Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

A Progressive Race Narrative (Part 1) | Recognition, Redirection, and Renewal – Patheos

Recognition, Redirection, and Renewal is the answer. Whats the question? Here it is: What should appear in a progressive race narrative?

Heres the backstory question. Why is it that America, like a family car stuck in a Minnesota snow, only spins its wheels on matters of race? Here is my answer. Because of the absence of a progressive race narrativeor worldviewwith the traction that could move the society forward toward a healthy democracy?[1]

This post is the first of a Patheos series, A Progressive Race Narrative, within a larger series on public theology within a still larger series dedicated to Progressive Christianity. This includes an interview with African Public Theologian Mwaambi Gideon Mbi and Asian public theologian Paul S. Chung as well as prominent American public theologian Katie Day. Now, lets turn to the challenge of constructing a progressive race narrative that will give us hope.

I recommend we construct a progressive race narrative out of existing materialsthat is, out of selected values already alive in our culture. I recommend we lift up a vision of the near, medium, and long range futures.Discourse clarification and worldview construction are in the futures business.

First, in the near future we lay a foundation of recognition. This recognition revises Americas story to include an objective and realistic account of the role racial injustice has played in the course of events. It also includes confession of the sins perpetrated by white supremacism.

Second, for the medium range future, we redirect institutional policies to consciously embrace racial diversity, even cultural diversity. Affirmative Action programs in recent decades were largely effective, despite pockets of resentment. For the time being, affirmative policies could help redress imbalances that have led to institutional racism in mortgage finance, law enforcement, imprisonment, and corporate board rooms.

Third, renewal for the long range future is predicated on a colorblind vision of a single universal humanum. Yes, Im aware that the term, colorblind, is controversial. Even so, nothing less than colorblindness is requisite for reconciliation, justice, and filial love.

This long range vision, like a rainbow, should include all colors. Its a mistake to continually formulate the race question in binary fashion as either white versus black or white versus non-white. The American family includes adoptees from every clime and continent.

If we are to keep our democracy from dying of racial cancer only to be trumped by totalitarianism, a progressive race theory becomes as urgent as emergency surgery. (Heart photo from Keith Giles Patheos column where a black American, Kyle Butler writes, Racism: My Answer To It.)

Might the public theologian provide emergency room therapy? The public theologian has high motivation drawn from two sources. One is scripture. St. Paul in Galatians 3:28: There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. Can such a biblical mandate be translated into a cultural vision?

The second source for the public theologian is the traditional triad of confession, repentance, and reconciliation. Might we translate this triad for the wider public as recognition, redirection, and renewal? Recognition plus repentance are prerequisite to redirection and healthy renewal.

In recent posts I have described public theology as conceived in the church, critically honed in the academy, and meshed with the world for the sake of the world. Might the progressive Christian contribute to an inclusive progressive race narrative that inspires unity rather than division?

The frenzied question of race is one of the most urgent on the public theologians agenda. In our series on public theology, we have tried to clarify the confusion over Critical Race Theory in contemporary discourse. Weve appealed to Gods identification with us in the incarnation as a divine conferral of dignity on each of us, regardless of race.

Turning from the wider public back to the church for a moment, its distressing to find the same divisiveness within the churches that are fracturing the wider society. Worse. We find the same competing ideologies generated in the public sphere ripping apart the communal fabric within the church sphere.

Evangelical theologian Roger Olson throws up his hands.I find the condition of Christian ethics absolutely appalling and sickening. It lacks any center, anything like doctrinal orthodoxy. Highly respected, allegedly devout Christian ethicists disagree radically with each other over questions such as war, capital punishment, poverty, abortion, biomedical ethics, and just about everything where there should be some kind of at least rough consensus. (Art: Jesus and the Children by John Lautermilch)

Progressives have contributed to this disintegration by judging as immoral other Christian communions. Fundamentalists and some evangelicals have not done any better, constantly complaining that liberal Protestants and Roman Catholics are no longer Christian. What St. Paul called party spirit continues to dismember the one Body of Christ.

What this means is that a new Progressive Race Narrative for the wider public should look for healing divisiveness within the plurality of Christian communions in the process. Healing by leading.

For the discussion that follows in Part 2, I will prosecute discourse clarification of the narratives touted by the scolders [2] and the deniers. These two narratives dominate the self-interpretations of todays Americans. Like piranha fish in a frenzy, the scolders and deniers eat up the minority narratives of the Neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Should the public theologian join the frenzy? Yes.

[1] The need for such a progressive narrative has been suggested by Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School. Feldman suggested this when appearing on the Fareed Zakaria television show, 12/26/2021.

Ted Peters is a Lutheran pastor and emeritus seminary professor. His one volume systematic theology is now in its 3rd edition, GodThe Worlds Future (Fortress 2015). He has undertaken a thorough examination of the sin-and-grace dialectic in two works, Sin: Radical Evil in Soul and Society (Eerdmans 1994) and Sin Boldly! (Fortress 2015). Watch for his forthcoming, The Voice of Public Christian Theology (ATF 2022). See his website: TedsTimelyTake.com.

Read more from the original source:
A Progressive Race Narrative (Part 1) | Recognition, Redirection, and Renewal - Patheos

No time for the timid: The dual threats of progressives and Trump | TheHill – The Hill

Its often said that Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaMissed paperwork deadline delaying Biden nomination for FDA: report Poll: Democracy is under attack, and more violence may be the future No time for the timid: The dual threats of progressives and Trump MOREs principal legacy was Donald TrumpDonald TrumpFive reasons for Biden, GOP to be thankful this season Giving thanks for Thanksgiving itself Immigration provision in Democrats' reconciliation bill makes no sense MORE. Soon, Joe BidenJoe BidenUS lawmakers arrive in Taiwan to meet with local officials Biden meets with Coast Guard on Thanksgiving Five reasons for Biden, GOP to be thankful this season MOREs main legacy also may be Trump. In both cases, Trump could be seen as a broad-based, middle-class populist reaction to massive overreach by progressives, their powerful supporters in the media and tech communities, and a firmly entrenched, permanent bureaucracy.

Modern politics in the superpower states whether in the United States, China or Russia has become a crucible of hardball, winner-take-all, merciless strategies and tactics, utilizing every vehicle available to prevail. In the American model, political leaders, successfully emerging from that crucible and equipped to govern, must be prepared to fully co-opt the progressive left or be strong enough to resist it, as well as prepared to resist the ill-defined, but highly effective, political magnetism of Trump. The far left-leaning Democratic Party leadership in the House and Senate has been effective in aligning with and partially co-opting the radical progressives. Trump has been very effective at building a populist movement to confront and resist both progressives and the permanent bureaucracy.

Neither radical path represents good governance or a sustainable long-term direction for America. They are highly divisive. Many Americans understand that, and it leaves a centrist path open to any moderate Democrats, Republicans or independents with the political skills, personal strength and resources to resist the radical left, the media, the entrenched bureaucracy and Trump.

Many Americans feel, with some justification, that liberal Democrats appear to have fully corrupted the media and perhaps even weaponized parts of the federal justice, national security and, recently, health agencies as active arms of their political agenda. The result has begun to feel to a large portion of the country like increased authoritarianism and radical government.

But, the left has made the deadly error of making its plans and tactics increasingly obvious. The trillion-dollar infrastructure bill and the $1.75 trillion social spending bill (some estimate its real price at closer to $4 trillion) most likely will represent a disastrous $5 trillion in new spending. When combined with the destruction of Americas energy independence and renewed allowance for states and local governments to subsidize increased spending through higher federal income tax deductions, the spending will lead to skyrocketing inflation, higher taxes and interest rates, a slowing economy, higher unemployment and increased misery among the middle class and the poor precisely the opposite of what is being claimed by the sponsors.

They will have weakened the economy, destroyed the jobs-creating machinery, weakened national security, and shown their authoritarian fists in implementing their programs. They have flooded the country with illegal border crossers, allowed an explosion of crime and drug deaths, and confronted parents over how to raise and teach their children. They have allowed cities to be trashed and burned and ordinary citizens of all races to be terrorized, beaten and killed.

Re-enter Trump. He has shown himself to be unique among moderate and right-leaning leaders in having the populist charisma, personal resources and single-minded determination to resist, confront and occasionally defeat the progressive left and the entrenched bureaucracy. But his highly-flawed style and personal behavior make him distasteful to moderates, many conservatives and others favoring decorum, graciousness, orderly process and personal consideration from Americas leaders. He has treated opponents, and often his own staff, with relentless derision and disrespect.

While not governing as a racist, Trump certainly seemed to use racist dog whistles to secure the 2016 Republican nomination and occasionally as president. He had a successful economic program thanks to his embrace of Paul Ryans tax reforms, his dogged trade representatives, and former Secretary of State Mike PompeoMike PompeoNo time for the timid: The dual threats of progressives and Trump Psaki: Sexism contributes to some criticism of Harris Mnuchin, Pompeo mulled plan to remove Trump after Jan. 6: book MORE's diplomacy little of which he recognizes. Trump governed as a moderate with the lowest unemployment rates for Blacks, Hispanics and women in history, while increasing real wages across the board. Carbon emissions were some of the lowest in a decade.

Trumps firm, but restrained, foreign policy kept America out of new shooting wars, and prevented increased aggression from Russia, China, North Korea or Iran. He created effective peace treaties in the Middle East. But many moderates feel he was totally self-absorbed and obnoxious while he accomplished all of this and have trouble stomaching another, possibly inevitable, round of Trump in the White House.

Nonetheless, the apparent incompetence and radical progressive direction of the Biden administration is bleeding reluctant moderates and independents toward Trump as the lesser of two evils. In short, Biden and the radical left are creating a massive political vacuum in America, which Trump will fill unless a very strong alternative surfaces.

This is no time for the timid. Trump has become a political colossus and he must be confronted by another charismatic leader with personal determination, huge political and management skills, an effective populist message, and personal access to vast resources to confront powerful political blocs, most of the media, and the permanent bureaucracy. It must be a populist leader with the personal energy to barnstorm America the oxymoron extreme-moderate with the courage, skill and resources to confront both Trump and the progressives.

Biden has lost his magic beans. The stalk is starting to grow. The giant is coming. Who knows Jack (or Jacqueline)? Tell them to bring a sharp ax.

Grady Means is a writer (GradyMeans.com) and former corporate strategy consultant. He served in the White House as a policy assistant to Vice President Nelson Rockefeller. Follow him on Twitter @gradymeans1.

Original post:
No time for the timid: The dual threats of progressives and Trump | TheHill - The Hill

Thank you, progressives, for saving the Biden agenda – Roll Call

This was important, because it was clear that a set of conservative Democrats were invested in the infrastructure package and not nearly as invested in the rest of the Democratic agenda. When nine conservative House Democrats, led by Rep. Josh Gottheimer, demanded a vote on the infrastructure bill by the end of September, their plan was obvious: Delink the two bills, pass the infrastructure measure before the final details of the reconciliation bill were negotiated, and then shrink it dramatically or tank it entirely.

In the lead-up to the infrastructure vote, conservative Democrats signaled repeatedly that they did not intend to negotiate with any sense of urgency on Build Back Better. Sen. Joe Manchin went so far as to publish an op-ed calling for a strategic pause on the process until next year which is to say, until an election year, when chances of passage would have fallen dramatically. Conservative Democrats felt no pressure to pass the reconciliation measure because their priorities were already moving with the infrastructure bill.

If it werent for House progressives, this plan would have worked. The progressives, led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal, had approved a reform package last year designed to turn the Congressional Progressive Caucus into a disciplined negotiating bloc. They identified their collective priorities for the Build Back Better agenda early and negotiated their inclusion into the budget resolution.

When the Gottheimer Nine tried to force a vote on the infrastructure bill last month, progressives did what was necessary they withheld their votes until a final Build Back Better package had been agreed upon. Thanks to the political conditions they created and boosted by grassroots support outside the Capitol and across the country, progressives got the reconciliation package out of the House.

The fight to Build Back Better is not over; the legislation is now before the Senate and Biden has committed to get it across the finish line. But lets be clear about what happened. Progressive members of Congress organized to build their collective power. They developed their collective, cross-issue priorities. They compromised over and over to get to a final deal. In short, they worked as a voting bloc to save the Biden agenda.

Read more:
Thank you, progressives, for saving the Biden agenda - Roll Call

What The Squad Tells Us About Progressives Ability To Win Voters Of Color – FiveThirtyEight

Back in 2018, a quartet of Democratic women known commonly as The Squad broke barriers on their way to Congress: They were young women of color with no prior congressional experience who, in some cases, bested a white incumbent to represent their now racially diversifying districts. They were heralded as the future of the Democratic Party, and, for the progressive movement, which had long struggled to make inroads with nonwhite voters, they offered a potential path forward: These four women, and others like them, would motivate people of color to vote for left-leaning candidates to help usher in a seismic shift in electoral politics.

But then the 2020 election happened. The Squad did grow by two members, but progressives failed to win the ultimate prize, the Democratic nomination for president, in large part because voters of color threw their support behind now-President Biden. In addition, many Democrats argued after the 2020 general election that progressive messaging might have cost Democrats seats in the House that year. And while a handful of nonwhite progressive candidates have won important elections this year, 2021 also contained a number of high-profile setbacks for the movement. Not only did Eric Adams, a Black moderate, handily defeat a number of progressives in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor, but a handful of other progressives of color lost their races to more moderate politicians of color, too.

As a result, the buzz over the Squads initial wins in 2018 has largely been replaced by a narrative that progressives struggle with people of color, and that Black voters especially prefer more moderate candidates. But the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

We looked back at the Squads initial primary wins, and found that theyve often won sizable blocs of nonwhite voters, especially when they have had strong ties to those communities (or at least stronger than their opponent). But at the same time, they havent necessarily performed well with all voters of color in their district. In fact, our analysis found that despite each members very different path of Congress each Squad members wins required a multiracial coalition of both white and nonwhite voters. We only found one instance without a clear racial pattern. But even if there is no surefire strategy for progressives to win voters of color, the Squads primaries also push back against the idea that progressives consistently struggle with these voters.

The first member of the Squad and arguably still the most famous is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Few thought the Democratic primary for New Yorks 14th Congressional District on June 26, 2018, would be competitive, but Ocasio-Cortez wound up pulling off an upset, defeating then-Rep. Joe Crowley, the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House, 57 percent to 43 percent.

In seeking to explain the result, commentators at the time pointed to the districts changing demographics: Ocasio-Cortez, like 47 percent of the 14th Districts voting-age population, is Hispanic, while Crowley, like only 23 percent of the districts VAP, is non-Hispanic white. However, this explanation doesnt tell the whole story as Ocasio-Cortez performed well in both white and Hispanic corners of the district. According to Sean McElwee, the co-founder and executive director of Data for Progress, Ocasio-Cortez benefited from a situation where very highly engaged liberal people were the big constituency that were turning out.

In fact, Ocasio-Cortez did best in the whiter, more gentrified areas of the 14th District like the Queens neighborhoods of Astoria, Sunnyside and Woodside. She defeated Crowley 64 percent to 36 percent in precincts with a white VAP of at least 60 percent. She also won heavily (70+ percent) Hispanic precincts, 56 percent to 44 percent. She had liberals, particularly liberal whites and young whites, and Hispanic voters and that was her successful coalition, McElwee said. But that isnt to say that Ocasio-Cortez was able to appeal to all voters of color. The data suggests, and McElwee agreed, that Ocasio-Cortez performed less well with Black voters. Crowley actually won the districts two Black-majority precincts by a 55 percent to 45 percent margin.

A few weeks after Ocasio-Cortez, the second member of the Squad eked out a win in her primary. On Aug. 7, 2018, former state Rep. Rashida Tlaib edged out Detroit City Council President Brenda Jones, another woman of color, in the regularly scheduled Democratic primary for Michigans open 13th District, 31 percent to 30 percent.

This was a close, crowded primary four other candidates were in the running but to an even greater extent than Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib won thanks to her strength in precincts with large white populations. She received 42 percent of the vote in the districts 34 precincts with white VAPs greater than 80 percent. However, this doesnt show a complete picture: 13 of those precincts were in Dearborn Heights, which has a significant Arab American population, and the U.S. Census Bureau considers Arab Americans to be white. (Tlaib herself is Arab American.) Tlaib won 69 percent of the vote in these 13 precincts versus 26 percent of the vote in the other 21 heavily white precincts, so its likely that much of Tlaibs apparent strength with white voters is in fact due to her base of support in the Arab American community.

Tlaib also did not do particularly well in Black neighborhoods; she received 24 percent in precincts with Black VAPs greater than 80 percent. But that probably had more to do with Joness deep roots in Detroits Black community than Black voters explicitly rejecting Tlaib. Having served on the city council since 2006, Jones had fairly high name recognition in the city, and she won 41 percent in those 80+ percent Black precincts (almost all of which are in Detroit).

Indeed, given the racial composition of the 13th Districts VAP 53 percent Black, 35 percent white Tlaib would have likely lost if the Black vote had not been split among Jones and other candidates. Rashida did get some support among African Americans, but it wasnt the lions share of her vote, said Tim Bledsoe, a professor of political science at Wayne State University and former Michigan state legislator. Instead, Bledsoe said, Tlaib won thanks to her strong fundraising, which helped her air broadcast TV ads when no other candidates did, and her appeal to younger, more diverse voters. There was a more progressive element to Rashidas campaign, said Bledsoe. Brenda is certainly no conservative, but Rashida was talking in a more aggressive way about the progressive agenda and I think that helped mobilize young people.

The Squad gained its third member on Aug. 14, 2018, when then-state Rep. Ilhan Omar won the Democratic primary for Minnesotas open 5th Congressional District with 48 percent of the vote. A big reason for Omars success was that, as the first Somali-American state legislator in the U.S., she was already somewhat of a household name, both in the 5th District and around the country. Not only did she repeatedly speak out against then-President Trump, but a year prior to her 2018 congressional election, she was featured on the cover of Time Magazine. She was also featured in a music video for Maroon 5, appeared on The Daily Show and was the subject of a documentary that premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival.

That national profile proved hard for any of her opponents to cut through. All of [Omars primary opponents] had a hard time making the case against voting for someone who was already an international figure. It was hard to penetrate and no one quite landed on the right message, said Javier Morillo, a political strategist who works in Democratic politics.

Perhaps unsurprisingly given her name recognition, Omar performed well in all corners of the 5th District. In fact, there was no correlation between a precincts racial composition and its level of support for Omar. In precincts whose Black VAPs exceeded 40 percent, Omar received 47 percent of the vote. In precincts where the non-Hispanic white VAP was at least 80 percent, she received 44 percent. Her best precincts spanned Minneapoliss white-majority University neighborhood, heavily Somali Cedar-Riverside neighborhood and diverse Powderhorn neighborhood.

Omar was also the only member of the Squad to face a competitive primary in 2020. Antone Melton-Meaux, a moderate attorney, mounted a bid against her, and even though both Melton-Meaux and Omar are Black, that race actually broke down much more closely along racial lines.

Perhaps contrary to expectations, though, it was the progressive candidate who did better in Black neighborhoods. Omar won the primary overall, 58 percent to 39 percent, but she lost precincts with the highest white VAPs; Melton-Meaux defeated her 55 percent to 43 percent in parts of the district with white VAPs of at least 85 percent. Rather, Omar prevailed thanks to her strong performance in more racially diverse neighborhoods. She did especially well in precincts that were 40 percent Black or more, defeating Melton-Meaux 73 percent to 23 percent.

Why did Omars coalition shift between 2018 and 2020? Michael Minta, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota, cautioned that it is impossible to say definitively but said that Omars support for the protests that rocked the district in the wake of George Floyds murder just a few months before the 2020 primary might have turned off moderate white Democrats in places like affluent, suburban Southwest Minneapolis. He also pointed to anti-Israel comments Omar made in 2019 that invoked anti-Semitic tropes as a possible factor. That was used against her and highlighted in the campaign, he said. Finally, he noted that media coverage of Omars first primary did not focus much on her progressive views, which may have made those moderate voters more willing to vote for her in 2018 than they were in 2020. If she had that reputation she has now I dont know how that primary would have played out.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley is the fourth original member of the Squad, and she also performed well in all corners of her district, but it was actually Black precincts that gave her, a Black woman, the highest levels of support.

On Sept. 4, 2018, Pressley defeated then-Rep. Michael Capuano, a white incumbent who had served for nearly 20 years, 59 percent to 41 percent in the Democratic primary for Massachusettss 7th District. That 18-point margin is evidence that Pressley held her own everywhere, but she significantly outperformed Capuano, 76 percent to 24 percent, in the districts 38 majority-Black precincts, mostly located in the Roxbury and Mattapan neighborhoods of Boston.

Why was Pressley so successful in those areas? She had represented them for nearly nine years on the Boston City Council. And according to Beth Huang, the executive director of the Massachusetts Voter Table, Pressleys deep roots in the community went over well with voters of color in general. She had many validators in communities of color who had known her for a long time, Huang said. She also targeted a wider set of voters, including more young people and more people of color in Boston.

But on top of that, Pressley was successful at expanding her appeal to whiter sections of the district, which ultimately elevated her candidacy even further. Per our analysis, she actually edged out Capuano, 51 percent to 49 percent, in the districts 28 precincts with VAPs that are at least 70 percent white, reflecting her strength with young progressives in areas like Somerville and Allston. But as Huang made clear, Pressleys win was years in the making. She was and is a very well-known quantity, Huang said. She put in the work for 10 years to build a lot of credibility with many different types of voters.

The Squad originally consisted of just the four congresswomen mentioned above, but on June 23, 2020, it got a new member: Rep. Jamaal Bowman, who defeated former Rep. Eliot Engel in the Democratic primary for New Yorks 16th District, 55 percent to 41 percent.

But despite the 16th District abutting Ocasio-Cortezs, Bowman prevailed by following Pressleys template of running up the score in heavily nonwhite neighborhoods. Engel, a white man who had represented the 16th District since 1989, won 51 percent to 45 percent in precincts with VAPs that are at least 70 percent white. But Bowman, a Black man, won 59 percent to 34 percent in Hispanic-majority precincts and 63 percent to 34 percent in Black-majority precincts.

Bowman didnt have Pressleys advantage of already being an elected official in the district, but according to McElwee (who advised Bowman during his campaign), he still had real ties to civic and other institutions in the Black communities. As a former school principal, McElwee said, Bowman was able to use his ties to the voters particularly Black and Hispanic voters to upset the normal advantages that incumbents would otherwise have.

Another thing that likely helped Bowmans candidacy was a gaffe Engel made after Floyds murder and subsequent racial-justice protests, where he essentially said that he only sought press attention on the issue because of his upcoming primary race. Engels comment that if I didnt have a primary, I wouldnt care may have signaled to Black voters especially that he didnt share their communitys concerns over police brutality.

Finally, the newest member of the Squad, Rep. Cori Bush, punched her ticket to Congress on Aug. 4, 2020, when she narrowly defeated then-Rep. Lacy Clay, 49 percent to 46 percent, in the Democratic primary for Missouris 1st Congressional District.

Bushs path to victory was unusual among Squad members in that she actually lost the parts of her district with the highest concentration of voters who share her racial identity. Bush, who is Black, lost the districts Black-majority precincts 54 percent to 43 percent. But there is an easy explanation for this: The Clay family had been an institution in St. Louiss Black community for over 50 years. Clays father represented the district for 32 years, and the younger Clay had served the area in either the state legislature or Congress continuously since 1983.

In fact, one of the big reasons for the closeness of this race was Clays existing ties to older Black voters. According to Jeff Smith, a former Democratic state senator who represented a significant portion of the 1st District, Bush struggled a bit when it came to appealing to these voters since they had become accustomed to supporting the Clay name.

That said, its not like Bush didnt attract any Black support: Her 43 percent performance in Black-majority precincts is actually pretty impressive considering the strength of her opponent. Indeed, Smith said, Bush had strong ties to the Black activist community who wanted to elect a more progressive representative following the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, which is part of the 1st District. Bushs district is really the epicenter for the modern civil rights racial justice movement post-Ferguson, so that nurtured a cadre of young activists that powered her campaign, Smith said.

Where Bush really excelled, though, was in whiter parts of Missouris 1st District. In white-majority precincts, she defeated Clay 54 percent to 38 percent, and she turned in some of her strongest performances in the gentrified neighborhoods of St. Louis like those around Tower Grove Park. And its possible the Clay name might have also worked in Bushs favor in conservative, white enclaves of the city. Smith suggested that some white voters might have voted for Bush as a protest vote against the Clay name. A longstanding distrust of the Clay machine in some of those places probably helped her even though, ideologically, those wards are closer to him than her. But Bushs real base in this primary was white progressives, Smith said.

In sum, the Squad members coalitions have been all over the map. While some members (Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib and Bush) did better in whiter precincts, others (Pressley and Bowman) did better in predominantly nonwhite areas. And in one case (Omar) there was no obvious pattern (at least in her initial election).

Even with these differences, though, its clear that voters of color arent an automatic vote for the establishment-aligned candidate (as Capuano, Engel and Melton-Meaux can attest). Instead, in all the Squads primaries, it seems that voters of color opted for the candidate who had a deeper connection to their respective communities. And that shouldnt be surprising. It makes a lot of sense, actually: Voters vote for the representative who they feel best represents them.

Aaron Bycoffe contributed research. Art direction by Emily Scherer. Copy editing by Curtis Yee. Photo research by Jeremy Elvas. Story editing by Sarah Frostenson.

The rest is here:
What The Squad Tells Us About Progressives Ability To Win Voters Of Color - FiveThirtyEight

Biden’s Fed pick puts progressives on notice – Axios

President Biden's nomination of Jerome Powell for a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve shows Biden's willingness to stare down progressives to get his cherished Build Back Better legislation through the Senate and into law.

Why it matters: Inflation is threatening Bidens $2 trillion social spending and climate package, and Biden wants to save his political capital with moderates for that fight.

Driving the news: Biden wasnt willing to forsake Powell for a marginally more progressive candidate, like Fed governor Lael Brainard, simply to appease Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who called Powell a dangerous man to his face in September.

The big picture: Powell and Brainard, colleagues on the Fed, appear not to have substantially different views on inflation and how quickly to remove stimulus from the economy.

What they are saying: Bidens gambit appears to have worked, with important Senate Democrats, and Republicans, promising to confirm him.

The other side: Warren vowed to oppose Powell while promising to support Brainard.

What we're watching: Biden hinted that progressives may be more pleased with his future Fed picks, promising that diversity would be a key factor in filling three other positions.

Read more:
Biden's Fed pick puts progressives on notice - Axios