The Democratic Party Brand Needs Some Work-- But Not By The People Who Ruined It

In his Rolling Stone essay after Gianforte beat Quist in Montana Thursday night, The Democrats Need A New Message, Matt Taibbi included a litany of excuses the DC Dems always have on hand to explain why they've been losing all the time-- even to monstrosities like Gianforte, Staten Island Mafia thug Michael Grimm, patient-raping-doctor Scott Desjarlais, and, worst by far, Señor Trumpanze.

One of the excuses Taibbi mentioned was how the GOP uses corporate cash to overwhelm less well-financed Democrats. It reminded me of a conversation I had with an exceptionally bright congressmember last November. I predicted that the Republicans would use their all-branch dominance to overreach and turn the voters against them. My congressional friend disagreed--not about the overreach but about voters turning against them. He predicted that they would leverage their power to unleash a flood of corporate money into party coffers and drown the Democrats with it. And Taibbi acknowledged that "Republicans have often, but not always, had fundraising advantages in key races.

Taibbi was talking about how much more Hillary had to spend in 2016 than Trump did. I want to reinforce that on a congressional level. A few days ago we looked at how the Rahm Emanuel DCCC's toxic candidate recruitment resulted in dozens and dozens of Blue Dogs and New Dems been swept out of Congress in the 2010 midterms when Democratic voters boycotted the elections rather than vote again for the DCCC's Republican-lite candidates. And that wasn't because of the Republicans having more corporate cash. In fact, in many cases it was the exact opposite. Republicans beat shitty Blue Dogs and New Dems who had more special interest cash than their GOP opponent did. Here are just a few random examples:

• Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL)- $1,435,526 vs Martha Roby- $1,240,276
• Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ)- $2,308,400) vs Dave Schweikert- $1,721,364
• Ann Kirkpatrick (New Dem-AZ)- $1,956,364 vs Paul Gosar- $1,168,287
• Tim Mahoney (Blue Dog-FL)- $2,756,453 vs Tom Rooney- $1,597,768
• Suzanne Kosmas (Blue Dog-FL)- $2,561,831 vs Sandy Adams- $1,266,664
• Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID)- $2,473,287 vs Raul Labrador- $686,293
• Debbie Halvorson (New Dem-IL)- $2,502,037 vs Adam Kinzinger- $1,827,192
• Baron Hill (Blue Dog-IN)- $2,167,570 vs Todd Young- $1,950,159
• Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD)- $2,621,893 vs Andy Harris $2,383,184
• John Adler (Blue Dog-NJ)- $3,285,638 vs Jon Runyan- $1,518,073
• Michael McMahon (Blue Dog-NY)- $2,897,473 vs Michael Grimm- $1,249,139
• Dan Maffei (New Dem-NY)- $3,114,128 vs Ann Marie Buerkle- $758,777
• Scott Murphy (Blue Dog-NY)- $5,321,745 vs Chris Gibson- $1,734,219
• Mike Acuri (Blue Dog-NY)- $1,886,555 vs Richard Hanna- $1,260,258
• Zack Space (Blue Dog-OH)- $2,931,978 vs Bob Gibbs- $1,090,872
• Kathy Dahlkemper (Blue Dog-PA)- $1,957,701 vs Mike Kelly- $1,235,460
• Patrick Murphy (New Dem-PA)- $4,287,244 vs Mike Fitzpatrick- $2,062,733
• Chris Carney (Blue Dog-PA)- $1,657,586 vs Tom Marino- $704,457

Taibbi continued that "The unspoken subtext of a lot of the Democrats' excuse-making is their growing belief that the situation is hopeless-- and not just because of fixable institutional factors like gerrymandering, but because we simply have a bad/irredeemable electorate that can never be reached. This is why the 'basket of deplorables' comment last summer was so devastating."

But the "deplorables" comment didn't just further alienate already lost Republican votes. It spoke to an internal sickness within the Democratic Party, which had surrendered to a negativistic vision of a hopelessly divided country.

Things are so polarized now that, as Georgia State professor Jennifer McCoy put it on NPR this spring, each side views the other not as fellow citizens with whom they happen to disagree, but as a "threatening enemy to be vanquished."

The "deplorables" comment formalized this idea that Democrats had given up on a huge chunk of the population, and now sought only to defeat and subdue their enemies.

Barack Obama, for all his faults, never gave in to that mindset. He continually insisted that the Democrats needed to find a way to reach lost voters. Even in the infamous "guns and religion" episode, this was so. Obama then was talking about the challenge the Democrats faced in finding ways to reconnect with people who felt ignored and had fled to "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" as a consequence.

Even as he himself was the subject of vicious and racist rhetoric, Obama stumped in the reddest of red districts. In his post-mortem on the Trump-Clinton race, he made a point of mentioning this-- that in Iowa he had gone to every small town and fish fry and VFW hall, and "there were some counties where I might have lost, but maybe I lost by 20 points instead of 50 points."

Most people took his comments to be a dig at Clinton's strategic shortcomings-- she didn't campaign much in many of the key states she lost-- but it was actually more profound than that. Obama was trying to point out that people respond when you demonstrate that you don't believe they're unredeemable.

You can't just dismiss people as lost, even bad or misguided people. Unless every great thinker from Christ to Tolstoy to Gandhi to Dr. King is wrong, it's especially those people you have to keep believing in, and trying to reach.

The Democrats have forgotten this. While it may not be the case with Quist, who seems to have run a decent campaign, the Democrats in general have lost the ability (and the inclination) to reach out to the entire population.

They're continuing, if not worsening, last year's mistake of running almost exclusively on Trump/Republican negatives... But "Republicans are bad" isn't a message or a plan, which is why the Democrats have managed the near impossible: losing ground overall during the singular catastrophe of the Trump presidency.

The party doesn't see that the largest group of potential swing voters out there doesn't need to be talked out of voting Republican. It needs to be talked out of not voting at all. The recent polls bear this out, showing that the people who have been turned off to the Democrats in recent months now say that in a do-over, they would vote for third parties or not at all.

People need a reason to be excited by politics, and not just disgusted with the other side. Until the Democrats figure that out, these improbable losses will keep piling up.

One Democratic congressman who gets it right is California's Ro Khanna. Watch this clip of a powerful messaging interview he did yesterday with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC. We talked to him about it after he was done with Andrea. He reiterated that "the Democrats need to be for fairer rules in the economy. But we also have to have a vision of job creation in middle America. We need to be a party that is both progressive and aspirational."



We talked to two Illinois progressives who are running against entrenched conservative incumbents this cycle. Marie Newman's Chicagoland district around Bridgeport, Canaryville, West Lawn, Midway Airport, Oak Lawn, Hickory Hills and the way out into the suburbs as far as Lockport and Homer Glen. It's a solid blue bungalow belt district with a far right-wing Blue Dog incumbent, Dan Lipinski. Newman's campaign platform has been very focused on the struggles of small businesses. "To be clear," she told us, "Trump’s budget is anti-small and mid market business. Defunding programs enabling small and mid-size manufacturing companies to retrain, scale and in turn, drive jobs, is ridiculous. Rather than taking away those programs, we should be increasing them. Small business is the fastest growing sector and where most jobs are being created, it should be supported. We need to stop favoring large corporations and start supporting small business."

Greg Petzel is also a small businessman and a Chicagoland candidate, running in a district further west. And his opponent, knee-jerk Republican Pete Roskam, is even further right than Lipinski.

I have always believed that the majority of people who enter political life do so because they want to make their community, state or nation better and improve the lives of the people they represent. Based on that concept I also believe that almost everyone shares the same values and that our elected officials have a responsibility to transfer those values into legislation. I believe this is fundamentally true. Have you ever met anyone who prefers polluted air and toxic water over fresh air and clean water? Have you ever met someone who seeks less opportunity at improving their income, or someone who would prefer to go without essential medical treatment? I think Americans have a united set of values.

Unfortunately we often divide ourselves into class, race, or party and our values get trampled on by rhetoric, money, power or special interest agendas. In my district, we have a large number of folks considering running against our radical right-wing congressman, Peter Roskam. Most will tell you they are running because they oppose the Trump Agenda and want to get rid of our congressman because he votes with Trump every time. But simply not liking our congressman isn't enough-- if it were, we would have 143,591 (votes against him in 2016) candidates qualified to run against him. This idea that we oppose an agenda and have no clear agenda or values as a party is exactly why we keep losing elections.

Democrats controlled the House of Representatives from 1955-1995 and stood firmly for strong values-- civil rights, workers rights, women's rights and environmental protection. During that time we created almost all of the nations environmental laws, we created Medicare, and we solidified civil rights legislation. The Democratic Party stood for values that most Americans believed in. And we won elections. And we made our nation and peoples lives better.

Today that Democratic Party-- the one I was taught growing up would fight for me, only exists through a minority of progressive members of Congress. I am happy to bash Democrats or Republicans who try to crush the values I am fighting for. As a party, or at least as individual candidates, we should be fighting for the values that historically drove the Democratic Party. Those values are American values- they are fundamentally ingrained in our hearts and minds and souls as Americans. We don't need the DCCC or any political party to tell us what our common values are. I believe that our fight should be one based on fundamental values that are shared by all people-- Democrat, Republican and Independent. If we can overcome the rhetoric and money and special interests and win elections on real fundamental values, rather than opposition and dislike of our opponents, we can re-establish not only the America I believe in, but the Democratic Party that once fought for us. And in that America, we all win.

The Man Who Gave The House To The GOP Is Tasked With Basically Doing The Same For The Senate In 2018

I have to give credit to Schumer for firing the spectacularly failed DSCC chairman, his 2016 sock-puppet Jon Tester. I can't remember the DSCC ever doing worse in terms of money spent compared to contests lost. This should have been a cycle the Democrats won back the Senate and took at least 6 seats. Instead they won a measly two, New Hampshire and Illinois. These are the ones they lost and how much they spent (DSCC + Senate Majority PAC, not including allied groups):

• McGinty (PA)- $32,883,006
• Hassan (NH)- 29,048,374
• Ross (NC)- $16,142,247
• Bayh (IN) $13,723,677
• Strickland (OH)- $9,690,671
• Kander (MO)- $8,459,872
• Feingold (WI)- $4,668,343
• Murphy (FL)- $4,187,566

After inserting a disliked corporate shill, Patty Judge, into the Iowa race-- which might have been won by respected state Senator Rob Hogg had Schumer and Tester not interfered-- the DSCC immediately withdrew from Iowa leaving Grassley to clobber Judge. They spent a grand total of $577 on her. They also quickly withdrew from Arizona after recruiting conservative corporate shill Ann Kirkpatrick, having spent a total of $40,674. Having inserted conservative losers in Florida and Ohio, they stopped spending in those two states as well, leaving both of their hapless candidates to suffer ignominious defeats. Murphy only won 44.3% of the vote, considerably below Clinton's 47.8% and Strickland was the embarrassment of the cycle-- albeit completely predictable-- losing with just 36.9% of the vote, far under-performing Clinton's 43.5%. I can't say if Grayson would have beaten Rubio in Florida or Sittenfeld would have bested Portman in Ohio, but each would have done much better than the Schumercrat that was whisked through the primary. A Gravis poll recently showed that had Schumer not forced the tally flawed McGinty into the race, Joe Sestak would have won Pennsylvania.

Schumer was more at fault than Tester who was, basically, just a sad-sack order-taker. But he couldn't exactly hold himself accountable, so he just pushed Tester aside and announced Friday that the next DSCC head would be Maryland freshman Chris Van Hollen, best known for being the most dismally failed DCCC chairman in contemporary history. In the run-up to the 2010 congressional midterms, Van Hollen and his lieutenants told Democrats to play Republican-lite. And did they ever. A huge Democratic majority offered very little to ordinary voters and watered-down every piece of useful legislation progressives offered. These are the Democrats who Van Hollen and his DCCC enthusiastically encouraged to vote with the GOP... and who were abandoned by Democratic voters are got swamped in the midterms-- or sensed what was about to happen and retired first:

• Bobby Bright (AL)
• Marion Berry (AR)
• Vic Snyder (AR)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)
• Harry Mitchell (AZ)
• John Salazar (CO)
• Betsy Markey (CO)
• Allen Boyd (FL)
• Suzanne Kosmas (FL)
• Ron Klein (FL)
• Jim Marshall (GA)
• Walter Minnick (ID)
• Melissa Bean (IL)
• Debbie Halvoson (IL)
• Bill Foster (IL)
• Baron Hill (IN)
• Dennis Moore (KS)
• Frank Kratovil (MD)
• Bart Stupak (MI)
• Travis Childers (MS)
• Gene Taylor (MS)
• Ike Skelton (MO)
• John Adler (NJ)
• Harry Teague (NM)
• Michael McMahon (NY)
• Scott Murphy (NY)
• Mike Acuri (NY)
• Dan Maffei (NY)
• Bob Etheridge (NC)
• Earl Pomeroy (ND)
• Steve Driehaus (OH)
• Charlie Wilson (OH)
• John Boccieri (OH)
• Zack Space (OH)
• Kathy Dahlkemper (PA)
• Patrick Murphy (PA)
• Chris Carney (PA)
• Paul Kanjorski (PA)
• John Spratt (SC)
• Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD)
• Lincoln Davis (TN)
• Bart Gordon (TN)
• John Tanner (TN)
• Glenn Nye (VA)
• Tom Periello (VA)
• Rick Boucher (VA)
• Brain Baird (WA)
• Alan Mollohan (WV)- lost primary

In all, Van Hollen lost an unprecedented 63 House seats on that election day-- far more than those conservatives listed above. There's been a redistricting since then so it's hard to be precise about this but only 3 of those 47 districts Van Hollen lost are back in Democratic hands today. So when Schumer told the media that "Chris Van Hollen was our first choice for DSCC chairman because of his talents, his work ethic, and his experience," people has to stifle an impulse to laugh out loud. "He has the confidence of our caucus and will do a great job for our candidates running in 2018," Schumer continued while his caucus collectively shuddered. "The map is tough for Democrats, but I have no doubt that Senator-elect Van Hollen is up to the task." He's not-- and vulnerable Democrats like Claire McCaskill (MO), Joe Donnelly (IN), Tammy Baldwin (OH), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Bob Casey (PA), Bill Nelson (FL), Debbie Stabenow (MI) and Sherrod Brown (OH) probably realize that. One of the top Senate staffers who I asked if he thought Schumer was on psychedelic drugs when he made the announcement answered this way:

Van Hollen in 2010: "Yes, we lost 63 seats, but at least we didn’t lose 106."

Van Hollen in 2018: "Yes, we lost 10 seats, but at least we didn’t lose 106.  Oh, wait, we only had 48 to start with.  Make that 48."

Imagine How I Felt When I Found Myself In One Of Hillary's E-Mails! I Hope I Don't Have To Testify

Friday night there was a news-dump of more Hillary e-mails. For reasons that will be obvious in a moment, one particularly interested me. Longtime Clinton Family retainer Sidney Blumenthal is a really good writer and a very strategic thinker. In September, 2010, in the run-up to the disastrous midterms he sent Secretary Clinton a memo about how the elections could be less disastrous. One of his proposals included turning John Boehner into a piñata. And he included a chunk of a DownWithTyranny post on Boehner's corruption as an example, along with this link for the Secretary. He didn't include any of my signature attacks on the DCCC but he did suggest Hillary read this and the linked post from Digby's blog:

By the end of the day, Boehner was hysterical and backing away-- full throttle-- from his cavalier remarks about letting the taxpayers pick up the tab. Digby thinks he must be drunk on Man Tan and nicotine. "Boehner," she wrote, "is walking back his comments about having the government pay for the BP spill, but let's face facts. He was just on autopilot, echoing the Chamber of Commerce line verbatim and then got caught... Boehner is so out of touch and servile to Big Business that he's making mistakes.

One feisty Member of Congress who read the e-mail, called me last night and told me if Hillary had paid attention to Blumenthal and had shaken up Obama, Pelosi and the inept DCCC Chair, Chris Van Hollen, perhaps the Democrats wouldn't have suffered a net loss of 63 seats, elevating Boehner to the Speakership.

But that was hardly the only e-mail released Friday worth mentioning. There were some that demonstrate-- once again-- why no one trusts her as she lobbies senators on anti-worker trade bills she was pretending to oppose. (No, she didn't evolve on everything since her days as president of the Wellesley College Young Republicans.)

Other emails show Clinton seeming to personally lobby her former Democratic colleagues in the Senate to support free trade agreements (FTAs) with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. She had previously told voters she would work to block the Colombian and South Korean pacts.

An email Oct. 8, 2011, to Clinton from her aide Huma Abedin gave notes about the state of play in Congress on the proposed trade pacts. The notes provided Clinton “some background before you make the calls” to legislators.

Two days later in an email titled “FTA calls,” Clinton wrote to aides indicating she had spoken to Sens. Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Jim Webb of Virginia, both Democrats. She told the aides she had talked with “Webb who is strong in favor of all 3” trade agreements, and then asked, “So why did I call him?”-- indicating she was otherwise phoning  to try to convince wavering lawmakers to support the deals.

Only three years earlier, Clinton wooed organized labor during her presidential campaign with promises to oppose those same deals. She called the South Korea agreement “inherently unfair.” She also said, “I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.” Clinton has lately courted organized labor’s support for her current presidential bid by pledging to oppose the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, a deal she repeatedly touted while secretary of state.

Saturday, the most progressive member of the Colorado state legislature, Joe Salazar, made the courageous (and dangerous) decision to break free of the Machine and endorse Bernie, saying "I think (Sanders) has a better vision, and he's been talking about it the past 40 or 50 years. He's not the politician who accepts campaign contributions from the wealthiest of America. I have a high degree of respect for Secretary (Hillary) Clinton, but I think Sanders best represents what is needed in Colorado... We have to dream big because America is built off big dreams," he added. "I'm not hearing that from Secretary Clinton. What I hear from her is typically what I hear from the other side of the aisle: 'You may have big dreams, but they're not realistic.'"

And that brings us to our favorite ex-Reagan/ex-George W. Bush advisor, historian Bruce Bartlett. Over the weekend he penned a kind of open e-mail to Hillary via The Atlantic, Jack Kemp's Power Lesson for Hillary Clinton. "Lately," he wrote, "Hillary Clinton and her supporters have been criticizing Bernie Sanders’s proposals not so much because they are wrongheaded, but because they are too utopian to pass Congress. I find this to be a curious line of attack because, in effect, Clinton is playing by Republican rules-- saying that Democrats should only propose things that could be enacted by a Republican Congress. Economists would call this an example of static analysis, assuming that circumstances will not change or that leadership is incapable of altering political possibilities. If Republicans had held this same point of view, Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cut never would have been enacted and, very likely, they would never have gained control of Congress. The 1981 tax cut fundamentally altered political dynamics. This was not a result that anyone would have predicted when the Reagan tax cut was first conceived by Representative Jack Kemp of New York in 1977. At the time, he was a junior congressman much better known for his career in professional football than for his legislative accomplishments, which were modest." When Kemp proposed it, it was opposed by every member of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, on both sides of the aisle. "Even those who thought Kemp’s plan was a good idea in principle thought it was pie-in-the-sky that would never be enacted by a Congress in which Democrats held large majorities in both the House and Senate." You see where this is going by now. Four years later, Kemp's big impossible dream was signed into law.

The relevance to today’s policy debates is that what may at first appear to be politically impossible can quickly become possible with the right leadership, changing circumstances, and a little luck. I’m not saying that Sanders’s ideas are necessarily good or politically doable. But I am saying that it’s wrong to oppose them simply because they could not pass Congress today. If Republicans had taken that view in the late 1970s, the world today would look very different, both politically and economically. Sometimes it’s necessary to throw the bomb and see what happens.

Perhaps you agree with Hillary and think Bartlett lacks understanding of the situation and that Bernie's big dreams aren't going anywhere, ever. If you don't feel that way, though, please consider contributing to Bernie's campaign and, perhaps, to the campaigns of some of the congressional candidates who share his dreams. Just tap on the thermometer below:

Are the Village people ready for what Pope Francis may have to say to them?

If congressional tough guys are expecting a heaping of old-time religion, they may be surprised by what they hear from Pope Francis when he speaks to a joint session of Congress in September.

by Ken

The demand for tickets should be going through the roof for the new Congressional Speakers Series, curated by House Speaker "Sunny John" Boehner. First there was Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, who's scheduled to speak on "How to Be a Big Thug in a Small Pond." which we learned in another "First Draft" item is now regretfully going to be missed by Vice President Biden. (Can't you just hear him saying, "Aw, shucks"? But what can he do? He has conflicting travel plans -- as fast as his people can plan them. Earlier this week a spokeperson said, “We are not ready to announce details of his trip yet, and normally our office wouldn't announce this early, but the planning process has been underway for a while." I'm sure it has.)

Now tentatively penciled in for September 24, during a planned visit to the U.S., is none other than the hottest speaker on the circuit, Pope Francis.

The thing is, though, it's not entirely clear that news has reached Capitol Hill about this not being your kindly old parish pedophile-priest's pope, about how after the nearly 35-year run of the fascist-thug popes JPII and Ben-the-Umpteenth (50 years if you count the thug-wannabe Paul VI, perhaps restyled for the purpose as a "proto-thug"), there's a new guy in the Vatican. And even the thug-popes could throw super-patriot Americans for a loop by voicing uncomfortable positions against the death penalty (the Church is "pro-life," remember?) and war-mongering.

Considering how far to the right America's zero-IQ Right has moved, it's hardly surprising that they're now well to the right of even a pontiff who himself is quite conservative in his social views. In this morning's NYT "First Draft," Michael Paulson wonders if our ever-righteous electeds (of both parties) have thought through what they may hear from the plain-spoken new pope. (Links onsite.)

Pope’s Visit to Congress Could Lead to Bipartisan Discomfort

The good news for Congress is that Pope Francis has accepted an invitation to visit. The bad news is that elected officials might not like what he has to say.

On issues like poverty, immigration, abortion and climate change, the pope is likely to raise concerns that challenge his hosts. And the pontiff has already made clear that he is willing to be direct with political leaders. As he told the European Parliament in November, “Europe seems to give the impression of being somewhat elderly and haggard.”

“If they’re expecting a talk only on how wonderful America is, they will be surprised,” said the Rev. James Martin, an editor at large at the Jesuit magazine America. “I think he will be an equal opportunity disturber.”

The pope has expressed repeated concern about the treatment of immigrants around the world – a divisive issue for the Republican Party. In a letter the pope wrote in December, but became public this week, he decried “people who only see in immigration a source of illegality, social conflict and violence.”

The pope has also made clear that he believes humans contribute significantly to climate change, telling reporters last month, “It is man who gives a slap to nature continually.” That, too, is contested among Republicans.

“The metaphor he uses, which is the most powerful, is the throwaway culture,” said John L. Carr, the director of Georgetown University’s Initiative on Catholic Social Thought and Public Life. “That has the potential to make both parties uncomfortable: It begins with the unborn child, it includes the immigrant, and it certainly focuses on the poorest of the poor.”

Francis, who has never been to the United States, will be the first pope to address Congress. Speaker John A. Boehner said on Thursday that the pontiff’s address had been scheduled for Sept. 24. The pope is also expected to travel to New York and Philadelphia.

There could be a lot of bright-red faces in Congress that day -- in addition to the permanently bright-orange one.

#

What Happened To The Class Of Rahm? Will The Class of Israel Follow Them Down The Toilet?

The Democrat voting most consistently with Boehner & Cantor-- Ann, again!

Rahm Emanuel took over the DCCC in 2006 and ran it that year and in 2008, the two cycles when voters were repulsed by right-wing extremism and overreach compliments of George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff and their cronies. Emanuel and his sidekick Steny Hoyer went out and recruited a pack of conservative corporate whores and drove as many progressives out of races as they could. But they picked up 31 seats in 2006 and a net of 21 more in 2008. So where are they now? We'll start with the 2006 batch:

• Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ)- defeated in 2010 in the Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• Gabby Giffords (Blue Dog-AZ)
• Jerry McNerney (CA)- ran as a progressive and beat the DCCC candidate, Steve Filson, then beat Dick Pombo in the general and quickly sold out to the Establishment and slipped into ConservaDem-ness
• Ed Perlmutter (New Dem-CO)
• Joe Courtney (New Dem-CT)
• Chris Murphy (CT)- a progressive, he handily won a U.S. Senate seat in 2012
• Tim Mahoney (Blue Dog-FL)- defeated in 2010 in the Great Blue Dog Apocalypse after a sex scandal and an atrocious voting record
• Ron Klein (FL)- defeated by Allen West in 2010 in the Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN)- threw a Hail Mary pass in 2012, lucked out to run against teabagger Richard Mourdock and won a Senate seat
• Brad Ellsworth (Blue Dog-IN)- also threw a Hail Mary pass but lost by a landslide in 2010
• Baron Hill (Blue Dog-IN)- defeated in 2010 in the Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• Bruce Braley (IA)- keeps winning reelection as a populist
• David Loebsack (IA)- keeps winning reelection as a progressive
• Nancy Boyda (KS)- lost in 2008
• John Yarmuth (KY)- keeps winning reelection as a progressive
• Tim Walz (MN)- keeps winning as a moderate
• Carol Shea-Porter (NH)- a progressive, she was mistakenly defeated in the 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse and then won her seat back from an insane teabagger in 2012
• Paul Hodes (NH)- a progressive, he was defeated when he ran for the Senate in 2010
• John Hall (NY)- a progressive, he was mistakenly defeated in the 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• Kirsten Gillibrand (Blue Dog-NY)- switched from progressive to Blue Dog and back to progressive again and won a Senate seat in 2008
• Mike Arcuri (Blue Dog-NY)- defeated in the 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC)- retired after the 2012 gerrymander scared him off
• Charlie Wilson (Blue Dog-OH)- defeated in the 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse and again in 2012
• Zack Space (Blue Dog-OH)- defeated in the 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• Jason Altmire (Blue Dog-PA)- defeated in a 2012 primary
• Joe Sestak (PA)- defeated in a 2010 Senate race
• Patrick Murphy (Blue Dog-PA)- defeated in the 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• Chris Carney (Blue Dog-PA)- defeated in the 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• Nick Lampson (Blue Dog-TX)- defeated in 2008 and again, as a challenger, in 2012
• Peter Welch (VT)- keeps winning as a progressive
• Steve Kagen (WI)- mistakenly defeated in the 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse

And the 2008 winners:

• Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL)- defeated in the 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• Parker Griffith (Blue Dog-AL)- switched to GOP and lost reelection in 2010 anyway
• Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)- voted like a Republican and was beaten in the 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse; reelected in 2012 and is voting like a Republican again
• Betsy Markey (Blue Dog-CO)- defeated in the 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• Jim Himes (New Dem-CT)- reelected
• Alan Grayson (FL)- mistakenly defeated in 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse and was reelected in a landslide in 2012
• Suzanne Kosmas (Blue Dog-FL)- defeated in 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID)- defeated in 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• Debbie Halvorson (IL)- ConservaDem defeated in 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse and again in a primary in 2013 running as the pro-NRA conservative
• Don Cazayoux (Blue Dog-LA)- defeated after 6 months in office
• Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD)- defeated in 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• Mark Schauer (MI)- mistakenly defeated in 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• Gary Peters (New Dem-MI)- reelected
• Dina Titus (NV)- defeated in 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• John Adler (Blue Dog-NJ)- defeated in 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• Martin Heinrich (NM)- elected to the Senate in 2012
• Henry Teague (Blue Dog-NM)- defeated in 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• Ben Ray Lujan (NM)- reelected as a progressive
• Michael McMahon (Blue Dog-NY)- defeated in 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• Dan Maffei (New Dem-NY)- defeated in 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• Eric Massa (NY)- resigned
• Larry Kissell (Blue Dog-NC)- ran as a progressive, turned Blue Dog, defeated in 2012
• Steve Driehaus (OH)- defeated in 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• Mary Jo Kilroy (OH)- mistakenly defeated in 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• John Boccieri (Blue Dog-OH)- defeated in 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• Kathy Dahlkemper (Blue Dog-PA)- defeated in 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• Glenn Nye (Blue Dog-VA)- defeated in 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse
• Tom Perriello (VA)- defeated in 2010 Great Blue Dog Apocalypse

So of these 59-- some of whom were elected in special elections during Rahm's term (and taking Giffords out of the equation)-- 43 were defeated, an astronomically high number. And the overwhelming majority of them were defeated because they disappointed Democrats by voting like Republicans-- enough so to keep Democrats from bothering to go to the polls in 2010.

Why bring this up now? If Democrats in the House vote for an Obama-Boehner Grand Bargain that slashes benefits under Social Security and Medicare the Rahm defeats will look like the good old days in comparison to what is likely to happen to Democrats. Only 24% of Americans now identify as Republicans. 36% identify as Democrats. If Democrats in Congress betray the New Deal, not only will they be toast, they will utterly destroy the Democratic brand. When Blue Dog/New Dem corporate whore Kurt Schrader of Oregon voted against the conservative-leaning Senate budget last week he said it wasn't bipartisan enough and it didn't slash entitlements deeply enough. Slashing earned benefits for seniors is a Republican value not a Democratic value. Kurt Shrader has forfeited the right to call himself a Democrat.

Blue Dog Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) said he voted against the Senate budget because it did not go far enough on entitlements.

"It is not enough entitlement reform in there going forward. It needs to be a more complete and balanced picture and it wasn't bipartisan in the end of the day," Schrader told The Hill.

...He said there are many centrist Republicans who would do something to increase revenue in exchange for real entitlement reform.

The current crop-- the Steve Israel crop-- may fare as poorly as the Rahm Emanuel crop did. Of the new freshmen, 16 are voting against progressive values half the time or over half the time. That's too much. Below are the freshmen in danger of turning off their constituents enough likely to wind up as one-termers. The number next to each name is the ProgressivePunch crucial vote score so far this session.

• Julia Brownley (CA)- 50
• Pete Gallego (Blue Dog-TX)- 50
• Joe Garcia (New Dem-FL)- 50
• Gloria Negrete McLeod (CA)- 47.06
• Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)- 44.44
• Bill Enyart (IL)- 44.44
• Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL)- 44.44
• Brad Schneider (New Dem-IL)- 44.44
• Cheri Bustos (IL)- 38.89
• Bill Foster (New Dem-IL)- 38.89
• Ann Kuster (NH)- 38.89
• Sean Maloney (New Dem-NY)- 38.89
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)- 38.89
• Raul Ruiz (CA)- 38.89
• Kyrsten Sinema (New Dem-AZ)- 38.89
• Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)- 23.53

The freshmen with the best voting records so far? Tony Cardenas (CA), Matt Cartwright (PA), Mark Pocan (WI), Joyce Beatty (OH), Jared Huffman (CA), Hakeem Jeffries (NY), Joe Kennedy (MA), and Rick Nolan (MN)-- all over 90% progressive on the crucial roll calls.

Democrats Worry About Voter Drop-Off For 2014 Midterms-- They Need To Stop Worrying And Recruit Better Candidates

This week, political science professor and author Tom Schaller shared his insights on midterm voter drop-off at Sabato's Crystal Ball.

It’s no mystery why Democrats generally perform better in presidential years while Republicans tend to excel in midterm cycles: Lower midterm turnouts tend to skew the electorate toward older, white and/or more affluent voters. Given the growing cleavage in recent decades between partisan preferences of white and non-white voters, cyclic differences in racial composition are particularly important.

Since the Census Bureau began collecting data on voting age turnout by race in 1980, white voter turnout is consistently higher in both presidential and midterm cycles. But the racial gap in presidential cycles post-1980 is consistently smaller than the gap in midterm cycles from 1982 onward. The gap is small but significant between non-Hispanic whites and blacks, but much more dramatic between non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics. This overall pattern may be changing, however: For voters under 45, and especially those under 25, and in both midterm and presidential cycles, in the past decade the white/black racial turnout gap has either disappeared or even flipped to a slight turnout advantage for African Americans.

So what, if anything, can Democrats do to drive up turnout in non-presidential cycles?

“There is little to nothing Democrats can do to mitigate the drop-off of turnout among their core constituencies that regularly happens-- like a clock-- when moving from presidential to midterm elections. Indeed, the primary way to stimulate midterm voters who do vote to support Democrats will not be present in 2014: a poorly performing Republican president that Democrats can rally against (e.g., Bush 2006 or Nixon 1974),” George Mason University’s Michael McDonald, one of the nation’s foremost experts on electoral turnout, explained to me via email. “The first step for Democrats is to prevent 2014 from becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy by recruiting quality candidates to run.” McDonald says Democrats will have to look to new strategies, including social media applications. “But, I caution that social media will likely not solve the Democrats’ problems since it failed to prevent the historic Republican landslide in 2010.”

OK, let's take a look at 2010, the year of the Great Blue Dog Apocalypse, during which the Republicans gained 63 seats in the House, the largest seat change since 1948 and, historically, the worst midterm performance for any party since 1938 (when the Democrats lost 72 seats). Recall, that the Democrats took control of the House in the 2006 midterms and expanded their gains in 2008. They went into the 2010 midterms with 257 seats (having won 52.9% of the votes) while the Republicans held 178 seats (having won 42.4% of the votes). In 2010 the Democrats only won 44.8% of the vote, a catastrophic drop off of 8.1% (accounting for that 63 seat loss). So what happened?

Even before the election, 17 Democrats and 20 Republicans announced their retirements. Seven of the retiring Democrats were Blue Dogs who represented deeply red districts. Those seats were as good as ceded to the Republicans. Of the Republicans retiring, only one was in a solid blue district (Delaware)-- and that was the only Democratic pickup among retiring Republicans. An incompetent DCCC failed to hold swing districts that Democrats were leaving (WI-07, WA-03, and failed to win swing districts that Republicans were opening up (IL-10, MI-03, FL-25). So while one Democrat managed to win an abandoned GOP seat (Mike Castle's), 12 Republicans picked up seats of retiring Democrats. Bad way to get the show started. It got worse.

Of the incumbents up for reelection, 2 Democrats replaced 2 Republicans... and 52 Republicans replaced 52 Democrats. Obviously, that was the apocalyptic part of the Great Blue Dog Apocalypse. In district after district, Democratic voters didn't come out to the polls to vote for right-wing Democrats who had spent the previous session backing the Republicans. Many of the Blue Dogs and New Dems who had been recruited by Rahm Emanuel and other corporate Democrats in 2006 and 2008 lost their seats, having been encouraged by Emanuel, Hoyer and other conservatives in the House leadership to abandon progressive and populist principles and try to cater to right-wing narratives. It backfired-- really, really badly. The Blue Dog Caucus essentially ceased to exist. Below is a list of conservative Democrats who lost their seats-- either in head-to-head races with Republicans or by running away from sure defeats by retiring.

• Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)
• Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ)
• Marion Berry (Blue Dog-AR)
• John Salazar (Blue Dog-CO)
• Betsy Markey (Blue Dog-CO)
• Allen Boyd (Blue Dog-FL)
• Suzanne Kosmas (FL)
• Jim Marshall (Blue Dog-GA)
• Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID)
• Melissa Bean (New Dem-IL)
• Debbie Halvorson (IL)
• Bill Foster (New Dem-IL)
• Brad Ellsworth (Blue Dog-IN)
• Baron Hill (Blue Dog-IN)
• Dennis Moore (Blue Dog-KS)
• Charlie Melancon (Blue Dog-LA)
• Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD)
• Bart Stupak (MI)
• Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS)
• Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS)
• Ike Skelton (MO)
• Dina Titus (NV)
• John Adler (NJ)
• Harry Teague (NM)
• Michael McMahon (NY)
• Scott Murphy (NY)
• Dan Maffei (New Dem-NY)
• Bob Etheridge (NC)
• Earl Pomeroy (Blue Dog-ND)
• Steve Driehaus (OH)
• Charlie Wilson (Blue Dog-OH)
• John Boccieri (OH)
• Zack Space (Blue Dog-OH)
• Kathy Dahlkemper (Blue Dog-PA)
• Patrick Murphy (Blue Dog-PA)
• Chris Carney (Blue Dog-PA)
• Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (Blue Dog-SD)
• Lincoln Davis (Blue Dog-TN)
• Bart Gordon (Blue Dog-TN)
• John Tanner (Blue Dog-TN)
• Glenn Nye (Blue Dog-VA)
• Rick Boucher (VA)
• Brian Baird (WA)

With independent voters turning away from Democrats-- supporting them with 51% in 2008 but with a scant 39% in 2010-- and with the Republicans excited and enthusiastic about a Tea Party counterrevolution, Democrats were rightly sickened by many of their own candidates and stayed away from the polls in big enough numbers not just to defeat ConservaDems but to help create a media narrative that Democrats were losers, helping bring down mainstream Democrats like Phil Hare (IL), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Ciro Rodriguez (TX), Carol Shea-Porter (NH), Alan Grayson (FL), Ron Klein (FL), John Spratt (SC), Jim Oberstar (MN), Chet Edwards (TX), and John Hall (NY).

Better handling of social media isn't going to save the Democrats' asses in 2014. Good solid populist recruitment, on the other hand, could. But Pelosi-- for whatever reason-- reappointed "ex"-Blue Dog Steve Israel as head of the DCCC and the party's chances are probably doomed. Israel is likely to again sabotage progressives and populists and again back reactionaries who are hated by Democratic voters. Boehner can certainly look forward to another couple years as Speaker after 2014. What a tragedy!

Onward And Upward-- Good Guys Always Win In The End

The first time he ran for Congress, Alan Grayson lost the primary. Two years later Blue America encouraged him to run again and he did. Derided by the political Establishment in Florida and in DC, he beat their favorite in the primary and went on to beat the incumbent Republican congressman in the November general. He then went on to inspire millions of Americans desperate for political leaders who could and would stand up to the conservative consensus that dominates Beltway politics. And when Grayson lost in 2010, he started working on the 2012 race. Blue America was with him every step of the way. And on Tuesday we celebrated when he won the biggest congressional comeback in American history-- a 62.5% victory that saw him win the vote in every municipality in Florida's 9th district. He won among men and he won among women; he won the youth vote and he won the senior vote and he won the votes of people in between. He won among white people, among black people, among Hispanics and among Asians. He won the urban vote, the suburban vote and the rural vote and he won over 60% of the vote in Orange County, in Osceola County and even in red-leaning Polk County! 3,205 individual contributions from Blue America donors added up to $57,190 for Alan this year.

This morning, Grayson said in a statement that speaks volumes about his dedication to  the ideals embodied in the men and women who put him back in office, “Let’s not fall into the trap of thinking that one Democrat is as good as any other, that we’re all interchangeable parts. We’re not. Some of us have a head, and a heart, and a spine, and some of us don’t. Blue America concentrates on helping the Democrats who deserve our help, the Democrats who can make a difference. Blue America’s encyclopedic knowledge of every Congressional race means that they do your homework for you. When you support Blue America, you’re supporting the best of the best, in the most important races in the country. It sure made a difference in our election.”



And Alan wasn't our only big win this cycle. After we helped a young reform-minded El Paso City Councilman, Beto O'Rourke, oust longtime corrupt incumbent Silvestre Reyes in a primary that sent shock waves through the DC Establishment, Beto went on this past Tuesday to roll up an awe-inspiring two-to-one landslide, beating his Tea Party opponent 65.5 to 32.8%. Aside for raising money for Beto, we also introduced him to Alan Grayson and Jared Polis so that he would have a base among other reform-minded Democrats in Washington and not just the corrupt, corporate-oriented glad-handing party leaders.

As you know by now, all three of the people Blue America backed for Senate, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin, won incredible victories. Bernie was reelected with over 70% of the vote. Elizabeth was the only Democrat to dislodge a sitting Republican senator-- Wall Street's favorite member of the Senate, no less-- and Tammy Baldwin beat back a 4-term governor to become Wisconsin' first woman senator, and the first openly gay person to even win a Senate seat in America.

In 2010, Annie Kuster and Rep. Carol Shea-Porter were both victims of the Tea Party wave that swept over New Hampshire. Tuesday that wave reversed itself and both outstanding grassroots progressives won congressional seats and helped turn New Hampshire dark blue again-- with a new Democratic governor and an overwhelming victory in the state legislature. And across the country in California, state Senator Alan Lowenthal, a principled and determined progressive, who got no help from the DCCC, won a powerful 10 point victory over Climate Change-denier Gary Delong.

Blue America is very proud of all our winners, of course-- and very proud of our members who gave and gave and gave and gave so generously and so consistently. We're also incredibly proud of the candidates who didn't win their races but who fought hard, usually against overwhelming odds and with no help from the DCCC or the Beltway Establishment or the state parties that take their cues from Washington. Rob Zerban gave Paul Ryan the biggest fight of his career and came closer to ending it than anyone who's ever challenged him before. Rob will be back. And Rob isn't the only one we will be working with again. Some of our youngest first-time candidates, Aryanna Strader, Lee Rogers, Nate Shinagawa, Nick Ruiz have assured me that what we've worked so hard to build, won't be wasted. Lee took on the powerful and entrenched chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and gave him the first close call of his long, corrupt career. Will McKeon even run again? None of these candidates had any help from the DCCC; all of them outperformed expectations and made a mark. The morning after his near victory over Tea Party debt collector Tom Reed, the DCCC asked Nate Shinagawa to suit up for 2014, which indicates that might actually support him next cycle. I'm certain, with your help, Blue America will.

Let me share with you a note I got on Wednesday morning from Aryanna Strader our candidate in PA-16, who waged a lonely battle against entrenched incumbent Joe Pitts:

6:30 AM and the morning after a hard fought election. The sun just barely peeked out of the grey clouds and I heard the rustle of bed sheets and small voices. I walk into my children's room to talk to them. The first words out of their mouths: "Mom! Did ya win?" And unfortunately my response was, "Not this time."

As the words left my mouth I saw faces sink and tears come to the eyes of my 7 year old son. "But Mom, you worked so hard, I saw it, people believe in you. How come you didn't win?"

I sat for a moment to try and figure out how to best explain this to my kids. As their eyes watched me and their arms were around me I realized just a few months ago my son had already given me the answer.

"Good guys always win in the end."

What I explained to Donovan was that this is just the beginning. The hard work and effort of everyone involved in this campaign, from him and his sister, to the countless volunteers, to my fellow veterans across the Nation, is not for loss.

No matter where the next mission takes us, we are more prepared than ever before. We know that the challenges we are facing as a Nation are great and I will keep fighting for my fellow veterans to ensure that when they return home they get the help they need and deserve. I will continue to fight for those in poverty because I know there is a little girl out there who is just like me... ready to work hard to lift herself up if only we’d give her a fair shot.

For people like my mom who worked their entire lives, just so they could take care of their families and now, all they want is to retire with dignity and without struggle. And for the women who came before me, blazing a path in the fight for equality, for fair pay, and the right to choose.

We owe it to them all.

With that, I want to you give you so much of my thanks and gratitude. It is all your support during the course of this campaign that I know this fight won't end just because an Election Day has passed.

Donovan is right: Good guys do always win in the end and with your help, the good fight ahead of us all will prove it.

Aryanna

And we'll be there for her. And for Rob Zerban. This is what he said on election night: "This fight was never about a single election or a single person. This campaign was about the middle class, working people, and the American Dream itself. So we must be proud of this campaign and this movement we’ve built together. And we must not allow these efforts to have been in vain, because the people of the First District deserve representation that belongs to them, not to the moneyed and powerful special interests. You have my word, I will remain a part of that fight. Earlier tonight, I left a message for Paul Ryan to concede this election. But there is a grander, much larger battle ahead of us-- and that battle, I do not concede."

Do You Need A New Nut In Your Consciousness? Meet Todd Young (R-IN)

There are three Republican Congressmen Youngs-- two extremely old and extremely corrupt carbuncles, Florida's CW "Bill" Young (age 82 and chairman of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee on Defense, a longtime conservative honey-pot) and Don Young (age 80 and notorious Alaska pork barrel king, Abramoff crony and serial ne'er-do-well)-- and one backbencher of little consequence who no one has ever heard of, Todd Young (age 40 who was a right-wing operative for the extremist Heritage Foundation). The few people who have heard of him only know him as a boisterous climate change denier who makes an idiot out of himself on the subject on behalf of Club For Growth, his single biggest career-long campaign contributor. He also gets an inordinately large payoff from the Energy and Natural Resources industry. This cycle, for example, he's already taken in over $80,000 (as opposed to Alaska's Don Young who got $55,100 and Florida's Bill Young, who got $15,500). All three Youngs voted to protect Wall Street oil speculators from meaningful oversight and Todd and Don Young-- though not Bill-- voted to protect tax breaks and subsidies for Big Oil several times.

According to ProgressivePunch, Todd Young has a 3.61 score on progressive issues this year. By way of comparison, Joe Pitts has a 4.19, Allen West has a 4.87, Louie Gohmert has a 6.90, and Tea Bag Queen Michele Bachmann has a 6.96. By no stretch of the imagination could anyone aptly describe Young as "conservative" or even "severely conservative." The man is a radical far right ideologue across the board on every issue facing Congress.

Young won his seat in 2010 by beating a highly unpopular Blue Dog, Baron Hill, who spent most of his time on K Street (where he now works as a pharmaceuticals lobbyist) or conspiring with Boehner and Cantor to undermine progressive legislation. He amassed a putrid reactionary voting record and was swept away in the Great Blue Dog Apocalypse of 2010 garnering a mere 42.2% of the votes, the worst numbers in his 7 House runs. Young is exactly the kind of faceless nonentity of a candidate the DCCC specializes in going after-- and they had every intention of doing just that. Steve Israel recruited another of his Blue Dog types with no on-the-ground backing in he community, Jonathan George, and the DCCC, while claiming neutrality, pushed hard to help George will the primary. But he was a terrible candidate, got no traction and came in a dismal 3rd in a 5 candidate primary. Shelli Yoder, who the DCCC had told everyone who would listen to their poison was "too liberal" for the district and "had no chance," easily won with 47.7%, besting Steve Israel's recruit 13,186 to 4,591. Just like he did in other districts where a progressive beat his Blue Dog recruit, he immediately dropped IN-09 from the playboard and started a whispering campaign that Young has a lock on the district. This, of course, is what Nancy Pelosi meant when she described him as "reptilian" (although she's unaware that he uses the reptilian traits she professes to admire exclusively against progressives and never against Republicans).


So who has Young offended in the district with his extremist voting record? It would almost be easier to ask who hasn't he offended!

Todd Young’s Five Worst Votes for Seniors

1.  Turn Medicare into a Voucher Program and Raise the Eligibility Age (Continuing Resolution 34; The Ryan-Young Budget)

•  The Ryan-Young Budget would replace Medicare with a voucher program in 2022
•  Current beneficiaries would be hurt because the remaining pool of Medicare beneficiaries would be significantly older and sicker. Premiums would increase.
•  For new beneficiaries after 2022, vouchers would not keep pace with premiums. The CBO projects out of pocket expenses would double.
•  The proposals would likely raise overall healthcare costs as they would shift Seniors onto more expensive private insurance plans.
•  Eligibility would be raised to 67
•  More recent proposals have suggested allowing seniors to choose between guaranteed benefits and a voucher program. Because it would drain Medicare’s pool of healthy and young seniors, it would make the program unsustainable and still raise premiums. Moreover, Young has already voted for the voucher-only program and should be held accountable for this vote.
 
2.  Cut Future Social Security Benefits (H.J.Res 48; 178 and Continuing Resolution 34)

•  Voted against promise not to cut Social Security benefits
•  Voted for the Ryan-Young budget, which endorses the Bowles-Simpson plan to reduce the Cost of Living Adjustments. Each year, Social Security benefits would fall farther and farther behind current levels.
•  Over the next ten years, this would represent a 3.7 percent cut
•  Undermines the guarantee that Social Security will keep up with prices
•  By 2080, benefit levels would shrink by 51 percent lower for a medium earner
•  Would also create a fast-track procedure to ram Social Security benefit cuts through Congress
 
3.  Privatize Social Security (H.J.Res 48; 178 and Continuing Resolution 34)

•  Voted against promise not to privatize Social Security
•  Ryan-Young plan creates ‘private savings accounts’, the basis of privatization
•  Because of these private savings accounts, the program’s fiscal health would worsen for 60 years
•  Seniors would be pushed into these plans by proposed tax-incentives
 
4.  Reopen the donut hole (thirty-three times including Vote 460 plus budget proposals)

•  Repealing the ACA in full would reopen the doughnut hole for prescription drugs
•  Seniors in the doughnut hole are already saving an average of $600 on drugs
•  Approximately 81,000 Indiana seniors would be hurt
 
5.  Ignore fraud and abuse in Medicare and Social Security (HR 1315; Vote 620, ACA repeal votes)

•  Voted against cracking down on fraud in Medicare and Social Security

Todd Young’s Five Worst Votes for Women

1.  Legalize health-care discrimination against women (thirty-three times including Vote 460)

•  Complete repeal of the ACA would allow insurers to deny coverage to women who get breast cancer, have C-sections, and suffer from domestic violence
•  Complete repeal of the ACA would allow insurance companies to legally discriminate against women on the basis of their gender. American women are charged about $1 billion extra a year when this is allowed
 
2. Gut the Violence Against Women Act (H.R. 4970)

• Cut funding for grants and adds a requirement for victims to participate in two in-person interviews with untrained federal staff
•  Removed requirement for colleges and universities with federal funding to develop policies on sexual assault; college-age women are at the highest risk of nonfatal intimate partner violence
•  Eliminated confidentiality protections for immigrants
•  Opposed by NOW, YWCA,  American Bar Association, Conference of Catholic Bishops,
• “Undermines VAWA's 18-year history of victim-centered legislation by shielding perpetrators from accountability for their violent crimes, raising new hurdles to women escaping violent relationships, removing important college campus and housing improvements...” - National Organization for Women
 
3.  Roll-back women’s access to preventative care and contraception (thirty-three times including Vote 460, HR 1; Vote 93, H.R. 277, Ryan-Young budget)

•  Complete repeal of the ACA would roll-back coverage for maternity care, breast cancer screenings, contraception, and domestic violence counseling
•  Defunding Planned Parenthood, which provided over 4 million instances of STI/STD Testing and Treatments, over 3.5 million contraceptive services, and over 1.5 million cancer screenings and preventative procedures
•  Eliminate all funding for Title X, which provides support for family planning clinics serving about 5 million women around the country  (which cannot use federal money for abortions). The program prevents approximately 973,000 unintended pregnancies per year. Each dollar eliminated will result in an estimated $4 in later costs.
 
4.  Slash funding for low-income mothers (H.R. 277, Ryan-Young Budget)

• Ryan-Young budget would have cut $758 million from Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, infants, and Children; would cut nutritional support for approximately 1.8 million women and infants
• Ryan-Young budget would have cut about 1/3rd of funding from Maternal and Child Health Block Grants to provide healthcare to new low-income families
 
5.  Redefining Rape (HR 3)

•  In an effort to block access to abortion in cases of statutory rape or incest, the house attempted to narrow the definition of rape to ‘forcible rape’
•  The term was never defined and many in the legal community were concerned it would create a new legal standard for rape

Todd Young’s Five Worst Votes for Young Americans
 
1.  Slash Pell Grants (H.R. 277, Ryan-Young Budget and HR 1)

•  H.R. 1 would have cut approximately $114 million in Pell Grants from Indiana Students
•  The Ryan-Young budget would cut funding for Pell grants for 1 million students over the next ten years
•  The Ryan-Young budget would cut the maximum Pell award by more than $800, the equivalent of an entire year’s worth of books and supplies at IU
•  The Ryan-Young budget would make students ineligible who do not attend school full time and change the eligibility threshold for the full award from $32,000 to $23,000
 
2.  Repeal healthcare for students under 26 (33 different votes)

• Complete repeal of the ACA would end the provision allowing young-people to stay on family plans until the age of 26
• An estimated 21,100 young Americans in Indiana were helped by the provision in 2011, 6.6 million nationally
 
3.  Eliminate environmental protections for clean air and water (HR 572; Vote 572, HR 2354; Vote 600, H.R. 910; )

• Voted to eliminate drinking-water standards for Arsenic and percolate
• Voted to slash $1.3 billion from clean energy funding
• Voted to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gasses
           
 4. Undermine public education (H.R. 1)

•  H.R. 1 proposed $5 billion in cuts to federal education programs
•  School Improvement Grants cut by $337 million, $694 million from Title I
•  Head Start would loose $1 billion in funding, eliminating 196,000 slots for children
•  Ryan-Young budget cuts per capita investment in education and training by 53 percent
•  Estimated cuts to Indiana:
•  $12.55 million in cuts to special education
•  $16.2 million in cuts to Head Start
 
5.  Slow down scientific discovery and medical advances
 
•  Ryan-Young Budget would cut Science and Technology investment per capita by almost 1/3rd
•  Budget would funding for 1,600 medical research grants a year

Todd Young’s Five Worst Votes for Workers
 
 1.  Undermining the National Labor Relations Board Powers (H.R. 2587 and H.R. 1)

• Voted to allow companies to punish workers for unionizing by shipping jobs overseas, firing workers who try to unionize, and functionally legalize runaway shops
• Voted for funding cuts in H.R. 1 that would have required 55 day shutdown:
• “If enacted, the House proposal could force the NLRB to curtail all agency operations, including investigating alleged illegal practices by private sector employers and unions, conducting workplace elections, and helping to settle election-related disputes. Regulation of a broad range of conduct, such as unlawful lockouts of workers, termination of union organizers,” - Chairman of the NLRB
 
2.  Delaying union votes (H.R. 3094)
 
•  Voted to allow further delays in unionization votes
•  “The longer the delay, the more likely employers are to engage in unlawful intimidation of their employees. Rather than correct that problem, this bill would mandate a delay, during which time unscrupulous employers could engage in threats, coercion, and even firing of voters” - American Rights at Work ED
 
3.  Against ‘Buy American’ Plans (H.R. 4348)
 
• Voted no on Buy American requirement for federally-funded highway, transit, and rail projects
 
4.  Pushing sequestration costs onto the working poor (H.R. 5652)
 
•  Bill would have replaced billions in already agreed-to spending cuts with cuts to Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps, and other programs important to the working poor
 
5.  Eliminating funding for job training (H.R.1, Ryan-Young budget, etc..)

•  Eliminated $3 billion for Workforce Investment Act employment and training programs
•  Accounting gimmick in Ryan budget would have resulted in $3.1 billion shortfall in FY 2014
 
Todd Young’s Five Worst Votes for Farmers
 
1.  Undermine federal funding for farming insurance (HR 115, Ryan-Young Budget)

•  Ryan-Young budget for 2013 proposes a $30 billion cut to the farm and crop insurance subsidies (committee had proposed $23 billion)
• The plan would require reducing support to farmers by approximately 20 percent, forcing farmers to pay higher premiums
•  “Especially worrisome is the Chairman’s emphasis on the federal crop insurance program as an area for reduction. Crop insurance serves as the main safety net for America’s farmers, and its integrity must be protected.” - American Soybean Association
• “The Ryan budget proposes significant cuts in the farm safety net and conservation programs It is appalling that in an attempt to avoid defense cuts the Republican leadership has elected to leave farmers and hungry families hurting” - Collin Peterson, Ranking D Member on Ag
• “House Budget Chairman’s Proposal Takes Knife to Ag” - National Association of Wheat Growers
 
2.  Cut fixed payments to farmers (HR 115, Ryan-Young Budget)

•  Ryan-Young budget for 2013 proposes a $30 billion cut to the farm and crop insurance subsidies (committee had proposed $23 billion)
• “House Budget Chairman’s Proposal Takes Knife to Ag” - National Association of Wheat Growers
• “Once again, we see that Congress is attempting to balance the budget on the backs of rural America... irresponsible in a time of economic recovery.” - National Farmers Union
 
3. Slash funding for agriculture conservation programs (HR 115, Ryan-Young Budget.)

• Ryan-Young Budget would cut $16 billion from conservation programs, especially the National Resource Conservation Service
• In a poll by the National Farmers Union, 75% of farmers said conservation is important to their bottom line and over 80% supported increasing or maintaining funding
• In 2011 budget, voted to cut $201 million from Farm Service Agnecy
 
4. Against Labeling of Country of Origin on Food (HR 10; Vote 900)

•  Voted against a requirement that all food be labeled with its country of origin
•  The requirement would have allowed Americans who wanted to ‘buy American’ at the grocery store to do so
•  Later passed an amendment which the National Farmers Union called “an underhanded way to dismantle Country of Origin Labeling behind closed doors”
 
5. Disinvesting from agriculture research (H.R. 277, Ryan-Young Budget)

            • Cuts $246 million from Agriculture University Research

6. Going on vacation without a finished farm bill
 
Todd Young’s Four Worst Votes for People of Faith
 
1.  Slashing programs to feed the poor (Ryan Budget)

•  Ryan Budget slashes funding for SNAP by $134 billion
•  “These cuts are unjustified and wrong.” - The Council of Catholic Bishops
 
2.  Gutting healthcare for the poor (Ryan budget and ACA)

•  Ryan Budget “would result in millions of vulnerable people losing health insurance” - AP
•  Repealing the ACA will push an estimated 11 million people from Medicaid
•  There are already 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage
 
3.  Prioritizing the wealthy over the poor (Ryan Budget)

• Ryan budget “balances the budget on the backs of the poor” - Franciscan Action Network
• Sixty-two percent of Ryan budget cuts are from programs for lower-income Americans

4.  Eliminating options for pregnant woman (33 times, Ryan budget)

• Voted to eliminate the ACA, which includes $250 million of support for vulnerable pregnant women and alternatives to abortion 
• Voted to defund Title X, which provides non-abortive family planning services