WARNING: Blue Dogs Endorsed Four More Conservative Democrats This Week

The shriveled far right of the Democratic Party, the Blue Dogs-- the heart and soul of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- just endorsed four new congressional candidates, a clear warning that these candidates will be voting against progressive proposals. So, joining already-endorsed Brad Ashford (NE), Anthony Brindisi (NY), Paul Davis (KS), Gretchen Driskell (MI), R.D. Huffstetler (VA), Jay Hulings (TX), Brendan Kelly (IL), Ben McAdams (UT), Dan McCready (NC) and Max Rose (NY), we now have these 4 conservative shitheads:

• Denny Wolff (Harrisburg and Wilkes-Barre suburbs)
• Jeff Van Drew (NJ-corruption)
• Jim Gray (Lexington, KY)
• Conor Lamb (southwest PA)

On Saturday, Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin, the only Democrat left with a 100% ProgressivePunch crucial vote score, is hosting something called "Democracy Summer 2018" at Dupont Circle in Washington. The invitation blurb: "Launched by Rep. Jamie Raskin, Democracy Summer Leadership PAC aims to win back Congress by training 300 college and high school students and deploying them in crucial U.S. House campaigns in the Mid-Atlantic region from Virginia and Maryland through Pennsylvania and New Jersey, as well as other targeted states, including Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin." The invitation gives the most space to explaining that Raskin's special guest isn't a senator or a member of Congress but one candidate-- Randy #IronStache Bryce. You know why? Nearly 90% of the kids in the program said they want to be interns in Randy's campaign. None of them wanted to be interns for any of the Blue Dogs or New Dems the DCCC is pushing. The DCCC doesn't understand that the energy of the resistance is with grassroots progressive candidates like Bryce, not with the garbage careerists that comes spewing out of the losing candidate factory at 430 S Capitol St, SE. None of these kids opted to be interns for decrepit Blue Dog Brad Ashford who may be the lesser of two evils-- that's debatable-- or for crooked attorney Jason Crow who spent his professional life defending payday lenders from the working families they cheated and drove into penury. The DCCC can't understand the difference between a Randy Bryce and a Jason Crow or Brad Ashford. That's why they lose and lose and lose; that's why losing is in their DNA. But the kids who want to be interns understand.

Did you see Digby's post yesterday, Trumpist Dems? Oh Yeah.. "It was inevitable," she wrote, "that what's left of the Blue Dogs would end up pulling their punches when it comes to Trump, Turns out the crappy Blue Dogs-- with Brad Schneider taking the lead-- "are launching a new effort to highlight Russian election interference-- while not directly tying the issue to President Donald Trump in a way that could alienate crucial swing voters in November." A new poll from PPP, released yesterday, asked about Trump's collusion with Putin. 54% of voters think Trump should resign if Mueller finds proof he colluded with the Kremlin to steal the election. The poll showed that 53% of Americans don't think Trump is honest and, then there's this-- which flies right in the face of the Blue Dog suppositions:

Liberal Democrats have been happy to talk up the Trump campaign’s potential collusion with Russia in 2016, going so far as to call for his impeachment and forcing impeachment-related votes on the floor. Democratic megadonor Tom Steyer continues to pressure lawmakers to back his multimillion dollar campaign calling for Trump’s impeachment.

But the aggressive progressive push has put centrist Democrats in an awkward spot. They too think the Russia investigation deserves attention, particularly with the looming midterm implications, but worry that tying it too closely to Trump will politicize the issue in a way that will drive away critical voters.

This tracks nicely with news from yesterday that "strategists" are warning Democrats not to talk about Trump and instead concentrate on issues that people really care about. Those ladies of the Resistance should just shut up and fill envelopes. They don't know what they're doing. You must appease Real Americans by being the most boring, non-confrontational bucket of warm spit in the race. That's what gets people out to the polls.

This is an even more interesting move, however. One would think that a group that fashions itself as national security and fiscal hawks would go hard after the miscreant in the White House on just those issues. He is a disaster on national security and has just hiked the deficit by the trillions. But no. Instead they feel the need to shy away from criticizing the president, just like their cowardly GOP cohorts.

It makes you think that maybe they aren't all that sincere about their "issues" and instead just want to align themselves with Republicans, no matter what they do, without having to say so.

Just like their spiritual twins The Tea party and the Freedom Caucus, that cowardly inability to stand for anything, even their own alleged principles, is leading them inexorably to Trumpism.

And that brings us to Conor Lamb and the special election in the part of the state closest, in more ways than just geography, to West Virginia. Lamb's unimaginative garden variety Blue Doggie approach will make it hard-- if not impossible-- for him to capitalize on the energy of the resistance that won the Democrats 36 state legislative seats from Republicans since Putin installed Trump in the White House. I suspected as much back in December, even before he had been officially embraced by the Blue Dogs. Regardless of how conservative right-of-center Democrats are, as we saw yesterday, the Republicans have learned how to successfully tar them as Pelosi clones and socialists. The DCCC doesn't understand this-- and they're the ones advising Lamb to disguise himself as an even worse version of Jonathan Ossoff. In all likelihood, he'll lose on March 13.

Yesterday, Ben Kamisar, writing for The Hill, was more sanguine about Lamb's chances than I am-- and thinks the Blue Dog vs Trumpist contest is far more important than it is. "Pennsylvania’s pivotal House special election," he wrote, "will give Democrats an early chance to see if they can win back the white, blue-collar voters who have drifted away from the party." Um... I guess it'll give the clueless DCCC schmucks an early chance to see if they can win back the white, blue-collar voters who have drifted away from the party with Blue Dogs who caused the white, blue-collar voters to drift away from the party. Trump won PA-18 by 20 points. It's hard too imagine a Blue Dog engendering a 20 point swing.

While Democrats have a registration advantage in the district, the seat’s other demographics favor Republicans. The population is 92 percent white, and almost half the population is above the age of 44. Ninety-six percent of residents were born in the United States, and 81 percent are Pennsylvania natives.

If Lamb can pull off a surprise win, it could boost Democrats’ hopes of being competitive in November in other districts where traditionally Democratic blue-collar voters ditched the party for Trump in 2016.

“There are national implications to this race,” said Frank Snyder, the secretary of the Pennsylvania American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), which has endorsed Lamb. “Are there enough people in [the district] that have begun to think of things differently?”

Democrats have scrutinized Saccone’s record in the state. And Lamb’s campaign has launched an ad based on a new report from The Intercept that details the more than $400,000 in taxpayer money that Saccone spent in taxpayer-funded personal expenses while in the legislature.



Lamb supporters argue that his campaign should learn from the 2016 race, where they believe Trump flipped Pennsylvania in no small part thanks to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s focus on attacking Trump instead of promoting her own message.

“While he was talking about the economy... the other candidate, all that she did at that time was talk about Trump, rather than define herself,” Snyder said.

If he’s going to add to the list of recent surprise Democratic victories, Lamb must win back union and blue-collar voters who flocked to Trump in 2016, make a winning case against the GOP tax plan and convert Republicans’ low approval ratings into Democratic votes.

Democrats face many of the same challenges in this year’s midterm elections, albeit in districts far more favorable to the left. So success here could provide Democrats with a road map for November.

Former Rep. Tim Murphy (R) resigned from the seat last year after reports that the anti-abortion rights congressman had urged his mistress to get an abortion. Murphy had held on to the seat with ease since taking office in 2002, thanks in part to some labor support.

But with Murphy gone, the unions have swung back to Democrats. Labor is lining up behind Lamb, who has made union outreach a key part of his campaign. Meanwhile, the unions have bristled at Saccone, who did not return the AFL-CIO’s candidate questionnaire.

Union voters are a potent force in the district. Roughly 60,000 people in the district either belong to the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO or share a household with someone who does. And Lamb also has the backing of the local Service Employees International Union, which has between 6,000 and 7,000 members in the district. Those groups and other unions are mobilizing in support of the Democrat, urging local chapters to invest however they can to help persuade their membership to vote for Lamb.

The aggressive outreach comes as Democrats look to win back union voters. The party’s presidential vote share from union households dropped 7 percentage points from 2012 to 2016, while the GOP’s share rose 2 points.