Congressional PROGRESSIVE Caucus INCREASES PLURALITY In Next Congress

[Segami]

:applause:



" As David Swanson noted on Wednesday:
<http://www.antemedius.com/content/job-party>


You may have heard that our center-right nation got enthusiastic, formed a grassroots movement called a tea party, and overwhelmingly voted in a more rightwing party, sending hordes of nasty socialists packing as a result of their overly progressive performance, meaning gridlock between the righteous Congress and the infidel president for the next two years.


There are some problems with this story, beginning with the fact that it's completely false.

...
As Karen Dolan blogged about immediately after Tuesday's elections, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus -- over 80 members -- lost only 3 seats. The Cut-Spending-Except-For-Killing Blue Dogs had 54 members and lost 26 of them, and those 26 were their true believers. Congress members, including one or two real progressives, didn't lose by being progressive but by being Democrats. Alan Grayson was defeated by the largest investment of corporate money in any House race, but the obedient corporatist Democrat in the next district over lost too. And this was despite the Democratic Party funding and supporting the Blue Dogs, leaving the progressives to raise their own money.

Tea Party candidates, in contrast to progressives, did not have a successful day on Tuesday. Their nominees' craziness cost the Republican Party control of the Senate. Yet the whole corporate-funded smoke-and-mirrors "movement" of the Tea Party pushed the Republican Party as a whole to the right, in a way that no well-funded institution has pushed the Democrats to the left or even tried to.

And this is the key lesson: pushing the Democrats to the left would save them from themselves.


On Thursday Amy Goodman at Democracy Now spoke with CPC Co-Chair Raul Grijalva about the CPC not only holding it's own with a loss of only 4 seats in the mid terms, but coming out of the elections holding the relative largest plurality of all groups in Congress.


The Democrats lost the majority in the US House of Representatives in Tuesday’s midterm elections, but what is the makeup of the new Democratic House caucus? The conservative Blue Dogs lost half their members, while the Progressive Caucus remains near eighty. We speak to its co-chair, Rep. Raúl Grijalva, who appears to have retained his seat in a close election in Arizona’s 7th Congressional District. Over the past year, Grijalva has received numerous threats, including having a suspicious package covered in swastikas sent to his office and having a bullet shot through his district office in Yuma, Arizona.




Video and transcript:

<http://www.antemedius.com/content/congressional-progressive-caucus-increases-plurality-next-congress>

.

[Howler]

1. Wish I could give more recs. n/t

n/t

[Segami]

2. I wish I could do the same.

[BzaDem]

3. Um, progressives won because they were in safe districts. Blue dogs lost because they were in McCain

districts.

You can definitely have a cohesive caucus in the House as long as you are a powerless minority. (Though I think more and more that many here would much rather have a cohesive permanent minority than a less cohesive majority.)

[kelly1mm]

6. +1. Sometimes I think DU won't be happy till the only non R's in congress

are Rep. Kucinich and Sen. Sanders. (and funny, Sen. Sanders is not even a Democrat!)

[patrice]

4. Whom do they want for Minority Leader?

[EFerrari]

5. Kick

[patrice]

7. K & R

[kctim]

8. Um, suuuuurrrrre

MAYBE when progressives actually run against Republicans in RED districts and WIN, you might have a valid point.
Until then, you are only fooling yourselves.