results Do you support MoveOn and DFA's campaign to draft Elizabeth Warren to run for president in 2016? Yes. The Parties don't decide who our candidate is. It is the voters. That's how a democratic, constitutional republic works. No. Progressives are thinking short-term. Sure, Clinton isn't ideal, but change is incremental. We all need to be thinking long-term here. Yes. The party shouldn't ignore 6,567,000 voters, and neither do I. Maybe. It depends how much this catches on. Why not see how many voters come out in support of this? Yes. Senator Warren would make Hillary into a stronger candidate if they are both in the primary. While it might be undemocratic to say this, the party knows better in this case. So I do not support the draft effort. No. Elizabeth Warren would take just enough votes from Hillary, make it through the primary by inches, and lose the general election. Yes. I believe Elizabeth Warren can beat any of the presumptive Republican nominees. Yes. Even if Warren doesn't want to run, it's up to the voters to show her she has the support to run. That's how all presidential candidacies start out. Yes, I support a strong primary process. The idea of inevitability should have absolutely no place in a democracy. Nope. I like Senator Warren, but she'd be more effective in her new Senate leadership role crafting the Democratic message Hillary will have to run on. Yes. The only reason why Senator Warren was given her Senate leadership position was to shut up her supporters. If we leave the pressure on and keep supporting the draft effort, the Party will be forced to give her an even more influential role. No. This is just a cynical ploy by both MoveOn and DFA to boost their membership and donations. Even if this were only to boost MoveOn and DFA's membership, and they are still able to get broader support for a Warren presidential run, it doesn't matter what MoveOn or DFA's intentions are. 73 votes Vote Now! Do you support MoveOn and DFA's campaign to draft Elizabeth Warren to run for president in 2016? Yes. The Parties don't decide who our candidate is. It is the voters. That's how a democratic, constitutional republic works. 11 votes No. Progressives are thinking short-term. Sure, Clinton isn't ideal, but change is incremental. We all need to be thinking long-term here. 5% 4 votes Yes. The party shouldn't ignore 6,567,000 voters, and neither do I. 0% 0 votes Maybe. It depends how much this catches on. Why not see how many voters come out in support of this? 3% 2 votes Yes. Senator Warren would make Hillary into a stronger candidate if they are both in the primary. 4% 3 votes While it might be undemocratic to say this, the party knows better in this case. So I do not support the draft effort. 1% 1 vote No. Elizabeth Warren would take just enough votes from Hillary, make it through the primary by inches, and lose the general election. 0% 0 votes Yes. I believe Elizabeth Warren can beat any of the presumptive Republican nominees. 3% 2 votes Yes. Even if Warren doesn't want to run, it's up to the voters to show her she has the support to run. That's how all presidential candidacies start out. 5% 4 votes Yes, I support a strong primary process. The idea of inevitability should have absolutely no place in a democracy. 3% 2 votes Nope. I like Senator Warren, but she'd be more effective in her new Senate leadership role crafting the Democratic message Hillary will have to run on. 14 votes Yes. The only reason why Senator Warren was given her Senate leadership position was to shut up her supporters. If we leave the pressure on and keep supporting the draft effort, the Party will be forced to give her an even more influential role. 3% 2 votes No. This is just a cynical ploy by both MoveOn and DFA to boost their membership and donations. 25 votes Even if this were only to boost MoveOn and DFA's membership, and they are still able to get broader support for a Warren presidential run, it doesn't matter what MoveOn or DFA's intentions are. 3% 2 votes
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!
Web Extra: Elizabeth Warren on Fighting Back Against Wall St. from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.
Poll 11 votes Show Results Did you like these two videos? Yes No Yes- I liked both Not Sure I prefered the video where Elizabeth Warren talks with Krugman I prefered the video where she is interviewed by Bill Moyers I liked the video where she talks with Krugman I like the video where she talks with Bill Moyers These videos were way too long I don't have the attention span for either of them YES- MORE PLEASE!!! YES- Elizabeth Warren 2016!!! Yes- Elizabeth Warren talked about issues I had no idea about YES- I will DEFINIETLY share BOTH these videos on social media!!! YES- I will DEFINITELY share shorter versions of BOTH these videos on social media!!! 11 votes Vote Now! Did you like these two videos? Yes 2 votes No 9% 1 vote Yes- I liked both 3 votes Not Sure 0% 0 votes I prefered the video where Elizabeth Warren talks with Krugman 0% 0 votes I prefered the video where she is interviewed by Bill Moyers 0% 0 votes I liked the video where she talks with Krugman 0% 0 votes I like the video where she talks with Bill Moyers 0% 0 votes These videos were way too long 0% 0 votes I don't have the attention span for either of them 0% 0 votes YES- MORE PLEASE!!! 3 votes YES- Elizabeth Warren 2016!!! 9% 1 vote Yes- Elizabeth Warren talked about issues I had no idea about 9% 1 vote YES- I will DEFINIETLY share BOTH these videos on social media!!! 0% 0 votes YES- I will DEFINITELY share shorter versions of BOTH these videos on social media!!! 0% 0 votes
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.
Poll 209 votes Show Results As A Democrat, What Would You Prefer: Elizabeth vs. Rand, or Hillary vs. Rand? Elizabeth vs. Rand Hillary vs. Rand Both would have an easy time crushing Rand Paul There are no "Independents," and as long as Hillary doesn't figure that out and runs to the center-right, Rand would crush her I would TOTALLY vote for Rand Paul now that Ralph Nader tells me to Rand Paul wouldn't even make it out of the Republican primary I'd vote for Rand Paul if Hillary is the Democratic nominee I'd vote for Rand Paul if Elizabeth is the Democratic nominee For the good of the Democratic Party, Hillary should bow out and give Elizabeth room to run Centrist Democrats should turn over the reins to Progressives so we can win 2016 Progressives should give up their temper tantrums. They will destroy us just like the Tea Party is destroying the Republicans If Elizabeth moves further to the left, Rand would crush her 209 votes Vote Now! As A Democrat, What Would You Prefer: Elizabeth vs. Rand, or Hillary vs. Rand? Elizabeth vs. Rand 50 votes Hillary vs. Rand 41 votes Both would have an easy time crushing Rand Paul 35 votes There are no "Independents," and as long as Hillary doesn't figure that out and runs to the center-right, Rand would crush her 3% 6 votes I would TOTALLY vote for Rand Paul now that Ralph Nader tells me to 2% 4 votes Rand Paul wouldn't even make it out of the Republican primary 9% 19 votes I'd vote for Rand Paul if Hillary is the Democratic nominee 9% 19 votes I'd vote for Rand Paul if Elizabeth is the Democratic nominee 0% 1 vote For the good of the Democratic Party, Hillary should bow out and give Elizabeth room to run 6% 12 votes Centrist Democrats should turn over the reins to Progressives so we can win 2016 4% 9 votes Progressives should give up their temper tantrums. They will destroy us just like the Tea Party is destroying the Republicans 5% 11 votes If Elizabeth moves further to the left, Rand would crush her 1% 2 votes
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.
Poll 174 votes Show Results What Should Democrats Want: Hillary vs. Jeb or Elizabeth Warren vs. Jeb? Elizabeth Warren vs. Jeb Hillary vs. Jeb Hillary & Elizabeth Warren vs. Jeb Centrist Hillary vs. Centrist Jeb Progressive Warren vs. Centrist Jeb We're not ready for progressive Democrats. Centrist Democrats are the only ones who can beat Republicans. Elizabeth Warren would provide the winnable contrast to a centrist Republican that Hillary cannot. Hillary Clinton would clobber Elizabeth Warren in the primaries Elizabeth Warrren would clobber Hillary Clinton in the primaries With the Tea Party alienating both centrist Republicans and Independents, we can afford to nominate Elizabeth Warren for 2016 Elizabeth Warren is the future of our party, and the Democrats would win more elections as soon as they realize that. In this electoral climate, voting for Elizabeth Warren is throwing away votes In this electoral climate, voting for Hillary Clinton is throwing away votes Elizabeth Warren would clobber Jeb Bush Hillary Clinton would clobber Jeb Bush 174 votes Vote Now! What Should Democrats Want: Hillary vs. Jeb or Elizabeth Warren vs. Jeb? Elizabeth Warren vs. Jeb 22 votes Hillary vs. Jeb 24 votes Hillary & Elizabeth Warren vs. Jeb 7% 12 votes Centrist Hillary vs. Centrist Jeb 0% 0 votes Progressive Warren vs. Centrist Jeb 3% 5 votes We're not ready for progressive Democrats. Centrist Democrats are the only ones who can beat Republicans. 2% 4 votes Elizabeth Warren would provide the winnable contrast to a centrist Republican that Hillary cannot. 6% 10 votes Hillary Clinton would clobber Elizabeth Warren in the primaries 9% 16 votes Elizabeth Warrren would clobber Hillary Clinton in the primaries 1% 2 votes With the Tea Party alienating both centrist Republicans and Independents, we can afford to nominate Elizabeth Warren for 2016 1% 1 vote Elizabeth Warren is the future of our party, and the Democrats would win more elections as soon as they realize that. 29 votes In this electoral climate, voting for Elizabeth Warren is throwing away votes 3% 6 votes In this electoral climate, voting for Hillary Clinton is throwing away votes 3% 6 votes Elizabeth Warren would clobber Jeb Bush 5% 8 votes Hillary Clinton would clobber Jeb Bush 29 votes
Upload logo
Choose a logo image in .gif, .jpg, or .png format.
Delete logo
Choose File
