The Democratic Establishment Freak-Out

That depends on what you mean by "Democrats"

That there is a Stop Bernie movement among the Democratic Party leaders instead of a Stop Republican Oligarch Michael Bloomberg Movement tells you all you will ever need to know about the Democratic Establishment. As a cohort, they are less than worthless. Joe Biden was their anointed Jeb Bush for the 2020 election cycle. And now they are reduced to whining that Tom Steyer's money in South Carolina is obliterating a firewall among elderly rural African-American voters and putting the final nail into Biden's political coffin. Maybe they should have realized that, politically speaking, Biden has been a zombie/corpse for decades.

With Mayo Pete demonstrating the hollowness of his flimsy support outside of wine cellars, their new best hope is the free-spending-- on them-- Republican oligarch. This is the lowest the party establishment has ever sunk. Believe me, none of them were happy yesterday when they woke up to Matt Viser's Washington Post delineation of the massiveness of Bernie's win in Nevada the night before. Let's hope Bernie smashes the party establishment to smithereens on the day after the convention and breathes new life into a wearing, geriatric Democratic Party.

The next Stop Bernie attack will be that if he's on the top of the ticket, incumbents in red and purple districts could lose. The most Republican-voting assholes among Democrats in Congress, Blue Dogs Anthony Brindisi (NY) and Ben McAdams (UT), have both said they won't vote for Bernie. Neither, however, votes for virtually anything that's important to Democratic voters. So why should anyone care if they lose their seats? It's arguable that the Democratic Party will be much better off without members in Congress like Brindisi and McAdams, especially if they can pick up actual Democrats in other GOP-held districts, like, for example, Kara Eastman in Nebraska, Mike Siegel in Texas, Jon Hoadley in Michigan,  Jennifer Christie in Indiana, Tom Winter in Montana, Chris Armitage in Washington, Liam O'Mara in California, J.D. Scholten in Iowa...

Progressives in the House tell me that Brindisi is the worst Democrat in Congress and they all actually hope he's defeated just so that they won't gave to hear him constantly whining about how anything they try to do for the American people will cause him to lose his re-election battle. One senior Democrat told me he had never hoped for a colleague to lose before, but "I'd rather see a Republican in that seat than Brindisi. He's the worst lily-livered excuse for a Democrat I've ever seen." Meanwhile McAdams openly boasted that if Bernie or Elizabeth Warren wins the nomination he would distance himself from them. "My ideas are different than theirs," he said. "So as long as people understand that I’m going to be independent of any candidate and really be true to my district, I think that’s most important." But he isn't true to his district-- not at all. There are 4 counties or parts of counties that make up his district (UT-04). Salt Lake County has 5 times the number of voters than the other 3 combined. Here's how they voted in the 2016 Democratic caucuses, when Bernie was up against the status quo conservative Democrat McAdams backed:

• Salt Lake- Bernie 78.8%
• Utah- 85.3%
• Sanpete- Bernie 84.9%
• Juab- Bernie 77.5%

Yeah, so... so much for this lying sack of excrement being true to his constituents or his district, unless he's talking about the Republicans in his district. His district wants change and Biden is the no-change candidate. In 2016, they voted so overwhelmingly for Bernie because Bernie was-- and still is-- the change candidate. McAdams is a liar, trying to justify being so outrageously out of step with Democrats and independents in Utah.

OK, back to that report from Mike Debonis and Michael Scherer in The Post about the establishment's newest gambit to derail the working class champion. (If you don't want to read it, just approach Joy Reid if you dare; she's got a sickening version of it on infinite replay.) Debonis and Scherer wrote that "many Democratic House and Senate candidates are approaching a dramatic shift in their campaigns, as they recalibrate to include praise of capitalism and distance themselves from the national party. Top campaign strategists from both parties view Sanders’s success as a potentially tectonic event, which could narrow the party’s already slim hopes of retaking the Senate majority and fuel GOP dreams of reclaiming the House, which it lost amid a Democratic romp in 2018."

The most obvious people to go to to bolster this talking point would be representatives of Team Hillary and-- where that differs at all-- to the Republican wing of the party, like Rahm Emanuel. They went to one of Rahm's would-be clones. "I can tell you that there are a lot of down-ballot jitters based on my conversations with my former colleagues," said Steve Israel," who led the DCCC through some of its biggest losses in contemporary party history. He was kind enough to validate some GOP propaganda for them: "Trump is going to offer the American people this choice: Do you want to continue building the economy or do you want to lurch toward socialism? And that is a real powerful argument in the Democratic districts that Trump won in 2016."

Internal polling and analytics completed last week by former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg’s campaign projected that Sanders may be the only presidential candidate to win delegates in every state and district on March 3, delivering him a lead of 350 to 400 out of 1,357 delegates set to be awarded unless race dynamics change, according to a person familiar with the data who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak publicly.

Because of Democratic rules that give no delegates to candidates who scores less than 15 percent of the vote in a state or congressional district, Sanders could build a delegate lead far greater than his advantage in the popular vote.

If Democrats are awakening to a recognition that Sanders could pull away from the rest of the field, there is far less consensus about whether his nomination will help President Trump win reelection. Sanders’s power to turn out young and blue-collar voters or suburbanites is not fully tested, the ceiling of Trump’s support is poorly defined in a two-way race and the senator from Vermont has not yet been subjected to a negative paid advertising effort.

“Our data shows that all of our potential nominees, including Sanders, have a pathway to victory, but it isn’t guaranteed,” said Guy Cecil, chairman of Priorities USA, a Democratic super PAC that has polled heavily in the key presidential swing states. “This election will be close regardless of who we nominate.”

But there is far less flexibility for candidates in smaller districts. That has prompted Republicans to celebrate as they look to reclaim ground they lost in 2018 when largely affluent suburbs rebelled against the GOP in a protest of Trump.

“The Democrats’ embrace of socialism is going to cost them their majority-- I mean, it’s as simple as that,” said Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “Bernie is about as good a contrast as we could have ever hoped for.”

Bear in mind that Tom Emmer-- and the economic royalists inside the Democratic Party-- are repeating, virtually word for word, what the conservatives said about FDR, who they also-- unflinchingly and 4 two decades-- labeled a Socialist!!!!! I might remind you that, in every possible way, Michael Bloomberg is the perfect antithesis of Franklin Roosevelt. This is what happened when the conservatives, in some cases of both parties, went to the voters with the Socialism!!!! message against FDR and the Democratic Party:

1932

• Presidential popular vote- FDR wins 22,821,277 (57.4%) to 15,761,254 (39.7%)
• electoral vote 472 to 59 (GOP carried 6 states)
• Senate- 58-37 (GOP lost 11 seats)
• House- 313-117 (GOP lost 101 seats)

1936

• Presidential popular vote- FDR wins 27,747,636 (60.8%) to 16,679,543 (36.5%)
• electoral vote 523 to 8 (GOP carried 2 states)
• Senate- 74-17 (GOP lost 5 seats)
• House- 334-88 (GOP lost 15 seats)

1940-- when the VP nominee was an actual Socialist

• Presidential popular vote- FDR wins 27,313,945 (54.7%) to 22,347,744 (44.8%)
• electoral vote 449 to 82 (GOP carried 10 states)
• Senate- 66-27 (Dems lost 2 seats)
• House- 267-162 (GOP lost 7 seats)

1944

• Presidential popular vote- FDR wins 25,612,916 (53.4%) to 22,017,929 (45.9%)
• electoral vote 432 to 99 (GOP carried 12 states)
• Senate- 58-37 (no net change)
• House- 242-191 (GOP lost 18 seats)

Alan Grayson (D-FL) is taking a time-out from Congress. I spoke with him yesterday and he told me that "In every election cycle for many years now, the GOP tries to play mind games with Democrats to turn them against their own leaders, whom the GOP says are never 'moderate' enough to win-- except when they do. And whenever those Democratic leaders actually are progressive, the GOP finds willing co-conspirators in that mind-game among right-wing Democrats. The term 'unelectable' is simply a weapon that right-wing Democrats deploy against progressives, time after time after time. You could make a good argument that Trump actually is further to the right than Bernie is to the left. Where, oh where, are the 'moderate' GOP politicos, wringing their hands over that? Why is it that when Bernie says something lefty, he’s called a socialist, and when Trump does something racist or crazy or just stupid, he’s 'motivating his base?'"





I asked a few members of Congress and some candidates for Congress how they see this dynamic themselves. I started with Los Angeles' liberal lion, Ted Lieu, who endorsed Kamala Harris with whom he had worked closely on several of his legislative priorities both in Sacramento and in Washington. He hasn't endorsed anyone since she withdrew and told me that he will support whoever wins the Democratic nomination. He added that he also noted "that the conventional wisdom of Washington insiders was wrong about Obama, wrong about Trump and currently contradicted by the actual voter data when it comes to Sanders. For 5 years the polls have shown Sanders beats Trump in head to head matchups. And in a recent Emerson poll this month, it shows Sanders was the only Democratic candidate to beat Trump in a head to head matchup. The notion that in November a voter will turn out and vote for Sanders and then somehow vote for the down ballot GOP congressional candidate is simply not supported by the data."

Tom Suozzi is a New Dem from Long Island, a serious legislator with serious ideas about how to serve his constituents. We don't agree on issues as much as Ted Lieu and I do but we do agree about the whole party coming together after Bernie is the nominee. Tom endorsed one of the other presidential candidates but told me yesterday that "A big problem in America today is that too many people view their fellow Americans with contempt. It is ok to disagree and disagree strongly, but contempt will destroy us. Just because you don’t agree with someone in their choice of candidate or their position on a particular issue, it does not mean it is ok to view them with contempt. If we are to defeat Donald Trump, we need everyone from Bernie and AOC, all the way to Bloomberg and Biden and everyone in between. If we can’t hold that coalition together, we lose. Campaigns are tough, and candidates and their surrogates play to win, but everyone must recognize that when the dust settles, we need to unite behind the winner, even if it wasn’t your first choice. If we don’t, then Trump wins again." I have no doubt that Tom Suozzi will be enthusiastically introducing Bernie to his constituents when Bernie visits Huntington and Hicksville next fall.

Tomas Ramos, a Bronx-based Berniecrat who is campaigning for an open congressional seat on the same set of issues Bernie is campaigning on, told me last night that "The notion that if Bernie is at the top of the ticket we lose Congress is simply not true. Bernie created a movement the first time around and now the movement has only gotten bigger, with young and old people alike. When I’m out door knocking I ask my voters who are they supporting for president, the common answer is Bernie. People are more excited for Bernie than ever before. The voters in my district know that we need to beat Trump and they know that Bernie is the guy to do so."

Liam O'Mara, a history professor taking on Trumpist Rep. Ken Calvert in Riverside County, California, pointed out that "Democrats have struggled to hold onto congressional majorities, but one key reason for that is their tepid stances on the issues, their frequent preference for right-wing economics, and their refusal to push for policies which are broadly popular. Congress often has an approval rating in the single digits. The drift to the right since the late 1980s has been a demonstrable failure. We have lost most statehouses and most presidential elections, and struggled to hold onto either chamber of Congress. Something has to give. The way forward for Democrats is to embrace progressivism. This isn't the 1970s-- the country has caught up with the progressive agenda on a wide range of issues. Most Americans oppose corporate money's control of our elections. Most Americans support single-payer health care. Most Americans oppose our interventionist foreign policy and our many wars. Most Americans accept the consensus on global warming and want serious action. Most Americans distrust the bankers who keep crashing our economy, and the neoliberal trade deals that have undermined workers, and want better oversight. The list goes on and on. Sanders is doing well because people are tired of the same old message. He is bringing new people into the political process, talking about issues that affect most of our lives, and he's been winning over independents and even conservatives. If Democrats really want to control Congress and the White House, there is a path to both available. I can tell you that in my own race, running a respectful campaign which will talk to anyone and focusses on policy rather than partisanship has been resonating. It is something we should see more of in this country, not less.

Milwaukie Mayor Mark Gamba, running for the Oregon seat held by Blue Dog Kurt Schrader, who agrees with Republicans on crucial issues more than with Democrats. " Look, people get all caught up in a variety of complicated theories about what some candidate will or won't do to down ticket races," Gamba told me yesterday. "I think it's much more simple than that. The vast majority of the American people have been getting screwed by neo-liberal, profits first, policies enacted by both Republicans and 'centerist' Democrats for over 40 years. For simplicity's sake, let's call that the status-quo. In 2016 they were desperate for that to change. They still are. Trump has proven himself to be even more blatant about screwing everyone but the 1%. The way we bring out an excited electorate is to offer them real solutions to their problems-- Sanders offers that. So do about 100 people running tough races against incumbent members of the status-quo all over America. What the talking heads are truly frightened of, is Sanders AND an army of like-minded people getting elected and enacting real change that supports the 99%, taxes the bloody rich for a change, stops climate chaos and reduces the constant misery for a few hundred million Americans. So we will continue to see all kinds of half assed theories telling us why electing Sanders will doom us all. Never forget that the talking heads and the media conglomerates they work for are all part of the 1%.

Kim Williams is the Central Valley progressive running for the seat occupied by Blue Dog Jim Costa. "Since last summer," she explained, "I’ve knocked on thousands of doors. I’ve heard people’s stories, shook their hands, and listened to their dreams for their children. None of these conversations align with the establishment’s understanding of America. One hundred and forty million Americans have been left behind. They don’t see themselves in the booming economy and they don’t see themselves in the national news. Sanders is the only candidate that acknowledges the very real challenges people face and actually offers solutions. It’s absurd to keep attacking him on his electability when he keeps winning, and it’s ridiculous to suggest that he’s never really been attacked when the media has been unrelenting in their negative coverage. But while pundits panic over the presidential election, we see something very different on the ground. Being a progressive candidate with a policy platform that aligns with Sanders has been a tremendous asset, not a burden. In fact, if someone wanted to coin a phrase for down-ballot races, I think referring to candidates as “Bernie Democrats” would actually be quite powerful. It immediately conveys policy positions and lets normally disenfranchised voters know you’re on their side. This might shake the establishment, but it energizes the majority. And they will ultimately decide who represents them."

Arizona workers rights champion and progressive candidate for Congress, Eva Putzova, was a Bernie delegate to last cycle's DNC. Today she's running on an Arizona version of that platform. "The assertion that a Sanders nomination wlll result in Democrats losing congressional seats is ridiculous. The opposite is the case," she said. "In my district, the momentum generated by Sanders campaign is already firing up the base of the party-- youth, people of color, women, workers and climate activists, and even moderates who are starting to realize that Sanders is fighting to make their lives better and more secure. From my perspective, and that of my campaign, if Sanders wins the nomination it increases my chances to win the primary in August and the general election in November. I share Rep. Lieu's assessment that voters who turn out for Sanders will not vote for GOP candidates down-ballot. All Democrats, particularly progressive Democrats, will benefit if Sanders is at the top of the ticket."

"In NY-25, the issues that comprise Bernie Sanders’s platform are the ones that most enthuse our Democratic base," said Rochester progressive Robin Wilt. "As I go door-to-door, Bernie’s platform resonates with the voters whom I engage. I want to clarify that when I mention the Democratic base, I’m not talking about the elite Democratic establishment that comprise fewer than 1% of our Democratic electorate. We recently had occasion to histogram the age of the Democratic Committee in the jurisdiction of Brighton, NY, where I serve in town government. Both the mean and the average age were…wait for it… 62 years of age. The Democratic elite are not representative of the registered base of Democrats. They never have been, and they never will be. When we continue to ignore the voice of the overwhelming majority of the electorate, in favor of amplifying the voices of the establishment that increasingly does not resemble the registered base, we risk mistaking the will of party operatives with the will of the people. I was at the rally at Queensbridge Park. I have been canvassing my Congressional District. The masses believe in the future promised by Bernie Sanders, not the cynicism expressed by an increasingly detached party elite."

War Pigs Belong In The GOP

Hard to recognize the War Pig in the picture above? Trump? Mike Pompeo? Tom Cotton? Lindsey Graham? Miss McConnell? Kevin McCarthy? Could be any of them. Also could be Status Quo Joe, Mayo Pete or any of the 8 Democratic war mongers who voted with Trump against the War Powers Resolution Thursday. Don't forget the names:

• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)

No Bernie supporters there, that's for sure. In fact... that looks like a slate of Status Quo Joe backers, doesn't it? I don't wonder why either. Yesterday Ally Mutnick and Sarah Ferris wrote for Politico that "A slate of endangered House Democrats is coalescing behind Joe Biden for president as the Iowa caucuses approach-- a surge of support triggered by fears that Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren at the top of the ticket would cost them their seats. More than a dozen swing-seat freshmen have taken part in at least one private call session with Biden, Amy Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg in recent weeks. A handful have already gravitated toward the former vice president, and more are expected to follow before Democrats start voting on Feb. 3, according to interviews with 15 lawmakers, aides and campaign strategists."

Rot gut New York right-winger Anthony Brindisi, a chair of the Blue Dog caucus and a proud war-monger, told Politico, "I’m looking at all the moderates in the race. If we’re going to campaign on issues like Medicare for All and free college for everybody, we’re not going to have a winning message in 2020." Brindisi and the other members from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party are whining that claim they "have studied internal polling showing Biden outperforming other Democratic contenders in head-to-heads with Trump in their respective districts."




Conservative New Dem Cedric Richmond is one of the whiners, although he is in no jeopardy whatsoever, just someone who hates progressives and progressive ideas. Richmond's super blue Louisiana district (PVI is D+25) would vote for a pile of shit-- which they do in terms of their congressman-- rather than a Republican. Obama won the district with 75.8% in 2012 and Hillary did nearly as well in 2016. Carefully gerrymandered to pack as many African-Americans into one seat as possible, LA-02 is just 28% white and takes in most of the New Orleans metro before meandering west and then north to include the African-American neighborhoods of Baton Rouge. Republicans don't bother running candidates against him and he's considered a congressman-for-life, even though he's an avatar of a status quo that has served his constituents very poorly. Co-chair in charge of black voters for the Status Quo Joe campaign, he said that "The wrong person at the top of the ticket-- and I’m not saying who that is-- there would be down-ballot carnage all across the country, and I think that people are starting to recognize it."

Biden has 33 current members of the House backing him, most of whom are conservatives, primarily Blue Dogs and New Dems. Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA) is a conservative Biden backer who voted for endless war last week. Almost all of his supporters have "F" rated voting records from ProgressivePunch. One, Conor Lamb (PA), endorsed him last week, saying he's "definitely concerned that someone’s who more on the fringes would have a hard time winning our state themselves, and I want a Democratic candidate to win Pennsylvania and win the presidency."

Another extremely right-wing (for a Democrat) freshman is Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT). Now that Van Drew has left the party for the GOP, McAdams is among the half dozen worst House Dems, all with far worse voting records than Independent-- former Republican-- Justin Amash this cycle:

• Justin Amash (I-MI)- 55.36%
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)- 32.14%
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)- 30.36%
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)- 28.57
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- 28.57
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)- 25.0%
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- 23.21, widely considered the most likely Dem to follow Van Drew into the GOP

McAdams told Politico that if Bernie or Elizabeth Warren wins the nomination he would distance himself from them. "My ideas are different than theirs," he said. "So as long as people understand that I’m going to be independent of any candidate and really be true to my district, I think that’s most important." But he isn't true to his district, not at all. There are 4 counties or parts of counties that make up his district (UT-04). Salt Lake County has 5 times the number of voters than the other 3 combined. Here's how they voted in the 2016 Democratic caucuses, when Bernie was up against the status quo conservative Democrat McAdams backed:

• Salt Lake- Bernie 78.8%
• Utah- 85.3%
• Sanpete- Bernie 84.9%
• Juab- Bernie 77.5%

Yeah, so, so much for this lying sack of excrement being true to his district. His district wants change and Biden is the no-change candidate. They voted so overwhelmingly for Bernie because Bernie is the change candidate. McAdams is a liar, trying to justify being so outrageously out of step with Democrats in his district.

Progressives have long fought back the notion that a Democratic nominee must pick up support from independents and even Republicans in order to beat Trump.

They argue that robust voter turnout-- turning out the kinds of numbers that Sanders and Warren have seen at events across the country-- will be key to winning back states like Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Klobuchar's congressional allies, like freshman Rep. Dean Phillips (New Dem-MN), argue the opposite.

“I tell people all the time, enjoy reading your national polls, but care about six of them," Phillips said, arguing that the race would instead come down to a few battleground states mainly in the Midwest. "That’s what this next election is about."

“We’re no longer a country that is really fighting for their respective bases," said Phillips, who organized the call with Klobuchar and his colleagues this week. "It’s fighting for the diminishing number of people who really do vote on both sides of the aisle."

Let's see Dean explain how Klobuchar, whose entire case is that the Midwest is clamoring for her-- is immediately eliminated in the first round of Iowa caucus voting. You need 15% to proceed too round two. According to the Real Car Politics polling average for Iowa, Klobuchar is at 5.7%, behind poll average leaders Bernie (21.3%), Mayo Pete (21.0%), Status Quo Joe (17.7%) and Elizabeth (17.0%). The brand new Iowa Poll from the Des Moines Register also shows Klobuchar with virtually no chance of emerging from the caucuses with any delegates-- and that the likely Iowa caucus-goers want progressive candidates, not status quo establishment shills:

• Bernie- 20% (up 5 points)
• Elizabeth- 17% (up 1 point)
• Mayo Pete- 16% (down 9 points)
• Status Quo Joe- 15% (stasis)
• Klobuchar- 6% (stasis)
• Yang- 5% (up 2 points)

How Many Seats Will Democrats Lose If They Impeach Trump? How Many Seats Will They Lose If They Don't?

In his NY Times column yesterday, Charles Blow came out strongly for impeachment. Of the redacted Mueller report-- I assure you that unlike most Republican members of Congress, that Blow has read it-- he notes that "it is a damning document. Not only does it detail Russian efforts to attack our election to help the Trump campaign and the Trump campaign’s eager acceptance of that help, it paints a picture of Donald Trump as an unethical man with no regard for the rule of law. In this report, we see a president who doesn’t deserve to be president. We see attempts over and over to obstruct justice, which in some cases succeed. The question is: What are we going to do about it?"

Yes, that is the question. "Obstruction of justice is a crime," he reminds his readers. "If Trump committed that crime, he’s a criminal. Are we simply going to allow a criminal to sit in the Oval Office and face no consequence?" We? We can't do much about it besides trying to influence our members of Congress to go for impeachment. If Pelosi and Hoyer bring it up, they would need 118 votes to begin the process. Pelosi knows how to count votes. She's says there aren't that many behind it yet. I believe she could whip her caucus and get the votes, but there are an awful lot of Democrats who will vote with the Republicans against impeachment. You think Pelosi wants a situation where all the progressives and activists decide to not vote for dozens of her incumbents because they voted against impeaching Trump? She doesn't.

Let's look at some of the worst Democrats in the House, freshmen Kenda Horn (Oklahoma City-- R+10), Joe Cunningham (Charleston, South Carolina-- R+10), Jefferson Van Drew (South Jersey-- R+1) and Ben McAdams (Salt Lake City area-- R+13), all of whom have tough reelection races coming up in red or in Van Drew's case, red-leaning, districts. Imagine they voted against impeachment. Let's start with McAdams, a Blue Dog like the other 3, he's tied with Van Drew and Cunningham of having the worst voting record in the House. Of the 269,234 votes cast in his district in 2018, he won 134,964, 694 more than his Republican opponent. He basically got slaughtered in Utah, Juan and Sanpete counties. All his votes came from Salt Lake County where a very significant number of Democrats are extremely progressive and already hating him. In the 2016 Democratic caucus in Salt Lake County, Bernie won 84.9% of the votes. Stop and think about that for un momento. Hillary-- who beat Trump 42.8% to 32.6% in the general election-- only took 14.1% of the vote in that blue county. People have to hold their noses and get drunk before voting for McAdams as is. Do you think they would if he voted against impeachment? Some would. How many wouldn't? More than 694? I think so. In fact I'm 100% positive than way more than 694 Salt Lake County Democrats would come out to vote for Bernie or Elizabeth Warren against Trump and not bother to vote for McAdams.

Do you want me to do this for all 4 of them? It's easy. I do one more-- Kendra Horn. Friends of mine in her district are already saying they won't vote for her in 2020. There were 238,960 people voting in 2018 and she took 121,149 votes (50.7%), 3,338 more votes than her Republican opponent. Nearly all her votes came from Oklahoma City. Pottawatomie and Seminole counties went massively for the Republican. Democrats in Oklahoma County are split between progressives and centrists. Trump beat Hillary in every single county in Oklahoma but she did less horribly in Oklahoma County than anywhere else-- 112,661 votes (41.2%) to Trump's 141,429 (51.7%). Primary time was a pretty even split in the district. This is how Hillary did in each of the 3 counties that make up the district:

• Oklahoma County- 50.1%
• Pottawatomie County- 37.5%
• Seminole County- 39.1%

I can tell you, some of those Bernie supporters-- and some of the Hillary supporters for that matter-- want impeachment more than Bernie does. If Horn votes against it, she'll lose enough of her base to lose the general. Besides, Republicans are already excited about former OK City mayor Mick Cornette and two state senators likely to run, Greg Treat and Stephanie Bice.

And so on. So, Pelosi is walking on thin ice-- I love this song and I can't help myself-- and she's screwed no matter what she does-- or doesn't do. Let me get back to Blow for a moment. He writes that his mind is made and he knows all the arguments: "I say impeach him." He lists all the wrong pros and cons though-- the solipsistic, intellectually sloppy ones-- and isn't looking at Pelosi's-- really, the House Democratic caucus'-- dilemma at all. "House Democrats, at least the leadership, are afraid of looking like they have a blood lust and inadvertently increasing Trump’s chances of re-election." But he's compelling:

I worry that inaction enshrines that idea that the American president is above America’s laws. I worry that silent acquiescence bends our democracy toward monarchy, or dictatorship.

As Thomas Paine wrote in 1776, “In America the law is king.” He continued: “For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”

Who will we let be king in this country, the president or the law?

You can't argue with any of that. Maybe you can. I can't. Ask yourself this though. Is it worth impeaching Trump-- who won't be found guilt by the Senate-- at the cost of losing the House majority?

So what about censure-- a public reprimand or condemnation? The idea is being bandied about on Capitol Hill now. The Constitution defines impeachment-- and conviction-- powers but doesn't mention censure. Congress adopted a resolution allowing censure-- stronger than a simple rebuke, but not as strong as expulsion and either House can do it on their own. In 1834, the Senate censured Andrew Jackson-- although when the Democrats won back the Senate the censure was expunged from the record. In 1842, after the House failed to impeach John Tyler, a select Senate committee censured him. (He may have been a worse president than Trump-- maybe; we'll see-- and after his presidency he led Virginia into secession and then served in the Confederate House of Representatives.) In 1848 the House should have impeached James Polk for starting the Mexican-American War unconstitutionally, but they censured him instead. There was a half-assed attempt to censure Clinton that failed and there have been two censure motions introduced against Trump that have never been voted on, the first buried by Paul Ryan and the second buried by... Nancy Pelosi.

Is censure a viable option to use against Trump? A few congressmen have told me it is and it would pass. I think Trump would laugh it off, but that's better than nothing if they can't get the votes for impeaching him, which I don't think they can.

Candidate-Wise, Is The Democratic Tent Too Big? Should They Really Keep Recruiting Blue Dogs And New Dems For Congress?

Early Monday morning, the NY Times published a piece by Catie Edmondson and Emily Cochrane, In Conservative Districts, Democrats Have To Answer For Party's Left Wing, that gets off on the wrong foot right from the very start, describing reactionary Utah Blue Dog Ben McAdams as a "moderate." He isn't.

Edmondson and Cochrane started their tale in Nephi, Utah, a small city of less than 6,000 people in Juab County, western Utah. It's part of McAdam's newly won congressional district. In 2016 Democrats there went overwhelmingly for Bernie-- 55 (77.5%) to 16 (22.5%) and Trump came in second (with 14% of GOP votes) behind Ted Cruz 647 to 118. In the general election Trump triumphed in Juab County with 2,759 votes (67.7%) to 742 votes (18.2%) for independent Evan McMullin and 436 votes for Hillary (10.7%). Not exactly a Democratic Party powerhouse county. Senator Mike Lee (R) was reelected with 85.7% of Juab's vote and Governor Gary Herbert (R) got 74.6% of the Juab vote. Last year, Mitt Romney won 80% of the Juab general election vote and Ben McAdams, the GOP-lite Blue Dog was creamed in the Juab County portion of the district, which gave GOP incumbent Mia Love a mind-boggling R+59 share of the county's vote, her biggest percentage of any of the district's 4 counties.

Last week, in Nephi, the The Times reported that McAdams "was grilled by constituents about the 'socialism' and 'anti-Semitism' that they saw coming out of the new Democratic House. 'How long do you intend to ride that train with those people?' one Utahan asked." McAdams is barely a Democrat at all. He immediately joined both the New Dems and Blue Dogs and hasn't been voting with Democrats on the crucial roll calls. He's already distinguished himself as aggressively anti-progressive. And he's hardly the only conservative freshman being attacked, even though they've abandoned their party's positions.

In Michigan, Representative Haley Stevens was asked about her ability to counter what one voter deemed the bigotry of some of her freshman colleagues-- a concern fueled partly by remarks from her counterpart in nearby Detroit, Rashida Tlaib-- and “the negative attitude they bring to Democrats.”

And on a rainy Saturday in Spotsylvania County, Va., one woman stood up in a town hall to remind Representative Abigail Spanberger that while she was the first Democrat to hold that seat in nearly 50 years, the majority of the rural enclave had voted Republican.

“Since the Democrats are now the party of death and taxes,” the woman said, as Democratic supporters scoffed and grumbled, “just how do you propose to effectively represent the taxpayers of Spotsylvania?”

Stevens is also a New Dem and Spanberger, like McAdams, joined both the New Dems and the Blue Dogs. Stevens, who ran as a progressive, is tied with 10 other New Dems as the 99th most progressive member of Congress. Spanberger ran as a conservative and is tied for the 176th most progressive member, already sporting an "F" grade. So does McAdams, who's tied with 4 other Dems as the 227th most progressive. Only 5 extremely right wing Democrats have worse voting records that McAdams. He's already on the watch-list for Democrats likely to switch parties at some point. Needless to say, none of them back Medicare-For-All, the Green New Deal or any other progressive initiatives.

Conventional wisdom-- happily regurgitated by the two non-critical thinking journalist-- is that McAdams and Spanberger are "moderates." Stevens is a moderate; McAdams and Spanberger are conservatives. assert that it was the conservatives who "secured the party’s House majority."

The DCCC maneuvered to get them the nominations and then supported them. There's no reason to claim that progressives wouldn't have won those anti-Trump independent voters just as easily, just as Mike Levin did in CA-49 . Overall, the DCCC adamantly refused to support progressives. They spent almost all of their money on conservative candidates. These are 5 Blue Dog-backed candidates from last year and what the DCCC + Pelosi's SuperPAC, End Citizens United and the Patriot Majority USA dark money SuperPAC spent on each. The percentage was their share of the vote:

• Anthony Brindisi- (Blue Dog-NY)- $5,403,585 (50.9)
• Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ)- $2,819,952 (56.8%)
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)- $2,120,805 (50.4%)
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)- $1,915,894 (50.9%)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)- $889,742 (50.1%)

OK... and these are 5 progressive candidates the DCCC and their satellite money organizations refused to help flip red seats but who came close. The percentage is the win number for the Republican:

• J.D. Scholten (IA-04-- Steve King)- ZERO (50.4%)
• Kara Eastman (NE-02-- Don Bacon)- $90,000 (51.0%)
• Nate McMurray (NY-27-- Chris Collins)- ZERO (49.1%)
• Mike Siegel (TX-10-- Michael McCaul)- ZERO (50.9%)
• Sri Kulkarni (TX-22-- Pete Olson)- ZERO (51.4%)

None of that is part of the Edmondson and Cochrane Times story. They're trying to prove the conventional wisdom that Democrats won't maintain their House majority next year if they lose the red-leaning districts like McAdams' and Spanberger's and that it's all Ocasio's, Tlaib's and Omar's fault (for standing up so aggressively for the Democratic values and agenda that motivate the party's activist base). So should the Democratic party jettison these values and forget about this agenda to better cater to conservatives who are embarrassed by Trump? That's certainly what the Blue Dogs, New Dems, No Labels and Problem Solvers folks would love.

At the same time The Times was publishing their corporatist perspective on the Democratic Party, The intercept published an essay by Eoin Higgins about what Democratic activists-- not the Republicans and Republ;ican-leaning voters The Times reported on-- are saying about what they want Congress to do. He wrote that "In upstate New York, Utah, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania, voters who feel a much greater sense of urgency than their elected officials have been reacting furiously to politicians who say the attempt to turn the fossil fuel-based economy around in the next 12 years simply isn’t realistic."

Antonio Delgado was underwritten by the Democratic Establishment in a very big way. The DCCC spent $1,568,032 on his race. End Citizens United (a DCCC arm) spent another $408,646, Priorities USA spent $124,749, and Pelosi's SuperPAC kicked in another $2,581,029. Outside groups spent $5,387,563 attacking his opponent and $703,596 bolstering him. Anyone who imagined Delgado was going to turn out to be a good member of Congress was in for a quick shock. He talked a good, solid progressive game during the election-- though he never persuaded Blue America-- but he has already earned an "F" from Progressive Punch and is tied with McAdams for the 227th "most progressive" voter in Congress. His crucial vote score is 42.86. That sucks.

At a town-hall meeting with constituents last week, he took the "no-can-do" approach groups like the DCCC, No Labels, The New Dems, Blue Dogs and Problem Solvers are recommending to freshmen. His constituents didn't like it and he "was pressed repeatedly by constituents over his half-hearted support for the effort. He doesn’t support the Green New Deal... though he noted that there were aspects to the bill that he backed. Delgado said that he’s more interested in solutions that address the issues around climate change that can be solved now and that the bill as written does not sufficiently lay out a path for that kind of approach to the inevitability of climate crisis." There is no bill, just a resolution, so he's also full of shit-- or incredibly stupid.

Democrats, especially freshmen in the House, are having to face voters in their districts who find the lack of action on climate change to be a major issue for the new representatives. And those complaints aren’t coming from blue districts-- as with Delgado, freshmen Democrats from purple districts are facing resistance from constituents over their hesitancy to endorse progressive programs. Republicans aren’t immune either. On Monday morning, roughly 250 young activists from the Sunrise Movement occupied the office of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) with 35 getting arrested.

The main rhetorical device that Democratic skeptics of the Green New Deal have been employing begins with a confident assertion that they believe in climate science, think the crisis must be taken seriously, and admire the ambition of the Green New Deal. But, they add, the resolution just can’t pass a Republican Senate or be signed by President Donald Trump.

...Rep. Ben McAdams, the new Democratic Congressman from Utah’s 4th district, who unseated incumbent Republican Mia Love in November by a razor-thin margin, told constituents at a town hall on February 19 that while he supported the Green New Deal’s aspirations in principle, he worried that the legislation wouldn’t make it through the House.

“It seems expensive,” said McAdams. “I’m not sure it’s feasible.”

In Pennsylvania, freshman Rep. Susan Wild beat the Bernie Sanders-backed local minister Greg Edwards in the Democratic primary, before turning her red Lehigh Valley district blue. She was faced with a similar barrage of questions from constituents dissatisfied by the new Congresswoman’s lukewarm take on the Green New Deal during a town hall on February 19. Wild doesn’t support the Green New Deal, at least not yet-- she said that she was interested in seeing more details on the proposal before deciding whether or not to sign on-- and that position rankled some supporters who felt that she wasn’t representing their interests. In response to sustained criticism at the event, Wild told the crowd that she was interested in what could be done now, the same dodge that was used by Delgado.

...The environment has long been a top concern of voters in the largely rural 19th, where Delgado unseated incumbent Republican John Faso in the November midterm election with a narrow 50.2% to 47.3% margin of victory. Delgado’s victory in the overwhelmingly white district was a win for upstate New York’s liberal voters, who sent the state’s first black representative from outside of the New York City area to Washington on the back of a campaign that relied on activists and advocates for support-- and included a call for the Green New Deal on the campaign trail.

“I am only beholden to you,” Delgado said in a speech to supporters on election night. “No special interests, no outside voices.”

The voters at the town hall, however, were less than convinced, asking the Congressman whose interests he was representing by not signing onto the legislation. Environmental issues are a bipartisan affair for the 19th; Faso was a member of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus during his time in office.

...If the reaction to Delgado’s decision to avoid supporting the Green New Deal in his rural, majority white, purple district is an indication of the mood of the electorate, then Democrats running on a more centrist or right wing platform in the next election may be in danger.

Akiva Hirsch, who asked Delgado about supporting the Green New Deal during the town hall, told The Intercept that given the severity of the problem of climate change and the possibility of irreversible catastrophe in only a decade, Delgado’s response was insufficient. Hirsch and a group of friends from Bard College, which is in Delgado’s district, told The Intercept they were registered voters in the district.

It wasn’t all for Delgado on the Green New Deal, however, as at least one of the town hall attendees expressed support for his rejection of the proposal.

“I’m 100 percent happy that you didn’t sign onto the Green new Deal,” said constituent Hillary Thomas. “I think it’s a publicity piece for the people that are promoting it.”

Thomas told The Intercept that she voted for Delgado’s Republican opponent, John Faso, in last November’s election.

Sounds like the perfect person for The Times to focus on!

Why Cry Over A Blue Dog Loser?

It would have made more sense for Matheson and McAdams to run as Republicans

[Note: This post is for progressives, not for garden variety Democrats or corporatists.] There’s one district in Utah-- the 4th-- that looks winnable for a Democrat. The last Democrat from the district, Jim Matheson, was an ultra-reactionary Blue Dog who made a career out of voting with the Republicans on crucial matters. In 2013, after he announced his retirement, I wrote a “good riddance” post that noted that Matheson was one of the worst-- if not the worst-- Democrats in Congress. He was the Kyrsten Sinema of his day. Aside from voting more frequently with the GOP than any other Democrat in 2012-- his crucial vote ProgressivePunch score was a ghastly 23.13 (tied with fellow Blue Dog John Barrow and worse than 5 conservative Republicans!)-- Matheson was a corrupt insider who traded his votes away to the corporations that financed his sleazy career. The only reason he was able to hang on is because enough slow-witted Utahans thought he was his father, popular and well-respected Utah Governor (1977-'85) Scott Matheson. In 2012 Mia Love came within 768 votes of beating him. The final score was 119,803- 119,035. He didn’t want to face her again so the 53 year old career politician announced he would be retiring at the end of the term. Love had held the seat since 2015 when she beat hapless Blue Dog Doug Owens who tried to replicate Matheson but without the Matheson name.

When looking at who to run there, the DCCC immediately decided only a Blue Dog could win. You know… because… Matheson. But if Democrats in Utah wanted to vote for a conservative, they’d vote for a Republican. Democrats in Utah don’t like being stuck with Blue Dog candidates. In the 2016 presidential caucuses Bernie swept the state. He took 61,333 votes (79.3%) to Hillary's 15,666 (20.3%). Look at those numbers again; there is a message there. In Salt Lake County, he didn’t just beat Hillary, he also beat Trump-- by a lot.

• Bernie- 35,610
• Trumpanzee- 6,542

Only the DCCC could imagine that people who picked Bernie over Hillary and Trump-- he had more than twice as many votes as both of them together-- would want some reactionary Blue Dog. But… that’s the DCCC. By the way, they tried the same thing in Maine’s second district, hoping to persuade primary front-runner Jared Golden to join the Blue Dogs. A progressive fire-brand, he laughed and threw his lot in with the Congressional Progressive Caucus instead. The DCCC backed away from the ME-02 primary and Golden won it anyway and went on to win the general election too with minimal help from them. (The DCCC and House Majority PAC spent around $2 million in Maine, while the NRCC and Ryan’s shady SuperPAC spent over double that smearing Golden.)

In Utah they didn’t have to try to persuade Ben McAdams to become a Blue Dog. He is a Blue Dog and ran his campaign as one, with the backing of the DC Blue Dogs. So now McAdams is in Washington with the freshmen class, taking pictures and signing onto the right-wing anti-Pelosi letter, pretending to have been elected… while Mia Love’s vote total creeps high and higher and has now overcome his own. He may win; she may win. It doesn’t matter. The Democrats have the majority-- by a lot-- and they don’t need Ben McAdams. In fact… if he wins you can count on him to be relentlessly pushing the caucus further right on every issue, working to water down progressive legislation and always voting with the GOP. Want to pass Medicare-For-All? $15 minimum wage? Free state college? Mia Love won’t vote for any of that-- and neither will Ben McAdams, but he can do the efforts a lot more harm than she could. I am happy to see him losing.

Ronald Reagan Must Be Spinning In His Grave But Will Trump Cost The GOP Congressional Seats? In Utah?

Utah is a very red state-- but it isn't exactly a Trump red state. The PVI is R+20 but in 2016 Trump only wound up with 45.5% of the vote. That's right More Utahans voted against him than for him. Hillary won the biggest county in the state, Salt Lake-- 175,863 to 138,043 (with McMullin pulling 79,880. Shocking as it may sound to people who aren't aware of Utah politics, Trump only took 33% of Salt Lake County. and in the 4th Congressional district-- where incumbent Republican Mia Love is considered vulnerable in November, Trump pulled 39% of the vote. Now that he's president, he's even less popular than he was in 2016. His popularity has sunk precipitously.

Robert Genrke, a columnist for the Salt Lake Tribune is no Trump fan to begin with. His column Tuesday was addressed to Utah favorite son Jon Huntsman, who served as ambassador to China under Obama and who Trump appointed ambassador to Russia in 2017. The paper's owner and publisher is Paul Huntsman, brother of Ambassador Huntsman. Salt Lake's Fox affiliate asked if Huntsman would resign after the Señor Trumpanzee contradicted his assessment of Russia as a "malign" actor on the world stage? Huntsman assessed the Kremlin on Fox News Sunday: "trying to influence other elections, not only our own but those in Europe, tampering with the Brexit vote, funding nefarious political movements within Europe. The list goes on and on and on." His daughter Abby, an anchor on the Fox News Channel told him that "No negotiation is worth throwing your own people and country under the bus."

Gehrke's column, Come home, Ambassador Huntsman, your country needs you, is what everyone in Utah is talking about. Gehrke addressed him directly: "Ambassador Huntsman, you work for a pawn, not a president. It’s time to come home."

As Utahns, many of us were a bit stunned last year when you accepted the job as U.S. ambassador to Russia, but your explanation made sense: It was a role you took on, much like your tenure in China, out of a deep sense of duty.

But that duty is to your country and the best way now to serve your country is not by holding on to some title and being the emissary of a president who doesn’t share your values, or American values, for that matter.

It’s by resigning immediately and speaking out against a president who attacks our allies, gives comfort to our adversaries and undermines our moral standing, our commitment to democratic ideals and our interest in human rights every time he opens his gaping mouth.

For Trump to simply accept at face value Putin’s assertion that Russia played no part in the plot to meddle in U.S. elections is a tragic disservice to the U.S. intelligence community, those diplomats who work in your office, and the integrity of our democracy and justice system.

“I have great confidence in my intelligence people,” Trump said (which he has demonstrated again and again is a lie). “But I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.”

Was his denial stronger and more powerful than the unanimous assessment of the entire U.S. intelligence community-- the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agency, the director of national intelligence-- as well as the Senate Intelligence Committee, which all agree Russia meddled in the elections??

Was it stronger than the charges laid out in shocking detail just three days ago by Trump’s own Justice Department that a dozen Russian military and intelligence agents orchestrated the hacking of Democratic computers, compromised election offices and stole voter data, and worked with WikiLeaks to release damaging information?

...Ronald Reagan must be spinning in his grave.

Mr. Ambassador, members of your own Republican Party are condemning Trump’s shameful sellout of our country.

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN) said Putin “gained a tremendous amount” from Trump’s validation. “I would guess he’s having caviar right now,” Corker said.

“I would never thought I would see the day when our American president would stand on the stage with the Russian president and place blame on the United States for Russian aggression,” said Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ).

Your friend, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called it “one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the soccer ball Putin gave to Trump should be checked for listening devices and never allowed in the White House.

...To remain silent and continue to serve this president would be complicity in the undoing of our nation and its status as a world leader.

Come home, Mr. Huntsman. Your country needs you.

Mia Love's district includes the southern part of Salt Lake City plus the city's southern suburbs, like West Jordan, South Jordan, Riverton and shoots south through Lehi and Nephi as far south as Moroni, Spring City and Yuba Lake. She and Blue Dog Ben McAdams are all tied up in the money-raising race. As of the June 30 FEC report she had $1,233,151 in the bank and he had $1,249,035. And in the latest polls they are in a statistical tie. Will Trump hurt Love's reelection chances. McAdams told the media that he joins "Utahns of both political parties in expressing my frustration over what transpired in Helsinki. By interfering in our election, as all of our intelligence agencies have concluded, Russia attacked our country and our ideals. While we must find a way to live with our enemies, we should never confuse our adversaries with our allies. And we must resist Russian attacks with all the tools at our disposal. Democrats and Republicans should stand shoulder in this. Patriotism knows no party."

Love, like Republicans in tight races everywhere in the country, was clearly on the defensive and unable to defend Trump. In fact, she went as far as she could to distance herself from him: "Despite what was stated at today's summit, there is no question that Russia meddled in the 2016 election. Both the Intelligence community and the House Intelligence Committee have demonstrated that fact. Unfortunately, Russia continues a long and persistent track record of hostility towards our nation and values. There's a reason that I, as a Member of Congress, have consistently voted to sanction Russia for its behavior. President Trump must understand that the world counts on our nation to set the tone and hold thugs accountable. Today he failed to do so."

Hot Congressional Race In Utah? Don't Write It Off Yet

Ben McAdams visits Mia Love's office

Utah has 4 congressional districts-- all very red. But it would be easy as pie to create a Democratic district. Right now the Republican legislature diluted Salta Lake City's Democratic majority by grafting it onto the very backward, rural, gigantic second CD, basically most of the western and southern part of the state, 13 blood red counties with almost no Democratic votes. If the legislature kept Salt Lake County-- with over a million voters-- whole, it would be a solidly Democratic district, instead of a diluted bit of UT-02, a diluted part of UT-03 and a diluted part of UT-04. In fact, UT-04, even without much of the city itself, just the suburbs south and southwest of the city, makes it the least Republican district in the state. Blue Dog Jim Matheson was still winning congressional races there as recently as 2012. He retired in 2014 and Mia Love beat another Blue Dog, Doug Owens, 50-46%, outspending him $5,159,840 to $866,595. She's been an unobtrusive backbencher and a 100% rubber-stamp for Ryan and Trump.

Wednesday, the mayor of Salt Lake County, Democrat Ben McAdams announced that he's running for her seat next year. (There are 3 other Democrats already running, Darlene McDonald, whose website extols ObamaCare as a good conservative solution to healthcare, Marla Mott-Smith, who doesn't mention healthcare on her website and Tom Taylor, whose website sounds like he's a Berniecrat. McAdams has no issues or positions on his website yet, possibly indicating he's a conservative.

Utah Democrats aren't interested in conservatives; if they were, they'd be Republicans. Last year's caucuses saw Bernie sweep the state. He took 61,333 votes (79.3%) to Hillary's 15,666 (20.3%). Over on the Republican side, Cruz came in first, followed by Kasich and Señor Trumpanzee drew only 24,864 votes, significantly fewer than Bernie. In Salt Lake County. Hillary lost every county to Bernie-- and by huge numbers. Salt Lake County's results were just like the state's:

• Bernie- 35,610
• Hillary- 9,431
• Señor Trumpanzee- 6,542

On election day, Trump crushed Hillary statewide, but not in Salt Lake County, which she won, 154,831 (42.8%) to 117,901 (32.6%). Evan McMullin won 68,209 votes (18.9%).

Yesterday's Salt Lake Tribune seemed very excited by McAdams decision to run, reminding readers that he is "one of the state’s most politically popular and ambitious Democrats." He doesn't sound very exciting to me.

He told the Salt Lake Tribune on Wednesday he’d zeroed in on the House seat because Congress and the federal government have created roadblocks to solving issues Utahns face.

“I would hope that our representatives in Washington rolled up their sleeves and knew what was going on and knew what our challenges were and how they could help to solve our challenges,” he said. “Instead it feels like they’re just enamored with the national spotlight and partisan games that both parties seem to play.”

McAdams lives about a block outside the 4th District, but as mayor he represents about 85 percent of the voters in the district. Because he was re-elected last year, McAdams won’t have to give up his position to run.

As mayor, McAdams has been involved in some of the region’s highest-profile issues. He led a committee that studies how to reform homeless services as the county has spent years grappling with how it can improve services and prevent homelessness.

The issue has proved politically challenging as well. A state law required McAdams to pick a location for a new homeless shelter before the state closes a 1,100-bed shelter downtown and build three smaller ones throughout the county. McAdams picked South Salt Lake, which is in the 4th District, sparking a battle with that city’s mayor and upsetting residents near the shelter.

“My approach has been to dive in and to make the decisions that we need to make to move forward,” he said. “That was a tough process, and I guess we’ll see what people think about that. But I hope people will see that I was faced with some tough challenges that we were trying to solve.”

During a 20-minute conversation, McAdams said Wednesday he was willing to work with anyone to get things done-- including President Donald Trump, whom McAdams also called “overly divisive.”

“I would like to see leaders who bring us together rather than divide us,” McAdams said of Trump. “But that won’t stop me from working to find common ground and bring solutions back to Utah.”

He pointed to the state’s request to expand Medicaid to cover very low-income residents. The expansion is considered crucial to the state’s effort to cover drug treatment under the ongoing Operation Rio Grande. The state is awaiting approval from the federal government.

“We’re waiting for federal approval and we’ve been waiting for federal approval for two years now,” he said. “We cannot get the federal government to take action.”

McAdams’ first choice was a much larger expansion of Medicaid to cover far more Utahns. But when the state showed it wasn’t willing to take on the higher costs of the federal insurance coverage under Medicaid, McAdams says he worked with Republican House Speaker Greg Hughes, R-Draper, to get something through the Legislature that could pass.

...McAdams is uniquely positioned for a challenge given his high visibility in the county, his experience and his ability to mount a campaign close to his home, said Tim Chambless, an associate political science professor at the University of Utah.

“If he can just do fairly well in the other three, more rural counties, campaign well in the highly suburban parts of Salt Lake County,” Chambless said, “he can win.”

McAdams said he expects the campaign will cost about $2.5 million and that he plans to run a positive campaign but expects plenty of outside money that typically funds negative ad campaigns.

“We sat down with our kids and we told them that we expect that this will be ugly. There will be a lot of negativity. And that does give me pause,” he said. “Ultimately, the moment that good people are bullied out of running for office because of fear of the negativity, then Washington really is lost.

“I decided that I believe in the good, human nature of Utahns. That people know me,” he said. “I care about Utah and that’s why I’m doing this.”

And the first poll is already out! It's more a name ID poll than anything else but it shows McAdams pretty close to Love. The Trib reported this morning that "Both candidates are viewed favorably by a majority of voters in the district, which includes portions of Salt Lake, Utah, Juab and Sanpete counties. Fifty-seven percent of voters viewed Love favorably, with 20 percent saying they had a 'very favorable' view of her. Fifty-six percent of voters had favorable view of McAdams. Fewer voters had a negative view of McAdams than Love. Fifteen percent had either a 'somewhat' or 'very' unfavorable view of McAdams, compared to 36 percent for Love. Eighteen percent of voters had no opinion of McAdams, compared to just 6 percent for Love."