Mediaboss Marketing

The $332 million that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan provided to a progressive group to help run the 2020 elections was distributed on a highly partisan basis that favored Democrats, according to a new analysis by election data experts.

While these Zuckerbucks or Zuck bucks were touted as a resource meant to help all jurisdictions administer the election during the COVID crisis, tax records filed by the progressive Center for Tech and Civic Life show that the group awarded all larger grantson both an absolute and per capita basis to deeply Democratic urban areas, particularly in swing states, according to the new report. Its authors are William Doyle, research director at the right-leaning Caesar Rodney Election Research Institute, and Alex Oliver, chief data scientist at Evolving Strategies, a nonpartisan research group.

The report contrasts with a report Zuckerberg commissioned in December, which emphasized that more Republican jurisdictions, defined as municipalities that voted for Trump in 2020, applied for and received grants.

Doyle and Oliver say this conclusion is misleading because Republican jurisdictions were far more likely to receive grants of less than $50,000, which, they wrote, were likely not substantial enough to provide the funding, infrastructure, and personnel to materially change election practices in the recipient jurisdiction. These small grants comprised 27 percent of the centers awards.

In the counties where CTCL made its 50 largest grants in terms of per capita spending, the average partisan lean in favor of Democrat Joe Biden over Republican Donald Trump was 33 pointsmeaning the aid could be expected to stimulate more Democratic votes. Twenty-five of the top 50 grants per capita went to just five statesGeorgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, and Texas (the latter two where Democrats were optimistic about Bidens chances, the authors write). Seven of the top ten largest grants per capita went to counties in Georgia and Wisconsin, states that Biden narrowly won by 12,000 and 21,000 respectively. (Along with the report, Evolving Strategies has put together an online map and visualization app that tracks CTCLs top 100 grants on a per capita basis.)

The distribution of the CTCL programs grant amountsboth in absolute and per capita termsshows, unequivocally, a systematic bias in favor of Democratic jurisdictions, they write. The larger grants revealed a partisan pattern of funding [that] was especially apparent in swing states. Regardless of intention, CTCLs geographic allocation of larger grants is prima facie and de facto partisan.

Before 2020, the private funding of election administration was virtually unheard of. Against positive coverage of the development in liberal news media, conservative activists sounded the alarm about CTCLs efforts. Privatizing the management of elections undermines the integrity of our elections because private donors may dictate where and how hundreds of millions of dollars will be managed in these states, Phill Kline of the Thomas More Society told the Washington Post. Since 2020, 17 states have effectively banned the private funding of local election offices either through new laws or regulations. Two other states, Alabama and Missouri, are awaiting for the governors signature on similar bills.

The center and its defenders have argued that it is only logical that urban areas, which tend to support Democrats, would get more grant money, simply because they have more voters. But Doyle and Olivers analysis shows that those areas received more funding on a per capita basis. While the grant size for urban areas might naturally be larger overall, they said, areas with high concentrations of voters should result in economic efficiencies where substantial fixed cost of election administration is spread out over a relatively larger population, decreasing the per capita cost. If anything, they said, per capita costs of running an election should be higher in more rural Republican areas.

The report showed that Georgia alone received 10 of the top 50 grants per capita, totaling $41 millionmore than 10 percent of the $332 million CTCL spent across the country. Nine of those grants went to counties with an average partisan lean of 35 points in favor of Joe Biden.

The center awarded a total of $10.1 million in grants in Wisconsin, but $8.5 million of that went to the cities of Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, Milwaukee, and Racinecities where Bidens average margin of victory was over 37 points. All five cities ranked on CTCLs top 50 per capita grants. Similarly, Pennsylvania had four of the top 50 per capita grants, amounting to $16 million. Some $15 million of those grants went to Philadelphia and to Delaware and Chester counties in the Philadelphia metro area. The Philadelphia vote favored Biden by 64 points, and Delaware and Chester voted Biden by 27 and 17 points respectively. Biden won Pennsylvania by just 1.2 points, so the victory might have been sealed by the influx of cash from private sources to the Philadelphia region, the states biggest cache of votes, which also has a history of corruption and electoral fraud.

The CTCL did not respond to RealClearInvestigations request for comment. Its executive director, Tiana Epps-Johnson, told the Washington Post in February that the grants given out reflected where the requests for funding came from, not any bias on the part of her organization. But the center has offered no insight into its internal process for awarding grants.

An investigation by Broad and Liberty, a right-leaning publication dedicated to Pennsylvania politics, obtained emails showing that the office of Pennsylvanias Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf coordinated with left-wing nonprofits to implement a secretive process that selectively invited Democratic counties to apply for Zuck bucks grants.

The center did not just award money to counties and cities that applied for grantsin many cases it embedded progressive activists into key local election offices to shape how elections were run. In Green Bay, Wisconsin, emails to the mayors office from the center touted its network of current and former election administrations and election experts available to build up vote by mail processes and ensure forms, envelopes, and other materials are understood and completed correctly by voters. In a July 13, 2020 email to the center, Celestine Jeffreys, chief of staff for Green Bay Mayor Eric Genrich, wrote, As far as Im concerned I am taking all of my cues from CTCL and work with those you recommend.

Eventually the center helped install an out-of-state operative named Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein in Green Bay and other Wisconsin election offices, who engaged in activities unusual for someone other than a public officialsuch as asking for direct access to the Milwaukee Election Commissions voter database and other sensitive data. Spitzer-Rubenstein became so active in running Green Bays election that City Clerk Kris Teske, unhappy with being replaced in her job, took leave a few weeks before the election and quit shortly thereafter.

I was verbally abused by the Mayor in front of everyone she reportedly wrote in one email. He had agenda when it came to the election and I nor the Clerks Office were included even though its the Clerks job to administer an election. He allowed staff who were not educated on election law to run the election, along with people who werent even City of Green Bay employees.

Though technically considered a nonpartisan organization, CTCLs leadership team has an extensive history of working with the Democratic Party and progressive causes. Epps-Johnson founded the organization with Whitney May and Donny Bridges. All three previously worked together at the New Organizing Institute, which the Washington Post described as the Democratic Partys Hogwarts for digital wizardry and the lefts think tank for campaign know-how.

A further Democratic-Zuckerberg intersection: Former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe is listed as head of policy and advocacy at the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the power couples philanthropy. In his 2020 book, A Citizens Guide to Beating Donald Trump, Plouffe wrote that the 2020 election may come down to block-by-block street fights in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee.

This article was written by Mark Hemingway for RealClearInvestigations.

Follow

See the original post here:
Team Zuckerberg Masks the Heavily Pro-Democrat Tilt of 2020 Election 'Zuck Bucks,' Study Finds - The Epoch Times

Kevin Rinkes latest campaign ad is nothing if not eye-catching.

The ad, designed to bolster the Michigan car dealers campaign for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, features Rinke standing next to an actor made up to look like a zombie wearing a Biden-Harris T-shirt and multiple "I voted" stickers.

"Why is it that dead people always vote Democrat(ic)?" Rinke says, motioning to the zombie with bugged-out eyes and a wide-open mouth. Rinke goes on to accuse Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of failing to crack down on voter fraud, saying that if he wins the governorship, hell make sure that voters are "registered, identified and alive."

Katie Martin, a spokesperson for the Rinke campaign, said that a "quick Google search will show multiple news articles on deceased voters voting in elections."

Ballots cast on behalf of dead people does happen, though its a tiny fraction of all votes. However, a Google search like the one the Rinke campaign requested actually shows that its assertion that dead people "always" vote Democratic is itself a zombie claim and no less mythical than an actual zombie.

"This ad is so incorrect it gave me a headache," said Thessalia Merivaki, a political scientist at Mississippi State University who studies voter fraud. She said there is "zero evidence" that ballots cast by dead people account for more than a tiny fraction of all votes recorded, and theres also "zero evidence" that such ballots have uniformly been cast in favor of Democrats, Merivaki added.

Allegations of voter fraud in Michigan

Politicians aligned with former President Donald Trump have consistently raised the specter of voter fraud to explain how Trump could have lost the state to Joe Biden by more than 154,000 votes in the 2020 presidential race after winning it in 2016. But none of these claims hold water.

For instance, a viral tweet said Wayne County home to Detroit saw thousands of ballots cast by deceased voters. However, the list contained names of voters outside the county; several were not listed as ever having received or cast an absentee ballot; and at least one voter listed said she was alive and cast a ballot in the election.

The Michigan Secretary of States office has previously said that it is "not aware of a single confirmed case showing that a ballot was actually cast on behalf of a deceased individual in the state."

Officials have ways to flag deceased voters, and clerks across the state successfully identified thousands of voters who submitted absentee ballots in 2020 but died before Election Day. Their ballots werent counted. In total, clerks across Michigan rejected 3,469 absentee ballots cast by people who were alive when they returned them but died before Election Day on Nov. 3, 2020.

A review by Michigans Office of the Auditor General thoroughly debunked charges by Trump and his allies that thousands of ballots were cast on behalf of dead Michigan voters in the 2020 election. The vast majority 98.8% of votes cast by those who died before the 2020 election passed away less than 40 days before Election Day.

Ballots cast on behalf of dead voters are rare in other states, too. Merivaki pointed to a 2021 study of Washington states vote-by-mail program, a system that is used statewide. The analysis found "extraordinarily low rates of potential fraud related to deceased individuals ballots."

The study concluded that "among roughly 4.5 million distinct voters in Washington state (2011-18), we estimate that there are 14 deceased individuals whose ballots might have been cast suspiciously long after their death, representing 0.0003% of voters. Even these few cases may reflect two individuals with the same name and birth date, or clerical errors, rather than fraud."

An official review in Georgia found that in the 2020 election, just four absentee ballots were cast on behalf of deceased voters.

What fraud cases do exist include many examples of voters acting in grief over the loss of a relative.

For instance, in Pierce County, Washington, auditor Julie Anderson found five instances of ballot fraud on behalf of dead voters in the 2020 election, several of which were cast by "a household member who firmly believes their loved one would have wanted to vote and wanted to participate," the Tacoma News-Tribune reported. (The newspaper did not report the partisan affiliation of the voters.)

What is the partisan affiliation of ballots cast for dead voters?

States like Michigan typically make public whether a voter has cast a ballot in a given election, but they do not specify for whom an individual has voted. In fact, the government doesnt even know how someone voted because a marked-up absentee ballot is removed from its envelope before being counted, a process that separates specific votes cast from a voters identifying information.

When we combed news reports in recent years for cases of ballot fraud on behalf of deceased voters, we found that Republicans were more often the perpetrators. This does not mean that only Republicans perpetrate this kind of fraud; ours is not a scientific study, and its possible that other occurrences, by either Democrats or Republicans, have not been detected or reported on. (One study commissioned by WBBM-TV in Chicago found that 119 ballots were cast on behalf of dead people in the city over the decade ending in 2016; while the city is heavily Democratic, the partisan leanings of the perpetrators are unclear.)

Regardless, the presence of any Republicans committing this sort of voter fraud is enough to undercut Rinkes sweeping statement that only Democrats do it.

Here are some examples:

Nevada: In the aftermath of Bidens roughly 34,000-vote win over Trump in Nevada, Donald Kirk Hartle, a Republican, told KLAS-TV that he was "surprised" to see that his wife cast a ballot "because she passed away three years ago. That is pretty sickening to me, to be honest with you."

While Hartles story quickly gained attention from GOP leaders and pundits who were questioning the results of the states presidential vote, the tale eventually fell apart, as investigators concluded that Hartle himself had cast the fraudulent ballot.

Hartle pleaded guilty to one count of voting more than once in an election, receiving a sentence of probation and a $2,000 fine.

Pennsylvania: Bruce Bartman from Marple voted on behalf of his late mother in the 2020 presidential election. He pleaded guilty to two counts of perjury and one count of unlawful voting and was sentenced to five years of probation.

Bartman said his illegal vote was cast for Donald Trump, the Associated Press reported. He also registered his late mother-in-law but did not secure an absentee ballot for her.

Bartman apologized, telling the court, "I was isolated last year in lockdown. I listened to too much propaganda and made a stupid mistake."

Meanwhile, in August 2021, a man from the Wilkes-Barre area pleaded guilty to a third-degree misdemeanor not for voting fraudulently but for filing an absentee ballot application in the name of his late mother. The application cited a need to vote absentee because the mans mother was purportedly "visiting great grand kids Oct. 24-Nov. 10."

The defendant, Robert Richard Lynn, was a registered Republican, the Times-Leader newspaper reported, citing state records. He was sentenced to six months of probation and 40 hours of community service.

Florida: In 2020, voter Larry Wiggins of Manatee County tried to "test" the system by requesting a ballot for his late wife. "I heard so much about ballots being sent in and people just having found them in different places," Wiggins told WFLA-TV. "I feel like I havent done anything wrong." He told the Tampa station, "I said, Well, let me just send it in and see whats going to happen, to see if theyre actually going to send a ballot for her to vote."

The request was flagged by the local elections office when it went through standard identity checks, so Wiggins did not receive a ballot. Instead, his case received a criminal referral. He pleaded no contest and was sentenced to 24 months of probation and 100 hours of community service.

Wiggins told WFLA that he was a Democrat who supported Trump.

Arizona: Tracey Kay McKee of Phoenix cast her late mothers ballot in the 2020 general election. She was sentenced to two years of probation, fines and community service.

Both McKee and her recently deceased mother were registered Republicans, the Associated Press reported. In court, prosecutors noted that McKee railed against absentee voting during an interview with investigators in which she denied casting the ballot herself, saying, "I dont believe that this was a fair election. I do believe there was a lot of voter fraud."

Colorado: In 2017, a woman from Golden pleaded guilty to voting twice for her late father. Toni Lee Newbill had cast ballots in the 2013 general election and the 2016 Republican primary.

Our ruling

Rinke said, "Dead people always vote Democrat."

Not every case of voting on behalf of the dead has been discovered, adjudicated in court, and received media coverage. However, six cases that have surfaced during the past five years produced either a plea of guilty or no contest, and in each case the defendant was either a registered Republican or acknowledged voting for Trump.

Even this small number of cases is enough to invalidate Rinkes sweeping statement that only Democrats do this.

We rate the statement False.

RELATED: All of our fact-checks about elections

RELATED: All of our fact-checks about Michigan

Read more:
Debunking the zombie claim that 'dead people always vote Democrat' - PolitiFact

A Democratic congresswoman unveiled a bill Thursday that would curb the collection of personal reproductive health data that could be used to target or arrest people if abortions are criminalized.

Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA) announced the My Body, My Data Act, which aims to create a national standard regarding access to such information by apps and websites as well as prevent the misuse or disclosure of this data. It would be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission.

A recent leaked draft decision signaling that the Supreme Court will soon overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, which gave all women in the United States the right to an abortion, has raised serious concerns among liberals and women's rights groups that data collected by reproductive apps and websites could be used to hurt the people who use them if the issue of abortion is returned to the states, with many poised to crack down on the procedure.

THE BLUE CITY PLAYBOOK FOR DEFYING ABORTION BANS

Popular apps that help women track their menstrual cycles and pregnancies, such as Flo or Clue, could share with law enforcement or the government users' location data, search histories, and reproductive health data collected each month, Jacobs warned.

Since the Supreme Court leak, Ive heard from so many people who are panicked about their personal reproductive health data falling into the wrong hands," Jacobs said in a statement. "The My Body, My Data Act will protect that information, protect our privacy, and reaffirm our rights to make our own decisions about our bodies."

Like tens of millions of Americans, Ive used period tracking apps to help manage my reproductive health. Its unconscionable that information could be turned over to the government or sold to the highest bidder and weaponized against us, and especially against low-income people and people of color who will be most impacted if Roe is overturned, she added.

Jacobs's bill, which she said will be introduced when the House is back in session, would limit the personal reproductive and sexual health data that can be collected and used to only what is needed to deliver a product or service. It would also make it easier for people to sue companies for violations and provide additional consumer protections such as allowing users the right to access or delete their personal data if they so choose.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

"With at least 26 states likely or certain to ban abortions if Roe is overturned, this bill is the first Congressional action to strengthen digital privacy and protect our personal reproductive health information specifically," the press release for the bill says.

The rest is here:
Democrat introduces bill to protect women from 'period tracking apps' - Washington Examiner

Robert Rivas, a San Benito County Democrat and an advocate for farmworkers, secured the support Tuesday from his current Democratic colleagues to become the next speaker of the California Assembly.

The announcement was made Tuesday night in a joint statement with Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) at the conclusion of a lengthy closed-door meeting of Assembly Democrats, capping off a tumultuous few days as they each sought control of the lower house.

The two legislators offered no timeline for a transition of power to Rivas, who said the caucus wants to keep Rendon in charge until at least the end of the legislative session in August. The statement was not clear on when Rivas would succeed Rendon or how long he will have to hold his supporters together to officially secure the job.

I applaud Robert Rivas for securing the support of a majority of the current Democratic Caucus to succeed me as Speaker of the Assembly, Rendon said in the statement.

I agree with the majority of our current caucus that Speaker Rendon should remain as Speaker for at least the rest of this legislative session, Rivas said. I look forward to working with him for the betterment of California and the unity of the Assembly Democratic Caucus.

Democrats currently hold 58 of the chambers 80 seats.

The November election will bring a new crop of lawmakers to the Assembly to fill seats left vacant by legislators who have resigned, termed out, or declined to run for reelection. Rivas could have to earn the support of incoming lawmakers later this year if he is not officially confirmed as speaker before they take the oath of office in December.

The ascension of Rivas would signal the beginning of the end of Rendons more than six years as the most powerful legislator in the lower house and the longest-serving California Assembly speaker in the last quarter of a century.

Leadership changes in the Legislature are often negotiated in private and announced in a joint statement between the outgoing and incoming leader. But Rivas effort to replace Rendon turned into an unusual power struggle.

Rivas, 42, first approached Rendon on Friday, claiming to have secured commitments of support for his bid to become speaker from a majority of Assembly Democrats. But Rendon initially rebuffed Rivas attempt to be acknowledged as his successor.

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) has served as leader of the lower house since 2016.

(Associated Press)

Several hours after the contentious meeting on Friday, Rivas sent out a press release announcing that he had secured enough votes from members of the Democratic Caucus to become the next Speaker of the California State Assembly.

All members of the Assembly, regardless of party, vote on the choice of the houses speaker. Typically a formal vote to elect a speaker takes place when a new legislative session convenes and a leadership transition is put in place, but aspiring leaders sometimes push for an informal agreement when they earn enough support in the majority caucus.

Both lawmakers worked to shore up support to their side over the weekend, while some of their allies launched blistering attacks on social media.

On Tuesday, Rivas supporters in the Assembly forced a private caucus meeting shortly after the Assembly floor session began.

Rendons supporters wanted to postpone the caucus until after Tuesdays floor session ended. A few Republicans joined Rivas group of progressive and moderate allies in a series of procedural votes to convene a caucus, in which Democratic lawmakers spent several hours discussing the potential speakership succession. Lawmakers said that no vote was taken in that meeting.

The expected change would mark a power shift in the Legislature and likely lead to a shuffling of committee chairs and other key positions. Whether theres a substantial policy difference between Rivas and Rendon remains to be seen.

A cornerstone of Rendons leadership philosophy has been to delegate his offices power, giving committee chairs more control over the fate of legislation. As opposed to a top-down style favored by some Assembly leaders in the past, his approach made committee chairs more influential with interest groups at the state Capitol and, in turn, made those lawmakers among his most powerful allies.

Rivas was elected in 2018. The Latino lawmakers Assembly biography says he was raised by his single mother and grandparents in Paicines, where his grandfather was a farmworker. He was elected to the San Benito County Board of Supervisors in 2010 and served two four-year terms. His current Assembly district, considered a safe Democratic seat, includes Big Sur, Gilroy, Salinas, Watsonville and a smattering of other communities along the Central Coast.

The California Labor Federation, an umbrella organization that represents more than 1,000 labor unions and 2 million workers, gave Rivas a 95% voting score during his time in the Assembly, which means he has backed nearly all labor proposals that came before him.

The United Food and Commercial Workers, consumer attorneys, firefighters and the Service Employees International Unions California State Council funded an independent expenditure committee to support his first race for the Assembly. He also received support from charter schools and the California Building Industry Association. Oil companies opposed his campaign.

More:
Democrat Robert Rivas is poised to be next Assembly speaker - Los Angeles Times

Eric Alterman is lecturing and traveling in Israel and Jordan this week, and so todays Altercation is authored by the historian Michael Kazin, a professor of history at Georgetown University and the author, most recently, of What It Took to Win: A History of the Democratic Party, from which the below is adapted.

To judge by media coverage of the Democrats, youd think nothing is going on within the party but battles between progressives who want to pass sweeping pieces of legislation like Build Back Better and the PRO Act and moderates who fret that increasing federal spending will add to inflation and alienate business. This may be unfairthe mainstream media often arebut we would be fooling ourselves were we to fail to admit that the party itself has a serious identity problem.

In fact, there are more influential progressives or leftists (or whatever your term of choice) inside the Democratic Party now than at any time in decades. To make a lasting difference in the life of the countryrather than winning Twitter fights or gaining face time on MSNBCthey might learn something from the career of a bygone senator from New York who may have been the most powerful progressive who never ran for the White House in the two centuries the Democrats have existed as a mass institution.

During that span, a remarkable array of heroes and villains have made the party their political home. The virtuous set obviously includes Franklin D. Roosevelt, who signed into law Social Security and other pillars of the limited welfare state, and led the nation to victory in World War II. It also includes John Lewis, who fought for voting rights for all Americans as a young activist and then spoke out for economic as well as racial equality during his 19 terms in Congress. Among the rogues are Roger Taney, a close aide to Andrew Jackson, who appointed him chief justice of the United States. From the bench in 1857, Taney intoned that Black people had no rights which the white man was bound to respect. And then there is George Wallace, the infamous Alabama governor, who exploited white hostility toward civil rights and liberal elites to become a darling of the far right in the 1960s and early 1970s.

But to name such figures, whether famous or infamous, neglects those party stalwarts, scarcely remembered today, who labored hard and long to enact critical reforms that stand as hallmarks of progressive achievement. Throughout their history, Democrats have done best when they espoused a vision of moral capitalism and policies to match. At a time when Democrats are struggling to enact programs like universal pre-kindergarten and expanded Medicare benefits, they can learn from the careers of once prominent, now little known, lawmakers who won election after election by championing policies to help the great majority of working Americans.

Most prominent among the forgotten is Robert Ferdinand Wagner. Born in a German Rhineland village in 1877, Wagner emigrated to New York City with his parents a few years later. His father had owned a small business in the Old Country but made his living as a janitor in the New World, at a salary of about a dollar a day. Discontented with his lot, Reinhard Wagner and his wife sailed back to Germany near the end of the 19th century and never returned. But Robert completed high school and then graduated from City College in Manhattan. He won an award as class orator that presaged his future career in politics.

Read more Altercation

Wagner soon enlisted in the ranks of Tammany Hall, the citys potent Democratic machine. In 1904, he got elected, with Tammanys endorsement, to the New York state legislature. With the help of female reformers like Frances Perkins (who later became labor secretary during the New Deal), he worked to pass bills for accident compensation and factory inspection aimed to prevent horrible events like the 1911 fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Company that killed 146 workers, most of them female immigrants. Mary Dreier, a pioneer labor organizer, recalled traveling with Wagner to vegetable farms in upstate New York where young women toiled for as long as 19 hours a day. She recalled that Wagner was very astute asking questions about the children, who often accompanied their mothers to the fields.

In 1926, Wagner won a seat in the U.S. Senate by clinging to the coattails of Al Smith, then his states popular governor. On Capitol Hill, he proposed measures to aid the unemployed and use government funds to stabilize the economy. When FDR became president, Wagner seized a unique opportunity to pass bold initiatives to markedly improve the lives of working Americans. Leon Keyserling, a 27-year-old economist on his staff, wrote the National Labor Relations Act, which the press immediately dubbed the Wagner Act, although it was co-sponsored with a congressman from Massachusetts. The senator also introduced bills to erect millions of units of public housing and provide every citizen with health insurance. Wagners reputation as the most prominent and most effective labor liberal in America made him the natural choice to oversee the drafting of the 1936 Democratic platform, on which FDR ran his campaign for re-election that carried all but two states and gave the Democrats huge majorities in both houses.

Wagner was also one of the few Democrats in Congress whose empathy for ordinary people never faded at the color line. In 1934, he proposed a bill to make lynching a federal crime and fought, in vain, to stop Southerners in his party from filibustering it to death. He also sought to amend the Social Security Act and his own National Labor Relations Act to include domestic workers and farmworkersoccupations held by two-thirds of Black workers in the South. But the New Yorker and his fellow liberals lost that struggle, too; Southern Democrats composed too large a bloc in the party and had too much power in Congress. But Wagner did show his unflagging commitment to racial equality when he proposed, in 1940, a successful amendment to the new Selective Service Act that outlawed discrimination in the Army Air Corps and other elite branches of the military.

The German immigrant had come a long way from his days as a young cog of the New York Democratic machine. Still, Wagner understood just how essential both loyalty and a strong organization were in politicsand so he kept the faith. Tammany Hall may justly claim the title of the cradle of modern liberalism in America, he told an Independence Day crowd in 1937.

Wagner had another exemplary quality few politicians have ever possessed: He was as lacking in egotism and a hunger for adoration as any intensely public man could be. One New York journalist who followed Wagner throughout his career described him as an unassuming man sincere and unaffected, he has neither the desire nor the talent for self-exploitation. The senator, groused another reporter, does not put on a good show.

Yet in his modest fashion, he did as much as any New Dealer but FDR himself to advance, in the words of his partys 1940 platform (which Wagner drafted), the essential freedom, dignity and opportunity of the American worker. And he did this in a period of depression and foreign war that tested the survival of democracy in the nation and the world more than at any time in history.

Wagner remained in the Senate until near his death in 1953. A year later, his only child, Robert Wagner Jr., was elected mayor of New York City. The consistent labor liberal ran the metropolis until 1965. During his final term, he broke with Tammany Hall, whose clout had weakened considerably since it had launched his fathers eminent career.

If Democrats hope to dominate national politics again. as they did during the middle of the last century, they will have to develop leaders able to build a strong organization committed to advancing the economic interests of Americans who work hard but have too little to show for it. This is the hard, unglamorous work of politics. It requires both movement-building and deal-making, and if any current progressive Democrat wishes to earn him- or herself a record like that of Robert Wagner, they had better get to work on both.

Michael left us some room that should not go to waste, so here, from the Journal of the History of Ideas, is a forum on Black intellectual history that definitely will not make it into any of the curricula in Florida or Virginia anytime soon.

And I did not want to go two weeks in a row with no music. I am a fan of cover versions and I wrote up some of my favorite way back when The New York Times asked me to pick some in 2008, here. I am also a fan of Mr. Springsteen and so todays bonuses include Bruce doing Love Me Tender and Drift Away, Like a Rolling Stone, and the famous Leipzig 2013 You Never Can Tell, with over 60,000,000 views. Bruce apparently did not remember that he did the song (also unrehearsed) in 2009, but the bootleg I grew up listening to was from 1974. Listen to how differently Bruce used to talk on stage back then: Im married, Im selling insurance

And if you remember this song (and useful metaphor) fondly, as I do, then you ought to love this one perhaps even more.

Read more:
Altercation: The Best (Progressive) Democrat You Probably Never Heard Of - The American Prospect