Booker isn't up until 2020. If anyone needs to be challenged in Jersey it's Bob Menendez. The guy is under federal indictment for corruption. He's had previous ethics problems throughout his career. He's up in 2018 and already announced that he's running. His approval ratings suck.
Damn. Could've swirn I posted this yesterday. Well, it's still apt. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/30/15698378/house-democrats-pac At least three House Democrats are backing a new political organization that aims to give progressive candidates in the Midwest and Appalachia a new form of support that isn’t dependent on the Democratic Party's coastal financial elite. The People's House Project, founded by former MSNBC host and 2010 Virginia congressional candidate Krystal Ball, has begun interviewing candidates and recruiting donors for the new political action committee. The organization, which will go public on Tuesday, will provide money, guidance, and political connections for the candidates it chooses to run under its banner. Democrats experiencing a surge of grassroots activism in the wake of Donald Trump’s election have struggled to translate that energy into clear victories. The party improved its performance but has still fallen short of winning three straight special elections in Kansas, Georgia (which goes into a runoff in June), and Montana. Republicans have commanded a solid majority of the House since 2010. One potential problem identified by some political analysts is the ability of Republicans to run attack ads tying Democrats to the party’s coastal and culturally liberal wing. Ball and the House Democrats behind the People’s House Project say they’re determined to shake that image. They’ll try to fundraise for the PAC’s candidates, recruit candidates that fit the bill, and give them a slogan to use to try to distinguish themselves from the national party. “It will allow them to say, ‘I’m a different kind of Democrat,’” said Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH), one of the House Democrats backing the project, in an interview. “It’s hard to convince people around here sometimes how toxic our brand is. But, clearly the brand is damaged, and we need to see if something else can work.”
Aren't most members of the progressive caucus costal liberals? Conservative Democrats running away from the democrat brand makes some sense, but calling them selves progressive does not compute.
It doesn't have anything to do with the left/right spectrum necessarily. It has more to do with with the class divide between the handful of affluent cities where the Democratic party has gravitated to and everywhere else. On some issues you might even find that the working class is further to the left than the affluent cities. Like trade protectionsism for example. It's time for a Democratic faction that goes back to basics ... jobs, healthcare, housing, education etc ... You can't expect a rural working class town to rally around boutique big city issues.
Agreed, as much as I want social justice "sweetheart" topics, getting back to the basics right now is probably the best thing to do. Reengage all these progressive initiatives once we have a realistic chance, because right now, it's going to be a cold day in hell before we get anything progressive through the house or senate. But they have to be sincere....................
I recommend not giving up your morality. Do you think racists are going to join your side because you now say "hey, we're with you!"?
I'm assuming that's directed at me? First of all being black or gay is not a boutique issue. These are large a diverse communities with lots of relevant issues that affect them. I wasn't even going there. It's disappointing to see this impulse that it has to be one or the other. Why is it so impossible to imagine a message that appeals to working class whites, blacks and gays? Why do we automatically assume that the people this coalition is trying to reach are racist? This is exactly what the right wants. They want people to buy into this. They want liberals to look at a poor white guy in Ohio and jump to conclusions that he must be a MAGA freak. It's sad to see people fight racial sterwotyping by engaging in more racial stereotyping.
Well those are the forces pulling the party in different directions, some want the party to become more and more a big city party.
Now your pragmatism shows. Funny timing. I have no problem appealing to poor whites but why must we sacrifice those that have supported the party far longer than them?
Leader Bernie says they are misunderstood and not racist. Which is nonsense. There are people who believe those they don't know and see who are of a different ethnicity and color are the ones holding them back. Talk economics with them but these people have shown they are willing to believe GOP lies so good luck converting them without ignoring stalwart supporters. If their goal is to go after members of the 50 percent that stayed that is a positive but make sure you are focusing on message of how you can help without ignoring or downplaying minorities.
I'm not sure the Berniecrats is really what we're talking about here. This Krystal Ball/Tim Ryan bloc mentioned in the article strikes me as more centrist. Yes there is some overlap on blue collar issues, but at the end of the day we're talking about two distinct forces in the party. My theory is that you don't target reliable GOP voters to regain the upper hand. You target people that don't vote, swing voters, 3rd party voters and lapsed Democrats. A lot of these tensions are alleviated by returning to local politics. This is where real change is going to come, by reclaiming state governments. Allow people like Tim Ryan to carve out their niche that works for their voters. In a two party system the coalitions have to be pretty diverse and flexible to consistently get to 50% + 1. Worry about settling these tensions once we're in power and the different factions sit down and try to strike deals that work for everyone.
I think the best we can do right now is resist any rollback of progress already made...you don't actually think there are gains to be made with the current house/senate/WH do you? Wait...so if I'm not willing to "give up [my] morality" it's a "purity test." but when I recommend suspending, say gun control, medicare for all, and free college until we have a realistic chance of it even getting a real debate, I'm giving up my morality? Which is it? I'm not sure anyone is advocating for caucusing with racists. They should be minimized and ostracized.
Since you put economic issues opposed to something, I assumed you meant that as the something as I don't see what other issues they might be. The environment? World peace? Is there some issue that defines a Democrat that isn't important? And considering 80% of Americans live in cities, I don't see how any city issue is boutique.
I think the idea of treating all people as people is fundamental. Without it you can't do those other things. If someone can't get a job or a loan because they are being discriminated against, that free diploma won't help much. We have universal education through high school now, and you know all the various problems with that. I really don't disagree with most of your ideas. But you don't build a lasting legacy on one or two proposals. You might win an election that way, but as Trump is finding out that doesn't mean the plans make it to reality, and when they don't you are screwed. I'm looking at this in the long view. Democrats will eventually win again. And they will lose again. And it will keep going on for as long as I live and much longer. It's not the end of the world to lose an election. I know that as a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to destroy than to create, but the Republicans have been trying to destroy the Great Society and the New Deal for a while and they've found it a hard nut to crack. To do the things that matter requires a bedrock of ideals, understanding of the now and the future, a worldview to target, and deep thought about how to achieve it. Eventually a confluence of events will arrive that gives them the chance to strike. They just have to be ready. Democrats will be doing something even bigger than the Great Society and the New Deal in the coming decades as the very nature of work changes (because someone must and the Republicans won't). It's got to be big, and it's got to be inclusive, or it's not going to function.
@Boloni86 I was just commenting on what Bernie said about these people not that they were progressives. As Spejic points out in the long run, we have to stand for something and always stand for it. I was listening to Liz Warren on Pod Save America yesterday and I had political nerdgasm!! She got me to agree that the energy in the party right now is towards progressivism and we must recognize that. She really spoke on the economics of things and how they have changed. If Tim Ryan and Krystal Ball (her parents should be arrested for that name) can make it about economic message and not shy away from gun control and civil liberties but also not make them the big part of their speech then we can get somewhere.
I think gun control is a. Non-starter at this point. WAY too polarizing a topic to bring up when you are trying to bring moderates back...
I wasn't going to say anything, but I agree 100%. You just can't run on this in a national race anymore. Fighting against the Constitution is always going to be an uphill battle. Besides prohibition is not necessarily even the most effective way to fight gun violence. I prefer social programs, urban investments and other positive uplifting approaches.
I just believe that Guns should be regulated like cars. It is not a toy and too many dumb ********s are owning guns that shouldnt.
So, registration? Like it is now pretty much everywhere? Or were you hoping for license plates on guns?
Well close the gun show loophole, register it, have to prove you know how to use it to a trained gov employee. Insurance should it get lost or stolen or accident.