Eighteen progressive groups have signed a unity pledge vowing to keep their fire trained on the “corporate wing” of the Democratic Party amid a burgeoning feud between Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) that has split the left.

The signers include seven groups who back Sanders's 2020 presidential bid and two that back Warren's. The remaining nine groups are either supportive of both candidates, such as Democracy for America, or have not endorsed anyone yet.

The three-part pledge says the groups will “focus our fight for the nomination against candidates supported by the corporate wing, instead of fighting each other.” The groups say they’re committed to ensuring a progressive candidate wins the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination and that they’ll join forces to ensure that candidate ultimately defeats President Trump.

...“We need a bold progressive president. In our opinion, the most inspirational and electable Democrat we could nominate is Elizabeth Warren,” the Progressive Change Campaign Committee said in a statement. “We are joining this effort out of a belief that it represents leaders in the progressive movement urging everyone from campaign staff to Twitter commenters to focus on defeating a corporate, establishment Democrat like Joe Biden. This effort inherently includes standing opposed to sexism and bad-faith arguments in the primary process. We look forward to working with our friends to enforce these principles."

More at https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/478533-18-progressive-groups-sign-unity-pledge-amid-sanders-warren-feud

https://twitter.com/LibertyAndTech/status/1217619544988176384

Wednesday was a very good day to stay off the electric Twitter machine if you could arrange it. The Democratic debate on Tuesday night was decidedly cool and low-key, but the takes coming off it are flash-boiling the lakes of Naboo. Most of these are coming from supporters of varying degrees of anonymity attached to Senator Professor Warren and Bernie Sanders. There was the predictably idiotic concentration on—and overreaction to—a short episode at the end of the debate, when Warren and Sanders seemed to have an angry moment in the presence of Tom Steyer. The continuing barrage rivals only moderator Wolf Blitzer’s obvious lust for a fight between candidates and a war in the Middle East.

..Because Biden skated as thoroughly as he did, and because the other three leading candidates performed with surpassing ennui, the Warren-Sanders business is going to be what people take away from Tuesday night. I have no idea what was said during the famous conversation about whether a woman can be elected president. But the response from the Sanders supporters, especially on the electric Twitter machine, has been so hysterically over the top—Responding with snake emojis? That’s only the oldest misogynistic smear of all time, going all the way back to Genesis.—that it does make me wonder whether or not there’s something in that campaign that attracts the Democratic equivalent of the incel boys. I hope it stops soon, but I doubt that it will.

If the Sanders people want to go down in history as the campaign that kneecapped two talented, accomplished women, that’s their decision. I thought Warren recovered nicely with her bit about how she and Klobuchar were the only two people on the stage who’d never lost an election. Other than that, the debate was little more than a reminder that starting this process off in Iowa is no way to elect a president of this whole country...

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a30530883/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-feud-democratic-debate-joe-biden-skates/

I often think about sexism in politics the same way I think about how inhaling New York City air is bad for my lungs. The pollution is so revoltingly pervasive, calling it out seems futile to the point of ridiculousness. But then, every once in a while, there is an example of gender bias that is so egregious, it reveals the odorless carcinogens poisoning the air. It only makes sense that the most recent addition to the mass grave of canaries in the coal mine of the Democratic primary would be Elizabeth Warren dancing.

... Dancing is a pure expression of personality. Devoid of the political, explicit reactions to Warren’s movement on stage makes for something like a Yanny v. Laurel indicator of whether the observer might be predisposed to frequencies of distrusting women.

...In the interest of transparency, I should tell you that I paid $10 to RSVP to the rally at King’s Theater, and that I have been excited about Warren’s candidacy since I got to interview her during Rise Up For Roe two summers ago (when she stepped up to fight Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court in August 2018, before the nation met Christine Blasey Ford). In the interest of transparency, I should tell you that my heart beats for that brilliant goofball running on big, structural change and the belief that the best bet for democracy is inspiring the public to participate in it. In the interest of transparency, I should tell you that I am sick of accepting that the sexist default of political scrutiny is “just the way things are.”

The playful nerdiness of Warren’s dancing is one of the shrewdest weapons in her arsenal. Warren’s decades of experience studying and then fighting the causes of bankruptcy make her confidently authoritative to an extent that is typically unacceptable for female candidates. Instead of protecting herself with defensiveness, she insists on her right to ambition using an endless firehose of joy. Her apparently infinite energy sends up a forcefield that shock-absorbs the barrage of hatred unleashed on all women vying for power, forcing the stealthy undercurrents of sexism to expose themselves for what they truly are. To the toxic forces viciously devouring female ambition, Elizabeth Warren shrugs, and says, “Welp,” with perfect comedic timing...

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/elizabeth-warren-dance-video-brooklyn-rally-ny-campaign-a9279176.html?fbclid=IwAR1MXHZOSwTnZA5xVmAjeHqSnXq1-d6WE10xwQVEZJnDDhyngS_oBCHU7S8

https://twitter.com/DMRegister/status/1215770484429684736

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1215717695800274944

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - The idea of imposing a wealth tax on the richest Americans has elicited sharply divergent views across a spectrum of politicians, with President Donald Trump branding it socialist and progressive Democratic presidential contenders Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders prominently endorsing it.

But it may have broad public support, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that found nearly two-thirds of respondents agree that the very rich should pay more.

Among the 4,441 respondents to the poll, 64% strongly or somewhat agreed that “the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs” - the essence of a wealth tax. Results were similar across gender, race and household income. While support among Democrats was stronger, at 77%, a majority of Republicans, 53%, also agreed with the idea.

... The results may reflect how the economic changes of the past roughly 20 years, from globalization to the financial crisis, have shaped attitudes about economic policy.

According to polling by Gallup, concerns about the rich paying too little actually declined through the 1990s and early 2000s, a relative boom period for the United States. But the concerns have been climbing since the crisis years of 2007 to 2009, from 55% to more than 60% as of 2016...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-inequality-poll/majority-of-americans-favor-wealth-tax-on-very-rich-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1Z9141