Why Did The DCCC Fail So Spectacularly On Tuesday? Let's Ask 3 Really Smart Philosophic Types: AOC, Eric Zuesse And Anand Giridharadas

 

Today's most-talked about NY Times piece, at least in my universe, is Astead Herndon's post-election interview with AOC. Short version-- AOC: "People really want the Democratic Party to fight for them." If only Pelosi and Hoyer would tattoo that on their foreheads so they saw it whenever they checked the mirror! Their DCCC chair this cycle, Cheri Bustos, a protégée of centrist bankster Rahm Emanuel, aside from losing probably a dozen House seats while Biden won the election, nearly lost her own seat-- a D+3 district that was gerrymandered by the Democrat Party-controlled Illinois legislature to elect Democrats. With votes still being counted, the race was finally called for Bustos after a few harrowing days and it looks like she squeaked by with a 51.9-48.1% win over Esther Joy King, who enjoyed no significant help from the Republican Party (while Pelosi's SuperPAC used a late IE costing $1,044,002 to smear her). As of October 14 Bustos had spent $4,573,839 to King's $1,634,304. Bustos, in line with the DCCC, offered her constituents nothing at all to vote for her. Like her fellow New Dems and Blue Dogs, she opposes every popular systemic progressive initiative to ease the burdens conservatives have put on their lives. Yesterday, Politico noted that she is being considered for a Cabinet position.

Herndon began by affirming that AOC had been "a good soldier" for the party and Biden in the battle against the fascist threat. After Biden was declared the winner on Saturday, though, she "made clear the divisions within the party that animated the primary still exist. And she dismissed recent criticisms from some Democratic House members who have blamed the party’s left for costing them important seats." [Note: except that you may consider every seat "an important seat," not a single lost seat is even remotely important and the House Democratic caucus is MUCH better off without every one of the losers.] AOC put it differently, telling Herndon that some of the members who lost had made themselves "sitting ducks." Herndon's first question was to ask her for her macro takeaway. It certainly isn't what the pundits and high-priced consultants are saying to explain the abject failure of the DCCC last week. AOC:

Well, I think the central one is that we aren’t in a free fall to hell anymore. But whether we’re going to pick ourselves up or not is the lingering question. We paused this precipitous descent. And the question is if and how we will build ourselves back up.

We know that race is a problem, and avoiding it is not going to solve any electoral issues. We have to actively disarm the potent influence of racism at the polls.

But we also learned that progressive policies do not hurt candidates. Every single candidate that co-sponsored Medicare for All in a swing district kept their seat. We also know that co-sponsoring the Green New Deal was not a sinker. Mike Levin was an original co-sponsor of the legislation, and he kept his seat.

Mike Levin and Harley Rouda were both elected in 2018 to represent adjoining districts. In Orange County, everything north of Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo and Rancho Santa Margarita in part of Rouda's district and everything south of Dana Point, San Juan Capistrano and Madera Ranch is part of Levin's district. Before their victories, both districts were occupied by odious Republicans, Dana Rohrabacher and Darrell Issa. Levin is a moderate Democrat; Rouda, a former Republican, is a conservative Democrat. Levin's victory was quickly called-- 192,105 (53.4%) to 167,423 (46.6%). With 99% of the vote counted Rouda is losing to Republican Michelle Steel-- 196,208 (50.9%) to 189,235 (49.1%). Since being elected, Levin has been on the right side of crucial progressive roll calls 79.01% of the time. Rouda, on the other hand, is a New Dem and rates an "F" from ProgressivePunch; he's voted with progressives just 64.20% of the time. Progressives in his district know him as a DINO and he campaigned as a Republican-lite candidate.

Herndon pressed AOC on this tendency among conservative Democrats to shy away from issues that are important to Democratic voters: "Democrats lost seats in an election where they were expected to gain them. Is that what you are ascribing to racism and white supremacy at the polls?"

I think it’s going to be really important how the party deals with this internally, and whether the party is going to be honest about doing a real post-mortem and actually digging into why they lost. Because before we even had any data yet in a lot of these races, there was already finger-pointing that this was progressives’ fault and that this was the fault of the Movement for Black Lives.

I’ve already started looking into the actual functioning of these campaigns. And the thing is, I’ve been unseating Democrats for two years. I have been defeating D.C.C.C.-run campaigns for two years. That’s how I got to Congress. That’s how we elected Ayanna Pressley. That’s how Jamaal Bowman won. That’s how Cori Bush won. And so we know about extreme vulnerabilities in how Democrats run campaigns.

Some of this is criminal. It’s malpractice. Conor Lamb spent $2,000 on Facebook the week before the election. I don’t think anybody who is not on the internet in a real way in the Year of our Lord 2020 and loses an election can blame anyone else when you’re not even really on the internet.

And I’ve looked through a lot of these campaigns that lost, and the fact of the matter is if you’re not spending $200,000 on Facebook with fund-raising, persuasion, volunteer recruitment, get-out-the-vote the week before the election, you are not firing on all cylinders. And not a single one of these campaigns were firing on all cylinders.

...These folks are pointing toward Republican messaging that they feel killed them, right? But why were you so vulnerable to that attack?

If you’re not door-knocking, if you’re not on the internet, if your main points of reliance are TV and mail, then you’re not running a campaign on all cylinders. I just don’t see how anyone could be making ideological claims when they didn’t run a full-fledged campaign.

Our party isn’t even online, not in a real way that exhibits competence. And so, yeah, they were vulnerable to these messages, because they weren’t even on the mediums where these messages were most potent. Sure, you can point to the message, but they were also sitting ducks. They were sitting ducks.

There’s a reason Barack Obama built an entire national campaign apparatus outside of the Democratic National Committee. And there’s a reason that when he didn’t activate or continue that, we lost House majorities. Because the party-- in and of itself-- does not have the core competencies, and no amount of money is going to fix that.

If I lost my election, and I went out and I said: “This is moderates’ fault. This is because you didn’t let us have a floor vote on Medicare for all.” And they opened the hood on my campaign, and they found that I only spent $5,000 on TV ads the week before the election? They would laugh. And that’s what they look like right now trying to blame the Movement for Black Lives for their loss.

...If you are the D.C.C.C., and you’re hemorrhaging incumbent candidates to progressive insurgents, you would think that you may want to use some of those firms. But instead, we banned them. So the D.C.C.C. banned every single firm that is the best in the country at digital organizing.

The leadership and elements of the party-- frankly, people in some of the most important decision-making positions in the party [Note: Pelosi, Perez, Hoyer...]-- are becoming so blinded to this anti-activist sentiment that they are blinding themselves to the very assets that they offer.

I’ve been begging the party to let me help them for two years. That’s also the damn thing of it. I’ve been trying to help. Before the election, I offered to help every single swing district Democrat with their operation. And every single one of them, but five, refused my help. And all five of the vulnerable or swing district people that I helped secured victory or are on a path to secure victory. And every single one that rejected my help is losing. And now they’re blaming us for their loss.

So I need my colleagues to understand that we are not the enemy. And that their base is not the enemy. That the Movement for Black Lives is not the enemy, that Medicare for all is not the enemy. This isn’t even just about winning an argument. It’s that if they keep going after the wrong thing, I mean, they’re just setting up their own obsolescence.

Herndon then asked her what her expectations are as to how open the Biden administration will be to the left? And what is the strategy in terms of moving it?

She responded that she don’t know how open they’ll be but noted that the Democratic establishment gets all lovey-dovey with the grassroots leading up to an election "and then those communities are promptly abandoned right after an election. I think the transition period is going to indicate whether the administration is taking a more open and collaborative approach, or whether they’re taking a kind of icing-out approach. Because Obama’s transition set a trajectory for 2010 and some of our House losses. It was a lot of those transition decisions-- and who was put in positions of leadership [Note: Rahm Emanuel, who Biden is already talking about giving a role to, as well as others from the bottom of the Democratic Party battle: Cheri Bustos, Heidi Heitkamp, Michele Flournoy, Antony Blinken, Tom Perez, Meg Whitman, Terry McCauliffe, Pete Buttigieg]-- that really informed, unsurprisingly, the strategy of governance.

He followed up with the obvious question that all long-time Biden watchers are worried about: "What if the administration is hostile? If they take the John Kasich view of who Joe Biden should be? What do you do?

Well, I’d be bummed, because we’re going to lose. And that’s just what it is. These transition appointments, they send a signal. They tell a story of who the administration credits with this victory. And so it’s going be really hard after immigrant youth activists helped potentially deliver Arizona and Nevada. It’s going to be really hard after Detroit and Rashida Tlaib ran up the numbers in her district.

It’s really hard for us to turn out nonvoters when they feel like nothing changes for them. When they feel like people don’t see them, or even acknowledge their turnout.

If the party believes after 94 percent of Detroit went to Biden, after Black organizers just doubled and tripled turnout down in Georgia, after so many people organized Philadelphia, the signal from the Democratic Party is the John Kasichs won us this election? I mean, I can’t even describe how dangerous that is.

At the Strategic Culture Foundation blog on Friday, investigative historian Eric Zuesse wrote a somewhat more in depth look at the struggle between progressivism and traditional liberalism, pointing to a partially flawed recent piece by Philip Giraldi, . Zuesse pointed out that Giraldi "criticized-- and very correctly so-- the U.S. Democratic Party’s mischaracterization of America’s main problem as its (supposedly) being a conflict between ethnic groups (religious, cultural, racial, or otherwise), and Giraldi unfortunately merely assumed (falsely) that the Democratic Party’s doing this (alleging that inter-ethnic conflicts are America’s top problem) reflects the Party’s being 'progressive,' instead of its being 'liberal'; but, actually, there are big differences between those two ideologies, and that Party-- just like America’s other major Party, the Republican Party-- is controlled by its billionaires, and there simply aren’t any progressive billionaires; there are only liberal and conservative billionaires. America has a liberal Party, the Democratic Party, and a conservative Party, the Republican Party, and both of those Parties are controlled by their respective billionaire donors; and there are no progressive billionaires... Giraldi was actually attacking progressivism by confusing it with liberalism."

Though the Democratic (liberal) billionaires blacklisted Bernie-- and only Bernie, "had the most-passionate supporters, and vastly more donors, than did any other candidate in the contest; and, the polls throughout the Democratic primaries showed that he was virtually always either #2 or (occasionally) #1 in the preferences of all of the polled likely Democratic primary voters. But, Sanders got no billionaire’s money. He got as far as he did, only on his mass-base. He was running as the lone progressive in the field. And, unlike any of the others, he focused on the class-conflict issue, instead of on the ethnic-conflict issue-- he focused against the money-power, instead of against “racism” (which was his #2 issue). All of the other candidates placed the ethnic-conflict issue (in the form of anti-Black racism) as being America’s most important problem."

Sanders was the only candidate who blamed America’s billionaires (the people who control both of its Parties) for being the cause of America’s problems and the beneficiaries from those problems. He was the only progressive candidate in the entire contest. Sanders’s competitors were blaming the public (as if the majority of it were anti-Black bigots)-- not the aristocracy (not the super-rich-- the few people who actually control America). So: all of Sanders’s competitors had billionaires already funding them; and, still more billionaires were waiting in the wings to do so for whomever the Party’s nominee might turn out to be-- except if it would be Sanders (who would get nothing from any of them). (And, even if Sanders had won the Democratic nomination, what chance would he have had to win against Trump if even the Democratic Party’s billionaires were donating instead to the Trump campaign?)

Back in 2016, the two most-heavily-funded-by-billionaires candidates were Hillary Clinton (#1) and Donald Trump (#2). And they became the nominees. In today’s America, the billionaires always get their man (or their woman). It’s always a contest between a Republican-billionaires-backed nominee, versus a Democratic-billionaires-backed nominee.

What Giraldi blames on “progressivism” is instead actually “liberalism” (which accepts being ruled by its billionaires) but there are more ways than only this that Giraldi misunderstands the difference between these two ideologies.

...Giraldi writes as a conservative who uses the falsehoods that are intrinsic to liberalism as cudgels with which to attack progressivism. He doesn’t understand ideology-- especially progressivism. Clearly, it’s not within his purview; and, therefore, his intended attack against progressivism misses its mark, and doesn’t even squarely hit its intended target, which is actually liberalism.

Throughout history, the aristocracies have been of two types: outright conservatives, versus the “noblesse oblige” type of aristocrats, which are called “liberals.” The main actual difference between the two is that, whereas the self-proclaimed conservatives boldly endorse their own supremacism, liberals instead slur it over with nice and kindly-sounding verbiage. Whereas conservatives are unashamed of their having all rights and feeling no obligations to the public (even trying to minimize their taxes), liberals are ashamed of it, but continue their haughty attitudes nonetheless, and refuse to recognize that such extreme inequality of wealth is a curse upon the entire society. Progressives condemn both types of aristocrat: the outright conservatives, and the hypocritical conservatives (liberals). Progressives recognize that the more extreme the inequality of wealth is in a society, the less likely that society is to be an authentic democracy, and they are 100% proponents of democracy. Liberals talk about ‘equality’, but don’t much care about it, actually. That’s why aristocrats can support liberalism, but can’t support progressivism. Progressives recognize that the super-wealthy are the biggest enemies of democracy-- that they are intrinsically enemies of the public. Progressives aren’t bought-off even by ‘philanthropists.’

Scientific studies (such as this) have documented that the more wealth a person has, the more conservative that person generally becomes. Furthermore, the richer a person is, the more callous and lacking in compassion that person tends to be. Moreover, the richer and more educated a person is, the likelier that person is to believe that economic success results from a person’s having a higher amount of virtue (and thus failure marks a person’s lacking virtue). And, studies have also shown that the wealthiest 1% tend to be extreme conservatives, and tend to be intensely involved in politics. Consequently, to the exact contrary of Giraldi’s article, the higher levels of politics tend to be filled with excessive concerns about how to serve the desires of the rich, and grossly deficient concerns about even the advisability of serving the needs of the poor. Such attitudes naturally favor the aristocracy, at the expense of the public. Confusing liberalism with progressivism advances the conservative, pro-aristocracy, agenda, at the expense of truth, and at the expense of the public, and even at the expense of democracy itself.

Furthermore: throughout the millennia, aristocracies have been applying the divide-and-conquer principle to set segments of the public against each other so that blame by the public for society’s problems won’t be targeted against themselves (the aristocrats), who actually control and benefit from the corruption that extracts so much from the public and causes those problems. Thus: Black against White, gay against straight, female against male, Muslim against Christian, and immigrant against native, etc. This divide-and-conquer strategy is peddled by both conservative and liberal aristocrats, and has been for thousands of years. Giraldi’s focusing on that as being instead generated by progressives, is not only false-- it is profoundly false. It is a fundamental miscomprehension.

So, the popular confusion between progressivism and liberalism is beneficial to the aristocracy, but harmful to the public.

Anand Giridharadas, author of Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World, is not confused and his Friday OpEd for the NY Times, Biden Can’t Be FDR He Could Still Be LBJ. On one level that scares people who lived through the "Hey, hey, LBJ, How many boys have you killed today" era. Giridharadas wrote that "if this election is to have lasting meaning, we cannot see a Biden campaign victory as license to cast away politics as a presence in our daily lives. We cannot succumb to the liberal temptation parodied by the comedian Kylie Brakeman to 'vote for Biden so we can all get back to brunch.' However effective it might have been at closing this race, this restorationist fantasy would be a terrible governing philosophy. Because the pre-Trump world-- in which voting rights were being gutted and 40 percent of Americans couldn’t afford a $400 emergency bill -- is no kind of place to go back to. Mr. Biden himself seemed to concede this point by tempering his restoration message with the slogan 'Build Back Better.'"

Giridharadas spoke with Schumer the day before the election-- when he still was tying to decide on whether to have diamonds or rubies in his Majority Leader crown-- and he wrote that Schumer, like Biden, "is an institutionalist and a moderate." He asked him about this idea of restoration versus transformation. "Almost as soon as he heard me say the word 'normalcy,' he began, for lack of a better term, to filibuster: 'No, no, I don’t buy that. My view,' he told me, 'is if we don’t do bold change, we could end up with someone worse than Donald Trump in four years' What passed for change in the past two decades (including during the Obama years) had not, he acknowledged, been 'big enough or bold enough.' When I asked if Democrats bore some responsibility for that, he deflected: 'There’s plenty of blame to go around.'"

Even if, improbably, the Senate is on Mr. Biden’s side in 2021, he and his advisers will have to pull off a grueling balancing act: pushing federal policy to reflect popular will so that people’s lives can measurably improve, while making fundamental changes to the workings of American democracy and managing to heal rather than inflame the cultural resentments, racial hatred and party polarization that still imperil the Republic (and that the Republican Party thrives on).

...If Democrats win the two presumed Georgia runoffs, Senate Democrats will represent roughly 41 million more people than the Republican half of the chamber. If Mr. Biden is to meet this moment, he can’t let his cautious temperament and deep hankering for civic comity stop him from making the policy changes families need.

...For tens of millions, the economic traumas of the pandemic have come on top of decades of stagnation and precariousness. Since 1989, the wealth of the bottom 50 percent of Americans has fallen by $900 billion. Before Covid-19, 44 percent of American workers were being paid median annual wages of $18,000. And the evictions now surging are coming in the wake of a housing market that has long been unaffordable. Even if high unemployment were reversed, it would hardly repair our increasingly classist and Uber-ized labor market.

And if Democrats do win the Senate? Senator Schumer told me he envisions a first 100 days filled with a raft of measures on the virus and economic relief, mixed in with policies that address inequality, climate change, student debt, immigration and more. A Biden administration’s early days “ought to look like F.D.R.’s,” he said. “We need big, bold change. America demands it, and we’re going to fight for it.”

Much, however, could still get in the way. First, Mr. Biden’s own instinct toward caution-- which can easily end up enabling paralysis at a time when Democrats’ window for proving the promise of an active government could be closing. Any measure of success is likely to be determined by how seriously a Biden administration takes the inevitable calls for fiscal conservatism and austerity (despite historically low interest rates).

...And there are early warning signs: Ted Kaufman, who is leading the Biden transition team, recently told The Wall Street Journal that because of Trump-era deficit spending, “when we get in, the pantry is going to be bare.”

A Biden administration could also perceive itself as owing a political debt to the most influential and visible center-right elements of his sweeping, unwieldy alliance of supporters. Young leftists of color from cities in major swing states are arguably more responsible for his win than Republican defectors like former Senator Jeff Flake and the former Republican operatives turned media darlings of the Lincoln Project. But who will have more of a voice in Washington?

On various matters of policy, Mr. Biden could find himself in an awkward fox trot with wealthy donors in liberal power centers like Silicon Valley and Wall Street-- the kind of people who may love hanging “Black Lives Matter” signs in their yards more than they love Biden proposals like a Section 8 expansion that would allow more working-class Black families to live in their midst.

...The growing sense, among both the party’s technocrats and its populists, is that their midterm fate lies in whether voters give Democrats credit for improving their lives-- not on the processes used or norms violated to do so.

“A public health and economic crisis is not the time for incremental steps, small ideas or meekness,” Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, a leading Democrat in the House Progressive Caucus, told me. “Joe Biden can deliver on this from Day 1 with executive orders and administrative actions that cancel student debt, lower drug prices, strengthen workers’ rights and cut emissions.” The American Prospect recently published “277 Policies for Which Biden Need Not Ask Permission,” based on the results of the Biden-Sanders unity task force.

Mr. Biden has an opportunity to seize on policies that, thanks to the heterodoxy of Trumpism, now have surprising resonance in both parties-- but not for the traditional reasons of being milquetoast or appealing to corporatist moderates. A wealth tax polls surprisingly well among Republican voters. Using the Department of Justice to crack down on monopolies and threats from China has some bipartisan support. As does actual infrastructure investment and, to a limited extent, raising the minimum wage.

Mr. Biden also does not need Mr. McConnell’s permission to build a down-ballot pipeline. One of the failures of the Obama years was the attrition of the Democratic Party beneath the president: By 2017, its Senate seats had dwindled to 48 from 59, and it lost 62 House seats, 12 governorships and a whopping 948 seats in state legislatures.

Amanda Litman, the executive director of Run for Something, a progressive group that grooms candidates for office at all levels, proposes this corrective: “Bring back the 50-state strategy. Invest in all state parties to build grass-roots infrastructure,” she told me. “Set the direction and tone: No office is too small, no community too unimportant. Then raise money for all of it.”

To the extent that, for the next two years, divided government severely limits the sort of public action that progressives dreamed about in their 2020 primaries, Mr. Biden could use his office to create task forces that normalize and build a public consensus for more significant small-d democratic changes to American politics achievable only down the road.

...In the end, a basic choice may stalk Mr. Biden: What matters more, the radiation of personal decency or the pursuit of structural fairness?

There are some reasons to hope that he could be a bolder president than anticipated. He is that rare candidate who tacked toward the party base rather than the center in the general election. In certain areas, such as climate change and student debt, he has shown a willingness to have his initial policy view revised by others. He is less motivated by ideology than by the path of least resistance. Whether that path aligns with donors, the Beltway consensus or organized popular movements, he takes it.

The example of Lyndon Johnson-- a longtime senator and a vice president less charismatic than the president he served and succeeded who, nevertheless, became more consequential-- provides a possible historical analogue. Mr. Biden could turn out to be an improbably deft salesman for progressive priorities, using his disarming, folksy, median-voter-friendly patois, that “C’mon, man” Americana vibe, to make major changes seem like common sense.

“Joe Biden’s magic is that everything he does becomes the new reasonable,” Andrew Yang, once Mr. Biden’s rival for the Democratic nomination, told me. “He has shown the ability to move the mainstream of the Democratic Party on issues before. As president, whatever he does, he will bring the whole center with him.”

AOC: "These Are The Same People Saying That We Can’t Have Tuition-Free Public Colleges Because There’s No Money, When These Motherfuckers Are Only Paying $750 A Year In Taxes"

 

At some point after they were sworn in, AOC, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar-- the Squad-- thought about forming an official caucus within the Congressional Progressive Caucus-- that would be more aggressive in pushing a progressive agenda than the CPC has been. They never went through with it but the CPC has been taking steps in that direction lately-- and may be taking bigger steps very soon. When I look over the list of current congressional candidates likely to be sworn in 2 months, I could several who I can easily imagine "joining" the Squad: Cori Bush (MO), Jamaal Bowman (NY), Kare Eastman (NE), Mondaire Jones (NY), Liam O'Mara (CA), Julie Oliver (TX), Mike Siegel (TX), Nikema Williams (GA), Nate McMurray (NY)...

Yesterday everyone on Capitol Hill was reading the Vanity Fair cover story, AOC's Next Four Years by Michelle Ruiz. It started with the fuller story of how she was accosted by two right wing Trumpist congressmen, Ted Yoho (who is retiring) and Roger Williams, who (Julie Oliver is probably going to replace). "This part," wrote Ruiz, "hasn’t been reported: The next day Ocasio-Cortez approached Yoho and told him, 'You do that to me again, I won’t be so nice next time.' She felt his actions had violated a boundary, stepping 'into the zone of harassment, discrimination.' His mocking response, straight out of Veep: 'Oh, boo-hoo.' Publicly, Yoho doubled down, issuing a non-apology on the House floor, citing his wife and daughters as character witnesses."

Ocasio-Cortez flashed back to one of her first jobs out of school, when a male colleague whom she’d edged out for a promotion called her a bitch in front of the staff. She had been too stunned to reply, and no one came to her defense. She wouldn’t let it happen again.

Forty-eight hours later, Ocasio-Cortez delivered one of the most eloquent dunks in political history, a “thank u, next” for the C-SPAN set, taking on not just Yoho but the patriarchy itself. She took care to enter “fucking bitch” into the Congressional Record. “I want to thank him for showing the world that you can be a powerful man and accost women,” she told the House. “It happens every day in this country.” And the line that spawned headlines, T-shirts, hashtags, and memes: “I am someone’s daughter too.” Watch:

Ruiz continued that AOC's "Yoho rebuke inspired a fresh wave of awe for the youngest U.S. congresswoman in history and cemented her status as neopolitical icon-- not just good on Twitter (where she schooled her congressional colleagues in a tutorial) and Instagram Live (where she gave an impromptu address on the dark night of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death), but a skilled orator with the power to move even her most cynical congressional colleagues. 'They were like, I didn’t know you’re that eloquent,' Ocasio-Cortez says with a wry smile. 'I’m so pleased and surprised by your restraint.'"

She is a boogey man of GOP political ads. Dozens of Republicans have made it look like they are running against her rather than against thrown members of Congress. Meanwhile AOC has 9.4 million followers on Twitter. Other prominent congressional media stars:

• @SpeakerPelosi- 5.5 million
• @RepAdamSchiff- 2.5 million
• @RepJim_Jordan- 1.7 million
• @TedLieu- 1.4 million
• @Devin Nunes- @1.2 million
• @GOPLeader (Kevin McCarthy, a congressman from Bakersfield, CA)- 1 million

Much to the alarm of the Democratic establishment, "From her swearing-in in January 2019," wrote Ruiz, "Ocasio-Cortez became the de facto spokeswoman for the historically diverse 2018 midterm class, including a record 36 women and 24 people of color as freshmen in the House. Yoho’s outburst on the Capitol steps was a painful illustration of how some in the entrenched ruling class greeted their arrival-- a finger in the face of change. AOC’s status as overnight sensation unsettled some in Washington. 'I’ve never seen folks who were in the gallery get all excited about seeing a member of the Oversight Committee,' says Representative Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat and friend. 'Other members are jealous.'" It's rare to hear a member admit that. I hear it, off the record, from staffers all the time-- even to the point of members plotting to keep the media away from her.

She has demonstrated a special talent for triggering white-male fragility on both ends of the political spectrum. Three months after her 2018 primary, Andrew Cuomo dismissed her victory as a “fluke.” Ron DeSantis, a congressman at the time, called her “this girl…or whatever she is.” That demographic of politico are allowed to be wunderkinds—Joe Biden was 29 when he first won his Senate seat; Mayor Pete Buttigieg launched a presidential bid at 37, the same age as Tom Cotton when he ascended to the Senate. But “we are not used to seeing young women of color in positions of power,” says journalist Andrea González-Ramírez, an early chronicler of AOC’s rise.

Even back then, her public profile came with a threat of danger. A month into Ocasio-Cortez’s first term, a Coast Guard lieutenant and self-described white nationalist was arrested in Maryland with a stockpile of guns and a plot to kill Ocasio-Cortez, Senator Kamala Harris, Pelosi, and others. His internet search history included “where in dc to [sic] congress live.” He eventually pleaded guilty to federal drug and gun charges. Around the same time, Ocasio-Cortez came home to the D.C. apartment she shares with her partner, Riley Roberts, to find a man with a camera parked in a dark car outside. She ran to the back of a grocery store, fearing she might be attacked. The next day, a right-wing outlet published photos of her address, blurring it only after her office complained.

The death threats seem to spike in concert with Fox News rhetoric. “I used to wake up in the morning and literally get a stack of pictures that were forwarded by Capitol police or FBI. Like, ‘These are the people who want to kill you today,’ ” she says. The torrent of abuse spread to her mother, Blanca, and her younger brother, Gabriel.

“It’s the epitome of being shaken to your core,” Gabriel says. “Getting a phone call from the FBI saying, ‘Hey, don’t open your mail. They’re mailing out bombs.’ ” A designer of AOC’s Cesar Chavez–inspired campaign posters gets death threats; her former dean at Boston University, who introduced Ocasio-Cortez in a 2011 speech viewable on YouTube, regularly fields emails calling him the N-word for “training” her. When President Trump lobs one of his attacks at Ocasio-Cortez-- he has called her everything from a “poor student” to a “wack job”-- her offices are flooded with calls, voicemails, and emails echoing him.

... Ocasio-Cortez’s charisma and raw talent are often compared to Barack Obama’s. Not three years into her congressional career, speculation abounds about a future presidential run, with everyone from Howard Dean to Cardi B rooting for it. No sooner had Kamala Harris been chosen as Joe Biden’s running mate than chatter began bubbling about a 2024 primary between Harris and Ocasio-Cortez, who turned 31 in October and would only narrowly make the 35-year-old age requirement.

“I’ve told her, I fully expect that she’s going to run one day, and that she should,” former Housing and Urban Development secretary and 2020 candidate Julián Castro told me. “She absolutely has the talent, the dynamism, and the leadership ability.”

At Ocasio-Cortez’s census awareness event in the Bronx’s Pelham Bay Park, women approach the congresswoman to cry, gush, and hug. (Pandemic be damned, AOC, in a pale blue suit, matching mask, and beige Rothys, opens her arms and indulges every selfie request.) “I can’t wait until you’re our president someday,” says one. Another, Jessica Forbes, grabs a selfie with her and tells me, “She’s going to be our Bernie Sanders.”

In 2016, Ocasio-Cortez was a volunteer organizer for Sanders in the Bronx. Three years later, she became the most crucial backer of his 2020 presidential campaign, at a time when her support was also highly coveted by Elizabeth Warren.

“She endorsed me right after I had a heart attack, and there were some people who were writing our campaign off. I’ve always been very grateful to her for doing that,” says Sanders. “There are some politicians who are very good on policy, and there are some politicians who are good communicators, and there are some politicians that have a way about them that relates very well to ordinary people,” says Sanders. “Alexandria has all three of those characteristics.”

Despite the base level of ego required to run for any office, Ocasio-Cortez seems uncomfortable with the mania about her future. “I think it’s part of our cultural understanding of politics, where-- if you think someone is great, you automatically think they should be president,” she says. “I joke. I’m like, ‘Is Congress not good enough?’”

Her aspirations are a matter of endless speculation: New York Senate, House leadership, a Cabinet post? “I don’t know if I’m really going to be staying in the House forever, or if I do stay in the House, what that would look like,” she says. “I don’t see myself really staying where I’m at for the rest of my life.” This is one of the few times AOC seems guarded and cautious about her words. “I don’t want to aspire to a quote-unquote higher position just for the sake of that title or just for the sake of having a different or higher position. I truly make an assessment to see if I can be more effective. And so, you know, I don’t know if I could necessarily be more effective in an administration, but, for me that’s always what the question comes down to.” She does not believe in political messiahs, nor does she see herself as a “hierarchical, power-based person.” At the beginning of her first term, her staff still called her Alex. It was only when journalists on the Hill started to follow suit that her team collectively decided to address her as Congresswoman. She blends into the crowd at Pelham Bay Park, even though she’s the only one in a suit. When a nearby gender-reveal party pops a blue confetti cannon, she throws her hands in the air and cheers. When I ask Pressley what the popular narratives miss, she cites humility. “She certainly did not set out to be an icon or even a historymaker. I think it was her destiny, but there is no calculation.”

As Ocasio-Cortez puts it, “I don’t want to be a savior, I want to be a mirror.”

...It should not be groundbreaking for a political candidate’s life to closely resemble that of her constituents, but AOC’s rise has proved the power of proximity. When a majority of Congress members are millionaires, having lived on the edge of poverty, Ocasio-Cortez says, “makes me better at my job than 90 percent of Republicans, because I’ve actually worked for a living.” While still waitressing at the outset of her 2018 run, she changed her shoes on the subway platform and pushed a granny cart full of fliers and posters around the Bronx. She Swiffered the steps of her own campaign office and lugged in an air mattress as a makeshift couch. She stumped in a pair of sneakers by the brand & Other Stories until they were toast. (They were later displayed in a museum at Cornell University.)

Neither the financial collapse nor the fundamentally broken health care system were abstracts for Ocasio-Cortez, a vocal supporter of Medicare for All and a persistent critic of the Affordable Care Act. “The main reason why I feel comfortable saying that the ACA has failed is because it failed me and it failed everyone that I worked with in a restaurant,” she says. She would take wads of cash tips to doctor appointments. “You try buying insurance off of Obamacare,” she tells me, a line meant for her out-of-touch colleagues. (As a bartender, she did buy a plan, paying $200 per month, she says, for the “privilege” of an $8,000 deductible.) For a while after she was sworn in, even with a snazzy congressional insurance plan, Ocasio-Cortez says, she still rolled to the pharmacy and paid cash for her prescriptions out of habit. The first time she saw a doctor or dentist in years was when she became a congresswoman.

...Critics have seized on her working-class roots, taunting her for having been a bartender while pointing at her wardrobe and D.C. rental as an attempt to expose her as bougie fabulist.

...With a congressional salary now-- $174,000, stretched over two of the most expensive cities in America-- dressing for the job remains fraught. “It’s legitimately hard being a first-generation woman…and being working class, trying to navigate a professional environment,” Ocasio-Cortez tells me at our Bronx breakfast, where she wears a rust-colored suede moto jacket and a Black Panthers T-shirt. She asks for more hot sauce and never once checks her phone. “It continues to take me so long to try to figure out how to look put-together without having a huge designer closet.” Unlike the Kennedys and Bushes, she was not groomed for politics or even corporate America. No one ever conveyed to her the nuances of business casual or business formal. Which is why, unlike so many female politicians past, she’s willing to talk about her appearance with her 7.2 million Instagram followers.

AOC is the perhaps the only member of Congress who moonlights as a beauty influencer: Sharing her go-to red gloss-- Stila’s Stay All Day Liquid in Beso-- translated to a sales spike. “Every time I go on TV, people ask for my lipstick,” she says. On TikTok, the Yoho speech has become a popular lip sync for makeup tutorials-- one young girl applies winged eyeliner while mouthing, “He called me dangerous.” But like Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s prickly dissent collar, Ocasio-Cortez’s appearance is a study in meaning. The gold hoops and red lips she wore to her first swearing-in were a cosmetic Bat signal to Latina culture and a nod to fellow Bronx native Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was told not to rock bright nails at her confirmation hearings.

The Squad has claimed crimson lips as a show of strength. As the congresswomen furiously scrawled talking points before the press conference responding to Trump’s “go back” attack, Pressley called out, “Who needs lipstick?” and passed around a tube. “Now,” says Pressley, “any time we think a day is going to be especially trying, where one of us walks into a committee hearing wearing a bold red lip, we say, ‘Oh, it’s about to go down.’”

Ocasio-Cortez notably delivered the Yoho speech in her trademark Beso red. Afterward, Pressley said to her, “ ‘You know how I know you showed up to do business? Because you matched your lip with your suit,’ ” Ocasio-Cortez recalls. “[Ayanna] was like, ‘That’s when I knew she didn’t come to play.’ ” Ocasio-Cortez acknowledges that she had, in fact, come to the floor in bold colors to give herself a little extra confidence. “I had a little war paint on that day, for sure.”

...My interviews with Ocasio-Cortez come at a precarious moment in history-- before Election Day 2020, during a series of news cycles that are stunning even by Trumpian standards. When we first sat down in her Bronx office, the New York Times had just published its bombshell investigation of Trump’s taxes. Talking about it winds up Ocasio-Cortez, her tie-dyed mask pulled down to eat a sandwich. “These are the same people saying that we can’t have tuition-free public colleges because there’s no money,” she says, “when these motherfuckers are only paying $750 a year in taxes.” Within a week Trump was in the hospital with COVID-19 and Mitch McConnell was plowing ahead with Amy Coney Barrett’s hearings. “Trump is the racist visionary,” AOC says, “but McConnell gets the job done. He doesn’t do anything without Trump’s blessing. Trump says, ‘Jump.’ McConnell says, ‘How high?’ Trump never does what McConnell says.”

“This is not about a decision between two candidates,” Ocasio-Cortez says solemnly. “It’s about a decision between two countries.” A Biden win gives her district, which is dominantly made up of Latinx, Asian, and Black people and had been the epicenter of the epicenter of the pandemic, a fighting chance. If it’s Trump, “I cannot honestly look them in the eye and tell them that they will be safe.” To that end, AOC spends the final days of October drumming up blue votes by playing “Among Us” with supporters online while more than 400,000 people watch via the livestream platform Twitch, demonstrating yet again that she is the party’s singular communicator.

But the ending of this story is the same, no matter which man wins. America is “still in a lot of trouble,” warns AOC. There is a temptation to view Trump as an aberration, she says, rather than a wake-up call to failures of American government at large.

Under a President Biden, “if his life doesn’t feel different,” she points to a cab driver whizzing by our table, “if their life doesn’t feel different,” she gestures to people walking by the beauty shop and Bengali Halal Grocery, “if these people’s lives don’t actually feel different”-- now she is giving a stump speech over her omelet-- “we’re done. You know how many Trumps there are in waiting?”

She is tired of incremental change, of “bullshit little 10 percent tax cuts,” she says. “I think, honestly, a lot of my dissent within the Democratic party comes from my lived experience. It’s not just that we can be better, it’s that we have to be better. We’re not good enough right now.”

A new crop of AOCs is popping up across the country-- young, progressive, working-class candidates of color who sought seats of power by her example. “I wouldn’t have run for office if it weren’t for AOC and the Squad,” says Jamaal Bowman, a former New York City principal.

Of the many knocks on Ocasio-Cortez, one of the most prevailing is that she drives the political conversation but lacks a substantive coalition in Congress. “They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got,” Pelosi once quipped of the Squad. But the potential addition of Bowman, fellow New Yorker Mondaire Jones, Cori Bush from Missouri, and Marie Newman of Illinois to the House would mean “the Squad just doubled up,” Bowman says. Ocasio-Cortez gets animated as she imagines the rest of this “Squad-plus”: Nebraska’s Kara Eastman and current Illinois representative Chuy García, with Sanders, Warren, and Ed Markey (“Tío Markey”) as Senate allies.

“You keep telling me I’m just four votes,” AOC says, “so I’mma go get more.”

As I've been explaining all year, by Pocan selling CPC memberships to conservative Dems looking for primary-insurance, the caucus badly needs fixing. Now that Pocan has delusions of running for the Senate, Pramila is working to make the caucus less dysfunctional and more of a real player. That might be the best way for AOC to be able to push back against the Blue Dogs' and New Dems' innate conservatism and fear of moving away from the status quo.

Trump Is The Worst President In History-- And The GOP Deserves To Die With Him... But That Doesn't Automatically Make The Democratic Party Worth Anything

 

This morning, the NY Times editorial board asserted that Trump destroyed the Republican Party. They're wrong. The craven, spineless politicians who represent the party destroyed it. Then they claim "'Destroyed' is perhaps too simplistic, [and] Trump accelerated his party’s demise, exposing the rot that has been eating at its core for decades and leaving it a hollowed-out shell devoid of ideas, values or integrity, committed solely to preserving its own power even at the expense of democratic norms, institutions and ideals." OK, now they're talking. Pity they didn't throw the Democratic Party under the same bus; it would be just as accurate.

The Times bemoans the passing-- it really hasn't passed and it won't-- of the GOP because we won't have a "strong center right [party that] can co-opt more palatable aspects of the far right, isolating and draining energy from the more radical elements that threaten to destabilize the system." And yet that is precisely what the Democratic Party has turned into-- a center right party co-opting aspects of the far right (i.e., the GOP). These editors define the Republican Party that we see today as having an "ideology [that] has been reduced to a slurry of paranoia, white grievance and authoritarian populism. Its governing vision is reactionary, a cross between obstructionism and owning the libs. Its policy agenda, as defined by the party platform, is whatever President Trump wants."

With his dark gospel, the president has enthralled the Republican base, rendering other party leaders too afraid to stand up to him. But to stand with Mr. Trump requires a constant betrayal of one’s own integrity and values. This goes beyond the usual policy flip-flops-- what happened to fiscal hawks anyway?-- and political hypocrisy, though there have been plenty of both. Witness the scramble to fill a Supreme Court seat just weeks before Election Day by many of the same Senate Republicans who denied President Barack Obama his high court pick in 2016, claiming it would be wrong to fill a vacancy eight months out from that election.

Mr. Trump demands that his interests be placed above those of the nation. His presidency has been an extended exercise in defining deviancy down-- and dragging the rest of his party down with him.

Having long preached “character” and “family values,” Republicans have given a pass to Mr. Trump’s personal degeneracy. The affairs, the hush money, the multiple accusations of assault and harassment, the gross boasts of grabbing unsuspecting women-- none of it matters. White evangelicals remain especially faithful adherents, in large part because Mr. Trump has appointed around 200 judges to the federal bench.

For all their talk about revering the Constitution, Republicans have stood by, slack-jawed, in the face of the president’s assault on checks and balances. Mr. Trump has spurned the concept of congressional oversight of his office. After losing a budget fight and shutting down the government in 2018-19, he declared a phony national emergency at the southern border so he could siphon money from the Pentagon for his border wall. He put a hold on nearly $400 million in Senate-approved aid to Ukraine-- a move that played a central role in his impeachment.

So much for Republicans’ Obama-era nattering about “executive overreach.”

Despite fetishizing “law and order,” Republicans have shrugged as Mr. Trump has maligned and politicized federal law enforcement, occasionally lending a hand. Impeachment offered the most searing example. Parroting the White House line that the entire process was illegitimate, the president’s enablers made clear they had his back no matter what. As Pete Wehner, who served as a speechwriter to the three previous Republican presidents, observed in The Atlantic: “Republicans, from beginning to end, sought not to ensure that justice be done or truth be revealed. Instead, they sought to ensure that Trump not be removed from office under any circumstances, defending him at all costs.”

The debasement goes beyond passive indulgence. Congressional bootlickers, channeling Mr. Trump’s rantings about the Deep State, have used their power to target those who dared to investigate him. Committee chairmen like Representative Devin Nunes and Senator Ron Johnson have conducted hearings aimed at smearing Mr. Trump’s political opponents and delegitimizing the special counsel’s Russia inquiry.

As head of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Mr. Johnson pushed a corruption investigation of Mr. Biden’s son Hunter that he bragged would expose the former vice president’s “unfitness for office.” Instead, he wasted taxpayer money producing an 87-page rehash of unsubstantiated claims reeking of a Russian disinformation campaign. Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, another Republican on the committee, criticized the inquiry as “a political exercise,” noting, “It’s not the legitimate role of government or Congress, or for taxpayer expense to be used in an effort to damage political opponents.”

Undeterred, last Sunday Mr. Johnson popped up on Fox News, engaging with the host over baseless rumors that the F.B.I. was investigating child pornography on a computer that allegedly had belonged to Hunter Biden. These vile claims are being peddled online by right-wing conspiracymongers, including QAnon.

Not that congressional toadies are the only offenders. A parade of administration officials-- some of whom were well respected before their Trumpian tour-- have stood by, or pitched in, as the president has denigrated the F.B.I., federal prosecutors, intelligence agencies and the courts. They have failed to prioritize election security because the topic makes Mr. Trump insecure about his win in 2016. They have pushed the limits of the law and human decency to advance Mr. Trump’s draconian immigration agenda.

Most horrifically, Republican leaders have stood by as the president has lied to the public about a pandemic that has already killed more than 220,000 Americans. They have watched him politicize masks, testing, the distribution of emergency equipment and pretty much everything else. Some echo his incendiary talk, fueling violence in their own communities. In the campaign’s closing weeks, as case numbers and hospitalizations climb and health officials warn of a rough winter, Mr. Trump is stepping up the attacks on his scientific advisers, deriding them as “idiots” and declaring Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s top expert in infectious diseases, a “disaster.” Only a smattering of Republican officials has managed even a tepid defense of Dr. Fauci. Whether out of fear, fealty or willful ignorance, these so-called leaders are complicit in this national tragedy.

As Republican lawmakers grow increasingly panicked that Mr. Trump will lose re-election-- possibly damaging their fortunes as well-- some are scrambling to salvage their reputations by pretending they haven’t spent the past four years letting him run amok. In an Oct. 14 call with constituents, Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska gave a blistering assessment of the president’s failures and “deficient” values, from his misogyny to his calamitous handling of the pandemic to “the way he kisses dictators’ butts.” Mr. Sasse was less clear about why, the occasional targeted criticismnotwithstanding, he has enabled these deficiencies for so long.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas, locked in his own tight re-election race, recently told the local media that he, too, has disagreed with Mr. Trump on numerous issues, including deficit spending, trade policy and his raiding of the defense budget. Mr. Cornyn said he opted to keep his opposition private rather than get into a public tiff with Mr. Trump “because, as I’ve observed, those usually don’t end too well.”

Profiles in courage these are not.

Mr. Trump’s corrosive influence on his party would fill a book. It has, in fact, filled several, as well as a slew of articles, social media posts and op-eds, written by conservatives both heartbroken and incensed over what has become of their party.

But many of these disillusioned Republicans also acknowledge that their team has been descending into white grievance, revanchism and know-nothing populism for decades. Mr. Trump just greased the slide. “He is the logical conclusion of what the Republican Party has become in the last 50 or so years,” the longtime party strategist Stuart Stevens asserts in his new book, It Was All a Lie.

The scars of Mr. Trump’s presidency will linger long after he leaves office. Some Republicans believe that, if those scars run only four years deep, rather than eight, their party can be nursed back to health. Others question whether there is anything left worth saving. Mr. Stevens’s prescription: “Burn it to the ground, and start over.”

Sick of this? But don't buy into the concept of backing the lesser of two evils in politics? The Democratic Party sucks-- not as bad as the GOP-- but too much to support? Well, until the morning, Blue America hadn't opened our anti-DCCC page, which helps support progressive candidates that the DCCC is starving for resources while they support their Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- the Democraps. Access it by clicking on the Cheri Bustos thermometer on the right. Every two years the crooks among the Democratic Party establishment elites persuade you toehold your nose and vote for their shit candidates because they're better than the Republicans even shittier candidates. How you going to ever break out of that cycle? If you're in a New York district offering you Anthony Brindisi, Max Rose or Sean Patrick Maloney, support candidates from other districts in your state-- say Jamaal Bowman, Dana Balter, AOC for example. The DCCC wants you to back Jackie Gordon on Long Island but she's been endorsed by both the Blue Dogs and the New Dems and that tells you exactly what kind of a member of Congress she's going to make. He may live an hour away but, put your energy behind Mondaire Jones instead. But you live in Oklahoma and there are no good Democrats-- just reactionary quasi-Republican Blue Dog Kendra Horn? Texas isn't that far away-- and you can do the country-- the Democratic Party-- a lot of good by backing progressive stalwarts like Julie Oliver and Mike Siegel. Trade in Kendra Horn for Julie and Mike-- deal of the cycle!

Trump, Mentally Impaired From COVID-19 Treatments, Orders McConnell And McCarthy To Stop Negotiating With Democrats About A Pandemic Relief Bill

 

Active Shooter by Nancy Ohanian

Yesterday, Democrats on Congress' Joint Economic Committee put out a statement reminding people that "In the early months of the coronavirus crisis, prominent former officials from both Democratic and Republican administrations released a public letter stating that 'saving lives and saving the economy are not in conflict right now; we will hasten the return to robust economic activity by taking steps to stem the spread of the virus and save lives.' A new JEC issue brief explains how America has failed and why full economic recovery remains far off."

Let's face it-- and more and more Americans now "get it," Trump "has done more to spread the coronavirus than to stem it-- telling Americans it isn’t dangerous, refusing to lead efforts to contain it, defying public health experts, discouraging the use of masks, pressuring governors to prematurely lift social distancing guidelines, holding super-spreading political rallies, attempting to restrict testing, and recently telling the public not to fear the virus. Now more than 210,000 Americans are dead and it is projected that the number will reach 400,000 in early January."

The weak economy is a direct result of this failure to contain the coronavirus. There are almost 11 million fewer jobs than there were in February, over 26.5 million workers are receiving unemployment benefits and temporary layoffs are becoming permanent as businesses close for good. Economists predict that the failure to fight the coronavirus will have a serious economic impact well into the future. As Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said recently, “until the public is confident that the disease is contained, a full recovery is unlikely.”

An unheeded message to Congressional Republicans

Yesterday, in a speech to the National Association for Business Economics, Powell urged Congress to move rapidly to inject more stimulus into the economy. "Even if policy actions ultimately prove to be greater than needed, they will not go to waste. The recovery will be stronger and move faster if monetary policy and fiscal policy continue to work side by side to provide support to the economy until it is clearly out of the woods." NPR reported that "He also warned the group that without additional support, the economy could slip into a downward spiral 'as weakness feeds on weakness. A long period of unnecessarily slow progress could continue to exacerbate existing disparities in our economy,' Powell said. 'That would be tragic, especially in light of our country's progress on these issues in the years leading up to the pandemic.'"

Over the weekend, Trump seemed eager for additional relief, tweeting, "OUR GREAT USA WANTS & NEEDS STIMULUS."

But by Tuesday afternoon, the president had changed course, rejecting Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's call for an additional $2.4 trillion in aid.

"I have instructed my representatives to stop negotiating until after the election when, immediately after I win, we will pass a major Stimulus Bill that focuses on hardworking Americans and Small Business," Trump tweeted.

The president's move sent the stock market tumbling. The Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 index, which had been up before Trump's tweet, both closed in the red, with the Dow losing 375 points or 1.3% and the S&P down 1.4%.

Powell credited the "extraordinary" relief measures passed early in the pandemic with helping to avoid a deeper recession and setting the stage for a partial rebound.

But recent indicators have shown the economic recovery is starting to slow as infections continue to spread. The labor market also remains under stress: Almost half the 22 million jobs lost in the spring have not been replaced.

Powell said Tuesday it may be some time before people whose jobs require a lot of in-person contact can safely return to work.

"While the combined effects of fiscal and monetary policy have aided the solid recovery of the labor market so far, there is still a long way to go," the Fed chairman said.

"The right thing to do and the smart thing to do is to continue to support those people as they return to their old jobs or find new jobs in different sectors of the economy," Powell added.

..."The longer it goes on, the more likely there is some lasting damage," Powell said. "For many people, and it's a lot of women, it's winding up being in the home with young children who really should be in school and you would much prefer to be working. So it's a real issue."

Several of the progressive congressional candidates were actually shocked that Republicans are letting this happen. Michigan state Rep. Jon Hoadley is taking on multimillionaire Trump-enabler Fred Upton. He told me this morning that "Upton and his Republican Party have failed to deliver, again, for people across America. At a time when southwest Michigan families need just a little help, Mr. Upton's 34 years in DC can't produce results. Problem not solved."

In a message to her supporters yesterday, Marie Newman wrote that she has "come to expect carelessness and cruelty from the Trump Administration, but this level of disregard for Americans’ pain is truly astounding. Millions are out of work and many more will lose their jobs, and even lose their lives, without the economic relief our country desperately needs and deserves. I’ve spent the past five months meeting with community members, small business owners, and first responders across Illinois’ Third District. They desperately need relief. Now. Working families need additional federal support as they struggle to find work and keep food on the table, small businesses need continued relief to stay afloat and pay their employees, and states and municipalities need immediate assistance to continue providing essential public services. Trump and his allies in Congress see these negotiations as a political game, but in reality, American lives are on the line. I’ve had enough with politicians who ignore the needs of their constituents. Vote them out."





"The decision to postpone a pandemic relief package until after the election is a disaster for thousands of West Virginia families struggling in this economic depression," WV-02 congressional candidate Cathy Kunkel told us this morning. "Congressman Mooney has never been an advocate for relief for working families, voting against the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and expressing more concern about the federal deficit (except when it comes to military spending) than his constituents who have lost jobs or whose small businesses are struggling to survive. The reality is that our economy will not recover as long as this virus continues to impact our daily lives, and working people need monthly economic relief checks to avoid evictions, foreclosures, and utility shutoffs."

Kiss Of Death Endorsements: Trump And Pelosi

I know I don't have to interpret that Twitter poll for you, although if you don't know who Shahid Buttar is, he's the progressive Democrat who, along with Nancy Pelosi, came out of the March jungle primary and will face her one-on-one in November. (You can contribute to Shahid's campaign here, as you can see, the only candidate endorsed by this blog.)

After Pelosi exhibited startling, even breath-taking hypocrisy by endorsing Joe Kennedy III who is challenging incumbent Democratic Senator Ed Markey for his Massachusetts seat, just 6.8% of respondents said her endorsement will influence them to favor Kennedy or favor him more. On the other hand... well you can see.

Most Republican senators aren't asking for Trump's endorsement. Like Pelosi's, an endorsement by Trump is just toxic-- especially among independents. Sure, in states or districts that are so heavily Republican, an endorsement from Trump or Pence or Mitch McConnell would be a net plus... and in deep red House districts it makes sense to ask for an endorsement. Senate seats are different. Trump is still popular in Wyoming, Idaho, Oklahoma and the Dakotas but don't expect to see Trump endorsements being ballyhooed by incumbent senators where independent voters determine winners. I don't know what John Cornyn (R-TX) is going to do but I would bet that Susan Collins (ME), Cory Gardner (CO), Thom Tillis (NC), and Joni Ernst (IA) aren't going to be advertising-- at least not to a general audience on TV or radio-- that Trump is backing them.

On the other hand, in Alaska, where nearly half the voters are independents, there is a lot of ballyhooing of Trump's endorsement of Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan-- all of it from Independent Al Gross who is running on the Democratic Party line. I spoke with Gross' campaign manager yesterday and he was almost gleeful to have seen Trump endorse Sullivan. "I hope President Trump comes up here to campaign for Dan," he said. "A majority of the state doesn't approve of him, and with his help, we can make that 60%!" He sent me this:

Yesterday, Collins announced that part-time Maine resident George W. Bush-- remember, relative to Trump and for many people, the stink has worn off now-- has endorsed her-- his first endorsement of 2020. "The nod from the former president, whose politics appear centrist by Trump-era standards, may nudge some traditional Republicans into Collins’ corner," wrote David Sharp for the Associated Press. "Trump has not endorsed the Maine senator, whose race is among a handful critical to Republicans’ hopes of keeping control of the Senate, where they have a 53-47 advantage. Collins, meanwhile, has not said whether she intends to vote for Trump." Fellow New England Republican, Governor Phil Scott (R-VT) made an announcement yesterday that leaves no doubt he doesn't want and would not accept Trump's endorsement: "I won't be voting for President Trump... I have not decided, at this point, whether to cast a vote for former Vice President Biden... something I would consider."

After Pelosi's endorsement of Joe Kennedy III infuriated progressives-- not as much because of the pick as because of Pelosi's disgusting hyocrisy-- AOC sent her followers a fundraising letter from her own campaign but for for Markey, a staffer explaining the double standard:

Last year, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee instituted a new blacklist-- targeting staffers and companies who worked for primary challengers. Unsurprisingly, that overwhelmingly targeted people who worked with progressives.

Now, it’s clear: That blacklist was never just meant to "protect incumbents." It was meant to block progressive leaders from being elected, like Ayanna Pressley, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, or even Alexandria in 2018.

...Markey is not taking the safe route. He’s causing good trouble in Washington, fighting for international peace, a Green New Deal, and dismantling ICE. These are hard fights to win. Many look at them and back down. But not Ed Markey.

Markey is listening to the next generation of leaders-- the young folks on the ground working day in and day out to change the world-- and does everything in his power to amplify their voices on Capitol Hill. If Washington had more leaders like Ed Markey, we’d be a lot better off.

Scary that Pelosi is no longer self-aware enough to understand that her endorsement really is a kiss of death in most places in the country-- even in as blue a state as Massachusetts. Isn't she supposed to be retiring now and passing along her seat to her daughter? You know, the dynasty thing-- like the Kennedys.

How Establishment/Corporate Politics Are Played Today

Career of Evil

Bill Clinton was only allotted 5 minutes to speak last night-- and not in prime time. The NY Times called it a "blink-and-you’ll-miss-him moment before a party that once revered him" and noted that that "is testimony to how his influence has faded... [and] of the baggage he carries with the re-examination of allegations of sexual assault and harassment over his years in public life in the wake of the #MeToo movement."

Even in John Harris' Politico opus yesterday-- The Bill Clinton Comeback is Coming Soon-- he immediately made sure his readers understood that Clinton's Republican-lite "centrism" isn't what he's talking about, and that it's just his way of making an argument that deserves a revival." Whew. Clinton's "brand of centrism," wrote Harris, "is seen as too compromising, and his private life and disreputable personal associations too compromised." Harris, a New Dem type centrist like Clinton, tries excusing his fear-based-- he was kicked out as Arkansas governor for being a liberal-- conservativism to make the case that he deserves a revival. He doesn't.

This morning I found a 44 page document, a complaint in the New York State Supreme Court pitting Rimylan Enterprises, LLC, Project Applecart, LLC, Tormima, LLC and Minino Productions against Clinton administration scumbags Mark Penn and Nancy Jacobson, two of the worst characters-- a husband and wife team-- in American politics. I spent a lot of time and energy in 2018 and 2019 explaining how their malignant operations against progressives were especially detrimental to Marie Newman in Illinois, Dena and Alan Grayson in Florida and Matt Heinz in Arizona. The lawsuit is against their crooked front operations: "No Labels, Inc. , Forward Not Back, Inc, United For Progress, Inc. United Together, Inc., Citizens For A Strong America, Inc., Govern or Go Home, Inc., Americans Committed For Progress, Inc., Citizens for America, Inc., Progress Together, Inc., Patriotic Americans PAC, Inc., No Labels Action, Inc., and Progress Tomorrow, Inc., as well as Nancy Jacobson personally. The suit claims Rimylan is owed $3,708,214.26 by Jacobson and her nefarious entities. Rimylan wants the $3.7 they're owed plus about a million in damages plus another $3.7 million from Jacobson personally "for fraudulent inducement on the ground that she omitted to tell Rimylan that No Labels did not intend to be bound" by the contract.

Applecart is the trade name for Rimylan, Tormima, and Minino and it is a technology company that provides political data and analytic services. You know what Brad Pascale did for Trump-- the tsunamis of micro-targeted ads? That's what Matthew Kalmans and Sacha Samotin, co-founders of Applecart, do for candidates. Last year Applecart hired a new president, Democratic operative Joe Shafer, who was the head of the Democratic Governors Association’s (DGA) independent expenditure arm, and has begun an association with Rahm Emanuel's brother Ari. The Kalmans and Samotin big idea-- the "Social Graph"-- "uses a combination of human and artificial intelligence to mine publicly available data to identify online and offline social relationships between Americans. In the time since, Applecart has since mapped over 17 billion relationships between more than 250 million Americans and has been deployed as the analytics engine behind the highest stakes advertising campaigns of major politicians, corporations, and advocacy groups." One of their most successful campaigns was Conor Lamb's first congressional run.

Applecart, which had been working for John Kasich was introduced to Jacobson by former Utah Governor and former Applecart client John Huntsman, who was also one of No Label's "Honorary Co-Chairmen."

The suit says that "In October 2015, Kalmans and Samotin proposed to Jacobson that No Labels hire Applecart to demonstrate the impact of their strategy for supporting moderate [meaning conservative] candidates in congressional primaries in two such races, one Republican and one Democrat. In May 2016 Jacobson agreed to this proposal and selected two of several races proposed by Applecart. One, to support moderate Roger Marshall against three-term incumbent Freedom Caucus leader Tim Huelskamp in the Republican primary election in the First Congressional District of Kansas. The other, to support moderate Darren Soto to succeed far-left incumbent Alan Grayson in the Democratic primary in the Ninth Congressional District in Florida. No Labels formed two super PACs to support the elections of Marshall and Soto: Strong Leadership for America ('SLA') and Concerned Citizens for America’s Future ('CCAF'). No Labels established the super PACs because it, as a 501(c)(4) organization, is subject to limits on how much of its budget can be spent on political activities. No Labels also established the super PACs so that their work on behalf of Marshall and Soto would not be tied to No Labels, a bipartisan organization, because such an association was thought likely to be unhelpful in a partisan primary election. No Labels established separate super PACs for Marshall and Soto so that the work of one, on behalf of a Republican, would not be tied to the work of the other, on behalf of a Democrat."

The 44 pages are fascinating-- at least to me-- but what I really want to talk about how how a significant portion how U.S. politics has now come down to laundering money from vain billionaires-- Penn and Jacobson's specialty-- and laundering it into campaigns against progressives through an aggressive campaign of libel and slander while pocketing as much as the vain billionaires are unaware of. In this particular case, the vain billionaire/patsy was Nelson Peltz (chairman of Wendy's), who gives humongous amounts of money to conservative operations-- both the GOP's and Penn's and Jacobson's.

So basically it comes down to a small gaggle of manipulative vultures like Jacobson and Penn enriching themselves by sucking up to virulently anti-progressive billionaires like Peltz so that they can destroy the champions of the working class-- only and always-- in order to do well for themselves while... well, how else to say it: doing evil. This is the dark corruption that pervades American politics.

In 2018 Jacobson failed in her efforts to defeat now-Congresswoman Deb Haaland (D-NM) and this year all those millions she spent against Marie Newman went up in smoke as Newman beat reactionary Blue Dog Dan Lipinski. And, like I said... Bill Clinton was not allowed to address the Democratic convention in prime time.

A member of Congress who I asked about No Labels unethical and probably criminal activities turned me on to some Ryan Grim and Rachel Cohen work looking into No Labels funny business back in December, pointing out the built in conflicts of interest that should have long ago landed Penn, Jacobson and their board members in prison. For example, in late March of 2018, the reporters found an email in which "a representative for a No Labels donor expressed concern over the organization having 'perceived or potential' conflicts of interest. They urged Jacobson to disclose potential conflicts to the No Labels governing board. 'We believe that all Governing Board members need to be aware of the situation in order to prevent any misunderstanding and confusion going forward,' they wrote."

And all we need to do is elect reformers to change this-- not defenders of the status quo like Biden, who makes excuses for lobbyists and crooked operatives, every member of his family being one. Instead we wind up with a classic lesser of two evils "choice" between an outright fascist who is an undeniable existential threat to democracy and the integrity of our nation or a feeble, status quo nothing. Last night, AOC reminded us what could have been (if not for Obama's orchestration of the neoliberal forces against it):