Early Sunset
Vox flips the lights on Biden-bashing Astroturf "climate" group Sunrise; Progressive Caucus considers deleting Mondaire endorsement
The “Sunrise Movement” rose to prominence during the progressive nonprofit boomtime by mixing massive foundation funding with glowing features in media outlets like Vox.
Armed with cash and favorable coverage, Sunrise became shorthand for the en vogue (but woefully wrong) belief that the 2020 Democratic presidential primary was a race to the far left. Despite voters correcting the political elites - and despite Sunrise dumping on Biden before, during, and after the primary elections - they barged into the White House. Press coverage in early 2021 was clear: Sunrise was “one of the few divisions of the Democratic left to successfully embed a number of its top allies – and ideas – into” the White House.
Last night, Sunrise announced the “climate” group would not endorse Biden because of ... Gaza.
Twitter lit up with how this move revealed Sunrise’s weaknesses, and as another example of why “The Groups” of foundation funded leftists should not have gained so much sway over the past half-decade.
But the most baller take came from Vox’s Rachel Cohen:
Cohen is a superstar journalist who we referenced last week due to the important insights within her influential coverage of early childhood. She (understandably!) deleted the tweet after the Online Left’s predictably aggressive response. Ain’t worth the hassle.
But her point stands. And today was echoed by fellow Vox journalist Dylan Matthews, whose similar but not-yet-deleted tweet today noted “The good news for Biden is that Sunrise, like all similar foundation-backed groups, has no actual voter base or ability to influence election outcomes.”
Quietly Pivoting to Reality
This (accurate) view is at odds with previous Vox coverage of Sunrise: “Sunrise is known for two things: how young it is, and how effective it has been so quickly.”
That quote comes from a piece whose headline reads like a glowing book blurb:
David Roberts of Vox describes Sunrise’s theory of change as:
“Like many youth movements, Sunrise recognizes that the right has become a dumpster fire. It is committed to building a grassroots army that can amass the political power necessary to pressure Democrats into the same kind of intense unity around pushing climate solutions that the right shows in blocking them. The idea is to eventually bring Republicans to the table not through persuasion but through fear. Republican office-holders will come to the table when they are scared to lose their jobs.”
However, a quick perusal of their website shows that Sunrise is not endorsing a single Democrat in a competitive seat. Their only organizing is against Democrat George Latimer. Their most notable win was when they backed Democrat Ed Markey in a primary in the most-Democratic state in the country.
Republicans need not fear Sunrise, they are primarily interested in beating Democrats. No Republican will be brought to the table because of their organizing.
The new Vox view matches ours from last year:
Sunrise and its partners pushed for a maximalist policy agenda advanced by a handful of ideologically pure political leaders. Their political champions represent the most Democratic districts in the country and tout views and policy stances that are far out of line with the median voter. They can afford to take huge risks and act disruptively (sometimes in ways that harm the Democratic Party’s ability to sustain a majority) because they are unlikely to face an electoral penalty for their actions in deep blue districts.
The new progressive left did not have to face the complex reality of a classroom —or a swing district. There were no long campaigns in GOP-held districts meeting voters where they are (an experience political scientists have shown makes activists more moderate). And there was certainly no flipping districts from red to blue and actually enabling the type of change they touted.
Unencumbered by political reality, the new ecosystem of progressive nonprofits encountered “death by intersectionality,” in which all progressive issues become litmus tests for any issues group (see: Sunrise’s DC chapter’s claim that ”Defunding the Police is Housing Justice”).
The Sunrise Boys Who Cried Wolf
When the Inflation Reduction Act passed, Sunrise praised it as a “historic investment in climate action that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago,” though they couldn’t help but attack the IRA because it, “contains massive handouts to fossil fuel millionaires and Joe Manchin.” Still, a “historic investment in climate action,” seems like something that would be enough to get you the endorsement of a climate organization.
The IRA specifically included Sunrise’s demand for an American Climate Corps, which was developed by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sunrise leader Varshini Prakash. Those leaders’ praise at the time:
Today’s historic action to put an American Climate Corps into motion is a clear demonstration that the Biden Administration knows there are more ways they can leverage executive power to lead an all out mobilization of our government and society to stop the climate crisis. Young people everywhere should feel empowered by this victory and continue demanding the change we need. This past summer we saw record climate disasters, record labor strikes demanding good, meaningful work, and major climate protests led by young people. The American Climate Corps is a response that begins to meet the moment and show young people how their government can work for them. We’re often asked how President Biden can win the support and enthusiasm of young people. He’s gotten our attention. Keep going.”
More recently, the Biden administration signed onto Sunrise’s ill-conceived LNG pause, which is described on their website as “a historic decision and huge step in the right direction.” Yet none of this is enough to win him their endorsement, which they are withholding because of an entirely different issue (Gaza).
Progressives Withdrawing Mondaire Jones Endorsement?
Back to the few politicians Sunrise is actually working for this cycle. Like most places progressives play, Jamaal Bowman’s seat has no bearing on who controls Congress - Biden won 75% of the vote here in New York’s 16th congressional district.
Former Rep. Mondaire Jones endorsed Bowman’s opponent, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus is reportedly looking to withdraw its endorsement of his newest campaign because of it. Josh Barro notes that - as with Biden - this un-endorsement may actually help Jones win in November as he seeks to win a purple seat.
Will You Be in DC on July 30?
If you are frustrated by this, reply to this email and let us know if you’ll be in DC on the afternoon of Tuesday July 30th. We are cooking up something good.
Unrelated to this article, but I wanted to let you know that Nate Silver did not coin the term "hopium" and your recent article on CNN should be corrected.
"Hopium" is a term deriving from "copium" which has the root "cope" meaning, in this particular context, some thing or argument that is only used or done in order to feel better about one's inadequacies. This term "cope" is a nouned form of the verb, as in "to cope." More briefly, "a cope" is something that makes one feel better.
I'll illustrate by example. One person might say "Taylor Swift isn't that attractive." A second person might say "That's an obvious cope. That tells me you're obsessed with her. You'll never be her boyfriend, get over it."
Then the first person might say, "No, I really don't find her attractive. She's built like a square and has eyes like a shark." Then the second person might respond, "Keep huffing that copium."
In such a situation, the statement is asserted to be "cope" or "a cope" because the first person is saying something objectively untrue,
The relationship of "hopium" to "copium" is not that of a synonym or antonym. "Hopium" is a sort of knowing & acknowledged copium - someone might say, "I've always been certain I'd be someone someday. Maybe it's just hopium, but I really think I will be." Alternatively, someone might say, "I'm feeling really down right now, and it feels impossible to achieve my goals. Can anyone give me some hopium?" - it has a similar meaning to "motivation" or "inspiration" in this context.
These terms have existed for nearly a decade in parts of the internet that grown-ups don't know about.
Nate Silver isn't using "hopium" right, either. He should be saying "copium" in this particular usage. The proper use of "hopium" in this context would be, as before, "I'm feeling really depressed about the polling for Democrats. Can anyone give me some hopium?" - meaning reasons to disregard the polls or to think things will change. As a skeptic with respect to such arguments, Nate Silver should be calling them "copium."
https://www.sunrisemovement.org/campaign/endorsements/
they literally endorse all of squad and more, learn to read