Andrew Yang's UBI terrible on wealth inequalty, criminal justice

The robots are taking over! That is the ongoing issue that Democrat Andrew Yang is focusing on in his campaign for President. Basically, the problem is that increasing automation is taking away jobs and pushing down wages. His main proposed solution for this problem is Universal Basic Income (UBI) which would be a universal stipend which every American citizen would receive on a monthly basis. Under Yang’s plan everybody, no matter what income and wealth level, would receive $1,000 every month. Now, this all sounds great, except when one starts digging into the details of the potential economic outcomes of the policy. It turns out, instead of addressing wealth inequality, as Yang claims it will, it would actually exacerbate wealth inequality. Additionally, Yang’s UBI policy would be disproportionately detrimental to communities of color.

Regressive policy

One of the main problems with Yang’s proposed policy is the method which it would use to fund the UBI program. Yang proposes to use a Value-Added Tax (VAT) which would tax a product at each phase of the supply chain starting from production to purchase by the American consumer. Unfortunately, this method of funding the program would actually create even more wealth inequality. In other words, “it would probably be regressive—that is, it would be more burdensome for individuals and families with fewer economic resources than it would be for those with more resources. Because lower-income families generally consume a greater share of their income than higher-income families do, the distributional effects of a VAT would depend on its impact on consumer prices," according to the Congressional Budget Office. Essentially, the tax would be passed onto the consumer via higher prices, which is more detrimental to families who are already struggling.

Progressive VAT? Doubt that.

On the other hand, Yang counters this criticism of his policy by saying that under his proposal the VAT would be targeted more towards luxury goods items which are more commonly purchased by the wealthy. One problem with this aspect of his proposal is that enforcing the tax can be challenging since fraud is a common issue with other countries that have implemented a VAT system. “The stock-taking of the existing quantitative and theoretical literature with regard to VAT evasion and fraud, shows that VAT evasion is a well-recognized phenomenon, and the most recent estimates of the VAT gap put the revenue loss for EU countries to a (wide) range of some 2 to 30 percent of potential revenues, with an overall average of about 14 percent,” reported the International Center for Public Policy (ICPP) in a study released in 2012.

This means that there will be, on average, potentially 14 percent less revenue from taxing the wealthy than expected. In some cases the ICPP found that number to reach as high as 30 percent of loss tax revenue for social benefits. Even assuming the average of 14 percent, that is still more loss revenue than every single type of income tax with the exception of farm revenue currently being levied by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), according to The Brookings Institute. In other words, even if the UBI concept can actually be implemented in a progressive fashion, the way Yang proposes to do it is not the most efficient taxation method available. Income tax is clearly a more progressive method of redistribution.

The one percent will fight back

Another problem with a VAT focused on luxury goods is that those who would be mostly affected by luxury goods taxation, the wealthy and large corporations invested in producing these goods, will definitely do whatever is in their power to rollback the luxury goods VAT. They will likely do this through a variety of means, including litigation as well as legislation. The meaning of what exact goods should be classified as “luxury” under Yang’s proposal will be attacked through the courts, just like conservatives have used the courts to attack the protections provided by the Affordable Care Act. Also, the wealthy and the large corporations, who are well-resourced, will lobby conservative politicians and lawmakers to introduce legislation to rollback the VAT aimed at luxury goods.

Blowing up the social safety net

It is important to note what Yang’s stated ultimate goal is for his UBI policy proposal, which is to completely eliminate the U.S. social safety net, which would disproportionately harm underprivileged communities. He made this point quite clear in his interview with right-wing talk show host Dave Rubin when he agreed with Rubin’s idea to “blow apart the social safety net.” This Libertarian-like tendency to want to eliminate social programs can also be seen in some of the specifics Yang has offered regarding his version of a UBI program.

One specific aspect of Yang’s proposal which illustrates this tendency is his plan to slowly eliminate Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits. Yang’s plan would force those already receiving SSI and SSDI to choose between receiving the benefits they already need for various reasons, such as coming from a historically oppressed community or being disabled, and receiving the $1,000 monthly UBI benefits plus SSI. This basically affects just about every disabled individual receiving SSDI, since those people usually also receive SSI. The ultimate goal of this, as Yang says in the interview with Rubin, is to lure more and more people to opt out of these social safety net benefits and eventually eliminate these benefits altogether.

Opt-out is a cop out

The problem with forcing those already receiving SSI and SSDI, or any other social welfare benefit for that matter, to choose, is that opting out of those benefits in favor of UBI will not eliminate the original reasons that caused these people to need these social benefits in the first place. This means while everybody else who does not currently require these benefits automatically receives the UBI stipend, those who have to choose between UBI and SSI, no matter what their choice, will still have to deal with those originating societal disadvantages which required them to seek SSI or SSDI in the first place. Those disadvantages, being disabled or coming from a historically oppressed community, will continue to cost these individuals financially. These costs can come in the form of less economic opportunity due to growing up in an impoverished community or direct financial costs associated with paying for management of a disability via medical bills or other expenses related to being disabled. In many cases both of these factors are at play.

The problem with this is that while everybody else has $1,000 extra per month to spend on goods and services that they were not able to before, those less fortunate individuals having to choose whether or not to opt-in or opt-out of SSI will not have nearly as much extra buying power. The extra UBI benefits pumped into the system, creating more spending, will increase demand which exerts upward pressure on prices for consumers. However, those who had to choose between opt-in or opt-out will not have that extra $1,000 per month that everybody else does to make up for the increases in consumer prices, diminishing their comparative buying power and exacerbating wealth inequality.

Competition and consumer prices

Yang attempts to address this critique of his UBI policy that it will essentially cause inflation by simply stating on his website that “competition between firms will keep prices in check.” Although it is true in a basic economic sense that competition provides downward pressure on consumer prices, this has always been true. However, with the extra UBI money being pumped into the economy, it will require additional competition beyond what is out there in the market now, to provide the necessary downward pressure on prices to prevent inequality exacerbating inflation.

Unfortunately, Yang fails to provide any type of mechanism in his UBI policy to create this essential increase in competition. He just assumes that competition will increase, or maybe does not realize that competition must increase in order for his policy thesis to work. In any case, the current trend shows that wealth inequality and the rate of entrepreneurship are correlated. This means that with the current levels of wealth inequality at historic highs, there is very little reason to bet that rates of entrepreneurship will increase as long as wealth inequality, which will be exacerbated under Yang’s UBI, remains at these elevated levels.

Criminal justice and Yang’s UBI

One often forgotten aspect of Yang’s UBI proposal is how it intersects with the criminal justice system. It may also be the most regressive aspect of Yang’s policy proposal. In Yang’s UBI proposal, those who are incarcerated will not receive the $1,000 per month that everybody else does, according to Yang’s interview on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. This results in the same dynamic described earlier with SSI and SSDI, in that those not receiving the UBI dividend will continue to fall behind the rest of society. With a justice system that disproportionately incarcerates people of color, Yang’s UBI proposal will dramatically exacerbate racial inequality by decreasing the comparative buying power and wealth of communities of color.

Although UBI as a concept may prove to be a worthwhile pursuit at some point, the way Yang has proposed to implement the program will only create a less equitable society and increased human suffering.

A New Society: How to evolve beyond capitalism through worldwide cultural revolution

Although many of us are preoccupied, and rightfully so, with the current election cycle and the minutiae of parsing the various candidates and policies to support in the short-term, it is still important to keep a larger view perspective in mind when it comes to positive change for the future. This will help us identify the larger structural problems of society worldwide which will in turn help us identify potential solutions from a larger political, cultural and economic perspective.

The Problem

Runaway capitalism, through the sole motive of accumulating capital without regard to the impact on human suffering, wealth inequality, and environmental consequences, is causing society worldwide to move closer to nuclear apocalypse or environmental disaster or both. Either way this will leave the Earth completely uninhabitable which would likely result in the extinction of the human species. Therefore, it is necessary for us to begin tackling the problem as soon as possible.

The Solution

The economic structure of world society needs to evolve into the next phase beyond capitalism, taking away the motive of profit accumulation and moving into motive based upon the good of humanity as a whole as well as preserving the planet.

Capitalists, industry and the working class

Capitalism functions by industry exchanging people’s labor and time for money. That money is then spent by the working class on goods and services provided by industry which in turn takes that money and reinvests it into better efficiencies of supply chains and production models. Capitalists, seeing the growth potential of industry, also invest money into industry to further those aims with the final goal of obtaining profit via capital gains. These increased efficiencies, with a pure profit motive, spawns advancements in technology and robotization of jobs, leaving more and more of the working class without means of employment and ability to maintain housing for families and put food in mouths.

Imbalances of supply and demand of labor caused by runaway capitalism

Soon the increasing wealth inequality worldwide begins to cause serious social and political unrest and rebellion among the working class. And with the supply of labor steadily increasing while the demand for labor continues to decline due to increasing supply chain efficiencies, it is necessary in a “free market” capitalist system that supply and demand rebalance one way or another. Obviously, industry and capitalists have no incentive to actually decrease efficiencies for the sake of the workers, therefore the only option is to decrease supply, which actually means increasing the rate of death among workers in order to maintain social stability necessary for the market to function and serve the profit motives of the capitalists, industrialists, elites and oligarchs. This results in national systems in which basic healthcare is denied to those without the means to pay, crumbling infrastructure of marginalized communities (i.e. Flint, Michigan) which results in deteriorating health which further speeds up the rate of death. At times, the tension created via the supply/demand imbalance causes outright war and military actions resulting in mass deaths in the name of creating profit for the military-industrial complex, the ultimate tool for quickly rebalancing supply and demand for human labor. Also, supply chain efficiencies without conscience will wreak havoc on the environment, increasing the rate of death.

Eliminating profit motive

As you can see, it really is the profit motive that is the driving engine behind runaway capitalism. Profit motive for workers, capitalists and industry is what propels the market machine which in and of itself has no conscience or morality. Therefore, we must stem the profit motive to the point where profit potential is no longer worth the time and effort in and of itself. People will start to seek other alternative payoffs for the work they do and the investments they make.

These alternative payoffs would be:

• Social impact
• Positive environmental impact
• Self-fulfillment and fulfillment of others
  • Artists, musicians etc
  • Intellectuals, philosophers, scientists, teachers

With these “alternative payoffs” in play and the profit motive eliminated, technological science will continue to create supply chain efficiencies, but only now with the goal of creating positive social and environmental impact to benefit society as a whole. Therefore, technology and robotization wouldn’t result in mass starvation of unemployed workers, it would bring about the liberation of society from the need to work in order to avoid death. However, in order to bring about this massive change in societal attitudes and systems it will require a total evolution of humanity worldwide culturally, philosophically and spiritually in order to accept the steps necessary to bring about this vital change.

Mass mobilization

In order to eliminate the profit motive the masses will need to be educated on the systems underlying their everyday lives. Alternatively, from a propaganda perspective, we can also begin to challenge the very notion of “work as a virtue,” which is pervasive and highly influential in Western civilization as well as many Asian cultures. The millennials have already begun to lay the groundwork for this with their cultural emphasis on consumer products which take social impact into consideration. Millennials also choose investment opportunities based upon social and environmental concerns, probably because they either consciously or subconsciously realize that the zero hour is approaching and the point of no return is near. Therefore, the shift of “work for profit” is now heading towards work for social and environmental impact. We are currently experiencing this shift right now.

“Work as virtue” must be challenged

However, even when this shift fully takes place, “work as a virtue” will still be intact. Therefore, people will continue to find ways to create “work” for themselves and with the profit motive still systemically intact, this will continue the runaway capitalist machine towards eventual dystopian apocalypse, albeit slower than before. At this point, educating the masses regarding the capitalist system becomes much more essential and impactful in that it will seize upon the already existent challenge to “work for profit” and bring about the realization that “work for impact” must necessarily result in the elimination of the profit motive through system changes. People will then realize that political mobilization is required to create this kind of change in policy.

Some of these policy initiatives aimed at eliminating the profit motive will include:

• Universal healthcare for all
• Housing as a right of all humans
• Education as a human right
• Freedom from starvation as a human right

Of course in order to implement these policy initiatives it will require a massive amount of money and resources to be invested. Therefore, a mass redistribution of wealth is required via aggressive and progressive taxation. Capital gains tax and income tax at the highest echelons must eventually reach 99% in order to make the profit-motive, after a certain point, not worth the additional effort, therefore opening the door to the “alternative payoffs” for work and investment. Only a mass movement from the bottom up can strike enough fear into politicians to cause them to break free from the grips of industry, capitalists and oligarchs in order for them to implement the necessary redistributive policies.

Cultural movements, initiatives and actions which help to educate and reveal the inner workings of the capitalist system must be supported by us who understand the broader problems of societal frameworks presented in this writing. Culture, which includes the arts, causes the necessary emotional and visceral appeal to propel the common man to take action. You can see this with the Bernie Sanders campaign of 2016 where not only were his policy ideas heard but his very persona was elevated into cultural iconography. Alternatively, you can also see this with the Donald Trump campaign of the same year which resulted in a regression of society and a regression of the goals stated in this writing. Therefore, it is imperative that leftists engage in the cultural sphere, via art, music, literature and film, in order to capture the hearts and minds of the masses in the long run.

Centrist healthcare proposal sabotages Medicare for All, protects insurance industry influence

Medicare for All has now become a mainstream platform for Democratic candidates following Senator Bernie Sanders’s 2016 presidential campaign which injected the possibility of such a policy into the American political psyche. However, it would be foolish to think the for-profit health insurance lobby would just stand by passively while progressive lawmakers pass the Medicare for All bill currently in the House, which would effectively end the private insurance industry as it is today. This is why industry-funded Democrats are beginning to fall in line with a new centrist health insurance bill which is designed to sabotage the Medicare for All movement while ensuring the medical insurance industry continues to hold power over American politics, all in the name of profits and greed.

Centrist healthcare bill would maintain insurance industry power over policy

The Medicare for America bill would automatically enroll those currently uninsured into Medicare while allowing those who have employer-sponsored insurance or other private insurance to choose to enroll into Medicare if they wish. The bill, which expired last year, is likely to be re-introduced in the current Congress. The problem with Medicare for America is that the plan would leave the for-profit insurance industry intact, unlike Medicare for All. This is problematic because this means the for-profit insurance industry will continue to have a financial interest in making sure Americans do not receive healthcare without insurance corporations also making a profit.

Insurance industry will still have incentive to rollback healthcare gains

The for-profit insurance industry, as it has in the past, will use these profits to lobby for lawmakers to dismantle whatever gains Medicare for America would garner for working Americans. The nation has recently witnessed this dynamic in the Republican attempt to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA) via the American Healthcare Act, otherwise known as Trumpcare. In fact, the Republicans are continuing their fight to dismantle the ACA right now via the court system. Of course, this comes as no surprise since the GOP has historically garnered more political donations from the insurance industry than Democrats.

Corporatist Democrats will back Medicare for America

On the other hand, Democrats are not immune to this type of influence from the insurance industry. Centrist Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke was the top recipient of donations from the Insurance/Finance/Real Estate sector out of all candidates on both sides of the aisle during the 2018 election cycle. O’Rourke also happens to be the first presidential candidate in the current electoral cycle to include Medicare for America as a part of his platform. One can be sure that other centrist and corporatist Democrats will come around to backing Medicare for America in an attempt to appease their insurance industry donors, while also sabotaging progressives fighting for true universal healthcare coverage.

Medicare for All: midterm campaign promises must be kept

It seems like establishment Democrats have finally realized what has been obvious to progressives and leftists for quite awhile now, Medicare for All is a winning platform. During the the recent midterm election an unprecedented number of Democrats, from centrists to far left candidates, ran on Medicare for All, single-payer, universal healthcare or at the very least the expansion of Medicare. This is notable since just as recently as the last presidential electoral cycle of 2016, the Democratic party's presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said that single-payer will “never, ever” happen.

Medicare for All was electoral success for Democrats

However, due to Bernie Sanders's unwavering progressive platform during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary election, the idea and possibility of some type of universal healthcare system, such as Medicare for All has permanently entered the American political zeitgeist. It is clear that many Democratic candidates in the 2018 midterms also recognized that Medicare for All can be their ticket to electoral success. Some of these candidates have now been elected as congressional representatives. For instance, Mike Levin campaigned on Medicare for All in California's 49^th congressional district which helped him capture a long-held Republican seat previously occupied by Darrell Issa. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ran an unapologetic democratic socialist campaign in New York's 14^th congressional district with Medicare for All as an integral part of her platform.

Hold them accountable

Now that the midterm elections are over, it is up to voters to hold these newly elected representatives to their promises during the campaign trail. Representative Keith Ellison is currently sponsoring a Medicare for All bill in the House which already has 123 co-sponsors. Constituents of the newly elected congressional representatives who had previously campaigned on Medicare for All must continue to be proactive in pressuring these incoming congressional representatives to sign on as co-sponsors of this important legislation.

There will be elements of capital and industry, such as the health insurance industry, which will lobby these incoming representatives to convince them to abandon their promises to support some type of universal healthcare system. Therefore, it is imperative that activists begin contacting these incoming representatives, even before they have been sworn in, to let them know that the American public will not forget their campaign promises. We the people expect these promises to be kept.

Corporations fear worker-centric progressive movement

Democratic socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is tired of government handouts. Sanders is seeking to finally end entitlement bailout programs for corporations which help them keep worker wages at starvation levels while the American taxpayer is left holding the bill. Last month Sanders introduced legislation that would tax corporations with 500 or more employees a 100 percent tax on the amount of government benefits received by their workers. Congressman Ro Khanna had already introduced a similar bill in the House last summer. Since then Sanders has been on a tear criticizing big corporations in a PR campaign that seems to be yielding results.

Corporate welfare

The introduced bill is titled the Stop Bezos ACT, which is a jab at Amazon's CEO Jeff Bezos who has often been criticized for consistently paying rock bottom starvation wages to his workers, forcing them to seek government benefits in order to make ends meet. Despite being a $1 trillion company the corporation has thousands of workers who are currently relying on food stamps to survive due to their low pay. Amazon and other similar low-paying large corporations are essentially being subsidized by taxpayer money to allow them to pay workers literal starvation wages, all the while making extremely large profits for themselves, executives and shareholders.

Corporations fear the Bern

It turns out Bezos was listening to Sanders and that he is afraid of the brewing progressive movement focusing on the rights and interests of workers over corporations. After continued criticism from Sanders following the introduction of the bill which names Bezos via acronym in the bill's title, Amazon announced, due to the political pressure, it is raising its minimum wage to $15 per hour. Amazon is also calling on other large corporate employers to follow suit.

McDonald's is next

Shortly after Amazon announced that it is succumbing to political pressure to raise its minimum wage Sanders immediately continued his tireless efforts on behalf of the interests of workers. Sanders is now calling on McDonald's to follow suit and raise its minimum wage to $15 per hour just like Amazon has done. McDonald's, like most other corporations which benefitted from President Donald Trump's corporate giveaway plan, known as the GOP tax cut plan, used most of the tax cut money on stock buybacks and dividends for shareholders. “If McDonald's can afford to give its shareholders $7.7 billion, it can afford to pay all of its workers $15 an hour,” wrote Sanders in a letter to McDonald's CEO Steve Easterbrook.

Federal jobs guarantee both bold and smart

With the American economy on a steady recovery since the Obama presidency and the unemployment rate at record lows, fiscally, it would be the perfect time to introduce a federal job guarantee for every American. This particular point in the American economic recovery would be the least costly time for the Federal government to implement such a program which would super charge the American economy while eliminating significant amounts of unnecessary human suffering.

Bold and smart

That is why Bernie Sanders’ recent call to introduce a federal job guarantee for every American, with a $15.00 an hour minimum wage and accompanying supplementary health benefits, is both bold and smart for the long-term economic health of the United States.

Prepare for future economic crisis

Trump’s recklessness and impulsiveness is well-known. While some parts of the economy are in a relatively reasonable state, how long before any of the economic hand grenades that he loves to toss around (think tariffs, roll-back of Dodd-Frank or the tax plan) explodes big time? The economic crisis of 2008 could quite easily come back for an encore any time soon. Therefore, it is best to build the infrastructure for this important social and economic program while the American economy is strong.

Minimizes hiring discrimination

A jobs guarantee also allows for those workers who struggle in the private sector, notably non-whites, a more level playing field when it comes to being hired without the spectre of discrimination hanging over them.

Raises wages for all workers

In addition, the private sector, notorious for keeping a lid on wages for as long as possible, would be forced to address how much it paid its employees if the public sector is paying $15.00 an hour to its employees. Put another way, why work for $9.00 an hour in the private sector when you could be working for $15.00 an hour in the public sector? With the current labor shortage being exacerbated by Trump immigration policy in key economic sectors, such as construction, this can be a compelling catalyst for companies to finally begin raising wages in order to compete for workers.

Revitalizing American infrastructure

Further, it is no secret that the infrastructure of the United States is in disrepair. The job guarantee offers a way to tackle that decay as public works can be focused upon as the government would be able to target areas for improvement that the private sector generally avoids. With a stronger infrastructure, the economy becomes healthier, generates more tax revenue and more investment can be made.

Political support for jobs guarantee steadily growing

A federal jobs guarantee has been an idea that has been in the outer orbit of regular Democratic thinking for years now. The established mainstream of the party has traditionally had an aversion to this, opting instead for public-private partnerships. However, this is starting to change as many begin to realize a fundamental rethink is needed and that a federal jobs guarantee is a bone fide way to ensure future economic growth and stability.

Sanders is not the only voice calling for a federal jobs guarantee. Support is growing, with Senators Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand pledging their commitment to the idea. And recent New York congressional primary winner Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fully subscribes to the idea as well. Also, former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich supports the policy.

A federal jobs guarantee is no longer fringe-thinking. It is time for liberals, progressives and Democrats to embrace the concept.

Stopping Trump agenda in November essential for real progressives

On the morning of November 9, 2016 we woke up to a nightmare. Somehow, despite poll after poll showing Hilary Clinton was headed to the White House, Donald Trump took the prize. Not only that, but his Republican party enablers had hung onto both the House and the Senate. A trio of GOP misery was well and truly upon us. Countless Americans were worried and fearful, as they remain now.

Since then, three things have been very noticeable.

First, Trump’s behavior, entirely predictably, has become worse and worse and he is clearly not fit to be President.

Second, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan’s Republican party have put on a Vichy style display of acquiescence and indulgence of Trump’s aberrant behavior simply to hold on to power – and for no other reason than that.

Third, the Republicans have taken repeated beatings in any number of local, state or congressional elections since Trump’s victory.

One of the most recent was a state Senate seat in Wisconsin where a Democrat won big, overturning Trump’s 2016 margin of 18 points.

That was the first time that a Democrat had won that seat in over 40 years.

The much vaunted “Blue Wave” is being touted in advance of the forth-coming mid-terms in November of this year. Poll after poll has shown how anti-Trump and anti-GOP resentment has been boiling up for 18 months now. This is though where the opposition, the resistance, however you want to call it, needs to be careful that the Blue Wave stays as one and doesn’t fragment into smaller, much less effective waves.

If the Democrats can secure the mid-terms, flip the House and the Senate, Trump is in a much more precarious position. No longer will he be able to rely upon a dog-whistle Republican party with puff-pastry for a spine. His nefariousness can be checked more frequently and yes, the prospect of impeachment (and never was there a President that that word was so designed for) becomes a more realistic possibility.

The Democrats absolutely cannot afford to splinter the anti-GOP vote come November. If your preferred candidate doesn’t make it through a primary, take the hit. Because if you don’t, stay-at-home liberals and progressives translate into Republican electoral wins – it’s that simple.

Waking up on Wednesday November 7, 2018 and finding that the House and the Senate are still in Republican hands would be Groundhog Day style horrific. The only thing that would be worse would be finding out that Trump had secured a second term in November 2020, which would make implementing any actual progressive policy difficult, if not impossible, on a national level.

Progressives need to understand that these two nightmare scenarios are intrinsically linked. Break the first one and the second one has less chance of occurring. And more importantly, it will greatly increase the potential for the progressive agenda to become actual policy.

Voting is not about a purely performative expression of the “purity” of your political views, but rather a social mechanism which results in actual material consequences for people in real life. Having your candidate make it through the primaries is great. However, if they don’t, they are still very likely part of the broad spectrum of anti-GOP, anti-Trump alliance.

Stopping the Trump agenda is an essential part of the overall progressive agenda. Therefore, genuine progressives who are serious about achieving material progress which can affect people in real life, should not stay home in November even if their favored progressive candidate did not make it into the general election.