MAY 22, 2016

OPINION AND INFORMATION ON DEMOCRATS TODAY


Factions In The Democratic Party and More, 2016

Wikipedia, as usual, gives a detailed overview of this subject. My goal began as an attempt to identify specific left of center Democrats so that I and others could contact them and/or support them, with the aim of bolstering their effectiveness in the Legislature. I also, unfortunately, see lately a need to look into the possibility of a need to split the Democratic Party (and the Republicans on their end) into two, who can vote together or separately as deemed wise. Perhaps it shouldn’t be a complete structural split, so that we needn’t run the risk of losing our power as an effective electoral force. This will undoubtedly be one of those election years for bloc voting, and I certainly won’t vote against Clinton, thus ending her drive against Trump. A very interesting list of left leaning Democrats is below from the website “http://members-of-congress.insidegov.com/stories/11569/most-liberal-members-of-congress.”

Beyond being able to command enough votes to avoid the danger of losing the election to a radical Rightist like Trump, there is the purpose of drafting more progressive laws and sponsoring promising candidates on the local and state levels, as well as continuing the push against Republican economic and societal control. We must be able to keep equal and well run public schools for all, voting rights for all, women’s issues, LGBT and ethnic issues, for instance, which the Right leaning groups threaten to eliminate piecemeal by new legislation. For any of you who are not familiar with the David Koch founded Rightist group ALEC, go to Wikipedia and look at it. Rightist Republicans are introducing laws across the whole country in state and local arenas which are chipping away at our civil rights structure. Sometimes their tool is not a pocket knife, but an ax.

The first article is a description of the factions within our party which exist and are currently causing great disunity. I am not suggesting that the Sanders camp should give in, but that our issues will be opened up to the sunlight of a detailed public discussion one by one. The Sanders group have broken off from the party purely because, since Bill Clinton’s leadership, we have become a party of the wealthy almost as much as the Republicans are, and I greatly miss our prior unity around issues of fairness. Michelle Obama stepped into it verbally when she was recorded saying “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country…” I really felt sorry for her, because I, like her, cannot be proud of our racial, intellectual, classist, and economic divisions.

For those of us who understand the difference between America during the period between WWI and WWII, and then the renaissance-like change that occurred with President Franklin Roosevelt, there is such a stark contrast these last fifteen years or so that we find it hard to love our government as we did in our young days. Patriotism and blind faith came more easily to me when I was ten years old. My family were among the poor whites who experienced that vast change in a way that set me permanently on the path toward an ever more open and economically fair nation.

In reading the factions article here I find that I am really very much like a Libertarian Democrat, though I don’t oppose reasonable gun control, which is just good common sense to me rather than the overreach of a dictator. If Bill Maher could be persuaded to run for Congress I would definitely vote for him, because he isn’t just a comedian.

That’s why, when I saw Bernie Sanders’ views as expressed in his straightforward and eloquent way, I was relieved that such a person was available for me to follow. He is highly intelligent and yes, idealistic, but well aware that it will be a fight to achieve what is needed. The best news of all is that he is willing to fight! People are reacting so strongly to him because he really is like a modern Moses, as Martin Luther King was to the Black community, while the Clinton wing is giving a good imitation of a group of Moderate Republicans in my view. You must forgive us, therefore, for being sometimes overly emotional. It’s like a good meal after a month in the desert.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)
Factions in the Democratic Party (United States)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Democratic Party of the United States is composed of various factions with some overlap and enough agreement between them to coexist in one party.

Contents [hide]
1 Progressive wing
2 Liberal wing
3 Centrist wing
4 Libertarian wing
5 Conservative wing

6 Voter base
6.1 African Americans
6.2 Hispanic Americans
6.3 Muslim Americans
6.4 Jewish Americans
6.5 Native Americans
6.6 Asian Americans
6.7 LGBT Americans
6.8 Labor
6.9 Working class
6.10 Irreligious Americans
6.10.1 Atheist and agnostic Americans
6.11 Christian left

Progressive wing[edit]
Main article: Progressivism in the United States

Progressives tend to advocate a relatively social democratic agenda.[1] Unifying issues among progressive Democrats include opposition to the War in Iraq, opposition to economic liberalism and social conservatism, opposition to all corporate influence in government, support for universal health care or single-payer health care, revitalization of the national infrastructure and steering the Democratic Party in the direction of being a more forceful party. Compared to other factions of the party, they've been most critical of the Republican Party, and most supportive of direct democracy.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) is a caucus of progressive Democrats, along with one independent, in the U.S. Congress. It is the single largest Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives. Its members have included Congressmen Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson, John Conyers (MI), Barbara Lee (CA), Jim McDermott (WA), John Lewis (GA); as well as Senators Paul Wellstone (MN)[citation needed], Elizabeth Warren (MA)[citation needed], Sherrod Brown (OH)[citation needed], and Bernie Sanders (VT).[2]

Many progressive Democrats are ideological descendants of the New Left of Democratic Presidential candidate/Senator George McGovern of South Dakota; others were involved in the presidential candidacies of Vermont Governor Howard Dean and U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio; and still others are disaffected former members of the Green Party. This groups consists disproportionately of college-educated professionals.[1] A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that a plurality, 41%, resided in mass affluent households and 49% were college graduates.[3]

Progressive Democratic candidates for public office have had popular support as candidates in metropolitan areas outside the South, and among African-Americans nationwide. Other famous progressives include Eugene McCarthy and Ted Kennedy.


Liberal wing[edit]
Main article: Modern liberalism in the United States

Liberal Democrats are to the left of centrist Democrats, but more moderate than the progressive wing in the party. The liberal faction was dominant in the party for several decades, although they have been hurt by the rise of centrist forces such as President Bill Clinton. Compared to conservatives and moderates, liberal Democrats have advocated the right to abortion, more spending on welfare and social programs, progressivism, a less militaristic foreign policy, and have a reputation of being more forceful in pushing for civil liberties. In the 1970s, modern liberal politicians began to include consumer protection, opposition to capital punishment, and environmentalism.[4]

Prominent liberal Democrats include current U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer (CA), Russ Feingold (WI), Tom Harkin (IA), and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA).[citation needed]


Centrist wing[edit]
See also: New Democrats

Centrist Democrats, or New Democrats, are an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party that emerged after the victory of Republican George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election. They are an economically liberal and "Third Way" faction which dominated the party for around 20 years starting in the late 1980s after the US populace turned much further to the political right. They are represented by organizations such as the New Democrat Network and the New Democrat Coalition.

The New Democrat Coalition is a pro-business, pro-growth and fiscally conservative wing in the party.[5] Compared to other Democratic factions, they are mostly more supportive of the use of military force, including the war in Iraq, are more supportive of free trade, and are more willing to reduce government welfare, as indicated by their support for welfare reform and tax cuts. One of the most influential factions was the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a nonprofit organization that advocated centrist positions for the party. The DLC hailed President Bill Clinton as proof of the viability of "Third Way" politicians and a DLC success story, the DLC disbanded in 2011. Much of the former DLC is now represented in the think tank Third Way.[6]

While not representing a majority of the Democratic Party electorate, a decent amount of Democratic elected officials have self declared as being centrists. Some of these Democrats are former President Bill Clinton, 2016 presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,[7] former Vice President Al Gore, Senator Mark Warner, former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, former senator Jim Webb, Vice President Joe Biden, and congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.[8][9]

The Democratic Leadership Council was a group that supported centrist Democrats and called for the Democratic Party to be the party of centrism.[10] The New Democrat Network supports socially moderate, fiscally conservative Democratic politicians and operates the congressional New Democrat Coalition in the House and Senate. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was a member of the coalition when in congress[11] and Senator Barack Obama self-described as a New Democrat.[12]


Libertarian wing[edit]
Main article: Libertarian Democrat

Civil liberties advocates, and people against national debt, also often support the Democratic Party because its positions on such issues as civil rights and separation of church and state are more closely aligned to their own than the positions of the Republican Party, and because the Democrats' economic agenda may be more appealing to them than that of the Libertarian Party.[13]

They oppose gun control, the "War on Drugs," protectionism, corporate welfare, governmental borrowing, and an interventionist foreign policy. Some civil libertarians also support the party because of their support of habeas corpus for unlawful combatants, opposition to torture of suspected terrorists, extraordinary rendtition, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention without trial or charge, the Patriot Act, the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and what they see as the erosion of the protections of the Bill of Rights.[14][15]

In the 2010s, following the revelations by Edward Snowden about NSA surveillance in 2013, the increasing advent of online decentralization and cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, the perceived failure of the War on Drugs, and the police violence in places like Ferguson, Democratic lawmakers such as Senators Ron Wyden, Kirsten Gilibrand, and Cory Booker and Representative Jared Polis have worked alongside libertarian Republicans like Senator Rand Paul and Representative Justin Amash to curb what is seen as government overreach in each of these areas, earning plaudits from such traditional libertarian sources as Reason Magazine.[16][17][18][19] The growing political power of Silicon Valley, a longtime Democratic stronghold that is friendly to economic deregulation and strong civil liberties protections while maintaining traditionally liberal views on social issues, has also had a serious impact on the increasingly libertarian leanings of young Democrats.[20][21][22]

Many anti-war and civil libertarian Democrats were energized by the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns of Ron Paul,[23][24] a constituency that has arguably embraced the 2016 presidential campaign of independent Democrat Bernie Sanders for the same reasons.[25][26] Additionally, Alaska Senator and presidential aspirant Mike Gravel left the Democratic Party midway through the 2008 presidential election cycle to seek the Libertarian Party presidential nomination.[27]

The Democratic Freedom Caucus (DFC) is an organized group of this faction, although it prefers to use terms such as "freedom Democrats" or "freedom-oriented Democrats". The DFC does not use the term "libertarian" on its website, because while it advocates individual liberty and limited government power, it considers its economic policies to be more progressive than, for example, the Libertarian Party. This is especially so because the DFC is in the tradition which holds that land and natural resources are subject to fundamentally different economic laws than human-made products (such as machinery, buildings, etc.), so its view of economic freedom advocates somewhat different economic policies. Specifically, the DFC advocates in its platform a tax shift away from things like labor, (and the products thereof), and sales and towards spatial-locations and natural resources.[28]

Another group, The Libertarian Democratic Caucus (LDC) seeks to build libertarian coalitions on issues regardless of political party. The Democratic Freedom Caucus tends to focus on taxation while the LDC targets civil liberty issues such as legalizing victimless crimes. The LDC is a Democratic organization, but it advocates working with the Libertarian Party and libertarian Republicans, such as the Libertarian Republican Caucus, on issues they have in common.[29]


Conservative wing[edit]
See also: Conservative Democrat

Conservative Democrats are Democratic Party members with conservative political views, or with views relatively conservative with respect to those of the national party. While such members of the Democratic Party can be found throughout the nation, actual elected officials are disproportionately found within the Southern states, and to a lesser extent within rural regions of the several states generally, more commonly in the West.

The Democratic Party had a conservative element, mostly from the South and Border regions, into the 1980s. Their numbers declined sharply as the Republican Party built up its Southern base. They were sometimes humorously called "Yellow dog Democrats," or "boll weevils," "Dixiecrats." Nowadays, they are often called a Democrat In Name Only. In the House, they form the Blue Dog Democrats, a caucus of fiscal and social conservatives and moderates, primarily southerners, willing to broker compromises with the Republican leadership. They have acted as a unified voting bloc in the past, giving its forty plus members some ability to change legislation. The Blue Dogs added nine new members as a result of the 2006 midterm elections.[30] Occasionally, the term "conservative Democrat" is also made to describe politicians who are left-of-center on economic issues[citation needed] but conservative on social issues, or communitarians, rather as many "liberal Republicans" are fiscal conservatives.

Prominent communitarian or more conservative Democrats of recent time include Senators Ben Nelson (NE), Zell Miller (GA), Mary Landrieu (LA), and John Breaux (LA); as well as Congressmen Ike Skelton (MO), Gene Taylor (MS), Henry Cuellar (TX), Collin Peterson (MN), and Jim Marshall (GA).

Many conservative Southern Democrats defected to the Republican Party, beginning with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the general leftward shift of the party. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, Kent Hance and Ralph Hall of Texas, and Richard Shelby of Alabama are examples of this. The influx of conservative Democrats into the Republican Party is often cited as a reason for the GOP's shift further to the right during the late 20th century, as well as the shift of its base from the Northeast and Midwest to the South.

A newly emerging trend is the return of active pro-life Democratic groups and candidates. Some of these candidates have won office or are backed by the party establishment in their state. The largest national pro-life group within the party is the Democrats for Life of America. Pro-life candidate Bob Casey, Jr. (PA) was elected as a U.S. Senator in the 2006 midterm elections.

The 2006 Congressional elections also brought to Congress a significant bloc of conservative Democrats who are likely to support protectionist policies.[31]


Voter base[edit]
See also: Identity politics and Community organizing

A large portion of the Democratic voting base are ethnic minorities. The Democrats' positions on affirmative action and civil rights, the economy, and immigration have attracted many minorities to the party.

African Americans[edit]

Originally, the Republican Party was favored by African Americans after the end of the civil war and emancipation of black slaves. This trend started to gradually change in the 1930s with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal programs that gave economic relief to all minorities including African Americans and Hispanics. Support for the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s by Democratic presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson helped give the Democrats even larger support among the African American community, although their position also alienated the Southern white population. Today African Americans have as strong support for the Democratic Party as any group has for either party, voting 90% Democratic in the 2000 presidential election,[32] 88% Democratic in the 2004 presidential election[33] and 95% Democratic in the 2008 presidential election.[34]

Hispanic Americans[edit]

The Hispanic population, particularly the large Mexican American population in the Southwest and large Puerto Rican, Dominican, and South American populations in the Northeast have been strongholds for the Democratic Party. Hispanic Democrats commonly favor liberal views on immigration, which supersedes in priority over the socially conservative views that many Hispanics hold. In 1996 presidential election, Democratic President Bill Clinton received 72% of the Hispanic vote.

After a period of incremental gains under George W. Bush, the Republican Party's support among Hispanics seriously eroded after a heated and acrimonious debate within the party during the 109th Congress over immigration reform. Nationwide protests helped galvanize Hispanic political participation, and in the 2006 mid-term elections, Democrats increased their share the Hispanic vote from 2004 by 14 points to 69%.[62] The trend continued in 2008, as Barack Obama carried the Latino vote with 67%.[34] Obama expanded his share of the Latino vote to 71% in the 2012 Presidential election

Muslim Americans[edit]

Muslims make up about 0.6% of Americans and in the 2008 election, 89% of Muslim Americans voted for Barack Obama.[63] Muslim Americans tend to be financially well off, as many in the community are small businessmen and educated professionals. They also tend to be socially conservative.[citation needed] However, after 9/11 many experienced hostility and discrimination,[64] and many right-wing religious and political leaders attacked Islam as both a violent religion and a threat to American values.[65][66] Furthermore, most Muslim Americans opposed the Iraq War, solidifying their shift to the Democratic Party.[67]

Islamic convert Keith Ellison was elected as first Muslim Congressman in 2006. He was elected as Democrats' Representative for Minnesota's 5th congressional district.


Jewish Americans[edit]

Jewish communities tend to be a stronghold for the Democratic Party, with more than 70% of Jewish voters having cast their ballots for the Democrats in the 2004 through 2012 presidential elections. Of the 29 Jewish Senators and Congressmen currently serving in Congress, 28 are Democrats (Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is a Democrat as of 2015;[71] he had been the longest-serving independent in U.S. congressional history, though his caucusing with the Democrats had entitled him to committee assignments, and at times gave Democrats a majority.[72]).[73]


Native Americans[edit]

Carl Venne, Crow Indian Tribal Chairman, shows support for Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama in 2008.

The Democratic Party also has strong support among the Native American population, particularly in Arizona, New Mexico, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oklahoma[78] and North Carolina. Though now a small percentage of the population (virtually non-existent in some regions), most Native American precincts vote Democratic in margins exceeded only by African-Americans.[79]

Modern-day Democratic Native American politicians include former Congressman Brad Carson of Oklahoma and Lieutenant Governor Byron Mallott of Alaska, as well as Principal Chief Bill John Baker of the Cherokee Nation and Governor Bill Anoatubby of the Chickasaw Nation.


Asian Americans[edit]

The Democratic Party also has considerable support in the small but growing Asian American population. The Asian American population had been a stronghold of the Republican Party until the United States presidential election of 1992 in which George H. W. Bush won 55% of the Asian American vote, compared to Bill Clinton winning 31%, and Ross Perot winning 15% of the Asian vote. Originally, the vast majority of Asian Americans consisted of strongly anti-communist, pro-democracy Vietnamese refugees, Chinese Americans, Taiwanese Americans, Korean Americans, and socially conservative Filipinos who fled Ferdinand Marcos in the 1960s through the 1980s, and the general Republican Party's socially conservative, fervently anti-communist position strongly resonated with this original demographic. The Democratic party made gains among the Asian American population starting with 1996 and in 2006, won 62% of the Asian American vote. Exit polls after the 2008 presidential election indicated that Democratic candidate, Barack Obama won 62% of the Asian American vote nationwide.[80] In the 2012 Presidential election, 73% of the Asian American electorate voted for Obama's re-election.[81]

Barack Obama has the support of 85% of Indian Americans, 68% of Chinese Americans, and 57% of Filipino Americans.[82] The Asian American community's increasing number of young voters has also helped to erode traditionally reliably Republican voting blocs such as Vietnamese and Filipino Americans, leading to an increase in support for Democrats. Prominent Asian-American Democrats include Senators Daniel Inouye, Daniel Akaka and Mazie Hirono, former Governor and Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke, and Representatives Mike Honda, Judy Chu, Doris Matsui, and Norman Mineta


LGBT Americans[edit]

Since the 1970s, LGBT Americans become a key core consistency within the Democratic Party. In 1971, the Alice B. Toklas Memorial Democratic Club of San Francisco was formed as the first registered political action committee for LGBT Democrats in the nation. Both presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama heavily targeted LGBT voters. Exit polling going back to 1990 to the present show that LGB voters overwhelming prefer the Democratic Party over the Republican Party. On average, about 72.5% of LGB voters voted Democratic in exit polling for the US presidential elections dating from 1992 to the present. On average, about 74.42% of LGB voters voted Democratic in exit polling for House of Representatives elections dating from 1990 to the present. In the 2012 election exit polls, Obama won 76% of LGB voters.


Labor

Since the 1930s, a critical component of the Democratic Party coalition has been organized labor. Labor unions supply a great deal of the money, grass roots political organization, and voting base of support for the party. Democrats are far more likely to be represented by unions, although union membership has declined, in general, during the last few decades. This trend is depicted in the following graph from the book, Democrats and Republicans—Rhetoric and Reality.[84] It is based on surveys conducted by the National Election Studies (NES).

The historic decline in union membership over the past half century has been accompanied by a growing disparity between public sector and private sector union membership percentages. The three most significant labor groupings in the Democratic coalition today are the AFL-CIO and Change to Win labor federations, as well as the National Education Association, a large, unaffiliated teachers' union. Both the AFL-CIO and Change to Win have identified their top legislative priority for 2007 as passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Other important issues for labor unions include supporting industrial policy (including protectionism) that sustains unionized manufacturing jobs, raising the minimum wage and promoting broad social programs such as Social Security and universal health care.


Working class[edit]

Further information: Social class in the United States
While the American working class has lost much of its political strength with the decline of labor unions,[87] it remains a stronghold of the Democratic Party and continues as an essential part of the Democratic base. Today, roughly a third of the American public is estimated to be working class with around 52% being either members of the working or lower classes.[88][89] Yet, as those with lower socioeconomic status are less likely to vote, the working and lower classes are underrepresented in the electorate. The working class is largely distinguished by highly routinized and closely supervised work. It consists mainly of clerical and blue-collar workers.[88] Even though most in the working class are able to afford an adequate standard of living, high economic insecurity and possible personal benefit from an extended social safety net, make the majority of working class person left-of-center on economic issues. Most working class Democrats differ from most liberals, however, in their more socially conservative views. Working class Democrats tend to be more religious and likely to belong to an ethnic minority. Socially conservative and disadvantaged Democrats are among the least educated and lowest earning ideological demographics. In 2005, only 15% had a college degree, compared to 27% at the national average and 49% of liberals, respectively. Together socially conservative and the financially disadvantaged comprised roughly 54% of the Democratic base.[90]> The continued importance of the working class votes manifests itself in recent CNN exit polls, which shows that the majority of those with low incomes and little education vote for the Democratic Party.[91][92][92][93][93] However, there has been a noticeable decline in support for the Democratic Party among white working class voters.[94][95][96] In the 2012 presidential election, Barack Obama only carried 36% of white working class voters to Mitt Romney carrying 61%, and in the 2014 midterms, Democratic candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives only carried 34% of the white working class vote compared to 64% for the Republican candidates.[97][98][99]


Irreligious Americans[edit]
Main article: Irreligion in the United States

The Democratic Party receives support from secular organizations such as the Secular Coalition for America,[100] and many agnostic and atheist Americans. Exit polls from the 2008 election showed that although a religious affiliation of "none" accounted for 12% of the electorate, they overwhelmingly voted for Obama by a 75–25% margin.[101] In his inaugural address, Obama acknowledged atheists by saying that the United States is not just "Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus but non-believers as well."[102] In the 2012 election cycle, Obama has moderate to high rankings with the Secular Coalition for America, whereas the majority of the Republican candidates have ratings in the low-to-failing range.[103]

An October 2012 American Values Survey found that among unaffiliated American likely voters, 23% of unaffiliated American likely voters made up Barack Obama's religious coalition of supporters, the largest share of the coalition.[104]


Atheist and agnostic Americans[edit]

An October 2012 American Values Survey found that among atheist and agnostic American voters, 51% identified politically independent, 39% Democratic, 9% Republican, and 1% other. It also found that atheist and agnostic American voters identify 57% liberal and 81% supported Barack Obama in the 2012 US presidential election.[104]


Christian left[edit]
Main article: Christian left

The Christian left shares many policy goals with Democratic Party, although the movement is arguably smaller and less influential on the party when compared to the Christian right, which is generally more affiliated with the Republican Party.

Christian left includes Peace churches, elements of Protestant mainline churches, elements of Roman Catholicism and some parts of the evangelical community. Their concerns regarding social justice, welfare, universal health care, education and foreign aid are more in line with the Democratic economic agenda than the laissez-faire economic approach of the Republicans. Their social views of capital punishment, defense and militarism, civil rights and equality are also left-wing. On moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality, the Christian left are often, although not always, more in line with Democrats. They may either disagree with Biblical literalism on these issues or may hold opposition but choose to prioritize social justice and other issues over social issues.[citation needed]

Prominent Christian left Democrats include Jesse Jackson (a Democratic presidential candidate in 1984 and 1988) and Al Sharpton (a Democratic presidential candidate in 2004).



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unofficial_organizations_for_Democrats

Unofficial organizations for Democrats
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unofficial organizations for Democrats are those bodies, not officially affiliated with the United States Democratic Party, but are primarily intended for the participation of people who are at least self-described Democrats.

These are distinguished from official Democratic organizations such as state or local affiliated party organizations that nominate and/or endorse candidates for the Democratic slates in the corresponding state or local elections, and participate in the selection of delegates to higher-level Democratic conventions, officially affiliated caucuses, and similar organizations, intended on one hand to aid factions, tendencies, or demographic or occupation categories to organize themselves in the furtherance of their collective influence in the party, and on the other hand to facilitate effective recruitment of those constituencies in the activities of the party (for example, the Young Democrats of America), and officially affiliated organizations focused on outward-looking tasks, such as the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, a Democratic National Committee affiliate that works for the election of Democratic candidates to state legislatures.

National unofficial organizations[edit]
Democrats for Life of America
America Coming Together
Democracy for America



http://members-of-congress.insidegov.com/stories/11569/most-liberal-members-of-congress

Most Liberal Members of Congress
Posted on March 11, 2016 by Kelsey Warner

Credit: Jacquelyn Martin / AP Images

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has made more left-leaning topics part of the national political conversation this year during his presidential run. He asks, “Do we continue the 40-year decline of our middle class and the growing gap between the very rich and everyone else, or do we fight for a progressive economic agenda that creates jobs, raises wages, protects the environment and provides health care for all?” The question Sanders poses on his campaign website highlights key elements of modern liberalism, from income inequality to health care reform to equal rights.

Although the media might suggest an “era of liberal dominance,” the movement lacks a majority in Congress. The GOP leadership in both the House and Senate means Republicans can kill bills and resolutions championed by Democrats, who react to this deadlock by pushing liberal policies that have “no chance of passage.” Although their efforts in Congress are largely fruitless in the current power dynamic, notable die-hard liberals remain active in their legislative roles.

InsideGov wanted to learn more about these hard-core Democrats, and turned to GovTrack’s Ideology Score to determine the most liberal members of Congress. The score assigns numerical values to members of Congress based on the progressive nature of their bills during the first session of the 114th Congress. Only members that introduced more than 10 bills during this session were included in the ideology calculation. Those closest to the value of 0 are the most liberal, with scores nearing 1 representing the most conservative. We count down the list of the 29 most liberal members of Congress and explore some of their proposed pieces of legislation.

The 29 Most Liberal Members of Congress

Note: For the sake of simplicity, we round the “Ideology Score” to two significant figures, which results in ties. Govtrack calculates the score to nine significant figures. The majority of these ties do not exist in the unrounded list. If a true tie occurs, it is noted on the slide. If a member of Congress introduced fewer than 10 bills, they are not included in the calculation due to insufficient data.


Rep. Chris Van Hollen #29
Ideology Score: 0.14

Rep. Chris Van Hollen Jr. from Maryland introduced the progressive-leaning Healthy Climate and Family Security Act of 2015, which attempted to cap the emission of greenhouse gases through a system of carbon permits. It has been assigned to congressional committee since February 2015.


Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski #28
Ideology Score: 0.14

Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski sponsored the PALS Act, which aimed to ensure access to screening mammography services.


Rep. Mark Takano #27
Ideology Score: 0.13

Rep. Mark Takano, from California’s 41st congressional district, introduced the Social Security and Medicare Parity Act of 2015, which aimed to amend the Social Security Act to include equal treatment for those in same-sex marriages


Rep. John Conyers Jr. #26
Ideology Score: 0.13

Michigan Rep. John Conyers Jr. introduced the End Racial Profiling Act of 2015, which intended to end racial profiling by law enforcement agencies through new laws and programs. “The killing of Walter Scott – arising from a traffic stop – along with the deaths of Freddie Gray, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Sean Bell, Tamir Rice, Oscar Grant and many more highlight the fact that racial profiling remains a divisive issue in communities across our nation,” Conyers said in a press release about the proposed legislation.


Sen. Charles E. Schumer #25
Ideology Score: 0.12

New York Sen. Charles “Chuck” Schumer introduced the Human Rights for Girls Act, which prohibits the use of certain restraints on pregnant juveniles. When he announced the bill in July 2015, Schumer said: “Just because a woman is behind bars, doesn't mean she shouldn't have access to basic human rights.”


Rep. Yvette D. Clarke #24
Ideology Score: 0.12

Rep. Yvette Clarke, from New York’s 9th District, introduced Aidan’s Law, which aimed to require newborn screening for adrenoleukodystrophy, a potentially deadly genetic disorder.


Sen. Sherrod Brown #23
Ideology Score: 0.12

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown sponsored the Strong Lungs, Strong Lives Act of 2015, which planned to encourage the use of services to help people stop smoking. It has remained in a congressional committee since May 2015.


Sen. Mazie K. Hirono #22
Ideology Score: 0.11

Sen. Mazie Hirono, the junior senator from Hawaii, introduced the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act of 2015, which would assist businesses with clean energy exports.


Sen. Patty Murray #21
Ideology Score: 0.11

Washington Sen. Patty Murray co-sponsored the Electrify Africa Act of 2015, which was enacted in February 2016. The bill created a policy strategy to encourage sub-Saharan African countries to develop sustainable electrical power solutions.


Rep. James P. McGovern #20
Ideology Score: 0.11

Rep. James “Jim” McGovern from Massachusetts introduced the Prescribe A Book Act, which planned to integrate reading and education into pediatric care. It has yet to move out of committee since January 2015. McGovern noted this early literacy program is backed by research that shows how “early exposure to reading goes a long way toward preparing children for school.”


Rep. Charles B. Rangel #19
Ideology Score: 0.10

New York Rep. Charlie Rangel introduced the Veterans E-Health & Telemedicine Support Act of 2015, which aims to integrate telemedicine into the treatment of veterans. Telemedicine refers to the remote application of health care services through the use of telecommunications technology.


Sen. Jeff Merkley #18
Ideology Score: 0.09

Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley introduced the Stop Arctic Ocean Drilling Act of 2015, a bill that aimed to prohibit drilling in the Arctic Ocean. It has been stuck in committee since July 2015.


Rep. Judy Chu #17
Ideology Score: 0.09

Rep. Judy Chu from California sponsored the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2015, which aimed to curtail restrictions on abortion services.


Rep. Keith Ellison #16
Ideology Score: 0.09

Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison introduced the Energy Efficient Manufactured Home Act of 2015, which proposed monetary incentives for replacing dated homes with Energy Star-qualified homes. This bill has yet to move out of committee.


Rep. Michael M. Honda #15
Ideology Score: 0.09

Rep. Mike Honda, from California’s 17th District, introduced the Home-Assembled Firearms Restriction Act of 2015, which planned to prohibit the manufacturing, sale, distribution, importation and advertisement of firearm parts kits. It remains in a congressional committee since its referral in January 2015.


Sen. Kirsten E. Gillibrand #14
Ideology Score: 0.08

New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand introduced the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 to prohibit products that contain synthetic plastic microbeads, which are reportedly harmful to the environment. It was signed into law by President Obama on Dec. 28, 2015.


Sen. Richard Blumenthal #13
Ideology Score: 0.08

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, the senior senator from Connecticut, introduced the Fairness to Pet Owners Act of 2015, which planned to give people the choice of where to purchase their pets’ medical prescriptions. The proposal has remained in committee since May 2015.


Sen. Jack Reed #12
Ideology Score: 0.07

In March 2015, Rhode Island Sen. John “Jack” Reed proposed the Stop Illegal Insider Trading Act, which would have increased the restrictions on insider trading. The bill has yet to move out of committee. Reed explained: “Sharpening the definition of insider trading will clear up ambiguity in the law and help repair a broken system.”


Sen. Barbara Boxer #11
Ideology Score: 0.07

Sen. Barbara Boxer from California introduced the End of Suffering Act of 2015, a right-to-die bill. When she introduced the legislation, Boxer said, “People suffering intolerable pain deserve autonomy in their health care decisions.” The bill remains in a congressional committee.


Sen. Tammy Baldwin #10
Ideology Score: 0.07

Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin proposed the America’s College Promise Act of 2015. The bill, which remains in congressional committee, aimed to expand access to higher education by partnering with minority-serving institutions and making two years of community college free.


Sen. Richard J. Durbin #9
Ideology Score: 0.07

Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin sponsored the Detergent PACS Act in February 2015. This bill addressed the danger of liquid detergent packs by creating new safety standards. It has yet to move out of its congressional committee


Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse #8
Ideology Score: 0.07

Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse introduced the National Oceans and Coastal Security Act. The bill, which remains in committee, planned to improve coastal infrastructure while promoting conservation efforts and ocean research.


Sen. Al Franken #7
Ideology Score: 0.05

Sen. Al Franken co-sponsored the Mental Health Awareness and Improvement Act of 2015. Franken is a known advocate for mental health programs, as shown in a 2013 statement where he stated: “Nearly three-quarters of the kids in the country who suffer from mental health issues do not get the care they need, and that's unacceptable.” The bill, which seeks to improve mental health and substance abuse-related programs, passed the Senate in December 2015 and awaits a House vote.


Sen. Bernard Sanders #6
Ideology Score: 0.04

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate and the only Independent to make the list, introduced the Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist Act. This bill called for the Financial Stability Oversight Council to break up any banks deemed “too big to fail.” It has remained in committee since July 2015.


Sen. Edward J. Markey #5
Ideology Score: 0.03

Sen. Ed Markey, a junior senator from Massachusetts, proposed the Oil Spill Deterrent Act. This bill proposed increasing penalties against oil companies that violate laws or regulations as a counter to the “speed-over-safety mentality that led to the Deepwater Horizon tragedy,” according to a press release from Markey’s office.


Rep. Barbara Lee #4
Ideology Score: 0.03

California Rep. Barbara Lee proposed the Repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Act. The bill, which has yet to leave committee, attempts to restore war-declaring abilities to Congress through eliminating open-ended military authorization.


Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton #3
Ideology Score: 0.01

Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, from D.C.’s At-Large District, introduced the LIFE Act. The bill proposes a national program to combat the number of overweight and obese Americans.


Sen. Elizabeth Warren #2
Ideology Score: 0.00

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the most liberal senator on this list, proposed the Schedules That Work Act. The bill, which has been in a congressional committee since July 2015, seeks to provide protections for employees who request changes to their work schedules.

Rep. Grijalva and Sen. Warren are tied as the most liberal with both having an “Ideology Score” of 0.


Rep. Grijalva

Due to the perverse workings of this particular website, it will not allow me to pull up Rep. Grijalva’s bio and photograph, so I have gone to another source: https://www.congress.gov/member/raul-grijalva/G000551.

Representative Raul M. Grijalva (1948 - )
In Congress 2003 – Present

Legislation Sponsored or Cosponsored by Raul M. Grijalva -- BILL
H.R.5067 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)
Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Reauthorization Act of 2016
Sponsor: Rep. Lewis, John [D-GA-5] (Introduced 04/26/2016)
Committees: House - Judiciary
Latest Action: 05/17/2016 Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. (All



Ideology Score -- https://www.govtrack.us/about/analysis#ideology

Analysis Methodology
A graph of datapoints on this website helps explain their method.

Statistical analyses of legislation and legislators provide context for the legislative process. Of all of the 10,000+ bills pending at any given time, our unique analyses help GovTrack visitors know what is relevant and what to pay attention to.

Ideology Analysis of Members of Congress

The ideology analysis assigns a liberal–conservative score to each Member of Congress based on his or her pattern of cosponsorship.

In a nutshell, Members of Congress who cosponsor similar sets of bills will get scores close together, while Members of Congress who sponsor different sets of bills will have scores far apart. Members of Congress with similar political views will tend to cosponsor the same set of bills, or bills by the same set of authors, and inversely Members of Congress with different political views will tend to cosponsor different bills.

You can find this analysis on the pages for current Members of Congress.



https://www.govtrack.us/

About GovTrack.us

GovTrack.us tracks the United States Congress and helps Americans understand what is going on in their national legislature.

We publish the status of federal legislation and information about your representative and senators in Congress. Use GovTrack to track bills for updates or get alerts.

We also go beyond the official record with statistical analyses, bill summaries, and other tools to put information in context.

GovTrack was the first to create open data about Congress (see the developer docs), and we have successfully lobbied Congress to make more and better legislative information available to the public.

Who we are

GovTrack was created in 2004 by Joshua Tauberer originally as a hobby. Today it is a project of Civic Impulse, LLC, his company. We’re funded through advertising (our policy) and crowdfunding.

GovTrack is not affiliated with the government.

See our press clippings to read what people think of the site.

Help us open government

Join the movement to make our government more open and effective. Here are some ideas:

Join your local Code for America Brigade. Check it out even if you are not a coder.
Subscribe to the Sunlight Labs google group, for technologists working in the civic space.
Attend the next Transparency Camp, an annual conference in Washington, DC on government transparency and civic engagement from a technology perspective.
Read the Declaration on Parliamentary Openness, an international declaration.
Read Open Government Data: The Book, a book by GovTrack’s creator on the open government data movement.
For media

Hi-Res Logo
Press Clippings


GovTrack Insider

Congress may reauthorize a law to solve cold cases from the Civil Rights era .
Posted on May 20, 2016 12:10 p.m.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


Some Interesting side issues in which I became entangled:


http://opengovernmentdata.org/

Welcome to Open Government Data
This website is a project and home of the Working Group on Open Government Data at the Open Knowledge Foundation. To participate in the discussion, join the open-government mailing list.

What is Open Government Data
This site is about open government data. But what is open government data? Open government data means:

Data produced or commissioned by government or government controlled entities
Data which is open as defined in the Open Definition – that is, it can be freely used, reused and redistributed by anyone.
Why Open Government Data?
Why should government data be open? There are three main reasons:

Transparency. In a well-functioning, democratic society citizens need to know what their government is doing. To do that, they must be able freely to access government data and information and to share that information with other citizens. Transparency isn’t just about access, it is also about sharing and reuse — often, to understand material it needs to be analyzed and visualized and this requires that the material be open so that it can be freely used and reused.
Releasing social and commercial value. In a digital age, data is a key resource for social and commercial activities. Everything from finding your local post office to building a search engine requires access to data, much of which is created or held by government. By opening up data, government can help drive the creation of innovative business and services that deliver social and commercial value.
Participatory Governance. Much of the time citizens are only able to engage with their own governance sporadically — maybe just at an election every 4 or 5 years. By opening up data, citizens are enabled to be much more directly informed and involved in decision-making. This is more than transparency: it’s about making a full “read/write” society, not just about knowing what is happening in the process of governance but being able to contribute to it.



Open data
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Open data is the idea that some data should be freely available to everyone to use and republish as they wish, without restrictions from copyright, patents or other mechanisms of control.[1] The goals of the open data movement are similar to those of other "open" movements such as open source, open hardware, open content, and open access. The philosophy behind open data has been long established (for example in the Mertonian tradition of science), but the term "open data" itself is recent, gaining popularity with the rise of the Internet and World Wide Web and, especially, with the launch of open-data government initiatives such as Data.gov and Data.gov.uk.

Overview[edit]

The concept of open data is not new; but a formalized definition is relatively new—the primary such formalization being that in the Open Definition which can be summarized in the statement that "A piece of data is open if anyone is free to use, reuse, and redistribute it – subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and/or share-alike."[2]

. . . .

Open data in government[edit]
See also: Open government and PSI Directive

There are a range of different arguments for open government data.[13][14] For example, some advocates contend that making government information available to the public as machine readable open data can facilitate government transparency, accountability and public participation. Some make the case that opening up official information can support technological innovation and economic growth by enabling third parties to develop new kinds of digital applications and services.

Several national governments have created web sites to distribute a portion of the data they collect. It is a concept for a collaborative project in municipal Government to create and organize Culture for Open Data or Open government data. A list of over 200 local, regional and national open data catalogues is available on the open source Data Portals project, which aims to be a comprehensive list of data catalogues from around the world.[15] Prominent examples include:

Ghana Open Data Initiative, launched in January 2012;[16]
Japan Open Data Initiative, launched in December 2013;[17]
Kenya Open Data Portal, launched in July 2011;[18]
United Kingdom Data.gov.uk platform, launched in January 2010;[19]
United States Open Government Initiative, which operates at the federal level.[20]
University of Babylon Open Access Repository (Arabic), and Academic/Personnel Data Collections[21][22]
Singapore government's one-stop portal to publicly-available datasets from public agencies, launched in 2011.

Arguments for and against open data

The debate on Open Data is still evolving. The best open government applications seek to empower citizens, to help small businesses, or to create value in some other positive, constructive way. Opening government data is only a way-point on the road to improving education, improving government, and building tools to solve other real world problems. While many arguments have been made categorically, the following discussion of arguments for and against open data highlights that these arguments often depend highly on the type of data and its potential uses. . . . .”



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_the_re-use_of_public_sector_information

Directive on the re-use of public sector information
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information, otherwise known as the PSI Directive[2][3] is an EU directive that encourages EU member states to make as much public sector information available for re-use as possible. Previous to the creation of this directive this area was left to member states to regulate. This directive now provides a common legislative framework for this area.

The Directive is an attempt to remove barriers that hinder the re-use of public sector information throughout the Union.

The ePSIplus web portal (which has since been renamed "ePSIplatform") was set up as a result of this directive.

In 2013 it was amended to make it more aligned with open government data concepts and also to contemplate cultural heritage information, among other modifications.[4]

Definition[edit]

"Public sector information" includes « any content whatever its medium (written on paper or stored in electronic form or as a sound, visual or audiovisual recording)» when produced by a public sector body within its mandate, excluded a number of cases:[5]

(d) documents held by public service broadcasters and their subsidiaries, and by other bodies or their subsidiaries for the fulfilment of a public service broadcasting remit; (e) documents held by educational and research establishments, such as schools, universities, archives, libraries and research facilities including, where relevant, organisations established for the transfer of research results; (f) documents held by cultural establishments, such as museums, libraries, archives, orchestras, operas, ballets and theatres.


THE END OF A GOOD DAY'S RESEARCH. GO IN PEACE.