As a Democratic voter I never stopped to think what was happening in the Democratic Party as regards social Democrats vs Clinton neo-liberals until Obama was elected as a social progressive Democrat and started appointing every Wall Street and Clinton era person to all his Cabinet and Federal agency posts. That was the only time I thought----THIS IS RIGGED. Indeed, Clinton neo-liberals have been doing this for a few decades and that is why today almost all pols in Congress, Statehouses, and even City Halls are Clinton neo-liberals or in Baltimore's case Hopkins neo-conservatives running as Democrats. Clinton neo-liberals did this by lying as Obama did-----posing social Democratic with no intentions of being social Democratic. Clinton neo-liberals did as they do in Maryland-----since Clinton/Bush/Obama used Executive Order to embrace the Federalism Act that states the Federal government will not enforce Federal laws-----states were allowed to let election violations and fraud soar. In Maryland that means a social Democrat or anyone wanting to fight fraud and corruption will not even be allowed in Democratic primary election venues and not mentioned in the media. Social Democrats are treated in a primary election as if they do not exist. Media and major Maryland 501c3 election venues ---even public universities use all kinds of ways to keep from including all candidates----especially the 'candidate must have popular support' or skewed 'polling of likely voters'. Even though everyone knows Federal election laws for 501c3 require that all candidates be included in election forums and FCC laws require that media give opportunity and access to all candidates----ALL MAJOR MARYLAND ELECTION VENUES EXCLUDE SOCIAL DEMOCRATS AS DOES MEDIA. All Republican primary candidates are included because that is what an election race is about---ALL CANDIDATES GIVEN OPPORTUNITY FOR NAME RECOGNITION AND TO SHARE A PLATFORM-----but all social Democrats are allowed to be ignored.
THIS IS ILLEGAL----AND IT WAS O'MALLEY/MAGGIE MCINTOSH AS MARYLAND DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADERS THIS LAST DECADE THAT PROMOTED THIS.
Below you see how Federal election laws do not allow this and even as O'Malley can barely get a few percentage of support----he is noted in all talks of the Democratic primary candidates for President 2016 all polls include O'Malley. He is being treated to a legal election coverage while he as Maryland Democratic Party head promoted election violations and rigged primary elections.
Clinton, Bush, Obama pretending they could ignore enforcing Federal laws simply turned their heads as Clinton neo-liberal and Bush neo-con state parties rigged elections for their candidates with open election violations.
'O’Malley has been unable to break through in the race and continues to lag behind in the single digits in both national and Iowa primary polls, according to RealClearPolitics averages.
The Iowa caucuses will be held on Feb. 1'.
December 29, 2015, 12:24 pm
One person attends O'Malley Iowa event
By Lisa Hagen
@SarahBeckman3 / TwitterFormer Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley had one person attend his Iowa event on Monday amid a huge snowstorm, according to a report from Politico.
While other presidential candidates canceled Monday events because of the inclement weather in the area, the Democratic candidate continued his Iowa swing, about a month out from the first-in-the-nation caucuses. One man showed up at the event but after meeting with O’Malley wouldn’t say whether he planned to support the former governor.
"The very last event of the night, we actually had a whopping total of one person show up, but by God, he was glad to see me. So we spent the time with him," O’Malley said in a Tuesday interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe.”
A reporter for a talk radio station in Iowa shared a picture of the one-on-one meeting between a man named Kenneth and O’Malley in Tama, Iowa.Kenneth credited the former governor for still showing up. “I think you have a great platform to be running, and I think you have a great future here in Iowa," reporter Sarah Beckman quoted him as saying. "On paper, if I were to look at just the resumes, you would have the strongest resume in my mind.”
Kenneth went on to express concerns with both Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and her chief rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
“I don’t think Sanders would be easily electable. So don’t underestimate the fact that Iowa will turn out differently,” Kenneth continued. “I think it will turn out differently than what the polls are showing. Jimmy Carter would not have been president if it weren’t for Iowa.”
But O'Malley, a distant third in the three-person Democratic race, brushed off the fact that Kenneth remained uncommitted after the meeting.
"So I wasn't surprised that he was uncommitted," O'Malley said. "But I was glad he took the time to come out in the snow to see me. We almost canceled that last event but we were out there anyway, so we plowed through."
Other presidential candidates who planned Iowa visits on Monday canceled their events due to the snowstorm, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who pushed back campaigning with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) until Tuesday.
O’Malley has been unable to break through in the race and continues to lag behind in the single digits in both national and Iowa primary polls, according to RealClearPolitics averages.
The Iowa caucuses will be held on Feb. 1.
Both Obama and Hillary came out with the notion the US should go to mandatory voting because 70% of Democrats refuse to vote for only Clinton neo-liberal primary candidates. In Baltimore less than 20% of registered Democratic voters vote because our Democratic candidates simply work for neo-conservative Johns Hopkins and its Wall Street Baltimore Development Corporation. So, it is not that Americans are apathetic on voting ----
IT IS BECAUSE ELECTION FRAUD AND RIGGING IS RAMPANT KEEPING AMERICAN CITIZENS FROM HAVING CANDIDATES THEY WOULD WANT TO WIN OUT OF PRIMARY ELECTIONS.
Below you see the reason Obama and Hillary are concerned-----we do not have a democracy in the US because citizens are not able to have free and fair elections. So, when Ben Cardin from Maryland wins his Senate seat by a total primary election blackout by media and election venues ----COMPLETE BLACKOUT giving none of his challengers any venue for name recognition or to get their platform issues out---AND NOT MANY IN HIS DISTRICT WANTED HIM RE-ELECTED-----you have Ben Cardin in the Senate with less than 20% of registered Democratic votes. The point is---NO, THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!
So, what other nations mandate voting? The articles I read will tell you around 20----but it will only list Australia and Belgium in the developed nations that do this-----most nations mandating voting are AUTOCRATIC DICTATORS PRETENDING TO BE HAVING DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS. So, Iraq's Hussein and Russia's Putin mandate voting and everyone comes out too afraid to vote for anyone other than Hussein and Putin.
The US does not need to mandate voting until it rebuilds free and fair elections and enforces Federal election laws that give all candidates in a primary election equal opportunity and access in media and all primary candidates allowed in 501c3 forums.
'Is it a Democracy?How can it be that the United States of America, a DEMOCRATIC republic, can even elect a president without the majority actually voting? The fact of the matter is that you cannot have a democratic republic if there is no democracy. Also, the results will be more accurate with all of the population voting rather than less than half of eligible voters. It is your civic duty to vote just as it is to pay taxes or jury duty. And if the candidate that you wanted to win was not elected, I will say to you, "Maybe you should've voted."'
Obama: Maybe it's time for mandatory voting
By Holly Yan, CNN
Updated 10:07 AM ET, Thu March 19, 2015 | Video Source: CNN
- 26 countries have compulsory voting; some countries can enact a fine
- Less than 37% of eligible voters took part in the 2014 midterm elections
Asked how to offset the influence of big money in politics, President Barack Obama suggested it's time to make voting a requirement.
"Other countries have mandatory voting," Obama said Wednesday in Cleveland, where he spoke about the importance of middle class economics, and was asked about the issue during a town hall.
"It would be transformative if everybody voted -- that would counteract money more than anything," he said, adding it was the first time he had shared the idea publicly.
The clout of millionaires and billionaires in campaign funding has been enormous, and many claim the uber wealthy have undue leverage in politics.
"The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups," Obama said. "There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls."
At least 26 countries have compulsory voting, according to the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Failure to vote is punishable by a fine in countries such as Australia and Belgium; if you fail to pay your fine in Belgium, you could go to prison.
Aside from campaign finance issues, the United States also grapples with one of the lowest voter turnout rates among developed countries.
Less than 37% of eligible voters actually voted in the 2014 midterm elections, according to The Pew Charitable Trusts. That means about 144 million Americans -- more than the population of Russia -- skipped out.
But mandatory voting could bring its own set of problems. Haydon Manning, associate professor at Flinders University in Australia, said that country's rules can backfire.
"Turning the vote out might not be a problem, but wooing disengaged citizens now requires banal sloganeering and crass misleading negative advertising," Manning wrote. "To me, this can diminish the democratic experience for those who take the time to think through the issues."
When I see 'GET OUT THE VOTE' campaigns especially in cities like Baltimore where everyone will tell you BLACK CITIZENS DON'T VOTE. Of course black citizens are the majority in Baltimore and should have voting power but they don't----because the city elections are rigged and crony political machines are allowed to openly violate election laws---get tons of campaign funding from the people moving a billion dollars every year in city revenue to fraud and corruption.
So, we have a majority of working class and poor citizens-----majority black citizens having to put up with electing Democrats who then serve a very, very, very neo-conservative Johns Hopkins and Wall Street Baltimore Development--with public policy literally killing people and communities.
THAT IS WHY BLACK CITIZENS IN BALTIMORE DO NOT VOTE---THE ELECTIONS ARE RIGGED.
As Clinton neo-liberals get more and more autocratic and criminal the more power and wealth they generate ------the more American elections look like a third world nation with no election laws.
If you are going to fight for Voter Registration and/or getting Voting Rights for Ex-offenders-----BOTH GREAT ISSUES-----what about the 80% of registered Democratic voters that already choose not to vote because of the crony?
All of this low voter turnout comes from Federal election agencies failing to protect elections on state and local levels and allowing global corporate pols to make primary elections dominated by their candidates.
WE MUST SHOUT LOUDLY AGAINST THIS SYSTEMIC ELECTION FRAUD AS WE PUSH FOR SOCIAL DEMOCRATS AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.
Both Sheila Dixon and Rawlings-Blake won Democratic primary elections with around 20% of registered Democratic voters
The idea that these are good candidates might ring true if you are a Hopkins neo-conservative Wall Street global market voter.
Election draws lowest turnout in historyPublic apathy, lack of competitive races blamed
There were more poll workers than voters at times in the three… (Kim Hairston / The Baltimore…)
September 15, 2011|By Luke Broadwater, The Baltimore SunA fraction of the city's electorate trickled into polls for Tuesday's primary — the lowest recorded turnout in Baltimore's history.
About 75,000 Baltimore residents voted in the election, with 100 percent of precincts reporting, according to elections officials. That total amounts to about 23 percent of registered voters and about 12 percent of the city's 620,000 population.
Cheswolde resident Barbara Hoffman, a former state senator, lamented the low turnout.
"How mortifying," she said. "Oh my dear. That's really terrible. What does that say about all these people? There are a bunch of really good candidates running for mayor. Its not like it's a poor field. It's a good field. There should be more interest."
Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake cruised to victory in the Democratic primary, and she is expected to win in November's general election, given the city's heavily Democratic electorate. While she drew a number of challengers — including state Sen. Catherine Pugh, former city planning director Otis Rolley, former City Councilman Jody Landers and Baltimore City Circuit Court Clerk Frank Conaway — they apparently were unable to motivate supporters to go to the polls in large numbers.
In 2007, voter turnout was 28 percent in the Democratic primary carried by former Mayor Sheila Dixon. In 2003, 34 percent of registered voters cast ballots in the mayoral primary won by Martin O'Malley, who is now governor. Even when William Donald Schaefer faced token opposition in seeking his second and third terms in 1975 and 1979, 30 percent of city's voters turned out.
The previous record for the lowest turnout was 27 percent in 1991, election officials said.
On Tuesday residents who shied away from the polls cited time constraints, lack of interest and disillusionment with politics.
"It was all the same old stuff," said 21-year-old Mount Vernon resident Kevin Clark, shrugging his shoulders.
Others said they felt their votes wouldn't matter in an election that Rawlings-Blake was widely predicted to win.
"I didn't vote because I'm pretty sure that Stephanie Rawlings-Blake would win," said Caryn Bell, 25, a graduate student at the Johns Hopkins University.
Rolley supporter Tom Aloisi, 46, said he also hesitated, citing a Baltimore Sun poll that showed Rawlings-Blake as a heavy favorite. But he voted anyway.
"I was tempted not to vote today because the mayoral race is supposed to be a runaway," he said. "I didn't think it was going to matter."
The lack of turnout was worrisome to University of Baltimore public affairs professor Lenneal J. Henderson, who blamed a political malaise that has befallen the country and proved difficult for Baltimore mayoral candidates to overcome. He described the contenders as a "very good field."
"Baltimore is not insular," he said. "There's a cloud of pessimism that has descended on the electorate nationally."
Henderson said low turnout could spell trouble for President Barack Obama's re-election effort if it persists.
University of Maryland, Baltimore County public policy professor Donald Norris blamed the local news media for what he called a "lack of coverage" and the candidates for failing to inspire voters.
"This was really one boring campaign," he said. "None of the candidates caught fire. None of the issues caught fire. As hard as the opponents of the mayor tried, they couldn't make any one issue stand out. … And there was damn little media coverage."
Todd Eberly, assistant professor of political science and public policy at St. Mary's College of Maryland, pointed to another problem hampering turnout in Baltimore elections: They take place on different dates than state and federal elections.
"It's always an issue with Baltimore that these elections fall at strange times," he said.
Whatever the reason behind the low turnout, Hoffman said the lack of interest does not bode well for the future of the city.
"People die for the right to vote all over the world," she said. "You get the representation you earn."
When that 20-30% of Democratic voters do come out and bash the other 70% for not---we are told---HOLD YOUR NOSE AND VOTE FOR THE LEAST WORST.
Again, that is not a Democratic election. Let's talk about the failure of social Democratic candidates to access free and fair primary elections at all levels of government. Today, Bernie Sanders cannot be mentioned on mainstream TV-----the election coverage for Democrats is either not there or repeats constantly that Hillary is the presumed primary winner.....just as with state and local elections.
Voter Turnout Plummeting in Local Elections
Voter turnout for local elections has historically lagged but is getting worse, prompting officials to explore new ways to get people to the polls.
by Mike Maciag | October 2014
Just over a fifth of registered voters cast their ballots in the Los Angeles primary and runoff elections that ushered in Mayor Eric Garcetti last year. The elections continued a persistent downward trend in voter participation that’s not limited to Los Angeles. In New York, Bill de Blasio won a landslide election that similarly saw the lowest voter turnout since at least the 1950s. More recently, just over a quarter of voters showed up for the District of Columbia’s hotly-contested mayoral primary – the lowest turnout in more than 30 years.
Voter turnout for local elections, typically held in off-cycle years, has historically lagged behind state and federal races set to take place in November, but recent results suggest it’s slowly becoming even worse.
University of Wisconsin researchers provided Governing with elections data covering 144 larger U.S. cities, depicting a decline in voter turnout in odd-numbered years over the previous decade. In 2001, an average of 26.6 percent of cities’ voting-age population cast ballots, while less than 21 percent did so in 2011. Turnout for primary and general local elections fluctuate from year to year, but long-term trends in many larger cities suggest voter interest has waned.
Aaron Weinschenk, who studies the issue at the University of Wisconsin, said it’s possible that turnout in municipal elections could still drop lower. “I wonder if the negativity surrounding government in general is seeping into local government,” he said, “and polluting politics at all levels.”
If local turnout doesn’t improve, the implications could extend much further than the ballot box. Low-turnout elections typically aren’t representative of the electorate as a whole, dominated by whiter, more-affluent and older voters. Recent research published by a UC San Diego professor found such elections contribute to poorer outcomes for minorities, including uneven prioritization of public spending.
Long ago, political machines routinely mobilized a healthy cadre of big city voters with often predictable results. Later, during the 1960s and 70s, more than two-thirds of registered voters cast ballots in New York, Los Angeles and elsewhere when power shifted to racial and ethnic minorities. But now, voter participation in big cities is typically low, prompting officials to explore ways to get more people out to the polls.
In Los Angeles, officials formed an elections reform commission after the city’s dismal turnout in 2013. Commission Chairman Fernando Guerra, who directs a research center at Loyola Marymount University, attributes the city’s declining turnout rates to a lack of partisan competition from Republican candidates and a diminishing racial divide. “No longer is a Latino running for mayor a major challenge to the status quo,” he said. Municipal candidates may hold different views on a few issues, but when they’re of similar backgrounds and political leanings, the differences appear less stark to voters.
Of all proposals to boost voter turnout, moving the election date to coincide with state or federal elections has, by far, the greatest effect. That’s what the commission in Los Angeles has proposed to do. Weinschenk’s research indicates that shifting mayoral elections to presidential years results in an 18.5 percentage point jump in turnout, while changing to November of a midterm election yields an 8.7-point average increase.
Even-year elections can also save taxpayers money. The Maryland General Assembly voted to delay Baltimore’s next local election by one year, lining it up with the 2016 presidential election to save the city an estimated $3.7 million.
So why haven’t more localities moved their municipal elections? The top concern often cited is that local races receive less voter and media attention when they appear on crowded ballots. Holding elections in off-years also allows elections offices to try out new procedures and better train staff.
Guerra doesn’t think those are good enough reasons not to make the shift. “It’s not right to define voters as informed or uninformed,” he said. “Whatever system leads to the greatest number of voters participating is the one we should implement.” The lower the turnout, the less Guerra said voters resemble the entire electorate. In cities like Los Angeles and Houston, it’s often the Hispanic precincts that vote at the lowest rates.
Other recommendations of the Los Angeles commission include improving voter registration outreach, creating a network of early voting locations, promoting voting by mail and using shopping centers and other non-traditional locations as polling places. A separate panel also recently proposed that the City Council study offering cash prizes to randomly-selected voters, the legality of which is a bit murky.
Some argue merely getting more people to the polls won't inevitably yield the best government. “We naturally assume more turnout is better, but that’s not necessarily always the case,” said Eric Oliver, a University of Chicago professor who has written a book on local elections. This thinking suggests voters can't just head to the ballot box without being informed as well.
While generally low, big cities’ turnout rates vary greatly. Many on the low end are in Texas -- only about 11 percent of registered voters cast ballots in the most recent mayoral elections in Fort Worth and Dallas, both of which held competitive open-seat contests. By comparison, 44 percent of registered voters came out for San Diego’s special mayoral election earlier this year.
Research suggests partisan local elections experience higher turnout rates, in part because nonpartisan contests lack cues that motivate voters to turn out. Localities in which mayors have more power also see higher turnout rates. Differences in voter turnout in local and higher-level races aren’t nearly as apparent in many other countries. In fact, voters typically participate at greater rates in municipal elections than national races in Japan and France.
According to Oliver, barring a scandal or major initiative, local politics mostly functions in an “equilibrium state” that isn’t conducive to generating voter interest. Interestingly, although Americans aren’t apt to vote in municipal elections, Gallup surveys indicate they trust local government more than the state or federal levels.
Motivating more voters to participate in local elections is difficult. But while governments can’t instill voters with enthusiasm, Oliver said they can make it easier for citizens to find information and remove barriers preventing people from voting to make for a stronger, more representative government.
As Bernie states ----if you are a candidate who will talk negatively about Trans Pacific Trade Pact and Wall Street global markets----if you are a candidate who states you will rebuild oversight and accountability and Rule of Law and heaven forbid a candidate who speaks of rebuilding social safety nets and New Deal policies like anti-trust/monopoly laws, equal protection, or taxing the rich-----then you will be ignored by the media and major election venues. You do see Bernie on polls---but the polls are so skewed no one knows what to believe----again, a breakdown in election law that would require all polling to follow scientific standards as has been the case for centuries. This same thing happens in state and local elections in Democratic primaries having a social Democrat as a candidate.
This time the Democratic voters have caught on and there is tons of networking happening that will allow Bernie to win----BUT WE MUST SHOUT OUT FOR FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS.
Bernie Sanders Slams The Media For Their Biased Presidential Campaign Coverage
By: Jason Easley more from Jason Easley
Sunday, May, 24th, 2015, 1:19 pmSen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) called out the media for their biased coverage of presidential campaigns, and refusal to inform the American people during an interview on CNN’s Reliable Sources.
During the interview, Sanders hit on the media bias against discussing issues, and the media’s obsession with negative campaigning.
Transcript via CNN:
STELTER: With your campaign now a few weeks in, are you finding that the media is taking it seriously or are you finding they’re using you only as a foil to Hillary Clinton to get headlines?
SANDERS: I think we are doing pretty well. And I think the media — we have gotten more serious discussion on our issues than I might have thought about.
But this is what I worry about. In terms of campaign coverage…
SANDERS: … there is more coverage about the political gossip of a campaign, about raising money, about polling, about somebody saying something dumb, or some kid works for a campaign sends out something stupid on Facebook, right? We can expect that to be a major story.
But what your job is, what the media’s job is, is to say, look, these are the major issues facing the country. We’re a democracy. People have different points of view. Let’s argue it.
STELTER: Fundamentally, you’re describing what is the systemic issue in press, in the nation’s news media, which is an interesting spectacle over policy.
SANDERS: To me, it is astounding. And correct me if you think I’m wrong. When you have ABC, CBS, and NBC not devoting one minute to the most significant trade agreement in the history of the United States of America, help me out, help me out. Give me an explanation.
SANDERS: I mean, television is an important medium. You cannot ignore that. You cannot ignore the reality of income and wealth inequality.
You cannot ignore the fact that Citizens United is undermining our democratic way of life. Now, there are two sides to the story. I’m not saying everybody has got to agree with me, but have that issue, have that debate. That’s what elections should be about.
STELTER: Some people might say, how do you do that in a way that keeps people watching, that gets people stay tuned and not turn the channel?
SANDERS: Oh, all right, good question, good question. All right.
So, let me back it up. About a year ago, there was a poll out there. Pollsters asked the American people, tell me which political party controls the U.S. Senate and controls the U.S. House? That was a year ago, when the Democrats controlled the Senate.
STELTER: It’s always disappointing to see how many people are wrong with their answers.
SANDERS: Sixty-three percent of the people in this country did not know that answer.
Who bears responsibility for that? Does the media bear any responsibility? How do you have a serious discussion? If you don’t like what’s going on in Washington, which nobody does, who are you going to Plame if you don’t know which party controls what? So I think that, instead of coming up with the next news of the moment, breaking news, there was an automobile accident, a cat got run over, here is breaking news. For 40 years, the American middle class has been disappearing and the rich have been getting richer. Why?
The reason TPP isn’t getting discussed in the mainstream press is that the media is run by large corporations who benefit from these trade agreements. American media fundamentally changed when news became a for-profit venture. Cable news networks and network news divisions generate huge amounts of profit for their owners, and the way to keep those profits rolling in is to cover cheap gossipy stories.
Hard news is expensive. It costs money to establish and run news divisions around the world. The corporate media discovered that devoting airtime to the latest celebrity scandal was cheap and brought easy ratings. This same mentality has spilled into presidential campaign coverage. The media is more interested in the soap opera storylines of presidential campaigns than the issues.
The majority of American news consumers are either misinformed or underinformed. There is a lack of basic current events knowledge in our society. Most people get their news from television, and television has decided not to cover serious issues.
Media coverage is biased against facts and issues. The corporate press is biased against informing the public. Our electoral system is based on the assumption of an informed electorate, but networks like Fox News are undermining the system by intentionally misinforming.
Sen. Sanders is one of the lone voices who is using his presidential campaign platform to call for a better and more responsible media. Bernie Sanders is fighting for your right to be informed, and the corporate press is getting a lesson in what the American people should expect from the media.
If you look at Baltimore Sun 2016 election coverage so far you will see lots of Sheila Dixon-----Hopkins and Wall Street Baltimore Development are pushing Sheila as the one to do what they say as they try to push Baltimore into bankruptcy ----privatize all that is public in Baltimore from water and waste to transportation----and to move the International Economic Zone and Trans Pacific Trade Pact forward making Baltimore the BLOOMBERG ECONOMIC ZONE 2 NORTH AMERICA------So, a major news paper controlling almost all newsprint in Baltimore region has yet to say anything about this important race. A list of candidates for Mayor made back in October 2015 when almost none of the candidates had actually officially filed has remained without update.
I see no major election venues advertising Mayor's forums that usually do-----Morgan State, Coppin, University of Baltimore, University of Maryland Baltimore----no major 501c3s have sent out forum notices-----Hopkins had its own private Mayor's forum inviting only who they wanted. Baltimore and Maryland Assembly passed a law moving the primary to April 2016, well before the normal June making for a shortened official primary season.
ALL THIS MAKES THE PRIMARY ELECTIONS HARD FOR CANDIDATES AND HARD TO STIMULATE VOTERS WHO THINK THE FIX IS IN.
They know voters are angry and creating another election blackout of major election venues favors crony political machines.
Sheila Dixon officially kicks off her campaign for re-election
Former mayor Sheila Dixon kicked off her mayoral campaign with a rally at the B&O Railroad Museum Sunday. (Baltimore Sun video)
Yvonne WengerContact ReporterThe Baltimore Sun
"I know Baltimore and Baltimore knows me," ex-Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon says at campaign kick-off.Former Mayor Sheila Dixon kicked off her campaign for re-election Sunday with an ice cream social in Pigtown, saying she wants to address illegal dirt bikes, improve public transportation and foster mutual respect between police and the communities they serve.
About 400 people gathered under the pavilion outside the B&O Railroad Museum for Dixon's announcement, which comes two days after Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake shocked the city by revealing that she won't seek another term.
Dixon, 61, said Rawlings-Blake's decision "doesn't affect me. I am going to stay focused and move forward." Dixon resigned in January 2010 after being convicted of a misdemeanor charge of stealing gift cards intended for the needy.
She'll face a crowded field of Democrats — including state Sen. Catherine E. Pugh and City Councilman Carl Stokes — for the April 26 primary. In heavily Democratic Baltimore, the primary has for decades determined the city's mayor.
Dixon said she's "running for mayor to get things done." She was first elected to serve on the City Council in 1987 before going on to become the city's first African-American female mayor.
After announcing her bid for re-election, former Mayor Sheila Dixon takes a hula hoop challenge at the B&O Railroad Museum.
(Algerina Perna / Baltimore Sun)"I am not saying it's going to be easy. I am not saying I can do it alone, but I am saying there is no one who can fight for this city like I can," Dixon said. "The time for on-the-job training has surely passed. We need a mayor who knows our community and is ready to listen.
"I know Baltimore and Baltimore knows me."
At the top of her list is addressing the city's crime rate, especially homicides, she said. She wants to work with dirt bike riders to come up with a solution to get them off the streets, collaborate with the state to develop a regional transportation plan and team up with community members who have ideas about how to clean up litter and bring more businesses to West Baltimore.
Mayor's decision not to seek re-election could hurt ability to lead "Our city is a deep reservoir of untapped potential," she said. "I am running for mayor to put these ideas into action so that together we can reclaim, revive and rebuild this great city."
Several City Council members attended the fundraiser, including Council President Bernard C. "Jack" Young and members Mary Park Clarke, Eric Costello and Edward Reisinger.
An estimated one in four of the people in attendance came from outside the city, including Jacqueline Adamson of Prince George's County. The fundraiser cost $30 for admission.
Adamson said she's watching the city mayoral election closely, even though she can't vote in the contest. Baltimore's successes and failures affect the region, and Adamson said she thinks Dixon is the right person to lead the city.
"She's real. She's raw. She's a real person," Adamson said.
Pierre Stewart of Pigtown said the turnout for Dixon's announcement — on the same day as the Ravens season opener — is a testament to her popularity. Like many others at the event, Stewart said he wasn't bothered by Dixon's embezzlement conviction, saying she deserves a second chance.
"She did a fantastic job," Stewart said, pointing to Dixon's work to establish a single stream recycling program, one of her signature initiatives as mayor.
"My mind's already made up. She's great for the city."
The other piece to why social Democrats have been literally written out of primary elections comes with the leading Democratic base organizations----labor and justice. In both cases the national leadership is captured by Clinton neo-liberal leadership like Trumka and Weingarten who have backed Clinton neo-liberals even when Clinton killed unions -----and national justice organization leadership is the same captured Clinton neo-liberal as with NAACP and NOW-----while rank and file members----women -----et al are behind Bernie.
Unions and national justice organizations may not have the funding they used to----but they have the organizing and get-out-the-vote apparatus. Union members say they ignore leadership but loosing that campaign apparatus matters.
NATIONAL LABOR UNION AND JUSTICE ORGANIZATION LEADERS HAVE HELPED SIDELINE SOCIAL DEMOCRATS UNTIL THIS COMING ELECTION. WE NEED THIS AT STATE AND LOCAL DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES AS WELL.
- Communications workers endorse Sanders, bucking...www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/17/sanders-to-get-communication-workers-endorsement-breaking-streak-of-labor-backing-clinton/Dec 17, 2015 ... Bernie Sanders arrives at the HQ of the Communications Workers of America in DC to pick up an ... has not exactly trickled up to the national leadership in some cases," Sanders said. ... The senator also picked up the backing of several local unions in early ... Major national and political news as it breaks.
- Will Labor Back Bernie? | Jacobinwww.jacobinmag.com/2015/11/postal-workers-endorsement-labor-for-bernie-sanders-clinton-nomination/ Nov 16, 2015 ... Bernie Sanders's support from the National Nurses United, a union with over 180,000 ... membership-driven, not coming from just a handful of leaders. ... this moment to break away from corporate-dominated Democrats.
- Rank-and-File Teachers Object As Nation's Biggest ...http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/09/29/rank-and-file-teachers-object-nations-biggest-union-weighs-early-clinton-endorsement Sep 29, 2015 ... A rumored presidential endorsement by the nation's largest union is exposing a rift ... the Bern" and leadership who appear more willing to err on the Clinton side of caution. ... Bernie Sanders, say protesting union members. ... similar debates being waged within other labor organizations, including the The ...
BREAKING: Over 5,000 union members and leaders now support Bernie Sanders for President
AFL-CIO delay on endorsement provides more time to build broader union support
The national AFL-CIO's decision on July 24 to delay an early endorsement is a reflection of the growing union support for Sen. Bernie Sanders' bid for President. The delay gives the Sanders campaign more time to firm up labor support which is continuing to surge at the grassroots.
Labor for Bernie 2016 was kicked off in late June with 1,000 supporters and has quickly grown to a national network with more than 5,000 union supporters who have signed an on-line statement embracing Sanders as the only declared candidate, in either major party, "who challenges the billionaires who are trying to steal our pensions, our jobs, our homes, and what's left of our democracy."
Larry Cohen, past president of the Communications Workers of America and now a volunteer working on the Sanders' campaign said, "Our strong and growing grassroots movement shows that Bernie shares our values and beliefs. Workers are fed up with business as usual. This campaign is about putting a stop to the corporate assault on our kids, our country and working families!"
Sanders' union supporters are taking an active role in thousands of grassroots organizing parties taking place on July 29. Labor for Bernie 2016 has produced a new leaflet highlighting Sanders long track record of support for workers' rights. It has also upgraded its website to provide better networking tools for supporters to build member-to-member relationships within their unions and in their communities.
A recent Utility Workers Union of America poll of 400 elected delegates to their national convention in Hollywood FL supported Bernie Sanders with 65 percent of the vote, Clinton had just 23 percent, with Martin O'Malley taking only 7 percent and the combined Republican field winning 5 percent
Since early June, Sanders has received support from the Vermont AFL-CIO, South Carolina AFL-CIO, Teamsters (Lithographers) Local 1 in New York City, IBEW Local 2222 in Boston and IBEW Local 159 in Madison, WI.
On July 11, the American Federation of Teachers national executive board voted to endorse Clinton with little membership input. The endorsement caused an uproar on social media and led to a major spike in sign-ups by teachers on the Labor for Bernie website. Today, nearly 700 members of the AFT or the larger NEA have joined the network.
Members of other unions are also showing strong support for Sanders. More than 575 IBEW members who have signed up make it the largest supporter, followed by AFT (374 members) and NEA (312 members), then CWA (308 members) Teamsters (301 members), and the UAW (266 members). Nearly 18 percent of the Labor for Sanders 2016 initiative are from Building Trades unions with IBEW and the Carpenters (203) members showing the strongest support.
With more endorsers signing up every day, the Labor for Bernie network is urging the AFL-CIO, its affiliated national unions, and major unaffiliated labor organizations (NEA, SEIU, and IBT) to sponsor candidate forums and debates, at the grassroots level, before making any presidential endorsement decision of their own.
Labor for Bernie 2016 is a volunteer effort neither funded nor directed by the Sanders for President campaign. To join this grassroots mobilization, download useful organizing materials, or learn more about Bernie's past and present support for workers and their unions, go to: www.laborforbernie.org