When Candidates Are on a Listening Tour, Give Them Something to Listen To

TL;DR: Start thinking about what you want in a progressive governor, and start questioning and pressuring candidates and prospective candidates before committing.

One year from now, Democrats across the state will have elected delegates to go to the state party convention where gubernatorial candidates will vie with each other for the party’s endorsement.

The primary field is not settled yet—there’s some time to go, and candidates may yet emerge.

But, already, candidates and prospective candidates have begun listening tours–speaking at local caucuses, at house parties, at activist events.

When the field is settled, Progressive Massachusetts will invite all candidates to fill out our detailed candidate questionnaire, as we did in 2014.

We will ask tough questions about where they stand on the key elements of our Progressive Platform–shared prosperity, racial and social justice, open government and strong democracy, and sustainable infrastructure and environmental protection–and the Legislative Agenda that seeks to translate principles into policy.

And once they fill out those questionnaires, YOU–our grassroots members–will get to vet them and get to decide whom we endorse.

No smoke-filled rooms, just grassroots democracy.

But, the member endorsement is still a way off.

In the interim — what can you do to strengthen the field and ensure the boldest progressive platform is being talked about at every coffee, every house party? 

SOME IDEAS —  

We want them to understand that a progressive message is the winning one.

So get the candidates (and prospective candidates) on record about the issues that matter.

Ask them tough questions, don’t accept evasions, and see if those answers hold when they go before different crowds.

Charlie Baker has managed to coast with high approval ratings because the Legislature tries to minimize conflict, avoiding taking votes on anything he might veto and showering him with praise for small-bore accomplishments. But if we are to have a chance of defeating Baker next year, then we need to be drawing a clear contrast with an inspiring and affirmative progressive policy agenda. Not being Charlie, not being a Republican simply isn’t enough.

So what should you be asking declared and prospective candidates if you encounter them on a listening tour. Here are some ideas:

Charlie Baker doesn’t stand with us in wanting to make the minimum wage a living wage of $15 an hour. Do you?


Charlie Baker doesn’t stand with us in wanting to guarantee paid family and medical leave. Do you?


Charlie Baker doesn’t stand with us in wanting to guarantee health care as a right through a Medicare for All system. Do you?


Charlie Baker doesn’t stand with us in wanting to invest in our public schools to give all students the best opportunities we can. Do you?


Charlie Baker doesn’t stand with us in wanting to make public higher education tuition-free. Do you?


Charlie Baker doesn’t stand with us in wanting comprehensive changes to our criminal justice system to end mass incarceration and inhumane practices like solitary confinement. Do you?


Charlie Baker doesn’t stand with us in wanting to protect our immigrant family, friends, and neighbors by preventing the use of state resources for a mass deportation regime. Do you?


Charlie Baker doesn’t stand with us in wanting to expand voting rights through things like automatic voter registration and Election Day registration. Do you?


Charlie Baker doesn’t stand with us in wanting to aggressively shift away from a fossil fuel-based economy to one powered by renewables like solar and wind. Do you?


Charlie Baker doesn’t stand with us in wanting to raise the revenue needed to upgrade and expand our public transit system. Do you?

A contested primary can give YOU, the voter, leverage–but only if you use it. No candidate is owed your vote. Public servants work for you, and anyone running for such an office should have to work for your vote.

And when all Democratic candidates are arguing about who’s the bolder progressive, and not who’s friendlier to some supposed centrist ideal, that’s when we will have a policy debate worth having.

Is Beacon Hill Ready to Stand up to Trump?

If you’re like us, your inbox has been swamped over the past few months with rallies and action alerts about how to fight the reactionary Trump-McConnell-Ryan agenda coming out of Washington.

Copy_of_Big_Decisions_Made_here_(4).png

Massachusetts is in position to be a leader in the resistance against Trump’s agenda–and a beacon of progressive policy for the rest of the country.

Although our Republican governor, Charlie Baker, is not going to stand up to Trump as much as he should, Attorney General Maura Healey has been at the forefront of fighting for civil rights and environmental protection, among other issues, in the Age of Trump.

And Massachusetts has the third largest Democratic supermajorities in the country, with 34 out of 40 senators and 126 out of 160 representatives. In theory, then, whether or not Baker is willing to fight Trump, the Legislature has the votes to do so.

But…

The Legislature, as our scorecards (and brand new scorecard page) show, routinely fails to live up to the ideal of what one might hope for from a Legislature this overwhelmingly blue.

Trump has created a sense of urgency among progressive voters. But, based on statements on policy and priorities, we have yet to see that same urgency from the State House.

A Beacon Hill Committee to Focus on Trump

In late March, Speaker Bob DeLeo appointed nine House Democrats to a working group to guide responses to “unprecedented actions” of the Trump administration.

The group consists of House Majority Leader Ron Mariano (D-Quincy); Speaker Pro Tem Patricia Haddad (D-Somerset); Assistant Majority Leader Byron Rushing (D-South End); House Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets Chair Antonio Cabral (D-New Bedford); House Steering, Policy and Scheduling Chair James Murphy (D-Weymouth); Public Health Chair Kate Hogan (D-Stow); Health Care Financing Chair Jeffrey Sanchez (D-Jamaica Plain); Rules vice chair Marjorie Decker (D-Cambridge), and Export Development vice chair James Arciero (D-Westford).

The working group is tasked with coming up with legislative solutions that are both “necessary and feasible.” The devil, of course, will be in the details….

…whose definitions of “necessary” and “feasible”?

…Will this group aggressively push a progressive agenda, or will they settle for the lethargic status quo?

We plan to follow the working group to the best of our abilities as it moves forward. But what do we know so far?

According to State House News Service, the group will focus on “economic stability, health care, higher education, and the state’s most vulnerable residents.”

Strong, progressive policies on all of these issues have been proposed this session. (We center our Legislative Agenda on many of them!)

Where do the working group members stand on them?

Economic Stability:

Trump, along with Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, wants to make an economy that works just for the top 1%. How do we promote shared prosperity by contrast? We could do so by passing a $15 minimum wage and paid family and medical leave, for starters.

Four out of the nine–Cabral, Decker, Hogan, and Rushing–have co-sponsored the Fight for $15 bill. Six–Cabral, Decker, Haddad, Hogan, Murphy, Rushing–have signed on to paid family and medical leave.

Health Care:

Trump wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act, denying health care to millions. The task facing progressives is to improve and expand upon the Affordable Care Act with a single payer/Medicare for All system that truly enshrines health care as a human right.

So far, only two out of the nine–Decker and Rushing–have signed on to such legislation.

Trump and the Republican Congress also have their sights set on taking away women’s rights over their own bodies. Congress has already passed legislation enabling states to defund Planned Parenthood. Progressives shouldn’t stand for that. One of the members of the working group, Rep. Haddad, is a leader sponsor of the ACCESS bill, which would require insurance carriers to provide all contraceptive methods without a copay. Decker, Hogan, Rushing, and Sanchez have joined her in support of this bill.

Higher Education:

Massachusetts has been under-investing in higher education for years, leading to higher tuition costs and spiraling student debt. Trump could make matters worse by reducing funding for higher education institutions and federal student aid, as well as by encouraging the expansion of predatory for-profit institutions.

Only one of the nine–Rep. Decker–has come out in support of making public colleges and universities tuition-free for Massachusetts residents. Rep. Arciero joins her in a strong, but less ambitious, goal of debt-free higher education.

Protecting the State’s Most Vulnerable:

Massachusetts has the opportunity to stand up to the federal deportation machine by passing the Safe Communities Act, which would prohibit the use of state resources for deportation raids and limit local and state police collaboration with federal immigration agents. The TRUST Act, its predecessor, stalled in committee year after year. But the necessity of the bill grows stronger each day.

Four out of the nine working group members are supporters of the Safe Communities Act–Cabral, Decker, Rushing, and Sanchez.

We can look back to last session for insights into the working group. Four out of the nine members of the committee matched the Speaker vote-by-vote on our scorecard of the last session (Arciero, Cabral, Haddad, Hogan). Two of them were more conservative than the Speaker (Mariano, Murphy), and three were more progressive (Decker, Rushing, Sanchez).

The House doesn’t take many roll call votes, but some can be illustrative. Last July, for example, the House voted to make state-issued IDs compliant with the federal REAL ID law per request of Governor Baker (H.4488). Real ID’s strict documentation requirements make getting a state-issued ID more difficult for the young, the elderly, trans individuals, people of color, the poor, and many legal immigrants. H.4488 also forestalled efforts to allow undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses, something which–unlike REAL ID–would increase public safety.

Decker, Rushing, and Sanchez sided with Massachusetts’s vulnerable populations. The other six sided with the Governor.

Massachusetts Democrats often talk a good game about opposing Trump.

But will they put their priorities and votes where their mouths are this session?