Mediaboss Marketing

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WCIA) -- Democrats running for governor are beginning to organize their own events around the Illinois State Fair to replace the Democrat Day rally after party leaders pulled the plug on the annual outdoor festivities last month.

Chicago city Alderman and Democratic gubernatorial candidate AmeyaPawarcriticized party leadership for nixing an open air rally in lieu of a private brunch with donors.

"If we continue shutting people out of the conversation about the future of our state, then we will never grow as a party and we won't stand a chance to beat Bruce Rauner next year," Pawar said. "We can't just be talking to each other behind closed doors at fundraisers.

Pawar plans to host his own 'Progressives Day Rally' at Springfield's Douglas Park on Thursday, August 17th immediately after the brunch. The Pawar campaign is reaching out to invite other candidates to join him at the event, which is located three miles from the fairgrounds. Part of the itinerary includes stump speeches, hay bales and a band.

"As Democrats, we should be the 'big tent' party. And we must be willing to take our message directly to the public and present our case as to why a progressive Democrat is better suited to be governor than Bruce Rauner," Pawarsaid.

House Speaker and Democratic Party Chairman Michael Madigan made the decision not to hold the annual Democrat Day rally this year, instead opting to focus on a Chairman's Breakfast with party donors and activists.

So far, at least eight primary candidates are on the agenda, including headliner speeches from U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (IL) and AmyKlobuchar(MN). Admission is $40 per person. Sponsors can pay as much as $15,000 for a table. The donation provides them exclusive access to Senator Klobuchar at a reception.

Dan Kovats, a spokesman for the Sangamon County Chairman's Association, said "This year will be our largest year ever. We'll have close to two thousand people at the event."

Kovatssays general admission tickets are nearly sold out, but some could possibly be available at the door. The event is booked at the ritzy Crowne Plaza hotel near Lake Springfield.

"We're very much in favor of a big tent party," Kovats said. "We're not trying to close anyone out or section it off to anyone."

Statewide office holders like Secretary of State Jesse White, Comptroller Susana Mendoza and Attorney General Lisa Madigan will also be addressing the crowd.

Madigan spokesman Steve Brown bristled at the notion that party leaders were neglecting individual voters in favor of donors, saying only conservative groups would make such a suggestion.

Brown then offered to help promote Pawar'sevent, although he has not said if Speaker Madigan would attend.

"If they want to tell us where it is, we'll put it on our website and let people know about it," Brown replied.

The widening split within state party ranks mirrors a national fight in the Democratic party between the moderate and progressive wings. Several of the primary candidates have opened bruising lines of attack against Madigan in their bid to represent the party in the 2018 general election.

Chris Kennedy has called for a ban on property tax attorneys doubling as state lawmakers, a clear shot at Madigan's private business operation.

State Senator and candidate Daniel Biss (D-Evanston) routinely rails against "money and the machine" and has called for term limits on legislative leaders. Madigan just recently became the longest tenured state House Speaker in American history.

House Representative Scott Drury (D-Highwood) has compared Madigan to big screen villains Dr. Frankenstein and Lord Voldemort, and recently tweeted the state of Illinois more closely resembles a dictatorship than a democracy.

Madigan will be on stage as one of the speakers at next Thursday's fundraising brunch. Party leaders have instructed primary candidates to keep their speeches under three minutes.

Read the original post:
Pawar bucks Madigan, hosts 'Progressives Day' rally - IllinoisHomePage.net

For now, at least, the attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act appears dead. Sabotage by a spiteful Trump administration is still a risk, but there is gasp! a bipartisan push to limit the damage, with Democrats who want to preserve recent gains allying with Republicans who fear that the public will blame them for declining coverage and rising premiums.

This represents a huge victory for progressives, who did a startlingly good job of marshaling facts, mobilizing public opinion and pressuring politicians to stand their ground. But where do they go from here? If Democrats regain control of Congress and the White House, what will they do with the opportunity?

Paul Krugman writes for The New York Times.

Well, some progressives by and large people who supported Bernie Sanders in the primaries are already trying to revive one of his signature proposals: expanding Medicare to cover everyone. Some even want to make support for single-payer a litmus test for Democratic candidates.

So it's time for a little pushback. A commitment to universal health coverage bringing in the people currently falling through Obamacare's cracks should definitely be a litmus test. But single-payer, while it has many virtues, isn't the only way to get there; it would be much harder politically than its advocates acknowledge; and there are more important priorities.

The key point to understand about universal coverage is that we know a lot about what it takes, because every other wealthy country has it. How do they do it? Actually, lots of different ways.

Look at the latest report by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund, comparing health care performance among advanced nations. America is at the bottom; the top three performers are Britain, Australia and the Netherlands. And the thing is, these three leaders have very different systems.

Britain has true socialized medicine: The government provides health care directly through the National Health Service. Australia has a single-payer system, basically Medicare for All it's even called Medicare. But the Dutch have what we might call Obamacare done right: individuals are required to buy coverage from regulated private insurers, with subsidies to help them afford the premiums.

And the Dutch system works, which suggests that a lot could be accomplished via incremental improvements in the ACA, rather than radical change. Further evidence for this view is how relatively well Obamacare, imperfect as it is, already works in states that try to make it work did you know that only 5.4 percent of New Yorkers are uninsured?

Meanwhile, the political logic that led to Obamacare rather than Medicare for all still applies. It's not just about paying off the insurance industry, although getting insurers to buy in to health reform wasn't foolish, and arguably helped save the ACA: At a crucial moment America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry lobbying organization, and Blue Cross Blue Shield intervened to denounce Republican plans.

A far more important consideration is minimizing disruption to the 156 million people who get insurance through their employers, and are largely satisfied with their coverage. Moving to single-payer would mean taking away this coverage and imposing new taxes; to make it fly politically; you'd have to convince most of these people both that they would save more in premiums than they pay in additional taxes, and that their new coverage would be just as good as the old.

This might in fact be true, but it would be one heck of a hard sell. Is this really where progressives want to spend their political capital?

What would I do instead? I'd enhance the ACA, not replace it, although I would strongly support reintroducing some form of public option a way for people to buy into public insurance that could eventually lead to single-payer.

Meanwhile, progressives should move beyond health care and focus on other holes in the U.S. safety net.

When you compare the U.S. social welfare system with those of other wealthy countries, what really stands out now is our neglect of children. Other countries provide new parents with extensive paid leave, provide high-quality, subsidized day care for children with working parents and make pre-K available to everyone or almost everyone; we do none of these things. Our spending on families is a third of the advanced-country average, putting us down there with Mexico and Turkey.

So if it were up to me, I'd talk about improving the ACA, not ripping it up and starting over, while opening up a new progressive front on child care.

I have nothing against single-payer; it's what I'd support if we were starting fresh. But we aren't: Getting there from here would be very hard, and might not accomplish much more than a more modest, incremental approach. Even idealists need to set priorities, and Medicare-for-all shouldn't be at the top of the list.

Original post:
Enhance Obamacare and move foward from single-payer - Albany Times Union

Black Americans are not to blame for Hillary Clintons defeat last November. However, it is true that many black progressive activists know they made a mistake by not voting for Clinton and/or encouraging others not to, and they regret it, but they wont admit it. Its also true that eight months later we still need to talk about what happened.

Throughout the last presidential election season, many black progressive activists, a group I am labeling as left-of-center, unapologetically black, and disillusioned with electoral politics, were telling Americans about the political system, informing our opinions about black electoral politics and what the black community needs from the next president. Black progressive activists encouraged fellow African Americans to vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton, and in some cases, to not vote at all. They were wrong.

Ive labeled this phenomenon: Post-Civil Rights Era Progressive Activist Privilege. It is the false belief, in electoral politics, that black Americans have the luxury of choosing individual beliefs over whats best for the group as a whole.

My argument to black progressive activists has been simple: we are not in a position as a black community to vote our individual preferences over our group interests. We are definitely not in a position to not vote and then claim to care about our people. If you claim to be about improving black lives over anything else, you cant possibly argue Trumps election helps the cause.

However, there is a movement in black communities on the left that espouses a different position. Many black progressive activists argue that the liberation of black people will only and should only come from the ground up in grassroots spaces devoid of participation in electoral politics, particularly in national elections. Alternatively, others may argue that participation in electoral politics should be strategic so not to become a pawn of the Democratic Party. I argue it is flawed to discourage black participation in electoral politics.

The argument from black progressive activists is persuasive. They proffer neoliberalism, liberal economic philosophy that allegedly views citizens as consumers, has taken over our political imagination. They argue the Democratic Party has adopted a neoliberal philosophy that undermines the marginalized and the have-nots. They cite the devastating statistics in crime, education, poverty, and so on, that in many cases got worse for blacks under Democratic leadership. They believe in a radical conception of democracy that extends beyond electoral politics. Many no longer believe electoral politics is the platform through which the liberation of black people and their universal freedom will be achieved.

As a result, some intellectuals and activists have sought to encourage blacks not to participate in the political process, or have argued for modified versions of a limited black political participation, masked as strategic engagement.

Each of these arguments is worthy, but not at the expense of achieving material-based, quality-of-life improvements for blacks in the short term.

WILLIAM EDWARDS via Getty Images

For example, just days before the election, the Ku Klux Klan endorsed Trump and, surprisingly, many black progressive activists still did not retreat from their ideologically pure ground.

This is why I turn my disdain toward black intellectuals and media pundits who chose to use their platforms to further their individual ideological preferences. When activists in media offer political commentary about topics on which they are not experts, the effort to achieve some progressive opportunities for black communities can be endangered.

The black progressive argument that Clinton would not have represented blacks any better than Trump often came from sources via social media and black activist networks (some of which I also belong to) that simply printed falsehoods or, at best, incomplete information. Consequently, many black American followers allowed selective media sources (and their pundits and contributors) to influence their politics. They allowed Facebook friends and Twitter and Instagram followers to influence them politically even though their life circumstances varied. Perhaps, Russian interference is partially to blame. Even still, Black people should be unconditional in their organizing against the KKK and any candidate they support.

Now, as nearly every day brings another Trump administration goal or action that threatens black lives, many continue to cling to their anti-Clinton posturing even as data is produced that proves the negative impact of their decision not to vote for the Democratic nominee or at all.

The false choice to not engage the system is a decision to not engage in the institutions that, like it or not, govern our lives as Americans. When blacks choose to disengage in electoral politics, they risk irrelevancy and even poorer representation from our elected officials. Engagement by blacks, rather, can impact the outcome of elections and produces better results for black communities.

The entire argument of black progressive activists rested on the assumption of a Clinton victory. The intellectuals assumed the tonality of their anti-Clinton, anti-two-party system, anti-capitalist op-eds and on-air rhetoric would not discourage blacks from voting for Clinton, even in battleground states; they were wrong. Their views, coupled with shared views from celebrities like Colin Kaepernick, Rosario Dawson, and Azealia Banks, I argue, played a huge role in the significantly decreased black male turnout vote in urban cities. With at least a seven percent reduction in black votes, (almost two million black votes cast for Obama in 2012 did not turn out for Clinton), that was arguably the nail in Clintons electoral coffin. While a wave of white working-class voters significantly contributed to Trumps win, the influence of black progressive activists on traditionally Democratic black voters cannot be ignored.

Politics includes electoral politics, grassroots politics, and community politics. I believe it will take all three working in concert to eliminate the centuries-long subjugation of blacks by our institutions of government. Most of the systemic and structural issues facing black communities in the United States will require electoral politics to solve, and black Americans cant afford to be persuaded not to vote.

This past presidential election was the first general election since 1968 to be held without the full protection of the Voting Rights Act. After the record-breaking turnout among black communities during both of Obamas presidential elections, a decline in black voter turnout for a non-Obama ballot was to be expected. The Supreme Courts 2013 Shelby v. Holder decision, coupled with GOP successful efforts to suppress minority voters, made it more difficult for blacks to vote in key electoral battleground states. Yet, black activists had three years to prepare for that expected decline. Black intellectual activists chose to spend much of that time fighting each other.

One such fight during the campaign season centered on whether or not Clinton was as bad as Trump. I reject the framing that Clinton was equally bad for black Americans.

She wasnt endorsed by the KKK!

Thats one clear difference and it really was enough for me. Its shocking to me, still, that the KKK endorsement was not enough for every other person of color in America.

Another difference? Clinton would not have appointed Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, effectively eliminating any chance of substantive black progress in the legal arena for generations. Coupled with Kennedys expected retirement, because Trump won in November, the Supreme Court and hundreds of other judicial lifetime positions could shift far-right.

By not listening to black political experts, many in the black American community failed to understand the difference between black cultural organizing and black political progress. The result? Many black progressive activists inadvertently set black opportunity back several generations.

These black intellectual progressives thought they could lean on the strategic political behavior of black voters at the polls without having done the educating work necessary to ensure that was possible. Too many black progressives thought we could afford abstract articulations of the holistic needs of the black community. The irony of some black people choosing normative ideals over material advancement is astounding. Those black progressive activists were complicit in the election of a Ku Klux Klan endorsed presidential candidate - Im sorry (not sorry), but you lose your black card.

When black Americans allow selective news viewership to dictate how their personal politics impacts their black community membership, we have allowed our activisms to be limited to the news cycle.

For the failure of helping to elect Trump, black progressive activists must re-assess the value of prioritizing ideals if their influence indirectly has a negative impact on black opportunity in electoral politics. Until that moment, for future elections, black Americans must stay committed to electoral politics as the black progressive position will gain even greater momentum in that arena.

By committing to reading thoroughly and checking sources, blacks can be their own political experts. By learning the system, the issues, and the candidates, the African American community can encourage more black left-of-center people to run for office and donate more to candidates that represent the group interests of African Americans. Some in the black American community tried a shortcut last November and erred. We can never make that mistake again.

Read the original post:
How A Group Of Black Progressives Derailed Black Progress - HuffPost

Pacific Standard

The Mass Panic Over Russian Political Interference Threatens Progressives Too Pacific Standard The Mass Panic Over Russian Political Interference Threatens Progressives Too. Armed with potent propaganda, House Republicans are targeting the environmental movement over alleged Kremlin ties. Avatar: Jimmy Tobias; Author: Jimmy Tobias; Publish ...

More here:
The Mass Panic Over Russian Political Interference Threatens Progressives Too - Pacific Standard

When you compare the U.S. social-welfare system with those of other wealthy countries, what really stands out now is our neglect of children.

For now, at least, the attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act appears dead. Sabotage by a spiteful Trump administration is still a risk, but there is gasp! a bipartisan push to limit the damage, with Democrats who want to preserve recent gains allying with Republicans who fear that the public will blame them for declining coverage and rising premiums.

This represents a huge victory for progressives, who did a startlingly good job of marshaling facts, mobilizing public opinion, and pressuring politicians to stand their ground. But where do they go from here? If Democrats regain control of Congress and the White House, what will they do with the opportunity?

Well, some progressives by and large people who supported Bernie Sanders in the primaries are already trying to revive one of his signature proposals: expanding Medicare to cover everyone. Some even want to make support for single-payer a litmus test for Democratic candidates.

So its time for a little pushback. A commitment to universal health coverage bringing in the people currently falling through Obamacares cracks should definitely be a litmus test. But single-payer, while it has many virtues, isnt the only way to get there; it would be much harder politically than its advocates acknowledge; and there are more important priorities.

The key point to understand about universal coverage is that we know a lot about what it takes, because every other wealthy country has it. How do they do it? Actually, lots of different ways.

Look at the latest report by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund, comparing health-care performance among advanced nations. America is at the bottom; the top three performers are Britain, Australia and the Netherlands. And the thing is, these three leaders have very different systems.

Britain has true socialized medicine: The government provides health care directly through the National Health Service. Australia has a single-payer system, basically Medicare for All its even called Medicare. But the Dutch have what we might call Obamacare done right: individuals are required to buy coverage from regulated private insurers, with subsidies to help them afford the premiums.

And the Dutch system works, which suggests that a lot could be accomplished via incremental improvements in the ACA, rather than radical change. Further evidence for this view is how relatively well Obamacare, imperfect as it is, already works in states that try to make it work did you know that only 5.4 percent of New Yorkers are now uninsured?

Meanwhile, the political logic that led to Obamacare rather than Medicare for all still applies.

Its not just about paying off the insurance industry, although getting insurers to buy in to health reform wasnt foolish, and arguably helped save the ACA: At a crucial moment Americas Health Insurance Plans, the industry lobbying organization, and Blue Cross Blue Shield intervened to denounce Republican plans.

A far more important consideration is minimizing disruption to the 156 million people who currently get insurance through their employers, and are largely satisfied with their coverage. Moving to single-payer would mean taking away this coverage and imposing new taxes; to make it fly politically youd have to convince most of these people both that they would save more in premiums than they pay in additional taxes, and that their new coverage would be just as good as the old.

This might in fact be true, but it would be one heck of a hard sell. Is this really where progressives want to spend their political capital?

What would I do instead? Id enhance the ACA, not replace it, although I would strongly support reintroducing some form of public option a way for people to buy into public insurance that could eventually lead to single-payer.

Meanwhile, progressives should move beyond health care and focus on other holes in the U.S. safety net.

When you compare the U.S. social-welfare system with those of other wealthy countries, what really stands out now is our neglect of children. Other countries provide new parents with extensive paid leave; provide high-quality, subsidized day care for children with working parents; and make pre-K available to everyone or almost everyone; we do none of these things. Our spending on families is a third of the advanced-country average, putting us down there with Mexico and Turkey.

So if it were up to me, Id talk about improving the ACA, not ripping it up and starting over, while opening up a new progressive front on child care.

I have nothing against single-payer; its what Id support if we were starting fresh. But we arent: Getting there from here would be very hard, and might not accomplish much more than a more modest, incremental approach. Even idealists need to set priorities, and Medicare-for-all shouldnt be at the top of the list.

Read the original post:
Progressives should move beyond health care - Seattle Times