“We have a mission, a mandate, and a moral obligation to speak up and speak out until the House votes to address gun violence. We have turned deaf ears to the blood of the innocent and the concern of our nation. We will use nonviolence to fight gun violence and inaction.” – Rep. John Lewis (D-GA).

Above, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) joins Rep. John Lewis and other Democratic members of congress during their sit-in to protest Repubican inaction and NRA obstruction of gun safety.

In his CNN Opinion post, “How Clinton can redraw the map,” Howard Dean credits Hillary Clinton with making some strategic moves which can help secure working Democratic majorities down-ballot for decades to come. As Dean writes,

Most presidential campaigns follow the same playbook. Candidates parse the map into red states, blue states and so-called “swing states”–and they focus their time and resources exclusively on that third category.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is rejecting that strategy in favor of a much broader one. The plan that Clinton began to execute this week is a 20-year strategy to create a new vision for America.

To fulfill it, she is dispatching staff to all 50 states and is working to identify and organize supporters in each one.

It’s not just about winning the presidency for the Democrats. Clinton’s vision includes strengthening the party down-ballot:

On the same day Americans cast their vote for president this November, they’ll also be voting for senators, representatives, governors, state legislators and city council members. A 50-state strategy means that Democrats can focus attention and resources further down the ballot. We can’t forget that the outcomes of those local races matter too if we’re going to truly make a difference in people’s lives…Every Democrat that she helps get elected to offices across the country this year, the deeper the bench will be for many elections to come. They will become the foundation of a potent legacy, not just for the party, but for a consequential presidency.

“She understands that what happens between now and November is not just about 2016 or even 2020,” adds Dean. “If we really want a political revolution, we have to build it block by block–nurturing strong Democratic organizations in each of the 50 states.”

For too long Democrats have accepted weak party organizations in many states. All too often we read reports about Democrats failing to field candidates, sometimes even in competitive districts. The DNC and Democratic leaders simply must do more to help local party organizations build their strength.

Clinton understands that Democrats have a unique opportunity this year, with an extremely weak Republican presidential nominee serving up daily outrage and myriad disasters. Many Republicans are coming around to the belief that a “cleansing” defeat in the 2016 presidential election may serve their long-range interests by reorienting their party to succeed amid demographic change.

It’s a small window of opportunity in an historical context. It’s good that Clinton recognizes the importance of strengthening the Democratic Party at the state and local level — and the rare chance to do it in a big way this year.

“In her campaign, Clinton will show up everywhere and take no voter for granted,” writes Dean. “That’s why solidly red states like Georgia, Utah and Arizona already appear a few shades more purple.”

Strategically, a presidential candidate has to focus more time, energy and resources in identifiable battleground states to win the electoral college majority. But governing effectively will also require Democratic majorities in the Senate and House. Putting an end to the GOP’s reign of Gridlock, Obstruction and Paralysis will also require major Democratic gains in the state legislatures of America. Having a presidential candidate who gets this — and commits to do something about it — is a big plus.

The following article by Democratic strategist Robert Creamer, author of Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, is cross-posted from HuffPo:
We will not know all of the facts surrounding the unfathomable tragedy in Orlando for some time – perhaps, many days.
But one thing is certain: intolerance and hatred inevitably lead to violence and death.
That is why our primary response to the horrific massacre at the Pulse nightclub must be to rededicate ourselves to creating a culturally diverse society that is based on tolerance and respect for other religions, sexual orientations, races and life styles.
In America the one thing we must never tolerate is intolerance itself.
All of us must extend our sympathy and support to those who are directly affected – and, frankly to the entire LGBT community that was, in fact, the intended victim of this horrible attack. This was an attack on an LGBT club during Pride Month.
The shooter, Omar Mateen, sent messages indicating that it was his allegiance to ISIS that lead him to murder fifty of his fellow human beings. Whether he was motivated by ideological commitment or his own hatred of gays and lesbians, or both — that motivation can never trump the fundamental sense of human empathy that provides the foundational principle of a civilized society.
Whatever his motivations, the shooter himself obviously bears complete responsibility for actions that ended the hopes and aspirations of so many brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, boy friends and girl friends, sons and daughters.
But while the shooter is directly responsible, political decisions – and America’s political culture – are also culpable. And we dare not allow the forces of intolerance to exploit the Orlando mass shooting and throw gasoline on the fire of intolerance itself.
In recent years, instances of mass violence that were born of intolerance, have increased:
• The shooting of African American worshipers at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston;
• The murders at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs;
• The mass shootings by Islamic extremists in San Bernardino, Paris and Brussels;
• The Boston marathon bombing.
They all have one thing in common. All of them resulted from actions by those inspired by hate filled rhetoric and intolerance.
Islamic extremism is a major driving force. But let’s remember, that the data shows that in the United States itself you were more than 7 times as likely to be killed by a right wing extremist than a Muslim terrorist in the 13.5 years following 9/11.
The New York Times reported that a study by UNC Professor Charles Kurzman and Duke Professor David Schanzer, showed that Islam-inspired terror attacks “accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years.” Meanwhile, “right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities.”
In point of fact, there is no fundamental difference between the murders by Islamic extremists, or white racists, or anti-abortion extremists. They are all acts rooted in intolerance and bigotry and we must create a society that refuses to tolerate those acts – or the intolerance and bigotry that lead to them.
For much of the last year, many on nativist right – particularly Donald Trump – have spewed out hate-filled, intolerant rhetoric like a geyser. Trump has made it seem increasingly “normal” in American political discourse.
Quite apart from wrong-headed policy proposals, the hateful, intolerant political environment that this rhetoric spawns, creates the conditions that make hate motivated political violence more – not less likely. It is reckless and dangerous.
In particular, Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric legitimates the narrative that groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda use to recruit impressionable young people.
Then of course there is the issue of assault weapons – and the fact that it is simply too easy for people who are planning violent acts to get their hands on guns in the United States.
The purpose of an AR-15 – or any similar rapid fire assault weapon like the one used by the shooter in Orlando – is to allow the shooter to enter a “target rich” environment and kill dozens of people in seconds. Storm a nightclub where 300 people are enjoying the evening, and you can easily use an AR-15 to kill 50 people and wound 53 others.
Assault weapons are designed for military use – to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time possible. There is simply no justification for their sale to the general public.
During the administration of Bill Clinton, assault weapons were banned by Congress. That ban expired and the GOP Congress has refused to renew it. The GOP Congress even refuses to stop individuals on the terrorist watch list from obtaining these weapons and other firearms- although they may be banned from flying on commercial aircraft. That is simply inexcusable.
Assault weapons should be banned in the United States for all but military and police use. You can’t use them to shoot deer. You can only use them to kill other human beings.
And it is obviously time to enact universal background checks for the purchase of all guns – a position supported by 80% plus of the voters.
Gun violence has to stop. Congress must act now.
And most important, the Orlando massacre should serve as the event that forces America to launch a new war – a war on intolerance, hatred and bigotry.

Recent reports of scant contributions to the Trump campaign mask a serious problem for Democrats who hope for a landslide victory that will return balance to the U.S. Senate, House and state legislatures: Republican fat cats are shifting their political contributions to down-ballot candidates.
As a consequence, Democrats should prepare for record-level funding of Republican congressional and state legislative candidates. Ned Resnikoff reports at International Business Times:

Conservative billionaires may be withholding their support from Donald Trump, but don’t expect them to sit out the 2016 election entirely. Instead, some of the key donors on the right have signaled their intention to focus on down-ticket races. That means an unprecedented flood of outside money could be coming soon to a congressional district near you.
Leading the charge are Charles and David Koch, the libertarian philanthropists responsible for crafting the right wing’s most expansive donor network. While the Trump campaign has attempted to broker an alliance with the Koch Brothers, Charles Koch said on Thursday that he would be staying out of the presidential election. For most of the past year, the Kochs have been almost completely absent from the Republican nomination process, even as Koch-backed organizations have poured resources into a handful of congressional races.
Millions of dollars in outside spending already have flooded into this year’s Senate race in Ohio between incumbent Republican Rob Portman and former Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat. Americans for Prosperity, one of the Koch Brothers’ flagship organizations, has so far spent more than $1.7 million in support of Portman, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Another Koch-backed group, Freedom Partners Action Fund, has spent more than $3.7 million.
That sort of money can be a lot more effective in a down-ballot race than in a presidential election, Sunlight Foundation spokesperson Josh Stewart told International Business Times…”Fewer dollars can go a longer way,” Stewart said. “It takes relatively little investment to have a significant impact, especially in House races.”
…That might help explain why Freedom Partners and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce each has dedicated nearly $3 million to re-electing Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Penn. Both groups are also spending to help Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., fend off a challenge from former Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold.

Trump has a major door commitment from Sheldon Adelson, who has pledged to spend about $100 million to help Trumps’s campaign. But other conservative mega-donors, in addition to Charles and David Koch, such as North Carolina’s GOP sugar-daddy Art Pope, have said they will not be investing in Trump and will be channeling their political contributions down-ballot.
Democratic strategists are aware of the problem. As Tai Kopan explains at CNN Politics in her post, “GOP donors look past Donald Trump and down ticket“:

Democrats are aware of the potential influx of cash into states and prepping for it…”We totally recognize and take seriously that the dumpster fire that’s shaping up at the top of the ballot could definitely direct some more resources toward these Senate races with an eye toward keeping the majority, and I think our recognition of that has actually been borne to bear with how well have done on fundraising,” said Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee press secretary Lauren Passalacqua in an interview.

The DSCC has also reserved $50 million for the “Party of Trump” campaign linking the GOP nominee to senate candidates who are supporting him.
The other factor that ought to worry Democrats is that the shortfall in funding for Trump may not present as much of a problem for him as expected, since he is extremely effective in securing free media coverage, even though most of it is bad. If his new management team cleans up his act, he may be able to leverage his media skills in a new, more productive way.
It is sometimes persuasively argued that money isn’t always a pivotal force in politics, and indeed there are plenty of examples of candidates who were grossly out-spent who won their elections. But the converse is also true.
The possible down-ballot shortfall in funding for Democratic candidates presents a unique and historic opportunity for Sen. Bernie Sanders, as he searches for a meaningful role for the coalition that empowered his candidacy. As Brent Budowsky, a former aide to Democratic Senator and Vice Presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen has suggested,

Sanders should…reconstitute his campaign as a people’s PAC to raise substantial money from small donors that would be used to support liberal candidates running for the House and Senate against Republicans…With this people’s PAC project…Sanders would keep a political staff to run the program outside his Senate office, raise somewhere between $100 million and $300 million from his small donors, travel across the country to rallies in support of liberal candidates, and do national talk shows on a regular basis to support the cause.

It’s difficult to overstate the importance of the difference between a Democratic presidency that has a working congressional majority and one that does not. It is really the difference between a hopeful progressive future and one of continued legislative obstruction and social and economic sagnation. If Democrats fail to win back working congressional majorities in this year of nearly unprecedented Democratic opportunity, it will be a tragic waste of political power.
Sen. Sanders has the chance to play a pivotal role in making sure the next president will have a congress that is ready to invest in infrastructure and secure a range of Democratic reforms. If he rises to this challenge, he just might do more to create a truly progressive future for America than any of the other presidential candidates of 2016.

In the wake of reports that Hillary Clinton has won the delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination for president and a near melt-down of the Trump campaign, the primary in the nation’s most populous state has lost some its political lustre. As the nation’s ‘vanguard’ state, however, the close Democratic race in California is still of interest and will likely have an effect on how soon Democratic rank and file unite behind one candidate.
At New York magazine’s Daily Intelligencer, Ed Kilgore notes that “Clinton has led every single public poll taken in the state, 19 in all,” but, If Sanders “does edge Clinton, the show may go on for another month or so before its inevitable closing.”
In Andrew Prokop’s’ Vox post, “Primary elections 2016: today’s poll closing times and what to expect” he explains “Now, the race in California appears tight — Sanders hasn’t led a single poll of the state, but he trails by just 4 percentage points in the HuffPost Pollster average. By contrast, New Jersey looks like a blowout for Clinton, and the other (small) states have scarcely been polled.”
As for Sanders’s afirmation that he will continue to campaign regardless of the California and New Jersey results, Prokop wites,

There is reason to be skeptical of Sanders’s pronouncements, though. Presidential candidates have often argued that they’ll fight all the way until the convention, only to reverse course when defeat is finally unmistakable. And Matt Yglesias argues that Sanders will likely do the same.
Whatever Sanders’s intentions, Hillary Clinton has already moved on to the general election and focused on beating Donald Trump. Indeed, according to recent reports from The New York Times and CNN, several key Democratic figures who have remained neutral so far, like President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, will likely endorse Clinton in the coming days, as an effort to signal to Sanders that it’s time to throw in the towel.

In any case, the Clinton campaign has already moved on, making Trump the focus of their attacks. Whether or not she has the needed pledged delegates in a few days or weeks, she is laser-focused in general election mode, and not looking back.
Democrats have a rare opportunity for a wave election, and if they can unify behind their nominee in the coming days and weeks, they can lead America forward to an exciting new era of progressive change.

In an open letter to down-ballot Republicans, GOP strategist Rick Wilson has some harsh words for his party’s elected officials who are supporting Trump, as reported by James Hohman at The Daily 202:

“You own the racial animus that started out as a bug, became a feature and is now the defining characteristic of his campaign. You own every crazy, vile chunk of word vomit that spews from his mouth. … He’s political poison. Don’t believe me? You will. … Trump doesn’t give a damn about your election. You’re not part of a unified Republican ticket; you’re collateral damage in Trump Rampage Raw WWE 2016.”
Wilson tells Republican candidates that it is not too late to dump Trump: “As much damage as he does every day, he’s also giving you an out. Tear off the bandage. Take the short blast of pain and the stupid tweets from stupid people. Take the idiotic Tweet he’ll hit you with and make fun of it. Wash the stink off, and you’ll feel like a human again. You won’t spend every day in fear of defeat, or in fear of losing your political soul…Stop trying to run a generic, please-the-base campaign where your political lanes are bounded. Run as a Florida Republican or a Colorado Republican or a Nevada Republican and separate your brand from Trump’s. You can’t finesse this. There is not ‘just a little Trump’ just as there’s no ‘just a little pregnant.’ Just run.”

Conservative commentator Jay Cost piles on in response to Republicans attempting to walk back support for Trump, tweeting to fellow Republicans: “Doesn’t work like that, @newtgingrich. You, @SarahPalinUSA, @seanhannity own this dumpster fire.”

If you have been wondering how much of the conflict between supporters of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders is Republican-inspired, you are not alone. There does seem to be a fair amount of internet jabber which appears to be designed to foment conflict between their followers. For example, Gideon Resnick reports in his post, “Trump Trolls Plot to Bait Bernie and Hillary Into Twitter Wars” at The Daily Beast:

“Let’s troll Bernie and Hillary supporters systematically,” the 4Chan thread on a recent weekend in May read.
The plan was simple: get a bunch of people to create pro-Bernie Sanders and pro-Hillary Clinton accounts and go to war on Twitter. The sham accounts would use hashtags to slander the opposite candidate and try to rile up die-hard fans into saying accusatory things to the supporters on the other side. The goal was to create more divisions and somehow use it to help Donald Trump gain more support.
“We need to take advantage of this,” the author of the original post wrote. “This is Trump’s gift. If we’re serious about a Trump presidency we need to start infiltrating their conversations in order to sow more divison. I’m talking systematic and long-term /mischief/, not just a hew [sic] minutes trolling dumbass SJW’s (social justice warriors).”

This particular scam didn’t end so well, since no new threads were launched by it, the stated goal of its proponent. There are other thinly-disguised Republican trolls foraging around on social media, as Resnick notes, quoting a Sanders supporter:

“Dear Admins (or whoever else wants to see what the other side is doing to troll us)… These idiots created a website on specific strategies to troll us,” Tam L. Cocar wrote, referring to the thread in the “Bernie Believers” Facebook group. “Unfortunately, a lot of it seems too familiar as of late. So if you have hours to waste to see how elaborate their trolling strategy has become (they seem deluded enough to fancy themselves as 007 types), please do. Why some moron would post this without the site being password protected I don’t understand.”

Very few Clinton or Sanders supporters take the bait. As Eric Varney, who runs a pro-Sanders Facebook page, explains of another troll ploy:

“An attempt like this would only work with people who are uneducated about the political system and do not know how to debate civilly,” Varney told The Daily Beast. “Neither the majority of Clinton or Sanders supporters are stupid. There are ignorant people on both sides who would fight the wind if it whistled wrong. But that’s the nature of social media.”

Those who are too time-challenged to noodle around on Twitter may notice suspicious posts on Facebook and other social media. Much of it reflects the civility of an unusually-immature jr. high school student. But Dems should probably assume that there are more sophisticated trolls out there trying to juice up divisions between the Sanders and Clinton campaigns.
“Let’s you and her fight” trolls are likely wasting their time, since most Sanders and Clinton supporters are well-aware that their common adversary – the Trump campaign – would like nothing better than to divide Democrats. They recognize that Trump represents a radical departure from progressive values and his defeat should be the top priority for all Democrats after the convention.
None of this is to deny that there that there are some strongly-felt differences on key issues, independent of trollage, that need to be resolved by the two Democratic campaigns. Few supporters of Secretary Clinton or Senator Sanders are going to be provoked by any of it, though both camps are wise to keep an eye out for GOP trolls who are trying to amp up the bickering between them.

Yesterday J.P. Green noted an article in Campaigns & Elections underscoring the high regard Repubican party political operatives have for Facebook as a media outlet for their ads — despite the efforts of Sen. John Thune (R-SD) to discredit Facebook as tainted by liberal bias.
But Thune’s record suggests more than a little hypocrisy, as Steve Benen noted at Maddowblog:

…John Thune says he’s concerned about Facebook’s “culture” and the integrity of its mission statement, but again, how in the world is that any of his business? Isn’t the Republican model based on the idea that the free market should decide and if online consumers don’t like Facebook’s “culture,” we can take our clicks elsewhere?
But even more striking still is Thune’s uniquely weak position. When the South Dakota Republican became Congress’ leading opponent of net neutrality, Thune made the case that any political interference in how the Internet operates is inherently unacceptable.
Worse, in 2007, Thune railed against the “Fairness Doctrine,” arguing at the time, “I know the hair stands up on the back of my neck when I hear government officials offering to regulate the news media and talk radio to ensure fairness. I think most Americans have the same reaction.”

For the sake of argument, so what if Facebook had more “liiberal” content? Fox News, Breitbart and the Drudge Report display relentless conservative bias every day, and no Senators are trying to intimidate them to change their polices to reflect a more liberal point of view. Not all media has to be nonpartisan.
But Facebook has 1.6 billion “users,” and dwarfs all other websites in some key metrics that measure influence, which explain Thune’s meddling.
In reality, however, the political content of Facebook is mostly determined by the public, as its “users” choose which articles, videos and other content to share with their FB friends. It’s different for every user, from moment to moment. Liberals see mostly liberal content, and the same principle applies for both conservatives and moderates. Facebook does provide a powerful forum for peer-to-peer political education. But everyone can choose what to read and view and what to ignore, and that includes content spotlighted by Facebook’s administrators and staff.
But Brian Fung’s Washington Post article, “Facebook is making some big changes to Trending Topics, responding to conservatives” raises a disturbing possibility that facebook is caving to political pressure. As Fung reports,

Facebook said Monday it will stop relying as much on other news outlets to inform what goes into its Trending Topics section — a part of Facebook’s website that despite its small size has grown into a national political controversy amid accusations that the social network is stifling conservative voices on its platform.
Under the change, Facebook will discontinue the algorithmic analysis of media organizations’ websites and digital news feeds that partly determines which stories should be included in Trending Topics. Also being thrown out is a list of 1,000 journalism outlets that currently helps Facebook’s curators evaluate and describe the newsworthiness of potential topics, as well as a more exclusive list of 10 news sites that includes BuzzFeed News, the Guardian, the New York Times and The Washington Post.
…Facebook’s policy change Monday appears to be aimed at defusing the palpable tension between it and Republicans outraged over reports that Facebook’s Trending Topics could be biased against conservatives. Facebook’s announcement ending the scraping of news sites and RSS feeds for Trending Topics came in a response to Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the top Republican on the powerful Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Thune demanded on May 10 that Facebook answer a series of questions in light of the mounting outcry over the perceived bias.

Facebook has reponded that “Suppressing political content or preventing people from seeing what matters most to them is directly contrary to our mission and our business objectives.” But the changes regarding the selection of ‘Trending Topics” content suggest otherwise.
Most Facebook users will probably not notice much change in political slant and tone. That will still be largely determined by user posts. But the possibility that Facebook’s content policy can be influenced by political intimidation, especially from the politician who leads the opposition to net neurtrality, is disturbing.