The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: working families party
Here’s Why Bernie Is Courting Superdelegates

Here’s Why Bernie Is Courting Superdelegates

The delegate math does not look good for Bernie Sanders — but it may not matter.

Nearly a dozen states have yet to hold their presidential primaries and caucuses, but even between them, Sanders would have to perform exceptionally well to go into the Democratic National Convention this summer with enough pledged delegates to claim the nomination.

In a news conference Sunday, Sanders said that he expected Hillary Clinton would be in the same boat; that Democrats would end up with a “contested contest,” and that it would be up to superdelegates to decide the party’s nominee. Superdelegates supportive of Clinton, Sanders said, should consider switching to supporting him in those states where he won by a landslide.

Which is, frankly, a confusing strategy: the vast majority of superdelegates who have announced their support for either candidate are in the Clinton camp, and still more uncommitted superdelegates are Clinton supporters. While Clinton may not reach the nomination threshold with pledged delegates alone, her existing advantage among superdelegates will likely carry her to the nomination easily.

Sanders’s superdelegate campaign, meanwhile, is an awkward fit for the reform-minded former independent, and for the various progressive organizations that support his campaign. Superdelegates usually have experience in elected office, or as leaders within the Democratic Party, and this cycle has seen quite a bit of drama unfold between energetic (mostly younger) Sanders supporters and superdelegates committed to supporting Clinton. Now Sanders wants their votes?

“MoveOn members believe that superdelegates are fundamentally undemocratic and should be abolished,” MoveOn.com Washington Director Ben Wikler said in an email, when asked about that tension. “That’s why hundreds of thousands of us have signed petitions urging them to not override the will of the voters. For now, though, superdelegates are part of the system, so of course both candidates are going to court them for endorsements.”

Another prominent progressive coalition to endorse Sanders, Democracy for America, has multiple online petitions urging voters to pressure superdelegates into supporting him.

“Join Robert Reich and Democracy for America in calling on all Democratic Party superdelegates to pledge to support the popularly-elected winner of the nomination,” one reads, with boxes for an email address and zipcode below.

Hypocrisies aside, it’s hard to fault Sanders for trying to maintain his campaign’s momentum in these final three months: seemingly every week he stays in the race, the Democratic establishment is nudged further to the left, lest they risk acenlienating his supporters.

“One of the incredible things in Sanders’s candidacy has been watching the Democratic Party become more progressive before our eyes,” said Ari Kamen, New York state political director of the Working Families Party (and the author’s second cousin). “We’re seeing things that were once totally anathema or not part of mainstream conversation now becoming the centerpiece, whether it’s expanding voting rights laws, a $15 minimum wage… these things are suddenly now mainstream Democratic tenets.”

“Our hope is that you see the culmination of that in a Democratic platform that embraces single-payer healthcare, that embraces tuition-free college, that embraces a $15 minimum wage.”

Hillary Clinton has responded unenthusiastically to such demands — “I didn’t say, ‘You know what, if Senator Obama does x, y and z, maybe I’ll support him'” in 2008, she reminded Rachel Maddow last week — but her campaign would be ill-advised to ignore the growing number of Democrats who see the convention as an opportunity to air party grievances: most Democrats polled say they want Sanders to continue his campaign until the convention.

“One of the things that we will be fighting for on the platform, whether he’s the candidate or not, is electoral reform,” Jane Sanders said in an interview recently with CNN. “The process needs to change. We need an open electoral system, same-day registration and open primaries.”

Her husband had a similar message at a rally last week in Indiana: “We are in this campaign to win, but if we do not win, we intend to win every delegate that we can so that when we go to Philadelphia in July, we are going to have the votes to put together the strongest progressive agenda that any political party has ever seen.”

In other words: we’re playing by the party’s rules, so that we get a chance to change them.

Photo: Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders holds a campaign rally in San Diego, California, in this file photo taken March 22, 2016.     REUTERS/Mike Blake/Files

Why Mike Bloomberg Will Probably Skip A Third-Party Presidential Candidacy (Again)

Why Mike Bloomberg Will Probably Skip A Third-Party Presidential Candidacy (Again)

When the New York Times reported that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is drawing up plans for a potential independent candidacy for president, speculation about how his entry might scramble the 2016 race seized the spotlight. Yet this was déjà vu all over again — at almost exactly the same point in the presidential primary process eight years ago — on December 31, 2007 – the Times broke a very similar story about the then-Mayor’s equally intriguing dalliance with an independent candidacy.

Back then, Bloomberg was said to be motivated by the opening in the political center supposedly provided if the major candidates were Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee; this time he apparently sees daylight in a possible Bernie Sanders-Donald Trump match-up.

As someone who has reported and researched independent political movements for years, count me among those who continue to doubt that Bloomberg will actually run — once he looks hard (again) at the actual obstacles to victory.

Third-party challenges used to be a lot more viable in American politics. The Republican Party was originally a “third party,” and its candidate Abraham Lincoln benefited from a four-way race for the presidency in 1860. Lincoln won both because the slavery issue was undermining all the incumbent parties, and because back then it was far easier for new parties to nominate their own slate of candidates and get them on the ballot.

All the members of a new party needed do was to convene, nominate candidates, and then print and distribute their ballots to potential voters. That method allowed new parties to arise quickly. They could avoid the “spoiler” problem by cross-endorsing candidates of existing parties when that was strategically useful, or running their own contenders whenever they wanted to.

The cross-endorsement option, which is called “fusion voting,” was later outlawed by Democratic- or Republican-controlled legislatures in most states, part of a wave of changes that centralized control of the ballot in the hands of the state and began the entrenchment of our two seemingly permanent major parties. Actually, fusion never went away in New York (which regularly has five to six functioning parties represented on the ballot and sees about 20 percent of the statewide vote go to lines other than the Democrats or Republicans) and is experiencing a bit of a revival as the Working Families Party, its chief current proponent, expands nationally with a base in labor.

In recent decades, a handful of independent or third-party candidates have managed to win office at the state level. Think of Connecticut’s Lowell Weicker or Minnesota’s Jesse Ventura, who won governorships; or Maine’s Angus King or Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, elected independent US Senators from their states. Those victories occurred under conditions that were far less hospitable than those that lifted Lincoln, but it isn’t hard to tease out what worked: In each case, the independents had easy access to the ballot; substantial media coverage (including participation in televised debates with the other major candidates), and sufficient funding to be competitive.

Today, a potential third-party presidential candidate faces a much steeper climb. Some states have arbitrarily high signature requirements merely to get on the ballot, a privilege that they automatically confer on Democrats and Republicans. Worse, there’s no guarantee that third-party candidates will be included in the presidential debates, since the Commission on Presidential Debates (which is run by Democratic and Republican party apparatchiks) has set an arbitrarily high bar of 15 percent in national polling before it will include additional candidates–and one or both of the major candidates might drop out of those debates were a third candidates to be included.

Money is also a huge obstacle, though the possibility of someone getting tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in small donations no longer seems that far-fetched in the age of the Internet and Kickstarter.

None of this is to say that a third-party candidate can’t have an impact even in losing. Ross Perot effectively shifted the national debate to his pet issue–deficit spending–with his maverick campaign in 1992. In the past, third parties have succeeded by getting their concerns and ideas co-opted by one or both of the major parties. It was third parties that first introduced such reforms as the direct election of Senators, unemployment insurance, and women’s suffrage, for example.

But if we wanted to make it easier for third-party candidates to compete effectively in the race for the White House, we’d insist on much easier access to the ballot for candidates who can demonstrate a baseline of broad support; a lower barrier to entry to the debates (say, 50% of the public saying they want to hear from candidate X, rather than a popularity ranking); and a revival of public matching funds, for starters.

The Electoral College remains a much bigger obstacle, of course, and today it must be said that the likeliest effect of a muscular third-party bid by someone like Bloomberg would be to prevent any candidate from gaining an electoral vote majority, throwing the contest into the House of Representatives, where each state delegation would have one vote. From the point of view of representative democracy, that is a nightmare scenario. It would be far better if we first adopted the “National Popular Vote” solution, where every state would give its electoral votes to the candidate getting the most overall votes nationwide. (Eleven jurisdictions controlling a combined 165 electoral votes have already agreed to do so, once states comprising at least 270 votes join the compact.)

Still, there’s a reason why a Donald Trump versus Bernie Sanders election looks so tempting for an avowed centrist like Bloomberg. Neither Trump nor Sanders are from the mainstream of their respective parties. Trump has previously voted Democratic and dallied with running as candidate of Ross Perot’s Reform Party back in 1999-2000. Sanders is still not a registered Democrat in his home-state of Vermont, where has long defined himself as a socialist and an independent. Trump and Sanders actually best represent the shadow wings of each of the major parties–the outsider caucuses where people with less money and no great love for their party’s establishment have clustered.

Until we change the underlying rules of the electoral game, making it more open to challengers and ending the perversely undemocratic impact of the Electoral College, the odds of a short, Jewish, divorced, autocratic , pro-choice, anti-gun 73 year-old billionaire seem roughly as long as the New York Jets winning the Super Bowl.

Micah L. Sifry, the co-founder of Civic Hall, is the author of numerous books, including Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America.

Zephyr Teachout’s Candidacy Part Of The Rising Left In America

Zephyr Teachout’s Candidacy Part Of The Rising Left In America

After decades of political dormancy, the progressive left has again emerged as a powerful force in American politics. Leading the resurgence in New York is Zephyr Teachout, a Fordham University law professor who unsuccessfully challenged Andrew Cuomo during the 2014 gubernatorial race. Last week she announced that she will run for a congressional seat upstate where the Republican incumbent, Chris Gibson, will not seek re-election.

“Washington is broken. Big corporations are getting their way and it’s impossible to get things done for people,” Teachout told The National Memo. “Normal people lost their voice. I’m running for people whose voices have been locked out.”

Although she is running for the Democratic nomination in the state’s 19th Congressional District, Teachout’s candidacy goes beyond ordinary partisan politics. Her most important endorsement so far comes from the Working Families Party (WFP), a labor-backed, progressive party that supports left-leaning Democrats in the general election with an additional ballot line.

“‘A Democrat that can win is what we need’ — I think that resonates with the 19th district. Absolutely,” said Elliott Auerbach, the WFP-backed comptroller of Ulster County, which is in the 19th district.  “Not only is she a Democrat who can win, I take the stand that she is a Democrat that we need.”

The 19th Congressional District is home to 700,000 residents spread across 11 distinct counties; colleges dot the area, along with many farms and orchards; and New York City residents, who lean toward Democratic and progressive candidates, have been moving into the district in increasing numbers. “There’s been this huge migration of Brooklyintes and Manhattanites coming up here,” Auerbach said, explaining that the proximity of so many Republicans and Democrats in one area has led to a less polarized district compared to the polarization seen at the national level.

“Economic policy is central. These are areas that are really struggling. Broadband, transportation, healthcare, those are some universal demands and concerns throughout the district,” she said. “More broadly, support for small businesses and family farms is an issue.”

Teachout’s message bears a strong resemblance to that of Bernie Sanders (I-VT), even if she denies it — and they both hail from the Green Mountain State. Like Sanders, she is focused on fighting corporate influence and big donors. “I think the biggest thing is my history of standing up to big corporations, standing up, speaking my own mind and raising other people’s voices,” she said. “I think those are the most important qualifications.”

Ulster County legislator Jennifer Schwartz Berky, who was also backed by the WFP, praised Teachout’s qualities as a candidate. “She connects with people, is very personable, and explains her point of view without platitudes,” she said. “I don’t think [her popularity] was just because of discontent with Cuomo, although some of that was in play and she cuts through the nonsense, to use a safe term.” Berky said she voted for Teachout during the 2014 gubernatorial race.

Her Republicans opponents have attempted to portray her as part of the “looney left,” campaigning on ideas practically Marxist in nature. “She may be a fringe candidate, but she’s bold and I have a word of caution for Republicans of the 19th district: Don’t get Berned,” said Bob Bishop in a release posted on Facebook, a farmer and one of the Republicans vying for the nomination in the 19th District. “In today’s political environment, if we run a career politician or a candidate closely tied to Wall Street, Zephyr Teachout will win in November.” Bishop, who has been described as a political newcomer, is running against John Faso, minority leader in the New York State Assembly, and Andrew Heaney, a businessman.

Teachout was undaunted by the comments. “I think they are probably just replying to my funny name. I think you just need to look at my record,” she said. “I’m talking about pretty bread and butter issues.”

Teachout is also a political outsider. She has positioned herself as someone with ideas outside the political mainstream, namely advocating for publicly-financed elections and a tax on stock transfers to help pay for education funding. But she has to win election in a district that’s evenly split between Democratic and Republican voters.

Still, she may have an advantage in wooing voters with weak partisan loyalty. Many registered voters in the district have voted for the opposing party, which is one of the reasons Democrats think they can win the 19th district this year. “It’s a little more Republican-leaning, but I think Zephyr brings to the table an intelligent way of seeing the needs of the district and I think that will translate nicely in the general election,” said Auerbach.

Anti-Corruption Activist Zephyr Teachout, Who Once Faced Cuomo For NY Governor, Running For Congress

Anti-Corruption Activist Zephyr Teachout, Who Once Faced Cuomo For NY Governor, Running For Congress

Zephyr Teachout, the anti-corruption activist, author, and Fordham Law School professor Zephyr Teachout, announced this week that she is running for an open congressional seat in upstate New York.

Her announcement was issued in an email from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) and the Working Families Party, the progressive, labor-backed third party that was founded in New York and has branched out to at least nine other states. Teachout is running in New York’s 19th Congressional District, currently represented by moderate Republican Chris Gibson, who is retiring because of his belief in term limits. While the district has voted Democratic in recent presidential elections,  most of its Congressional representatives over the past 20 years have been Republican. A week ago, Teachout met with party leaders and got the nod from a majority of the Democratic county chairs in the district.

The 19th District is located in the Hudson Valley, a predominantly rural expanse that runs from Poughkeepsie to Albany, without incorporating either city into its jurisdiction. Teachout is hoping to capture the seat, riding on the same wave of anti-establishment politics that has powered the insurgent presidential candidacy of Bernie Sanders. Her criticism of American politics often sounds like the Vermont senator, focusing on corporate campaign financing, as some of her writing reveals.

“Private financing is an incredibly insane system…every private financing system leads to radical distortions of power,” she told The American Prospect last year. “You’re not an anti-corruption candidate if you’re not talking about public financing.”

While Teachout is concerned with the toxic consequences of big money in politics, she also understands the racial dimensions of the phenomenon. “If you want to understand why politicians are so unbelievably silent repeatedly, year after year, on serious and obvious issues of race — one of the reasons is that their donors are white, and pretty rich,” she said.

She has started off her campaign with support from the Working Families Party, whose nomination she lost to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in 2014, and the PCCC, which previously supported Teachout in that gubernatorial race.

She currently lives in Dutchess County, parts of which are within the 19th District.

In November, Teachout could face any one of a number of Republicans, including former Assembly minority leader John Faso, who leads the field. But it was Bob Bishop, a former farmer now running for the Republican nomination in the 19th district, who leaped to the attack. “With Dr. Teachout in the race, New York Republicans have the chance of a lifetime to expose the bankrupt ideas of the loony left. She advocates some of the craziest progressive ideas on record — from abortions at nine months to socialized health care to raising taxes higher than the Catskills.”

But Teachout has never advocated for third trimester abortions. She was simply uncompromising in the inclusion of an abortion clause in New York state’s Women’s Equality Act, not advocating for abortions at nine months. On taxes, she is for a “strong and fair financial services tax,” which could bring in at least $10 billion by expanding the stock transfer tax, revenue that she says could be used to plug the shortfall in state education funding.

Meanwhile, the Democrats haven’t named a candidate since Ulster County Executive Mike Hein decided he was not going to run for the seat. Even as she declared her candidacy, Teachout showed that she has sufficient name recognition and local support to launch a competitive campaign.

Photo: Zephyr Teachout speaks outside Tweed Courthouse, Manhattan in 2014. Flickr/Michael Johnson