Bold Progressives Drafted Elizabeth Warren - Let's Keep Doing That

[polichick]

Last edited Sun Nov 3, 2013, 11:20 AM - Edit history (1)

From The Nation's Progressive Honor Roll in 2011:

MOST VALUABLE CAMPAIGN: Draft Elizabeth Warren

After President Obama decided not to fight to make Elizabeth Warren the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the agency she had conceived and gotten off the ground, most of official Washington assumed she would return to Harvard and teach law. But the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and National Nurses United had another idea: they wanted Warren to run for the Senate from Massachusetts. The PCCC push, and an early endorsement from the nurses, created an old-fashioned draft campaign. And it worked. Warren announced her candidacy on September 14. She is now one of a quartet of Democratic women—which includes Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin, Hawaii’s Mazie Hirono and North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp—whose economic populist campaigns hold out the hope that the Senate could be occupied by servants of the people, instead of what Senator Robert La Follette once dismissed as “the feudal serfs of corporate capital.”

http://www.thenation.com/article/165314/progressive-honor-roll-2011#

http://boldprogressives.org/


LET'S STOP BUYING THE CORPORATE CANDIDATE CON AND DRAFT POPULIST CANDIDATES, INCLUDING A PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY CANDIDATE!

(Please join Bold Progressives, if you haven't aready.)

[beachbum bob]

1. ya, elizabeth warren has as much chance as a ralph nader

and you know what 2000 election gave america. So if you want to have the govt on republican control support candidates that have no chance nationally.

Ideologues on the Left and Right do not serve america so well

[Zorra]

2. So true, Bob. Only Third Way candidates can be elected! It's the Law.

[coldmountain]

9. Liberals sitting out elections or voting for Nadir made the DLC and Tea party possible

The world sure would have been a better place if Nadir and his useful idiots didn't convince so many there was no difference between Bush/Cheney and Gore

[polichick]

14. The world sure would be a better place if useful Dem idiots didn't buy into...

the con that continues to bring us "leaders" who represent corporations and the 1%.

[Zorra]

16. [phone]

[beachbum bob]

33. until big money is 100% removed

there is little choice. I don't accept voting for an ideology so an idiot like a george w bush could be elected. I know many principled progressives that to this day refuse to acknowledge their actions and those just like them allowed 2000 election to happens as it did. Sorry to say, but you gotta play with what you are dealt and right now supporting candidates that have no hope to be elected is giving elections to those (gop/teaparty types) that can only bring more damage either on national, state or local elections. Elizabeth Warren is a hell of woman and she won in a very liberal state with I think 52% or 53% of the vote. To think she could elevate to a national candidate is a bit silly. We could use more just like her at state and local levels.

But the big game, we have candidates that can win otherwise we will have more george w bush types. A political disaster for generations to come.

[polichick]

34. What do you have against an org. like Bold Progressives trying to change a rigged game?

[RandiFan1290]

51. You should learn more about the election of 2000

My vote for Gore was not counted in Palm Beach County because the "democrats" were too weak to fight for it.

I didn't sit out any vote. The "democrats" in the Senate did when they refused to stand up for my vote.

[pa28]

41. Bob is very very sensible.

[brooklynite]

3. I think the OP is referring to Senate and House candidates

...if not, this is a huge waste of time since Warren is supporting Hillary Clinton for President.

[polichick]

7. I think progressives should choose a pres. primary candidate early too, not nec. Warren

[Kermitt Gribble]

8. Elizabeth Warren is an "Ideologue"? eom

[xchrom]

4. du rec.

[99Forever]

5. I will only vote for actual progressives, myself.

No worthless "moderates," Blue Mutts, DINOs, or Turd Way pretenders for me.

It is not negotiable.

[polichick]

11. imo that's the attitude we need to have...

And we need to draft or get behind someone who expresses an interest very early, including for the presidential primary - make it clear that liberals/progressives aren't going to buy whatever corporate candidate the party dishes up.

[MineralMan]

6. An excellent idea. State and District

legislative elections are local elections, and this definitely can work in them. For the Presidential election, however, it's not as effective, unfortunately. But, the President is not really as important as the Congress, nationally. And the Governor's election is not as important in most states as the legislature is.

Changing legislatures is how we can move progressives into office. Minnesota Democrats took back control of our state legislature in 2012, after losing it in 2010. That's why I work in legislative elections, not the Presidential election. They matter more and are more able to elect populist progressive candidates to office.

[coldmountain]

10. Exactly right, I wish more liberals understood this

[MineralMan]

13. Thanks. At least on DU, the focus is on the Executive most of the time.

And we have seen very clearly how the Executive can be unable to function when the legislative branch wants to stop a President.

In our system, legislatures make all laws. Executives can only veto ones they dislike. That means that the real power lies in the legislative branch. Until we recognize that and focus strongly on creating a progressive legislature in our states and nationally, we will continue on the path that has led us to today.

All politics is local. That has never been more true. It is in our local elections, state legislative districts, congressional districts, and the U.S. Senate where we must make the changes that are needed, and our candidates must be chosen from those who can win those local district and state elections. If we don't understand that, we will continue to have legislatures that can block all progressive movement.

I live next door to Michele Bachmann's district. That district CAN be won by a Democrat in 2014. Not by a progressive Democrat, but by a Democrat who will vote with the Democratic caucus most of the time. A Republican will vote with the Democratic caucus NONE of the time. I think I'll work to elect a Democrat who can win in that district.

My own district is secure for progressivism, so I'll work on my neighboring district's election.

[polichick]

12. I think we need to get behind someone for the pres. primary too - do it early and...

make it clear that liberals/progressives are done with corporate candidates - on all levels.

[MineralMan]

15. You're more than welcome to do that.

However, it's unlikely to succeed. Whoever is the Democratic candidate for President will not be selected by me or you. So, I'll vote for whomever that turns out to be. I'm going to be working on local district elections. There, I actually can do something. I have only so much money and time, so I'm going to put it where it can have an actual effect.

As it turns out, my Congressional and state legislative districts are securely progressive, so I'm going to be working hardest in my neighboring district, which currently has Michele Bachmann as its representative. We can elect a Democrat of some sort to that seat, but I can assure you that a Democrat who can win there will not be anyone you'd call progressive. However, that Democrat will vote with the Democratic caucus, and that's way better than a Republican from that district.

I deal in reality. You're welcome to tilt at any windmills you may encounter. I don't have time for that.

[polichick]

17. Bold Progressives is hardly "tilting at windmills" - progressives need...

to stick together in order to elect good populist candidates. Hopefully the organization will include the pres. primary coming up.

Keep supporting whatever corporate tool the party dishes up - but I'll say no thanks.

[MineralMan]

26. They were operating in a single state.

Local organizations can affect single states. Nationally, nobody has heard of those organizations, and they don't affect Presidential nominations very much.

I can be a delegate to my state convention. I haven't a prayer of being a delegate at the national convention. Too many people ahead of me for that. So, I work on a state and district level. You might do something different, and I think you should go for it. But, if you're trying to draft a Presidential candidate who has said she will not run, then you're not going to succeed. When the candidate you want has already endorsed another candidate, you have heard her opinion.

Each of us chooses at which level we will try to make things happen. I've chosen the one where I can actually make a difference. Your choice might be different.

[polichick]

31. Bold Progressives have almost a million members and growing...

They have never tried to "draft a Presidential candidate who has said she will not run" - so far they haven't drafted or gotten behind anyone at that level, but I hope they will.

[MineralMan]

39. Bold Progressives are very active in state legislative and

other campaigns. You only have to look at their website to see that. Like all political groups that actually get something done, they're focusing strongly on legislative elections and candidates.

Are they going to focus on the Presidency? I don't know, but they are doing a great job working on Congressional races around the country. I'm sure they'll be focused strongly on that through 2014, as well.

And good for them. They succeeded with Elizabeth Warren, and I hope they do the same everywhere they take an interest.

It looks to me like they're working in the districts with grassroots efforts. That's the same thing I'm recommending.

[polichick]

40. Right - and I'm recommending they take it to the next level...

As a member of the organization, I'll push for that.

[MineralMan]

42. And if they decide to stick to legislative races?

From my own point of view, there is nothing more important than the makeup of Congress. Not the President. Nothing. We've seen the result of a Congress that obstructs. We get a chance to change that every two years. I can't think of anything more important right now than gaining control of Congress in 2014. Not a single thing more important than that, in my opinion.

Once the 2014 election is over, I'll start thinking about the 2016 election, again, primarily from a Congressional and state legislature point of view.

Why? Because the Republicans gained control of both houses of the Minnesota state legislature in 2010. The result was disastrous. We had, for example, a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2012 that would have made marriage equality almost impossible. Finally, Democrats in Minnesota got the picture, and we regained control of both houses again in 2012 and voted down that amendment, along with a voting restriction amendment. In 2013, our new Democratic legislature passed a marriage equality bill and the Governor signed it. We retained our open elections in Minnesota, too, and restored funding to our schools.

That's the kind of difference I'm working toward. And that's just one state. We stand an excellent chance of picking up a couple of Congressional seats in 2014, too, and both of our Senators are sure to be Democrats again. A lot of the reason for that is that we turn out our Democratic voters in large numbers.

The President? I campaigned for President Obama, too. He got elected. But I know for a fact that I had very little to do with that. However, I did help a progressive state senator win election and helped convince an anti-labor state senator in that district to drop out of the race. All of that happened in our local district convention and caucus system.

I know what change I can work to make, and it all happens at the state and district level. My opinion of who the candidate for President should be is completely irrelevant. My opinion of these local elections and candidates is not irrelevant. So, I put my energy where it will be relevant.

Your organization is doing the same things. And they're being very successful with that. They may decide that is the best way to proceed. On a national level, nothing is more important than the makeup of Congress, in my opinion. Nothing.

[polichick]

43. No reason not to do both. The president has veto power and chooses justices...

For those reasons alone, liberals/progressives should choose our pres. primary candidate early.

[MineralMan]

44. That's fine. Choose whomever you wish.

That's how the system works. Then, we'll see who the final candidate ends up being, once all of the delegates from all of the states are selected. It's a complicated system, and it's one that generally picks a candidate that has a chance of being elected. Not always, of course, but usually.

I still remember the 1972 election. That one worked out badly for Democrats, despite my strong support for the candidate. I learned then that actually electing a President is a lot harder than electing my district's House member and my state's senators. And those elections are harder than elections for state legislators. I discovered that I could make a significant difference in those elections, but had no real voice in a national election.

I supported George McGovern in 1972, and heartily. I worked on his campaign in California. He lost badly. I never want to see something like that happen again. Any Democratic candidate who gets the nomination should be one who can win. No more guaranteed losers should ever be nominated.

[polichick]

45. It's not complicated for no reason - it's a rigged system...

...and it's rigged to ensure that corporations and the 1% are well represented.

Almost anytime someone around here talks about "a candidate that has a chance of being elected" they mean the one anointed by the powers that be. But we, the people are supposed to be the powers that be.

[MineralMan]

47. And who do you think can change that system?

Congress. That's who. There is no other body that can change things like that.

So, my point stands. Congress is the most important part of our system. State legislatures are the second most important. The Executive branch is important, but can really do nothing without a Congress or legislature that will send them the bills that make the changes.

Nothing is as important as the makeup of Congress and state legislatures. Nothing.

Elect progressives to lead Congress and your state legislature and the changes will occur. Ignore those offices and no executive can accomplish the changes that are needed.

Bottom line.

[polichick]

49. Sure Congress is important and so is the presidency. Bottom line.

[Revanchist]

18. Could that be considered the "trickle up" theory of politics

As you elect more and more progressives at the local and state levels that influences the candidate choices at the Congressional, and ultimately, the presidential level? Might take some time but it could be an effective strategy in the long run.

[polichick]

19. Do we have that kind of time, when 1% have aleady taken so much...

and climate change rages on?

imo we have to do focus on top and bottom at the same time.

[coldmountain]

20. Actually it's the only strategy

look at what the Republicans have been able to do with less voters but with more focus on local elections.

[MineralMan]

27. It has always been an effective strategy. We just forget to do it sometimes.

We get distracted and focus on races we cannot influence much. And we get the candidate for President we get. I caucused for Obama in both elections, but it wasn't my decision to make. At the state convention, delegates to the national convention are selected, and I'm not someone who will get to be a national delegate. Not even in my wildest dreams. I can be a state delegate, though, and a district delegate. And I always am.

[tabbycat31]

22. In many states and districts

There is not even more than one person willing to step forward and put his/her name on the ballot. Hence the Democrats only have one candidate to run for office.

I have worked on five different elections as a staffer (federal senate, recall of state senator, state senate, congress, state senate). I would prefer to work downballot than on a presidential (I turned down an offer from OFA last year-- I went to Southwest VA instead of Las Vegas).

I can only speak for my own state (NJ) that has nominating conventions in March (this year it was February) to decided who is going to run for the seats. In all but one of the several (four legislative districts, three county races) races on the ballot, only one had more than one person running for it at the convention (three people wanted the nominee for two assembly seats).

If more people on DU stopped focusing on nominating Elizabeth Warren for president in 2016 (she has said she does not want to run) and focus on their local parties, we could get more progressive. But it begins at the local level, not the presidential level.

[polichick]

23. Many DUers are active locally (I've been wherever I've lived) but that's not...

what people come to DU to talk about.

imo we need bottom-up and top-down involvement. At this point it's critical for liberals/progressives to join together so that the party doesn't take us for granted - so I hope Bold Progressives does get involved at the pres. primary level too.

[MineralMan]

29. That's what I come to DU to talk about.

And I do talk about it. So, you're talking about some people who come to DU and I'm talking about others. We're not at odds. We're just focused on different levels of government.

[polichick]

32. I was thinking of the General Discussion forum.

[MineralMan]

35. So was I. It's "General" Discussion.

I frequently discuss participating in local politics as a means of making change. It's not "Presidential Politics" Discussion. People discuss all sorts of things in GD. It seems to me that's the way the forum is designed to work.

[polichick]

36. That's cool - just don't assume that people who come to DU to talk about...

national issues aren't active in local races - many are and have been for decades.

[MineralMan]

38. I don't assume anything about anyone.

I just let them speak for themselves. Sometimes I agree, and sometimes I don't.

I don't know you or anyone else on DU on any sort of personal basis. So, I only have what you write on DU on which to base my knowledge of you. That's fine with me. Write and I'll read and comment. That's what this place is for, if I understand the admins statements about DU.

[coldmountain]

24. If the people will lead the politicians will follow

[MineralMan]

25. I agree with you. Finding great candidates for our legislative and other

elections is one of the best things we can do. I'll be voting for whichever Democratic candidate gets the nomination for President. Nothing I can do will affect that, but I can affect my local districts, and have done so in the past.

Down-ticket Rules!

[tabbycat31]

46. I've followed your posts before

And I wish more DUers would be more like you in terms of being active at the local level.

Another thing to consider (and I'll throw a baseball reference in since I'm a baseball fan)--- local elected officials are the farm system for state legislatures and Congress. I've been to districts where there is literally no bench and a Some Dude (to use a Daily Kos Elections term) is the candidate with no name ID or fundraising ability. If the Some Dude is Mayor Some Dude, Councilman Some Dude, etc, it makes it a much easier race as Some Dude has a record and title to run on.

[MineralMan]

48. Thank you. I used to focus on Presidential elections, but

learned that my participation in those made little to no difference. I then learned that I could actually make a difference locally, so I shifted my activism to the local level. It has worked on many occasions. The most recent success was getting the third place state senate candidate elected in the primary and then in the general. Working with many others, we booted the incumbent by withholding the party's endorsement. Without that, he withdrew, leaving the seat open. A strong grassroots GOTV effort won the general election for the candidate I supported at the precinct caucus level, despite his being in third place at the district convention, which did not make an endorsement.

Local politics. At that level, change can happen in a single election. It's where change begins.

[mother earth]

21. Absolutely! We have to stop buying into the BS, we have to be the change we seek...let it start.

K & R

[polichick]

28. So many right here at DU still buy the BS - sort of amazing the way it all works...

The party serves up their latest corporate choice and all the Dem pawns scurry into action to get him or her elected. At least Bold Progressives gives us an opportunity to make a different choice.

[leftstreet]

30. DURec

[Scuba]

50. Count me in.

[polichick]

52. Thanks! Nice to find a way for liberals to have an impact these days.

[woo me with science]

53. K&R