Mediaboss Marketing

Just last month, it looked as if Amy McGrath would coast to the Democratic Senate nomination in Kentucky. A moderate former fighter pilot with strong backing from the party establishment, she had raised over $40 million, far more than all her competitors combined. From her TV ads, you would have thought she was already running against Senator Mitch McConnell in the general election.

But then came weeks of protests for racial justice, and a flush of new energy on the partys left wing. Charles Booker, a state legislator endorsed by the likes of Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, had been campaigning on a platform of Medicare for all, the Green New Deal and bold police reform; he surged in the weeks before Tuesdays election.

On Thursday, after a new batch of preliminary results were released, Mr. Booker held a 3.5-percentage-point lead over Ms. McGrath, although most absentee ballots havent been counted yet and we may not know who won the race for days.

As swift and dramatic as Mr. Bookers rise has been, its part of an ongoing trend in Democratic politics one thats been a long time in the making, according to polling on political attitudes.

In congressional races across the country this year, candidates of color are assembling coalitions that bring together liberal white voters and voters of color, picking up where Mr. Sanderss unsuccessful presidential run left off and building support in areas where he was never fully able to.

The task going forward for progressives is combining the African-American and Latino base with white progressives in increasingly diverse districts, Sean McElwee, the founder of the left-leaning polling firm Data for Progress, said in an interview.

The way progressives win is to find progressive candidates of color who can build trust with voters of color and then can win over white progressives, he said.

That dynamic played out this week in congressional races around New York, where three black progressives Jamaal Bowman, Mondaire Jones and Ritchie Torres appeared on track to defeat their more moderate foes.

Mr. Bowman, a middle school principal who campaigned on a racial-justice platform, held a wide lead Friday morning over Eliot L. Engel, a 30-year incumbent. Mr. Engel is white; his district, which includes parts of the Bronx and nearby suburbs, is about one-third black, one-third white and one-quarter Latino.

Mr. Bowman held decisive leads in both Westchester County, which is predominantly white, and the Bronx, which is heavily black and Hispanic.

The interests are aligned, Mr. Bowman said in an interview, referring to his varied racial constituencies. They are aligned more urgently because of the moment that we are living in, but even prior to the moment, we all centered this work in our common humanity and our values around equality and justice for everyone.

For years, polling shows, black voters have been broadly supportive of liberal policies such as universal government health care and free tuition to public colleges. Thats only becoming more true as millennials and members of Generation Z account for an increasing share of the electorate.

Black voters are among the most likely to name health care as a key voting issue, according to PRRI polling.

And data suggest that as some particularly left-wing ideas move from the partys fringe into its mainstream, they are being carried there by a coalition of voters of color and some white progressives.

Among people of color younger than 45, fully 81 percent expressed support for the Green New Deal, according to an aggregate of NPR/PBS/Marist College polling from last year provided to The New York Times.

Two out of three of these younger adults of color backed making public colleges and universities tuition-free, and 65 percent supported instituting a tax on wealth over $1 million.

On each of those issues, white people under 45 were also broadly in support, though not in equally high numbers, according to the NPR/PBS/Marist data. But among progressives, support ran considerably higher.

Candidates of color in many states are building winning coalitions around staunchly progressive platforms with messages of racial justice and representation at their center.

The road was paved in many ways in 2018, when Ms. Ocasio-Cortez andRepresentatives Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Ayanna S. Pressleybeat out establishment Democrats. Each of them combined a progressive policy vision with a localized approach to campaigning, often rooted in community identity.

This year, in New Mexico, Teresa Leger Fernandez campaigned in support of the Green New Deal and Medicare for all. She beat Valerie Plame, the establishment-backed Democratic candidate, in a primary in a heavily Latino congressional district.

Candace Valenzuela of Texas and Georgette Gmez of California are each Hispanic congressional candidates who have been endorsed by high-profile progressives; both are headed to runoffs after advancing in their respective Democratic primaries.

Even in whiter areas, candidates are finding that Democratic voters are receptive to campaigns that put calls for racial justice at the center.

In Kentucky, analyzing only the 10 counties where the most votes have been counted thus far, Mr. Bookers support tends to run higher in counties with larger black populations, suggesting that he is indeed drawing crucial support from African-American voters.

If the current numbers hold, he will have won all three of the large counties in which black people make up at least 10 percent of the population, while losing to Ms. McGrath in the more overwhelmingly white areas.

But roughly four in five Kentucky Democrats are white, and Mr. Booker could not be performing strongly without meaningful support from white progressives.

Years before the current wave of protests against systemic racism and police brutality, polling showed that white liberals, influenced by the Black Lives Matter movement, were beginning to express far greater concern about the nations legacy of racism.

But something key has changed in the past few weeks: A wider swath of voters now expect candidates to put bold proposals for racial justice at the center of their platforms.

No less than 96 percent of Democrats in a recent Monmouth University poll said they saw racism as a big problem. And in a New York Times/Siena College national poll released this week, 74 percent of Democrats expressed a very favorable view of the Black Lives Matter movement. Thats roughly on par with the 77 percent of black people who said so.

In that poll, more than four in five Democrats across races said they supported the protests.

The call by protesters to defund the police is less popular, though the concept is still a relatively new entrant into mainstream political discourse. Just 14 percent of Americans said in a Quinnipiac University poll this month that they supported scrapping their local police department and replacing it with a new one.

But 41 percent including 62 percent of black people and 70 percent of Democrats across races said they would like to see some funding cut from the police and rerouted to social services.

Jeffery C. Mays contributed reporting.

On Politics is also available as a newsletter. Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.

Is there anything you think were missing? Anything you want to see more of? Wed love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com.

See the original post here:
How Progressive Candidates of Color Are Building Winning Coalitions - The New York Times

Nature has never been more important than it is right now. People are looking to it to reduce stress, stay healthy and find solace. Many in the Chicago region are flocking to our greatest natural asset, the Forest Preserves of Cook County. We applaud President Preckwinkle, General Superintendent Arnold Randall and his team for their commitment to keep the preserves open just when they are needed most and when many other public spaces are closed. At the same time, we are troubled by reports of illegal and unacceptable behavior by a very few -- crowding, going off trail, picking wildflowers, trampling sensitive vegetation, letting dogs run rampant.

We are so glad people are discovering -- or rediscovering -- these extraordinary landscapes and the more than 350 miles of trails they include. The ability to be active and outside with family members is a blessing. But the privilege of free access to the Forest Preserves carries a responsibility, too, especially in this time of extreme and necessary social guidelines.

That means respecting the space of other visitors, obeying preserve rules and honoring the habitats of animals and plants for whom the preserves are home. It's an opportune time to visit a less well known preserve -- maybe a place you've never been before -- or to visit at a less crowded time. Check FPDCC.com before you go.

We invite you not only to visit, but to join us in protecting and restoring the natural habitats of the preserves. (See, for example: https://fpdcc.com/volunteer/ or https://northbranchrestoration.org). Once we emerge from this challenging time and restrictions are lifted, consider joining thousands of volunteers who give their time, energy and expertise to help make nature in our preserves even more healthy, diverse and welcoming.

Board Members of the Cook County Forest Preserves Conservation & Policy Council

Wendy Paulson, Chairman

To all the Democratic haters of our President Donald J. Trump, a president whose day is not complete without their attacking any good he has done, I offer the following:

When President Trump finishes his presidency in 2024, he will have saved more lives during his eight years on this job other than our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who, by the way, is certainly working with our current president.

How, when, where you ask? This by standing up against my former Democratic Party, while appointing more pro-life judges across America at the lower court system, as well as the "big kahuna" to our United States Supreme Court, the eminent justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Coming up soon, the replacement of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgh, who "health wise"is holding on with the hope of a Trump defeat in November.

President Trump is certainly a hero for life in the eyes of Almighty God and a villain in the eyes of the Democratic Party. May God bless and keep President Trump safe and in office.

Jim Finnegan

Barrington

How is it we allow our current leaders the freedom to govern and make the decisions they are making? The Bill of Rights and the Constitution were created by our forefathers to give us the right to freedom and choice. Sometimes the people we elect make bad decisions. If that occurs, I would hope and pray that they are big enough to admit they made a mistake and change course. We The People are mature and sensible enough to realize right from wrong, and

when government in stepping on our rights.

We need to get our economy moving again. People need to get out of their houses. We need to get our businesses open and running again. God help us if this does not happen soon. Many of our mom and-pop stores will shutter. We need to wake up and smell the coffee. Wake Up, America.

Robert Fisher

Mount Prospect

Read the original here:
This madness must cease. The liberal progressives are intent on recreating history to what they wanted it to be as opposed to what actually happened....

Progressives want to abandon Capitalism and replace it with Socialism. Why? Capitalism has raised hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and despair. At its best, Socialism has failed everywhere its been tried. At its worst, Socialism has led to the brutal deaths of a hundred million people in the last century alone.

Progressives no longer believe the content of ones character is more important than the color of their skin or the presence of a Y chromosome. Its all about identity politics. They dont acknowledge how far weve come as a society and nation. They would rather tear us apart and foster hate.

Rather than taking pride in the fact that the United States has on numerous occasions saved the world from despots, dictators, and disasters, Progressives laud the accomplishments and efficiency of the Communist Party in China. They condemn President Trump as a racist for enforcing our existing immigration laws while they ignore Chinese concentration camps where a million Muslims are currently being reeducated.

Its OK to riot and loot during a pandemic but not to meet for religious services or funerals. Progressives want to both defund the police and take away our 2nd Amendment right to defend ourselves. They want to give everyone free healthcare insurance and then dictate how big our soda can be or determine when we should die. Equal opportunity is not enough! Progressives want equal outcomes regardless of effort or talent.

The Progressive strategy is not new. They want to create chaos to gain power. Its that simple.

Robert Minninger,

Spring City

Visit link:
Readers' Views: Misguided progressive policies are nothing new - The Phoenix

Supreme Court Justices John Roberts, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch in D.C. for the State of the Union address on Feb. 4.

Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images

Last week, the Supreme Court issued a surprising 63 decision barring hiring discrimination against LGBTQ people under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch making the textualist case for this landmark protection. The unexpected outcome in Bostock v. Clayton County should provoke introspection among progressives in the legal community who have long been skeptical of textualism, offering a chance for them to fix chronic blind spots and strategic gaffes that have damaged the progressive judicial project.

While its clear that this ruling was a major victory for progressives, less apparent is how, going forward, progressive advocates, judges, and politicians should think and talk about statutory interpretation. Although brow-furrowing, that question is hugely important. As the late high priest of conservative textualism, Justice Antonin Scalia, pointed out: By far the greatest part of what I and all federal judges do is interpret the meaning of federal statutes. Many of those gnarly statutory disputes involve landmark progressive laws, which, like Title VII, regulate businesses in the interests of consumers, workers, retirees, and other individuals.

The lesson is not that progressives should now tout textualism or any other ism. They should, however, focus on Gorsuchs straightforward argumenthow he chose to push back against fierce opposition from dissenters who claimed the true mantle of the textualism faith.Because of sex, Gorsuch explained, describing the key language in Title VII for the purposes of this case, necessarily includes because of sexual orientation and identity. He continued: If the employer fires [a] male employee [because] he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates [because of] traits it tolerates in female colleagues. The affected employees sex is a but-for cause of his discharge. That simple, accessible syllogism is why Gorsuchs 38-page opinion provoked 134 pages of fevered dissents from Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh. And its why his opinion ignited volcanic outbursts by the likes of Carrie Severinoand Ralph Reed.

This is the lesson that progressives should take to heart: Textualism has made steady headway as a jurisprudential credoand, equally or more importantly, as a political sloganbecause, at its core, it embraces a commonsense truth: that interpretation of what a law means must derive, in the first instance, from its textwhat are the relevant words, and what, credibly, could they mean? Inveighing against textualism comes off like one disputes that staple of the civics class canon about what courts and law are foras if progressives fear their preferred results cant be squared with the words legislators actually wrote.

Thats what, in large part, was wrong with the Bostock dissents attacks on Gorsuch. Alitos dissent overtly deploys a tactic conservatives long ago abandoned as a discredited, subjective, intentionalist brand of constitutional originalism. Alitos lodestar was what he believed the drafters had in mindmore precisely, what the societal status quo was when they wrote.

The definitive rejoinder to that approach was articulated in 2005 by then-nominee John G. Roberts in his Senate confirmation hearing. Roberts testified:

There are some who may think theyre being originalists who will tell you, Well, the problem they were getting at were the rights of the newly freed slaves, and so thats all that the equal protection clause applies to. But, in fact, they didnt write the equal protection clause in such narrow terms. They wrote more generally. That may have been a particular problem motivating them, but they chose to use broader terms, and we should take them at their word, so that it is perfectly appropriate to apply the equal protection clause to issues of gender and other types of discrimination beyond the racial discrimination that was obviously the driving force behind it.

In Bostock, Kavanaughs dissenting argument, distinguishing the ordinary meaning of words from literalism, is really just a more academically marketable way of making contemporaneous subjective expectations, or societal practice, trump actual enacted language.The expansion over time of sex in Title VII matches Roberts account of the expansion of equal protection of the laws to include gender and other types of discrimination.

Progressives have not been wrong to call out textualismand originalismas slogans to advance conservative political agendas.Conservatives have persistently contorted asserted textualist claims to serve patently ideological or political ends, or simply ignored statutory text when it couldnt credibly be bent.They can be counted on to repeat those gambits again in the future.

The smart response is to explain, effectively, why progressive positions faithfully respect relevant law, and how cynically conservatives flout their own professed affection for text. Progressives need to recycle such messaging over and over, in court battles, media, and academic and political arenas.

Typically, when progressives face purportedly textualist claims designed to defeat the purposes of progressive statutes, conservatives tactic is to isolate a single word or phrase, impose a gutting interpretation on that fragment, and subvert the law. When progressives counter that conservative interpretations flout purposes behind laws like Title VII, conservatives have dismissed such purposivism as a methodological excuse for making things up on the fly. This discrediting tactic has gained currency in political as well as legal circles.

The smart way to deflect that chestnut is to insist that, when applying a statute, text must mean text in the context of the whole statute, not just an isolated provision, standing alone.In 2015, that contextualapproach saved the Affordable Care Act from its second existential Supreme Court challenge. In King v. Burwell, Roberts, for a 63 majority, upheld the availability of premium tax credit subsidies nationwide against a blinkered claim that a four-word phrase, taken out of context, barred such subsidies for millions of subscribers in dozens of states. Albeit geeky, that text in context message garnered critical media support as the case worked its way up to the Supreme Court, where it won over Roberts and conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, as well as the four progressive justices.

In Bostock, Gorsuch did not use Roberts approach from the 2015 ACA case, but he could have.Locating because of sex in the overall context of Title VII would have also underscored the textual anomalousness of denying workplace equality to LGBTQ employees.

With regards to textualism, what ultimately matters is which side can offer the clearest and, usually, the simplest explanation of how the text of the law dictates their preferred outcome.Just because Gorsuch bolstered his genuinely textualist bona fides in this case, doesnt mean he wont reverse himself again in the future, particularly on questions that implicate the interests of big business rather than merely those of social conservatives. Indeed, even Kavanaugh in dissent took pains to acknowledge [the] millions of gay and lesbian Americans [who] have battle[d] steep odds [and] can take pride in todays result.

Whether or not such victories will plausibly apply in future cases involving business interests, progressive advocates should test whether these glints presage Anthony Kennedylike openness on at least some culture war issues. More generally, progressives should plumb for other cracks in the conservative legal coalitionwhich, it seems clearer, is no more a monolith than is the progressive legal coalition.

Readers like you make our work possible. Help us continue to provide the reporting, commentary, and criticism you wont find anywhere else.

Read the original post:
Have Progressives Finally Learned How to Speak the Language of Supreme Court Conservatives? - Slate

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to ourTerms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sentvia e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

Read the original post:
Letter to the editor: Progressives and science - TribLIVE