Exclusive: Top House Democrat Unveils Plan to Beat Back Progressive Rebellion

[ificandream]

Source: Rolling Stone/Kara Voght

A pack of progressive candidates have crashed this year’s Democratic primaries, hoping to unseat incumbents and push the party to the left. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House, has other plans.

Jeffries and two of his House Democrat allies rolled out its first slate of endorsements on Wednesday from Team Blue PAC, a political action committee intended to protect incumbents from intraparty attacks. The endorsement and its attendant $5,000 campaign contributions are the strongest demonstration of support yet from Jeffries and his allies — and serve as a warning shot to primary challengers seeking to unseat incumbents as Democrats fight to hold onto their fragile majorities.

“It’s important to support effective legislators for delivering for the American people in partnership with the Biden administration,” Jeffries says. “We want to support common-sense members who are delivering for their districts and helping advance the Democratic agenda to create jobs and cut costs for their constituents,” adds Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), another Team Blue PAC co-founder.

The primary challengers and their allies see things differently — and think Jeffries and his allies should take a different tack in protecting their majority. “It is extremely alarming that critical resources from Democratic Party leadership are going to protect incumbents from having to face any competition in deep blue districts instead of protecting the swing seats we’re in danger of losing in November,” says Waleed Shahid, the communications director of Justice Democrats, the left-wing group that supported Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) and other successful progressives in their House primary runs.

Read more: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/democratic-primaries-progressives-incumbents-hakeem-jeffries-1301186/

---

This we DON'T need.

[Javaman]

1. how about a plan to beat back manchin and sinema?

jesus, sometimes it's like watching a circular firing squad.

[ificandream]

3. So damn true.

[wryter2000]

13. If you mean beat them at the polls

Hello, Senate Majority Leader McConnell.

If you mean slap them until they see some sense, I can endorse that.

(Meant figuratively, not literally.)

[jcmaine72]

18. +1

[Peregrine Took]

28. Absolutely.

Joe Scar was thrilled today like he won the lottery blabbing about the 3 progressives who were tossed off the San Francisco school board.

I though the Dems were a big tent party - room for all of us.

[Budi]

40. Its always been a mix of ideals & visions.

Problem comes when someone's main mantra is to organize a campaign against, & degrade the entire Party that gave them a voice, while staying quitly silent on the RW fascists who are the real threat to our nation.

They give themselves away, which causes one to research their organization's background, which comes up proving the very suspicions their words & deeds caused too question in the 1st place.

Its who they are.
The Republican Party had quite similar matters in the past to deal with.
Their failure to draw a line brought them where they are today.

The Democratic Party is the only Party of, for, & by the people. Always has stood the test of time. Its strength & longevity certainly would be deemed as a target for those who see the Democratic Party as a force of the very Democracy they demand to be 'Burned Down".

Rep Jeffries is a credit to the strength of America's Democracy.
Of, By & For all People.

I will support him & his Team Blue Pac against all enemies of this Democracy, no matter what direction they arrive here from or however they dress themselves up in the US Flag.

Research the background. Who are they, who funds their organization.

That's a good place to start.

[Cha]

67. Exactly.. Thank Goodness for

for Rep Hakeem Jeffries!: :gruophug:

We need Supporters of Pres Biden in the HOUSE!

[The Mouth]

60. The three that got recalled might have been 'progressive'

But if you are taking Abraham Lincoln's name off of schools, that's too damned far and hell yes, toss out anyone who thinks otherwise.

Plus racist (anti Asian, in the opinion of many) screeds and screwing with a beloved advanced high school

You can be a progressive and also an utterly callous jerk, they were IMHO. It's not like SF is going appoint right wingers in their place, they were whack

[Demsrule86]

117. Exactly right...their priorities were completely screwed up. Renaming schools and doing nothing

to get kids back in school safely. California should be careful here...I mean I have friends in California who are foaming at the mouth about the calculus thing...All schools need to be improved...but the idea that you take schools that are great and make them less great as a way of evening out test scores...is outrageous. It reminds me of an old short story that Woody Allen wrote.

[The Mouth]

122. Maybe you mean Kurt Vonnegut

Harrison Bergeron- where they dumbed down everyone by any means necessary to be physically and mentally equal to the lowest performers.

[Demsrule86]

155. That is similar. But in college I read a short story that I was surprised to see was authored by

Woody Allen. He did write some short stories for various publications but I can't find it so I may have confused it with another...Vonnegut...some of Allen's stories were surprisingly good...I don't like Woody Allen and suspect he did molest his daughter...but I read these years ago and they were well written....don't know that I would read them now.

[The Mouth]

184. He's a weird cat, for sure

but I long ago swore that I would *NEVER* let the person of the artist affect how I feel about their art, no exceptions, exemptions, or exclusions. I've lost a few friends and even a job over
that on both right and left and care not in the slightest.


His books 'Side Effects' and 'Without Feathers' were hilarious when I was a kid.

[brooklynite]

126. Perhaps the fact that Sinema and Manchin aren't up for re-election...

...and its not clear that there's an obvious candidate that could beat them and then win a General Election.

[wryter2000]

143. I hope they find someone to replace Sinema

Manchin is irritating in the extreme, but Sinema is no more than a troll.

[Demsrule86]

156. What I would like to know is why does Mark Kelly have a progressive challenger in the primary?

There may be others but I can't believe this. We need to hold that seat. Trista De Genova-chang should not be running...no one should.

[lagomorph777]

139. Now there's a concept.

Unfortunately, though, a Senate thing, not House.

[Me.]

2. I'll Put My Trust In Hakeem

[ificandream]

4. Just curious ... why?

[Autumn]

5. Because he's putting Progressive in their place.

Some are of the opinion that Progressives do not belong in the Democratic party.

[oldsoftie]

8. Not at all. But they need to understand the reality of who wins elections.

And far left proposals don't get that support.

[ificandream]

9. I think the far left is the future of this party.

I think the younger generation coming up will be more AOC than Jeffries. I hope I'm around to see that.

[Autumn]

11. Yes. What is called the far left is the future.

Democrats need to embrace them, not attempt to drive them out.

[ificandream]

123. Whether we older Americans like it or not ...

... the younger generation is more liberal. (Funny how that was the case in '68 when we were the youngers.) Many of our best leaders are in that progressive wing. In my view, it's the progressive wing that will turn back the voting rights assault and the racism that has grown under Repughlican rule. We need to fight back and fight back hard. The harder the better. We can't allow Repughlican bumper sticker mottos to rule us. We need to do our thing. People like Katie Porter, AOC, Al Franken, Pramila Jayapal and Ilhan Omar are what we need to knock down the idiocy of Jordan, Rubio and others.

[brooklynite]

128. More liberal does not equate to "far left"

Last edited Thu Feb 17, 2022, 02:30 PM - Edit history (1)

[ificandream]

129. Good point ....

... I'm falling into the trap of listening to Repughlican bullshit. Thanks.

[Autumn]

146. Our young progressives have fire and know how to fight back. They don't go along to get along.

It's their future they are fighting for.

[ificandream]

149. Very true.

[Demsrule86]

157. There is no evidence that this is the case. However, there is evidence that many if not most

Democrats tend to be moderate. If we can win an election someplace other than a deep blue district or state with a progressive running, I might be convinced. I have not seen that happen sadly-not ever. And regardless, of what the future may bring, we need to win elections in the here and now. I am a progressive based on what I believe, but I understand the importance of winning elections.

And if we have to make progress a bit slower by electing moderates in states and/or districts where a progressive can't win. I can live with that as we make no progress if we lose. And I am really angry that Mark Kelly has a progressive challenger...Trista DeGenova-Chang. I don't know if there are any similar challenges...hope not. We don't need this shit this year. We need to hold the Seats we have and elect more Democrats in order to achieve anything in the Senate. There should be no primarying of Senators in the 22 race, especially in states like Arizona.

[Autumn]

167. What? You think these Reps and Senators in their 60's to 80's are going to be there forever?

Sure, you hang onto that. Something like 22 Dems are retiring from the house. Moderate Dems won't get all those seats.

[Demsrule86]

183. Nope but you live in a future you somehow think will happen. I live in the present ...I am worried

about this election...time to go after GOP seats I think. Playing musical chairs with Democratic seats gets us nowhere.

[wnylib]

209. +1000.

[Me.]

23. THat May Be But It Isn't Now

Walid's leadership has more loses than wins. I respect Hakeem who is trying to do the best by Dems. And, btw, at a time when we need the House we don't need someone coming along and messing things up, perhaps even losing it by primarying sitting members

[KPN]

36. "we don't need someone coming along and messing things up, perhaps even losing it by primarying

sitting members"????

Really? Someone, just anyone? Who is someone -- everyone who challenges an incumbent? Any incumbent anywhere?

[Demsrule86]

158. No one...should be challenging an incumbent this year. This is a midterm and we need to try to

hold the Senate and the House.

[KPN]

185. I disagree when applying that thinking universally. And I'm okay with challengers in some strongly

blue districts. If the incumbent is meeting what his or her constituents want, there either won't be a challenge or the incumbent will carry the primary.

If the incumbent loses to a challenger in such districts, then the constituency is simply expressing their satisfaction with the incumbent in terms of policy preferences, wants, and desires. That's a good thing in my book.

I would agree with you otherwise, especially if the district could easily go either way or if the challenger(s) have extremely limited fund raising capacity -- better to ride the horse that brought you here in that case.

[Torchlight]

62. What in particular leads you to believe that?

Is there any measurable data or historical precedence specifically analogous to the here and now which brought you to that conclusion?

[ificandream]

66. No data, but ....

... progressives have some dynamite leaders in their corner: AOC, Katie Porter (who I dearly hope runs for higher office), Pramila Jayapal ... these and more will slap the crap out of Trump and his ducks.

[Torchlight]

72. The exact same thing could be said of the moderates

And in 2020, the moderates did slap the crap out of Trump.

[former9thward]

90. Out of Trump but not in the House or Senate.

There were a bunch of losses in the House and the Senate ended 50/50 when the Ds were supposed to pick up seats.

[ancianita]

86. All three of those were challengers to incumbents. I donated to two of them. They won and

they've done great. Perhaps criticisms of challengers should be justified with facts in the OP. Just sayin'.

[Demsrule86]

159. I just hope Katie Porter wins her seat again personally.

[Demsrule86]

105. I do not. Primarying Democrats is madness in a midterm year.

How about they go after Republicans.

[brooklynite]

127. ...assuming the younger generation ever decides to start voting.

[JustAnotherGen]

186. There is no future

If we lose the House and Senate this year.

The ideas that the far left progressives pushed in 2020 and continue to push - were used as a battering ram in my district. NJ -07 will flip back red if Malinowski is 'forced' to take for example - Bush's positions. He came to politics via government service, is a full throated liberal - and he barely beat Tom Kean Jr in 2020.

Each district must be run towards its own people. Defunding the Police is a terrible terrible idea for the NJ-7th. Like - I highly doubt we can hold on without the SALT Cap being put back to what it was for 104 years - but we are dead dead dead if that gets shoved on Malinowski.

I think the far left candidates need to understand - the vast majority? Have never had a tough general election. Yeah - they beat the incumbent . . . but in the GE? They just have zero idea about the people in those communities. They don't know us and they don't care to know us or hear our concerns - which are kitchen table issues, personal safety, national security and jobs.

[betsuni]

194. "They don't know us and they don't care to know us" listening to anyone else is out of the question

because they're convinced they're right and The People agree with them. If you disagree you are deliberately trying to stop progress for The People, there's no other possible explanation -- you are the enemy. And in comments sections you can explain your criticisms over and over but nobody listens, you're a "hater," an old wealthy centrist who has "got theirs." Why they think liberals/Democrats are the true roadblocks to progress. Sigh. Ideologies are so predictable.

[wnylib]

210. Take a look at the recent Buffalo mayoral race.

Buffalo is a blue city. Its mayor is a Democrat, Byron Brown. His challenger was India Walton, who identifies as a Democratic Socialist. She has been an activist at the grass roots level. But aside from her activism in various organizations, she has had no elected political office experience. She was never on the city council, school board, or other office. She ran on idealism, starting with defunding the police.

She won the primary. The Democratic Party endorsed her because she won. There was no Republican candidate for the general election. In her joy over winning, and in the assumption that she was a shoo-in for the general, she spoke more directly and openly about all the changes she would make. In the process, she revealed how inexperienced she was at government processes. She sounded like she thought being mayor would give her authority that she wouldn't actually have.

Brown ran a write in campaign against her and won the general.

That was in a blue city with no Republican candidate to run against. In a less blue city, the outcome would have been a Democratic loss and a Republican win.

The 2022 midterms are not the time to take such risks. This year is so crucial that, without a Democratic Congress in both houses, there will be no democracy for Progressives to be the future of.

[betsuni]

218. +1

[Withywindle]

224. I'm 52 years old and I'm way more AOC than Jeffries

Just saying. They're both Democrats and I won't badmouth either, but AOC is definitely far closer to the policies I think will actually benefit people.

I don't vote for Democrats because they're my sports team. I vote for Democrats because I think they're the party far more likely to lift up workers and marginalized people. I want the minimum wage raised, I want ridiculously exploitative student debt erased, I want predatory health insurance corporations replaced by a national system; I think health care should be not-for-profit. I want abortion rights defended and I want discrimination against all cultural groups and LGBT people banned everywhere.

These aren't wild far-left positions, they're what most of western Europe has as a basic baseline.

I support the politicians who will get closer to these goals I want.

[jalan48]

10. So why is Jefferies concerned about Progressive's running in primaries if it's the Centrist's

who are going to win anyway?

[oldsoftie]

22. Because primary elections don't draw as much as the regular.

He's concerned about what he perceives to be the weaker candidate winning We saw in the "blue wave' of 2018, the majority of the most progressive candidates lost in the general.
This is like the tea party fiasco of several years ago; they primaried strong GOP candidates and then lost the general because their candidates were too far right.
Look no further than President Biden. Was HE the progressive candidate in the primaries? No. they all lost. And with the closeness of the 2020 election there's a good chance that TFG could have actually won if it hadn't been Joe Biden.
But hey, run 30-40 AOCs throughout the country and lets see if Rep Jefferies is right.

[jalan48]

30. If more progressive candidates can win in deep blue districts what's the issue?

Why should the will of the voters be denied? How long do we need to keep the training wheels on before it's time to make a change?

[oldsoftie]

37. Losing seats in purple districts.

Most deep blue seats are already held by more liberal Reps.
But if they are going to take over the party, then we're going to see even faster rising debt & no realistic way to pay for all the new programs. Kinda like now. But worse.
All the retirees certainly don't help matters.

[jalan48]

39. The way I see it individual's run for office with differing opinions on the issues. Letting the

voter's decide is the best solution.

[Demsrule86]

118. The way I see it is we desperately need to hold the house and senate for judges and everything

else. I am against primaries this year and most years for sitting Democrats.

[LuvLoogie]

45. 3O to 40 AoCs would be a dream.

I see her as a young old-school Democrat. Yes she is progressive, but also very pragmatic. I think Nancy recognizes AoC's talent and considers her the real deal. She is the best of the squad, IMO. Her kindness outweighs any anti-establishment leanings. In 10 years, we won't remember the name of the incumbent she beat. By then she may be a Senator.

There are many other progressives I like, but some candidates aren't all they are cracked up to be and don't have the chops to work within the Democratic infrastructure.

[Demsrule86]

164. Only if they can win elections. I tell you at this moment AOC would not win a primary in New York.

New York is not as liberal a state as people think. I lived there for years and my brother still does.

[summer_in_TX]

99. Here's an example.

Texas gerrymandered congressional district went through Austin and candidates from Austin often got on the ballot. Austin Democratic groups vetted the candidates, donated, endorsed, They tended to be progressive, environmentalists, campaigning on Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.

I live the next county over and my Republican Congressman was in one of those gerrymandered districts. The rest of our Congressional District was heavily Republican so the liberal Austin Dems flamed out.

But often there were more moderate Dems campaigning who couldn't get Austin endorsements and their counties didn't have lots of Dem groups to endorse them. Candidates with more endorsements get more money, so the Dems who I thought had a real chance in our district never survived the primaries.

I would have been happy to have the Austin liberal candidate as my Congressman but in reality she never had a chance, and that Austin effect has made it impossible for Dems who had a better chance to do well.

We will see how redistricting affects things this cycle. I'm not holding my breath.

[Demsrule86]

165. And that in a nutshell is the problem. Howard Dean match districts/states with candidates and he was

the most successful DNC head ever.

[summer_in_TX]

205. Yes he was!

Big Dean fan here. I mourned when the MSM killed his campaign not long after he said he'd break up media monopolies live on Chris Matthews' show on MSNBC.

Not a coincidence, I'm sure.

[ancianita]

43. Right. It makes no sense.

Jeffries himself is a member of the The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), for heaven's sake.


98 Democratic Party members are in the CPC, 35% of the 277 Democrats of the 117th Congress.

[jalan48]

44. Maybe it's really about money and not offending/losing big, more conservative donors.

[ancianita]

47. Would you please name one conservative donor besides Big fossil donors? Because we have

a lot of Dems taking money from them.

[jalan48]

50. Goldman Sachs?

[ancianita]

51. Is that a guess, or do you have a link?

[jalan48]

52. This is from Open Secrets

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/goldman-sachs/recipients?id=d000000085

[ancianita]

53. Thanks.

[jalan48]

54. YW

[Demsrule86]

109. He doesn't want to lose . And no doubt, the Gop will try to pick the primary candidate sure to lose.

[jalan48]

113. In a deep blue district?

[Demsrule86]

116. Texas is not deep blue in any district OK? We should primary no one this year...it is

money. a waste of time and money...both could be used for more important things like saving the house majority and the Senate.

[jalan48]

120. If I may ask, who is your Congressperson and who is challenging him/her?

[Demsrule86]

166. I just helped elect Shontel Brown ...a Democrat and defeated Hillary/Democrat hating Nina Turner.

I am very proud of Shontel. I live in Ohio. I am hoping we can get Tim Ryan in Portman's seat...if anyone can win, it would be Tim.

[jalan48]

178. Thanks for supporting and working for candidate's you believe in.

[Demsrule86]

181. It was a pleasure. Shontel is wonderful.

[Demsrule86]

119. In many of those primaries Republicans can vote and help field a Democratic candidate they know will

lose and incumbent have an advantage as well.

[Demsrule86]

160. Primaries weaken incumbents...it also costs money that could be spent on the general. I do not

believe in primarying Democrats...why can't progressives run for GOP seats for a change?

[jalan48]

179. I disagree. Let the voter's decide.That's why we have primaries.

[Demsrule86]

180. I am sorry. I am truly pissed that Mark Kelly faces a progressive challanger who might weaken

him for the General. I won't give one dime to anyone primarying a Democrat. And any that behave in this manner are off my list for future primaries. This is a must-win year.

[JudyM]

16. This doesn't apply to deep blue districts, though.

[Me.]

25. Look Where Defund The Police Got Us

[ancianita]

34. 81 million showed up to tell America that they want the progressive Biden-Harris package.

This OP is spreading a far right FOX talking point.

The right is selling fear of Progressives as "far left."

There is NO "far left" when the Democratic Party has swung so far right as to leave its FDR-Kennedy-Johnson roots.

The reality of who wins have already WON. If you want the Black and women's vote, vote Progressive.

[oldsoftie]

41. Kennedy would be run off today. Just watch the polls.

Just like Reagan would be run out of the GOP as "too moderate". The infrastructure bill is a prime example. "We refuse to vote on that bill unless the BBB is also included!". Plain silly. And as far as the BBB, why not do standalone bills for the most popular parts of that bill? What's wrong with that? Why does it have to be all or none?

Its a difference of opinion not right wing talking points

[ancianita]

46. Fine.

Just tell me what the pass rate is of standalone bills. We've not seen many, if any, IIRC.

[oldsoftie]

55. Thats just it; have there been ANY? Because I don't know either.

But at least if its literally a single item bill it exposes the 'no" votes. They can't squirm about the "added items"

[ancianita]

58. Right? We haven't, so why do people here put 'standalones' out as a viable option for Progressives.

We haven't put standalones on the Senate floor, or we here would know that.

Progressives rightfully expected human infrastructure investment in the BBB bill. That doesn't make them "far left." It makes them full on Democratic in party policy. So I gotta say that Jeffries could get Schumer to write up standalones and test this out. Getting a few is better than nothing, right. I also gotta say, too, that your "if" statement about standalones, or even added items, has no relevance in critiquing the judgment of the Progressive Caucus's position re the BBB bill.

We're dealing with a known -- trumpcult. The Sedition Caucus.
Progressives already know we have two sold out holdouts, and progressives still appropriately commit to party policy. They did their jobs, and met with the holdouts weekly during the first have of the legislative term. They got them closer to the party's view, and Biden wasn't halfway for their stance; he was all in. He had the final meetup with the holdouts, so the Progressives are his people and he's with them.

Who is choosing to primary, and how the party spends in support of battleground primaries is on them, not the progressives in general. I support Jeffries, but I don't agree with him, unless he gives the party more information on these questionable primary candidates.

[Demsrule86]

161. It is a 50 50 Senate. Perhaps they should adjust their expectations. And how does primarying

Mark Kelly with a progressive who would never win a general helps Democrats?

[former9thward]

91. Biden-Harris did not run as AOC type progressives.

[ancianita]

93. They did. They ran as Bernie type progressives. Bernie's & Biden's transition teams collaborated

after Biden won the nomination, and they ran on a progressive platform. AOC and Omar endorsed Bernie, and Bernie and his team promised to work with Biden. So AOC by default because of Bernie. Just because you don't want to see the connection, doesn't mean I'm wrong. Come ON.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

102. You are WRONG

Biden ran away from Sanders and made it clear that he was not running on Sanders' platform

[ancianita]

115. Nope. I'll assume you used all caps for EMphasis and not yelling.

We saw these headlines on DU after Biden won enough delegates for the party nomination convention. That was in June. In July, he and Sanders put together a task force to develop the party platform.

https://www.vox.com/21317850/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-task-forces-progressive-agenda

While the Biden and Sanders teams may have started out in more agreement on climate, there was a clearly differing view on health care, with Sanders supporters in favor of Medicare-for-all and Biden’s campaign favoring a public option. And on issues like this — and criminal justice — the campaign didn’t move as far left.

“Though we have disagreements, I believe we’ve come together with something that reflects the average of where we stand and allows us to fight for a health care policy that would extend health care for millions of people,” said Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a single-payer advocate who was a Sanders pick for the health care task force.

“I feel they made a constructive contribution to that end,” said Chris Jennings, who was a health care policy adviser during the Obama administration and was a Biden pick for the health care task force. “I do believe the outcome is a stronger product and a more unified party.”

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/08/889189235/democratic-task-forces-deliver-biden-a-blueprint-for-a-progressive-presidency

"I commend the Task Forces for their service and helping build a bold, transformative platform for our party and for our country," Biden said in a statement on Wednesday. "And I am deeply grateful to Senator Sanders for working together to unite our party, and deliver real, lasting change for generations to come...

The task force also called on Biden to pursue requiring employers to offer employees the option to sign up for government-administered health care, rather than company plans.

Jayapal thinks the report can help sell onetime Sanders-backers on Biden.

"I feel like I can go and legitimately sell this as something that the movement achieved, something that we were able to do that pushed Vice President Biden further than he has been and solidified the need for universal, high-quality, low-cost coverage for everybody provided through public providers, not private insurance companies," she said...

Sanders hopes this document will get more progressives excited about the goals, not just the existence, of a Biden administration. "When I talked to Joe a while back, he said that he wants to be the most progressive president since FDR," Sanders said. "Do I believe that Biden believes that now is the time for bold action to protect the working class and lower-income people in this country? Yes, I do believe that's the case."

Note that nowhere in media did the word populism come up. It did come up in media about Trump, though.

These statements from Biden, Sanders, and their people do not show populism, which tends toward rule of men and grievance campaigning. That's what Trump did.

I remember the outcome of the Biden and Sanders' campaigns as moving toward unity, not uniformity, and in no way coming out of populism. And you'd be more credible about calling me "WRONG" if you were to include linked proof.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

130. Joe Biden-"I'm not Bernie Sanders"

Joe beat Sanders and won easily by running as a mainstream Democrat. I was a day one contributor to Joe and got to meet him in person at two fundraisers before the primaries started. Joe was clear that he was running as a mainstream Democrat and was not going to move to the left. At one fundraiser, Joe made the point that neither Sanders nor Warren had any foreign policy experience and discussed how world leaders viewed TFG, Pence and to a lesser degree Sanders.

The platform was at best a compromise and was aspirational at best. I note that most of Sanders/Warren platform concepts did not make it into this document including no mention of Medicare for All. As noted in the above articles, Biden did not move to the left on most issues.

I was a Clinton delegate to the 2016 convention, and we were geared up for floor fights on the platform, credentials and rules reports. I had a friend on the platform committee, and she told me that we compromised to avoid a floor fight and gave Sanders most of what he wanted that made sense. I note that Clinton and Sanders met a couple of times before Sanders endorsed Clinton https://rollcall.com/2016/06/14/sanders-clinton-meet-to-discuss-platform/

A week after Hillary Clinton claimed the Democratic presidential nomination, she sat down Tuesday with her chief primary rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders, in Washington for about two hours to discuss the party platform.

Billed as a key step toward uniting the party, the meeting between the rival candidates began after Clinton had clinched a lopsided victory in the District of Columbia primary Tuesday night, the final contest of the 2016 presidential primary season.

“I simply want to get a sense of what kind of platform she will be supporting,” Sanders had said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, “whether she will be vigorous in standing up for working families in the middle class, moving aggressively in climate change, health care for all, making public colleges and universities tuition-free.”

I note that Sanders did not formally endorse Hillary Clinton until after a number of other meetings by members of each campaign. Again, we were geared up for floor fights on the first day of the convention.
The Clinton campaign had a whipping infrastructure in place, and we rehearsed what would happen if there were floor votes. According to my whip. these floor fights were avoided by Clinton giving Sanders what he wanted. At the event the night before the start of the convention, I ran into a Texas candidate who was on the rules committee, and she told me that they worked until 2 in the morning on issues and again the Clinton campaign gave Sanders what he wanted.

This was not a fun convention. I was at the Texas delegation breakfast where we had a mini riot when Sanders delegates demanded that we condemn Hillary Clinton and vote for Sanders.

I was told that I was a bad Jew for not supporting Sanders and called some other names. My youngest child was my guest, and she was confronted by some Sanders delegates and was cursed at and called the c-word for not agreeing to get me to change my vote. My whip kept me informed and I knew 20 to 30 minutes in advance of planned stunts like booing John Lewis, Elijah Cummings and Jim Clyburn.

I hope that you understand that platforms are meaningless. Heck, TFG and the GOP did not have a platform in 2020.

I found this to be amusing

I also found this to be amusing---'I'm Not Joe Biden': Bernie Sanders Snaps Back At President https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2022/01/23/im-not-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-snaps-back-at-president/?sh=3b33a5eb9e30

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) hit back at President Joe Biden Sunday morning, saying the two have “strong differences,” four days after Biden similarly distanced himself from the democratic socialist politician.

Joe is a mainstream Democrat and ran as a mainstream Democrat during the primary.

Hakeem Jeffries is trying to keep Justice Democrats from taking over and destroying the party. I am not a fan of the Justice Democrats and I am glad that Hakeem is working to protect the party

[ancianita]

136. Thank you for your on-the-ground history of in-party dynamics. It's eye-opening.

I forgot about Justice Democrats. None of that was stated in the OP, either. So I do get that they could, left alone, do damage to mainstream Dems if the 81 million voted for a mainstream Democrat, and even the Progressive Caucus.

I defer to your judgment on this. I'll check out those candidates myself. I'm also going to keep in mind that if we want to increase GOTV, Democratic voters deserve more clarity from leadership about why they turn down Democratic primary candidates, or don't develop more in states like VA and WV.

There's an ugliness in your story -- the whole anti-semitism and racist stuff -- that just pisses me off. I hate to hear that that happened to you.
I don't want to be some bystander in some morally corrupt game. So I've also been reading Politics Is for Power: How to Move Beyond Political Hobbyism, Take Action and Make Real Change by Eitan Hersh (Scribner 2020) about how mainstream Democrats can improve, and will share it at another time.

Here's Pew's breakdown of the 2020 win and what percents of demographics tfg and Biden won more of.

I know it's about the general, but the numbers seem instructive for the 2020 midterms, since the same new and non-voters who turned up in 2018 for Dems turned up again in 2020. Yet we keep doubting they'll turn up in this next midterm -- or the media play that angle -- because it remains to be seen whether gains for Trump will be down because of covid despite red state gerrymandering, statehouse structural personnel changes and mail in ballot suppressions.

Biden made gains with suburban voters. In 2020, Biden improved upon Clinton’s vote share with suburban voters: 45% supported Clinton in 2016 vs. 54% for Biden in 2020.
This shift was also seen among White voters: Trump narrowly won White suburban voters by 4 points in 2020 (51%-47%); he carried this group by 16 points in 2016 (54%-38%). At the same time, Trump grew his vote share among rural voters.
In 2016, Trump won 59% of rural voters, a number that rose to 65% in 2020.

Trump made gains among Hispanic voters. Even as Biden held on to a majority of Hispanic voters in 2020, Trump made gains among this group overall. There was a wide educational divide among Hispanic voters: Trump did substantially better with those without a college degree than college-educated Hispanic voters (41% vs. 30%).

Apart from the small shift among Hispanic voters, Joe Biden’s electoral coalition looked much like Hillary Clinton’s, with Black, Hispanic and Asian voters and those of other races casting about four-in-ten of his votes.
Black voters remained overwhelmingly loyal to the Democratic Party, voting 92%-8% for Biden.
Biden made gains with men, while Trump improved among women, narrowing the gender gap.
The gender gap in the 2020 election was narrower than it had been in 2016, both because of gains that Biden made among men and because of gains Trump made among women. In 2020, men were almost evenly divided between Trump and Biden, unlike in 2016 when Trump won men by 11 points. Trump won a slightly larger share of women’s votes in 2020 than in 2016 (44% vs. 39%), while Biden’s share among women was nearly identical to Clinton’s (55% vs. 54%).

Biden improved over Clinton among White non-college voters. White voters without a college degree were critical to Trump’s victory in 2016, when he won the group by 64% to 28%. In 2018, Democrats were able to gain some ground with these voters, earning 36% of the White, non-college vote to Republicans’ 61%. In 2020, Biden roughly maintained Democrats’ 2018 share among the group, improving upon Clinton’s 2016 performance by receiving the votes of 33%. But Trump’s share of the vote among this group – who represented 42% of the total electorate this year – was nearly identical to his vote share in 2016 (65%).

Biden grew his support with some religious groups while Trump held his ground. Both Trump and Biden held onto or gained with large groups within their respective religious coalitions. Trump’s strong support among White evangelical Protestants ticked up (77% in 2016, 84% in 2020) while Biden got more support among atheists and agnostics than did Clinton in 2016.

After decades of constituting the majority of voters, Baby Boomers and members of the Silent Generation made up less than half of the electorate in 2020 (44%), falling below the 52% they constituted in both 2016 and 2018. Gen Z and Millennial voters favored Biden over Trump by margins of about 20 points, while Gen Xers and Boomers were more evenly split in their preferences. Gen Z voters, those ages 23 and younger, constituted 8% of the electorate, while Millennials and Gen Xers made up 47% of 2020 voters.

A record number of voters reported casting ballots by mail in 2020 – including many voters who said it was their first time doing so. Nearly half of 2020 voters (46%) said they had voted by mail or absentee, and among that group, about four-in-ten said it was their first time casting a ballot this way. Hispanic and White voters were more likely than Black voters to have cast absentee or mail ballots, while Black voters were more likely than White or Hispanic voters to have voted early in person. Urban and suburban voters were also more likely than rural voters to have voted absentee or by mail ballot.

This analysis is based on a survey of 11,818 members of Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel conducted Nov. 12-17, 2020, shortly after the general election. It also draws on surveys conducted among 10,640 panelists from Nov. 7-16, 2018, after the midterm election that year and 4,183 panelists from Nov. 29 to Dec. 12, 2016, after the general election. Researchers attempted to match the panelists to three different commercial voter files that contain official records of voter registration and turnout for 2016, 2018 and 2020.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-bidens-2020-victory/

[betsuni]

103. Bernie is a populist, Biden did not run as a populist in any way.

The platform was very similar to the 2016 platform. Neither 2016 or 2020 platforms were changed much for the general election.

[ancianita]

106. Not according to Bernie. Of COURSE Biden didn't run as a populist. Trump did.

These labels are irrelevant when we describe progressivism, since Bernie is a self-described democratic socialist. That's still progressive. It's also popular, since he ran until Biden won South Carolina.

So Bernie's a popular democratic socialist, which in no way is to be conflated with populism.

Similar or not, the platform changes came out of the Bernie-Joe camps.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

131. You are still wrong

Sanders ran as a populist and Joe ran as a mainstream Democrat which is how he won

You should read your post above. Joe did not change his positions or move drastically to the left in the platform. The quotes in your post show this

I got to hear about platform negotiations at the 2016 National Convention and I actually got to vote on one. Clinton moved to the left in 2016 to avoid floor fights. Joe worked with Sanders, but his platform was still a mainstream Democratic platform

[ancianita]

135. Nope.

Joe didn't have to change drastically. But he knew that he had to change. And that IS in the articles. Mainstream as he is, his administration still shows that he changed.

That Joe is still mainstream, still doesn't make Bernie populist.
If Bernie was a populist, then so are AOC and Warren, particularly re Wall St. and worker economics.
Trump was the populist; this time he and his voters have redefined it, because their culture wars are astroturfed; the Bernie-AOC-Warren populists won't engage those any longer.

I don't like hearing that a mainstream candidate would move to avoid floor fights -- which don't make Democrats look bad, imo; just outspoken and heterogeneous -- as if their moves are only temporary rather than going for inclusivity and equal voice. It diminishes what we're told to believe about our party nominees.

[betsuni]

141. Trump right-wing populist, Bernie left-wing populist.

Last edited Thu Feb 17, 2022, 10:37 PM - Edit history (2)

Who is in the "Us" vs "Them" categories are just different. Anti-establishment. The establishment is always out to get you ("I've got news for the Republican establishment. I've got news for the Democratic establishment. They can't stop us" ). When you call Planned Parenthood part of the establishment as an insult, you're a populist.

Justice Democrats and similar groups with the goal of taking over the Democratic Party think they'll succeed because they think the majority of Americans agree with them, people voted for Trump because of economic anxiety, that the Tea Party was a grassroots anti-establishment populist backlash and so are they -- why wouldn't Trump voters vote for populists with progressive economic policies (they think Democrats lose because they only pretend to be progressive but don't care and everybody knows it, nothing to do with Republican culture wars and racism). Then when they lose they blame the evil establishment, rigging, money -- always the victim.

Biden did not significantly change his platform. As for health care, Hillary's plan was public option ACA with Medicare at 55, and Biden's was Medicare at 60, so Hillary's was a little more progressive.

[Demsrule86]

162. Biden did not run as a Bernie Sanders type progressive. Why would he? Sanders lost the primary.

Biden has always been more progressive than people realize.

[ancianita]

199. I know he didn't. You're right.

That Biden has always been progressive was exactly my argument to those who refused to seem him as any more than the "crime bill guy." Throughout his campaign, I described his sponsored bills, bills signed into law and argued that his positions were more progressive than the rest, except maybe for Jay Inslee who folded all other campaign issues within his sole goal of climate change.

[George II]

169. What exactly is a "Bernie type progressive"? As for the transition teams collaborating...

Remember, Biden was the nominee (and eventually elected President), there was/is only one transition team. Biden sought advice from ALL the candidates who ran against him, not just one.

I wonder, did the two you mention every explicitly endorse Biden or only via "default" because they endorsed Sanders? I know Sanders' campaign co-chair never endorsed Biden, either by "default" or outright. In fact she called Biden a "half bowl", calling him equivalent to trump, in the summer of 2020 and even doubled down (doubled figuratively and literally) later a month or so later by calling him a FULL bowl on a podcast.

Biden is a "BIDEN type progressive" and he's getting a lot of progressive things accomplished.

[ancianita]

200. I'm not arguing what a progressive is by who was progressive. I only care that progressives,

whether they're Bernie, AOC, Warren or any of the other 98 in the Progressive Caucus, not be cast as fomenting a rebellion that has to be "beat back." I've no beef with anyone here, certainly not you, either, about the facts of hard line stands of some of Bernie's staff. What I care about is that the party doesn't in-fight over progressives as anything but qualified. In a midterm I don't want to see current progressives run against incumbent Democrats, either, or I question their being true Democrats. Again. My point is that I don't want to see the headlines that portray our leadership as "beating back" some imagined "progressive rebellion." Because they're hyped that way is insulting, because our Progressive Caucus has been solidly supportive of the party and the president.

Yes. Biden IS a "Biden type progressive." I agree. He and Bernie joined before Biden's nomination on Biden's terms, which were inclusive.

[Nixie]

215. Actually, aren't they self-described as rebellions? Wasn't that

the whole ethos of the Sanders movement? To rebrand the Democratic Party?

It’s not a good idea to tell people they didn’t see what they actually saw. Your post tries to rewrite history with a group whose main goal is to unseat fellow Democrats so they can espouse the Sanders rhetoric which lost in two* Democratic primaries.

*losing two Democratic primaries is a factual statement of factual outcomes and it refers to public voter results, not previous posts on a message board. Thank you.

[ancianita]

216. No. I haven't seen evidence of their doing so. Unless you can link their doing so,

you're only implying it by using "actually" in a question. Without links, I'm not buying what you're implying.

Is unseating fellow Democrats their main goal? I don't get that from them. Credit where credit's due, they did help us win 2018. By their behavior even before Joe's nomination in 2020, they showed the Democratic spirit, soon after Sanders' factually two primary losses, to unify with, not rebel against, the party, because their teams met before the nomination. They met in spite of corporate media hype of "Squad" talk from trumpcult.

Is this party a big tent or not? I say it is. Are differences proof of division? I say no, not when it comes down to congressional voting. If in primary voting, they can get more voters to vote for their "progressive" goals, then why shouldn't they beat a Democratic incumbent whose votes haven't advanced even their "mainstream" goals, which are shown to be hardly any different except in how mainstream Democrats fluctuate between silence and beating their heads against the bipartisanship wall. We're at a standstill that we partly brought on ourselves with fear of media, risk, and our opponents' predictable accusatory media hype.

I've asked, but you still haven't named any progressives running against incumbent Dems. And I can't find any except Fetterman and Kenyatta.

Biden Democrats must not fall for how media try to define the progressive caucus; imo, only what progressives do defines them. So far, they are still more mainstream Democrat by their votes than are the two who refuse to vote for our majority sponsored legislation. Frustratingly, those two, not progressives, are the drag on the party.

[Nixie]

217. Unfortunately, you are still trying to rewrite history.

We saw what we saw and it’s been over a period of several years, so it’s hard to miss. No links are necessary since it’s established history at this point. If you aren’t aware of incumbents who have been targeted by Justice Democrats, Jeffries is and I’ll stick with him.

At least you are revealing more of the biases and methods that have been used to silence mainstream Democrats in favor of Sanders. Thankfully, those methods are being challenged in the real world by real Democrats such as Jeffries. How long do we have to continue this denial. Justice Democrats want to replace incumbent Democrats, which you seem to think is fine. The voters have spoken in the two factual elections referenced before about who they wish to lead the party. It’s just denial to keep trying to change history.

[ancianita]

219. Not at all.

I supported Inslee in the presidential primaries, and when he dropped out, Biden all the way.
I don't call myself a social democrat or Bernie supporter, since I'm to the left of Bernie, and see his shortcomings as a leader. But no one here so far has argued that mainstream Democrats' policy stands are really any different from the 98 in the Progressive Caucus. No one has to silence mainstream elected Democrats who already are silent and let Pelosi speak for them.

Yes, my bias is progressive. That's the bias I'll answer to.

And yes, the two factual elections are lessons in shifts in the voting population that Progressive Caucus Jeffries thinks he has his hand on the pulse of. The history is factual. Still, one thing I've learned from covid and climate events, is that we're not going to be able to predict (polling included) the base turnout any better now than in past cycles.

[Nixie]

220. Still a little skewed way of looking at the reality

of the situation which involves multiple losses and a huge denial about that. Maybe not on your part personally, but your bidding for Justice Democrats to be revered and respected and to imply they are the same (but different…) kind of Democrat really isn’t the factual history of it at all. We can’t deny the stated goals they had for their “rebellion” — their own self-branding cannot be undone. The cliche It is what it is comes to mind.

Anyway, Jeffries is a progressive. I’m talking more about the attempts to stifle criticism of their “branding” is to be in denial. Jeffries is speaking out against them, which is what this thread is about. The never-ending goodwill train they insist on isn’t working out for all of us, so it’s time for some equal footing.

[ancianita]

221. But your calling "attempts to stifle criticism of their "branding" as *denial* is the perfect view

of reality. Come ON. Progressives are not about "branding" or "stifling criticism" -- mainstream Democrats are.

As a Biden progressive, I got no time for that "rebellion" bullshit that too many here want to join some media outlet that foists yet another version of "dems in disarray" on the caucus.

Goodwill train, my ass. If Jeffries had explained the who, what where when facts better, this thread wouldn't even half as long as it's been.

[Nixie]

222. Wow, the scripted name calling, the passive-aggressive references to

Democrats couched in "mainstream" when reality is that they are...Democrats. Regular folks aka: voters who didn't have to band together to rebrand the Democratic party and pretend they are doing us all favors.

Your snideness about Pelosi was also noted. Dang, where have I seen all this before?? Oh yeah, from a group of people who self-describe as 3rd-party types, some who didn't vote for Democrats, some like yourself who did, but still with a losing message. Of course Jeffries is correct in what we all saw and he is not playing that anymore.

I'm tired of the revisionist history. Jeffries is totally correct in defending incumbent Democrats, especially from a losing message that voters have already rejected.

[betsuni]

232. +1

[Demsrule86]

121. I want what you say to be true. But it isn't. We can barely field a majority in the House and Senate

because of the way our constitution is structured...we have to win in purple and some red states and districts. Moderates gave us the House in 18-not progressives. And the moderates who lost in 20 absolutely blamed the 'defund the police' message championed on some progressive website. Is that true? I don't know.

But progressives can't win in areas we absolutely have to win. For example, a progressive can't win a Senate seat in Pennsylvania. They can win at the moment only in deep blue districts. Power is earned at the ballot box. Could a progressive win in Arizona or in West Virginia? I think not. We need to change that by winning hearts and minds. But putting up a candidate in a primary that is almost assured to go down in defeat should he/she win is a bad idea, and we risk losing the seat.

[ancianita]

124. Fine. I get your fair points. Just remember that current progressives were seen the same way

in their respective incumbent wins. They are 35% of the Democratic Caucus for reasons you give, but I also recall research from past cycles that has shown that the party doesn't read on-the-ground as well as Republicans. I also recall Florida's Debbie Wasserman Schulz being a blocker of any new Democrats in a state that needs serious district primarying. These are among the reasons I think calling the nuanced opinion by Jeffries is neither about a "progressive rebellion" nor a beat back of it. He is in the Progressive Caucus.

We've only talked as if we're divided, imo, because many buy into the idea that democratic socialism or progressivism shouldn't be mainstream (perhaps being influenced by stupid headlines like the above) and we tend to see progressives the way corporate media do. I won't.

I do believe that if the OP had literally laid out some background on the candidates Jeffries refers to, this thread wouldn't have been as opinionated and lengthy. No OP should be so devoid of names and district runs and background qualifications. We need that stuff to discuss intelligently about how to win battleground primaries.

Which reminds me to ask: do you think Lt Gov Fetterman, who's running for the Senate, is one of those "problem progressives" that wouldn't get elected? He's gotten a lot of good press, has done a lot for PA and as mayor of Braddock, but he's not got party support. That is wrong.

Since launching his Senate campaign in February, Fetterman has quickly amassed nearly $4 million—more than any other Democrat in the field and mostly in small-dollar donations. He’s running as a progressive and supports raising the minimum wage, Medicare for All, criminal justice reform and marijuana legalization. But he’s more middle-of-the-road on items like fracking and the Green New Deal. And while he’s pro-gun control, he has been a gun owner himself. (Two lesser-known contenders, liberal state lawmaker Malcolm Kenyatta and moderate county commissioner Val Arkoosh, have also already thrown their hats in the ring. Other big-name Democrats who are more centrist than Fetterman, like Rep. Conor Lamb, might still jump in.)

Fetterman’s fans think his brand of economic progressivism and his Carhartt-wearing linebacker vibe make him uniquely able to win elections in the kinds of Rust Belt and white working-class areas where Democrats have been hemorrhaging support. In a party often seen as too elite, the lieutenant governor is unfussy and plainspoken—he poses for official government photos in workman’s shirts and calls Republicans “simps” on Twitter. Fetterman’s campaign is making the case that he has the best shot at picking off Trump voters in the general election.

That is, if he can get anywhere in the primary first. Already, he’s butting up against fierce resistance from a wide array of party leaders. Some take issue with his politics: Moderates think his deep commitment to getting repentant convicts out of life sentences is too radical. Progressives say he’s too squishy on fracking. Other Democratic honchos—from left to center—resent his go-it-alone attitude. They argue he’s a loner who doesn’t spend any time trying to build alliances with other pols—and that as a result he’ll be less effective in office.

But for many party leaders, this isn’t a question of “the intractable outsider” vs. “the establishment.” Fetterman’s candidacy hits at the heart of the debate roiling the Democratic Party today: Should the party try to win back working-class white voters who stray further from them every year or double down on the suburban and Black electorate that has powered their recent wins? Fetterman’s white guy working-class appeal, they say, is outdated for a party that should be committed to addressing structural racism.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/04/16/john-fetterman-profile-2022-senate-politics-pennsylvania-481259

Fetterman, for all his seeming weirdness, connects with working class voters in PA. And he did win with the Black vote. We need PA.

I know that Politico's bias is questionable, yet the issues raised about him in his Senate run also reveal us as a party, and that's since I first recognized FL's Wasserman-Schulz cockblocking of newbs trying to engage. Taking each candidate, case by case, instead of using some broad yardstick for accepting in-party challengers, would make the party as nuanced as Jeffries seems to be. I don't see the party helping either O'Rourke in Texas (against Cruz) or now Kelly in AZ, both of which have trended blue.

We WON with a record 81 million votes after all the primary divisions. That there number shows we won hearts and minds. It's time to recognize we did that. We must take that recognition into the midterms. This time, retaining both houses looks to me as more of a we-as-a-party-working-in-the-states problem, much more than any primary challengers' problem. We're so afraid of risk because we don't read the ground well. That's on our party leaders. Including Jeffries.

There are 90 million more non-voters to win the hearts and minds of, and going into the midterms, we've got the momentum of the general with midterm state candidates, if we trust their knowledge on the ground, which we didn't in past midterms because we, not knowing the ground of voters, were too afraid of risk.

[Demsrule86]

163. I think Fetterman is a great candidate. Like Biden he can attract moderate voters and talk

to working folks...particularly union folk. I think Tim Ryan is similarly talented and could possibly win in Ohio. Let me say, he is the only one who can win in Ohio. You notice we are talking about winning moderate to red states. This is where our opportunities lie. We need to look at states and districts and how we can get majorities. I believe if we can peel off enough rural and suburban voters with moderate candidates we can win statewide elections. Also, the burbs could conceivably blow up the GOP gerrymanders. We need to hold the Senate. There should be no primaries period of sitting Democrats and that's what I think. The stakes are too high.

We have to compete in red and purple states...there is no other option. And explain to me why Mark Kelly is being primaried by a progressive. It is madness. Primaries weaken incumbents...memes get started that help the Republicans win the general or sometimes Republicans vote in the Democratic primary to choose the weakest candidate...it is just a bad idea this year.

[Magoo48]

61. What proposals would those be?

[ancianita]

31. What is that place, exactly. If there is no progress, then what.

Progressives' place is at the forefront of Democratic politics in climate mitigation, disaster relief, student debt relief, living wage jobs and Medicare for All.

When they make the going rough, the Progressives show up and get going.

THAT is their place -- diametrically opposed in all ways to the sedition caucus that is trumpcult.

For a functioning democracy, Progressivism must become mainstream politics.

[Autumn]

33. If there is no progress people don't show up to vote. One would think that's obvious.

But hey... the ones pushing for what people need and must have? They need to learn their place.

[ancianita]

35. IF? Are you trying to say there's been no progess from this Biden-Harris administration?

If so, you haven't paid attention.

Even the CEO of Walmart praises the Biden-Harris administration.

Don't call this no progress.

Restored daily press briefings
Cancel Keystone Pipeline
Reverse Trump's Muslim ban
Require masks on federal propert
Rejoin the Paris Climate agreement

Extend Student Loan payment freeze
Extend eviction freeze
Historic stimulus bill passed
Ends funding for Border wall
Orders agencies to reunite families separated at border by Trump

Orders strengthening of DACA
Rejoins The World Health Organization
Requires non-citizens to be included in the Census
Creates the position of Covid-19 Response Coordinator
Rescinds Trump's 1776 Commission and directs agencies to review actions to ensure racial equity

Prohibits administration members from lobbying or registering as foreign agents for two years after leaving
Invokes defense production act to produce masks, PPE and vaccines
Provide funding to local and state officials to create vaccination sites
Ends transgender military ban
Ends Federal Contracts With Private Prisons

Restores Aid To Palestinians
Suspends new leases for oil & natural gas development on federal land
Restores access to healthcare.gov
Extends fair housing protections to include LGBTQ Americans
Ends support for Saudi Arabia led campaign in Yemen

Withdraws UN sanctions on Iran
Daily Covid deaths reduced in half after one month
Secured enough vaccinations for the entire US population Purchased 3.1 million treatment courses of Pfizer’s antiviral COVID-19 PILL to reduce hospitalizations, deaths, and to help accelerate the end of the pandemic

Historic stimulus bill passed: - Click to see who was helped
— Increases poorest 20% of Americans' income by 20% permanentl
— 85% of households receiving stimulus payment
— Four provisions which lower Americans’ 2021 tax bills by an average of $3,3660
— Re duces backlog of Veterans compensation and pension claims by more than half
Extends universal free school lunch through 2022

Commits to cutting U.S. emissions in half by 2030 as part of Paris climate pact
Reverses Trump's Anti-Trans Shelter Rule
Officially recognizes massacre of Armenians in World War I as genocide
Raises Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors and Federal Employees to $15
Cancels all border wall contracts using funds intended for military missions

Creates new Operation Sentinel to crack down on human smuggling

END OF THE FIRST 100 DAYS:

Reverses Trump effort to loosen Arctic drilling restrictions
Restores Transgender Health Protections
Lifts Secrecy of Visitor Logs Cloaked by Trump
Suspends oil and gas leases in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Restores $1 billion in federal funding for California high speed rail Trump had cut

Grows US Economy 6.4% in 1st quarter - 2020
In first six months regained job numbers lost under Trump administration. (3 million
Prohibits payday lenders from charging interests rates above that of what individual states allow
Reinstalls rules removed by Trump limiting methane emissions from leaks and flares in oil and gas wells
Enacts massive EO that provides 76 distinct actions to increase competition, reduce monopolies, and provide eliminate laws the unfairly treat workers. Including:
— Eliminating non-compete clauses
— Stop businesses from collaborating to reduce wages/benefits
— Stop big tech companies purchasing competitors to unfairly compete with small businesses
— Importation of prescription drugs from Canada and increase support for generics
— Hearing aids to be sold over-the-counter
— Requiring airlines to refund consumer fees when bags are late or Wi-Fi doesn't wor
— Crack down on railroads and ocean shipping to reduce costs of transporting goods
— Other anti-monopoly legislation with agriculture, banking and internet 2nd quarter 2021 economy grows 6.5% - Economy surpasses pre-pandemic levels.

Achieves historic 45% reduction of poverty levels in first six months
Achieves historic 61% reduction of child poverty in first six months
Reaches goal of vaccinating 70% of adult Americans
Cut Obamacare premiums by 40%
Bans the pesticide chlorpyrifos, linked to neurological damage in young children

STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS:
Round One: Cancels $1 Billion in student Loan Debt (3/2021)
Round Two: Cancels another $1.3 billion in student loan debt
Round Three: Cancels another $500 Million In Student Loan Debt (6/16/21)
Round Four: Erases $5.8 Billion in student debt for students with disabilities (9/2021)
Round Five: $1.1 billion in student debt forgiveness for 115,000 ITT Tech students

Forms new Indo-Pacific alliance with UK, Australia allowing for greater sharing of defense capabilities
Adds measles to list of quarantinable diseases
LGBTQ veterans discharged dishonorably for sexual orientation get full benefits
Lifts abortion referral ban on family planning clinics
Ended the 20 Year War in Afghanistan - The longest war in American History

Global leadership bounce back from record lows   
Secures agreement of G20 to block corporations from moving jobs or profits overseas in order to avoid paying taxes by establishing a world minimum tax for corporations of 15%
Passes largest infrastructure improvement bill in history

$11 billion in transportation safety programs
$7.5 billion for electric vehicles and EV charging
$2.5 billion in zero-emission buses
$2.5 billion in low-emission buses and
$2.5 billion for ferries

$21 billion in environmental remediation
$47 billion for flooding & coastal resiliency and "climate resiliency," including protections against fires
$39 billion to modernize transit, largest federal investment in public transit in history
$25 billion for airports
$17 billion in port infrastructure

$11 billion in transportation safety programs
$110 billion for roads, bridges and other much-needed infrastructure
$40 billion for bridge repair, replacement, and rehabilitation
$17.5 billion is for other major projects
$73 billion for electric grid and power structures

$66 billion for rail services
$65 billion for broadband
$1.47 billion in loans for forgiveness through PSLF program updates, and $2.82B with employer verification

— PAWS Act, allowing VA to pay for service dogs for veterans

— Walmart CEO Credits Biden with Supply Chain Improvement after Weeks of Conservative Hysteria
"so I would like to give the administration credit for helping do things like get the ports open 24 hours a day, to open up some of the trucking lines, ... and then all the way through the supply chain there's been a lot of innovation " https://secondnexus.com/doug-mcmillon-biden-supply-chain

[Autumn]

38. LOL whoosh !!!

[ancianita]

48. That's all you've got.

[Me.]

57. Thank You

some just don't care enough to listen or pay attention

[ancianita]

59. YW, Me.

Another name for them is 'empty posters.'

[sheshe2]

81. Thank you, ancianita.

[ancianita]

82. ...

Hey there, sheshe! Thank you back.

[sheshe2]

89. ...

[Demsrule86]

110. Well then they get they get right-wing government. And they get nothing.

Such a great decision

[Demsrule86]

168. Then you win those elections that can be won, and accept that we won't get everything we want...and

win elections with moderates while winning hearts and minds in red and purple states...one way to never improve our chances is to merely primary Democrats in red, purple, and even deep blue districts... what is the point? Why don't we see grass-roots efforts in red, purple states? We can reverse this mess IMHO using what I call bottom-up politics. Win state elections...hell even school board elections would help us. That could make a difference.

I think this country has moved to the right similarly to the 80s and early '90s. We have to win majorities and if we need to field moderate candidates who can win then that is what we must do. In Ohio, we are attempting to get out our voters in the cities but to also make a big effort in rural, and smaller areas to get the vote out...that combination can help win statewide races and maybe even improve our chances in gerrymandered districts. We also need to run on local issues for house races.

[lagomorph777]

140. Is that your opinion?

Progressive politics is the core driver of the Democratic Party. I would hope you don't think we should become the Reptilians.

[Autumn]

147. Progressives are the future. It's their world I can't wait to see them in charge.

[Demsrule86]

170. I don't see that happening anytime soon, and the GOP can stop it if they continue to win.

I wish it was different...I think we may have depended on demographics too much.

[Autumn]

173. It's up to Dems to make sure the GOP doesn't win. A lot of young voters out there. Dems need to

make sure they get those voters. Right now there is nothing for them to vote against. It's got be be something to vote for. I can think of a few things that would ensure their votes, but moderates are not too fond of those things, in fact a couple of moderate leaders are willing to lose it all rather than help people.

[Demsrule86]

182. You can't the stop the GOP if you can't win in red and purple districts...thus you must field

appropriate candidates...and a progressive in Texas...that won't work. There is a post on this thread by a Texan who says that progressives field candidates in the one district a moderate could win and then lose the general...and that is a problem.

[George II]

192. (cough cough) Hakeem Jeffries has been a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus for years.

[Autumn]

193. (cough cough) yourself George. That is exactly what Hakeem Jeffries is doing.

Last edited Fri Feb 18, 2022, 06:48 PM - Edit history (1)

I can call myself a moderate. That doesn't make me a moderate.

[betsuni]

195. A member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus is "putting Progressives in their place"

and thinks that "Progressives do not belong in the Democratic Party."

Where's the aspirin?

[George II]

196. Lulz. The things you read on the internet, eh?

[UT_democrat]

230. AGREED

Progressives need their own party if America has any chance of progressing.

[Budi]

19. Because he's absolutely correct.

Waleed is a 5 arlarm fire.

[Demsrule86]

171. Yup, he is a pain in the butt.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

101. Hakeem Jeffires will likely succeed Pelosi as speaker

He is that good

[Demsrule86]

107. If the progressive candidates win say the Texas primary and other places, can they win the General?

This is the most important thing. And some won't. I will vote for my sitting congresswoman in Cleveland and never vote for her primary challenger Nina Turner for example. It is a waste of time and money.

[Cha]

68. I just said.. Thank Goodness We Have

Rep Hakeem Jeffries!

We need supporters of Pres BIden's Agenda in the HOUSE!

[Me.]

78. Indeed

and points made in this thread are...

he is a member of the progressive caucus

how about going after Cons instead of members of their own party which is a truly backwards strategy

[Cha]

80. Ohh Mahalo!

Hakeem is a member of Progressive Caucus? Oh My!

Yeah, GO AFTER The Fucking Fascists! Full Stop!

We Want to WIN! :

[Demsrule86]

108. I agree Cha. We need to win.

[Cha]

137. Above All We Need to WIN!

Thank You, Dems!

[Demsrule86]

172. We have to win...everytime a GOP wins we get dragged further to the right...and honestly there is

no other option but to move to the middle. As a progressive, this makes me unhappy. But I am a practical person and have worked to elect Democrats for years. And there really is no choice. Were you aware that Mark Kelly faces a progressive challenger? That makes me so angry I could scream!

[Cha]

189. No, I did Not know that..

Whatever.. I hope he beats them.

[Budi]

6. I have & will continue to donate to Team Blue PAC.

Thank you Rep Hakeem Jefries, with respect for the Democratic Party & all we've fought for on human & civil rights, the rights of Unions & collective bargaining, health care, and on and on.. .
Thank you for defending & Representing the basic tenets of our Party.

All people are equal, regardless of age, gender, social status, income, sexual orientation, race, color, or any other intrinsic quality, and they have equal rights.

The correct way to behave toward all people is to treat them as you would like to be treated. This is particularly true when the people are disadvantaged by race, poverty, education, economics, etc.
Democrats would like to see a government deeply involved in supporting these core values.

[jalan48]

7. We're doing so well, why change?

[wryter2000]

12. This is no time for more Susan Sarandons

We must keep the House.

[empedocles]

20. Seems so obvious, but . . .

[Cha]

69. Three is Never a "time for

Susan Sarandon"..

We saw what she & Stein did in 2016 .. General Election.

Spewing Shit that "Hillary and trump were the same.." & " was More Dangerous than trump"

In Swing States!

And, still NO GD Apologies.

[wryter2000]

125. I can't watch her movies anymore n/t

n/t

[Cha]

138. I understand that all too well..

SS and all those Idiots messing with our Democracy.. why would I watch them thinking about what Gaslighting and Lies they've said and done.

[wryter2000]

142. I can't watch Kevin Spacey, either

For very different reasons. And I loved House of Cards.

[Cha]

144. I know.. it's a shame.

[Budi]

14. I hope this brings to light the truth of Waleed Shahid, Max Berger, Zac Exley & Saikat Chakrabarti's

....true intent & methods of destroying our Democratic Party, & especially who funds them & how.

Thank you Rep Hakeen Jeffries & Team Blue Pac.
💙

[Johnyawl]

27. absolutely...

...not everybody on the left is our friend.

[Budi]

29. Not even sure where they fall on the spectrum after reserching their origins.

The research is damning.

My support to Team Blue Pac is a priority for our Democratic Party.

[ancianita]

49. Thank you for the names; can you also post research links?

[bottomofthehill]

15. Only here on DU would Jeffries be considered a centrist.

He is a progressive realist that knows that if we have a majority, all things are possible but with Republican control of the Chamber none of the Democratic priorities or the Biden agenda have any chance at all.

We need Progressive Realists.

[Johnyawl]

24. Thank you...

...that needed to be said.

[bottomofthehill]

64. His ADA numbers are to the left of many of the DU darlings.

His voting record is to the left of
Eric Swalwell
Katie Porter
Maxine Watters
Joyce Beatty ( the Chair of the CBC)
Ted Leiu

And the list goes on…..

[Me.]

26. +1

[Cha]

70. Rep Hakeem Jeffries is NO

:centrist".. that's just a label thrown at him by some.

Thank Goodness We have him in the HOUSE to support Pres Biden's Democratic Agenda.. and Nancy Pelosi!:

[bottomofthehill]

71. I like Realist.

He would like to be the Speaker and not the Minority Leader some day. In order to do that, you have to be able to win in Purple districts. Then you have a chance to set the agenda and pass good legislation. In the minority, you get to whine and complain. Mr Jefferies seems to have the right idea.

[Cha]

73. Absolutely.. We Won the House

Back in 2018 in Swing Districts with Nancy Pelosi leading the way on Health Care.

And, we can Do It Again!

Yes Rep Jeffries want to be Majority Speaker of the House and knows how to Do IT.

TY!

[Nixie]

74. Great post! I heard on Morning Joe a new name

for some progressives: “performance progressives.” The panel was referring to the performance art of some individuals. As opposed to what you are saying about “progressive realists.” We’ve seen enough progressive performances and need progressive realists.

[sheshe2]

84. +1000

[George II]

191. I guess being a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus makes him a centrist...

Funny how labels work in some circles, eh?

[JudyM]

17. Support ought to be more selectively determined than just "incumbent," IMO.

This makes the most sense to me:

“Democratic leadership should be spending every dime of our party’s resources on helping frontline incumbents in swing districts and protecting our majority instead of coming into a deep blue district that is clamoring for new leadership,” says Kina Collins, who’s challenging Davis.

[Budi]

21. Depends on where the challenger arrives in the spotlight from.

Do the homework the Republican Party failed to do when the Koch Libertarians presented Palin as the New fresh face of the Tea Party Republicans.

How'd that failure turn out?
Rep Jeffries is absolutely correct.

[Demsrule86]

174. Sorry, we need to protect all of our incumbents in a midterm.

[Hortensis]

201. House caucuses work as state and party teams.

Unlike senators,who are effectively independen. It's designed that way.

House leaders protect the members the voters send to serve in their caucuses, both to protect the abllity and willingness of a couple hundred people to work together to produce legislation and also to respect the choice of the voters. It takes serious problems, usually ethical violations, to create a duty that overrides those.

And to note again, until the constitutents replace their incumbent, that incumbent remains their representative and the party is obliged to respect that choice.

[KPN]

32. K&R ... and I agree with you fully.

Actually, being a broadbrush statement this really pisses me off. Especially if this True Blue effort uindermines progressives in deep blue districts. Reading the article, it seems at least one of thew incumbents this group is endorsing is in a very deep blue district.

Jeffries' arguments ignore or forget his own path to the House as a challenger to an incumbent.

I'll be watching this, but given the other two members of the True Blue PAC, I have a sense for where it's going -- it already has in Maloney's case and, to be fair, Brown's (based on animus toward Turner I assume and I get that to a point).

The Maloney one is pretty bizarre and smells like capitulation to Democratic "centrists" to me.

[Budi]

42. Oh please. It works both ways, judging by the last couple elections.

Whose targeted more Deep Blue districts while avoiding Red districts in the last 4/5 years?
Rep Jeffries is absolutely correct.

I'll wait...

[Me.]

56. Or How About Targeting Republicans

wouldn't that be more productive...but no...walid and group just go after dems that have seats we need to keep

[Budi]

63. Exactly. The truth of their purpose is in the Party they challenge & the Party they never touch.

👍

[Me.]

65. Beautifully Put

[sheshe2]

198. Al this, well said.

[KPN]

132. Who?

[Nixie]

75. This is a great idea by Jeffries. Enough is enough.

They should go attack some Republicans for a refreshing change.

[George II]

85. Huh? So McAuliffe wasn't to the left enough so voters chose a candidate to the RIGHT of him?

I fail to see the logic in that.

[Demsrule86]

111. No it is not. It makes no sense to pick the right...

[Hortensis]

77. Oh, please. Phony baloney. The party SUPPORTS INCUMBENTS as a matter of princple.

All incumbent members of the Democratic caucuses are supported by the party as a matter of principle. That includes members who endorse newbies seeking to primary Democrats. So, Ocasio-Cortez but not Nina Turner this time around.

Newbies who run as Democrats to unseat Republicans will get various degrees of support depending on their viability.

Newbies who do manage to primary Democrats in office and go on to run as Democrats in the GE will THEN get support.

Nina Turner (who's happily very unlikely to manage to primary Congressman Shontel Brown since she slipped and revealed who she is to the people of OH-11, would then get support. Probably no matter how much dirty money and disinformation Waleed Shahid and his sorts poured into the race, or where it came from, though there are limits to what we should support.

[George II]

79. I may have missed it, but I didn't see anything that said Team Blue PAC has a "Plan to Beat Back

....Progressive Rebellion".

Their intention is to support successful incumbent Democrats.

What is Waleed Shahid so upset about? He's been around politics long enough to know this is nothing out of the ordinary, or even anything he and his organization hasn't done itself.

[ancianita]

87. Yep. Where this "Progressive Rebellion" characterization comes in sounds weird, even suspect.

Like some "Dems in disarray" headline.

[Hortensis]

202. :) "Weird" would be not knowing that Shahid and his types are avowed

enemies of the Democratic Party as it exists today. If they hid it, they couldn't attract the sorts who are drawn to anyone who badmouths us.

[ibegurpard]

83. Wonderful...

How about their plan to beat Republicans?

[George II]

88. Are you familiar with groups like Justice Democrats, Brand New Congress, Courage to Change?

[ancianita]

204. I'm not, but I intend to be. Thank you for the names.

[George II]

206. You're welcome. They've been going after incumbent Democrats since the were established...

...in 2016 and shortly thereafter. You should see some of their vile accusations and attacks against Democrats on Twitter and other social media.

I signed up for Justice Democrats' emails a couple of years ago just to see what they were up to. You'd think Democrats like Biden, Pelosi, Jeffries, and other prominent Democrats were right wing republicans if you believe what they're saying.

During this election cycle, Justice Democrats now have about a dozen candidates running against House Democrats, among them Carolyn Maloney, Hakeem Jeffries, and others.

[ancianita]

207. So is everyone here also familiar with the DCCC blacklist? Can you explain why progressive PACs'

refusal to take corporate money is worse than the willingness of over 75 mainstream Democrats to take Big Oil money? I stopped listing their names after the first 5 pages from OpenSecrets a year ago.

Aren't Democrats concerned about which corporations donate to our candidates?

Are we really going to continue to be locked into Citizens United?

I'm sorry to hear the bad news of Justice Democrats' messaging, but their goals are mine. They might have won more seats if they''d just put out their positive goals.

I've never read any DU member here speak against JD's goals. Just them.

From Wikipedia:

Creating a new infrastructure program called the "Green New Deal"[33]
Ending arms sales to countries that it says violate human rights such as Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt
Enacting a federal job guarantee, which would promise all Americans a job paying $15 per hour plus benefits

Ending the death penalty
Ending the practice of unilaterally waging war, except as a last resort to defend U.S. territory
Ending the War on Drugs in favor of legalization, regulation, and taxation of drugs, and pardoning all non-violent drug offenders and treating all drug addicts

Ensuring free speech on college campuses and supporting net neutrality
Ensuring universal education as a right, including free four-year public college and university education
Ensuring universal healthcare as a right

Establishing paid maternity leave, paid vacation leave, and free childcare
Expanding anti-discrimination laws to apply to LGBT people
Expanding background checks on firearms and banning high capacity magazines and assault weapons

Funding Planned Parenthood and other contraceptive and abortion services, and recognizing reproductive rights
Implementing electoral reform and publicly financed elections nationwide to make irrelevant and obsolete fundraising from large corporations and the wealthy
Implementing instant-runoff voting nationwide in an effort to make third-party and independent candidates more viable

Implementing the Buffett Rule, ending offshore financial centers, "chain[ing]" the capital gains and income taxes, and increasing the estate tax
Making the minimum wage a living wage and tying it to inflation
Pardoning Edward Snowden, prosecuting CIA torturers and DoD war criminals, shutting down the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and all other extrajudicial prisons, and ending warrantless spying and bulk data collection by the National Security Agency

Passing the Paycheck Fairness Act
Abolishing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE)
Reforming police by mandating body cameras, establishing community oversight boards, eliminating
broken windows policing, ending stop and frisk, and appointing special prosecutors to hold police accountable in courts

Renegotiating CAFTA-DR and NAFTA, and opposing Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China and the World Trade Organization
Stopping any reductions to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and establishing single-payer universal healthcare

Stopping anthropogenic climate change through an ecological revolution and upholding the United States' participation in the Paris Climate Agreement
Uncompromisingly rejecting President Trump's immigration proposals and policies, particularly Executive Order 13769 and deportation of illegal immigrants, and implementing comprehensive immigration reform which will include giving non-criminal illegal immigrants a path to citizenship

These goals look pretty mainstream Democratic Party to me. Maybe I'm out of touch with "mainstream Democrats," but I'm pretty sure Biden has no problem with these goals, either.

I think they only won 15 out of 50+ runs. In Jan 2020 they did, in fact, agree to unify their support with the DCCC when it came to beating Trump (except for AOC who has claimed the the party in general has not supported new candidates enough in the past, like Obama, and she's right about that).

Have they changed their tack this year? Are they really being "rebellious"? Because I saw that DemsRule brought up the run against Kelly in AZ more than once, and I see no Democratic contender, only six Republican contenders who, polls show, are not going to beat him. I can't find a Dem who's running against Jeffries in NY's 8th. Just sayin'. I'm not up on all the challenges, but the OP wasn't thorough about those, either. So, is there really a concerted effort to beat Democratic incumbents in the progressive wing, or just complaints about some unqualified contenders?

I hope we're not letting media work us into a lather about our caucuses.

My general point is that it's not about what they call their caucus (Justice Democrats) as much as it's about what they answer to the nation as -- Democrats. So far they are 100%, minus WV and AZ Dems with the party, right? When the back-and-forth is over, they are Democrats.

[betsuni]

208. Where is the evidence of corruption? How do people employed by corporations or other industries

donating money to Democrats corrupt them? Justice Democrats are a superPAC that accepts dark money. How they and other PACs are the judges of who is corrupt and who isn't, taken on faith because they repeat "progressive" and "grassroots" and "working class" and insult Democrats as corrupt "corporate Dems" dozens of times in their fundraising emails without a shred of evidence, I don't know.

[ancianita]

211. Of course that's always the justification for Citizens United and altruistic donations through

corporations. Don't ask me to play detective, but we're aware of evidence that quid pro quo, legal or not, follows such altruism. Of course donations alone do not corrupt any candidate of either party. Yet we've not seen any money in politics that doesn't create an air of temptation; why else would Americans want money out of politics. Small favors, expediencies, etc. add up; corruption creeps i.

Justice Democrats do not have a superPAC; they have a PAC. The difference is that the PACS disallow both corporate and labor donations, and the anonymity that dark money (oligarchic or corporate) uses through superPACs.

How anyone, not just Democrats, finds out who dark money donors are in superPACs is a problem, yes. How anyone would conflate the appearance of corruption and actual corruption, seems exemplified by what Democrats are right now considering, as they process a bill to disallow stock trading by congressional members and spouses. Re corruption, is there a shred of evidence that explains why the bill's timing is now?

To save everyone the wasted time and cost of corruption investigations, eliminate money in politics so as to eliminate both temptation and evidence of corruption. Corporations should never have created politics as a horse race to bet on to begin with.

[betsuni]

212. Justice Democrats are a superPAC.

Democratic corruption from campaign contributions without proof is a conspiracy theory.

[ancianita]

213. Link it.

In politics, most unproven claims fall into conspiracy theory. That's why the need for evidence for "rebellion" and corrupt intent and corruption.

[betsuni]

214. All you have to do is Google. They have a Carey Committee superPAC

http://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-score/2020/05/04/insurgent-left-learns-to-live-with-super-pacs-787317

[intheflow]

92. No, Jeffries. This is the mindset that gave us Trump.

DNC has obviously learned nothing about alienating leftist voters and dismissing our concerns as unrealistic, basically telling us we have to move center even though the "center" has been moving hellishly rightward since Reagan. Does Jeffries remember fondly the clusterfuck surrounding the 2016 primaries, and in particular, the Nevada Democratic convention? Please, I beg you, DNC - do not alienate the left!

[George II]

96. So what do you have to say about Justice Democrats, Brand New Congress (same founders)....

....and even Courage to Change (look up it's ownership)

Hakeem Jeffries is just following their lead. And if you're worried about being "centrist" and alienating "leftist voters", the majority of the Democratic Party can be defined as "centrist", so who is being alienated by those groups?

To quote, or paraphrase you - "Please, I beg you - do not alienate the majority of the party!"

[intheflow]

98. A majority can't be alienated.

That's not how it works.

And I'm not alone in this social critique that the political center has moved right. I've witnessed it first hand, and so has Robert Reich who served in Clinton's cabinet. He just released this video to illustrate the point.

h/t to Uncle Joe for posting the video on DU today.

[Demsrule86]

175. I hate to break it to you but you are not part of a majority. It was moderates that gave us the

House.

[mahina]

94. Hmmm

I see both points. We need progressives to …progress and we need people who can win.

This makes me sad.

[Me.]

95. And For Right Now You've Made The Most Important Point

"and we need people who can win"

[Demsrule86]

112. We can progress with moderates but can't if we nominate those who lose the election

[George II]

97. Hakeen Jeffries is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and he's an ACTIVE member.....

...he doesn't just use it as a resume filler.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

100. I am on the Justice Democrats email feed

The last email from the Justice Democrats made me smile. They are really upset that Hakeem Jeffries is so successful at raising money.

I have been following the Justice Democrats and its predecessor and affilaites for a while including the "brand new congress group" and other groups created by Cenk, Kyle Kulinksi and their ilk. I am on the Justice Democrat email list and I have even listened once or twice to the Justice Democrat podcast which is amusingly called "Just Us" democrats. The Justice Democrats emails are fun to laugh at and I love the hatred this group shows to the Democratic Party, establishment Democrats and best of all corporate democrats. The posts attacking the DCCC for raising money to elect real Democrats are really amusing. Hakeem Jeffries is one of their favorite targets which makes me smile

I have been following a number of posters on twitter who dislike the Justice Democrats who have issues with the concept of the Justice Democrat group wanting to take over the Democratic party and remake into their image.

Link to tweet

This poster is not the only person who has issues with the concept that the Justice Democrats want to take over the Democratic Party

Link to tweet

Again, the above posts are consistent with the hatred of the Democratic Party by the Justice Democrat group that I see on the almost daily emails that I get from the Justice Democrats. The latest Just Us Dem post about Hakeem Jeffries really made me smile

If you want to learn more about the Justice Democrats just enter "Just Us Democrats" in the search function of twitter.

[betsuni]

104. It's hilarious when JDs get hysterical about Democrats raising money to beat Republicans.

JDs think the Tea Party was grassroots, envy the takeover of the Republican Party.

[Cha]

134. And, who all funded the Tea Party?

Wasn't it KOCHroach?

[betsuni]

151. Koch Industries grassroots!

How anybody doesn't know this, I really wonder. "Whether we like it or not, that movement was grassroots, it really was," says a JD member of congress.

[Cha]

152. They might very well

know it.. but Choose to throw some Gaslight on it.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

154. This is from yesterday's email

These emails are so bad that they are funny

TEAM Blue PAC is targeting Justice Democrats candidates
Last summer, the 4th most powerful Democrat in the House, Hakeem Jeffries, joined Rep. Josh Gottheimer in creating ‘Team Blue PAC’ supposedly to stop Democrats from “fighting each other instead of fighting the other team.”

But what Team Blue PAC is actually doing is sending tens of thousands of dollars into safe blue districts to stop primary challenges from Justice Democrats.

It’s alarming that critical resources from Democratic Party leadership are going to protect incumbents from having to face any competition in these deep blue districts instead of protecting the swing seats Democrats are in danger of losing in November.

[George II]

188. What egos, eh? Team Blue PAC isn't "targeting JD candidates", they're SUPPORTING INCUMBENT...

...DEMOCRATS!!

Any targeting going on is coming from them toward our incumbent Democrats.

[betsuni]

197. "Targeting" them -- always the victim of the big bad establishment out to get them, poor dears.

[Cha]

133. First of all.. so sad they're

Upset at Hakeem and his ability to Raise Money for Dems!

Link to tweet

Rt TY!

[Nixie]

150. Thanks for posting their dubious emails. It's way past time

to quit coddling losing messaging, losing strategies, and hostile motives.

They still hide behind the advantages afforded them under past campaigns, and it’s gone on way too long. Thanks so much to Jeffries for giving them a dose of reality.

[Hotler]

114. No thinking to the left of center allowed. nt

[Budi]

145. Left of Center? Their stated goal is to takeover the Dem Party from within. That They are not Democr

What exactly identifies them as Left?
Because they Say So?

They've stated who they are not.

Their own words tell you that.
SEE POST #100 ABOVE
"100. I am on the Justice Democrats email feed"
"Their stated goal is to takeover the Dem Party from within. That they are not Democrats"

[Demsrule86]

176. We have to win elections...and consider that why would the Democratic Majority want more

who might refuse to vote for Biden policy...because it becomes an all or nothing battle...

[betsuni]

148. "Why are members of the hard-left targeting progressive members of Congress, and then trying

to act as though they're engaging in some ideological contest against the rest of us? Jeffrey asks."

The populist "Us" vs "Them." Purity tests. If you pass the test and repeat the same slogans and use the same words, you can be called a progressive and be an "us." Have your own plans, you're a "them" and cannot be a progressive (centrist, corporate Dem, moderate, establishment, elite, conservadem) even if you're a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus with a more progressive voting record than Justice Democrats-backed politicians. When you have the same progressive goals, no major ideological differences but differ on strategy, pretend there's a huge difference and go after character and morals. "Them" must be demonized as immoral, evil, corrupt enemies.

"Them" must be constantly attacked as corrupted by the campaign contributions everybody gets, without any evidence. A conspiracy theory, faith-based attack. "'Is there any evidence that their voting record and advocacy has been influenced by people who have contributed to them?' he says, pointing to their voting records. 'Somehow we're supposed to theoretically believe that they're being unduly influenced because they're raising money from employee-supported political action committees.'" "Enough is enough" is right. Seven years of this bullshit is enough.

[Demsrule86]

177. +10000 Well said!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

153. Democrats fight Democrats over where they stand

I am glad that Hakeem is fighting the Just Us Democrats (That is the name of their podcast).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/17/democrats-san-francisco-recall/

While slogans like “Abolish ICE” and calls to renounce Lincoln were never representative of the broader Democratic Party, Republicans have deftly weaponized them, tagging all of their opponents with attacks that have resonated in part because Democrats have often been reluctant to respond directly lest they highlight their own divisions, party strategists said. The combination of Biden’s poor approval ratings and the history of first midterms being tough for the president’s party has added more urgency to Democrats’ desire to find an effective counterpunch......

But other Democrats say the party has made a mistake in seeking to deflect such attacks rather than meeting them head-on. “I think if there’s a broader lesson here for all Democrats, left or moderate, it’s that we need to define what we’re standing for,” said Celinda Lake, who was one of Biden’s top pollsters in 2020. “We start in the middle of the conversation and we start in response rather than showing what we’re for.”

The Democratic schism is ideological and often generational, as younger, more liberal challengers take on established Democratic incumbents. Team Blue PAC, a political action committee spearheaded by a trio of House Democrats including Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), an early favorite to become the next House Democratic leader, announced its first endorsements this week. Four of the five candidates had challengers who were previously endorsed or recruited by Justice Democrats — a liberal organization that has sought to unseat some Democratic incumbents. Team Blue PAC is aimed mainly at protecting incumbent members of Congress in safe Democratic seats that are not a focus of the House Democratic campaign arm.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

233. the brainchild of Zack Exley, founder of Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[JustAnotherGen]

187. Sounds good to me!

https://www.teambluepac.com/

ABOUT TEAM BLUE PAC
Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries, Congressman Josh Gottheimer, and Congresswoman Terri Sewell started this effort to protect our House Democratic Majority and ensure that effective legislators who are fighting hard for everyday Americans can persuasively communicate with their constituents while serving the people.

Team Blue PAC will support Democratic Members of the House who are facing strident electoral challenges, distortions of their record and ad hominem attacks. Extremists and other outside forces will stop at nothing to divide our Caucus amid the uncertainty represented by a potentially tough redistricting process. It's more important now than ever to support members with a proven track record of getting big things done.

As they work to make life better for everyday Americans, we will work to ensure that a diverse array of Democrats with different perspectives and life experiences will continue to make a difference through their public service.

Link for donations: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/2107-homepage?refcode=headerbutton


To Mail -
Checks can be made payable and sent to:
Team Blue PAC
660 Pennsylvania Ave. SE #202
Washington, DC 20003

I love this - seriously.

BTW The JusticeDems have PACs too for their purpose:
https://www.aol.com/news/squad-strategists-pac-think-tank-190357516.html

Here's a link to the JusticeDems fundraising history. Those who are not aware - Zack Exley was a key person on Senator Sanders campaign in 2016. Other folks who founded JusticeDems Pac are Chakrabarti, Cenk Uygar, and Kyle Kulinski. This should take DU to the disbursements:
https://www.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?data_type=processed&committee_id=C00630665&recipient_name=middle+seat+consulting&two_year_transaction_period=2018&min_date=01%2F01%2F2017&max_date=12%2F31%2F2018

[Cha]

190. TY Gen!

[Hortensis]

203. Remembering the Pew Political Typology quiz posted here and its lessons.

It's worth looking at because some people don't seem to realize that the far left includes some factions who are as ideologically opposed and hostile to the Democratic Party as Republicans. They try to blur their identity to fool people into imagining they are us, leading to circular firing squad imaginings when they're actually outside proudly and righteously firing in.

The Pew political typology quiz included all those in what they call the Democratic coalition, i.e., people who normally vote Democratic and generally share Democratic values. Pew did not include a group for people on the left who do not fall in the Democratic coalition. Pew knows who do and who do not.

Those not included are LWers who tend to be ideologically opposed to the Democratic coalition. They're farther left, frequently radical to extremist, righteously imagine Democrats are corrupt and conservative and themselves the only true caring, moral people, usually oppose capitalism, and these days call themselves progressive. They tend to be anti-establishment -- and the Democratic establishment is the big protector of our democratic institutions. And they tend to have a problem with, and be a poor fit for, democracy because they're far too few to win elections and many too extreme to admit or accept that.

So, there is a very big difference between the very broad and diverse Democratic Party coalition and far-left anti-Democratic hostiles who both despise and covet the Democratic Party's 81M voters. And everyone here should be able to recognize them fairly easily.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/11/09/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology-2/

[Withywindle]

225. By fighting off "progressives" the party is writing off the people who should be our base

The majority of the country is financially struggling. That's just a fact. If Democrats want to win, we need to give the people working low-wage jobs REAL hope. We need to build a base of the people who work in retail, delivery, home health care, food service, agriculture, hotels, maid service, etc., all of whom are overworked and underpaid. We need to make their material conditions BETTER: better wages, better health care, better housing. We need to encourage education by not crushing young people under massive student debt they'll never be able to pay off. We need to fight to make sure reproductive rights are secured, and the very lives of Black people aren't subject to the whims of cops having a bad day.

If we aren't making people's lives better in visible tangible ways, what's the point?

[Withywindle]

226. I guess I'll probably get alerted on for this, but I have to spot a pattern

Whenever the Democrats get challenged from the left, it's an issue. Oh no we can't be associated with [super tame very popular thing like forgiving student debt], people will call us commies.

Whenever the Republicans get challenged from the right, they're like OH FUCK YEAH, this is good, we always wanted to go further right, we just couldn't say so until you stood up, thank you. See, we represent the REAL AMERICANS.

[George II]

227. Just about everyone calling for forgiving student debt knows that Biden can't...

....unilaterally do it for ALL debt. He needs legislation to do it and that was part of the promise he made that everyone is throwing back in his face, ignoring the legislation part.

However, he already has forgiven almost $20 billion for various reasons, and he has his Department of Education working on finding other ways to do it. But he needs legislation to further expand what he's working on.

11 days ago Texas Representative Vicente Gonzalez introduced H.R.6708 - "Student Loan Relief Act".

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6708?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22gonzalez%22%2C%22gonzalez%22%5D%7D&s=3&r=2

This would forgive student debt up to $25,000 for every borrower.

Amazingly none of those in the House calling for BIDEN to forgive student debt have cosponsored Gonzalez' bill.

The complete bill:

117th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 6708

To direct the Secretary of Education to cancel or repay up to $25,000 in Federal student loans for each borrower.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 11, 2022
Mr. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL
To direct the Secretary of Education to cancel or repay up to $25,000 in Federal student loans for each borrower.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Student Loan Relief Act”.

SEC. 2. WRITING DOWN BALANCES FOR FEDERAL STUDENT LOAN BORROWERS.

(a) In General.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall cancel or repay an amount on the outstanding balance due (including the unpaid principal amount, any accrued interest, and any fees or charges) on the Federal student loans of a borrower that is equal to the lesser of—

(1) $25,000; or

(2) the total outstanding balance due on such loans of the borrower.

(b) Application.—Unless otherwise requested by the borrower in writing, a cancellation or repayment under subsection (a) shall be applied—

(1) in the case of a borrower whose loans have different applicable rates of interest, first toward the outstanding balance due on the loan with the highest applicable rate of interest among such loans; and

(2) in the case of a borrower of loans that have the same applicable rates of interest, first toward the outstanding balance of principal due on the loan with the highest principal balance among such loans.

(c) Data To Implement.—Contractors of the Secretary, and holders of Federal student loans, shall report, to the satisfaction of the Secretary the information necessary to carry out this section.

(d) Taxation.—For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, in the case of any cancellation or repayment of indebtedness under this subsection with respect to any borrower:

(1) EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME.—No amount shall be included in the gross income of such borrower by reason of such cancellation or repayment.

(2) WAIVER OF INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—Amounts excluded from gross income under paragraph (1) shall not be required to be reported (and shall not be taken into account in determining whether any reporting requirement applies) under chapter 61 of such Code.

(e) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) FEDERAL STUDENT LOAN.—The term “Federal student loan” means a loan—

(A) made under part B, part D, or part E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq., 1087a et seq., 1087aa et seq.), and held by the Department of Education; or

(B) made, insured, or guaranteed under part B of the such title (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq.), or made under part E of such title (20 U.S.C. 1087qaa seq.), and not held by the Department of Education.

(2) SECRETARY.—The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of Education.

[Cha]

228. Exactly TY! The Dem Party Deals

in Reality.

Why go after PJB on Student Loans when he needs Congress to Pass it?! How is That HELPING?

Do those Going after our Democratic President Happen to Mention that YES he already has Forgiven Billion$ in Student Loans?

Or is That Ignored?

[Cha]

231. Of course, It's "an issure".. We want

to WIN! It's Vital that we WIN the MIDTERMS for Democracy!!

Yeah, and FUCK the MAGATS.. This is WHO we're NEED to BEAT BACK!!

[UT_democrat]

229. Perfect

Can't be negative about the "party" so I'll just keep quiet and watch it all crumble around us.

Merika.