Mediaboss Marketing

Photo: Jonathan Bachman/Getty Images

One of the more confusing questions pollsters have asked Democratic voters to answer this year is whether they would prefer their candidate return to Obamas policies versus pursuing a more liberal (or conservative) course. A modest plurality picked the Obama option. You couldnt find a bigger believer in Obamas legacy than me I literally wrote a book touting it and Im not even sure how Id answer that question. Obama policies could mean any one of the following:

1) The policy status quo as of January 20, 20172) The policies Obama implemented plus the policies he proposed but were blocked by Congress or overturned by conservative courts3) The policies Obama would be proposing if he were running for president now

The ambiguity about this question reflects the larger confusion about Biden and the return to normalcy he promises. Bidens rhetorical emphasis seems to imply his plan is no more than the first definition of Obama-ism, winding the clock back to the moment before Donald Trump took the oath of office. But the truth is that Biden has a domestic agenda that, while nowhere near as radical as the Bernie Sanders platform, is almost certainly to the left of anything even a Democratic-run Congress would pass.

Last summer, Biden assured a group of donors that nothing fundamental will change in their lives under his plan. Outraged progressives seized on the words, often skipping right over the fundamental, reimagining the line as a promise that nothing would change for the rich:

Biden was not saying that. His point was that he was asking them to take a hit to their after-tax income in return for buying social peace, but that the sacrifice would be finite he would not confiscate their homes or end their livelihoods. Indeed, last week the Tax Policy Center published its analysis of Bidens plan to increase taxes on the rich. The plan would raise $4 trillion over a decade, making it if enacted one of the largest wealth transfers in American history.

TPCs has a chart illustrating the effect on after-tax income. One-percenters would see their annual income drop by 10-15 percent:

Now, as Biden promised, that still wouldnt be a fundamental change in their lives. They would still have a lot of money more, in most cases, than they enjoyed a decade ago. But it is still a very sizable change, one that would likely meet with bitter and even hysterical resistance from the rich when introduced in Congress.

There is plenty more liberal meat on the bones of Bidens program. He is proposing more generous subsidies and medicaid funding along with a public option in order to achieve universal health care; a combination of $17 trillion in clean energy investment and a suite of tighter regulation to bring emissions to zero by 2050; a combined $2 trillion in new spending on early education, post-secondary education, and housing, a $1.3 trillion infrastructure plan, and a $15 minimum wage.

There is more Biden could be proposing to advance the liberal agenda. Ive argued he should adopt some of Elizabeth Warrens anti-corruption and financial regulation plans, including a financial transaction tax. Eric Levitz has some ideas of his own, including marijuana legalization. If he can carry a Democratic majority into the Senate, a lot of possibilities will open. Campaign proposals only go so far, though. The limits of his legislation will be set by the 50th Senator, and the limits of his executive action will be set by the fifth Supreme Court justice. That would have been true under a Sanders or Warren administration, too.

Obama effected a great deal of progress, especially in the first two years, before Republicans took back Congress and blockaded major legislation. The slow-paced last six years of Obamas presidency helped spur the Bernie movement, with its ambition of summoning a mass army of non-voters that would force the likes of Mitch McConnell to open the way to left-wing reforms.

The failure of the Sanders campaign to inspire anything like such a voter uprising, and the all but certain end his campaign is facing, should bring the left back to reality. But reality doesnt mean nothing. It means that, with the possibility of full control of government comes the opportunity for meaningful progress again. Biden mostly casts himself as a return to normalcy. But what he is promising as well is a continuation of the liberal tradition of Roosevelt, Johnson, and Obama.

Analysis and commentary on the latest political news from New York columnist Jonathan Chait.

The rest is here:
Joe Bidens Platform Is More Progressive Than You Think - New York Magazine

The primary contests for Bernie Sanders have not gone as hed hoped and, while the election isnt over yet, the question now looms about what happens to the progressive movement after Bernie Sanders.

I think the answer to that was never centered around the presidential race to begin with. Which should be intuitive because the future of the progressive movement cant be a 78-year-old white guy whos been in politics for several decades, almost by definition. Bernie is a pioneer, not the future. The future is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (And Ayanna Pressley. And Ilhan Omar. And Rashida Tlaib. And Katie Porter. That they are all women is not a coincidence. That they are all, except for Porter, women of color isnt either.)

In the past few weeks, Ocasio-Cortez has been asked repeatedly whether she would support the Democratic nominee for president if he or she wasnt Bernie Sanders, and her replies have been affirmative and unambiguous.

As to Sanders, whose campaign she helped revive with her endorsement after his heart attack in October, she was clear Tuesday evening: Theres no sugar-coating it. Tonights a tough night. Tonights a tough night electorally, Ocasio-Cortez said on an Instagram live chat, noting the stark generational divide in the Democratic Party on health care, on climate change, on foreign policy.

She noted that Our generation seems to have a streak of progressivism that doesnt seem to be going away soon, and that, while movements arent necessarily electoral, as people get better at learning to vote over time.

During her short tenure in Congress, Ocasio-Cortez has already been a powerful agenda-setter for Democrats in ways that long-term elected Democratic officials who skew more moderateestablishment Democrats, as Bernie would put ithave not always embraced or even felt threatened by. Shes also been visible, vocal, and in hearings, unintimidated by process or her peers and impeccably prepared. And to the extent that this has made her the unofficial bogeyman of the right, she has turned it into a powerful microphone for educating people about what it means to need the things a progressive agenda has to offeruniversal health care, upward mobility for younger people suffering from decisions made by the prior generation, justice and equality for marginalized peopleand how it can actually be achieved.

Despite the incessant howling on Fox News about the horrors of socialism, 76 percent of Democrats say theyd vote for a socialist president, and AOCs telegenic accessibility has the potential to make democratic socialism less scary to the 24 percent who are holding out. She natively understands media in a way that her priors dont and leverages it to speak to the left about the need for more progressive work and the right, simply because she has their attention.

At the core, there is nothing on Sanders agenda that is not also on Ocasio-Cortez agenda, and Sanders recognizes that. She is his most visible and powerful surrogate. She speaks to the younger voters that are the most vibrant and crucial part of his coalition and also models for them a pathway that works in the context of the flawed and, in certain ways, increasingly more fragile government we have. But she also advances a rhetoric of reform that leaves room for new constituencies, and that may be the key difference between AOC and the Sanders campaign, if not Sanders.

There is a small but vocal portion of the Sanders base that is accelerationist in nature, and cannot really think about what it would do with power within the Democratic party in any meaningful way because its mostly concerned with dismantling the partypunitively, and for crimes the party has certainly committed (bowing to special interests, aligning itself with undemocratic policies, choosing between corporate interests and vulnerable populations and picking the former).

But there are a lot more progressives who view the existing system of government and the two-party system as the most obvious, maybe only way, to get progressive policies enacted. And hostility toward the party in the abstract does not, for many Democratic voters, translate to hostility toward Democrats generally. You can think the party at the most elite powerful levels is full of corrupt insiders and still like your local representative, who you think has your back. You can also think that some of the best progressive advances that weve made as a country were accomplished by Democrats in spite of those problems.

Ocasio-Cortez seems to be able to thread this needle in a way that Sanders cant. Shes pushed back against what she perceives to be party regressivenessrefusing to pay DCCC dues after they banned vendors who worked on her campaignbut also exhibiting a willingness to work with people (Republicans even; Ted Cruz, even!) where they can potentially agree on a progressive objective.

So its not going to feel like a win for progressive voters this week at the presidential level, but the baton is already being passed, and to a progressive standard bearer who can hold insiders to account and maintain the excitement Bernie Sanders movement built with younger voters, while simultaneously pulling new people into the progressive movement and getting things done within an extremely flawed system. The progressive movement is bigger than any single candidate in any case, but if were going to choose avatars by necessity, we still have exciting options.

Excerpt from:
Bernie Sanders Was a Progressive Pioneer. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is the Future of the Movement. - The Daily Beast

Facing a global pandemic, Americas very existence hasnt been this threatened since President Franklin Delano Roosevelts administration confronted the Great Depression and World War II. The coronavirus is challenging the USA with a double whammy that combines both dangers: Economic collapse and an invasion causing massive loss of life. To combat these twin perils requires a response on a par with Roosevelts New Deal and the Allied war effort against fascism.

Trump is moving in the direction of another upper class New Yorker who also became president in an era of extreme crisis. Its time for some bigly Federal government action again.

And who is emerging as the 21st century equivalent of FDR, mobilizing the Federal government to tackle this viral menace? Will it be that latter day New Dealer, presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders, who advocates nationalizing healthcare? Or his onetime rival for the Democratic Party nomination, Andrew Yang, who ran on the Universal Basic Income platform of disbursing $1,000 monthly payments to Americans? Or Democratic frontrunner former Vice President Joe Biden, who can claim to have experience marshaling Washingtons resources to take on a national disaster?

No Americas new FDR wont be a Democrat, but may, surprisingly, come from the other side of the aisle. Indeed, it will be none other than President Trump call him Franklin DONALD Roosevelt. On March 17 the Republican chief executive went far beyond the usual conservative cant of simply seeking just a payroll tax holiday to overcome the coronavirus adverse economic impact. Indeed, Trump called for Congress to work with him on a big, bold stimulus package to stabilize the U.S. economy. And on March 18 Trump called himself a wartime president.

Sounding more like Roosevelts Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. than Trumps, Steve Mnuchin is negotiating a trillion dollar rescue program with Capitol Hill. Were going big, Trump proclaimed about his bigly plan to outspend the pandemics effect. Yang told CNN that the White House had contacted him to learn details about how his UBI initiative would work. After all, laissez faire, every-man-for-himself capitalism wont solve a plague through the invisible hand of the free market.

Now that Trumpsters have discovered the Big Government gospel, whats next? Are businesses going to display the National Recovery Administration blue eagle logo with its We Do Our Part motto again? Will Trump resurrect a 2020 version of the Works Progress Administration to put all the laid off flight attendants, hotel housekeepers, croupiers, cruise ship stewards, Uber drivers, etc., back to work, as Michigan Democratic Congressman Dan Kildee has advocated? Will an updated Federal Theatre Project turn the lights back on Broadway (setting the stage for Marla Maples comeback)? Will a modern day Tennessee Valley Authority powered by wind and solar provide renewable energy to America? Is a 21st century Civilian Conservation Corps combating climate change coming soon?

Trump may harness all of the powers of the presidency (which he claimed are unlimited due to Article II of the Constitution) and the Federal government to do all the right things. But of course, it will be for all the wrong reasons. After all, this is the megalomaniacal Manhattan realtor who wanted to build a high rise so tall it would cast a shadow across the Hudson River, bilked charities, mocked a disabled reporter at a rally, blithely tossed paper towels to Puerto Rican hurricane victims, called neo-Nazis very fine people, etc. the examples of his callous disregard for human suffering and basic decency are endless. When it comes to accountability, the presidential motto of this showboat whos always praising himself but never taking responsibility has been: The buck stops over there! A case in point was when a reporter tried to ask the denier-in-chief about his low credibility ratings the thin-skinned Trump highhandedly preempted him with his usual self-congratulatory self-aggrandizements.

So why would Trump finally step up to the plate in order to defeat COVID-19? Because he wants to be reelected in November (assuming, of course, that he doesnt cancel the election and assume emergency powers). With a plague afoot and the economy in freefall, hed be exposed as the incompetent fraud he is and everyone would see what most of us already knew: This would-be emperor has no clothes. With all of the Dows gains made since Trump took office wiped out with circuit-breaking plunges, no longer able to boast about the stock market and low unemployment, the prez has lost his trump card and probably millions of voters too, like those Trump University students who sued the conman to get their tuition back.

Referencing Bernies popularity Trump has reportedly said people like free stuff and if anyone should know, its this guy who was born with a golden spoon. Spending trillions to stabilize the economy and sending $1,000 checks to out-of-work Americans could mollify angry people enraged at a commander-in-cheek whod downplayed the coronavirus as yet another hoax, allowing it to rampage out of control on his watch. Besides, its not Trumps personal fortune hed be giving away; hes already proven hes extravagant when it comes to spending other peoples money. (Just ask Deutsche Bank.) And with the hospitality industry tanking, the self-dealer-in-chiefs resorts could probably use a bailout at taxpayers expense.

Of course, Trump is desperate to win the election because he presumes victory would give him another get out of jail free card for four more years for committing the alleged crimes hes reportedly under investigation for by Congressman Adam Schiff, the Southern District of New York, etc., purportedly including money laundering, tax fraud and not to mention the women claiming hes a sexual predator, et al.

Nevertheless, despite his sordid motives which have nothing to do with rescuing ordinary Americans and everything to do with saving his bungling bulging butt, lets hope that Trump does turn into Franklin DONALD Roosevelt and uses the powers of his office to mitigate the impending health and financial catastrophes. The Sander-nistas have already revived the notion of massive government programs and action. And while its true Biden is winning the Democratic primaries now, consider that out of 20-plus candidates Bernie is just about the only candidate still running against the ex-Veep, so his ideas are popular enough for Bernie Bros to give Trump Left cover. And it will be progressives role to hold TrumpDRs feet to the fireside chat to ensure that ordinary people will benefit from government intervention and expenditures not just fat cats.

As this viral Pearl Harbor sneak attack looms, itd be unrealistic to expect the bumbling Trump to eloquently wax poetic, in his own words, about the only thing we have to fear is fear itself or a date that shall live in infamy. But lets hope Trump can rise to the dire occasion by stealing a page from FDRs deeds with a new New Deal and an Allied global war against coronavirus.

Ed Rampell

L.A.-based journalist Ed Rampell co-authored Pearl Harbor in the Movies and The Hawaii Movie and Television Book.

See the rest here:
Meet the New FDRFranklin DONALD Roosevelt? - laprogressive.com

Marie Newman is challenging Representative Dan Lipinski in the Democratic primary in Illinois's 3rd Congressional District. (Courtesy of Marie Newman for Congress)

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

The presidential race is, understandably, overshadowing the lefts fight to reshape Congress. But no matter who is president, if establishment Democrats in Congress are defining the partys policies, the progressive movement will be stifled. With primary season approachingthe first states hold their primaries on March 3its time to examine the lefts best opportunities to seize seats from conservative or ineffective Democrats. Seven primary races stand out: In all of them, the stakes are high, and the progressive challengers have the resources and grassroots support to compete.Ad Policy

1. IL-03: Dan Lipinski (incumbent) versus Marie Newman (versus Rush Darwish and Charles Hughes)

Dan Lipinskis existence as a Democratic congressman in the year 2020 feels like a cosmic accident. There are plenty of cowardly centrists, Wall Street cronies, and aggressively bipartisan grandstanders in the caucus, but Lipinski is an outlier even from them: a social reactionary propped up by a city machine and a handful of trade unions. Hes so anti-abortion rights that he regularly speaks at the extremist March for Life. Hes so anti-LGBTQ that he opposed marriage equality as recently as his 2014 re-election campaign. He voted against the Affordable Care Act and the DREAM Act. And he boycotted Nike, because they took Colin Kaepernicks advice on a shoe design.

Before Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs victory shocked Democratic politics, Illinoiss 3rd Congressional District was the marquee primary of 2018. Local nonprofit director Marie Newman turned what started as a long shot campaign into a party flashpoint, splitting unions, members of Congress, and interest groups. She narrowly lost, 51.1 to 48.9 percent. The 2020 race is a rematch; Newman is once again balancing her positive messaging on progressive priorities like Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, and student debt cancellation with attacks on Lipinskis failings on reproductive and gay rights.

An additional wrinkle is the entry of two other competitors: Rush Darwish, who is raising considerable moneymore than $650,000 thus farand positioning himself ideologically between Newman and Lipinski, and Charles Hughes, a former staffer of Lipinskis father with an almost nonexistent campaign. Illinois congressional primaries dont have runoffs, so Lipinski could win with less than a majority if the non-Lipinski vote gets split. Despite that hitch, Newmans head start relative to last time and earlier endorsements from abortion rights groups, such as Emilys List and NARAL, mean it will be a competitive race.

This is the most important primary of the cycle. While the improvement from Lipinski to Newman will be vast, this election is bigger than one house seat. Illinoiss 3rd District will make clear the limits of what pro-choice activists, the LGBTQ community, and progressives of all stripes can be forced to tolerate. This is a fight that will have lasting implications on the relationship between the Democratic base and the party leaders, and on what it means to be a Democrat. By coincidence, theres a slew of primaries from March 3 to March 17, and then nothing for over a month. As a blockbuster race on March 17, it will create (or kill) momentum for the other progressive challengers.

2. TX-28: Henry Cuellar (incumbent) versus Jessica CisnerosCurrent Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

Henry Cuellar might not match the sheer odiousness of Dan Lipinski on any single issue, but hes been branded Trumps favorite Democrat for a reason. Cuellars career dates back to the days of conservative Democratic dominance in Texas, and his politics havent improved much since. He has a terrible voting record, is waist-deep in money from the National Rifle Association and fossil fuel industry, is contemptuous of progressives, and backs Republicans in competitive elections. In February, he was one of seven Democrats who refused to back the PRO Act, because it would end right-to-work legislation and empower union bosses.

Enter Jessica Cisneros, a 26-year-old immigration attorney who grew up in Laredo, Texas, and was previously an intern in Cuellars congressional office. She announced her run in June, the first candidate recruited by Justice Democrats to do so. Shes running on progressive principles like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, and, unlike some primary challengers, is willing to directly criticize the incumbent, especially for his corporate and NRA ties. Its your guess as to whether the campaigning from Cuellar, who has not had a serious challenger since 2006, is very confident or very rusty. Hes mixing boilerplate NRA and antiGreen New Deal talking points with bizarre attacks against Cisneros, such as suggesting her small-dollar donations constitute dark money.

Cisneros is raising good money. In the most recent quarter, she raised over half a million dollars, but shes unlikely to ever match the millions at Cuellars disposal. An even bigger concern is the electorate. There has long been the contention that the Democrats of the Rio Grande Valley have conservative politicsa perception mostly resulting from the record of politicians elected from the region. The Cuellar family, in particular, includes two other elected politicians in Webb County. Its often suggested (and not just by Cuellar) that he fits the district. At the same time, the regions elections are so rarely contested that its easy to wonder if political apathy and incumbent inertia are the real cause. Cisneross campaign will answer that question.

Esmeralda Soria (Courtesy of Esmeralda Soria for Congress)

3. CA-16: Jim Costa (incumbent) versus Esmeralda Soria (versus Kimberly Williams)

If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nations work.

The 2004 congressional election cycle was cursed, giving us Dan Lipinski, Henry Cuellar, and Jim Costa. Though quieter than the other two, Costas stamp is indelible: Hes the Costa of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, the law that prevents meaningful rent control in California. He also wrote the states three strikes lawthe passage of which occurred a month after police found drugs in his apartment. Hes been a Blue Dog his entire time in Washington, and is so thoroughly entwined with the group that their website is hosted on his House webpage. He also stands a serious chance at chairing the House Committee on Agriculture when a Green New Deal is worked out, a frightening prospect considering he might have the most anti-environment record of any Democrat in the next Congress.

Costa is a sponge for Big Ag and Big Oil money, one of the top three Democratic recipients for both industries in the House in 2018. Normally, this would leave him with a massive war chest, but after his lazy campaigning and a terrible Central Valley turnout nearly caused the seat to flip in 2014, Costa went overboard and spent $2.3 million dollars on his 2018 campaign, leaving him with little in the bank ($903,735 as of January 31). Dont mistake Californias 16th Congressional District for a swing district, though; it supported Obama by 18 points in 2012 and Clinton by 22 points in 2016. The 2014 House election was only close because of Costas incompetence.

Esmeralda Soria is the daughter of farmworkers who immigrated from Mexico. A first-generation college graduate, she later earned her JD, interned at the Obama White House, and, in 2014, was elected to the Fresno City Council. Soria has made a name for herself on the council as an advocate for the homeless, and Governor Gavin Newsom appointed her to his homelessness task force. She also led a delegation from Fresno to meet with and apologize to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, after a local baseball team showed a video calling her an enemy of freedom and comparing her to Kim Jong-un.

Costa is going into the final stretch without a large incumbent advantage. Also leveling the playing field is geography. Starting in 1994, Costa had represented a district that contained the city of Fresno as well as a stretch of farming country to its south and east. But the 2012 redistricting gave him a district that connects Fresno to rural territory to the north. Half the district is fairly new to him, and he hasnt had a serious Democratic challenger since redistricting.

Sorias electoral prospects look good. Shes a good fundraiser whos known throughout the political world of Fresno, the part of the district Costas represented the longest, and shes already gotten the support of a leading Central Valley politicians and labor unions (including the California Labor Federation). She also stands out for her willingness, even as the only challenger in this article who isnt as far left as the Squad (though she does support Medicare for All), to directly attack her opponent for his membership in the Blue Dog Coalition. Her win would signal that mainstream Democratic voters patience with the conservative obstructionist group might finally be wearing thin.

4. OH-03: Joyce Beatty (incumbent) versus Morgan Harper

Joyce Beatty has represented Columbus in Congress for seven years, and has had one of the most anonymous tenures in Washington. Morgan Harper could not be more of a contrast. The first thing youll notice about Harpers campaign is just how active she is: holding event after event while managing the best opening fundraising quarter of any Democratic challenger in the country. Her focus on organizingor Morganizing, as she puts it in either one of the best or worst portmanteaus in politicshas served her well. Its impressive to see a first time candidate assemble a hundred volunteers a year before the primary and outraise an incumbent in her first fundraising quarter. And Harper managed to do both without the aid of any corporate PACs.

Theres not a great deal of antipathy there toward Beatty. In fact, there isnt too much strong feeling about her at all. Harper is running a campaign that will live or die based on herself and her platform. Shes a Columbus native, graduate of Stanford Law, and ex-adviser to Richard Cordray in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and she is taking her vision to Columbus, a city thats growing by thousands of residents a year. She is running on a boldly left platform that, among other planks, combines a jobs guarantee, a federal minimum living wage, and a universal basic income.

In 2012, Beatty made to Congress by winning fewer than 16,000 votes out of the 41,000 cast in her primary. She hasnt had a primary since. Harpers task is to mobilize and spread her message in time, which wont be easybut Beatty doesnt have much of a head start with the electorate.

Jamaal Bowman (Courtesy of Jamaal Bowman for Congress)

5. NY-16: Eliot Engel (incumbent) versus Jamaal Bowman versus Andom Ghebreghiorgis

Eliot Engel is a natural target for a progressive challenger. Hes been in government since 1977 and in Congress since 1989. While a long tenure isnt an inherent detriment, Engels been on the wrong side of many of the worst bipartisan mistakes of the last couple decades: the Clinton crime bills, the Iraq War, the Bush-era surveillance state, and extensive financial deregulation. Hes a perfect representation of a part of the Democratic Party thats been on a the decline since the George W. Bush years, when Engel was backing conservative Democrat (well, Democrat at the time anyway) Joe Lieberman for president. Hes also a white guy representing a district where the white proportion of eligible voters has fallen to 42 percent (compared to 31 percent black and 21 percent Latinx). Its difficult not to see the parallels between him and Joe Crowley. And that would be the case even if his district werent bordering NY-14.

In 2020, Engel faces two progressive challengers in the primary. Justice Democrats recruited Jamaal Bowman, a middle school principal in the Bronx, to run for the seat. Simultaneously, Andom Ghebreghiorgis, a special education teacher, was gearing up for the race, entering about a week before Bowman. Both candidates are younger, black men who work in education and have a solidly left campaign platform. It would be nice to see them both in Congress, but of course, thats not how it works. Even worse, if the anti-incumbent vote gets divided between the two, then Engel could win without a majority. The left will eventually have to choose between the two if they dont want Engel reelected.

Luckily, it seems like thats beginning to happen. Last quarter, Bowman outraised Ghebreghiorgis nearly eight to one$162,000 to $22,000while similarly eschewing PACs and corporate donors. An early Data For Progress poll of the district found Engel with 29 percent support, Bowman with 10 percent, and Ghebreghiorgis with only 1 percent. While the large number of undecideds speak more of Engels weakness than anyones strength, the relative position of Bowman compared to Ghebreghiorgis is a sign of who progressives in the district are backing.

6. NY-09: Yvette Clarke (incumbent) versus Adem Bunkeddeko (versus Chaim Deutsch, Lutchi Gayot, Isiah James, and Alexander Hubbard)

In 2018, there were two grassroots candidates in New York City who did far better than the establishment expected. Ocasio-Cortez, of course, won, but the unsuccessful challenge came from 30-year-old organizer Adem Bunkeddeko, who pointed to incumbent Yvette Clarkes absenteeism from the district and lack of initiative in Congress. Clarke didnt take his challenge seriously, but The New York Times did, endorsing Bunkeddeko. Clarke pulled out a 6 percent win that year, just weeks after telling him on television that his challenge made her laugh.

Adem is running again in 2020, this time with both the experience of having run a race and a head start on the recognition he built in 2018. As with Illinoiss 3rd District, this is a rematch of a close race, which is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the challenger has proven their viability, but the question becomes whats changed since the last time that would change voters minds. For instance, in 2006, Donna Edwards challenged incumbent Al Wynn in Marylands 4th Congressional District, focusing on his Iraq War support, and lost 50 to 46 percent. She challenged him again in 2008, after the Democratic base had turned further against the war, and won 59-37. Conversely, then state Senator Adriano Espaillat challenged incumbent Representative Charlie Rangel in 2012 in New Yorks 13th Congressional District, in a contest that mostly fell along racial lines. Espaillat lost 44-42, and two years later, he lost again by a similar 48-43 margin.

In addition to reaching voters he didnt in 2018, Bunkeddeko needs to contend with new challengers running this year: Isiah James, a local community organizer and veteran; Alexander Hubbard, a cybersecurity and app developer; and Lutchi Gayot, a UBI advocate and Andrew Yang supporter. While their campaigns are still small scale, the more candidates on the ballot, the more the anti-incumbent votes get split, and Clarke could win with a pluralitya danger not unique to New Yorks 9th Congressional District. One challenger, however, may work in Bunkeddekos favor: Chaim Deutsch, a conservative City Council member who may win the small but politically active group of Orthodox Jewish voters in the district, a cohort that appears to have gone for Clarke in 2018.

7. MA-01: Richard Neal (incumbent) vs Alex Morse

Richard Neal entered politics during Richard Nixons first term, and has been in Congress for over three decades. While some politicians have used similarly long tenures to transition into roles as elder statesmen, Neal has simply grown complacent. His years in Congress have allowed him the power of running the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, where hes generally opted against taking strong positions on issues, except, of course, when his finance industry donors want him to slip something into a bill. Last year, Neal became the only person in the country with the authority to subpoena Donald Trumps taxes, and then didnt do it. He relented only after months of activist pressure.

Neal doesnt stand out for being terrible on the issues like Lipinski, Cuellar, or Costa does, but there are good reasons to think he might be vulnerable to a primary challenge. The aforementioned tax return fight is, of course, on that list. Billionaire Tom Steyer spent months hammering Neal with ads disparaging his inaction.

Neal currently represents a district less friendly to him than he used to. Before 2013, Neal represented Massachusettss 2nd Congressional District, then a collection of small, industrial cities in the states southern border, while Massachusettss 1st Congressional District was a more rural and liberal district in Western Massachusetts. In 2012, those two districts were combined. The parts of the old first district he inherited never really warmed up to Neal, as evidenced by his 2012 and 2018 primarieselections where Neal had an underfunded challenger to his left who performed well in the areas that had been MA-01.

Neals challenger is Alex Morse, the 31-year-old, progressive, gay mayor of Holyoke, Massachusetts. Once the paper-making capital of the country, Holyoke was a poverty-stricken postindustrial city of 40,000 when Morse beat the incumbent mayor in 2011, at the age of 22. Morse focused on opening up city government to the underserved minority population (the population of Holyoke is majority-minority, and nearly half are from out of state) and improving the citys failing schools. Holyoke is by no means fully recovered, but the graduation rate has improved and unemployment has fallen. Morse also made Holyoke a sanctuary city and became one of the first mayors in the state to back marijuana legalization. Having already raised $340,000 in the latter half of 2019, Morse has a serious shot at taking the seat.

Other races to watch

CA-20: Jimmy Panetta has coasted on his name recognition (his dad is the former secretary of defense, director of the CIA, and longtime California representative Leon Panetta), but he might have a real threat in environmental advocate Adam Bolaos Scow. Scow launched his campaign for this liberal Monterey Bay district late, obviously with the intention of fighting this out in a Dem vs Dem November contest. This may be an important race later, but its just beginning.

IL-01: It has been 20 years since Bobby Rush beat Barack Obama in a primary, and since then hes given up, barely fundraising or showing up to Congress. Rush is a paper tiger, but his two opponents, Robert Emmons and Sarah Gad, are under-resourced, and the election is in March.

MD-05: Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosis far more conservative second-in-command, should be vulnerable. Hes cruised along since the 1980s as his district has gotten increasingly diverse and different from its original form. Mckayla Wilkes is very progressive and a good challenger, but a third Democrat who was in the race until recently prevented most progressive groups from coalescing around Wilkes, and it may now be too late.

MO-01: Cori Bush did surprisingly well in 2018 against chronically underperforming incumbent Lacy Clay in 2018: losing only 57 to 37 percent. The big concern here is that her campaign this cycle doesnt look markedly different from last.

NJ-05: Josh Gottheimer may be one of the most prolific fundraisers in Congress and may represent a district Trump won by 1 percent, but his contempt for progressives has landed him the ire of local Indivisible groups, a significant presence in suburban New Jersey. Theyre backing Glen Rock Borough Councilor Arati Kreibich, who will be hampered by New Jerseys machine-boosting ballot system, where the county partys choice gets indicated in a prime slot.

NY-10: Incumbent Jerry Nadler has been on the left flank of the Democratic Party since the 1960s, but hes become a stodgy institutionalist in House leadership. Former Cuomo staffer Lindsey Boylan promises to be the polar opposite in approachan activist willing to demand immediate change. Nadler will benefit greatly from being one of the faces of impeachment and from the presence of three minor candidates in the primary.

OR-05: Kurt Schrader is one of the worst Blue Dogs in Congress, and many local Democrats have had enough. Mark Gamba, the progressive mayor of the suburban city of Milwaukie, is a capable politician with support from a lot of Portland progressives, but hes struggled with fundraising so far.

See the article here:
These Are the 7 Most Important Races for Progressives - The Nation

Democrats and Progressives in Vermonts largest city are vying for control of the city council this Town Meeting Day. Eight of the 12 seats on Burlingtons City Council are up for a vote on Tuesday.

There are 14 candidates across the eight races, with three incumbent candidates running unopposed: Ward 6 Democrat Karen Paul, Ward 3 Progressive Brian Pine and Ward 7 Progressive/Democrat Ali Dieng.

The Progressive Party is looking to expand its clout and win an outright majority. The party ousted two incumbent councilors last year on Town Meeting Day and is hoping to repeat that performance this year.

Josh Wronski, executive director of the Vermont Progressive Party, said this years slate is made up of a number of young, political newcomers who are passionate about Burlington.

Were seeing so many young people, people in their early 20s or early 30s. Theyre wanting to say, 'No, this is our time too, and we actually have a vision and a voice we want to have on the city council.'" Josh Wronski, Executive Director, Vermont Progressive Party

Were seeing so many young people, people in their early 20s or early 30s, he said. Theyre wanting to say, 'No, this is our time too, and we actually have a vision and a voice we want to have on the city council."

Wronski pointed to a number of issues in the city, like the long-delayed mall redevelopment and turmoil at the police department, as reasons why more young people are getting involved in city politics.

But Democrats also see an opportunity to pick up seats this election and tip the council in their favor.

Sam Donnelly, the chair of the Burlington Democrats, called this years council races kinda like a standoff, but he said he was optimistic about the Democrats chances.

When I look at the path to how we get there, I think we have competitive races in Wards 8, 1 and 2, he said. Id say the party is heavily focusing over there.

"When I look at the path to how we get there, I think we have competitive races in Wards 8, 1 and 2. I'd say the party is heavily focusing over there." Sam Donnelly, Burlington Democrats Chair

In Ward 1, Independent Sharon Bushor, a long-serving councilor, faces two challengers: Democrat Jillian Scannell and Progressive Zoraya Hightower. Meanwhile, Democrat Adam Roof, who until this election ran as an independent, is up against Progressive Jane Stromberg.

Ward 2 Progressive Max Tracy, the incumbent, faces Democrat Ryan Nick. In Ward 5, Progressive Nate Lantieri is challenging Democratic incumbent Chip Mason.

This years Town Meeting Day could also see the end of an era: Kurt Wright, the sole Republican on the council, opted not to run. In December, Wright, the co-host of a morning radio show, said he wouldnt seek re-election in Ward 4 because, due to federal broadcasting rules, hed have to leave his radio job for two months to campaign.

However, there is still a chance Wright will stay on the council: A citizen group in has staged a Write in Wright campaign. Wright, who is not involved with the effort, told Seven Days hed serve on the council if he won.

The two candidates who appear on the ballot in Ward 4 are Sarah Carpenter, who won the Democratic and Progressive endorsements, and Independent Ericka Redic. Redic ran last year in the North District race, but dropped out and endorsed Democrat Franklin Paulino, the eventual winner.

Follow this link:
Democrats And Progressives Compete For Control Of Burlington City Council - Vermont Public Radio