Tag: Adrian Flynn

By Adrian Flynn

During my time working with the Sanders campaign, both in Iowa and elsewhere, I have consistently been asked some version of the same five questions. In this article I offer answers to these questions, with citations hyperlinked. I welcome any questions or opinions regarding my answers and encourage dialogue.

1. Is Bernie a socialist?
2. What has he actually accomplished during his time in Congress?
3. Who are the “Bernie Bros” and what is their significance?
4. Is Bernie Sanders too old to be President? 
5. Can Bernie Sanders actually beat Donald Trump? (Is he electable?)

~

1. Is Bernie a socialist?

People tend to blur the distinction that Bernie Sanders makes between “socialism” and “democratic socialism”. The term “democratic” is used to signify that it is an ideology that is faithful to the people and the electorate, not to autocratic goals. However, this still does not mean that Sanders wants to see all of the historic goals of classic socialism realized via democratic means. He has never spoken in favor of nationalizing major industries (existing government-provided healthcare is already nationalized) or centralized planning for markets, although he is strongly in favor of regulation and taxes which would weaken the immense power currently enjoyed by corporations in the United States. As Atlantic writer Marian Tupy argues, Sanders’ worldview aligns more with “social democracy,” in which “individuals and corporations continue to own the capital and the means of production [and] much of the wealth, in other words, is produced privately.” The Economist also concurs, concluding in a 2016 editorial that Sanders actually fits the mold of a “social democrat” for his embrace of “private companies that thrive and grow in America.” As Sanders himself said in a speech at Georgetown University in 2015, “I don’t believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal.” 

In fact, many of the leading voices aligned with socialism in the United States have argued that Sanders is not a socialist. These include Bhaskar Sunkara, the founder of Jacobin, and Noam Chomsky, the renowned public intellectual, as well as numerous representatives of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Party USA. Many academics and policy experts have also argued that Sanders is not a socialist, including Samuel Goldman of George Washington University, Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute, Paul Krugman of the City University of New York, and Lane Kentworthy of UC San Diego, who even asserted that Sanders should rather be branded as a “democratic socialist capitalist.” If we consider the manifestation of Sanders’ views abroad, many of the countries which Sanders looks to as models for the United States, such as Denmark (which is a social democracy, not a socialist state) are by some measures even more free-enterprise capitalist societies than the United States. As Mads Lundby Hansen, chief economist of Denmark’s CEPOS think tank, attests: “This high degree of economic freedom is among the reasons for Denmark’s relatively high affluence.”

The answer to the question, then, is no, Bernie Sanders is not a socialist nor is he a communist. These allegations are, as he observed in a recent debate, a “cheap shot,” intended to mislead and frighten. Bernie Sanders is a “social democrat” in the tradition of much of the current European mainstream, a “New Deal democrat in the current political system” or a “democratic socialist,” as he has self-identified. He strongly supports the American market economy, but wants to see it bring more benefits to the working class, and fewer to the very wealthy.

2. What has he actually accomplished during his time in Congress?

Many are quick to say that Bernie Sanders has not gotten as much done in Congress as he could have. Whether he should have gotten “more” done is a matter for individual voters to determine. However, some of the ideas espoused, such as that he has “only gotten post offices named,” show a lack of understanding of how the United States Congress works and also fail to recognize that there are multiple means by which Congress enacts change. Members of Congress should be judged by their “legislative records” which encompass the total impact they have on legislation, not just how many bills they personally drafted and got passed. 

It is true that Bernie Sanders has had only three of his own unilaterally-written bills enacted into law, the same number to Hillary Clinton’s name. However, this does not fairly reflect upon either of their complete legislative records, because it is rare for a bill with a single author to pass both chambers of Congress and be signed by the President. Statistics on Congress.gov show that Bernie Sanders has either sponsored or co-sponsored 221 bills which have become law. For reference, Elizabeth Warren has 51, Amy Klobuchar has 133, and Hillary Clinton had 77. 

Much of the media has asserted that Sanders is the “amendment king” of Congress, which he accomplishes “on the one hand by being relentlessly active, and on the other by using his status as an Independent to form left-right coalitions.” Yet some still dismiss this as inconsequential and evidence of lack of accomplishment. On the contrary, there are many examples of highly important amendments to bills that resulted from Sanders’ work, many of which were passed under roll-call in a Republican-controlled Congress. These include but are not limited to:

• An amendment to H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, allowing the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education to “make competitive grants available to colleges and universities that cooperated to reduce costs through joint purchases of goods and services.”
• An amendment to the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2003 that stopped the IRS from being able to use funds that “violate current pension age discrimination and tax laws.”
• An amendment to H.R. 3338, the Department of Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States Act of 2002, which provided “$100 million in additional funding for federally qualified community health centers.”
• An amendment to a general appropriations bill (H.R. 2590, Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2002), which prohibited “use of funds in the bill for the Customs Service to allow for release into the U.S. of any goods or merchandise produced by indentured child labor.”
• An amendment to H.R. 5006, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2005 to “increase funding for the low-income home energy assistance program and the weatherization assistance program by $22,000,000.”
• An amendment to H.R. 6, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to “require that not less than 30 percent of the hot water demand for certain new or substantially modified Federal buildings be met through the installation and use of solar hot water heaters.”

Sanders has also successfully worked across the aisle. According to a New York Times article: “Counter to his reputation as a far-left gadfly, Mr. Sanders has done much of his work with Republican partners, generally people with whom he has little, but sometimes just enough, in common.” Also, he showed “his policy fluency and his ability to work with Republicans when he was chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs,” work for which unlikely admirer Ross Perot gifted him an “Excalibur” sword. Amendments and bills that have become law on which he has worked with Republicans include:

• An amendment to H.R. 1, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (otherwise known as “The Stimulus”) to “require recipients of TARP funding to meet strict H-1B worker hiring standard to ensure non-displacement of U.S. workers.” which was accomplished with Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa and Representative Ron Paul of Texas.
• In 2014, as chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, Bernie Sanders worked with Senator John McCain of Arizona on a bill to expand veterans’ access to health care. According to The New York Times, “The bill did something Republicans wanted: It allowed veterans to go outside the official hospital system to get care under certain circumstances, while it expanded the government services that Mr. Sanders demanded.” Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island said that, without Sanders, the bill would not have been passed.
• Bernie Sanders invoked the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and helped secure a resolution to end U.S. involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen, which Senator Mike Lee of Utah co-sponsored. After passing both the Senate and the House, President Trump vetoed it.

Perhaps his most important contribution via amendment was when he convinced then-Senate majority leader Harry Reid to add $11 billion in funding for community health centers, to provide care regardless of a person’s ability to pay, to the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which has likely resulted in health care for an additional 10 million mostly low-income Americans. In exchange, Sanders agreed to rally liberal Democrats to support the ACA, after they had leaned toward voting against the bill when conservative Democrats killed the public option. Reid later said that “Bernie was terrific… he in my opinion was instrumental in our finishing the job, no better example of that than what we talked about with the Affordable Care Act. That would not have been accomplished without Bernie Sanders… He didn’t get everything he wanted but he sure got something good for community health centers.” Additionally, President Obama signed a memorandum dedicating $600 million to the construction of new community health centers in December 2009, at the urging of Sanders. “I also want to thank the many members of Congress who are with us today both in the audience and up on the stage, particularly Bernie Sanders and Representative Jim Clyburn. We are grateful for all that you’ve done,” Obama remarked.

Yet some of Sanders’ most memorable and courageous moments in Congress occurred when he acted as a member of a small minority when he saw that the situation demanded it. Some of these moments include:

• In 1993, Sanders voted against the Clinton-led North American Free Trade Agreement. Returning from a tour of factories in Mexico, Sanders said: “If NAFTA passes, corporate profits will soar because it will be even easier than now for American companies to flee to Mexico and hire workers there for starvation wages.” 
• In 1996, Sanders was one of only 67 (out of 435 in the House) votes against the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples legally married. Sanders urged the Supreme Court to throw out the law, which it did in a landmark 2013 ruling 17 years later.
• Sanders took a group of women fighting breast cancer into Canada in 1999 to get lower-cost prescription drugs and to stand up to pharmaceutical companies.
• In November 1999, Sanders voted “nay” on the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act to undo the Glass-Steagall Act and decades of financial regulations enacted after the Great Depression. “This legislation,” he predicted at the time, “will lead to fewer banks and financial service providers, increased charges and fees for individual consumers and small businesses, diminished credit for rural America and taxpayer exposure to potential losses should a financial conglomerate fail. It will lead to more mega-mergers, a small number of corporations dominating the financial service industry and further concentration of power in our country.” The House passed the bill 362-57 over Sanders’ objection and it was later labeled as “one factor” that caused the 2008 Financial Crisis.
• In October 2001, Sanders was one of the 66 members of the House who voted against the USA Patriot Act, saying “All of us want to protect the American people from terrorist attacks, but in a way that does not undermine basic freedoms.” 
• Sanders voted against the 2002 invasion of Iraq, citing the potential costs in funds and American lives.
• Sanders was among 25 senators in 2008 to vote against the $700 billion bailout of big banks in the wake of the Financial Crisis.

Of course, in terms of broader impact, his leadership as a co-founder of the Congressional Progressive Caucus has made him an inspiration to rising politicians such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Pramila Jayapal, Rashida Tlaib, Ro Khanna and Ilhan Omar, among many others.

Sanders is acutely aware of his legislative accomplishments’ relatively low profile in Congress, acknowledging “This is the problem. I work in areas that nobody knows what I’m doing.” He told The New York Times in 2015 that “Passing legislation is ‘real,’ but so is influencing opinion over the long term by speaking out early and often,” adding: “I am a voice. Everybody talks about income inequality [now]. Well, check it out. Find out who was talking about it 20 years ago.”

3. Who are the “Bernie Bros” and what is their significance?

It is true that Bernie Sanders has some supporters who have made a niche community online built around harassment and trolling. 

Some equally relevant questions are, however, (because just about every political campaign has its own vocal but comparatively miniscule sources of toxicity and “stan culture” — even the 2016 Clinton campaign): a) how much does their vitriol result directly from the actions of the Bernie Sanders campaign? And b) how representative of Sanders supporters are the reportedly young, white and male “Bernie Bros”? 

Firstly, there has been no acquiescence by Bernie Sanders or his campaign to the harassment of his political opponents or their supporters. On the contrary, in a letter to supporters just after announcing his 2020 bid, Sanders stated: “Let us do our very best to engage respectfully with our Democratic opponents, talking about the issues we are fighting for, not about personalities or past grievances… I want to be clear that I condemn bullying and harassment of any kind and in any space… Remember that our struggle is bigger than a Tweet or a Facebook comment.” After being asked about this in a February 2020 interview, Sanders made clear, “Anybody who knows me and what our campaign is about, don’t tell me that you’re supporting Bernie Sanders if you’re making ugly personal attacks on other people. We don’t want your support.” With regard to Sanders’ volunteer base, the campaign has worked to rein in supporters who cross the line, stating: “Online, aides are pushing their digital community to police itself and keep the Bros quiet. And some volunteer members of Sanders’s digital army are scrambling into action, reporting offenders and moderating bro-y posts.” Campaign volunteers active in the arts have also pushed back on this problem, including comedy director Amber Schaefer, who made a viral ad spoofing perfume ads entitled “Bérnié – The People’s Perfume”. She explained her work, “The idea behind the ‘campaign’ is to complicate the white male Bernie Bro (false!) narrative and show women and people of color feeling the Bern.” She also said, “We can see statistics [disproving this narrative], but visually seeing it, I think, is really powerful. I wanted to create something that felt like the opposite of maybe what people think of as a Bernie Bro.” Sanders supporters on Reddit also posted reminders to their fellow supporters that the “goal is not to deliver the sickest burn or capture the perfect tweet… Rather, [we] want to convince people to vote for Bernie Sanders, and the movement’s online tactics need to be suited to that end.” 

The creator of the term itself, Atlantic writer Robinson Meyer, has regretted how the term has come to be used as an unsubstantiated attack on the Sanders campaign, stating that it has suffered from a “semantic drift.” In response to a slew of opinions in the media, based off the “Bernie Bro” narrative, that Sanders was garnering support only amongst white people in 2016, people of color began the trend #BernieMadeMeWhite. This is, of course, one of many online trends circulated both within and outside of the Bernie Sanders campaign sphere. According to Deen Freelon, a University of North Carolina professor who studies political expression through digital media, “Sanders’s online audience is much, much larger than Elizabeth Warren’s or Joe Biden’s by an order of several million.” Since early 2019, Facebook pages supporting Sanders, for example, have generated more than 290 million interactions, while pages for Warren and Biden have generated 20 million and 9 million, respectively, according to one analysis. “You get a larger group, there’s going to be more douchebags in it than the smaller group,” Freelon added. As Glenn Greenwald argued in 2016, “The reason pro-Clinton journalists are targeted with vile abuse online has nothing specifically to do with the Sanders campaign or its supporters. It has everything to do with the internet. There are literally no polarizing views one can advocate online… that will not subject one to a torrent of intense anger and vile abuse. It’s not remotely unique to supporting Hillary Clinton: Ask Megyn Kelly about that, or the Sanders-supporting Susan Sarandon and Cornel West, or anyone with a Twitter account or blog.” In Greenwald’s piece for The Intercept, he also showed that a few “Bernie Bros” on Twitter turned out to be fake accounts created for the purpose of sowing division.

Furthermore, reporting on the demographics of support for Bernie Sanders suggests that it does not skew white or male. Women under 45 make up more of Sanders’ support base than men in the same age group. Also, of all the 2020 candidates, Bernie Sanders has brought in the most campaign contributions from women. Lastly, according to an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll conducted from December 9 to 11, 2019, Sanders enjoyed more support from the non-white electorate than from the white electorate.

The negative impact of the “Bernie Bro” fixation is that it undermines supporters of Sanders’ campaign who are not white and male. As writer Caitlin PenzeyMoog opined on Twitter, “The ‘Bernie Bro’ narrative is endlessly galling because it erases the women who make up his base. To paint this picture of sexism is to paint over the millions of women who support Sanders.” Megan Magray, a reproductive health advocate, said to Vice: “It’s really frustrating to see that the idea of the ‘Bernie Bro’ is still so pervasive, [and] insulting to see women, women of color, and people of color being erased from his campaign because they’re really integral to it.” Mari Toro, a Puerto Rican community advocate and data entry specialist in Boston, feels less resentment than just indifference, saying “I felt the same way I feel about most internet rumors or stories that I have no connection or affinity for… I didn’t even come to resent it—I didn’t feel the epithet characterized me or my fellow supporters at all.”

4. Is Bernie too old to be President?

Bernie Sanders is 78 years old and if elected, would be the oldest President ever inaugurated. He does not shy away from this, and has an image and demeanor which unapologetically reflects his age.

In October of 2019, Sanders had a heart attack in Las Vegas while campaigning, and he received two stents. He had no prior history of heart disease and after two and a half days in the hospital, he was released. After promising medical reports after the episode, the Sanders campaign released several letters from doctors including one from his attending physician at the US Capitol dated December 30, 2019, attesting to his being in “good health currently.” Due to his progress, Monahan also noted that Sanders had stopped taking several medications that were initially required after the heart attack. In a separate letter, Dr. Martin LeWinter, Sanders’ personal cardiologist and the attending cardiologist at the University of Vermont, noted that the Vermont Senator’s “heart function is stable and well preserved” and his “blood pressure and heart rate are in optimal ranges.” “At this point, I see no reason why he cannot continue campaigning without limitation and, should he be elected, I am confident he has the mental and physical stamina to fully undertake the rigors of the Presidency,” wrote Dr. LeWinter.

Sanders has been asked to release his recent medical records and so far has declined to do so. Paul Waldman of The Washington Post pointed out the ambiguity of the term “medical records” by saying: “When we say a candidate should release his “medical records,” are we referring to documentation of every doctor visit and every procedure he or she has ever had? There are plenty of medical records that have no bearing on one’s performance in office, and which one ought to be able to keep private… But if we were to make such a standard, it would probably say at a minimum that we want the results of a recent physical, a history of any serious conditions the candidate has had in the past, details on any chronic conditions the candidate still has, and information on any medications the candidate is taking. Sanders can reasonably argue that he has provided much or all of that.” Nonetheless, it is a fair point that the American people deserve to know Sanders’ full health history, considering his advanced age. 

As to whether his age has had an impact on his support amongst young people, the numbers so far do not bear this out at all. Although it was four years ago, the most complete record of this comes from the 2016 primaries, in which he notably garnered more total votes from people under age 30 than both Trump and Clinton combined. This trend seems to be continuing thus far in the 2020 primaries, despite the fact that there are more candidates to split the youth vote.

5. Can Bernie Sanders actually beat Donald Trump? (Is he electable?)

Essentially, the other four questions above lead to this question at the bottom line. The question of electability is key and includes both whether a candidate can command a majority of the electoral college as well as the popular vote.

First, with regard to polls, Bernie Sanders has beaten Donald Trump in both national polls and swing state polls dating back to his first run at the Presidency in 2016 through to the present. 

The most recent national polls conducted by pollsters rated “A+” by FiveThirtyEight, indicating nonpartisanship and a miniscule margin of error, show Sanders consistently beating Trump. These include a Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted January 20-23, 2020 showing Sanders ahead +8 percentage points, a Marist College poll conducted February 13-16, 2020, showing Sanders ahead +3 percentage points, and the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted February 14-17, 2020 showing Sanders ahead +11 percentage points (which leads the Democratic field in head-to-head match-ups against the President). Of course, these general election numbers may indicate the magnitude of popular support for Sanders but do not necessarily indicate who is in the best position to win the Electoral College. 

In the most recent swing state polls, Sanders remains strong as well. In Wisconsin, the only “A+” rated poll on FiveThirtyEight, taken from October 13-26, 2019, showed Sanders beating Trump by 1-2 percentage points. Sanders won the 2016 Wisconsin primary against Hillary Clinton by a 13.5% margin, also winning a whopping 71 of 72 counties in the state. In that primary, Sanders had more female voters than Clinton (as well as male voters), and also swept all income brackets and education levels. In Michigan, the only “A+” rated poll on FiveThirtyEight, taken from October 13-25, 2019, showed Sanders beating Trump by 2-3 percentage points. Additionally, Sanders won the 2016 Michigan primary against Hillary Clinton, albeit by a thin margin of 1.5%, but the result was still considered to be one of the “biggest upsets in modern American political history,” due to underestimates of both the youth and independent voter turnouts which strongly swayed for Sanders. Pennsylvania, the third and final state of the group which many believe decided the 2016 Presidential election, did not go for Sanders against Hillary Clinton (Clinton also beat Obama by a similar margin in the state in 2008), although according to the most recent FiveThirtyEight “A+” rated poll, conducted by Muhlenberg College from November 4-9, 2019, Sanders led Trump by 5 percentage points.

If, in addition to winning all of the states won by Clinton in 2016, Sanders also wins Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, he would have sufficient electoral votes to win the Presidency. Notably, he defeated Clinton in the primaries in 2016 by a total of 152,337 votes in Michigan and Wisconsin, while Clinton lost both to Trump in the general election by a total of 33,452 votes, so it is not outlandish to assume that had Sanders been the nominee, he might have had a better chance of winning both states. Additionally, a recent poll conducted by Florida Atlantic University from January 9-12, 2020 found that “Sanders fared best among Florida voters [as compared to other Democrats] in head-to-head matchups against U.S President Donald Trump, with a 53-to-47 percent advantage on the president.” Also, a poll rated “A” by FiveThirtyEight conducted from February 13-16, 2020 shows Sanders beating Trump by 5 percentage points in North Carolina. Lastly, a poll rated “A+” by FiveThirtyEight conducted from October 13-23, 2019 shows Sanders trailing Trump by just 1-4 percentage points in Arizona, whereas Clinton lost the state by 4 percentage points. If Sanders were able to capture any of these three states as well, he could either afford to lose another purple state (which according to the polls, is unlikely) or build on his Electoral College lead. 

Of course, electoral polls can be recycled and picked apart endlessly. There are also favorability polls which do not directly measure support in terms of numbers needed to win the presidency, but that speak to the strength and resonance of Sanders’ overall message. A USA Today/Ipsos poll of voters released on February 15, 2020 showed that “those polled consistently gave Sanders the highest marks for his values and empathy” out of both the Democratic field and compared to Trump. In the same manner, Sanders has frequently been called the most “popular active politician” in America, according to favorability polls conducted by the Harvard Center for American Political Studies, Fox News, NBC News/Wall Street Journal and CNN, all of which show Sanders having high favorability from Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike due to “honesty” and “authenticity.” Additionally, his status as an Independent has allowed him to rein in votes (as was seen in the 2016 primary) from what Gallup has found to be “the most popular party affiliation in America by far” and avoid the low current favorability of both the Democratic and Republican parties. To test the waters of throwing the term “socialist” into the mix (which is not what Sanders is, but what he has been and will continue to be called by political opponents), the progressive organization “Data for Progress” conducted a poll of random voters from January 9 to January 19, 2020 pitting Sanders against Trump in which it found that, even when the term “socialist” was used when anticipating how Trump would refer to Sanders, there was little impact on the outcome. The cue that did not mention “socialist” garnered 47% Sanders to 41% Trump, while the cue mentioning “socialist” garnered 47% to 42% in Sanders’ favor. This may be an early indicator of the limits to which Donald Trump would be able to benefit from using the term “socialist” as a scare tactic to sway voters away from Sanders. The most recent electoral test, however, for both Sanders and the rest of the Democratic field came just a few days ago in Nevada. In the 2020 Nevada caucuses, entrance polls conducted by The Washington Post show that Sanders notably won 51% of the Hispanic vote, led both among voters who said they prioritize agreeing on the issues and voters who prioritize beating President Trump, and led in all age demographics up to 65. But most importantly, he won 50% of the independent vote and tied with Joe Biden for the lead among voters who identify as “moderate or conservative,” as well as winning the “very liberal,” “somewhat liberal,” and “Democrat” groups.

In terms of ground-game, cyber-game and finances, which political strategists agree are now among the main factors for winning elections, the Sanders campaign has an extremely strong record. It says that it has had over one million campaign volunteers since six days after the 2020 campaign launch, and in the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, the Sanders campaign offices and canvassing operations have been key to their victories. Sanders is also well known for “once again asking for your financial support.” This is because popular support is the only source of funding that he has ever counted upon, and it has come through impressively. The Sanders campaign raised $6 million in the first 24 hours of the campaign, and by January 1st 2020 it had attained over 5 million individual contributions, making it the campaign with the most individual contributions ever. In January of 2020, the Sanders campaign announced it raised $25 million in that month alone — more than any other candidate had raised during any quarter of 2019. Both the magnitude and sources (individual donations averaging from $18-$27) of these sums make the Sanders campaign by far the most effective major grassroots political campaign in history.

Finally, supporters of the Trump campaign and Republican organizers alike have made it clear that they believe Sanders has a very real chance of beating them. Tony Fabrizio, the 2016 Trump campaign’s chief pollster, in response to a question about what would happen during a Sanders-Trump match-up, said that “Sanders beats Trump… I think Sanders would have had the ability to reach a lot of the less than college-educated, low-income white voters.” North Carolina congressman and strong Trump ally in the House of Representatives, Mark Meadows, stated that “Bernie Sanders poses the greatest risk because we are still in an anti-establishment era for presidential elections.” Matt Schlapp, head of the American Conservative Union, has said, “It’s a big mistake for Trump supporters to assume that if Bernie Sanders gets the nomination there’s no chance somehow he can win.” One of the most prolific voices on Fox News, Tucker Carlson, warned during a January 2020 segment that “If Sanders pledges to forgive student loans, he’ll still win many thousands of voters who went for Donald Trump last time. Debt is crushing an entire generation of Americans. Republicans need a plan to make it better, or they’ll be left behind.” He also highlighted a Pew Research poll that shows “just 31 percent of Americans say the economy is helping them and their families, and just 32 percent say they believe the current economy helps the middle class,” which shows a potential flaw in Trump’s economic argument for re-election. After Sanders received a warm reception from a Fox News town hall audience, famed Republican strategist Karl Rove wrote in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, “When only 37% of Americans in the RealClearPolitics average think the country is going in the right direction while 56.4% think it’s on the wrong track, Mr. Sanders could be perceived as an agent of change… If he is the Democratic nominee, Mr. Trump’s task will be to convince Americans that a socialist turn would be a ruinous change. Based on Monday’s town hall, that won’t be as easy as Republicans may think. Mr. Sanders is a real contender.” Finally, even the President himself has shown that he is wary of facing Sanders in a general election. Unprompted, Trump said in the Oval Office to reporters on February 11, 2020, “Frankly, I’d rather run against Bloomberg than Bernie Sanders. Because Sanders has real followers, whether you like him or not, whether you agree with him or not. I happen to think it’s terrible what he says. But he has followers.” Lastly, the attorney of Lev Parnas, a Rudy Giuliani associate, released audio of Trump that had been secretly taped, in which he said, “I think if she’d [Clinton] picked Bernie Sanders as her Vice President it would’ve been tougher… Because of trade. Because he’s a big trade guy… Had she picked Bernie Sanders, it would have been tougher. He’s the only one I didn’t want her to pick.”

Written and Photographed By Adrian Flynn

The 2020 Iowa Caucuses marked both the beginning of a tumultuous primary season and also possibly the end of the caucus system as we know it. The release of vote totals was delayed not only due to a reporting app that experienced technical problems, but also to the Iowa Democratic Party’s failure to ensure a viable system for Caucus Chairs to report their results in alternate ways. While these issues dominated  the entire caucus in the eyes of onlookers both in the United States and around the world, being on the ground for the Democrats’ first hurdle in defeating Donald Trump provided insight into other key problems with the caucus system as well as its unique attributes. 

Arriving in Iowa a few days before the caucuses to work for the Bernie Sanders campaign, I had no idea what to expect. I had done campaign work many times before, including a significant amount of canvassing, but assumed that the atmosphere of the caucus system would change the narrative of my work in some manner. I was not wrong. Iowa’s caucus system requires that in order to cast a “vote” for a candidate, one must physically travel to a designated caucus site on a designated day and stay for at least one hour (though in many cases the process goes on much longer). One justification I heard for this was that because voting takes place on a single day for a short duration, voters must dedicate less total time to the political process than if they had to wait in line to cast a ballot.

This may have been more accurate in past decades, but I was also able to see how exclusionary the system currently is. Speaking to Iowans in the days leading up to the caucus, I not only had to convince them that they should caucus for my candidate, but I also had to ensure that they had the means and the time to physically attend their caucus. With this came many obstacles, the first of which was knowing which caucus site to attend. This changes with every election cycle and, with this one, it was changed for many individuals in the period leading up to the caucus date to accommodate fluctuations in expected caucusgoers at different sites and other factors. After deducing which site to attend, any prospective caucusgoer then has to be able to arrive no later than 7 p.m. on caucus day. To ensure that people would be able to do so, I asked if they had transportation and if they did not, helped them organize with others who could give them a ride. If I noticed that they were a parent or caretaker, I informed them that, unlike in previous years, caucusgoers were allowed to bring children to their caucus site for the duration of the event. 

Helping individuals create a plan to attend their caucus was a fulfilling and rewarding experience. However, I experienced a lot of heartbreak when speaking to Iowans who told me that they would not be able to caucus due to chronic illness, disability, work, or prior commitments. These obstacles are to be expected in any democratic society. The difference between the caucuses in Iowa and the primaries in other states, though, is that the Iowa Democratic Party has not instituted any mechanism, such as absentee ballots or online caucuses, which might accommodate those with such impediments.

In the primaries of other states, individuals routinely exercise their democratic rights through extended voting periods or absentee measures. But the nature of the caucus system, requiring on-site interaction, precludes such options. According to the former Chair of the Iowa Democratic Party, Scott Brennan, the use of absentee ballots would erode “the sense of community that makes our caucuses so special.” Over the past few decades, small amendments have been made to render the caucuses more accessible, such as the establishment of satellite caucuses. But, as many Iowans told me, the increases in outside funding, political theatrics and measures to suppress the vote have made it impossible for the caucuses to serve their original and true purpose: to bring residents of a precinct together in a shared space to engage in constructive debate and adequately allocate delegates based on how individuals align themselves in support of candidates. 

My experience in Iowa illustrates this sentiment. After a few long days and nights knocking on doors and organizing events and outreach, I was assigned to a precinct at a recreational center in Iowa City as a “Deputy Ambassador” for the Bernie Sanders campaign. This meant that I was responsible, along with another Ambassador, to guide caucusgoers to the Sanders corner of the room if they were supporters and to try to persuade them to do so if they were not. We got to the site early and while we thought at first that the room was spacious enough to clearly define who supported which candidate, the caucus quickly swelled from around 15 people when the doors opened to 281 at the first alignment. 

I rushed to tape Bernie signs as high as possible on the wall so that people could see our location in the room and also made sure that everyone in our corner got an “I’m Canvassing for Bernie” sticker. Our corner was adjacent to that of the Joe Biden campaign and it quickly became apparent that our swelling number of supporters was overflowing into that campaign’s corner. After establishing the group’s “territory,” a small group of about 20 Andrew Yang supporters claimed their stake near the entrance door but mostly still mixed in with the Bernie group, distinguishing themselves only by a large “Yang 2020” sign on a stick. The Buttigieg and Warren groups were situated on the opposite corners of the rectangular room, but were so close to each other that it was hard to tell them apart. Lastly, a small Klobuchar group established itself beside Biden’s group with a homemade sign, also hard to distinguish from the Biden group. The situation was somewhat confusing, though not completely chaotic, and we were able to ensure that every caucusgoer in our group received a Presidential Preference Card (essentially a ballot). After the first alignment, we were in the lead with 95, with Warren at 74, Buttigieg at 50, Biden at 23, Yang at 21 and Klobuchar at 16, among other smaller, undecided groups. Cory Booker and Michael Bennet each received a single vote. The viability threshold in our precinct, as in most others of our size, was 15%. This made every group unviable except Buttigieg, Warren and Sanders. We were then given a mere 15 minutes to realign. 

Our Bernie team quickly huddled and devised a plan to split up to reach out to the unviable groups. As soon as the Caucus Chair said “Begin,” the Warren, Buttigieg and Sanders caucusgoers either left the room (because their candidate was viable and they could), or else rushed to attempt to win over members of one of the unviable groups. I went to the Yang group and was able to successfully bring four of them over to the Sanders group by explaining the similarity of the two candidates’ goals and visions for the middle class in the wake of increasing corporate profits and the displacement of workers through automation. Other members of my team, including some very passionate caucusgoers, were able to convince some undecided voters and Biden supporters to join the Bernie group. Most of the Yang group left, not wishing to realign, while many of the Klobuchar and Biden caucusgoers went straight to Buttigieg. Some Klobuchar caucusgoers also went straight for Warren.

In the end, my precinct had 7 State Delegates to allocate based on its number of caucusgoers. Sanders won three of them with 105 final voters, Warren won two with 92 final voters and Buttigieg also won two with 71 final voters. In terms of “State Delegate Equivalents,” which are projected numbers of state party convention delegates that candidates will receive proportional to their precinct size, Sanders won 1.22 while Warren and Buttigieg each won 0.81. State Delegates will then go on to elect delegates to the Democratic National Convention (to be held in Milwaukee, in July) of which a majority nominate the Democratic presidential candidate. Acknowledging that these results may change with a recount stemming from alleged inaccuracies in Iowa delegate allocation, as of February 11 Pete Buttigieg won the most pledged delegates with 14, although Bernie Sanders won a plurality of votes, both in the first and final rounds, and won 12 delegates.

The organization of the caucuses themselves was only the beginning of problems in counting delegates. While I was celebrating the end of the caucuses that night with the Sanders campaign in Iowa City, it quickly became apparent that Caucus Chairs were having difficulties reporting results to the Iowa Democratic Party. We were of course disappointed that the results did not get disseminated before we all had to part ways to return home that evening. However, we never could have imagined then that it would take multiple days for the entirety of the results to be announced or that the blame would be primarily attributed to an app developed by a company named “Shadow”.

There were at least two parts to the failure of the Iowa Democratic Party to manage the caucuses. While the media focused almost entirely on the app, in reality the app was made available to Caucus Chairs to use if they wanted, but was not mandated by the state party and thus cannot be solely blamed for the ensuing fiasco. The real problem was that when it experienced glitches, party leaders failed to effectively utilize a backup system to gather the results. While the scandal over the app might have been the last straw needed to end the Iowa caucus system, it is arguably the least grave of the problems of the system. Along with the multiple ways in which the caucus system limits participation, many in the Democratic Party do not see why Iowa, a state with an over 90% white population, should unilaterally be given the importance of hosting the first test of Presidential candidates in the nation. For a Democratic Party that increasingly sees its strength in the diversity of its supporters, this view has rightfully gained significant traction.

As someone who loves the political system and seeing it in action, the caucuses were a powerful window through which to witness small-scale democracy, and I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in them. However, our focus, both as a party and as a country, should be to extend the right to vote to all without hindrance, and the caucus system undeniably works in opposition to this goal. While there are a multitude of ways to expand the caucus system such as through online caucuses and absentee measures, these would just open the process up to further complications with counting votes and allocating delegates (including possible cybersecurity threats) as well as remove the supposed original appeal of the caucus system itself. As Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois stated, “I think the Democratic caucus in Iowa is a quirky, quaint tradition which should come to an end. As we try to make voting easier for people across America, the Iowa caucus is the most painful situation we currently face for voting.” It is time to conclude that the caucus process is not suitable for democracy in the 21st century, which must be as inclusive a process as possible while simultaneously diminishing the risk of cyberthreats, miscounts and technical errors. While recognizing the initial appeal and function of the caucus process, the caucus system must now be relegated to history so that, as the Constitution proclaims, “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged.”

By Adrian Flynn

Early last Thursday morning, Representative Elijah Cummings of Maryland passed away in Baltimore, aged 68. For many, Cummings represented the best of both Congress and the Democratic Party. In his later years as a Congressman, particularly during the Trump Presidency, Cummings made his mark on what he perceived to be a lack of morality and decency in government. Yet because Cummings did not attract as much publicity as many of his younger colleagues, it is plausible that many Beacon students know little of Cummings’ life and legacy. While he had four whole decades of valorous public service spanning from the Maryland House of Delegates to Committee Chairmanship in the House of Representatives, just his leadership in the tumultuous last few years shows what a tremendous loss his death is for both Congress and this country.

As Chair of the House Oversight Committee since January of this year, Cummings oversaw many contentious hearings and testimonies, with the public able to see his devotion to progressive causes and bipartisanship through how he handled his Committee in heated political times. This was particularly displayed during Michael Cohen’s hearing on February 27th. After Cohen provided damning testimony concerning his work as Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Cummings offered empathy to a man who he believed wanted to right his wrongs. Cummings said he tells his kids that “When bad things happen to you, do not ask the question: Why did it happen to me? Ask the question: Why did it happen for me?” And then to Cohen, he said “I don’t know why this is happening for you. But it is my hope that a small part of it is for our country to be better.” Cummings then cited the facts of Trump’s record amount of misleading statements and him calling Cohen a “rat” as ways in which we have deviated from normalcy, pleading for people to act and to not stand on the sidelines. He concluded by graciously thanking Cohen for his decision to come forward. 

Additionally, Cummings had a strong sense of morality that is desperately needed in government. On February 6, Cummings spoke strongly in favor of HR 1, a bill meant to protect voting rights and limit corruption in government. He cited his Mother’s last words as being “Do not let them take our votes away from us,” and recounted the history of oppression at the ballot box that has plagued and continues to plague this country and groups of oppressed minorities. He went on to forcefully say “I don’t give a damn how you look at it! There are efforts to stop people from voting, that’s not right! This is not Russia! This is the United States of America!” On July 18, Kevin McAleenan, the former acting Homeland Security Secretary, appeared before Cummings’ committee. After McAleenan said that he was doing his “level-best” of a job he could in regard to the detention of migrants at the border, Cummings strongly retorted, “What does that mean? What does that mean when a child is sitting in their own feces? Can’t take a shower? Come on man! What’s that about? None of us would have our own children in that position! They are human beings! We are the United States of America… We’re better than that!”

The episode which perhaps got him the most media coverage in the past year was the way he mediated a conflict between Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina. At the same Cohen hearing on February 27th, Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina presented Lynne Patton, a Trump Administration member and former member of the Trump organization, to rebut Cohen’s assertion that President Trump is a “racist,” because Patton is African-American. Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan took issue with this, saying “The fact that someone would actually use a prop, a black woman, in this chamber in this committee is alone racist in itself.” Meadows interrupted, asking for her comments to be erased from the record as he found them to be personally offensive. Cummings then took control of the hearing and asked Tlaib if she would like to “re-phrase that statement.” After she cleared up that she was not calling Meadows a racist, but instead saying using Patton as a “prop” was a “racist act,” Cummings said that “Mr. Meadows, you know… of all the people on this committee… I’ve said it and got in trouble for it – that you’re one of my best friends. I know that shocks a lot of people… I could see and feel your pain, I feel it. And so, and I don’t think Ms. Tlaib intended to cause you that, that kind of pain and that kind of frustration.” By these words, Cummings was able to diffuse a toxic situation, which we can all learn from in our handling of future experiences with tense political discourse.

Cummings represented the very best of government, and the only way to carry his message forward is to reach across political and ideological boundaries, fight like hell for what is right, and offer a helping hand to everyone, but especially those who need it. The example he set should not only be reflected in our actions as citizens but also by those in elected office, who are more prone to scrutiny and harsh disagreement. We will need more leaders like Elijah Cummings to maintain dignity and respect for all in this country through a present time of turbulence. To conclude, my favorite quote of the Chairman is: “When we’re dancing with the angels, the question will be asked: In 2019, what did we do to make sure we kept our democracy intact? Did we stand on the sidelines and say nothing?” Ask yourself this question truthfully, and make sure to act on it. 

By Adrian Flynn

It’s no secret that the midterm elections just under a month away will be enormously consequential for the future of the country and this administration. Democrats seem to be in a good position to win a majority in the House of Representatives, as many Republican representatives are in vulnerable positions and the tendency of high midterm turnout from supporters of the minority party seems all but certain to continue (the President’s party has lost House seats in 35 out of the last 38 midterm elections since the end of the Civil War, with the relative unpopularity of the current President likely to magnify this trend.)

The Senate, on the other hand, is a different story. Democratic incumbent senators are running for re-election in ten states which Trump won. Additionally, according to Sabato’s Crystal Ball, Democrats only have four viable opportunities for pickups from Republicans. These are in Nevada and Arizona, which are rated “toss-up,” meaning that a reliable prediction cannot be made either way, and Texas and Tennessee, which are rated “lean R.”

However, there are great opportunities around New York City to get involved in the midterms. Below are three ideal House districts chosen according to how easy they are to get to and the degree of how competitive the election is.

New York’s 22nd Congressional District (Toss-up)

Incumbent: Claudia Tenney (R)

Challenger: Anthony Brindisi (D)

The 22nd district is a total toss-up with two candidates who could both use all the help they can get. It’s further from the city than the other two, so it would be better for people who have a weekend or more to help.

The incumbent, Claudia Tenney, is a former member of the New York State Assembly who was first elected to the seat in 2016 by winning 44% of the votes against a Democrat, Kim Myers, with 39% and an Independent, Martin Babinec, with 13%. She has been described as a “tea party favorite,” and has garnered the support of the Conservative Party of New York State, the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List and the Citizens United Victory Fund, among other groups. During her two-year tenure in Congress, she has co-sponsored a NRA-supported bill that would substantially eliminate National Firearms Act restrictions on obtaining gun silencers, as well as being quoted as saying after the Parkland school shootings: “It’s interesting that so many of these people that commit the mass murders end up being Democrats.” She also supported the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and the Republican tax overhaul bill (TCJA).

Her opponent, Anthony Brindisi, ran unopposed in the Democratic primary and has served in the New York State Assembly since 2011, as well as having served as a member of the Utica City Board of Education before running for office. While he has the support of the Working Families Party, Independence Party, and Women’s Equality Party, he has been a centrist and moderate Democrat in the Assembly. He has an “A” rating from the NRA, supports Nancy Pelosi’s continued leadership of House Democrats, and “devotes more airtime to burnishing his bipartisan credentials than he does to criticizing President Trump.” However, it may be these qualities which make him an attractive alternative to Tenney, whose rhetoric allows no real room for bipartisanship.

The district includes the cities of Utica, Cortland and Binghamton, while also housing Binghamton University, Colgate University and Hamilton College, making the district an ideal place for youth to flex their political muscle. It stretches from part of the Finger Lakes region to the Hudson Valley, and is accessible from the city by train and bus.

New York’s 11th Congressional District (Lean Republican)

Incumbent: Dan Donovan (R)

Challenger: Max Rose (D)

The 11th district covers all of Staten Island and small parts of Southern Brooklyn, including Bay Ridge. It is extremely easy to get to via the ferry, but also slightly more tilted towards the Republican incumbent, as it’s the only congressional district in New York City to be represented by a Republican and to have its majority vote for Trump in the 2016 election. Still, it presents a viable opportunity for a Democratic pickup and is more accessible than upstate districts.

The current holder of the seat, Dan Donovan, was elected in a 2015 special election after the resignation of Michael Grimm, and has since been re-elected once. Before his election to the House, he ran unsuccessfully to be Attorney General of New York against Eric Schneiderman following Andrew Cuomo vacating the position to run for governor. He received national attention in 2014 during the Eric Garner case when as District Attorney for Richmond County, his office declined to indict the officer who put Garner in a chokehold. In Congress, he has worked with Democrats on a number of bills. However, he is close with the President, even introducing legislation to require post offices to display Trump’s portrait and publicly supporting his 2017 executive order to impose a ban on immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. However, curiously, he voted for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act but against the Republican tax overhaul bill and American Health Care Act. He is on the House Foreign Affairs and Homeland Security committees.

Donovan’s challenger is Max Rose, who won the primary with 63.32% of the vote. Rose served in the Army from 2010 to 2014 and continues to serve as a Captain in the National Guard. While serving in Afghanistan, Rose was injured when his vehicle was hit by an IED, and he was awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart. He has the support of the Working Families Party, Women’s Equality Party, former Vice President Joe Biden and former President Barack Obama. After his service with the Army, he worked as Director of Public Engagement and Special Assistant to the late Brooklyn District Attorney Ken Thompson.

New York’s 19th Congressional District (Toss-up)

Incumbent: John Faso (R)

Challenger: Antonio Delgado (D)

Considered by many across the country to be the most high-profile Congressional race in the state and one of the most vulnerable Republican-held seats in the country, the 19th district is comprised of the Hudson Valley and Catskills regions as well as the northernmost region of the New York metropolitan area. Because of this, it is relatively easy to get to on the Metro North or a bus. The district went for Obama in both the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections but then switched to Trump in 2016.

John Faso, the incumbent, was in the New York State Assembly for 15 years and was the Minority Leader from 1998 to 2002. He has run for statewide office and lost twice, including in a run for governor in 2006 to Eliot Spitzer. He was elected to the seat he currently holds in 2016 after the incumbent, Chris Gibson, retired and endorsed him against Democrat Zephyr Teachout. Faso is is a member of the moderate Republican Main Street Partnership and has been a bipartisan influence in the House of Representatives. He has spoken out against the Trump Administration’s “zero tolerance” policy resulting in family separations at the border as well as expressing support for legal status for “DREAMers.” He also voted against the Republican tax overhaul bill and introduced the bipartisan Challenges and Prizes for Climate Act of 2018 to encourage innovation in combating climate change with Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski. In contrast to these more progressive stances, Faso voted for the American Health Care Act to replace the Affordable Care Act, and received much criticism from his constituents as a result. Additionally, from 2012 to 2015, Faso was a public affairs consultant for the Constitution Pipeline Co., an energy company that was attempting to build a pipeline to carry natural gas from Pennsylvania to New York. The pipeline was controversial because it would have transported gas extracted from fracking and was blocked by the state.

Antonio Delgado, an attorney and Rhodes scholar, is challenging Faso for the seat. He won a crowded primary among six other Democratic candidates, but amassed the most votes out of the group with 22.1%. Born and raised in Schenectady, N.Y., Delgado has garnered the endorsements of the Women’s Equality Party, Citizen Action of New York, and former President Barack Obama, among others.

~

To get involved, contact the campaign office of the candidate you support to see what kind of work is available for the dates that work for you. If you are unable to work in these districts personally, there are always phone banking and community organizing opportunities to get out the vote. For Democrats to control the House, they need to have a net gain of 24 seats. Whether or not you would like to see this happen, there are many golden opportunities nearby to have an impact. Make no mistake about it, every single door knocked on makes a difference. This is true in any election, but is especially accurate in this one, where the races which decide control of Congress will be decided by the thinnest of margins.

By Adrian Flynn

On November 8, 2016, I stood in Rockefeller Center, wearing an anti-Trump shirt, watching the vote counts come in. I knew he was not going to win. Yet it happened. I was hardly alone in this reality check, as millions of Americans were also seeing what they once thought was impossible unfolding before their eyes. However, over a year later, I hear from classmates and commentators that there is “no way” that Donald Trump will be re-elected as President of the United States. The conviction that Trump’s re-election in 2020 is impossible is as misguided as it was to assume a Clinton victory in 2016.

The main argument for Trump losing his re-election bid is his dismal national approval rating, currently at 43% according to a March 17 NBC/WSJ poll. Nevertheless, in reality, he is holding onto support from his base, particularly in the battleground states in which he edged Clinton out. This was extensively covered by CBS and the AP in Elliott County, Kentucky, a.k.a. “coal country.” As counterintuitive as it may appear, Trump recognizes that winning the total vote is unnecessary as long as his base returns to the polls in equal or higher numbers. Barring extreme circumstances, he still has an energized base and can count on a fractured Democratic Party to provide any leeway he might need.

We must also relinquish the notion that “majority rules.” In the polls before the election, Clinton had a 2-4 point nationwide lead, and indeed ended up beating Trump by 2.2% of the total electorate. However, only the electoral college matters, and unless Democrats can offer a better alternative in states like Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, Trump is poised to win them again.

To argue that any new negative developments in the White House would greatly impact the next election would be to disregard the history of Trump’s controversies. While it is plausible that Trump could be prosecuted following the Russia investigation and possibly even face impeachment proceedings, this is currently unlikely. He seems to be repeatedly able to escape from controversies unscathed, and has also consistently manipulated American news media. He has its right wing vigorously defending him to a large part of the population while criticizing the actions of Democrats. On the other side, he has the media’s left wing defending itself against “fake news” claims.

Additionally, Trump uses Twitter to fire off distractions while simultaneously accomplishing measures which are far more consequential. Networks including CNN, NBC and MSNBC have been quick to report on outrageous statements which seem to actually outrage none except their own viewer base. The biggest misconception about Trump voters is that they will be swayed to vote for Democrats because of Trump shortcomings, because most either tolerate his outbursts or actively embrace them as what they want to see in a President. The common enemy is the “Establishment,” and it seems that the Democratic Party, stuck in a tug of war between a young far-left base and namesake politicians, is expected to place another establishment figure on the ballot who cannot attract support from a wider base. As seen in the Pennsylvania special election on March 13th, it took a pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, anti-Pelosi, pro-union Marine Veteran Democrat to stave off a challenger in Trump’s mold in a district that he won by 20 points against Clinton in 2016. Would a resurgent left-wing base be willing to embrace more candidates like Conor Lamb if it means loosening a grip on progressive causes? That prospect seems unlikely.

Those who voted for Trump last time have demonstrated that they could ignore evidence of racism, sexism and xenophobia if he could only “make America great again”–or just “great again” for them. Progress in social equality simply may not be a priority for those living from paycheck to paycheck, as they are concerned with the influx of immigration, American jobs and the growth of the economy. Thus far, Trump has checked all of these boxes. He has curtailed immigration, and deportations have steadily risen as ICE has been allotted more agency under his Justice Department. While it may be misleading for him to claim all the credit, jobs are still being added to the economy, albeit at a slower rate than his predecessor. The economy, while it had a short crash, is currently thriving off of a small private sector and the GOP tax bill conveniently cut taxes for just enough time before the next presidential election cycle–putting more cash into Americans’ pockets at least temporarily. Donald Trump knew these ploys would please his base and it appears to be working.

For the rest of the world, Trump’s Presidency has made the U.S. into a laughing stock and fueled diplomatic disasters. Since U.S. international standing is rapidly deteriorating, it is imperative that we take action to prevent Donald Trump from being re-elected in 2020. But to accomplish this, we must not forget the populist right-leaning base which we must reach out to and prove that there is a better way for our nation. Prematurely predicting a Donald Trump loss in 2020 will be even more devastating if Trump claims victory again because of liberals’ wishful thinking and inaction.

By Adrian Flynn

Since the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on February 14th, a group of student survivors has launched a national movement to pressure lawmakers to pass comprehensive gun control legislation. The movement, #NeverAgain, has resonated with students and their families across the country. In a CNN town hall, some of the Parkland students, families, and teachers were given a nationally televised stage to speak to their experiences, where they used Florida politicians — namely, Marco Rubio — as punching bags. They have skillfully pointed out how many legislators are at the mercy of the NRA when it comes to gun control, and their powerful statements are undoubtedly impacting the ongoing debate.

The most defining feature of the Parkland movement is the age of its leaders. Most high school students don’t meet the voting age of 18. As schools are unfortunately a recurring target for mass shooters, this means that the citizens who are in some ways most affected by gun legislation can be seen as the most powerless to change it.

Changing the voting age has been deliberated more at state and local levels more than it has been on a federal one. While lowering the voting age could potentially increase voter turnout, there are people who argue that 16 and 17 year olds are not mature enough to take on civic responsibilities. However, when it comes to “cold cognition,” — which is referred to as “judgment in situations that permit measured decision-making and consultation with others” — that part of the brain is just as developed as that of adults by the age of 16. Additionally, proponents of lowering the voting age argue that it is unfair that young people are expected to follow the law but have no say in who is elected to their legislatures.

In countries with a lower voting age, younger voters consistently have higher turnout rates. This disproves the myth that young voters are unreliable. Voters aged 16 to 17 had a higher turnout rate than other voters under age 30 in Norway’s 2011 elections, other voters under 35 in Scotland’s 2014 referendum election, and 18 to 20-year-olds in Austria’s elections in 2011 and 2014. This would also make youth more likely to vote throughout their lives than if voting rights were introduced to them at 18, as they are busy completing their education or entering the workforce.

By and large, the same arguments which can be used to disenfranchise the idea of 16 and 17-year-old voters have been used throughout history to limit voting rights for minorities, women, and the poor. These arguments are along the lines of calling people “inexperienced,” “naive,” and “uneducated.” Yet these terms have nothing to do with the age of an individual; these generalizations could just as easily be applied to entire demographics of the electorate, and would still sound as unfounded and preposterous.

While lowering the voting age nationally may seem like a daunting prospect, there are many prominent campaigns across the United States focused on involving youth in elections and bills in legislative chambers which propose lowering the voting age. One of these is the Youth Progressive Policy Group working to pass the Young Voter Act, which would lower the statewide voting age to 17 in New York (yppg.org.) Until then, youth need to make their mark in politics through activism, a mentality that is especially prevalent here at Beacon, where students are helping to organize national walkouts for gun control on March 14th and April 20th. As we have seen in Florida, student activists are qualified to lead a nationwide movement – they’re qualified to participate in our democracy.

To track the progress of other youth vote measures, visit the following link: http://www.youthrights.org/issues/voting-age/voting-age-status-report/

By Adrian Flynn

Yesterday Doug Jones was sworn in as the junior Senator from Alabama, the first Democrat to hold an Alabama Senate seat since 1997. His election rocked the national political landscape, creating a showdown between centrist and far-right values in a state which Donald Trump won in 2016 with 62.1%. Of course, many factors played a role in the victory of Doug Jones and the defeat of GOP nominee, former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court Roy Moore. In particular, unusually high Democratic turnout, a divided Republican party that resulted in a good amount of write-in votes, and the allegations that hurt Moore decided the outcome of the Special Election.

Setting the Stage

The seat Jones now holds was vacated by Jeff Sessions, who was confirmed as Attorney General on February 8. The next day, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley appointed Attorney General of Alabama Luther Strange to hold the seat until the special election. During his short-lived tenure in the Senate he was among twenty-two senators to sign a letter urging the President to pull the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement. He also sponsored bills that held that human life begins at fertilization (S. 1456: Sanctity of Human Life Act,) and to prohibit subjecting gun dealers to reporting requirements for the sale of multiple rifles or shotguns to the same person (S. 1397: Protecting the Second Amendment Act.) By Alabama standards, Strange was a centrist Republican.

Strange launched his campaign to keep his seat in the Special Election and quickly garnered the endorsements of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the senior Senator from Alabama Richard Shelby, Vice President Mike Pence and of course, President Donald Trump. However, Judge Roy Moore, who has been criticized for his controversial far-right sentiments — known for making racist, homophobic and Islamophobic statements — challenged Strange for the Republican nomination. He was also a proponent of the infamous “Birther” movement, falsely alleging President Obama was not born in the United States. Moore nonetheless managed to receive endorsements from a number of influential figures such as former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, US Housing Secretary Ben Carson, commentator Ann Coulter, British politician Nigel Farage, actor Chuck Norris and seven current Republican members of the House of Representatives. In the primary, Strange and Moore advanced to a runoff with 32.8% and 38.9%, respectively.

By contrast, former federal prosecutor Doug Jones easily won the Democratic Primary, securing the nomination with 66.1% of the vote. He is best known for prosecuting two KKK members who perpetrated the 1963 church bombing that killed four African-American girls in Birmingham. Among his endorsers were former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire. Biden was one of the first to encourage Jones to seek the office. At that stage, almost no one expected Jones to have a chance to win in solidly-Republican Alabama.

The Campaign Trail and Moore on the Defense

The first major shock of this election came in the Republican runoff between Strange and Moore on September 26, in which Moore bested Strange by 54.6% of the vote and won all but 4 of Alabama’s 67 counties. Moore carried this victory despite a record of two suspensions from the Alabama Supreme Court, first for refusing a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the courthouse, and then for defying the May 2016 U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage.

Afterwards, the President rushed to tweet: “Congratulations to Roy Moore on his Republican Primary win in Alabama. Luther Strange started way back & ran a good race. Roy, WIN in Dec!” and also commented “Sounds like a really great guy who ran a fantastic race. He will help to #MAGA!” At that moment, it seemed like Moore would easily win the Senate seat. Alabama had not elected a Democrat to the Senate in 30 years, Moore had already won a statewide election despite having been removed from the Alabama Supreme Court, and now he had the support of the President, who was very popular in the state. Mainstream Republicans were silent, but as happened in many other cases, it seemed likely that they would fall in line and lend their support to him.

However, events in November changed the entire election landscape.. Nine women came forward to accuse Moore of sexual misconduct, three of which accused him of sexual assault (two when they were 16 and 14). Six of the women alleged that Moore either pursued relationships or engaged in unwanted behavior with them while they were between the ages of 16 and 22. Except for one incident that took place in 1991, all these cases dated back to the 1970’s, while Moore was an assistant district attorney. Furthermore, Faye Gray, a former Alabama police officer who worked in the 1980’s said on MSNBC: “we were told to watch him at the ballgames… and make sure he didn’t hang around the cheerleaders.” Moore was never criminally charged.

Moore responded to the allegations on Sean Hannity’s radio talk show on November 10th, stating “These allegations are completely false, false and misleading… I have a special concern for protection of young ladies.” On November 27 in a public campaign event, he said “This is simply dirty politics. It’s a sign of the immorality of our times” and went on to use an all-too familiar tagline, calling the allegations “fake news”, as they were published by The Washington Post, despised by both him and the President.

Following the allegations, Moore quickly lost the support of the main figures of the GOP establishment: Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker Paul Ryan, former Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, Ohio Governor John Kasich, Senators Mike Lee, Steve Daines, Bill Cassidy, Ted Cruz and Cory Gardner all revoked their endorsements and suggested he withdraw from the Senate race. Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona even donated $100 to the Jones campaign, citing “country over party.” Richard Shelby, the senior Senator from Alabama, said “Alabama deserves better.” The RNC temporarily halted its work in supporting Moore’s campaign.

Yet it was too late revoke his nomination. Republicans were stuck with deciding whether or not to try a last-minute write-in campaign. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Orrin Hatch floated this idea to elect Luther Strange, and McConnell even proposed attempting to elect Attorney General Sessions. The President, on the other hand, continued to support Moore, citing his denials: “He totally denies it … He says it didn’t happen. You have to listen to him also.” He also took the opportunity to attack Moore’s Democratic opponent, tweeting on November 26: “The last thing we need in Alabama and the U.S. Senate is a Schumer/Pelosi puppet who is WEAK on Crime, WEAK on the Border, Bad for our Military and our great Vets, Bad for our 2nd Amendment, AND WANTS TO RAISES TAXES TO THE SKY. Jones would be a disaster!”

Meanwhile, Doug Jones was focusing his efforts on rallying voters and raising campaign funds. By December, all major political prediction sites rated the race as either a “toss-up” or a “tilt Democratic.” The Jones campaign especially focused on African-American communities across the state, devoting a large portion of funding to voter outreach.

On the other hand, Steve Bannon opened rallies for Moore, and routinely questioned the merits of the accusations: “Let’s be right, ok, this whole thing was a setup, this whole thing was weaponized, right?” Moore and his campaign refused to debate Jones, with Moore stating, “There’s a great disparity; we don’t need to debate.” On December 4, the RNC hastily reaffirmed its support for Moore, just hours after President Trump tweeted that: “Democrats refusal to give even one vote for massive Tax Cuts is why we need Republican Roy Moore to win in Alabama. We need his vote on stopping crime, illegal immigration, Border Wall, Military, Pro Life, V.A., Judges, 2nd Amendment and more. No to Jones, a Pelosi/Schumer Puppet!” On Election Day, December 12, Jones received the support of Former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton via Twitter. Additionally, Obama recorded a ‘robocall’ that was placed to Alabama voters in the final days before the election.

The Blue Victory and a Road to Bipartisanship

On the evening of December 12, Americans awaited the outcome of the election with nervous anticipation. I myself eagerly stayed up that night until the AP called the election at 10:23 PM. In around the half hour before it was called, with all precincts having reported in rural Moore-leaning counties, and with more precincts to count in urban Jones-leaning counties, it was already becoming clear that Jones would likely edge out Moore. A few exit poll statistics are especially telling: 60% of voters between the ages of 18-29, 61% of voters under 45, 93% of African-American men and 98% of African-American women voted for Jones. The outreach programs had particularly focused on the registration of young people and African-Americans, which significantly increased the total shares of both demographics. Additionally, the last-minute scramble by Republicans alienated many moderate Republicans and Independents, who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Moore or Jones, with write-ins making up 1.7% of the final vote total. The write-in votes included Luther Strange, who won about 7,800 votes and Jeff Sessions, who won just over 400 votes. Many write-in votes were comedic entries of “Anyone Else,” “Any Other Republican,” “Mickey Mouse,” “Bugs Bunny,” “Spongebob Squarepants,” and “Jesus Christ.” Meanwhile, Moore slightly underperformed Donald Trump in the rural counties whose votes he had most anticipated. Ultimately, Jones bested Moore 49.9% to 48.4% (by 20,715 votes.)

In Jones’ victory speech, he remarked, ”I have always believed that the people of Alabama have more in common than that divide us. We have shown not just around the state of Alabama but we have shown the country the way that we can be unified… I’ve said it before, Alabama has been at a crossroads. We have been at crossroads in the past. And unfortunately we have usually taken the wrong fork. Tonight, ladies and gentlemen, you took the right road.”

Jones enjoyed congratulations from political figures across the spectrum, even earning a somewhat warm remark from the President himself, who could not resist mentioning the effect that write-in votes had on the election: “Congratulations to Doug Jones on a hard fought victory. The write-in votes played a very big factor, but a win is a win. The people of Alabama are great, and the Republicans will have another shot at this seat in a very short period of time. It never ends!” On December 13, the Roy Moore campaign released a video in which he refused to concede the election, citing that it had yet to receive the results from Alabama officials, notably stating, “Abortion, sodomy and materialism [had] taken the place of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill quickly responded, clarifying it was “highly unlikely” that Jones would not be certified as the winner. Jones stated, “The people of Alabama have spoken, it’s time to move on.”

Many political analysts were quick to point out the potential impact that the sexual misconduct allegations against Moore played in the election. However, Jones’ chief media strategist, Joe Trippi, disagrees with the assertion that Jones would have lost if not for the allegations, as the candidates “were in a dead heat in Alabama on election day.” He went on to say he believed that Moore was compromised as a candidate even before the allegations surfaced: “The race was pretty defined by the time those allegations came out. I definitely think they hurt him. But what if we had we spent all those days talking about why he’d been removed from office, about some of the crazy things he’d said over time?”

Since his election, Jones has expressed hopes of promoting bipartisanship. He doesn’t plan on labeling himself as a progressive or a conservative Democrat but as a “Doug Jones Democrat,” and that people should not “expect me to vote solidly for Republicans or Democrats.” He has appeared on Fox News, CNN and NBC, signaling a willingness to reach out to all parts of partisan demographics.

Senator Doug Jones and ‘The Radical Middle’

Whether or not one would argue that this result is a harbinger of what is to come in 2018 or beyond in the American political landscape, the 2016 Alabama Special Election was undoubtedly monumental. It edged the Democrats closer to a majority in the Senate, now divided at just 51-49, giving Republicans little leeway for legislative accomplishment. It galvanized not only national conversation but electoral action against sexual misconduct, which the 2016 Presidential Election largely failed to do, despite the many allegations of sexual misconduct against President Trump. Finally, it has shown that a well-run campaign that activates communities to get out the vote can defy political norms in any state, even Alabama.

On December 28, 2017, the Alabama State Canvassing Board certified Doug Jones as the election winner, effectively ignoring the claims of the Moore campaign. However, Moore has yet to officially concede the race and has continued to solicit contributions from supporters for an “election integrity fund.” Meanwhile, on January 2, Jones announced that he would be hiring former Department of Transportation staffer and Birmingham native Dana Gresham as his Chief of Staff, making Gresham the only current African-American Chief of Staff for a Democratic Senator.

On January 3, 2018, two new members of the U.S. Senate were sworn in by Vice President Pence: Tina Smith of Minnesota and Doug Jones of Alabama. Walking through the Capitol for his swear-in ceremony, Jones stated, “I think any good Senator is bipartisan, and that’s what I’m looking to [be].” Joe Biden was also present to escort the Jones family and for the photo-op after the swearing-in ceremony, urging him to “Smile, man, smile!” and joking, “Howell Heflin’s looking at you” — a nod to the last Democrat to hold office as a Senator from Alabama. Afterwards, Jones was able to meet many members of congress, including Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, whom he had not previously met. Like Jones, Manchin represents a conservative state, and was able to offer Jones a word of greeting as one who had experienced a similar situation in a turbulent time: “Welcome to the radical middle.”

By Adrian Flynn

When it comes to local politics, every state has its own hot-button issues: New Yorkers tend to think about climate change, Floridians worry over income taxes, and Texans often consider immigration policies. But in Montana, it’s all about the land. People want unobstructed access to the land, and their main obstacle in obtaining it is “land grabs” by the wealthy in order to exploit natural resources, such as oil and timber. As a result, land access and preservation defines Montana’s politics and will be the key issue in a special congressional election this month to replace Ryan Zinke as Montana’s at-large Congressional representative in the House of Representatives. The stakes are so high that even Mike Pence flew to Montana over the weekend to throw the weight of his office behind the GOP candidate.

Over spring break, I attended the local Tax March in Bozeman, Montana, a college town considerably more liberal than the rest of the state. We met in front of the Internal Revenue Service building and marched to a highway intersection, where we spread out to the four corners to make ourselves seen.

Through speaking with my fellow protesters, many of whom denounced Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns, I was able to better understand the social and political climate of their communities, as well as their views on federal politics. Some were Republicans who did not feel comfortable with the GOP’s far-right trajectory, especially when it came to Trump. Others were Independents who simply thought that every president should maintain a certain level of transparency, one the Trump Administration has failed to produce.

Over the course of the hour and a half that we were out there, we got many dozen honks of support, waves, and smiles from drivers and passengers. Every once in awhile, someone stuck out a middle finger or cursed at us. This energized us as much as, if not more than, the support we received. From a range of political backgrounds, we marched united in our cause.

As the protest came to a close, our local leader gathered us to announce that Rob Quist, the Democratic nominee for the congressional seat of Montana, was opening a campaign office. Quist, a country singer born on a ranch in Northern Montana, is running against Greg Gianforte, a New Jersey millionaire who had bought a massive property in the state in the 1980’s and moved there. Quist supports public lands, unions, and other liberal ideals often associated with Bernie Sanders, who has announced plans to campaign alongside him in the days before the election. In stark contrast, Gianforte has filed a lawsuit to privatize a creek near his property, supports deregulation of assault weapons, and has a league of GOP super PACs behind him running negative ads against Quist.

Suddenly, Montana seemed almost like a “purple state”: with the right candidate, it could easily go red or blue.

Later that day, my father and I walked into the Bozeman Union Temple, a support office for labor unions. I immediately recognized Quist. His tall figure, wide grin, and signature cowboy hat made him a powerful presence in the room. He gave me a firm handshake and thanked us for the support.

After a few speeches by local politicians to get us fired up, Rob Quist dominated the microphone. He spoke with passion about single-payer insurance, regulation on Wall Street, supporting unions and of course, the protection of public lands. He never once mentioned Donald Trump. However, he emphasized accountability, which clearly referred to both the President and the “300 millionaires in congress.”

In Quist’s words, it is “time for the House of Representatives to represent the people.”

This is the type of local opposition that will fuel the Democratic Party’s opposition to the Trump movement. In Montana, opposition comes in the form of supporting public land grants instead of leasing it for private purposes. This is the land where locals hunt, fish, hike, camp and enjoy the pristine outdoors, and it is the lifeblood of Montanans. It is these environment-centered values that got an incumbent Democratic Governor and Senator elected in the state, both of whom were ranchers like Quist. These elections can determine progressive policy agendas that represent the values of the average Montana constituent, and show a schism from federal policy. So while the word “Trump” is not usually explicitly mentioned in Montana’s congressional campaigns, Montanans may have their own perfect way of banding together and not letting him lay a finger on their land or their state.

The people of Montana will vote for their next congressperson on Thursday, May 25th.

By Adrian Flynn

For many Americans, the 2016 Presidential election was a cause for despair. Many saw it as a response to a changing country, a challenge of political correctness or even a “whitelash.” But we must remember that the majority of the voters rejected Donald Trump — almost 3 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton, not including the nearly 7 million others who voted for third party candidates — and the challenge now is to move forward despite the asterisks that have become attached to the election of 2016.

We must start by acknowledging that many lower and middle-class Americans do not feel that their economic situation has improved in the last eight years. Also, we must concede that Hillary Clinton’s message did not truly reach this group of Americans. These people — some down on their luck, others battered by a rapidly changing economy — demanded an end to the status quo, even if that meant sending a candidate with limited experience and troubling personal characteristics to the White House. So, for many voters, as in 2008, change was the answer. Donald Trump was that change candidate, and the palpable desire for change is one of the messages — maybe the message — of the 2016 election.

However, as we have seen in the months since November 2016, while the election may be over, the country is not over the election. Widespread protests, political engagement, and President Trump’s dismal approval ratings all speak to national divisions. In addition, these developments speak to the lingering question of where the Democratic Party can and should go from here.

It seems clear that the Democratic Party must become a party of the people once more. The fact that the Democratic Party nominated a fundamentally flawed candidate tainted by corruption and elitism as its standard bearer in 2016, a change election, was astounding. Fellow Democrats, we need to rebrand our party by nominating candidates that can better relate to the people. We are fortunate to have progressive Democratic senators like Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and, of course, Bernie Sanders.

With the White House and Congress both under their control, Republicans now have the ball in their court, and they are poised to dismantle as much of the Obama legacy as they possibly can.  But if the American people, millions more of whom voted against Trump than for him, are willing to raise their voices and fight for what they believe in — affordable health care, action on Climate Change, renewable energy investment, protecting social security and public education — it will be much harder for the Trump administration to move the country toward the far right.

We must never forget that as citizens, even if we are not yet eligible to vote, our values must not be swept aside. We have the ability, and the obligation, to organize, educate and rally ourselves. Make sure your representatives know what you think they should fight for by calling or emailing them. Exercise your right to protest, and meet with those who stand with you to gain a greater understanding of the challenges our fellow Americans’ experiences. In addition, donate to or volunteer for organizations that may need extra support in the next few years, such as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. And of course, when the midterm elections and the next presidential election roll around, take the initiative to work on the campaigns of Democratic candidates who share our vision of a united America: one that believes in equal rights for all.

What truly makes America great is the immense level of influence the people can have on the federal government. Elections don’t just take place every four years; the political process is always at work, as is our ability to influence government decisions — and choosing not to be engaged or committed is to leave your rights and your vision of the nation vulnerable. For the next election, we must strive to be more educated on how our government operates and understand how to promote better strategies for electing the political leaders we want to represent us. We have a long way to go, but in the words of Barack Obama, “We don’t fear the future; we shape it. We embrace it, as one people, stronger together than we are on our own.”