Monday, April 03, 2017

Who Thinks The DCCC Needs To Recruit More Republican-Lite Candidates To Win In 2018?


Brand New Congress put out that graphic just above, presumably as a reminder to House Democrats that Democratic voters very much favor H.R. 676, John Conyer's bill to make Medicare available to all Americans. Paul Ryan and his leadership team have it buried in the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs but there were 51 original co-sponsors and since then over two dozen more have signed on. The graphic isn't strictly up to date.

Sure most of the names are the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- reactionary Bluye Dogs and New Dems and their fellow travelers, scum who all deserve to be primaried. But some of the names on it are absurd. I'm pretty certain, based now hat she's said in the past, that Maxine Waters (D-CA) supports Medicare for All. I called Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) and said something to the effect of, "Dude, this is got to be a mistake, right?" And he said something to the effect of, "Dude, that is totally wrong; I signed on as an official co-sponsor."

Two of the most right-wing Democrats in Congress are from Arizona and they're as far from Gallego as you could be politically. Freshman Tom O'Halleran is an ex-Republican who got into Congress-- thank Pelosi for spending $2,696,962 to elect him-- and immediately started voting with his old comrades in the GOP. According to ProgressivePunch, he doesn't just have an "F," he has a crucial vote score of 30.77, worse than any Democrat in Congress other than fellow Blue Dogs Josh Gottheimer (NJ) and Stephanie Murphy (FL), each of whom scored 23.08. Among non-freshmen, the worst Democrat in Congress is the loathsome Kyrsten Sinema with her lifetime score of 35.82. This year Sinema seems to be trying to break a record. Her crucial vote score is 7.69, not just the worst of any Democrat in Congress but worse than 11 Republicans and exactly tied with almost two dozen other Republicans-- like Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows (R-NC) and laughable crackpot Louie Gohmert (TX). Most of the crap Democrats aren't subject to primary challenges. Sinema, however, has drawn a much-deserved prgressive opponent, Talia Fuentes.

But look at the two dozen worst Democrats in the House-- based on their lifetime vote scores-- from bad to worse:
Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)- 60.77
Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)- 58.66
Al Lawson (FL)- 58.33
Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)- 57.83
Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)- 56.42
Brad Schneider (Blue Dog-IL)- 52.07
Filemon Vela (Blue Dog-TX)- 51.91
Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)- 50.38
Pete Aguilar (New Dem-CA)- 49.10
Raul Ruiz (CA)- 49.10
Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)- 48.99
Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL)-48.35
Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY)- 45.11
Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- 43.63
Charlie Crist (FL)- 41.67
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- 39.71
Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)- 38.96
Lou Correa (Blue Dog-CA)- 38.46
Jacky Rosen (NV)- 38.46
Tom Suozzi (NY)- 38.46
Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)- 35.82
Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)- 30.77
Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- 23.08
Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)- 23.08
And how many of them have signed on to the Medicare for All legislation? None. Not one. And how many have primary challengers? Just two as far as I can tell: Sinema and Long Island freshman Tom Suozzi, who looks like he's getting a rematch from Jon Kaiman. Democrats should be able to do better than that-- much better. Weak incumbents in blue districts who should be targeted: Schrader (OR), Bishop (GA), Lipinski (IL), Cooper (TN), Schneider (IL), Vela (TX), Bera (CA), Aguilar (CA), Ruiz (CA), Peters (CA), Maloney (NY), Costa (CA), Cuellar (TX), Correa (CA) and Rosen (NV). Helluva lot of garbage in blue-blue California!

Did you read Nick Kristof's OpEd, In Trump Country, Shock at Trump Budget Cuts, but Still Loyalty, over the weekend? Democrats can't depend on buyer's remorse over Trump to win them back the House in 2018. He tells the story of a moron in Tulsa, Rhonda McCracken, who was beaten and choked by her husband, once until she was unconsciousness. A moron unable to deal in abstracts and connect that kind of behavior to Trumpism, she voted for him anyway and is now upset because his budget would cut federal funds for Tulsa Domestic Violence Intervention Services which she credits with saving her and her son's lives. She's praying Congress will step in and save the day. A brain-dead Republican, she's unaware that all 5 congressmembers from Oklahoma-- including her own, Jim Bridenstine-- are Republicans who are opposed to any spending on these kinds of services and would happy to see them abolished. (They also voted against the Violence Against Women Act.) But she's prayin'.

Kristof says he was interviewing people like her in Oklahoma-- "fervent Trump supporters who now find that the White House is trying to ax programs they have depended on, to pay for Trump’s border wall and for increases in military spending. And they’re upset." But not that upset. "These voters may be irritated, but I was struck by how loyal they remain to Trump." He wrote that he "talked to many Trump voters about the impact if Trump’s budget cuts go through, and none regretted their votes in November. They all said that they might vote for Trump for re-election." Although one of the bigoted morons-- who voted for Trump because she hates Hispanics-- acknowledged that Trump's proposed cuts to a Labor Department’s Senior Community Service Employment Program that she considers "her lifeline" might means that she's lose her job. "I'll sit home and die." That'll keep her from voting for Trump and his Republican enablers, but probably nothing else.
Some of the loyalty seemed to be grounded in resentment at Democrats for mocking Trump voters as dumb bigots, some from a belief that budgets are complicated, and some from a sense that it’s too early to abandon their man. They did say that if jobs didn’t reappear, they would turn against him.

One recent survey found that only 3 percent of Trump voters would vote differently if the election were today (and most of those would vote for third-party candidates; only 1 percent said they would switch to voting for Hillary Clinton).
Call me a hopeless idiot but maybe if the Democratic Party offered good candidates-- unlike the ones discussed above... What do you think? Maybe? We should try. What do we have to lose? Pelosi and her DCCC already lost dozens and dozens of congressional seats by offering dog shit quality Republican-lite candidates year after year after year. If people want something like Jim Bridenstine, that's what the Republican Party is for. How about a real alternative, rather than crap like Kyrsten Sinema or Jim Costa?

Labels: , , , , , ,


At 6:13 AM, Anonymous Jennifer Flannagan said...

Agree with every your word.

At 7:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Time after time, article after article reinforces just how horrible the democrap party is... top to bottom, not including the 10 or so real lefty interlopers, who will be primaried by DxCC money asap.

Yet time after time, article after article, the fairy tale fantasy of recapture by progressives is purveyed as though it can possibly happen. I cannot.

Even given a century of time for the so-called "democratic" party to evolve back to their FDR roots, this can never happen. Corporations and billionaires, after generations of being obscenely undertaxed, have trillions with which to guarantee that NOBODY will ever thwart their crusade to take it all (and kill everyone who might get in the way).

While the truth about the vast majority of democraps is useful, the fantasies of recapture are counterproductive. And anyone who can count knows this.

The democraps need to be destroyed as a political party. period. You can only cure cancer by excising it totally from the organism... or the cancer will kill the organism.

Only once excised can the organism can heal the wound with healthy tissue.

At 8:43 AM, Blogger mainstreeter said...

I agree, having competition to take away the energy from both parties is what's needed. Waisting time trying to negotiate with the Rahm Emanuel' and the Schumer' of the party shows how ineffective the current process is. Bernie sold out trying this and all that momentum went bye bye.

At 2:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

mainstreeter, you speak truth. The current process is not only ineffective... it's a complete fraud. Anyone who falls for scummer's nice rhetoric of this cycle fails to remember what that corrupt motherfucker has been doing (and NOT doing) for the past several cycles... particularly in the 2009-2011 frame.

He's been plumbing K street and corporations (namely wall streer) for bribes... and REFUSING to entertain single payer, bank reform, bank breakups, etc.

Yes, Bernie is dead to me. It was probably a fluke that he got as close as he did... making his betrayal even that much more an exposee of the total corruption of DC.


Post a Comment

<< Home