Search Results for: progressive primary

Progressive primary for 3 candidates vying to take on Nancy Pelosi

At 6 PM PDT, this Saturday, August 17, there will be an online debate among three candidates running against Nancy Pelosi in the March 3, 2020 primary: Agatha BacelarShahid Buttar, and Tom Gallagher.  Right now, the only info we have is that you can watch it through Real Progressives on Facebook (but you should contact that site in advance). It should be available to watch online after the fact.

Real Progressives's photo.

Pelosi Challengers Debate

Public · Hosted by Real Progressives

  •  clock Aug 17 at 6 PM Pacific – Aug 18 at 8 PM Pacific
  •  pin Real Progressives P.O. Box 313, Lewisberry, Pennsylvania 17339 Show Map
  • Details

A three way debate between challengers for Nancy Pelosi’s seat in California’s 12th Congressional District. The debate will feature Agatha Baceler, Shahid Buttar, and Tom Gallagher. Please tune into Real Progressives on Saturday August 17 @ 9 pm ET/ 6 pm PT. Repeat on Aug 18 at 8 PM Pacific.

Progressive primary?

By Tom Gallagher

June 5, 2019 (tomgallaghercongress2020.org)

Last year, three candidates of the left spent $226,869 running against Nancy Pelosi in the pre-primary period. Combined with two lower-spending campaigns, candidates of the left took 22 percent of the overall vote.   Yet a Republican won second place with only 9.08 percent. Two responses seemed in order.

To avoid repeating that fiasco, I have proposed a “progressive primary,” i.e., a process designed to achieve unity and finally match a progressive Democrat with Pelosi in the November final (something that has never happened).  

A progressive primary for San Francisco?

OpEdNews Op Eds 4/2/2019 By Tom Gallagher     
Tom Gallagher and cat

When Californians approved Proposition 14 in 2010 and created an open primary system, they allowed for the possibility of two candidates of the same party facing each in a final election. Nowhere did such an event seem more likely to play out than in San Francisco, in Nancy Pelosi’s congressional district. After all, like many large American cities, San Francisco is pretty much a one-party, Democratic-voting town only more so. For instance, in the 2016 presidential primary, Hillary Clinton received 116,359 votes to Bernie Sanders’s 99,594, while all Republican candidates combined for only 16,576. And yet, while U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein faced another Democrat former California Senate President Kevin de León in last year’s final election, San Francisco’s Representative Nancy Pelosi has yet to face a similar challenge in November.

It’s not that sufficient differences to warrant such a run-off don’t exist. So far as Pelosi goes, most San Francisco Democratic voters, i.e., most San Francisco voters, seem to fall into one of two camps. When Pelosi does something clearly out of tune with her voting base such as supporting President Trump’s proposed military budget increases or backing Venezuelan Assembly President Juan Guaidó’s effort to usurp that nation’s presidency, there are those who consider such positions as relatively minor blemishes to an otherwise brilliant career that has resulted in her becoming the first female Speaker of the House and de-facto leader of the “resistance” to Trump. Others, however, tend to consider such views simply beyond the pale of appropriate representation of the city’s views. They also wonder about the things that Pelosi doesn’t do, such as co-sponsoring single-payer, Medicare-for-all legislation given that she represents a city that has supported the idea as far back as the 1994 ballot initiative that attempted to create such a system on the state level.

These divergent views would seem a logical focus of a November match-up for the office. But last year, what we got instead was a nearly meaningless run-off between Pelosi and a representative of the city’s marginal Republican Party. Why? Lack of unity among the city’s progressives, who would like to see that intra-party debate play out in a final election but have yet to master a method of making it happen. Last year, when an additional progressive Democratic challenger entered the fray in the last possible week, it meant that there were now three of them. Combined, they would draw just shy of 19 percent of the vote, compared to the Republican candidate’s slightly over-nine percent. But because there were three of them, it was the Republican who made the runoff. (A Green Party candidate drew another two percent of the vote.)

So, two years after the Bernie Sanders campaign electrified national politics by initiating a debate between the two souls of the Democratic Party, that possibility would be totally absent from San Francisco’s final election. And not only that, but the lack of unity meant that the backers of those three progressive Democrat candidates, who combined to contribute over $225,000 to their campaigns, did not see their ideas advanced in the electoral process. Instead they got an absolutely eventless runoff that no one can remember, less than half a year later.

What to do? The system will not self-correct this problem, but interested voters could. They could take matters into their own hands by insisting that any candidate aspiring to be the progressive standard bearer agree to participate in a “progressive primary,” a “cooperative caucus,” or some other method, under which all such contenders enter a process in which the winner gets the support of all. Over the years, there have been numerous efforts to create a progressive coalition or alliance in the city. This might be just the task around which one could finally take hold.

Although the next congressional primary is still nearly a year away, today’s electoral pace is such that it’s not too early to be considering the question of how San Francisco can produce a congressional race with a debate that generates news, not snooze.- Advertisement –

Tom Gallagher is a Bernie Sanders delegate elected from California’s 12th Congressional District. He is the author of “The Primary Route: How the 99 Percent Takes on the Military Industrial Complex.”

Pelosi Vocalizes Disdain for Progressives (Again). Meet Her Primary Challenger: Shahid Buttar

The Humanist ReportPublished on Apr 16, 2019

Shahid Buttar’s Campaign: https://www.shahidforchange.us/index….

Get early access to videos by supporting us on Patreon, YouTube or PayPal! Sign up here: http://www.patreon.com/humanistreport or here: http://www.humanistreport.com/support… or here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7Q4…

Progressive Caucus Rips DCCC Attack on Primary Challengers as ‘Slap in the Face of Democratic Voters’

March 28, 2019 by Common Dreams

“If this policy remains in place, it will mean that we will not allow new Ayanna Pressleys or AOCs to emerge,” said Rep. Ro Khanna

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

Rep. Ro Khanna speaks at a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, January 30, 2019. (Photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)

Leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Wednesday condemned the DCCC’s new policy of cutting off funds to primary challengers, saying the rule will shut down “competition of ideas” and alienate the party’s grassroots base.

“Primaries are often the only way that under-represented and working class people are able to have a shot at pursuing elected office.” 
—Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
“This unprecedented grab of power is a slap in the face of Democratic voters across the nation,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), the first-vice chair of the CPC, said in a statement to The Intercept after a closed-door meeting with DCCC chair Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.).

According to Politico, the meeting—also attended by CPC co-chairs Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.)—became “heated” as the progressive leaders said the DCCC’s rules would “blackball” important progressive vendors and strategists.

“It’s something even [former DCCC chair] Rahm Emanuel would not have done and is totally tone-deaf to the grassroots activists across our nation,” Khanna said. “Let’s be clear. If this policy remains in place, it will mean that we will not allow new Ayanna Pressleys or AOCs to emerge. It’s simply wrong.”

Progressive organizations responded with outrage when the DCCC unveiled the new rules last week.

The policy states that the DCCC “will not conduct business with, nor recommend to any of its targeted campaigns, any consultant that works with an opponent of a sitting member of the House Democratic Caucus.”

Despite pushback from lawmakers and the grassroots, Bustos reportedly has no plans to reverse the new standard—which could deprive progressive primary challengers of millions of dollars in funds.

“I still think it’s an open conversation,” Pocan told Politico following the meeting with Bustos. “I don’t think it’s done. I left it thinking there’s more to come.”

Progressive advocacy groups said they will not cave to the party establishment, vowing to continue challenging conservative Democrats even it means being blackballed by the DCCC.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)—who unseated Wall Street-friendly Rep. Joe Crowley in a primary last year—urged the DCCC to scrap the policy in comments to reporters on Wednesday.

“Primaries are often the only way that under-represented and working class people are able to have a shot at pursuing elected office,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “I think that it can reduce the odds of us getting really strong representation. We need to have kind of a farm system for the next generation.”

Khanna told The Intercept that “many progressives in Congress will fight until this rule is changed.”

“The DCCC is acting as a monopoly by saying that anyone who does business with them can’t do business with any competition,” Khanna said. “We stand for reform in Congress and reform of the Democratic Party machinery to make sure they prioritize our voters and the grassroots.”

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Progressives Fire Back at Buttigieg’s ‘Bad Faith’ Claim That Tuition-Free College Proposals Are Elitist

December 04, 2019 by Common Dreams

“The type of attitude that Mayor Pete Buttigieg is exhibiting here is in fact elitist in itself.”

by Julia Conley, staff writer

South Bend, Indiana mayor and Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, talks to the press after a Sunday morning service at Greenleaf Christian Church in Goldsboro, North Carolina on December 1, 2019. (Photo: Logan Cyrus/AFP via Getty Images)

Progressives and supporters of tuition-free public college plans on Wednesday denounced South Bend, Indiana Mayor and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg’s recent claim that offering a free public college education furthered an “elitist” worldview.

At a campaign stop in South Carolina on Monday, Buttigieg told the press that plans to offer public college to all Americans tuition-free push a “narrative” that one must attend college to succeed in the United States.

“Where I come from, three out of four people don’t have a college degree,” the South Bend, Indiana mayor told NBC reporter Priscilla Thompson. “And if the message we’re sending to them is that you need a college degree in order to get by in life, in order to prosper, in order to succeed, we’re leaving most Americans out.”

Buttigieg’s communications adviser, Lis Smith, added on Twitter that the plans of Buttigieg’s primary rivals, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), to make public college accessible to all Americans, represented “the height of elitism.”

Several officials on Sanders’s presidential campaign took issue with that characterization, noting that the senator’s public college proposal explicitly included tuition-free trade school enrollment, which, like two- and four-year college, would be funded by a Wall Street speculation tax.

“Bernie’s plan also explicitly eliminates existing trade school debt—and Buttigieg’s plan does not,” wrote Sanders speechwriter David Sirota in his newsletter, “Bern Notice,” on Wednesday.

Sanders has long held the position that not all Americans may want to attend a two- or four-year college, campaign spokesman Mike Casca told the Huffington Post.

“In fact, technical colleges and trade schools can be essential to the lives of working class Americans,” Casca said. “Unlike Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Bernie believes essentials should be guaranteed to all people—not just those who can afford it.”

Warren would also include technical schools in her tuition-free college plan and would invest $20 billion in apprenticeship programs for people who do not attend college.

Both plans contrast with Buttigieg’s proposal, which would offer free college tuition only to families making $100,000 or less annually. Subsidies would be offered to households making up to $150,000, but would not cover trade school enrollment.

As Common Dreams reported on Friday, Buttigieg has strived to portray Warren and Sanders as wanting middle-class families to fund the educations of wealthy Americans, an argument Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) rejected on Tuesday in an email to supporters.

Buttigieg “is focusing on the children of millionaires and billionaires who could pay for college anyway—even though that’s an incredibly slim percentage of people who attend public college in the first place,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote, adding that the mayor is engaging in “bad faith tactics.”

“A combined household income of $100,000 isn’t even ‘children of millionaires’ territory,” the congresswoman, a supporter of Sanders, tweeted last week. “That’s two parents making $50,000 each. Does that sound rich to you?”

Critics also condemned Buttigieg for suggesting that the three-quarters of South Bend residents who don’t attend college make that choice based on their values or desires rather than barriers to secondary education, particularly financial ones.

“He seems unable to comprehend that many folks can’t AFFORD college,” Sirota tweeted.

A survey of low-income high school seniors and their college counselors in Illinois found that 79 percent of students who were not attending college after high school made that choice due to “financial constraints”—the number one reason cited. More than 40 percent of the students also said they couldn’t attend college because they were obligated to financially support their families.

Another poll in 2015 by Edward Jones showed that 83 percent of Americans say they “cannot afford the expense of a college education.”

Buttigieg’s suggestion that his progressive opponents are wrong to suggest that students need a college education is also not rooted in the reality of many job-seekers’ experiences, according to polling.

A 2017 study of 26 million job postings, conducted by Harvard Business School, found that following the 2006-2008 recession—during which many job-seekers were forced to take jobs they were vastly overqualified for—employers have practiced “degree inflation,” demanding college degrees for jobs that previously wouldn’t have required them.

“In a typical middle skills job title such as production worker supervisor, we found that 67 percent of the job postings required a bachelor’s degree or higher; yet just 16 percent of workers already in that position held such a degree,” wrote researcher Joseph Fuller at Forbes.

Sanders’s senior adviser, Jeff Weaver, accused Buttigieg himself of exhibiting “elitism” in his latest argument against free public college.

“The type of attitude that Mayor Pete Buttigieg is exhibiting here is in fact elitist in itself,” Weaver said. “The reason why people aren’t going to college is because not everybody can afford to go to college.”

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

‘Heaven Help the Opposition’: Team Bernie Says Progressive Champion Emerging From Minor Heart Attack Stronger Than Ever

October 10, 2019 by Common Dreams

“He is the most effective possible weapon we have against Trump, and his presidency would be an opportunity for an unprecedented transformation of the political system.”

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) shares a laugh as he warms up before his baseball game against the Leaders Believers Achievers Foundation at the Field of Dreams Baseball field on August 19, 2019 in Dyersville, Iowa. (Photo: Joshua Lott/Getty Images)

If the emerging corporate media narrative is to be believed, Sen. Bernie Sanders’s minor heart attack last week dealt a devastating, and possibly insurmountable, blow to the Vermont senator’s bid for the White House.

“I actually feel like Bernie’s hospitalization is a sign that we have to do more to get him elected. He is the most effective possible weapon we have against Trump, and his presidency would be an opportunity for an unprecedented transformation of the political system.”
—Nathan J. Robinson, Current Affairs
But prominent campaign surrogates, advisers, and supporters in recent days have forcefully pushed back against that notion and argued Sanders—with his grassroots army as enthusiastic and motivated as ever—is well-positioned to compete for and ultimately win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

In a video statement released on Thursday, Sanders himself spoke to supporters and the American public directly about his recent heart attack and said that he’s “feeling really good and getting stronger every day.”

Thanking supporters for their well-wishes, Sanders said his recovery and rest time has allowed him to reflect on the kinds of adversity that tens of millions of Americans face each and every day.

“But at the end of the day, if you’re going to look at yourself in the mirror and you’re going to say, ‘Look, I go around once. I have one life to live, what role do I want to play?'” Sanders says in the video. “It speaks to the need to create the kind of country that we can become, where people are working hard to serve each other—to understand each other. That is the country we can become—we really can. But we have to have the courage to take on some enormously powerful special interests.”

James Zogby, a committed Sanders backer and president of the Arab American Institute, said that when the senator returns to the campaign trail after fully recovering from his heart stent procedure, he will be greeted by “an invigorated campaign with a staff and a support base that has doubled down in their efforts to make this happen.”

“We are going to have an active campaign. Instead of a breakneck series of events that lap the field, we are going to keep a marathoner’s pace that still manages to outrun everyone else.”
—Faiz Shakir, Sanders campaign manager

“Because they realize that for them—and for me—he’s the critical choice,” Zogby told HuffPost.

Speaking to reporters outside of his Vermont home Tuesday, Sanders said he plans to make adjustments to his schedule—which, before his health scare, frequently included three or four rallies per day on top of other campaign activity—to ensure he can sustain his presidential bid over the long haul.

“We’re gonna probably not do three or four rallies a day,” Sanders said, adding that he will likely attend two rallies a day.

Pundits and major media outlets quickly seized upon the senator’s remarks as evidence that he is dramatically dialing back his campaign activity or even, in the words of FiveThirtyEight‘s Nate Silver, “entering a phase where his goal is to pull the nominee to the left and/or to build a movement rather than to actually win.”

The campaign, and Sanders himself, quickly and aggressively disputed both claims.

“As Bernie said, we are going to have an active campaign,” Faiz Shakir, Sanders’s campaign manager, told Common Dreams. “Instead of a breakneck series of events that lap the field, we are going to keep a marathoner’s pace that still manages to outrun everyone else.”

In an interview with NBC News Wednesday, Sanders said he plans to “start off slower” once he hits the trail again “and build up and build up and build up.”

“We’re going to get back into the groove of a very vigorous campaign,” Sanders said. “I love doing rallies and I love doing town meetings.”

The senator also dismissed the notion that his campaign was not sufficiently transparent about his health, a line some political reporters pushed after the campaign announced last Friday that Sanders had a heart attack.

“That’s nonsense. I don’t know what people think campaigns are, you know we’re dealing with all kinds of doctors and we wanted to have a sense of what the hell was going on really,” Sanders told NBC. “So the first thing that we’re trying to do is understand what’s going on and not run to the New York Times and have to report every 15 minutes. You know, this is not a baseball game. So I think we acted absolutely appropriately.”

David Welch, a recently retired cardio rehab nurse in California who supports Sanders for president but has no affiliation with the campaign, wrote in a Common Dreams op-ed Thursday that the senator’s heart attack is not a concern for him.

Based on his 36 years as a health professional working with cardiac patients, Welch said that given what is known about Sanders’ heart attack and the stent procedure which followed, there’s no reason to be worried about his ability to return to full health and the campaign.

“Remember, those arteries had been narrowed for a long time,” writes Welch. “Even with narrowed arteries the senator has been keeping up a pace that most younger people couldn’t hope to match.  Now, they are wide open and he’s probably had no significant heart damage…  Honestly, the people who should be most worried right now are the campaign staff who will have to keep up with him now that the arteries are fully open.”

In an op-ed for CNN Wednesday, Adam Kassam and Ben Eschenheimer wrote that “of course” Sanders could still serve as president following his heart attack.

“The suggestion that Sanders should stand down and endorse another candidate because of a health condition that many Americans live and work with is not only callous, but carries a bitter flavor of discrimination,” wrote Kassam and Eschenheimer. “Indeed it scans as ableism, a shameful undercurrent that has pervaded discussions of the 2020 election, along with ageism.”

While Sanders has been off the trail for several days to rest after his procedure, his grassroots campaign operation does not appear to have lost any momentum. Last week, just hours after news of Sanders’ heart stent procedure, the campaign worked the senator’s health scare into the case for Medicare for All.

“As you see the headlines about Bernie today, send him your good vibes—and remember how important the fight for Medicare for All really is,” said Sanders speechwriter David Sirota.

“It was like a rallying cry. It was incredible. That’s the difference between having a movement as opposed to just a campaign.”
—RoseAnn DeMoro

On Tuesday, the campaign announced that volunteers made 1.3 million calls in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, California, Colorado, and Oklahoma, easily hitting their goal of a million calls over a 10-day period.

As HuffPost‘s Daniel Marans reported, the campaign surpassed its goal after experiencing “a spike in volunteers” in the wake of news last Wednesday that Sanders had been hospitalized after experiencing chest discomfort on the trail in Nevada.

The campaign said the senator also received 8,000 donations on Wednesday, just a week after team Sanders announced it raised $25.3 million from an average donation of $18 in the third quarter of 2019—the largest haul in the Democratic field, fueled by contributions from teachers and employees of Starbucks, Amazon, and Walmart.

“It was like a rallying cry. It was incredible,” RoseAnn DeMoro, former executive director of National Nurses United and prominent Sanders backer, told HuffPost of the flood of support for Sanders following his procedure. “That’s the difference between having a movement as opposed to just a campaign.”

Speaking to the Associated Press, DeMoro stressed that Sanders’s heart attack was “minor” and that the “stents will be extremely helpful in terms of blood flow.”

“I assume he’ll be far more vigorous,” DeMoro said. “Heaven help the opposition.”

For Nathan Robinson, editor of Current Affairs magazine and unabashed Sanders supporter, the senator’s health scare brought into sharp relief the urgency of nominating Sanders to take on President Donald Trump in the 2020 general election.

In an article titled “Why Bernie Has to Win,” published just days after Sanders’s hospitalization, Robinson echoed a prescient argument he made in the midst of the 2016 Democratic primary: Sanders represents the best chance to both defeat Trump and enact a transformational progressive agenda.

“I actually feel like Bernie’s hospitalization is a sign that we have to do more to get him elected,” Robinson wrote. “He is the most effective possible weapon we have against Trump, and his presidency would be an opportunity for an unprecedented transformation of the political system.”

Robinson continued:

To be honest, Bernie shouldn’t have to be exerting himself in the way he has been. Because this campaign isn’t about him. In fact, if Bernie is elected, he shouldn’t have to be doing the bulk of the work. He is a vehicle for the creation of a people’s presidency. We are not nominating him because he is a messianic leader who will solve our problems and personally guide us to the promised land. We are nominating him because his is the name we put on the ballot in order to achieve power. This campaign isn’t about Bernie Sanders, it’s about getting the Bernie Sanders agenda passed: Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, free college, workplace democracy.

“We have one last shot,” Robinson concluded. “Are we going to sit and Raise Questions from the stands or are we going to commit ourselves to making sure that this time, we do not let Donald Trump win the presidential election? Bernie will fight until his very last breath to make this a humane country that cares for its people… That’s what he will do. So what will you and I do to help?”

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Brace for impact, Washington. Progressives are going to win.

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) appear at a Democratic presidential primary debate hosted by CNN on July 30 in Detroit. (Paul Sancya/AP)

By Cenk UygurAugust 28

Cenk Uygur is the host and founder of “The Young Turks” and chief executive of TYT.

In 2016, I warned that Donald Trump could win. Right after that year’s Democratic National Convention, with Hillary Clinton peaking in the polls, I made that prediction on ABC News’s “This Week.” Several other panelists, all members of the Washington establishment, laughed. But I stuck with my view, and I told our audience on “The Young Turks” on election night: Buckle up, and brace for impact. Trump is going to be president.

Now, I have another prediction for the Washington establishment. Brace for impact: Progressives are going to win.

Why did I think Trump was going to win? Because he was a populist — a fake one, yes, but at least he was savvy enough to fake it. Whereas the Democratic Party thought it was savvy to pick the most status quo, establishment candidate it had ever picked. That was wrong then, and it’s wrong now. That thirst for anti-establishment populism is the same reason I’ve been saying from Day One in this cycle that a progressive is going to win the Democratic nomination and easily defeat Trump.

In fact, at the end of Election Day 2016, I declared that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) would destroy Trump in 2020. Now an Economist-YouGov poll puts Warren within one point of former vice president Joe Biden. A Monmouth University poll has Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at 20 percent, one point ahead of Biden. Biden’s lead in an average of polls has already crumbled since shortly after he announced in late April. And if Biden loses his lead, does anyone think he will retake it? Not a chance.

Neither Biden nor centrist Democratic leadership will simply admit defeat. They have plenty of money and plenty of sympathetic media voices to amplify their message. But do you really expect Biden to turn things around? He has already changed his entire strategy once. He makes huge gaffes day after day. While Warren and Sanders draw thousands, his audiences are far smaller. His campaign is gasping for breath, and we’re only in August. The Biden fade has begun. I’m not sure he will even be in the race by Iowa.This ad will end in 11 seconds

This South Carolina voter is still undecided. But she’s sure politicians need to do more than just court African American support during election cycles. (Joshua Carroll, Kate Woodsome/The Washington Post)

Pundits keep insisting that Americans want a moderate Democrat. They will even bring on figures such as Claire McCaskill to say this, even when they lost their seats running as moderate Democrats. Your bias has to be pretty thick not to see the irony of that. Do you really think it’s an accident that two of the top three candidates are the two biggest progressives in the country? Do you think it’s a coincidence that John Hickenlooper and John Delaney peaked at 2 percent? The electorate does not want a moderate or conservative Democrat, no matter how much the mainstream media tries to will it into existence.

This race now isn’t between Warren and Biden; it’s between Warren and Sanders. And for progressives, that’s a dream come true.

Why has so much of Washington failed to take Sanders and Warren seriously? Because almost everyone in power in Washington dislikes progressives and can’t believe that anyone else would ever like them. For years now, pundits, reporters and even Democratic leaders have struggled to figure out why young voters love Sanders so much when so few in Washington support him. It’s because for 40 straight years he has been fighting for the same principles: decent health care, good wages and more equality. Washington Democrats find that annoying, unmalleable and uncooperative. The rest of us see a hero who refuses to bend to the will of the establishment.

This is why we progressives are going to win: The rest of the country doesn’t like politicians, big business or big media. I know that’s a tough pill to swallow if you’re in those crowds, but it’s true. Politiciansbig media and big business all poll horribly.

TV pundits keep insisting that “the American people” want what they want. The commentators and the lobbyists want a standard, polished politician who will say one thing and do another. They find that strategic. Real Americans find it gross.

No one outside of the political and media establishments is buying what they’re selling. Look at the polls. Ninety-three percent of Americans say politicians serve their donors instead of the voters. Everyone loathes the corruption and the constant catering to the rich and powerful. Real wages for the average American worker haven’t gone up in 40 years. Americans are desperate for change.

We progressives are that change, whether Washington likes it or not. And when progressives come to clean up Washington, we actually mean it. Buckle up, and brace for impact.

Progressive Pelosi challengers debate

At 8 PM PDT, this Sunday, August 18, there will be a repeat of the online debate among three candidates running against Nancy Pelosi in the March 3, 2020 primary: Agatha BacelarShahid Buttar, and Tom Gallagher.  Right now, the only info we have is that you can watch it through Real Progressives on Facebook (but you should contact that site in advance). It should be available to watch online after the fact.

Real Progressives's photo.

AUG17

Pelosi Challengers Debate

Public

 · Hosted by Real Progressives
A three way debate between challengers for Nancy Pelosi’s seat in California’s 12th Congressional District. The debate will feature Agatha Baceler, Shahid Buttar, and Tom Gallagher. Please tune into Real Progressives on Sunday August 18 @ 11 pm ET/ 8 pm PT.

Debate of the three progressive candidates vs. Nancy Pelosi

At 6 PM PDT, this Saturday, August 17, there will be an online debate among three candidates running against Nancy Pelosi in the March 3, 2020 primary: Agatha BacelarShahid Buttar, and Tom Gallagher.  Right now, the only info we have is that you can watch it through Real Progressives on Facebook (but you should contact that site in advance). It should be available to watch online after the fact.

Real Progressives's photo.

AUG17

Pelosi Challengers Debate

Public

 · Hosted by Real Progressives
  • Aug 17 at 9 PM Pacific – August  18 at 8 PM Pacific
  • Real Progressives

    P.O. Box 313, Lewisberry, Pennsylvania 17339
  • Details
A three way debate between challengers for Nancy Pelosi’s seat in California’s 12th Congressional District. The debate will feature Agatha Baceler, Shahid Buttar, and Tom Gallagher. Please tune into Real Progressives on Saturday August 17 @ 9 pm ET/ 6 pm PT.