TIME Election 2016

Backlash After Mike Huckabee Says Iran Deal Is Like Leading Israel to ‘Door of the Oven’

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Huckabee speaks to 42nd annual meeting of American Legislative Exchange Council in San Diego
Mike Blake—Reuters U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee speaks to the 42nd annual meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council on July 23, 2015

The former Arkansas Governor said trusting the Iranian government would be "naive"

Comments on the pending deal between the U.S. and Iran by Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee have sparked controversy after he compared the deal to “marching [Israel] to the door of the oven.”

Huckabee’s comments to the conservative website Breitbart, an apparent reference to the Holocaust that would seem to equate U.S. President Barack Obama with Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, immediately drew criticism from across the aisle, the BBC reports.

U.S. Representative for Florida and head of the Democratic National Committee Deborah Wasserman-Schultz called for an apology for what she called “cavalier analogies” to Nazi death camps. The National Jewish Democratic Council echoed that call, saying in a statement, “Republicans have fallen over themselves to speak out against Donald Trump’s outrageous rhetoric on immigration and veterans. Will they now do the same and speak out against this unacceptable attack against President Obama that smears the memory of Holocaust victims … or will they stand by in silence and implicit approval?”

Huckabee’s camp, however, chose to support his stance, highlighting the remarks in a tweet on Sunday:

Congress has until Sept. 17 to vote on the deal, which would trade nuclear proliferation limits for loosened economic sanctions.


MONEY Economy

Here’s How Hillary Clinton’s Profit Sharing Plan Could Actually Make Everyone Richer

Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks during a town hall event at Dover City Hall July 16, 2015 in Dover, New Hampshire. Clinton spoke about how to build an economy that will boost the middle class.
Darren McCollester—Getty Images Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks during a town hall event at Dover City Hall July 16, 2015 in Dover, New Hampshire. Clinton spoke about how to build an economy that will boost the middle class.

Hint: Employers need to share more than profits.

Whatever you may think of Hillary Clinton, her profit sharing proposal introduced last week was a very smart piece of politics. It addresses two concerns that are really on the minds of voters, especially Democrats, and it threads a tiny needle of public values.

The first is that people who aren’t at the top of the income distribution haven’t done very well in the years since 2001: Real wages are either flat or down, depending on what measures you look at; job insecurity remains high; hours of work are up; and so forth.

The second is the growing awareness that while wages have stagnated, profits are up, and a much bigger proportion of the national pie is going to owners and investors now. A related issue is that since the 1981 recession, employers have asked employees (especially unionized employees) to make sacrifices in down periods to help business, yet there didn’t seem to be any upside for employees when things improved.

Profit sharing addresses these concerns while navigating around a political hot button. A policy that would explicitly redistribute money from the rich to the poor would likely elicit howls of “class warfare” from Republicans, and the idea of loading another burden on employers doesn’t play that well with many Democrats, either. But a program that shares the gains that employees and employers produce together, and that gives them both an incentive to produce more—well, that sounds fair.

The idea that employers should share profits with employees as a way to secure the cooperation of workers and create incentives for them to work hard probably goes back to ancient civilizations, but the US incarnation seems to have begun with Frederick Taylor’s “scientific management” approach of the 1920s, which led to time-and-motion-studies and the modern factory system. Taylor argued that employers should share profits with workers to get them to follow orders more or less like a robot. Employers like most everything about Taylor’s model except the profit sharing part, which didn’t really take off.

However, something similar temporarily caught on in the 1950s, in the form of an arrangement that came from Joseph Scanlon, a machinist who later became an MIT instructor. Scanlon’s sensible idea was that workplace performance would improve dramatically if employers and employees cooperated with each other. The program he developed, known afterwards as Scanlon Plans, had employers share profits with workers—but, crucially, they also shared information about the business operations, including finances, through a series of employee/management committees that worked on ways to improve productivity. Scanlon plans were quite popular through the 1970s but faded quickly after that. (I discuss other historical shifts in the employer-employee relationship in my new book.)

So what does that history tell us about Clinton’s plan? It demonstrates some of the limits of profit sharing as a means of addressing the slow growth of employee compensation—and also where the opportunities lie.

The first limit is that profit-sharing per se doesn’t seem to improve employee and business performance. Most employees figure out quickly that their individual contributions barely affect company profits, so working harder to try to improve your profit payout doesn’t make sense. Profit sharing seems to matter only when it is combined with increased employee participation in decision making and an approach to management that persuades them that “we’re in this together.” The requirement that employers share more information and engage employees in decision making appears to be what stunted Scanlon plans in the 1980s, and may be a big hurdle for profit sharing plans now as well.

The second limit is the fact that a great many companies already have profit sharing plans. That is especially so if we count retirement plans that include profit sharing. A tax break will induce more companies to use profit sharing plans, but just how many more is not at all clear. How much of the tax break might go to companies that already had profit sharing plans? Certainly some of it will, in which case, nothing changes for employees, and those employers get a windfall from the tax credit.

The third and most important limit is that these plans may not actually increase employee compensation because they may come at the expense of other forms of pay. If a profit sharing plan on average raises pay by 10% per year, for example, some employers will try to get away with paying salaries that are 10% lower. As a result, even in cases where profit sharing plans do give employees an upside when a business turns out to be very successful, they come with an intangible cost in the form of risk because they make pay more variable over time. That might be fine if profit sharing is just an add-on to the pay employees would have received. But on balance it’s a bad thing if it becomes a substitute for predictable wages.

The big plus of the Hillary Clinton proposal is that it might create some interesting conversations in board rooms as to why companies don’t already have profit sharing plans, and what would be required to make them succeed—namely, more sharing of information and decision making. That could happen even if the profit sharing proposal never becomes law, and would be a good thing all around.

Read next: Clinton’s Capital Gains Tax Plan Focuses on Long-Term Growth

Peter Cappelli is the George W. Taylor Professor of Management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and director of Wharton’s Center for Human Resources. He is also the author of numerous books, including his most recent, Will College Pay Off?: A Guide to the Most Important Financial Decision You’ll Ever Make.

MONEY Donald Trump

Donald Trump Piñatas Are a Hit In Mexico

A Mexican client who lives in the U.S., looks at a pinata depicting U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump hanging outside a workshop in Reynosa, Mexico, June 23, 2015. Days after billionaire Trump accused Mexico of sending criminals to live in the United States, a Mexican artisan has given angry Mexicans an outlet-- a Trump pinata they can stuff with candy and beat with a stick. In the Mexican border city of Reynosa, Dalton Ramirez works at his family's pinata shop where they create a variety of paper mache figures to be filled with treats and broken open with sticks on birthdays and holidays.
Daniel Becerril—Reuters A Donald Trump piñata.

"This pinata especially is the one everyone wants to break."

Mexicans have found a way to hit back at Donald Trump. Literally.

Reuters reports that piñatas bearing Trump’s likeness, including “a flange of blonde hair and a big mouth,” have hit store shelves in Mexico and are proving popular among customers eager to protest the billionaire’s recent remarks against immigrants.

Trump, who is a Republican candidate for president, drew criticism after declaring in his campaign announcement speech that Mexican migrants were bringing “drugs, crime, and rapists” to the United States. He later called his comments “100 percent correct,” but insisted he was a strong supporter of Mexicans. “How can I not love people who give me many millions of dollars for apartments?” Trump said, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

The Donald’s comments prompted piñata maker Dalton Remirez to design an extremely bashable piñata bearing Trump’s visage. The candy-filled sculpture retails for about $40, and Ramirez says it has been flying off shelves. “This piñata especially is the one everyone wants to break,” the artist told Reuters.

Read next: 8 Epic Business Failures with Donald Trump’s Name on Them

TIME 2016 Election

FEC Tells ‘Jews for Cruz’ PAC to Change Its Name

Senator Ted Cruz
Behar Anthony — AP U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas speaks at the annual Champion of Jewish Values International Awards Gala at the Marriott Marquis Hotel in New York, NY, on May 28, 2015.

The PAC cannot use Cruz's name in their title because it isn't one of the campaign's authorized committees

Jews for Cruz, a political action committee (PAC) of Jewish-American Ted Cruz supporters, will have to change its name.

According to a letter sent to the committee from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on Monday, the PAC cannot have Cruz’s name in its title because it is not an authorized committee of the 2016 presidential candidate.

Political action committees raise money independently of candidates’ campaigns and can give up to $5,000 to a candidate committee per election. They can also provide up to $15,000 annually to any national party committee, and $5,000 annually to another PAC.

The PAC’s Twitter profile description reads: “Help us fight the Islamic and liberal assault on America and Israel. In your heart, you know we’re right. And in your guts, you know they’re nuts.” They have almost 2,500 followers.

Cruz has found support, both political and financial, from some right-wing and Orthodox Jews for his conservative positions on Israel.

“I share a great many values with the Jewish community and the Orthodox community,” Cruz told Politico in April. “Chief among them is a passionate dedication to strengthening our friendship and alliance with the nation of Israel.”

TIME jeb bush

Jeb Bush Poised to Formally Join 2016 Campaign

The Florida Republican needs to make sure his bid doesn't look like its early days

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush was supposed to assemble the strongest roster of aides and donors, spooking would-be rivals for the Republicans’ presidential nomination from the race.

His political machine was expected to have $100 million on the first day as a declared candidate. Eventually, no one would ask about his family, which has spawned two Presidents, or his support for Common Core education standards or liberal views on illegal immigrants.

None of that has happened.

Bush replaced his campaign manager last week as internal fights spilled into public view. His broader campaign-finance orbit is expected to come up short of the nine-figure war chest it wanted to have at the ready. And he continues to be so dogged about the Bush legacy and tremendous distrust among conservative activists that a third member of the dynasty should live in the White House, he ditched the Bush name altogether in his campaign logo and is going for just “Jeb!”

For others inside the party, they cannot accept his policy positions on education and immigration that fall squarely outside of orthodoxy. As he prepares to formally join the 2016 contest on Monday near Miami, Bush will need to have a better showing than he enjoyed during the lead-up to the launch.

Take, for instance, Bush’s first week of May. He gave the commencement address at evangelical Liberty University and sat down with Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly. During his chat with Kelly, he faced questions about the war in Iraq, launched in 2003 by then President George W. Bush. Asked if he would have gone to war, knowing now that the Iraqi government did not possess weapons of mass destruction, he answered in the affirmative.

His advisers said he misheard the question, he said he didn’t understand it and then he called such queries “hypotheticals.” His rivals piled on while he tried not to criticize his brother or the war that killed 4,491 Americans. Donors started to phone headquarters with advice to the former governor: “Admit you got it wrong and be done with it,” one fundraiser told a Bush adviser. In the span of a week, Bush watched his campaign in waiting deflate.

But Bush’s political machine was built to weather such a beating. Bush started assembling his team last year, tapping longtime adviser Sally Bradshaw as his top lieutenant. She brought together some of the biggest names in the party: media strategist Mike Murphy, Iowa’s most respected operative David Kochel as national campaign manager and a raft of Washington insiders to fill senior jobs. His top aides in New Hampshire are veterans of presidential, Senate and gubernatorial races, and his South Carolina team is about as gold-plated as can be found.

“He has assembled a first-rate team,” said former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney told reporters at a retreat this weekend in Deer Valley, Utah. “The people around him are experienced and capable. Many of them I know from my own campaigns and I had high regard for.” But they never really fit together with the candidate, who is a demanding yet out-of-practice boss.

As for money, Romney perhaps continued to reinforce expectations that Bush could fail to clear. “I wouldn’t be surprised to hear he raised twice as much as all the others combined,” Romney said. “I think it’s going to be a big number, because he’s worked it very hard.” Aides last week conceded the $100 million goal was not going to happen by Monday’s launch.

Sensing other troubles ahead, Bush and Bradshaw shook up the campaign at the same time. They shifted Kochel to the role of strategist and brought aboard hard-nosed operative Danny Diaz to fill the top job. The campaign portrayed it as a minor tweak. But it was also a public sign that Bush realizes his preannouncement period had gone poorly and he needs a change. If he is to become the third member of his family to call 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue home, he cannot afford a repeat of the past six months.

— With reporting by Zeke J Miller / Deer Valley

TIME Election 2016

Martin O’Malley Courts Elizabeth Warren Supporters In New Hampshire

Former Democratic Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley addresses the 2015 International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Alfred K. Whitehead Legislative Conference and Presidential Forum in Washington, DC, March 10, 2015.
Jim Watson—AFP/Getty Images Former Democratic Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley addresses the 2015 International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Alfred K. Whitehead Legislative Conference and Presidential Forum in Washington, DC, March 10, 2015.

The former Maryland governor offers an early hint at his coming presidential campaign strategy

BEDFORD, N.H.—Former Gov. Martin O’Malley parried reporter questions Tuesday about the two leading women in the Democratic party: Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren.

He didn’t want to talk much about the former. “Look, I’ve sort of said whatever I’m not going to say about the email thing,” he said, after addressing voters here. But when Warren’s name came up, he positively lit up.

“I believe that Senator Warren is speaking with great clarity especially on the need to regulate Wall Street to hold the CEOs of banks accountable, and to make sure that we put people at the [Security and Exchange Commission] and other entities that are going to deter the sort of behavior that led to the crash of our economy,” he said. “If the banks are too big to fail without wrecking our economy, then they’re too damn big.”

“I would welcome her supporters…if I were to get into the race,” added the former Maryland governor and likely presidential candidate.

Those populist themes, which have made Warren a leader in the Democratic party, found a central place in O’Malley’s prepared remarks during a scrambled egg breakfast in the suburbs of Manchester, before a crowd about 150 business insiders, political elites, and students. Lamenting what he described as the Republican economic agenda—“concentrate wealth at the top, keep wages low, and systematically deregulate Wall Street”—O’Malley advocated instead for increasing the minimum wage, making it easier for unions to collectively bargain “so that wages go up,” and to “expand social security, not dismantle it.”

“The central question of the battle for our democracy is, how do we make our economy work for all of us?” O’Malley said as the crowd ate scrambled eggs and fruit bowls in a hotel conference space.

“And yes, just as Teddy Roosevelt said, we have to be ready to stand up to special interests whenever their narrow agendas… threaten to wreck the homes and livelihoods and the hopes of average Americans,” he added.

O’Malley faces a major uphill battle for the Democratic nomination. While Clinton garners nearly 56% of the likely Democratic vote in New Hampshire, the first primary state, O’Malley is currently earning only about .8%, according to an average of five polls between January and March this year. In his press conference, he repeated a phrase he has leaned on often when asked about Clinton. He said history was full “candidates who are ‘inevitable’ until the moment they are not” and said that Americans were ready for “new leadership.” But he dismissed opportunities to needle the former Secretary of State directly.

Among New Hampshire voters, O’Malley clocks in behind every other potential Democratic candidate, including Warren (17.8%), who has said repeatedly that she is not running, and Vice President Joe Biden (7.8%). Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is also considering a run for the nomination, earns 9.4% of the primary vote in New Hampshire, according to those same polls.

Still, O’Malley’s speech Tuesday was well-received. He touted gay rights on several occasions, citing marriage legislation Maryland passed under his tenure, and calling Indiana’s religious freedom law “reprehensible.” He said it was “shameful” for potential GOP presidential hopefuls to support it.

The emotional high of the half-hour talk came when O’Malley asked the crowd of mostly white, middle-aged and older voters for a “little bit of audience participation.”

“How many people here believe firmly that you have enjoyed a better quality of life than your parents and grandparents?” O’Malley asked. Nearly everyone in the small room raised their hand.

“Second question,” he said. “How many of you believe just as firmly that your children and grandchildren will enjoy a better quality of life than you?” About two people raised their hands. The room was silent for a beat.

“That is the great question at the center of the debate at the kitchen table of our great democracy,” O’Malley said.

Afterward, about half the crowd gave him a standing ovation.

TIME Election 2016

Chicago Mayor’s Race Reverberates Nationally

Chicago Mayoral Candidates Campaign One Day Before Election
Scott Olson—Getty Images Chicago Mayoral candidate Jesus "Chuy" Garcia greets workers during a campaign stop at a linen and uniform service company on Feb. 23, 2015 in Chicago.

The largely unknown politician challenging incumbent Rahm Emanuel in the April 7 runoff has secured the endorsement of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders

The progressive left is looking to Chicago for inspiration — and a workable model — on how to challenge Hillary Clinton for the national Democratic nomination in 2016.

Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, a scrappy, largely unknown politician, has come out of left field to give Rahm Emanuel, a moderate incumbent from the Democratic establishment, a run for his money.

Garcia, who until recently was a county commissioner with nearly zero name recognition, ran an unapologetically populist campaign and won enough of the vote in February’s mayoral election to force Emanuel into a runoff on April 7.

Garcia’s unexpected success story has become a national rallying cry for liberals who would like to see a candidate challenge Clinton, the former Secretary of State and presumed Democratic nominee, from the left. Like Emanuel’s critics, the activist left sees Clinton as too centrist, too compromising and too cozy with Wall Street and big banks.

On Monday, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who is testing the waters for his own run for the Democratic nomination, endorsed Garcia and will travel to Chicago for a rally on Thursday. “At a time when the wealthiest people and largest corporations are becoming richer while virtually everyone else is becoming poorer,” Sanders said in a statement, “working-class people have got to fight back.”

One lesson that national liberals have picked up in Chicago is that any progressive challenger ought to run on a full-throated message of economic populism. Garcia’s union-bankrolled campaign has hinged on issues of economic justice and characterized his opponent as a member of the out-of-touch establishment willing to put Wall Street ahead of Main Street. That smear includes both Clinton and President Obama, who have campaigned for Emanuel this year.

In an interview with the Washington Post in February, Garcia said he was disappointed that neither Clinton nor Obama has been as forthcoming in addressing issues of income inequality.

George Goehl, the executive director of the progressive group National People’s Action, has said that on the national stage, liberals need to demand commitments from Democratic leaders — including Clinton — by drawing “a clear line in the sand: Are you a progressive populist in this moment in time or are you not?”

“That’s happening in Chicago right now,” he said. Goehl cited the rise of a progressive organization, Reclaim Chicago, that sprang up in support of Garcia and of what Goehl calls “a clear set of populist principles, not a party.”

Another lesson that liberals have perhaps learned in Chicago is that they need not hold out for their first choice. It was only after Chicago Teacher’s Union head Karen Lewis, the darling of the left, declined to run at the last minute because of health problems that Garcia — a former alderman, who served as deputy water commissioner in the 1980s — jumped into the race.

The national liberal base has rallied tirelessly to draft Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren into the 2016 race, although she said repeatedly that she is not running. They, too, may have to turn to an unlikely runner-up. Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley and former Virginia Senator Jim Webb, in addition to Sanders, are considering throwing their hats in the ring for the nomination.

In Chicago, Garcia and Emanuel have gone head-to-head in two televised debates, where Garcia has done unexpectedly well. The last is scheduled for March 31, a week before the runoff. A poll in mid-March still had Emanuel ahead of Garcia by a 14-point lead, with 11% of voters still on the fence. While Garcia’s chances of pulling out the Chicago race are slim, his impact on the national stage has yet to be written.

Read next: Martin O’Malley Gears Up to Take on Hillary Clinton

TIME Hillary Clinton

How Liberals Hope to Nudge Hillary Clinton to the Left

Sen. Elizabeth Warren listens to Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen testify, at a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on "Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress" on Capitol Hill in Washington, Feb. 24, 2015.
Kevin Lamarque—Reuters Sen. Elizabeth Warren listens to Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen testify, at a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on "Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress" on Capitol Hill in Washington, Feb. 24, 2015.

Correction appended, April 2

Liberals have two recurring nightmares about the 2016 elections.

In the first, they wake up on Nov. 9, 2016, to find that Americans have elected a Republican who has spent the past year and a half promising to dismantle Obamacare, undo the Environmental Protection Agency’s clean air regulations and cut corporate taxes.

In the second, they wake up on Nov. 9, 2016, to find that Americans have elected Hillary Clinton, who has spent the past year and a half promising them absolutely nothing and courting independents and moderates.

The second scenario is obviously preferable to most liberals, but it’s still worrying. They’d much prefer to elect a Hillary Clinton who has made specific, concrete campaign pledges to them — especially since political science research shows that, contrary to popular belief, politicians tend to keep their promises.

But without a competitive Democratic primary, how can liberals push Clinton in their direction? For now, there’s no clear roadmap, but liberal activists have five general ideas.

1. Pray that Elizabeth Warren runs.

Liberal outfits such as Progressive Democrats of America have launched small-scale grassroots campaigns urging Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (Ready for Bernie) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (Draft O’Malley) to join the race. But the big money is on Massachusetts Senator and liberal firebrand Elizabeth Warren. MoveOn.org gave $1 million to launch “Run Warren Run,” and Howard Dean’s old shop, Democracy for America, dumped an additional $250,000 into the effort. The Boston Globe ran a special package last week declaring that “Democrats need Elizabeth Warren” in 2016.

While Sanders and O’Malley seem likely to follow through with a run, neither has the clout at this point to mount a serious challenge. Both are polling in the double digits behind Clinton. That makes drafting Warren, despite the fact that she has said repeatedly that she is not running, priority No. 1. “We want to get Elizabeth Warren into the race. She is someone progressives innately trust,” said Neil Sroka of Democrats for America. When he was pressed for a contingency plan, he said, “We’re extremely focused on trying to get her in, building the infrastructure she would need to run, and extending the amount of time she has to change her mind.” Wesley Clark, another one-time progressive fave, didn’t enter the 2004 race until September 2003, Sroka added, hopefully. (Of course, he didn’t win.)

2. If that fails, keep Warren’s ideas in the news.

If Warren isn’t going to be a candidate, liberals hope she can at least be a player behind the scenes. That way, they might indirectly influence Clinton as she seeks a full-throated endorsement from Warren. To that end, liberals are doing everything possible to ensure that the public conversation—in newspapers’ op-ed pages, and at every political forum, debate, and town hall meeting—centers on Warren’s brand of economic populism. “We view an election as a multi-billion dollar conversation with voters,” said Adam Green, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “The more that conversation is about progressive issues, the better.”

Making that happen will involve enlisting progressive leaders both in the all-important early caucus and primary states and nationally. On Tuesday, the PCCC launched a new campaign, Ready for Boldness, along with a signed letter from 200 leaders from Iowa and New Hampshire designed to urge presidential candidates to “campaign on big, bold, economic populist ideas.” Signers included Iowa’s longtime Sen. Tom Harkin, union presidents and state legislators. “We want to show [Clinton] that it she embraces big bold progressive ideas, she won’t be alone,” Green said.

3) Stay on message.

Creating a united front around a handful of broadly popular progressive policies will be as important as ensuring that the message isn’t diluted by squabbles over fault line issues, like free trade and education reform, progressive leaders say. The PCCC’s letter Tuesday, for example, centered on helping students graduate college debt-free, expanding Social Security benefits, reforming Wall Street, enacting campaign finance reform, creating clean-energy jobs and boosting worker pay.

“There’s a real attempt by the beginning of next year to establish a clear platform that gets embraced by everyone,” said Robert Borosage, executive director of the Campaign for America’s Future, which will host a big-tent progressive conference, Populism 2015, at the end of April along with National People’s Action, USAction and Alliance for a Just Society.

“The idea is to avoid the populist bait and switch where they campaign like a populist but govern center-right,” said Maya Rockeymoore, the president and CEO of the progressive Center for Global Policy Solutions. Progressives have to get candidates to make public commitments to enact specific agenda items, she added. “It’s not enough to say all the right things.”

4) Use Congress as a sounding board.

The PCCC and other organizations have been working with progressives in the House and Senate to propose bills on solid liberal issues, like expanding social security, reining in Wall Street financial firms and creating clean energy jobs. But timing is everything. While such bills aren’t likely to pass the Republican-dominated Congress any time soon, they can still make their way into nightly news broadcasts and shape the national conversation that way. “We’re organizing in Congress to propose bills that could become presidential issues” on the campaign trail, Green said.

5) Play the long game.

National People’s Action Campaign, among others, plan to focus on recruiting and supporting progressive candidates in municipal, county and state-level elections. The idea is not only to put progressive policies in place on the local level, but also to help shape the national political landscape from the bottom up, explained George Goehl of the National People’s Action Campaign.

“If you could get thousands of people down ballot running on a similar platform and create a bottom-up swell—that would be something that both parties would have to react to,” he said. Such a groundswell could shape the Democratic Party in the same way that the Tea Party has shaped the Republican Party. “They could help energize people across the board and create a clear line in the sand: Are you a progressive populist in this moment in time, or are you not?” he added.

While Goehl said he also supports the other prongs of the progressives’ national plan—”Getting Elizabeth Warren into the race would be great,” he said—he advised his fellow populists to hedge their bets.

“Hail Mary’s happen,” he said. “But only every so often. There has to be a plan.”

Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly described Democracy.com. It is nonpartisan organization that works with candidates of all parties.

TIME viral

Here’s What Too Many Cooks Would Look Like If It Were About U.S. Politics

Washington is a sitcom

If you loved Too Many Cooks, you’ll love CNN’s version of the viral internet sensation.

With a cast including everyone from Barack Obama to Vladimir Putin to Sarah Palin to Kim Jung Un, the fake ad casts U.S. politics as a bad ’80s sitcom, complete with cheesy footage of hunky cowboys and glorious bald eagles.

There’s also a terrifying demon sheep at the end that will haunt your dreams more than the image of John McCain doing the robot dance.


Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com