"Both Bowman and Jones have advocated for adding seats to the U.S. Supreme Court to better represent working people and the common good." There is nothing in the Constitution to limit the court to 9 justices - the RepubliCons and trump regime have already played dirty numerous times to dominate the courts, and have trashed any reserve some may feel - to Hell with all of them and their right-wing “conservatism” BS!
The wins by progressives against establishment candidates and big-money are “a clear signal to the Democratic Party that voters are eager to be represented by outspoken progressives” - add to that the polls on Universal Single-Payer, a Green New Deal, and other issues and it IS a clear signal that so-far the entrenched neo-liberal wing of sellouta and Quislings hane and will continue to ignore at their peril!.
“Jamaal Bowman and Mondaire Jones are part of a new generation of progressive leaders who understand that we need to fight back aggressively against Donald Trump’s assault on our democracy” - I would add against the craven, complicit, and cowardly DINO big-money tools for “stay the course” - a course right onto the rocks!
Congratulations to all of the candidates. We have seen articles on all of the candidates except Mondaire Jones, wondering why? Many here would have contributed to his campaign, had they had the information ahead of time.
“There is no question about the direction of the Democratic Party. The voters are proudly progressive.”
What in the world does the direction of the Democratic Party have to do with what voters believe and want?
Voters overwhelmingly want M4All, but they nominated Joe Biden, who is staunchly against it. The Democratic Party has long been to the right of its voting base, has exceedingly undemocratic structures and institutions, and it isn’t about to change ‘direction’ because of a few elections.
It’s great that these candidates won their primaries, but let’s not fantasize about what the Democratic Party is.
“There is nothing in the Constitution to limit the court to 9 justices…”
True, and I have advocated increasing the court to overcome McConnell’s loading of the lower courts in the past. Unfortunately McConnell knows this too, and was talking about doing this with more Federalist candidates before they lose power in November.
The SCOTUS was set at nine members by the Judiciary Act of 1869. Changing that would require a progressive majority - not just a Democratic majority - in both houses of Congress and a progressive President or progressive veto-proof majorities in both houses.
We can thank Obama for giving the Senate to the Republicans in 2010.
CommonDreams doesn’t run articles on Lisa Savage, the Green Party candidate for the US Senate seat now occupied by Republican Susan Collins. I don’t know why.
let’s hope the old folks like pelosi, biden, schumer, take heed that the progressives are here and growing by the day! glad to be around to watch this happening!
With a lot of help from the health insurance industry who helped craft the disastrous (but better than nothing) Affordable Care Act. Had Obama even allowed a private option, the corporate-owned and controlled mainstream media would not have been able to continue to report on its unpopularity – without, of course, explaining that many who disliked Obamacare did so because they believed it did not go far enough.
CD’s theory of social change is all about electing progressive Democrats. Which means they don’t run articles on the Greens, or Socialist Alternative, nor do they run articles about groups like Cooperation Jackson or Democratic Socialists of America - outside of mention of those groups running Democratic candidates. I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen an article here about Greens, unless they were helping Democrats.
Voters want something the Clinton Administration rigged away our right to implement in the early 90s (while they were pretending to fix healthcare, they actually rigged it with a trade agreement)
So what is not rigged now, whats honest? is anything? We need to face the capture at the top with blinding truths.
I personally have major problems with politicians making promises they know are blocked by a treaty.
Why cant they tell the truth, “we traded away the right to regulate that” “the other things too”.
(In the General Agreement on Trade in Services, part of the WTO. The commitments also trade away potentially millions of good, professional jobs, if other countries contracting firms can do them cheaper. They are still working out the details, but soon those jobs may become precarious labor.)
[I’m not disagreeing, just exploring the issue.]
@Earthbound observed elsewhere that voter turnout in the South Carolina primary this year was under 20%. I looked at the numbers, and Earthbound is right. I think that a key question is Why did so many supposed supporters of M4A not vote?
dalia, do you know of any websites that do cover left-of-Democrat candidates?
They censor at the network level.
Are you saying that CommonDreams posts articles about Green Party candidates and that the ISP blocks those articles?
Didn’t you just say that Common Dreams justs post about official Democratic Party candidates?
Certainly more people could have voted; primaries usually have low turnout. But the question you pose doesn’t really get at the issue. Even SC primary voters who voted for Biden tended to support M4All.
Consider that much of Democratic Party politics is actually training voters as to the limits of ‘pragmatic’, ‘achievable’ policy. “I support universal healthcare, but… [insert reason why it will never happen].” There’s a very good discussion about this in the SC primary context at ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwnb0xParBM
Here’s exit polling from Florida, where Biden won more votes from people who considered themselves “very liberal” and who supported a government paid universal health care plan and who considered health care their most important issue, and who thought that the American economic system requires a complete overhaul, than Sanders.
So I’m not sure that more turnout would have changed the outcome, though more turnout from specific demographics (like young people) might have.
I would suggest Jacobin or Current Affairs for left views that aren’t so wedded to the Democratic Party, even though both cover elections quite heavily of late. The latter two of the four groups I listed run candidates on the Democratic line. But as far as non-Democratic candidates, you’re probably better off with local sources.
I appreciate that CD updates several times a day, and covers some current events, but the editorial perspective here is fairly narrow.
Its not the peoples opinion, an international treaty prevents all those progressive policy planks. I have a web site that covers that issue.
Do you know about the General Agreement on Trade in Services? It is part ofthe WTO. It limits what countries can do once they make commitments. Which is what we did. I can give you proof that we cannot expand Medicare right here.
~https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/10-anfin_e.htm Its right at the top.
So what we have to do is leave this agreement, via its Article XXI, until we do that, we cant do anything even remotely like Medicare for All, even the limited things we’ve done are scope and time limited and time is running out on them. They did this so they could trade jobs, like money. Thats what this deal does. To developing countries, or whomever qualified firm bids the lowest.
No, I didn’t.
Edit: zed, are you thinking of dahlia’s comment at #10?
Did you get my message? some of my posts seem to be deleted! And not just here also on Twitter. Powerful people are trying to hide the fact that the US signed away the right to do all the things Democrats want in 1994-1998 in a trade agreement, called GATS, can you please acknowledge you got this, dahlia, its important that people know this. The deal is part of the WTO…