Liberal Democrats

Crucial Senate Races On Road To Democratic Majority In 116th Congress

The US Senate will be a major battleground this coming November.

Ten “Red State” Democrats face the challenge of winning their seats, with a few of them the most endangered.

If the Senate is to go Democratic, all ten seats must be won by their Democratic veterans, but that is a tall order, and is tied to the hearings over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

The most endangered regarding that issue are West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, North Dakota Senator Heidi Heitkamp, and Indiana Senator Joe Donnelly.

Also possibly in trouble on that issue is Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill.

These four Senators are seen as moderate, rather than liberal Democrats, and all of them except McCaskill, voted for Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch last year.

Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey, Jr., Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin, Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow, and Montana Senator Jon Tester all seem safer in their Senate races as of now, but that could change.

The most endangered incumbent, with or without the Kavanaugh vote, is Florida Senator Bill Nelson, who has Governor Rick Scott as his opponent, and with Scott having triple the amount of funds that Nelson has been able to garner. Scott is horrific, but he won two close races for Governor in 2010 and 2014, using his own wealth.

Now there is a new threat, that New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich might have more trouble being reelected, as former Governor and Libertarian Party 2016 Presidential candidate Gary Johnson, has just entered the race as an Independent, and in a three way race, anything is possible.

The problem is that even if all of these 11 Senators are successfully reelected, the Democrats still must win two more seats, with Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee, and Texas as possibilities in that order.

If the Democrats are able to win 51 seats in 2018, it would have to be considered a true miracle!

State Politics Much More Complicated Than Often Realized: The Cases Of New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Texas, California

Anyone who follows American politics historically and contemporarily often seems unaware of the complexity of state politics around the nation.

We hear discussion of “Blue” states and “Red” states, but state politics is much more complicated that that.

Gerrymandering often distorts the reality of political loyalties in many states, and also the reality of about one third of voters being “Independent”, rather than loyal to Democrats or Republicans.

There are many examples of this across the nation, particularly noticeable in larger, more populated states.

Just a few examples:

New York State is often thought to be strongly Democratic, but not true in the state legislature, and New York City is vastly different in political culture from upstate New York areas, such as Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Albany. Even Long Island, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, often reflect different views than the five boroughs of New York City, and within New York City, Staten Island, is vastly different from Manhattan, the Bronx, and Brooklyn, with Queens County more balanced than the other boroughs in the city.

Pennsylvania is a state where gerrymandering has given the Republicans until now a great advantage, but new court ordered mandates may change that balance in Congress and the state legislature. Philadelphia has a very different political orientation than western Pennsylvania, often called “Alabama” outside of the city of Pittsburgh.

Virginia is well known to have a very liberal Democratic northern section (often called NoVa), reflecting the influence of being the Washington DC suburbs, while much of the rest of the state is reliably conservative and Republican.

Florida is strongly Democratic in the southern counties, particularly Broward and Palm Beach Counties, with somewhat less so in Miami Dade County due to the influence of Cuban Americans, but even that is diminishing, since it is now 60 years since the rise of Fidel Castro, and those directly affected negatively by Castro, are mostly no longer part of the population in Miami. At the same time, Central Florida is the real battleground in the state, the area that decides most elections. North Florida is much like Alabama or Georgia, its neighbors.

Ohio is strongly Democratic in the northern and central sections, particularly in Cleveland and Toledo, and the capital of Columbus, but in the more rural parts and in southern Ohio, near Kentucky, including Cincinnati, it is strongly Republican.

Illinois is dominated by Chicago in the northern part, but down state Illinois is much more Republican in orientation.

Michigan has Detroit as strongly Democratic but in western and northern Michigan, it is much more rural and Republican.

Texas has Democratic strongholds in the state capitol, Austin, and in Houston, while other portions of this very large state, including the rural areas, are strongly Republican.

California has Democratic strongholds in San Francisco and Los Angeles, but the Central Valley, San Diego, and cities like Bakersfield, where House Majority Leader and possible next Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy resides, are strongly Republican.

The next race for the Speaker of the House could be between two Californians of totally different mentalities–Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield.

A basic reality is that urban areas are always much more likely to be Democratic while rural areas are certain to be more Republican.

Suburban areas are what often decides the politics of a state and in Congress and the Presidential election, as they are the balancing force that determines a state vote, and recently it seems clear the suburban areas, often Republican, are starting to move away from that long time loyalty.

Could Donald Trump End Up As Nixon-Rockefeller Type Of Republican, Very Different Than Present Republicans In Congress?

If one looks at Donald Trump’s statements about public affairs over many decades, he often seemed to be a liberal Democrat.

Now he is consorting with powerful military figures recently retired, and powerful corporate people from Exxon Mobil and Goldman Sachs and other corporate types, and is in bed with right wing Republican forces in Congress.

Trump changes his mind so much and so often that one wonders where his leanings are, but right now it seems to be moving to the hard right, based on appointments.

But one can hope that he might evolve into a Richard Nixon-Nelson Rockefeller type of Republican, a pragmatic, mainstream view of foreign policy as Richard Nixon had, and a support of basic domestic programs and ideas as Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller tended to support.

Under present circumstances, IF Trump turned out to be a Nixon-Rockefeller type of Republican, he would become very different than most Republicans in Congress are in 2016-2017. But he would also alienate the party that elected him, so do not expect Trump, who is totally unpredictable, to be a profile in courage.

But if he were, that would be the best we could expect from him, but do not hold your breath!

The Future Of The Democratic Party: Younger Liberals In The US Senate

When one sees that Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski, California Senator Barbara Boxer, and Nevada Senator Harry Reid are retiring in 2016, and know that other older Senate Democrats have limited time left in the Senate, it makes it clear that it is time to examine who among the “younger” generation of liberal Senate Democrats may be perceived as the future of the Democrats beyond Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and even Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

Even if Hillary Clinton becomes President, where is the hope for liberal Democrats in the future, as there are very few Democratic governors. The “youth” movement in the Democratic Party is therefore in the hands of the following younger liberal Senate Democrats:

Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy (41)
Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz (42)
New Jersey Senator Cory Booker (45)
New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (48)
Colorado Senator Michael Bennet (50)
Delaware Senator Christopher Coons (51)
Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin (53)
Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar (54)
Michigan Senator Gary Peters (56)
Virginia Senator Tim Kaine (57)
Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley (58)
Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (59)

These are the present Democratic hopes for the future, to make an impact on the level of Mikulski, Boxer, Reid, along with Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, California Senator Diane Feinstein, Florida Senator Bill Nelson, Maryland Senator Ben Cardin, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, New Mexico Senator Tom Udall, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed, Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow, Washington Senator Patty Murray, New York Senator Chuck Schumer, Minnesota Senator Al Franken, and Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, as well as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

Of course, more liberal Senate Democrats yet unknown could be elected in 2016, including Kamala Harris in California and Patrick Murphy in Florida, and hopefully, the Democrats will take back control of the United States Senate, and some new Democratic governors might be elected, assuming a coattail effect of the candidacy of the Democratic nominee in the Electoral College, still highly likely!

The Greatest Rockefeller In Public Office, With The Least Fanfare!

A long unsung hero in American politics and the US Senate is West Virginia’s former Governor Jay Rockefeller, who is retiring as Senator after thirty years of service at the end of 2014.

The only Democrat in the Rockefeller family political history has been an outstanding Senator for one of the poorest states, and will be remembered for how much he has done to promote the economic future of his state.

Jay Rockefeller could have replaced Senator Robert F. Kennedy by appointment of his uncle, Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, in 1968, but refused the opportunity and moved to the poor state of West Virginia, with the intention of bringing reform and change to his adopted state. He also refused to allow his father in law, Illinois Republican Senator Charles Percy, to use his influence in any way.

Instead, Jay Rockefeller worked his way up the political struggles to become a member of the West Virginia state legislature, Secretary of State, Governor of the state for two terms, and now finishing five terms in the US Senate.

Unlike his more famous uncle, Nelson Rockefeller, who sought the Presidency three times and was Vice President under Gerald Ford, Jay Rockefeller was satisfied to have an influence on his state, and to promote liberal Democratic ideas. He is now also actively engaged in investigation of the Chris Christie scandal, and is unafraid of challenging the status quo and the establishment’s leaders, always having supported and promoted progressive causes.

Jay Rockefeller has turned out to be more significant in many ways than his uncle Nelson, hard to believe, and certainly more so than his other uncle, Winthrop, Republican Governor of Arkansas in the late 1960s and early 1970s. And his career has been much longer, without any interest in seeking the Presidency in his younger years.

So Jay Rockefeller will be much missed when he retires from his distinguished career in the Senate at the end of this year!

Barack Obama Continues Tradition Of Progressive Republicans And Liberal Democrats

President Barack Obama demonstrated in yesterday’s Second Inaugural Address that he is following the best traditions of the progressive and liberal champions of the 20th and early 21st century!

Not only is he pursuing the vision of Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, but also of many others, including:

Senator Robert La Follette, Sr. of Wisconsin, progressive Republican
Senator George Norris of Nebraska, progressive Republican
Senator Robert La Follette, Jr. of Wisconsin, progressive Republican
Senator Jacob Javits of New York, progressive Republican
Senator Clifford Case of New Jersey, progressive Republican
Senator Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, progressive Republican
Senator Charles Mathias of Maryland, progressive Republican
Senator Charles Percy of Illinois, progressive Republican
Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon, progressive Republican
Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon, progressive Republican, Independent, liberal Democrat
Senator Robert F. Wagner, Sr. of New York, liberal Democrat
Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois, liberal Democrat
Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, liberal Democrat
Senator George McGovern of South Dakota, liberal Democrat
Senator Walter Mondale of Minnesota, liberal Democrat
Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, liberal Democrat
Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, liberal Democrat
Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, liberal Democrat
Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, liberal Democrat
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Independent Socialist, allied with Democratic Party

And this list of ten progressive Republicans and ten liberal Democrats are not a complete list, but they are among those who have stood the test of time on their progressive and liberal values!

And realize that La Follette, Sr., Humphrey, McGovern, and Mondale all ran for President, and that Humphrey, Mondale and Biden all have served as Vice President of the United States.

Today Is A Shared Death Date Of Two Courageous Presidents, Often Criticized In Office Endlessly!

Today, December 26, is a shared death date of two courageous Presidents, often criticized in office endlessly.

These two Presidents were Harry Truman who died in 1972, and Gerald Ford, who died in 2006.

Harry Truman was incessantly attacked on all sides, by Republicans who thought he would be easy to defeat in 1948, and were surprised by his upset victory over Thomas E. Dewey; and who later bitterly attacked his strategy on the Korean War. But also, liberal Democrats were disappointed in him, seeing him as a poor replacement for Franklin D. Roosevelt, who he succeeded in 1945. So he faced the opposition of former Vice President Henry A. Wallace and the Progressive Party of 1948. But he also faced the opposition of Southern Democrats, led by Governor Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who ran for President in 1948 as a “Dixiecrat” on the States Rights Party line, because of Truman’s brave stand ending segregation in Washington, DC, and in the armed forces, by executive order.

Truman had twenty years in retirement, and grew in stature as the years went by.

Gerald Ford, not even elected Vice President, ended up succeeding Richard Nixon, when he resigned due to the Watergate scandal in 1974.

Ford gained criticism because of the pardon of Nixon one month later, and because of the economic recession that had already begun, and was the worst economic downturn since 1939.

Ford also had to battle for the GOP nomination against conservatives who backed former Governor Ronald Reagan, who nearly defeated Ford in the Republican National Convention of 1976, and this forced Ford to drop Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, and replace him with Kansas Senator Bob Dole. He came close to the defeat of Democratic nominee Governor Jimmy Carter, losing in Ohio and Hawaii by very small margins, enough to have defeated Carter if only he had gained a few thousand votes.

Ford came to be regarded with respect and admiration, even by Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, who in 1999 said he had been wrong to attack Ford for the Nixon pardon 25 years earlier.

Ford lived on for 29 years after the Presidency, and is looked at kindly now, much like Truman.

These were two men who had in common that they came across to average Americans as being “one of us”! May they rest in peace!

Republicans Start To Deal With Foreign Policy Finally! First Mitt Romney And Later Jon Huntsman!

The Republican Party has been busy trashing President Barack Obama and economic problems in America, but has failed to address the world scene and our foreign and defense policy.

Barack Obama has done a masterful job in many ways on the international scene, often seen as his strong point, particularly with dealing with international terrorism, including Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Many problems, of course, remain, including North Korea, Iran, China and the Middle East crisis. He has also had a masterful Secretary of State in Hillary Clinton!

But the question arises: Do the Republican candidates have any vision of how to deal with the outside world, considering that only former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman has had any real expertise, as former Ambassador to Singapore and China?

Well, now, Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts has announced in a speech at The Citadel in South Carolina, what is defined as a “muscular” foreign policy!

Romney calls for:

1. Increased Naval shipbuilding.
2. Strengthening alliances with Great Britain, Israel and Mexico
3. Keeping aircraft carrier groups in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean as a deterrent against Iran
4. Spending more on national missile defense
5. Renewed emphasis on diplomacy and foreign aid to the Middle East
6. Increased diplomacy and trade with Latin America
7. Figuring out how to deal with Afghanistan beyond 2014
8. Devising a national cyber security strategy

Romney calls for a “new American Century”, with aggressive and hawkish foreign policy reminiscent of Ronald Reagan and the two Presidents Bush. This is in contradiction of the Tea Party Movement followers, and the libertarian, isolationist view of Congressman Ron Paul, an opponent in the Republican Presidential contest and his son, Senator Rand Paul, as well as liberal Democrats who want to avoid military conflicts overseas, which Romney seems clear to be unwilling to avoid if it is seen as necessary to assert American power.

Romney’s doubt about working through the United Nations will also turn many off from his strong foreign policy and defense policy statements, and of course, the question will be how the costs of this new, bold foreign policy will be managed in the present budget mess we are facing as a nation!

Next week, Jon Huntsman will enunciate his views, as foreign policy goes from the back burner to the front burner of American politics, as indeed it needs to do. But the question is can Romney or Huntsman convince the American people that Barack Obama has not, overall, been successful in areas of defense and foreign policy?

One thinks that will be difficult to convince the nation over the next year!