Just Two More Congressional Races Left To Call In California-- One District Held By A Democrat And One Held By A Republican

 

Officially, there are 3 uncalled congressional races in California-- CA-21 in the northern Central Valley, CA-25 in the northern part of L.A. county and part of Ventura County and CA-39 in northeast Orange County with bits of Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties. But... there really are just two races left, and both are incredibly close.

New Dem Gil Cisneros, the lottery winner who bought a seat in 2018 with $9 million of his winnings, didn't want to spend much of his own money and not many people wanted to donate to him... and he lost to Young Kim, the woman he beat two years ago. AP called the race late Friday. So far, Biden is beating Trump in Orange County 811,916 (53.51%) to 674,231 (44.44%)

Cisneros, a pointless New Dem, was a waste of a seat. His ProgressivePunch grade is "F" and there isn't a reason in the world for anyone to vote for him other than knee jerk Democrats. That wasn't enough this year, even though Hillary beat Trump in CA-39 by about 8 and a half points in 2016. Of the 4 Democrats elected in the 2018 anti-red wave, the two progressives were re-elected and the two rich, reactionary "ex"-Republicans lost. Cisneros' district has an even PVI so it should have been easy to hold by a halfway decent incumbent. Katie Porter's seat is much trickier (PVI is R+3) but she's a great congresswoman and her constituents love her. She won by 7 points. Levin's district has a PVI of R+1 and he has been an outspoken champion of the Green New Deal and won reelection by about 6 points. The other loser, like Cisneros, Rouda, a right-of-center New Dem who contributed money to Romney when he ran against Obama, lost by a bit over 2 points in a difficult R+4 district. The DCCC and Pelosi's PAC spent $9.5 million, $840 on Katie Porter, $135 on Mike Levin and $2.6 million on Cisneros (who conceded on Twitter).

So, that leaves one Democrat-- a New Dem actually-- and one Republican in races still too close to call: TJ Cox and Mike Garcia. Cox's district has a PVI of D+5 and should be an easy hold for a decent candidate (which he isn't) and Garcia's district's PVI is even, although the Democrats have a registration advantage and, again, a decent Democrat should win there-- which Christy Smith is about as far from being as anyone could imagine.

Absentee ballots being counted now in CA-21 heavily favor Cox and Valadao's election night lead has been cut in half. As of Friday, just 2,065 votes (50.6% to 49.4%) separate them and Cox still has a decent shot at reelection. It's one of the most pitifully low-turn out districts in the country but perhaps more people would vote if there weren't always being asked to pick the lesser of two evils. In 2018, the race wasn't decided for weeks of counting, surprising everyone when Cox ousted Valadao (57,239) to 56,377 (49.6%). Cox raised $4,798,088 to Valadao's $3,721,619. The DCCC and Pelosi's PAC kicked another $7 million into the race. There is no real telling who's going to win this time but the absentee ballots need to be stronger than they've been for Cox to pull this one off.

CA-25 is another sad district with two dreadful candidates, neither of whom should be anywhere near Congress. Christy Smith isn't a real Democrat and Garcia is a Trumpist imbecile. But it's one of the closest races in the country, just 104 votes separating the two of them. On Friday Garcia was leading by 219 votes so it looks like Smith will win if there are enough absentees to be counted, something that is unclear now.

By the way, New York has 7 uncalled congressional races. We'll get to that mess soon.

Uncalled House Races-- Just A Dozen To Go

 

The latest election tallies show that Joe Biden is leading President Trump by 5,060,175 votes. That is a larger number than the margin between President Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012. In the 2012 election, Obama had 4,982,296 more votes than Romney.

This morning's election counties have Trump losing by 5,060,175 votes and that number will keep growing as more votes are counted in New York and California. At the moment, it stands like this:

• President-elect Joe Biden- 76,997,481 (50.8%)-- 290 electoral votes
• Señor Donald J. Trumpanzee- 71,926,263 (47.5%)- 214 electoral votes

There were a dozen actual swing states and 99% of the votes are counted in each one. Biden won 7 and Trump won 5:

This morning the race in Los Angeles for CA-34 was called for Jimmy Gomez, a garden variety progressive politician, who was in a D vs D fight with a super-progressive activist, David Kim. That leaves just an even dozen uncalled House races nationally, 3 more in California, 1 in Illinois, 1 in Iowa and 7 on New York.

The other California races are all for seats that were flipped from red to blue in 2018 and each pits a Republican against an uninspiring, pointless New Dem.

CA-21 includes all of Kings County and parts of Fresno, Kern and Tulare. It is 75% Hispanic and the PVI is D+5. In 2016, Hillary beat Trump there 55.2% to 39.7% and in 2018 TJ Cox ousted David Valadao by 862 votes-- 57,239 (50.4%) to 56,377 (49.6%). Cox has been a shitty Congress, not as shitty as Valadao, but utterly worthless. Valadao challenged him to a rematch and, with 91% of the vote counted, is now leading 72,350 (51.4%) to 68,324 (48.6%). Cox raised $4,798,088 to Valadao's $3,721,619. The DCCC spent $3,704,254 and Pelosi's House Majority PAC spent $3,218,656, about the same thing the Republican committees spent trying to help Valadao.

CA-25 is the Santa Clarita Valley/Antelope Valley/Simi Valley district that Katie Hill flipped in 2018 and then resigned from in a sex scandal. Mike Garcia beat pointless conservative Democrat Christy Smith in the special election on March 3-- 95,667 (54.9%) to 78,721 (45.1%). That was despite massive DCCC spending on Smith's behalf in a district with a Democratic registration advantage where the PVI is even but where Hillary beat Trump by 7 points. In 2018, Hill beat the Republican incumbent, Steve Knight, 133,209 (54.4%) to 111,813 (45.6%). With 99% of the vote counted, Garcia and Smith have been seesawing back and forth, with him currently leading her by 159 votes-- 165,178 (50.0%) to 165,019 (50.1%). Neither is fit to be in Congress.

Worst of the 3 terrible Democratic candidates in the uncalled California races is Gil Cisneros, the lottery winner who bought an Orange County/L.A./San Bernardino open seat in 2018 with $9,252,762 of his lottery winnings. He campaigned as a fake progressive and, predictably, joined the New Dems when he got to Congress and ran up a voting record rated "F" by ProgressivePunch. He's a waste of a seat and his 126,002 (51.6%) to 118,391 (48.4%) 2018 win over Republican Young Kim is-- with 99% of the vote counted-- not looking good. She leads him 167,564 (50.6%) to 163,396 (49.4%). Refusing to spend much of his own money again (just $370,887), he was out-raised by her $5,319,367 to $3,779,013. The DCCC and Pelosi's PAC put in another $2.6 million but it doesn't seem to have helped combat Democratic lethargy for another useless Republican-lite candidate with no accomplishments.

The uncalled race in Illinois is for the R+5 district northwest of Chicago, where Lauren Underwood ousted Randy Hultgren in 2018-- 156,035 (52.5%) to 141,164 (47.5%), winning in all 7 counties. Having made some progressive noises in 2018, she quickly ran up an "F" voting record (ProgressivePunch). Although Obama won the district in 2008, Hillary lost to Trump by 4 points. Right now with 99% of the votes counted, Underwood is narrowly leading right-wing fanatic and perennial self-funder Jim Oberweis, 198,017 (50.4%) to 194,588 (49.6%). Oberweis kicked in $1,208,179 from his personal fortune, but she out-raised him $7,099,198 to $2,515,192. The DCCC considered her safe and didn't spend in the district.

The Iowa race, in the southeast quadrant of the state (IA-02) is open because Democrat Dave Loebsack decided to retire. The Democrats ran Rita Hart and the Republican candidate is Mariannette Miller-Meeks in the D+1 district that re-elected Loebsack by 12 points in 2018, two years after giving Trump a 4 points win. (Obama took in by 13 points in 2012.) This is another race that is see-sawing back and forth. Right now, with 89% of the votes counted, Miller-Meeks leads 196,860 (50.0%) to 196,812 (50.0%)-- just 48 votes! Right now, this is the closest congressional race in the country. Hart out-raised Miller-Meeks $3,631,135 to $1,518,295 and the DCCC and Pelosi's PAC kicked in about $6.5 million, about the same as the GOP committees.

And that brings us to New York, where there are 7 uncalled races. Trump won both Long Island counties again. The Democrats nominated a conservative Blue Dog, Jackie Gordon. to run for Peter King's open seat on the South Shore. Only 78% of the vote has been counted but she is losing to Republican Andrew Garbarino, 157,482 (57.8%) to 112,584 (41.3%), not a gap she looks likely to close enough to win. On the North Shore New Dem Tom Suozzi looks like he's in trouble behind George Santos-- 137,938 (50.5%) to 133,765 (49.0%)-- but will likely win substantially with 28% of ballots (mostly blue mail in votes) uncounted.

The red-leaning Trump strongholds in Staten Island and south Brooklyn are delivering for the GOP and Democrats have been wiped out there. With 85% of the votes counted Blue Dog Max Rose-- who campaigned against his own party and is not that dissimilar to a stinking pile of shit-- is losing to Republican Nicole Malliotakis, 136,383 (57.9%) to 99,224 (42.1%). The PVI is R+3 and Rose has been one of the worst Democrats in the House and clearly doesn't deserve to be reelected, despite having outraised Malliotakis $8,350,467 to $3,052,007. The DCCC and Pelosi's SuperPAC wasted over $9 million on this race.

Although neither are is called yet, Sean Patrick Maloney and Antonio Delgado (NY-18 and 19) both lead their Republican opponents, Maloney 135,819 (51.0%) to 127,918 (48.1%)and Delgado 141,993 (50.3%) to 134,602 (47.6%), with a Libertarian shaving 1.2% of the vote off the Republican's total. About 80% is in on each candidate and, like Suozzi both these New Dems are likely going back to the House. Maloney has already announced he wants to run for the DCCC chair. I doubt he could be as bad as Cheri Bustos, but he'd be very close if he manages to win (unlikely).

The most exciting races are further north, NY-22 and NY-24. In NY-22 Anthony Brindisi-- the worst Blue Dog in the House, and one who many of his colleagues are actually hoping loses-- is in a rematch with ex-Congresswoman Claudia Tenney, She's a psychotic Trumpster so this is a race without a lesser evil. With 80% counted she's leading 139,926 (54.4%) to 111,539 (43.4%) in an R+6 district. It's hard to imagine Brindisi winning. Good riddance!

NY-24 (Syracuse and environs) is a D+3 district where progressive Dana Balter is working to oust mainstream Republican John Katko. 78% is counted and he leads her 155,830 (58.5%) to 110,728 (37.8%) in a rematch from 2018. Obama won the district by 16 points in 2012 and Hillary won it by about 3 and a half points in 2016. In 2018 Katko was reelected 136,920 (52.6%) to 123,226 (47.4%). This year he outraised Balter $3,541,163 to $2,711,811, but the DCCC and Pelosi's SuperPAC kicked in a little over $5 million, about the same as the Republican committees.

For The Working Class, The Democratic Party Is Still A Bit Better Than The GOP

In 2018, the DCCC successfully perpetrated the myth of the Blue Wave. That kind of p.r. is part of their job. The problem is, they believed it. And the results reinforced that mightily. There were 41 seats that flipped from red to blue. In 2016, the House Dems hadn't done badly. Even with an apparent Trump victory, they had managed to flip 6 seats and they increased their national congressional vote margin by 2.5%. In 2018, though, House Democratic candidates won 60,572,245 (53.4%) to 50,861,970 (44.8), as the GOP share of the vote plummeted 4.3%. The Dems increased their swing by 5.4%. That's a wave. But a Blue Wave? I've never thought so.

The DCCC recruited a huge pile of worthless garbage candidates with nothing to offer other than not being Republicans-- even if some of them actually were Republicans who were trying to rebrand themselves as Democrats (like Harley Rouda and Gil Cisneros in Orange County). Voters were ready to punish Trump for his first two years of excruciatingly bad governance. But he wasn't on the ballot... and they took stout on GOP congressional incumbents and on Republicans candidates. Dozens of Republicans sensed what was headed their way and retired before the election, including incumbents whose seats were ready to flip (and, in fact, did flip: Ed Royce (CA), Darrell Issa (CA), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Lynn Jenkins (KS), Dave Trott (MI), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ), Steve Pearce (NM), Ryan Costello (PA), Pat Meehan (PA), Charlie Dent (PA), Bill Shuster (PA), and Dave Reichert (WA).

Then 30 Republican incumbents lost their reelection runs including notable Republicans Pete Sessions (TX, former head of the NRCC), Dana Rohrabacher (CA & Moscow), Dave Brat (VA), Barbara Comstock (VA), John Culberson (TX), Erik Paulsen (MN), Rod Blum (IA), Pete Roskam (IL), Mike Coffman (CO) and Steve Knight (CA). None of them had good opponents. In fact, almost no red to blue flips were by good Democrats. Those flips were anti-Republican flips... anti-Trump voters. There was a wave alright... but it was an anti-red wave, not a blue wave.

Yesterday, writing for the Washington Post, Mike DeBonis surveyed the lay of the land in terms of the upcoming House elections and concluded 2020 isn't going to be a good year for the GOP. He has no idea how bad it's going to be though, as anti-red wave II is gathering strength. The seat the NRCC wants to point to to frame the election is CA-25, the L.A./Ventura County seat the Steve Knight lost to weird New Dem Katie Hill in 2018 and was just won by a Republican in a special election. Hill had been forced to resign in a twisted and lurid sex scandal and the DCCC immediately recruited the worst possible candidate to replace her-- another worthless conservative, barely a Democrat, who was meant to remind voters of... Katie Hill, who most voters wanted to forget about. She was as unfit for office as Hill had been-- and the voters knew it and, despite it being a blue district with a Democratic registration advantage, the Republican won. DeBonis wrote that "When Republican Mike Garcia won a Southern California special election in May-- reclaiming a district Democrats had flipped only 18 months prior-- he gave the House GOP its most encouraging piece of political news since President Trump was sworn into office. The good news might end there. While Trump, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and other GOP leaders have heralded Garcia’s May 12 win as proof that they can win the House majority this year, many other indicators suggest that it will be exceedingly difficult to unwind Democrats’ 17-seat majority come November."

Yeah... and someone should explain to DeBonis that the GOP is more likely to lose 17 seats than to pick up a net of even one! That will be in his October column about the elections though. Now, it's just the Inside the Beltway metrics... "Vulnerable Democratic incumbents have massively outraised their Republican challengers, national GOP groups have yet to show the ability to make up the fundraising gap, and in several key districts, some of the party’s most coveted recruits have opted not to run. Public opinion polls, meanwhile, indicate a Democratic advantage on the congressional ballot in line with what the party enjoyed in 2018, ahead of their sweeping national gains." He is happy to admit this is all Inside-the-Beltway palaver: "Multiple nonpartisan forecasters, in fact, have worsened their outlook for House Republicans in recent weeks, arguing that those structural disadvantages, plus national political head winds for Republicans, will limit GOP House gains-- and potentially allow for further Democratic pickups." I question the use of the word "sincerely" by Gonzales below:

“Republicans sincerely believe that 2018 was a high-water mark for Democrats, that it is just not possible that Democrats can improve on their 2018 performance, and I don’t know that that’s true,” said Nathan L. Gonzales, editor and publisher of Inside Elections, who recently declared the California result an “outlier” and predicted that the November election would leave the House “close to the status quo” with no more than five seats changing hands between parties.

GOP leaders see the math differently. Garcia’s win, they argue, shows that Republicans can be competitive in the suburban battlegrounds where Democrats built their majority two years ago-- on top of the 30 Democratic-held districts where Trump won in 2016.

“If we can win in the Los Angeles suburbs, we can win anywhere and everywhere we need to win in the fall,” said Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), citing 43 Democratic seats with a heavier GOP tilt than Garcia’s.

Democrats didn't turn out for the special election. Among other things, Latinos, who make up a big part of the Democratic coalition in CA-25, were confused because the Republican was named Garcia and the Democrat was named Smith. And in the third of the district that lies in the Antelope Valley, she was disliked anyway for her support of putting homeless people in her Assembly district on a bus with a one way ticket to... the Antelope Valley. So they abstained. As horrible as Smith is-- and she's about as bad as a DCCC recruitment can be-- she'll probably win in November in the anti-GOP wave that catches Garcia.

Democrats and nonpartisan analysts are quick to quibble with that arithmetic-- starting with the size of the mountain Republicans have to climb. While the gap is now 17 seats, the margin is certain to be wider. A court-ordered mid-cycle redistricting in North Carolina created two additional safe Democratic seats in that state, and the retirement of GOP Rep. Will Hurd has opened a prime Democratic pickup opportunity in South Texas.

Meanwhile, Democrats are eyeing potential gains elsewhere, including suburban districts outside Dallas and Houston where GOP incumbents are retiring, as well as near-misses from 2018 in central Illinois, southern Minnesota and suburban Atlanta.

That means Republicans may have to flip three or more Democratic seats before they even begin to cut into the current majority, and they face serious head winds in doing so. The most easily quantifiable obstacle is money: More than two dozen Democrats have raised more than $2.5 million each, easily lapping their Republican challengers in all but a few cases.

Data compiled by the Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman found that, as of March, in the 55 top races targeted by the NRCC, the median Democratic incumbent had raised more than six times what the median leading Republican challenger had raised. And that was before the coronavirus pandemic upended political fundraising, making it more difficult for those behind to catch up. Wasserman declared the GOP’s path to the majority as “slim to non-existent” earlier this month.

Outside Republican groups such as the NRCC and the Congressional Leadership Fund are likely to raise tens of millions of dollars to supplement individual campaigns, but those groups have also been trailing their counterparts at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the House Majority PAC.

Republicans have heavily touted star recruits in several districts-- starting with Garcia, a former Navy fighter pilot, son of immigrants and first-time political candidate who skillfully positioned himself as a fresh alternative to his Democratic opponent, state lawmaker Christy Smith. Wesley Hunt, an African American former Army officer, is challenging freshman Rep. Lizzie Fletcher in Texas, and Michelle Steel, a Korean American county official, is running against Rep. Harley Rouda in Orange County, Calif.

“A record number of women running, a record number of minority candidates, 240-some military veterans-- these are people with great résumés, and the vast majority of them don’t have voting records,” Emmer said. “It’s basically the Democrats’ 2018 playbook that we’re using.”

But some of those diversity gains have been offset by setbacks elsewhere. Democrats were delighted when GOP voters nominated Jim Oberweis, a conservative former state senator, over two women to face Rep. Lauren Underwood in an exurban Chicago district Trump won by four points. And just this month, party officials moved to distance themselves from Ted Howze, the Republican facing Rep. Josh Harder in a competitive central California district, after Politico reported on racially offensive Internet postings made under Howze’s name [by Howze].

And on Tuesday, forecasters are closely watching the outcome of the GOP primary in Iowa’s 4th District, where Rep. Steve King is facing a strong intraparty challenge after making racially offensive comments, prompting Republicans to strip him of his committee assignments. A King win, forecasters agree, would leave the seat vulnerable to Democrat J.D. Scholten, who came within three points of beating King in 2018.

Meanwhile, Republicans are likely to go into November with less-than-ideal candidates in several other races. In New York’s 19th Congressional District, which Trump won by seven points in 2016, no credible GOP candidate has emerged to challenge freshman Rep. Antonio Delgado (D). In Michigan, top potential Republican candidates failed to challenge Reps. Elissa Slotkin, who has raised $3.7 million to defend a district Trump previously won by seven points, and Haley Stevens, who has raised $2.5 million in a district Trump won by four.

The difficulties for Republicans have been on display in Utah’s 4th Congressional District, centered on Salt Lake City, where Trump won by seven points in 2016. It leaped to the top of GOP target lists after Democrat Ben McAdams beat GOP Rep. Mia Love in 2018. The NRCC initially backed popular state Sen. Dan Hemmert, who quickly raised more than $400,000. But Hemmert backed out weeks later, citing the demands of a high-profile campaign.

“It’s not the right time. I don’t know what to say,” he told the Salt Lake Tribune in December.

McAdams, meanwhile, has raised $2.8 million for his reelection campaign and had $2.2 million left to spend as of early April. The best-funded Republican candidate, state Rep. Kim Coleman, had about $115,000 in the bank at the same point.

Meanwhile, it’s unclear if potential GOP attacks against McAdams-- highlighting his vote for Trump’s impeachment or tying him to far-left Democratic figures-- will even resonate in a post-pandemic political environment. McAdams, who recently emerged from a bout with the coronavirus, said Thursday he was focused on helping his constituents and not getting caught up in partisan politicking.

“One thing I have going for me is that I work harder than anybody else in the race, and I think a lot of people who were looking at the race knew that it was going to be hard to outwork me,” he said Thursday.

While there is anecdotal evidence that presidential-year turnout will improve for Republicans with Trump on the ticket, there is little sign that public opinion about control of Congress has shifted since 2018. Democrats won the national House vote in 2018 by about eight points; a Monmouth poll released this month gave them a 10-point lead nationally, and other recent “generic ballot” polls have been in a similar range.

Hopes of outsize GOP gains largely rest on Trump’s ability to keep the pandemic at bay and recover his political standing in the coming months, giving him the ability to drag underfunded candidates across the finish line on Nov. 3.

“President Trump won most of the seats that are on the battlefield now-- all he has to do is win them again,” said Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH), a former NRCC chairman. “And so I don’t know if he’ll match his performance from 2016, but if he does, we win the majority.”

But Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL), chairwoman of the DCCC, expressed complete confidence in an interview Wednesday, calling Garcia’s win “not a sign of anything” and predicting that Smith would best Garcia in the higher-turnout November election.

Bustos pointed to her party’s fundraising advantage, GOP recruiting woes and a proven Democratic message on health care-- “I’d much rather be the party of health care than the party of drinking bleach,” she said, referring to Trump’s recent musings about injecting disinfectant-- as underpinning that confidence.

“It’s literally failure and failure after failure for them, whether it’s the money, the messaging or the mobilization,” Bustos said. “By every measurement, I feel really good six months out.”

Cheri & Rahm

Cheri Bustos feels good-- all those shit candidates she's recruited seem just like her and the other worthless, hated neo-liberals who have turned the Democratic party into a sewer that only exists because it's slightly less odious and toxic than the Republican Party. When I first met Ari Rabin-Have he was working for Harry Reid, although he soon migrated towards Bernie. Over the weekend he wrote a piece for Jacobin, Coronavirus’s Devastation Has Been Made Far Worse by Years of Democrats’ Neoliberal Policies, which should help anyone understand why the Cheri Bustos/Pelosi/Hoyer wing of the party is leading the Democrats down the road to disaster. [Prediction in January, 2023, there will be a Republican Speaker of the House again.] "Coronavirus," he wrote, "isn’t only exposing Donald Trump’s incompetence. The crisis is laying bare the consequences of the neoliberal economic agenda corporate Democrats have been pushing for decades." He explained how "Instead of examining the very real pain felt by workers in our economy over decades... the upper echelons of Democratic Party economic policymaking... hide behind broad macro numbers and use them to avoid confronting the economic hardship caused by the very systems they helped create."

Manufacturing workers watched as their jobs were outsourced in the aftermath of NAFTA and other bad trade treaties, while leaders in the Democratic Party either ignored their plight, claimed we were trading low-wage jobs for higher-wage ones, or falsely promoted the promise of programs like the Trade Adjustment Assistance which never lived up to the hype.

Factories closed, communities were gutted, and good jobs were nowhere to be found. Yet the economic thought leaders in the Democratic Party continued to paint rosy economic scenarios... A certain set of Democratic policymakers and strategists would like to pretend that the only thing exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic is the utter incompetence of Donald Trump. What they would like to ignore is that the crisis we are in has laid bare the consequences of the neoliberal economic agenda [Jason] Furman and his ideological allies have been pushing for decades.

They fought mercilessly in 2019 for a health care system where insurance coverage was tied to employment. In the 1990s they scaled back welfare programs. They pushed policies that tied educational advancement to personal debt and an international trade system whose supply chain is over-reliant on foreign manufacturing, in particular in China.

Each of these steps were taken under the advisement of wonderfully written economic studies claiming broad economic benefits for the country. In truth the opposite occurred, and the economic pain of the current crisis has been magnified because of them.

Earlier this month, the Biden campaign was promoting the notion of an “FDR-size presidency” under the rationale that the Democratic nominee needs to meet this moment. For centrist policymakers this was the threat they thought had been defeated in the primary.

Furman, on the other hand, wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in early March making his case for a “big coronavirus stimulus.” Big to Furman amounted to a laughably small $350 billion program.

Furman is not worried that Trump’s campaign will successfully be able to sell an economic miracle. Instead he and other centrist policymakers’ greater fear is that the economic conditions of the Great Depression would steer the Biden campaign and administration toward bolder economic policies. While thus far there is little evidence of this, even deploying progressive rhetoric is too much for the centrist establishment.

Furman’s former boss, Obama White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who has been privately advising the Biden campaign, explained this to David Axelrod on his podcast this week. “The moment may call for it, and I’m a big believer in never allowing a crisis to go to waste, but the whole primary was a couple people in our party talking about a revolution and a couple people in our party talking more reform than revolution,” he said. “And what Biden is now saying is, ‘Well, the post-COVID world requires a revolution,’ and I’m surprised, because he did not win on the revolution model. He won on the reform model.”

Emanuel continued, “I’m not sure revolution is going to be reassuring to Southfield, Michigan; Bloomfield, Michigan; the suburbs out of Milwaukee; the suburbs in Phoenix.”

Axelrod replied that Biden’s policies should be “packaged as pragmatic answers to the crisis.”

Cheri & Debbie

The notion that people who are out of work, without health care and not knowing how they are going to put food on the table, are not seeking help but instead political pragmatism is ludicrous. It is yet another example of centrists ignoring economic pain because they fundamentally support a politics where “nothing will fundamentally change.” This is what they were promised by Joe Biden’s campaign. But if they acknowledge that the economic fallout from the coronavirus could lead to a second Great Depression, then the logical policy response is a second New Deal, and that promise would be broken.

Instead Furman suggests a Democratic response fundamentally based on accepting a false reality. He knows that Donald Trump will campaign saying he has built the greatest economy in American history. Regardless of data, the president was always going to make that claim, and Fox News and his other propaganda organs would dutifully tout that party line.

That is how fearful the centrist establishment is of progressive policy change. They would rather ignore the real pain of working people and cower to the phony economic posturing of Donald Trump than confront corporate power.

DCCC Lost All The Races Yesterday-- But Progressives Did Well

DCCC chair Cheri Bustos should resign

Last night 3 important congressional races ended. Nancy Pelosi, Cheri Bustos and their DCCC need to think closely about what happened. One contest was a primary in Omaha and two were special elections to fill seats in Wisconsin and California where members had retired, respectively one Republican and one Democrat. In each special election, the victor will fill the seat until January, at which point the winner of the regular November election will take the seat.

Let's start, though, with the primary in Nebraska. Kara Eastman, a community activist and outspoken progressive, beat Ann Ashford the wife of the former (defeated) Blue Dog congressman, Brad Ashford, in a two-to-one landslide. The DCCC was less overt in their support for Ann Ashford than they had been in their over-the-top backing for Brad in the 2018 primary. In 2018, Kara beat Brad Ashford 21,357 (51.6%) to 19,998 (48.4%). The DCCC was so incensed that Kara beat their pet Blue Dog that they removed NE-02 from their priority list and refused to help Kara win. She only lost by a 2 point margin against GOP incumbent Don Bacon-- 126,715 (51.0%) to 121,770 (49.0%). Let's not allow that to happen again this coming November. Please write to Cheri Bustos and Nancy Pelosi and demand they support Kara Eastman this cycle-- and contribute to her here or by click on the 2020 congressional thermometer on the right.

Yesterday's primary showed Kara with a great deal or-- and much more-- support, despite the Ashfords pouring over $350,000 of their own money into her campaign.

The Omaha World-Herald reported that Kara "earned her chance for a rematch against the two-term Republican incumbent Tuesday night by topping two other rivals in her party’s primary. She immediately took aim at Bacon, saying his record of reliable votes for President Donald Trump and his party don’t fit in a swing district like the Omaha-area 2nd. 'People are looking for leadership and for representation that actually represents the district, and not just somebody who’s going to align himself with his party,' Eastman said."

Two years after a fired-up base of progressives helped upstart Eastman upset former congressman Brad Ashford in the Democratic primary, she easily outpolled his wife, Ann Ashford, and Omaha restaurateur Gladys Harrison in Tuesday’s vote.

That gave her a second chance against Bacon, who beat her by just fewer than 5,000 votes-- about 2% of all cast-- in the 2018 general election. She said she thinks it will be a different race this time.

“It’s already very different in the direction this country has moved,” she said.

...A centrist former Republican, Ashford echoed Bacon from two years earlier in arguing that Eastman’s policies are too extreme for most voters in a district that includes Douglas County and western Sarpy County.

The key example both Ashford and Bacon cite is Eastman’s support for “Medicare for All,” the single-player, universal health care system that would do away with private health insurance.

But the 48-year-old Eastman hasn’t backed down from her support for the health care plan championed by liberal firebrand Bernie Sanders, noting the coronavirus pandemic has exposed the pitfalls of a system that mostly relies on people getting their health insurance through their employer.

Eastman offered herself as “an authentic Democrat.” And much like two years ago, she benefited from an army of grassroots progressive volunteers, who shifted this spring from going door to door to making thousands of calls from phone banks.

...Eastman and Bacon now enter a fall campaign that will likely be heavily influenced by the top-of-ticket battle between Trump and Democratic challenger Joe Biden. While the two congressional candidates competed two years ago, the presidential race is sure to change the dynamics.

Bacon on Tuesday night said he wished the president were at times more diplomatic. But on issues from abortion to taxes to trade, he said, the president’s positions align well with the district.

“I want that conservative philosophy in the White House,” he said.

Bacon also believes Trump’s supporters will be highly motivated in November. The Republican wave that Trump created in 2016 helped Bacon to his 1-point victory over then-incumbent Brad Ashford.

...But Democrats are heavily motivated to oust Trump, which could drive Democratic turnout in the swing district. And this time Eastman will have the support of the national Democratic establishment, which failed to jump in with both feet to help her when she lost narrowly two years ago.

In charging she is too extreme, Eastman said, Bacon is just “following the Republican playbook” in a race he knows he’s in danger of losing.

“He’ll say that I’m too extreme when he has voted 95% of the time with Donald Trump, and even signed a pledge to not disagree with the president, which is crazy,” Eastman said. “He is the definition of extreme.”

No one expected the Wisconsin special election to switch the 7th district from red to blue. The PVI is R+8 and when Sean Duffy was reelected in 2018 against Democrat Margaret Engebretson, it was a 60.1% to 38.5% wipeout, Duffy winning 23 of the 26 counties, including the 3 big ones, Marathon, St. Croix and Oneida. Although Obama won the district in 2008, he lost to Romney in 2012 and Trump beat Hillary decisively-- 57.7% to 37.3%.

Last night Tom Tiffany was an easy winner over Democrat Tricia Zunker, 109,592 (57.22%) to 81,928 (42.78%). Zunker, president of the Wausau School Board and an associate justice for the Ho-Chunk Nation Supreme Court, did better than either Margaret Engebretson did in 2018 or then Hillary had done in 2016. But not better enough. They will face off again in November. Zunker addressed her supporters last night on Facebook Live, noting that "we laid the groundwork for a Democratic win in November. This isn’t the result we were hoping for, but we did something incredible here. We did something that no one thought a Democrat in this district could do, in spite of a global pandemic. We did something incredible despite the fact that legislators refused to switch to mail-in voting to protect the health and safety of Wisconsinites." Tiffany outraised her by over a million dollars. Their debates were about issues like abortion and gun control.

The other special election-- in CA-25 (Santa Clarita Valley, Antelope Valley and Simi Valley-- was more of a contest. Although the district has a Democratic registration advantage, Republican Mike Garcia, a Trump loyalist, beat Christy Smith, a centrist Democrat. As of this month, the voter registration numbers were very much favorable to the Democrats:

• Democrats- 161,693 (38.41%)
• Republicans- 133,771 (31.78%)
• No party preference- 98,717 (23.45%)

Although Christy Smith was offering nothing but another centrist nothing-- with lots of meaningless partisan endorsements and a meaningless platform-- I predicted she would win anyway, albeit narrowly (and she well may in November). At the time, I noted that her only chance to win would be to reach out to the 6.5% of primary voters who had cast primary ballots for progressive Cenk Uygur and consolidate the Democratic vote. She chose to reach out to Republicans instead and ignore progressives. That proved our "Anonymous Strategist" correct this past Sunday when he predicted she would lose, unable to inspire Democrats to vote.

This morning I reached out to Cenk and asked him why he thought she lost. He was kind:

Republicans vote more. It was a low turnout election and they almost always win those. Probably any Democratic candidate would have lost but the Democratic Party's insistence on picking the least dynamic or populist candidate doesn't help. Mike Garcia was more populist than Steve Knight and the whole Republican Party supported him and helped him win the primary. On the Democratic side, the party despises populism so they all went in very aggressively for the establishment candidate. In primaries, especially very short ones like this, party endorsements make a huge difference and the establishment rules the day. In general elections, undecided voters have the opposite motivation-- they don't like the establishment.

  The Republican Party gives their candidates the trappings of outsiders and the Democratic Party gives their candidates the appearance of being insiders. Independent voters don't like insiders. They're independents-- by definition they're outsiders. It also doesn't help that the Democratic Party leaders are lions against progressives in primaries and lambs against Republicans in the general. How much more vitriolic were they against me than Mike Garcia? If they fought him half as hard as they fought me, they might have had a chance.

This is what happens when the Democratic Party establishment backs candidates with nothing to offer but someone they imagine is the lesser of two evils. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. This time didn't. This one wasn't even close:

CA-25 Special Election Tuesday-- Top Democratic Strategist Predicts Christy Smith Is Toast

As you may recall, about a month and a half ago I predicted that the awful Democratic candidate, Christy Smith, would narrowly beat the awful Republican candidate, Mike Garcia. The election is this coming Tuesday, although, many (most ?) voters have sent in their ballots already. And that doesn't look good for my prediction. I asked a top political strategist, someone who makes the big bucks, to write it as a guest post. He agreed but said I couldn't use his name unless I paid $5K. So... we'll just call him "An Anonymous Strategist."

Microcosm-- CA-25
-by Anonymous Strategist
This coming Tuesday’s Special Election (for Katie Hill’s congressional seat) in Southern California is on a lot of people’s minds. Some people are seeing Trump’s tweets calling the election rigged. Some people are hearing about congressional Democrats’ hysterical attempts to lower expectations. While these instances represent the extremes of the right (Trump’s GOP) and the left (not the progressive left, the corporate/establishment left), a really interesting finale to what should have been an easy win for Democrats is coming together.

In my opinion, there is a greater than 60% chance that Democrats lose this election on Tuesday, and it flips from Blue to Red.

Why do I think that?

Given the vote by mail nature of California (and the COVID-19 realities), election day doesn't matter as much as trends in ballots returned. Remember that as you read the next three paragraphs. Ballots, ballots, ballots...

By this point, there are far too many likely GOP ballots returned to the registrar and far too few likely DEM ballots returned. Given the Democratic registration advantage in the district, we should be seeing about an even return at this point. It’s fair to argue that Republican voters do tend to return ballots quicker (upon receiving them in the mail) however by this weekend (GOTV weekend) you should see an uptick in Democratic ballots that would make DEM totals about even with GOP totals. That’s currently not happening. And it's actually not that close.

Additionally, the ballots being returned skew heavily older than the electorate as a whole (particularly the 2018 electorate which sent Katie Hill to Congress for a few months). Given COVID-19, it’s not as though you will see a surge of poll voters on Tuesday large enough to make up for this heavily skewed (older) electorate.

Finally, the ballots being returned are skewing heavily White (Anglo) in a district that is Majority Minority (Hispanic). Yes, it’s true, that like Democrats as a whole, Latinos vote “late.” But this is too late. Again, it’s not as though you’ll see a surge in Latino vote at the polls large enough to make up for the current trend.

So, that’s why I think we (Democrats) are headed for a loss Tuesday.

There’s no doubt the Democratic Party and organized labor machines are flooding the district with paid election workers trying to “collect” (yes, it’s legal) as many Latino ballots as possible this weekend. I’m sure that’s why Trump is crying “rigged election” -- namely due to the fact he’s unable to comprehend that ballot collection is legal in California. If he were able to cool his jets and understand this basic concept, he’d actually see a way to use it to his advantage in November. I bet Brad Parscale (his savvy manager) understands this.

All kidding and levity aside, this is a big problem for Democrats, granted it’s not a new problem. They consistently use a wildly flawed methodology when recruiting candidates (and stifling potentially good ones). They recruited Christy Smith because they knew that given her corporate/establishment ties, she’d be able to have the best chance at raising the money necessary to advertise in such an expensive district (L.A. Media Market). However, they keep forgetting that these elections (especially special elections) are about motivation, not persuasion. Persuading the so called “middle” does not matter at all. ZERO. Base turnout does, and it seems as though the base doesn’t give a shit.

That’s a microcosm for November.

A couple more things to consider:

1- In the jungle primary 2 months ago, Smith got 57,423 votes (36.1%) and Garcia got 40,311 votes (25.4%).

2- Garcia has a Hispanic name; Smith sounds like a Republican name.

3- As of April 22, Smith had spent $1,946,261 and Garcia had spent virtually the same amount ($1,908,185). The DCCC spent $1,687,850 and Pelosi's Super PAC spent $501,839 and the NRCC spent $1,470,366 while McCarthy's Super PAC spent $637,264. So it's all about even.

4- Top Democratic Party officials agree with Anonymous Strategist that Smith is going to lose, not with my prediction that she's going to squeak through despite what a truly terrible candidate she is.

5- In a district like CA-25, where Hillary beat Trump and where Trump is generally despised, this endorsement Saturday morning should do more harm than good:

Big Test Of The Anti-Red Wave Theory Comes In 2 Weeks-- In A California Special Election

Did you know there's a big special election on May 12, two weeks from yesterday? Remember when Katie Hill resigned after a sex scandal. This is the special election to replace her until the November election decides who represents CA-25 (the Santa Clarita Valley, most of the Antelope Valley and most of Simi Valley) for the next two years. The winner of the special win face the loser of the special again in November.

This is the perfect opportunity for the GOP to steal back a blue seat-- no incumbent and a dreadful Democratic candidate in what is expected to be a super-low turnout election. Or will it be?

158,849 people voted in the jungle primary. 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans were on the ballot. The combined Democratic vote was 80,387 (50.5%) and the combined Republican vote was 78,462 (49.4%)-- very, very close. The two top vote getters will be in the run-off in 2 weeks:

• Christy Smith (D)- 57,423 (36.1%)
• Mike Garcia (R)- 40,311 (25.4%)

As of March 31, Smith had spent $1,512,159 and had $357,257 in her warchest and Garcia had spent $1,426,856 and had $446,743 in his warchest. The DCCC has spent $1,687,850 to hold onto the seat, while the NRCC and McCarthy's Congressional Leadership PAC have spent $886,767 + $439,291 ($1,326,058).





The keys for Smith to win is to consolidate all the Democratic support in the district, to win over the huge independent vote and to turn out the base. A couple of years ago, Democrats finally became the plurality party in the district:

• Democrats- 161,693 (38.41%)
• Republicans- 133,771 (31.78%)
• Others (including decline-to state)- 95,090 (29.81%)

The key to consolidating Democratic votes are the 10,391 progressives (6.5%) who backed Cenk Uygur in the primary. Smith is a classic lesser of two evils candidate. It would be hard for any progressive who knows anything about her to vote for her. The Democrats couldn't have found a worse candidate to run. In trying to say something in favor of her, Uygur told me that "Primaries are the most important part of our election system. Once you get to the general election in a U.S. election you have only two choices an overwhelming percentage of the time. This is also true in CA-25. I only endorse candidates who I know will not take corporate money. In terms of who to vote for in CA-25, that's relatively easy. Mike Garcia has all of the downsides of Christy Smith without any of the upsides. Garcia claimed Steve Knight wasn't pro-Trump enough-- Knight voted with Trump 99% of the time. Anyone who proudly claims that being with Trump 99% of the time isn't enough isn't fit for office. I wouldn't vote for Mike Garcia under penalty of law." He told me his guess is that his supporters will vote for Smith but added that he's "really guessing. Voters generally vote. I don't know how many non-regular voters I got to come out for me in such a short election. If anyone who voted for me got the idea that Mike Garcia would be better, then they didn't listen to a word I said."

The Cook Report and Sabato's Crystal Ball both rate the race a toss-up, while Inside Elections rates it as "likely Democrat." Yesterday, Rachel Bitecofer took a look at how the race has developed and wrote that she is "hesitant to say the CA-25 special election... will be a bellwether, but it’s the best chance Republicans have at reclaiming one of these seats this cycle. Democrats have been hesitant to spend heavily on the race whereas Republicans, increasingly bearish about their fall prospects under Trump, badly need any positive optics they can rustle up, and unlike other 2020 races where fundraising and candidate recruitment have reflected a hostile political atmosphere that still favors Democrats, their recruitment effort in California’s 25th district produced a top-notch nominee."

Bitecofer, who I generally think is a great prognosticator finds it easy to say that Garcia, a dangerous sociopath and walking freakshow who wants to spend his time in office licking Trump's ass, is "a top-notch nominee." She can't find it in her to describe what an utterly worthless catastrophe of a candidate Christie Smith is.

Ironically, outside of gender, Democrats struggle to embrace the electoral power of descriptive representation (i.e., identity politics) when it comes to candidate recruitment; however, Republicans have long understood the benefits of recruiting and running minority candidates in diverse districts. It is a strategy that has worked well for them in both Florida and Texas, and one they’re hoping might mitigate a massive demographic advantage for Democrats on the 25th. Their candidate, Mike Garcia, has an impressive background as a Navy fighter pilot, and perhaps more relevant for the GOP’s electoral purposes, Garcia’s Ballotpedia entry provided by his campaign notes he is a “first-generation American citizen whose family came to the United States legally.” Republicans hope he may be able to pull over some voters from the district’s 37-percent Latino population and potentially erode some of the Democrats’ advantage among this core voting bloc.

As my 2018 voter file analysis of the district reveals, a surge in turnout among Latino voters played a pivotal role in the district’s transition from red to blue. They doubled their 2014 turnout rate of 25 percent to 54 percent despite a massive uptick in registrations. As such, a strategy that offsets Democrats’ advantages among Latinos is critical for Republican efforts to reclaim these, and similarly situated, seats. So, CA-25 may be a beta test for the more expansive strategy the GOP plans to deploy in 2020 in similar districts and states such as Arizona, where the party is poised to lose a second Senate seat and see the longtime Republican stronghold flip to the Democrats in the Electoral College.

But it’s hard to predict what will happen because, although a special election normally has lower participation, and one that occurs during a pandemic may have even lower-than-normal turnout due to the inability of campaigns to engage in critical get-out-the-vote activities, as the pandemic emerged, the state’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, issued an executive order switching the election to an entirely vote-by-mail system, which could cause a turnout increase. Unlike most of the other California districts from 2018, the 25th has a modest registration advantage for Democrats and every voter in the district received a ballot. For now, I remain bullish on Democrats holding onto this seat.

As I discussed in my presidential forecast, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, I was anticipating something approaching-- perhaps even reaching-- 70 percent turnout in the 2020 general election, which is about 10 points higher than the 2016 turnout and would be history-making. This prediction was driven by the fact that 2018 midterm turnout increased just over 13 points over its 2014 levels (I was expecting about 10 points) and that based on my own calculation, in contests and cycles since Trump’s 2016 election, the average turnout increase has been about 10 points. The 2018 election overperformed my bold estimates because, unlike with Democrats during Obama’s tenure, turnout of Republicans in 2018 did not decline, it increased.

The image of a disaffected Republican Party, embarrassed by their “chaos” president, so far runs into an irrefutable data-reality that Republican voter turnout, even in the 40 suburban districts Democrats flipped, was robust — and it did not break in favor of Democrats in rates any higher than normal for the polarized era. Instead, the blue wave that washed through America’s suburbs in 2018 was powered by a massive turnout of Democrats and independents, who showed up in droves to toss Republican House incumbents out of office and send a message to Donald Trump. 

Personally, I will never cast a vote for an evil candidate-- even if it's a much lesser evil-- and Christie Smith has every intention of going to Congress and being one of the worst Democrats in the House. She's a corporate shill who will always disappoint, just as she has in her short, putrid time in Sacramento. But if I had to guess, I'd say she'll probably win in two weeks and again in November. I think she'll win for the same reason Biden will-- because most people are happy enough to vote against someone rather than for someone.

Party hack

Will CA-25 Voters Choose Willful Mediocrity Or Shoot For The Stars?

The political establishment in DC, in Los Angeles, in Sacramento and in Santa Clarita-- and I’m talking about the Democratic political establishment-- have all gone bonkers in trying to destroy Cenk Uygur’s electoral aspirations. I don’t know Cenk well, but well enough to be certain that he would be the single best member of Congress-- at least in the ways most feared by the transpartisan establishment. He wants to cut them off from the bribery that makes the wheel of careerism go round and round. The establishment has instead rallied around a useless corporate tool who, if elected, will instantly disappear into the backbenches to never be heard from again-- except in fundraising letters every two years. Frankly, I was surprised a couple of weeks ago when the establishment newspaper for CA-25, the Santa Clarita Valley Signal, actually published a relatively fair and balanced piece on Uygur as a candidate.

Last month, the former MSNBC personality announced the launch of his campaign after former Rep. Katie Hill stepped down from office on Nov. 1. He’s now looking into the next steps: relocating with his family from Los Angeles to the district.

“I’m moving to the district but I’ll have to wait until the end of the school year,” said Uygur, a father of a 9- and 7-year-old. “We’re already looking at houses and it’s a beautiful area so we’re happy to move.”

As the family finds a place to settle down, he and his campaign committee have already started mobilizing in the Santa Clarita Valley. On Friday, Uygur announced he would no longer accept endorsements, following an endorsement from presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who said in a statement on Thursday that Uygur “will serve ordinary people, not powerful special interests,” but then withdrew his endorsement entirely a day later.

Uygur’s platform is taking on “corruption in politics,” as his campaign website states.

“Getting money out of politics (is a priority) because that affects all the issues and the issues of this district,” said Uygur.

Other priorities include supporting small businesses, increasing the minimum wage and Medicare for All-- the only candidate who has voiced being in favor of it because “others get contributions from private insurance companies,” he said.

School funding and improved safety for students in the wake of the Saugus High School shooting are also on his radar.

How does he plan on doing that?

“I’m going to go after Mitch McConnell (the Senate majority leader) with fire and fury and the reason for that is that we must get federal gun control immediately,” he said. “Every day that our kids are in danger of a school shooting is a day that I cannot bear. If we put enough public pressure he will have to bring (legislation) up for a vote.”

Uygur said he’s not concerned about his challengers on either side of the party lines, which include former Republican Rep. Steve Knight, Republican Mike Garcia and Assemblywoman Christy Smith, D-Santa Clarita. Besides the competition, the progressive pundit has had to reckon with past remarks about women, saying that “I’ve apologized. They were made when I was a politically incorrect Republican.” 

Let’s take a look at the two leading candidates’ websites. The DCCC/EMILY’s List corporate shill, Christy Smith:

And the independent-minded progressive, Cenk:

The DCCC tells the candidates it owns to nev er put an issues page where people will find it without looking around, which explains why there is no issues page on the top bar of Smith’s website. Obviously, on the other hand,you can’t miss it on Cenk’s. When you eventually get to hers, it’s nice and vanilla: no real policy... just pablum: “Christy believes that a great education levels the playing field and creates more opportunity for all of our young people.” Is she going to back any of the bold plans bering put forth by political leaders like Elizabeth or Bernie? She doesn’t say, but her silence tells the story. She plans to go to Congress to do whatever her donors and political benefactors tell her to do-- on education and on every other issue. Look at her Mayo Pete-like healthcare plank:

Health care is a human right and while the Affordable Care Act was a tremendous step in that direction, Christy believes we need to do more to reduce costs, ensure that every American has access to affordable healthcare, and protect those with pre-existing conditions. That’s why she supports a public health insurance option for anyone who wants it. Additionally, Christy believes we need to have the same consumer protections in the healthcare system as we do in any consumer market, which includes transparency when it comes to the real cost of healthcare treatments. She will work to shed light on pricing that for too long has been negotiated in the dark.

Christy also believes that Congress needs to do the work of controlling the skyrocketing cost of health care, including the rising costs of prescription drugs. It’s unacceptable that US taxpayers subsidize the research and development of lifesaving drugs, only to pay more for them than people who live in Europe, Japan, and Canada. She'll also fight to protect Medicaid and Medicare, women's reproductive health care rights, and funding for Planned Parenthood.

Pramila Jayapal’s Medicare for All bill (H.R. 1384) will be voted on once Pelosi is out of the way. 118 Democrats have co-sponsored it (including Katie Hill and Democrats in neighboring districts like Brad Sherman, Ted Lieu, Adam Schiff and Judy Chu). It’s not a theory; it’s an actual piece of pending legislation. Will Smith co-sponsor it or even vote for it? She very carefully doesn’t say, using DCCC language to not offend anyone nor commit to anything. It’s what she is and it’s why sending her to Congress would be a complete waste of time.

Compare her inane plank to Cenk’s take-no-prisoners approach:

I’m the only candidate in this race who is in favor of Medicare for All. Every single person is covered under Medicare for All and there are no co-pays, deductibles, or premiums. Imagine a country where no one dies because they don’t have insurance or goes bankrupt when they run into a serious medical problem. Well, that’s what every developed country in the world has-- except us. And on average they pay half of what we do!

Don’t let anyone-- Republican or Democrat-- deceive you about Medicare for All. You wouldn’t need private insurance anymore because you would have better insurance! Even it’s critics agree Medicare for All is “the Cadillac plan” and has “awesome” coverage. It expands the coverage you have now and lets you go to any doctor, hospital, or provider! The only reason the other politicians are against it is because they get campaign contributions from private insurance companies to keep the old, expensive, ineffective system we have now. Simply put, Medicare for All will save lives, and I will always fight for what's best for the people.

It’s the same thing when it comes to the climate crisis. No need for Smith to even mention the Green New Deal, which is opposed by the establishment she craves to join-- just more professional-sounding pablum and meaningless talking points. Cenk? Exactly what you would expect: fire and fury:

Environmental Justice and Climate Change

The planet is on fire. And we don’t have a second one. My district is on fire. Our politicians fiddle while we burn. We must take action right now. The oil companies keep all the profits of extracting our natural resources but do they pay all the costs to our future? A primary cause of climate change is the oil and gas industry, but when Simi Valley is on fire we have to pay for it! Why? That’s outrageous. Did you get any part of the profits of Exxon-Mobil? No, neither did I. But when your house burns down, they are nowhere to be found. That’s privatizing the gains and socializing the losses. 16 out of the last 17 years have been the hottest on record. If we don’t act soon, we can’t reverse it. I’m not going to let my district burn down for their profits.

Voters in CA-25 have an opportunity to rub the establishment’s snout in the mud and elect someone who will drive Pelosi, Hoyer and their cronies insane every single day. He will push and push and push and never worry about losing his seat, always working to enact the policies to make the lives of working families better. Unlike Smith, he isn’t running to make a career move. He’s running to make a difference, a real one, for the Santa Clarita, Simi and the Antelope valleys-- and for the country. Please consider contributing to his campaign on the DWT ActBlue page which you can access by clicking on the thermometer on the right. This morning Cenk told me that "I'm not sure there has ever been a clearer choice in a Democratic primary. Christy brags non-stop about how the establishment picked her and she celebrates the money she got from corporate donors, including the insurance industry. I don't take a dime from corporate donors or lobbyists and I don't owe any other politician any favors. The reason why I can speak so boldly and honestly is because I am accountable to only one set of people-- the voters."

When Ro Khanna Speaks It Matters, Part II-- CA-25

Earlier today, we noted Ro Khanna's leadership in regard to the excesses of Trump's Pentagon Budget, basically Trump ripping up Eisenhower's Military Industrial Complex speech and using if for toilet paper and then flushing it 15 times. I want to remind you that Khanna is also Bernie's chief congressional surrogate and has worked tirelessly to make a cohesive case for Bernie's election and for the platform Bernie is running on.

Last cycle, just one member of Congress-- that same Ro Khanna-- was able to see the potential for one of the most revolutionary political happenings in decades, namely replacing corrupt establishment hack, Wall Street suck-ass, and "next Speaker," Joe Crowley with AOC. Khanna endorsed her; not one other member of Congress dared to. Just Ro Khanna.

This cycle, Khanna joined half a dozen other members to endorse progressive challenger Marie Newman over anti-Choice, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ Blue Dog Dan Lipinski. And this week Khanna became the first-- and only-- member of Congress to weigh in for Cenk Uygur in the special election to replace Katie Hill in CA-25, a blue-trending district in the suburbs north of Los Angeles.

The DCCC, EMILY's List and the political establishment already have a hand-picked candidate-- a meaningless and insipid backbencher-to-be with nothing whatsoever to recommend her: Christy Smith, an assemblywoman with no accomplishments other than her involvement with herding indigents onto buses in Santa Clarita (which she represents) and dumping them off in the Antelope Valley (which she doesn't represent but is part of the district she wants to represent). Other than that, Smith is one big yawn who has assembled a pack of ravenous mercenary consultants and opposes Medicare-for-All, showing, right from day-one her utter contempt for working families.

There is no doubt that Cenk is the most revolutionary candidate running for office anywhere in America. Do you like the way AOC, Rashida, Ilhan and Ayanna have shaken up Congress? You ain't seen nothing yet! I always loved this AOC meme-- and the work she's done behind it. Just watch Cenk if he makes it into the House.

In the last few days, he's given me too statements for this blog, one regarding Big PhRMA and one regarding the banksters. Each goes too the root of the problems with the American political system as it has developed over the last several decades:

• "Drug companies don't give politicians money for charity, they do it to buy them. And unfortunately it works. Everyone knows these are bribes. The only people who won't acknowledge it are corporate politicians on both sides and the corporate media. This is a sick system that lets people die for profit. Any politician that takes money from the drug companies is selling out their voters on behalf of their donors."
• "No one thinks JP Morgan Chase is giving a politician money for their health or for charity. Everyone knows it's a bribe. And if they give that same politician a second 'contribution' that means they got a return on investment. And to be fair to them, an American politician is the most profitable thing you can buy. And they're almost all up for sale. This is a sick system that has to be fixed immediately. I'm running in CA-25 to make sure we end the obvious bribery and the brazen corruption."

Cenk isn't going to be another weak-knee-ed freshman driven by careerist calculations. We're looking at a real fighter who is as likely to given Pelosi and Hoyer a tough time as he is to drive McCarthy, Trump and MoscowMitch up a wall.

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles County Democratic Party establishment, headed by Mark Gonzalez, is trying to bum-rush Uygur out of the race. Giving lip service to progressive notions is one thing-- seeing a real live progressive gain power is a bit much, in fact way too much-- for an establishment schlepper like Gonzalez.

Last month, on November 13, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent made one of the most memorable statements to the House Intelligence Committee when he said "you can’t promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing off corrupt people." Give that a couple moments of contemplation. In fact, while you're contemplating, or after, give this timely 6 minute polemic by Robert Reich a listen. He's talking about electability in terms of the 2020 presidential race but what he's saying about inspiration isn't just about Elizabeth and Bernie. It's not complicated; it is, however crucial if we're going to build a movement:





What Kent said about corruption is a truth that is felt by any political candidate with the moxie to run on an anti-corruption platform, and what progressive candidates like Cenk Uygur have been facing. The Santa Clarita establishment and state and national Democratic Party insiders are keen to see the seat filled by corporate Democrat Christy Smith.

Uygur has made opposition to political corruption a cornerstone of his campaign and has been blunt and outspoken with his views about removing money and corporate lobbying from politics. In his speech announcing his candidacy, Uygur declared in no uncertain terms, "I’m going to fight to get money out of politics, and I’m going to call it like it is. You know what campaign donations are from big corporations and lobbyists? Bribes. They’re bribes when Republicans take them, they’re also bribes when Democrats take them."

Those bribes and the politicians who take them have a detrimental effect on the everyday lives of Californians, as Uygur explains, "we have ridiculously low wages and a horrible healthcare system because politicians took money from those industries to sell you out."

It is no wonder why party insiders want to keep Uygur out; they have too much at stake to lose. That is why gatekeepers at official organizations like the Los Angeles County Democratic Party (LACDP) have made very undemocratic moves to keep an anti-corruption candidate like Uygur from getting a fair opportunity to make his case to members.

Gonzalez

Recently, Gonzalez, who has been eagerly putting his thumb on the scale in favor of Christy Smith, made it clear that "no club is to have any involvement with Cenk," according to one of LACDP’s chartered Antelope Valley clubs. The statement came in response to Uygur's plans to participate with that club in a Christmas Parade sponsored by the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce. Not an official campaign event for any specific candidate, all candidates were invited to participate. And what makes this Gonzalez incident especially egregious is that the LACDP has not yet endorsed any candidate, and has yet to announce when their endorsement process will even take place. The club refused to exclude Uygur since it would have indicated a clear case of bias.

A different LACDP charted club located in Santa Clarita, home of Christy Smith, moved schedules and deadlines around, only giving the information to their favored candidate. Recently, the Democratic Alliance for Action (DAA) has moved up the date of their endorsement meeting from January 23, to December 11, without notifying candidates other than Christy Smith, in an effort to ensure her endorsement by the club, and deny Uygur a platform.

The same tactic was used by the California State Democratic Party which abruptly set their endorsement meeting to Saturday, December 14 at the same location as the DAA meeting, with only two weeks’ notice and, as with DAA, did not notify the Uygur campaign. In the case of the State endorsement meeting, the party did not provide Uygur with a list of delegates as of this publication, while the Smith Campaign has had a healthy head start contacting delegates.

One potential reason why Gonzalez is so interested in silencing progressives is because of the cozy relationship he and the LACDP have with corporate Democrats, Christy Smith's campaign being just one example. The Smith Campaign hired the wife of the President of the DAA who also happens to be the DAAs former president to work on her campaign in the hopes that she can surreptitiously influence the club’s membership into supporting her.

Gonzalez has justified using his influence against Uygur by citing discredited right-wing smears against the progressive candidate. Gonzalez said in a statement, "Cenk Uygur’s comments are both heartless and disqualifying for someone who wants to serve the people’s U.S. House of Representatives. The Los Angeles County Democratic Party does not tolerate hate or discrimination against any group or community. Instead, we celebrate the Democratic values of inclusivity, fairness, diversity and compassion of and for people of all backgrounds and communities. Cenk Uygur’s shameful comments underscore the fact that he believes in the opposite-- and as a result he does not belong in Congress." In his statement, Gonzalez conveniently doesn’t address the dated nature of the comments, and the context behind them. Watch how Cenk responds to the right-wing smears that are being so conveniently marketed by Christy Smith and her allies like Gonzalez:




It is clear that the behind-the-curtain antics of Gonzalez and others at the Los Angeles County Democratic Party as well as the State Democratic Party, are the first layer of the onion of corruption that progressive candidates are attempting to unpeel. If it was one instance, then perhaps it could be dismissed as an oversight, or unprofessional, but to engage in a sustained effort to silence progressive voices in favor of candidates who are open for purchase by lobbyists and moneyed interests is a stain upon the Democratic Party in California.

Meanwhile, the forces behind Smith have assembled a long list of nearly every establishment politician in the state to endorse her. The latest was Nancy Pelosi, who took time out from passing Trump's Pentagon budget, from handing Trump a victory over NAFTA 2.0, from allowing partisan politics to ruin the impeachment process, from betraying the American people with a weak and pusillanimous drug pricing bill, from her efforts to busy the Green New Deal and Medicare-for-All... to endorse Christy Smith. "California State Assemblywoman Christy Smith is a proven leader," she shat out of her mouth, clueless of anything about Smith whatsoever and attempting to mislead the voters in CA-25 the same way she misleads in everything she does these days. "We need her in Congress so that she can help advance our for the people agenda in Washington. I am proud to endorse Christy Smith because she will work to fight corruption, lower the cost of prescription drugs, fully fund public schools and build a strong middle-class economy that works for all Americans." All bullshit. Christy Smith actually favors corruption and is furious with Uygur for making it an issue. To Pelosi, she's just another obedient careerist backbencher who will disappear after being elected and never be heard from again, other than bu her donors when she calls them for contributions to finance another sadly meaningless career in politics.

And Ro isn't the only Democrat from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party countering Pelosi and her mob trying to force another corporatist nothing into Congress. "For years," said Bernie yesterday, "Cenk has inspired people all across the country to organize against corrupt forces in our politics, and now he’s organizing the people in his district to do the same... I’m endorsing Cenk because I know he will serve ordinary people, not powerful special interests. He is a voice that we desperately need in Congress and will be a great representative for CA-25 and the country."