Mediaboss Marketing

(Progressive/Facebook photo)

PHOENIX Progressive Insurance is forecasting nationwide growth and new job opportunities for 2020.

Part of that expansion will mean Progressives workforce in Phoenix will grow via 180 new job openings.

The release states that customer sales, service, bilingual Spanish customer sales and service and claims representatives will be among the new jobs available for Phoenicians.

Other cities to be part of of Progressives expansion include Tampa, Nashville, Austin, Cleveland, Colorado Springs, Sacramento and St. Petersburg.

New hires are eligible to participate in the companys annual bonus plan according to the release.

Progressive also offers eligible employees medical, dental, vision and life insurance benefits, as well as four weeks of paid parental leave for moms and dads including same-sex partners, adoptive parents and foster parents.

With total revenues of more than $39 billion, the company intends to hire around 8,000 new employees by years end, according to a press release.

Those interested in learning more can apply online.

Continued here:
Progressive Insurance announces 180 new jobs in Phoenix - KTAR.com

As I was working on another post, I had the realization that the Progressives will never be successful in transforming our country into a Leftist state. Their goals are to create a perfect country run by perfect people to create a perfect future. What they never seem to understand is how deeply flawed their aspirationsand theyare.

First, they are the most nave people among us. No matter how intelligent they are, they have no wisdom. No matter how educated they are, they dont understand human nature. Regardless of their passion for changing the country and everyone else, they are the ones who are incapable of learning deeply and understanding (as James Madison did) the vulnerabilities and weaknesses of human beings.

They think by offering a flawless world that we will all line up behind them. But we only need to look at them to realize the impossibility of their goals. These are people who need to feed off others accomplishments, steal the results of others successes, and are prepared to try to destroy the very elements of human nature that allow us to thrive and grow. It is our diversity, which they celebrate, that forecasts the failure of their dreams.

We have had too much success as a country and as a people for them to enlist or coerce us. We are a country born in freedom with more wealth and opportunity than any country in the world. Why would we give that up?

Most Americans (who arent Progressives) at some level realize the bounties they have realized. They can pursue any job they might desire. They can live anywhere in the country. They can have families of any size. They can travel wherever they choose. They can worship however they wish, in any community they choose, and can change their allegiance at any time.

Progressivism doesnt take into account that Americans, of all the peoples in the world, are incredibly blessed. They dont need to steal from others or give up any of the prospects for their futures. We speak the language of gratitude, opportunity, creativity, possibility, and fulfillment.

Progressives dont have a chance.

Read more here:
Why Progressives Will Always Fail - Ricochet.com

The campaign to push ward committees to the left represents a broader shift of the political landscape in Boston, according to interviews with political analysts and insiders.

The effort, dubbed Fresh Slate," is trying to harness the grass-roots energy that has grown out of the frustration with national politics a movement that has produced a new swath of elected officials, including US Representative Ayanna Pressley and unleash it at the local level.

I think its the fact that were reaching a boiling point here in the city, of folks just tired of the same-old, same-old, said Segun Idowu, a Hyde Park resident and director of the Black Economic Council of Massachusetts, an advocacy group for the citys Black community.

Members of the existing ward committees in East Boston and Hyde Park, meanwhile, have teamed up to create their own unity slate, leading to rare local clashes on a ballot that has been overshadowed by the presidential primary.

Voters decide on ward committee members every four years, during a presidential election, and can vote for individual candidates or for a slate of candidates who organize as one team.

Idowu has joined a team of nearly three dozen new candidates looking to represent Ward 18, which includes Hyde Park and parts of Roslindale and Mattapan, saying the party could do more to reflect the neighborhoods values, as opposed to just talking about them.

The team includes local politicians who have already served as flag-bearers for the progressive movement, including City Councilor Michelle Wu, the councils top vote-getter in the last election. She has been mentioned as a potential challenger of Mayor Martin J. Walsh. Shes already a committee member but has joined the new slate of candidates pushing for more diverse representation.

Councilor Ricardo Arroyo, elected to represent the district in November, is also part of the new group. Though his family has been involved in local politics for decades, he believes he would be the first Arroyo to serve on the committee.

Similar campaigns have been mounted in the South End, downtown, and in East Boston.

The effort follows the recent history-making transformation of the City Council from a white, male-dominated panel just a few years ago to a body with its first-ever majority of women and councilors of color. At a time when Boston is grappling with a housing crisis and a transportation mess, the progressive ward candidates say their activism can push city government to act more boldly on reforms.

People are ready to embrace that Boston has shifted, and lets make it shift in more ways, said Rachel Poliner, of the Roslindale and West Roxbury chapter of Progressive Massachusetts. She said the independent growth of the Fresh Slate campaigns in separate neighborhoods shows a citywide desire for change.

Thomas M. Menino, the late mayor, was known to stock ward committees with hand-picked candidates, helping him influence who won local races, such as for district councilors and state representatives.

But newer, progressive candidates have been clashing with the local establishment in recent years, finding committee members to be out of touch.

Arroyo overcame the establishments support of his opponent in the fall election, for instance, and is now the first councilor to represent Hyde Park and not be a member of the committee. Likewise, City Councilor Lydia Edwards shocked the political establishment in East Boston with her first council win just over two years ago. She is also part of the new slate.

Several members of the current committees, including the chairs, welcomed the newfound interest in the committee positions, saying the excitement with local politics is the same reason they got involved. Yet they said they share the same policy visions with the newer progressive candidates. They believe that the new interest is centered more on the frustration with Washington, D.C., politics than on whats happening in Boston.

Anyone who wants to run for office is a good thing, said Rob Consalvo, a former city councilor and Boston Public Schools employee who runs the Ward 18 committee. He said his slate similarly includes locals from every one of the wards neighborhoods, including politicians, business people, and Little League coaches everyone who makes up the civic and social fabric of our community.

I just see it as a sign of people wanting to be involved, be engaged, and have a voice in the representation of their neighborhood, he said.

Claudia Correa, a member of the East Boston ward who also works for the city, agreed, saying the ward committee was the organization she went to when she was looking to get involved in neighborhood politics two decades ago.

Its great to see other peoples platforms its what were advocating for, too, she said. Were advocating for more housing, to have conversations about climate change, to be more diverse when were putting this all together . . . the people on the list represent what were all trying to accomplish here.

But the new candidates cited what they called a history of their committees failing to be truly inclusive of new residents, and often deferring to insiders or an old guard. Several complained that their committees arent active enough, dont promote their agendas, and dont look to excite the party with get-out-the-vote drives or other events.

Brian Gannon, who is behind the new effort in East Boston, identified as Group 2 on the ballot, said he has seen for the first time a movement thats based in the neighborhoods, and not centralized in City Hall.

We just felt [the East Boston committee] wasnt as active and representative of the neighborhood, as inclusive as wed like it to be, and wed like to see more advocacy coming from the ward committee standpoint, Gannon said. Theres a lot of our neighbors that made this a great place to live, and wed be better if we could represent them.

Milton J. Valencia can be reached at milton.valencia@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @miltonvalencia.

Read more:
Progressives target the political sausage-making in Boston - The Boston Globe

By Emmy Tiderington

Senator Robert Menendez on Thursday called for an open primary for president in New Jersey, in order to insulate the presidential race from any undue influence on New Jerseys other elections.

That influence, of course, would come from a ballot design uncommon in other states: the county line.

This ballot design feature, which usually allows county party officials to anoint their chosen candidates, suddenly has a major flaw.

The law allows for a candidate at the top of a ticket to align with candidates further down the ballot, which normally helps party-approved candidates. Whats different this year? Progressive candidates have emerged as frontrunners for the Democratic presidential nomination. If these candidates were able to align with down ballot candidates of their choosing, strong support for them here in Junes primary could threaten incumbent freeholders, congressional representatives, and even Menendezs fellow senator, Cory Booker.

That is why the party machine, with Menendez as its spokesperson, is calling for insulation. This time around, they just cannot afford to let people associate their preferred presidential candidates with progressives running against local incumbents.

The irony here is that the county line has long insulated New Jersey politicians from important elements of our electoral system. It insulates voters from having to learn what their representatives stand for. It insulates those representatives from having to explain and defend how they govern. It insulates them from debate. It insulates them from the people.

The county line insulates New Jersey from democracy.

So while some, such as Hudson County Democratic Organization Chair Amy DeGise applaud Senator Menendez for calling for an open primary, we choose to call out his hypocrisy. There can be no line for me, but not for thee.

We should not allow the machine to have its lines and columns when they help their candidates, only to get rid of them when they do not. Menendez is right that the line has undue influence -- not just on this election, but on all elections.

If we want truly open primaries, the best choice, for Menendez, DeGise, and Democratic party officials all over the state, is to end the county line once and for all.

Dr. Emmy Tiderington is a committee member of the Hudson County Democratic Organization and a founding member of the Hudson County Progressive Alliance.

Tiderington says this op ed was also supported by more than 160 individuals, including many on county and local Democratic Committees, and the following groups:

The Star-Ledger/NJ.com encourages submissions of opinion. Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow us on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and on Facebook at NJ.com Opinion. Get the latest news updates right in your inbox. Subscribe to NJ.coms newsletters.

More here:
Progressive groups in N.J. dont want an open primary just for the presidential race | Opinion - NJ.com

New polling from the progressive pollster Data for Progress, described in a new piece Monday atVox, points the way forward for Democrats looking to oust President Donald Trump from the White House and enact a liberal policy agenda.

Progressives often argue that their plans are broadly popular with Americans, and that these ideas are only prevented from becoming reality because of an obstinate Republican Party weaponizing racism and misinformation, archaic political institutions that stymie significant efforts at reform, and corruption across the two parties that allows special and corporate interests to undermine the popular will. And there is a fair amount of truth in this idea some progressive idea are remarkably popular, and theres no good reason they havent been implemented yet.

But its not true that a progressive policy wishlist would garner majority support across the board, and anyone hoping to see real, positive change should be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their preferred platform. Acknowledging this doesnt mean politicians cant ever run on or enact ideas that lack majority support sometimes leaders have to do what they think is right and take the hit, and some unpopular ideas are necessary but it just reflects the fact that any candidate with a considered electoral strategy should focus on the areas where they have the strongest popular support.

So whats actually popular?

One strength of the Data for Progress polling is that, instead of simply asking respondents how they feel about a specific idea, the firm listed two broad-brush arguments in favor of and against each policy, framed as coming from either Democrats or Republicans. This method should offer a better sense of how voters might respond to an issue in the context of a campaign, where both defenders and critics of a policy will have the chance to speak their minds. If a policy still retains strong support from respondents even after hearing pro and con arguments, we can be more confident that running on the idea makes for good politics.

As Voxs Matt Yglesias noted, under this type of polling, Medicare-for-All is less popular than it may appear in other surveys. Under four different versions of the question, Medicare-for-All scores support around 40 percent or a bit higher, while the opposition was slightly lower. A substantial number of people were undecided.

While defenders of the idea may take the policys slim lead as a victory, its clear that theres a lot of risk involved in an electoral strategy based on the policy. Many people are undecided, and they could be convinced to turn against it. And its important to remember that, because of the structure of the Senate, House of Representatives and the electoral college, a policy that has a slim popular lead in national polls maybe be a net negative in terms of how that support translates into who gets elected at the federal level.

But there is good news for Democrats on health care, which is consistently a central issue for voters. Three central policies that could be done either as a part of or separate from a broader Medicare-for-All push poll quite favorably.

In particular, three ideas to lower prescription drug prices revoking patent rights on the most expensive drugs, government-run manufacturing of generic drugs when there isnt much competition in the market, and a big boost in government funding for pharmaceutical R&D all hit the ball out of the park in terms of popularity, wrote Yglesias.

All three policies have support above 50 percent, and less than 30 percent of the population opposes the plans. Emphasizing these ideas in an election could likely help win over voters without scaring too many people away.

Other popular ideas

Family leave: Asked if they support a policy that would guarantee new parents and other caregivers 12 weeks of paid leave for childbirth or serious medical issues, 60 percent favored it, while only 25 percent opposed it.

100 percent clean energy: Asked whether they favor a plan to transition the economy to 100 percent clean energy by 2045, 51 percent favored it while 30 percent opposed it.

Clean water: Asked whether they favor updating and strengthening the Clean Water Act, 61 percent offered support while only 19 percent said no. As Yglesias noted: The Trump administration has beenrelentlessly hostile to clean water measures, and Democrats have scarcely pushed back. But this polling indicates that tougher clean water rules are very popular, and predictable arguments dont change that.

Corruption: The poll also asked people whether they would like to ban members of Congress and senior government officials from owning stock in companies, and require presidents to sell assets that pose a conflict of interest. Additionally, the policy would ban senior government officials from engaging in lobbying for several years after leaving office.

This policy, which has been a centerpiece of the campaign of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), garnered 51 percent support and only 26 percent opposition.

Interest rate controls on credit cards: This policy would stop credit card companies from charging more than 15 percent interest per year. The poll found 61 percent favored this idea, while 21 percent opposed it.

Ending U.S. support for the war in Yemen: 46 percent of people approved of the idea, while 28 percent opposed it.

Lead paint removal:57 percent of people supported a plan toremove lead paint in all housing, schools and playgrounds, while only 23 percent opposed it.

Marijuana: Respondents were asked whether they support a policy where marijuana possession would be legal for those at least 21 years old. Additionally, the sale of marijuana would be legalized, taxed, and regulated. 59 percent were in favor of this idea, while only 27 percent opposed it.

Unpopular ideas

Decriminalizing unauthorized border crossing:This policy would involve decriminalizing illegal entry into the United States, which means that illegal entry would be treated as a civil, rather than criminal matter and dealt with by the civil court system.

Only 30 percent supported this idea, while 52 percent opposed it.

Cutting military spending: Asked whether they favor cutting back on our military spending for wasteful procurement of weapons systems, 33 percent supported it, while 47 percent opposed it.

Ending cash bail:This policy would shift from the current money-bail-only system to one that allows judges to release most defendants until they have been convicted of a crime. Only 35 percent of people support the idea, while 44 percent oppose it.

Reparations: Asked whether they support cash reparations to the descendants of slaves, only 21 percent said yes, while 58 percent said no.

Sectoral bargaining:Respondents were asked if they supported a policy under which sections of the US economy are unionized as a whole. Only 28 percent said yes, while 47 percent said no.

You can find the questions included in the poll here, and the results here.

Now, to be clear, even if a policy is unpopular, that doesnt mean its a bad idea; it certainly doesnt mean that activists shouldnt try to convince people to support it, or even that politicians shouldnt ever support it or try to argue in its favor. But politics is about winning votes, and politicians wont even be able to pass the good, popular ideas if theyre saddled down with too many unpopular positions. So they should be aware of which parts of their platforms are strengths and which are vulnerabilities and then strategize accordingly.

Link:
Here are 11 of the most popular progressive policies to run on and 5 of the least popular - AlterNet