Bernie's Revolution Is Winning-- Let's Not Let It Be Derailed By Idiots

Jimmy Gomez

California elected 5 new freshmen this year— all Democrats replacing Democrats: Ro Khanna, who won a primary against Mike Honda, Jimmy Panetta, who took the seat Sam Farr retired from, Salud Carbajal, who took the seat Lois Capps retired from, Nanette Barragan, who took the seat Janice Hahn retired from and Lou Correa, who took the seat Loretta Sanchez gave top when she ran, unsuccessfully, for the Senate. Politically all the freshmen are pretty much like their predecessors. Lou Correa is, by far the most conservative, and like Sanchez, he’s part of the Blue Dog caucus. Hahn and Honda were members of the Progressive Caucus and so are Barragan and Khanna.

All of the California incumbents either endorsed Hillary or stayed neutral. None endorsed Bernie. The Berniecrat House candidates all lost in California: Bao Nguyen to the conservative Correa, Wendy Reed to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Yet it’s hard to deny that Bernie’s Revolution is now one of the more dominant forces— if not the most dominant— inside the Democratic Party. Bernie didn’t do much for the California candidates who backed him. But I was very heartened that he sent out a letter to raise money for Nanette Barragan in the general and helped her raise the money she needed to win.

It didn’t look good going into the home stretch. State Senator Isadore Hall, the corrupt establishment pick, was heavily favored to win. He had it in the bag. Nanette had been getting some help from Blue America, but not enough to cover the expenses for a viable field operation that she sensed would be her shot at winning. EMILY’s List was also helping Nanette but they only raise money that they can get rake-offs and kickbacks from— expensive and nearly useless TV ads, for example— but not field operations. But that’s where Bernie came in. Even though Nanette had backed Hillary during the primary, someone in Bernie’s political operation prevailed upon whoever had to be prevailed upon and they operated the way an effective party should operate— overlooking that the most progressive candidate (Nanette), who basically was campaigning on a Bernie-like platform, had backed his rival— and backed her against a corrupt conservative who serves the interests of tobacco lobbyists, Big Oil and anyone with an open checkbook.

Thanks, in part to the Bernie-financed field operation, Nanette stunned the entire California Democratic Party establishment and beat their candidate decisively. From a weak primary showing that saw Hall best her 40,200 (40.1%) to 22,031 (22%), she came roaring out of the general with a 93,124 (52.2%) to 85,289 (47.8%) win. Hall was so shocked that he went to Washington and insisted he had won and tried voting on internal Democratic Party matters just like the other freshmen. The freshmen responded by electing Nanette one of the co-presidents of the freshman class and electing her regional Democratic whip. Hall disappeared.

All in, Hall had spent $1,900,360 and, thanks to Bernie, Nanette kept pace in the crucial final weeks. Her total spend was $1,815,773. The Cooperative of American Physicians spends money helping right-wing politicians. This year Hall was their second biggest investment ($100,122) after Republican Joe Heck ($299,578).

I’m bringing this up— the Bernie camp’s pragmatic attitude and decisive action— because I want to applaud it and I want too see more of this. If the BernieRevolution is going to take root and become viable within the Democratic Party, they’re going to have to win races with Berniecrats and forge alliances with like-minded progressives, like Nanette Barragan. It pains me when I see Bernie fans rallying behind second-rate candidates based solely on loyalty to Bernie. That’s a prescription for failure.

In the CA-34 race, Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez has exactly the kind of progressive attitude and record Bernie supporters expect from candidates looking for their support. But some of the Bernie backers in the district and around L.A. are bitter than Gomez had endorsed Hillary and have been smearing him as though he were Trump or Paul Ryan. That kind of political immaturity can only have one effect: crimping the revolution— and alienating the likely winner of the race instead of making an ally out of him.

Hispanic Voters Won The Day For Two Progressive Women In Southern California-- Nanette Barragán And Eloise Reyes

Our last post on Tuesday night was about how Latinos tried but couldn't do it on their own. In two little discussed California races Blue America was active in, though, Latinos, helped progressives beat two truly horrible and corrupt conservatives. Nanette Barragán appears to have come from way behind to beat state Senator Isadore Hall for the congressional seat the Democratic Party Establishment tried to give him. And in an Inland Empire assembly district, it was Latino voters who helped Eloise Reyes oust one of the most conservative (and corrupt) Democrats in the state legislature, Cheryl Brown (AKA, Chevron Cheryl).

The race in CA-44 hasn't been officially called yet. With all precincts in, Nanette has 61,828 votes (51.2%) to Hall's 58,983 (48.8%)-- an amazing showing for someone who was given no chance at all. Ambitious career politician, Janice Hahn-- who gave up to seat for a supervisorial seat that she reckons is a better path to statewide office than a congressional seat-- tried engineering an easy path to victory for Hall. And it wasn't just the slimy politicians from Hall's Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- like Gavin Newsom-- who were pushing Hall. It seems like just about every African-American member of Congress (not Barbara Lee, who knew better) was playing identity politics and backed Hall, as did the New Dems (which endorsed him). Virtually the whole state legislature, well aware of how corrupt he is, backed him (along with Gov. Brown, Senator-elect Harris, and even progressives like Betty Yee and John Chiang. Disgracefully, even Supervisor Hilda Solis, who started her career by taking on a corrupt Establishment incumbent, endorsed Hall.As did the California Democratic Party, party chair John Burton, some clowns calling themselves the Progressive Democratic Club, and the bulk of the labor movement (as well as Planned Parenthood, NOW, Equality California, even the Mexican American Bar Association PAC!

Nanette had a much smaller list of backers including Blue America (the first outside group to endorse her), DFA, the Latino Victory Project, the Sierra Club, Climate Hawks Vote, Our Revolution, the California League of Conservation Voters, EMILY's List and all the newspapers in the district, from the L.A. Times and the Daily Breeze to the Compton Herald and the Spanish-language press. The congressional Hispanic Caucus' Poder PAC also backed her, as did Progressive Caucus chair Raul Grijalva.

But, of course, it was the gigantic surge in Latino participation-- registration and voting-- that put Nanette over the top and help slay the whole disgusting establishment attempt to bolster one of its own. In the last week she told me that early voting was through the roof and that Latinos were voting in record numbers. They weren't just voting against Trump; they were voting for Nanette. Meanwhile, Hall is crying racism, even claiming his skin looked too dark in her literature.

Similar story down in the Dem vs Dem race for the San Bernardino Assembly seat occupied by corrupt conservative Cheryl Brown. I call it the Sammy Hagar district-- Fontana, Colton, Rialto, Bloomington, Grand Terrace, Muscovy and a little of San Bernardino. It's not easy ousting an incumbent, but, again, Latino voter participation for Reyes surely helped-- as well as a powerful campaign led by labor and environmentalists sick and tired of Brown's record of voting with the Republicans on union and Big Oil issues. All precincts are in and of the 73,350 votes cast, Eloise won 39,092 (53.3%) to Brown's 34,258 (46.7%). She's also whining her skin looked too dark in the mailers sent out against her. She doesn't want to face the fact that she lost because Eloise ran a strong, issue-oriented grassroots campaign that engaged voters directly with an incredible field operation, while Chevron Cheryl depended on Big Oil and her lobbyist cronies in Sacramento.

Tomorrow's Notable California Congressional Races-- Some Democrats Aren't Worth Voting For-- And Some Are Fantastic

Tomorrow's the big day here in California. Let me remind you, that all of our endorsements for the 17 statewide propositions are here. There are no Republicans worth voting for anywhere in the state-- not for any office. In the U.S. Senate race, Kamala Harris is a better bet than Blue Dog Loretta Sanchez and in the congressional races, the Democrats I would never consider voting for are corrupt New Dem Ami Bera (who should be in prison instead of his poor fall-guy father), Blue Dog Jim Costa, New Dem Ro Khanna, coked-up New Dem Pete Aguilar, New Dem Isadore Hall, Blue Dog Lou Correa, and New Dem Scott Peters. Blue America has endorsed Ted Lieu, Doug Applegate, Bao Nguyen, Mike Honda, Nanette Barragán, and, of course, Barbara Lee. The rest of the Democrats range from excellent to... well get a clothespin and remember they're not as bad as Correa, Bera, Costa or Hall. It's also worth noting that there are half a dozen Dem vs Dem congressional races in the Greater Los Angeles area tomorrow:

• CA-29- Tony Cardenas vs Richard Alarcon
• CA-32- Grace Napolitano vs Roger Hernandez
• CA-34- Xavier Becerra vs Adrienne Edwards
• CA-37- Karen Bass vs Chris Wiggins
• CA-44- Nanette Barragán vs Isadore Hall
• CA-46- Bao Nguyen vs Lou Correa

And in CA-40 (East L.A., Downey, Paramount, Vernon, Bell, Cudahy, Commerce, Maywood) progressive Democrat Lucille Royball-Allard is opposed by an Independent, Roman Gonzales, who won 27% in the primary. He's likely to earn a smaller percentage than that tomorrow. But in these bizarre races with no Republicans, two are especially important: CA-44 (South Gate, Watts, Lynwood, Willowbrook, Compton, Carson, Rancho Dominguez, North Long Beach and San Pedro) and CA-46 (Anaheim, Orange, Santa Ana, and Garden Grove, easily the bluest congressional district in Orange County). What makes these two races so interesting is that there is a progressive pitted against a notoriously corrupt reactionary in each.

Yesterday when the L.A. Times reiterated their endorsements, they only picked ONE of the two dozen congressional districts in the L.A. area to highlight. That's how stark the difference and important the race is between Nanette Barragán and Sacramento's most corrupt legislator, sold-out conservative Democrat Isadore Hall, already recruited by the Wall Street-owned New Dems. Of course, the entire corrupted Democratic Party establishment has sided with Hall. He is, in every way, one of them. "Barragán," wrote the L.A. Times editors, "has strong environmental credentials. State Sen. Isadore Hall’s environmental record is dismal." They neglected to mention that his sleazy political career has been funded by Big Oil and Gas, tobacco, gambling and every rot-gut issue oriented lobbyist who is generally just welcomed aboard by the worst and most pay-for-play of the Republicans.

Nanette would be a great candidate even if she wasn't running against someone as reprehensible as Hall. Same goes for Garden Grove Mayor Bao Nguyen, whose opponent, Lou Correa, is, incredibly, even worse than Hall! If he wins-- and nearly a million dollars in right-wing SuperPAC money has flooded into his race-- he will surely be California's worst and most corrupt member of Congress. Congratulations, in advance, Orange County! Correa is the poster child for the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Naturally, he's been endorsed by both the Blue Dogs and the New Dems.



Correa is a realtor who took advantage of the mortgage crisis to build up an empire of rental properties all over Orange County-- particularly Anaheim and Santa Ana-- and one of the sleaziest realtor lobbyist groups, the National Association of Realtors Congressional Fund, spent $535,000 on his campaign so far. trying to make sure they would have an ally against consumers and homeowners inside the House Democratic caucus. But corporate special interests is a huge part of the Correa brand, another reason he fits in so well with the New Dems and Blue Dogs.

In a majority Latino district, Correa isn't just keeping it quiet that the joined the New Dems and Blue Dogs, but also that he voted against SB60, which would have made drivers licenses available for all qualified Californians regardless of immigration status. His vote was a complete betrayal of the Hispanic population. Although he's on record of having voted against it, when confronted with the vote he just lies and claims he voted for it. No wonder the Blue Dogs and New Dems love this guy!

Nor is that the only time he voted with the Republicans against working families-- far from it. Although Correa claims when he campaigns that he's committed to affordable higher education, that sure isn't what his record in Sacramento shows. When Assembly Speaker John Perez proposed AB 1500 and 1501, the Middle Class Scholarship Act, to provide scholarships covering 60% of fees and tuition at all California State colleges and universities for families with household incomes of under $150,000, Correa crossed the aisle and voted with the GOP again. Perez took the unusual step of going on the record and singling out Correa for killing the bill "because he wanted a $300 million (tax) carve out [for out-of state corporations including his campaign contributor International Paper]. "Today was an opportunity for the State Senate to join the Assembly in approving tax fairness for California businesses and college opportunity for middle class families. Unfortunately, even though most Senate Democrats supported the Middle Class Scholarship Act, we could not reach agreement with Senator Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) or Senate Republicans that would achieve the two-thirds vote necessary... It is disturbing that Senator Correa and so many Republicans would refuse to stand up for the middle class and instead continue to support a tax giveaway that favors out-of-state companies over our own." In a disturbing pattern that defines Correa's life, he pocketed campaign contributions from International Paper-- which vehemently opposed the bill-- 10 days before he voted against AB 1500, and more loot three weeks after the disgraceful vote.

If killing the Middle Class Scholarship Act wasn't bad enough, Correa also helped kill SB 935 which was an attempt by Democrats in the legislature to raise the minimum wage in 2014. Although 63 of his fellow Democrats were co-sponsors of the bill, he claimed he voted with the Republicans against it because it was too long and he didn't know what it meant. It's almost as though he was already practicing to be a New Dem or Blue Dog!

He also worked with the GOP to restrict women's access to family planning and abortion services and to push the NRA's agenda. Planned Parenthood gave him a big fat ZERO rating and labeled him anti-Choice, the only Senate Democrat who didn't receive a 100% rating in 2009. The DCCC likes this guy; can he really be anti-Choice? You tell me-- this is is record on women's reproductive health in the state legislature:

• voted to prohibit state funding of family planning service providers
• voted to limit state funding for abortion services
• voted to ban ban abortion procedures that he disagrees with (and, no, he's not a doctor)
• voted to require parental consent before a minor can access abortion care
• voted to force women to look at biased and unscientific information before they can access abortion care

This is how patriarchal Republicans vote on Choice issues, not how Democrats vote. Although it certainly works in real well with the Blue Dogs and the rest of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Ditto on his cozy relationship with the gun nuts in general and the NRA in particular. He's actively supported loopholes to make sure assault-style military weapons would wind up in California neighborhoods. Again, Correa's sick record is not what Orange County Democrats and independents (nor even Republicans) want to protect society from gun massacres.

• voted against banning high capacity ammunition magazines and conversion kits (AB 48)
• voted against making it illegal to knowingly store loaded firearms that are accessible to minors (AB 231)
• voted against extending the waiting period for gun purchases when the background check reveals potential criminal and/or mental health history requiring further investigation to determine eligibility to purchase weapons (AB 500)
• voted against requiring registration of homemade guns and assault rifles, AKA “Ghost Guns" (SB 808)
• voted against restrictions on ownership of Assault Weapons and .50 Caliber Browning Machine Guns (AB 170)
• Correa opposes license requirements for purchase of guns, despite overwhelming public support, even among gun owners and voted against requiring a valid Firearm Safety Certificate in order to purchase a firearm (AB 683)

I bet you could guess he's also an environmental disaster, right? You'd be guessing right. California's League of Conservation Voters says he has the worst environmental record of any Democratic elected official in the state. He always sides with special interests to protect corporate polluters, consistently failed to protect the state's water sources from lead and contamination, and voted against ensuring Californians have a right to clean, safe and affordable water. Even though he joined corrupt Republicans to vote against SB 685, the Human Right to Water Act, in 2012, the bill passed, establishing a right to safe, non-toxic and affordable water for human consumption. But Correa voted to hide the source of vended drinking water, whether that water was from a public or private source, and the county from which the water came. AB 301 would have required water sellers to disclose this information: Lou Correa voted to keep such information hidden from the public. Large corporations have been bottling California's public water supply for years. This water is bottled and sold back to the public at an extreme profit. At the same time, the cost of water to the public is rising, and penalties being imposed for overuse. Swiss based Nestle Company has been bottling millions of gallons a year from San Bernardino's forests under a permit that expired over 25 years ago-- a permit with an annual costs of $525.00. Nestle bottles over 700 million gallons of water a year to sell back to the public at a staggering profit. As the public was ordered to cut back on water during the drought, with significant penalties at risk, corporations like Nestle were bottling California's water to sell back to them.

In 2009, the California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) scored Correa's environmental voting record at 29%, 53 points below average Senate Democrat average. Correa had the lowest environmental rating of any Democrat. The following year they gave him a 30%, 61 points lower than the average Senate Democrat and the lowest rating of any Sacramento Dem. And the following year... same thing-- a 29% rating, 57 points lower than the average Senate Democrat and the lowest of any Dem in the state. The guy is a catastrophe and it's just repulsive that, for the sake of expediency, the Democratic establishment has embraced this garbage candidate who always, always, always puts corporate profits, tax breaks, and special interests over the needs of his constituents, while collecting special interest and PAC money for his next campaign. Is that the California Democratic Party today? It's certainly what Nancy Pelosi's DCCC has turned into. Steny Hoyer gave him the biggest contribution of any of the Democratic candidates of this cycle, $20,000 so far.

The weight of the Democratic Party Establishment is behind both Correa and Hall. If you live in California and you oppose corruption and conservatives, you should ask yourself why.

Meanwhile, one especially odious, brand new and little-known right-wing SuperPAC, Cooperative of American Physicians, which has spent most of it's money helping right-wing Republicans Joe Heck (R-NV), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Jeff Denham (R-CA), and Paul Cook (R-CA), has also come to the aid of corrupt conservative California Democrats Pete Aguilar ($22,438), Jim Costa ($31,627), Lou Correa ($35,000) and, worst of all, Isadore Hall ($100,122). Another right-wing SuperPAC created by Big Oil, the misleadingly named California Progress Coalition, has spent $271,411 smearing Nanette and another $63,842 trying to make Hall sound like he's a Democrat.

UPDATE: Can The Dems Win Super-Majorities In Sacramento?

No one disputes that we're going to see a blue wave in California. Democrats are counting on it giving them super-majorities in the Assembly and possible the state Senate that were lost in 2014. Ironically, in San Bernardino, Eloise Reyes beating a corrupt conservative like Cheryl Brown, ostensibly a Democrat but fully owned and operated by whichever lobbyists write the biggest checks, is the first step. And it looks good. If early voting trends are indicative, Eloise is likely to end Brown's miserable career tonight. Beyond that the Democrats need to pick up two red seats to triumph in the Assembly. Also in San Bernardino, Democrat Abigail Medino looks to beat Republican Assemblyman Marc Steinorth (Rancho Cucamonga). Two Dems who went down in 2014, Al Muratsuchi (Torrance) and Sharon Quirk-Silva (Fullerton) are back for re-matches with David Hadley (Manhattan Beach) and Young Kim (Fullerton).

The Senate looks tougher but the Democrats' best shots would be Ling Ling Chang (R-Diamond Bar) losing to Josh Newman) and Scott Wilk (R-Santa Clarita) losing to Jonathan Ervin. Either race would take a massive Latino turnout indicative of a Hillary landslide.

You Know "California" Is A Spanish Word, Right?

Democrats have labored for years and years and years trying to get California Hispanics registered to vote in greater numbers. Want to know why? Simple-- there are 8 Republican-held congressional districts in the Golden State with immense numbers of unregistered Latinos-- over a third of the potential voters. Like these:

• CA-21 David Valadao (72.1% Latino)
• CA-22 Devin Nunes (45.9% Latino)
• CA-10 Jeff Denham (40.0% Latino)
• CA-25 Steve Knight (37.9%)
• CA-08 Paul Cook (35.9% Latino)
• CA-23 Kevin McCarthy (35.4% Latino)
• CA-39 Ed Royce (34.6% Latino/28.1% Asian)
• CA-42 Ken Calvert (33.2% Latino)z

And then along came Trumpy. Since he came down the escalator at Trump Towers last year to call Latinos rapists, 1,196,060 California Latinos have newly or re-registered. That's 26.2% all Latino registrants in California. Despite his typically uninformed and ignorant claims he would win California-- he's not even polling 30% in the state and is likely to do worse than any Republican, worse even than Alf Landon when he ran against FDR-- the real problem for the California Republican Party is not Trump, who they wish didn't exist. It's the down-ballot races in districts like the ones above. Frantically, they got Paul Ryan to do an emergency three-day, 14-stop swing through the state to to help shore up highly vulnerable incumbents, particularly Jeff Denham, David Valadao and Steve Knight, who could all be goners in less than 2 weeks. And Sacramento Bee political reporter, Sean Cockerham, begins his report not in the Central Valley but by talking about how Darrell Issa, the richest person in Congress, may well be defeated-- and his district is only about a quarter Latino! White suburbanites, apparently, don't like Trump's anti-Hispanic racism either.

The release of video footage of Trump bragging in explicit terms about groping women has only escalated problems that began with his statements calling Mexican immigrants “rapists.” Nearly 1 in 5 people in Issa’s changing district who’ve registered to vote since California’s June primary are Latino, and there’s no shortage of resentment of Issa’s description of Trump as the “obvious choice” for president.

“The more the word is getting out that Issa is endorsing Trump, it doesn’t bode well for Issa in the Latino community,” said Bill de la Fuente, who works on Latino business development in Issa’s home city of Vista. 
...California Republicans running for re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives are struggling in the age of Trump, with their challenge intensified by the growing numbers of registered Latino voters. This is Issa’s first tough race since being elected to Congress 16 years ago, and he is not alone.

Rep. Steve Knight, from Lancaster in northern Los Angeles County, also is fighting for his political life as he scrambles to distance himself from Trump, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sees an opening in the Central Valley congressional district around Modesto, now represented by Republican Rep. Jeff Denham of Turlock, a Trump supporter. The committee is spending nearly $700,000 to unseat Denham, whose district now has a population that is more than 40 percent Latino.

The 11-year-old footage of Trump bragging about groping women, followed by women accusing him of groping, has increased the pressure on California Republicans to the breaking point. Knight – after spending the year refusing to say whether he supports Trump or not-- announced after the video’s release that he now “cannot support either candidate for president.”

Denham and Issa condemned Trump’s remarks but neither withdrew support for his presidential campaign. 
Trump is toxic for any Republican who is running for office, and all of them are worried about what he means for their races, said Kurt Bardella, a former spokesman for Issa who now runs his own consulting firm.

Republican candidates are terrified that Republican voters won’t show up at the polls because they don’t want to vote for either Trump or Hillary Clinton, he said. That’s especially a danger in California, where the U.S. Senate race is between two Democrats, so there’s nothing at the top of the ticket to draw Republicans out to vote other than the presidential race.

“In some of these districts if (Republican) turnout is 5 percent less than it was four years ago then that’s the ballgame,” Bardella said.


...Denham and Knight... represent congressional districts where registered Democrats now outnumber Republicans. Knight, the most vulnerable Republican member of Congress in California, long tried to avoid the Trump issue by refusing to say whether he would vote for the Republican presidential nominee before the video release forced his hand.

Nick Chavez, a third-generation Mexican-American who works in construction in Palmdale, in the high desert an hour’s drive north of Los Angeles, said he hadn’t been impressed with Knight’s waffling over Trump.

“Either put up or shut up,” said Chavez, a registered Republican who is leaning toward voting next month for Knight’s Democratic challenger, Bryan Caforio.

Knight’s district runs from Santa Clarita, a low-key bedroom community of Los Angeles where the surrounding area doubles for the Old West in films and television (scenes from HBO’s “Westworld” were recently filmed there), north along the highway to the working class Antelope Valley cities of Palmdale and Lancaster.

About a quarter of the registered voters in the district are Latino and their registration numbers are growing as the election nears, according to Political Data Inc., a California firm that tracks election data for campaigns.

Caforio’s campaign is on the offensive against Knight for not renouncing Trump until after the groping video was leaked 31 days before the election, with Caforio saying in an interview that Trump is “running the most racist, misogynistic, bigoted campaign in the history of a presidential candidate.”

Knight’s response in an interview to questions about his long silence on Trump was that he’s never before endorsed a presidential candidate and “in this campaign it’s served me well.”


On paper at least, Denham’s fertile San Joaquin Valley district appears even more primed for a Democratic takeover.

The agricultural heart of California, where vast orchards and groves of almonds, walnuts, grapes, oranges and other crops stretch toward the Sierra Nevada mountains, the area is heavily Latino, and Denham and Rep. David Valadao represent districts that are increasingly Democratic.

Al Moncada, a longtime Latino Republican activist from Manteca, said he’d switched his voter registration to independent because of Trump and was a supporter of Denham’s Democratic opponent, Michael Eggman.

Denham “aligned himself with a man that represents everything Republicans have fought against all these years, discrimination and all these things,” Moncada said. “Trump has taken the Republican Party back to slavery years. It is sad, but that’s the way Latinos and African-Americans and other minorities feel.”


...“At this point there’s nothing beneficial that a Republican candidate can say about Trump,” said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California.

Schnur said it was clear that Trump was dragging down Republicans running for Congress in California, especially after the bombshell release of the video where the Republican presidential nominee brags about groping women.

“That doesn’t mean every Republican congressional candidate will lose, but it means there is a significant downside to having Trump at the top of the ticket regardless of how you handle it,” Schnur said.

Polling is showing that 6 California counties that went for Romney in 2012 are going for Hillary this cycle-- Orange, Riverside, Fresno, Nevada, Butte, and Trinity. Even outside the Trump universe, this upsurge in Latino registration could be a boon for other candidates as well. In L.A.'s South Bay, CA-44, Janice Hahn is trying for higher office and she and the rest of the corrupt California Democratic Establishment decided to give her seat in the heavily Latino district (70.5%) to one of their fellow corruptionists, in fact Sacramento's single most corrupt politician, Isadore Hall, a Big Oil-owned conservaDem (endorsed by the New Dems). No one expected any kind of a battle in a district that normally does whatever the Party Politburo tells it to do. But Hahn and Hall and their cronies were stunned when progressive reformer Nanette Barragán put up more than a token battle and can well win this Dem vs Dem-- progressive vs conservative-- battle royale, where the burgeoning Latino registered voters could well make all the difference in the world. This week La Opinión, California's biggest Spanish language newspaper, ran the ultimate inspirational feature on why Barragán should be the Representative from the 44th. The L.A. Times agreed and also endorsed her and early vote-by-mail ballots have been 33% Latino in the district, the highest, by far, in history, pointing to a possible upset for Hahn and the corrupt party establishment bosses and a win for a progressive Latina in a solid blue district that went for Obama over Romney 85-14%.

You Want Us To Deal Seriously With Climate Change? The Key Is Congressional Change

This week Blue America has been working with our friends at Climate Hawks Vote to win House seats for candidates committed to ameliorating climate change, primarily House seats that are in winnable districts that the DCCC is ignoring. With Trump's dysfunctional campaign and crude bigotry dragging down the whole ticket, it looks-- for the first time this cycle-- that the Democrats actually have a chance of recapturing the majority and retiring Paul Ryan from the Speakership. Imagine a House where Ryan's willingly ignorant committee chairmen no longer set the agenda!

The DCCC doesn't like taking on GOP committee chairmen. We do-- and we are. Our candidates are all running, in part, to address global warming, combat the fossil-fuel industry, and support renewable energy. If climate hawks are part of a winning coalition that takes over Congress in 2017, we can work towards halting toxic fracking, towards stopping extreme-energy projects; we can start the work it will take to put a price on carbon pollution, and we can make sure subpoenas are sent to ExxonMobil instead of climate scientists. Our candidates want to invest billions in renewable, resilient infrastructure to restore climate justice and end the fossil-fuel economy-- before it's too late.

Taking back the House is a big challenge-- Republicans currently hold a 30-seat advantage. But all across the country, Democratic registration is up and Trump's continuous stream of bile is turning off mainstream conservative voters who are telling pollsters they won't be voting for Republican candidates November 8. Progressive candidates in the suburbs of Philadelphia (Mary Ellen Balchunis), Austin and San Antonio (Tom Wakely), New York (Zephyr Teachout and Duwayne Gregory), Los Angeles (Bao Nguyen and Nanette Barragán), Kalamazoo (Paul Clements), Miami (Alina Valdes), to name a few, weren't looked at as winnable by the DCCC. That's all changed now... and if we're going to have a House ready to work on, for example, climate issues, it means taking back the House and not taking it back with Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- the ones who opposed single-payer and the public option and stuck us with a very flawed Obamacare. So... please dig as deep as you can comfortably do and pick out a candidate or two-- for the future of the country and the species and the planet.

Want to get a feel for how strongly our candidates feel about climate as an issue? Mary Ellen Balchunis told us yesterday that "While the Republican party is still debating whether climate change even exists, I am prepared to enact legislation that will reduce carbon output on day one. I will fight for a carbon tax while encouraging investment in clean, sustainable technologies to shape the clean energy economy. Beyond this, I will support public transit development and a modernized electrical grid, to make sure that we have the infrastructure to sustainably meet demand in the future. Unfortunately, my opponent Pat Meehan claims to care about climate change, but has voted to repeal the only carbon regulations on power plants, end research into the effects of fossil fuels, and even permit pipelines to run through our national parks and monuments. Pennsylvanian's deserve a legislator who prioritizes a healthy environment for their children's future ahead of oil and gas companies' balance sheets."

And our candidates have records of leadership on progressive issues. Take Nanette Barragan, for example. "While my opponent was filling his coffers with Big Oil special interests money from the most disreputable lobbyists in Sacramento," she told us, "I was leading a successful fight to prevent the drilling of 34 oil and water injection wells in Hermosa Beach and into the Santa Monica Bay. If you care about climate change, retire Isadore Hall and send me to Congress. We both have records that are as crystal clear as the water still is off Hermosa Beach." Does that sound like someone you want on your team, fighting for your issues? Her opponent, Isadore Hall, is one of Sacramento's most corrupt legislators, a disgrace to a legislature that can't wait to see him leave.

Paul Clements isn't just one of the strongest advocates of climate change action of any candidate running for Congress, he's up against the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the Rep. who buries every climate proposal. "In this election, we have the opportunity to replace one of Congress's leading climate science deniers," he said. "Fred Upton has been called, appropriately, 'Congress's Number 1 Enemy of Planet Earth,' and has been using his position to block any meaningful action on climate change. Congressman Upton has taken $931,000 from the oil and gas industry, and has used his role as Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee to keep energy companies from being held accountable for their actions, especially companies like Exxon and BP, in which he owns a quarter of a million dollars in stock. Despite his record, an outside group recently had the audacity to come into our district to promote Fred Upton as a 'clean energy champion.' The outrageous nature of their lies show just how important Fred Upton is to oil and gas, and how threatened they are this year. If Congressman Upton is reelected, we can expect two more years of obstructionism from Congress, and a dangerous lack of action on climate, our nation's most critical challenge. I look forward to working in Congress to reverse the damage that has been caused, and prevent climate catastrophe."

Tom Wakely is running against Science Committee Chairman and chief climate change denier, Lamar Smith. "What truly gets me worked up," he told us, "is this idea that you have to 'believe' in climate change. The notion that it takes some great leap of faith in order to see and feel destruction or pollution is simply maddening. This is basically a matter of rejecting reality. There is no option when it concerns our climate. We have to act now. We must end fossil fuel subsidies and find market based initiatives to turn over a new leaf. There's no going back if we continue to wait for the corruption to subside or wait for the oil to run out. Lamar Smith and anyone of his ilk must be retired. The livelihood of future generations depend on it."

All the candidates at the thermometer below are real change candidates, not status quo politicians. We need them and right now they need us. The election's in just a little over 2 weeks.

Can Trump Really Defeat Paul Ryan? And Turn American Politics Topsy Turvey?

Will Trump's refusal to back Ryan hurt the Speaker in his primary next Tuesday? Trump didn't do especially well in Ryan's district during the presidential election, losing to Ted Cruz everywhere with the exception of close calls in Kenosha and Rock counties. If the Trumpist running against Ryan, Paul Nehlen, were running a strong contest, Trump's refusal could be meaningful, but Nehlen isn't making much headway, not even with fellow Trumpists Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter backing him. Nehlen's only chance of actually beating Ryan would be if the DCCC alerted Democrats that it's an open primary and Democratic voters can ask for a Republican ballot and vote against Ryan. But, of course, the DCCC refuses to do that. It would throw the House Republicans into complete turmoil and, more important, kill the TPP... dead as a doornail.

But that weirdness in southeast Wisconsin wasn't the only Age-of-Trump crack-up yesterday. Ronald Siegel and Christopher Castillo were the two Republicans running for the open CA-44 congressional seat, the seat Janice Hahn is giving up. There were 10 candidates in all competing in the open primary and the two top vote getters-- environmental champion Nanette Barragan and corruption champion Isadore Hall-- will proceed to the November 8 general election, a Dem vs Dem race. (This year there are 7 Dem v Dem congressional races in California plus a Dem v Dem U.S. Senate race.) Yesterday Siegel, an environmental-friendly Republican unhappy with Hall's close and crooked ties to Big Oil endorsed Nanette and so did Castillo-- both Republicans joining Berniecrats Armando Sotomayor and Marcus Musante as well as Morris Griffin in asking their supporters to vote for her. In a press statement Castillo said that "During these past few months I spoke with people from this district who have serious concerns they would like to see addressed in Washington, like immigration reform and job creation. Nanette is the only candidate in this race who is going to make these changes a reality. I look forward to seeing all that she accomplishes in Congress."

When I spoke with Castillo on the phone he emphasized that he's a small government/low taxes Republican who is pro-amnesty and very anti-Trump. And anti-corruption. He's well aware of Hall's reputation for taking money from "everyone and anyone" and voting for what they want. He said he feels he has more in common with Bernie than with Trump but wasn't high on Hillary either. But he is high on Nanette and expects to help persuade Republicans in CA-44 for vote for her in November. Fascinating, huh?

Even stranger is an update on a story we've been covering about feuding Republicans-- establishment crook Bill Shuster and right-wing teabagger Art Halvorson in Pennsylvania. The ninth district-- kind of a sprawling wasteland time left behind, between Pittsburgh's southern exurbs east to Chambersburg and Waynesboro and north to Altoona and Indiana-- has no rhyme or reason and nothing holding it together. But ever one of the 12 counties in the district went for Trump in the primary. And his voters came close to defeating Shuster. The final vote was 48,686 (50.5%) for the powerful incumbent who spent $1,655,437 to 47,677 (49.5%) for Halvorson, who only spent $264,357 and it was the closest race in the state. I called Halvorson when he announced he would continue his race against Shuster on the empty Democratic Party line. Halvorson, who went out of his way to tell me he thinks Hillary should be in prison-- weeks and weeks before the Trumpist convention made that a popular thing for Republican crackpots to say-- isn't joining the Democratic Party by any stretch of anyone's imagination. But over a thousand Democrats wrote him in on the Democratic line and he's using that as the excuse for claiming the line in the general. So, no, this isn't going to be another case like Charlie Crist, Patrick Murphy, Monica Vernon, Filemon Vela, Mike Parrish or any of the dozens of Republicans the DCCC has recruited to run as Democrats. This is just an extreme right-wing Republican poaching away a Democratic ballot line the DCCC was too lame to protect.

So when I talked with him on the phone he wasn't sure if he'd do it or not but yesterday he finally announced he's decided to run on the Democratic Party line but, obviously, not as a Democrat.

Despite the fact he’ll be on the Democratic side of the ballot, Halvorson maintains he is still a Republican.

“But make no mistake about it, our current struggle isn’t Democrat vs. Republican, it’s Insiders vs. We the People,” he asserted.

Unsurprisingly, Congressman Shuster did not welcome this news.

“By running for Congress as a Democrat, Art Halvorson has proved that he cares about one thing and one thing only-- himself,” Rep. Shuster’s campaign stated. “Not only is he betraying Democrats by calling their party Godless while forcing them to accept him as their nominee, but he is also betraying the will of the Republican primary voters that have twice rejected his attempt to get a job in Congress.”

“Whether its selfish Art Halvorson saying offensive things about Democrats or calling the Republican nominee Donald Trump childish and reprehensible two things are clear-- Art Halvorson’s Arlen Specter impression is out of touch with our region and he is a soon be a three-time loser to Congressman Bill Shuster, who unlike Art, will always be fighting for the people of the 9th Congressional District.”

There's also a write-in Democrat, who is being supported by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party. As of the June 30 FEC filing deadline Shuster had $892,427 cash on hand and Halvorson had just $61,026. There are no Tea Party groups spending any money for Halvorson so far this year, although last cycle the crackpot Madison Project spent money against Shuster on his behalf.

Nanette Barragán-- Standing Up Against Corruption And Against Trumpism

It's relatively rare-- though it shouldn't be-- that a Democratic primary so clearly highlights the differences between the two wings of the party. But the race for the seat Janice Hahn is giving up in Los Angeles is just that kind of race. CA-44 starts down in San Pedro and heads north through Wilmington, Keystone, Carson, Rancho Dominguez, North Long Beach, Compton, Willowbrook and Lynwood to end up in Watts and South Gate. Demographically, the district was once an African-American bastion but has changed drastically and is now over 70% Latino and just 14% African-American. The only district in California that gave Obama a greater share of it's votes in 2012 was Barbara Lee's Oakland/Berkley district, 85% of CA-44 voters going for Obama and 88% of CA-13 voters doing so. Needless to say, in a normal situation, the Democrat winning the primary in a district like this would be the next congressmember. However, with California's bizarre and dysfunctional jungle primary system the top two Democrats will compete in November. There are 10 candidates on the ballot a week from next Tuesday (June 7), the two most viable contenders being Nanette Barragán, the progressive in the race, and Isadore Hall, the corrupt conservative in the race. As of the Match 31 FEC filing deadline Hall had $513,446 on hand and Barragán had $415,646 on hand.

Hahn, who needs Hall's help for her own career aspirations has persuaded California's corrupted Democratic Party establishment to back Hall, while Barragán is being supported by Blue America, the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, DFA, PDA and Congressional Progressive Caucus chairman Raul Grijalva. You can contribute to her campaign by tapping on the thermometer to the right. As we saw 2 weeks ago, the L.A. Times endorsed Nanette with a stunning rebuke to Hall and his corrupt Democratic backers, pointing out that "only Barragán has demonstrated the integrity, courage and commitment to the environment that this industrial district needs. Voters should choose her on June 7." So why are so many self-described California "liberals" backing Hall? The Times wrote that "The answer is in Hall's record as a state legislator, particularly his years as one of the self-styled “moderate Democrats” in the Assembly who consistently opposed crucial climate change policy and tougher gun laws. For example, Hall did not join his colleagues in calling on the federal government to halt offshore drilling leases, or vote for a statewide ban on plastic bags, or a moratorium on fracking. His consistency was rewarded by the oil lobby, and he is one of the top recipients of donations from oil interests. Other big donors to his campaigns are casinos and gambling interests, tobacco companies and the alcohol lobby."

And yesterday one of the big local papers in the area, the Daily Breeze also pointed to Barragán as the better candidate for the district. "Both are Democrats-- Hall moderate, Barragan more progressive-- who grew up in the 44th Congressional District that covers a large swath of Central Los Angeles, from the port north to South Gate, including North Long Beach," they reminded their readers. "Poverty and pollution are among the pressing problems in a region dotted with poor-performing schools, heavy manufacturing and oil refineries. Hall and Barragan each came from modest means and worked their way to success, but their political paths couldn’t be more different."

Barragan is a relative political newbie with an impressive resume, a lawyer for a high-powered law firm who once interned for a California Supreme Court justice.

In 2013 she was elected the first Latina councilwoman in Hermosa Beach, a wealthy, 1.4-square-mile city.

There, she focused most of her energy on defeating an oil company-backed measure that would have allowed for drilling. It lost in a landslide.

Hall rose through local politics, first at the Compton school board, then to the Compton City Council, California Assembly and state Senate. Never has he faced serious opposition.

Hall is backed by gaming interests and oil companies, to which he has been a friend, opposing legislation that would have created tougher environmental rules near oil sites.

Hall is also supported by a Democratic establishment loyal to its longtime colleague.

Barragan is the outsider. Encouraged to run in the heavily Latino district by Rep. Linda Sanchez, chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, she resigned her post in Hermosa Beach and moved to the district.

Hall is the insider, and he uses that to his advantage in pushing legislation like Senate Bill 63, a bill that allows ports to create financing districts for infrastructure bonds.

There are questions about whether Hall is a sincere public servant or acts out of political expediency.

The Barragán/Hall race is one of the clearest in the country, pitting a good government reformer against a corrupt, self-serving careerist grasping for a leg up in the political power game. You can contribute to the good government reformer here:

Nanette Barragán's Battle Against The Corrupt Political Machine Gets A Huge, Unexpected Boost

Nanette Barragán

Janice Hahn sees herself as a future governor and realized Congress isn't the stepping stone taking her in that direction. So she's leaving the safe deep, deep blue 44th congressional district seat-- Obama won it with 85% against Romney and it is likely to be even more Democratic in November-- for a seat on the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. Vaguely liberal, Hahn isn't really about values or even issues as much as she is about Hahn. As part of her unending lust for higher office she made a deal to back Sacramento's most corrupt Democrat, Isadore Hall, for the congressional seat she's leaving in return for Hall's help with black voters in the supervisorial campaign. Who gets hurt in the deal? The people, 70% of whom are Hispanic, who live in the towns and neighborhoods in CA-44: Willowbrook, Compton, Rancho Dominguez, South Gate, Lynwood, Carson, Wilmington and San Pedro, and are treated like props in the careerist machinations of two self-serving political strivers.

Virtually every political hack in the state has endorsed Hall... he may be corrupt and conservative but he's the insider candidate all the other careerists want to see move up the ladder. Yesterday, though, the Los Angeles political landscape was jolted when the L.A. Times suddenly-- and very prominently-- endorsed Nanette Barragán, the progressive reformer in the race. Choosing not to accuse Hall of any criminal behavior or even corruption in general, the editors of The Times instead wrote that "only Barragán has demonstrated the integrity, courage and commitment to the environment that this industrial district needs. Voters should choose her on June 7."

Barragán has an up-from-the-bootstraps story that certainly resonates in this district: from the hardscrabble streets of Carson to the halls of UCLA and USC law school, to a White House internship and a job at one of Los Angeles' top law firms, Latham & Watkins. Her accomplishments were earned, not bestowed. Even her political opponents concede that her intellect and policy chops are impressive. And her legislative priorities-- the environment, education and jobs-- are clear.

Barragán has demonstrated that she can get things done in a short time. In her less than two-year career on the Hermosa Beach City Council, she led efforts to block oil drilling in the small city and pushed through a citywide plastic bag ban. Her record has won her the support of two powerful environmental advocacy groups, the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters.

Practically everyone else in the state's Democratic political establishment, however, is backing Hall. This is not because he's a demonstrably better candidate, but because of his longevity in politics. Hall has held elected office for 15 years, climbing from the Compton school board and city council to the state Legislature. That might mean something to party operatives, but voters should ask what more he has done than win elections.

The answer is in Hall's record as a state legislator, particularly his years as one of the self-styled “moderate Democrats” in the Assembly who consistently opposed crucial climate change policy and tougher gun laws. For example, Hall did not join his colleagues in calling on the federal government to halt offshore drilling leases, or vote for a statewide ban on plastic bags, or a moratorium on fracking. His consistency was rewarded by the oil lobby, and he is one of the top recipients of donations from oil interests. Other big donors to his campaigns are casinos and gambling interests, tobacco companies and the alcohol lobby.

If Hall's votes were guided by a deep-rooted political conviction, that would be one thing. But he took an unexplained left turn after moving to the state Senate in December 2014. There he supported issues he once opposed, notably tougher gun laws and last year's landmark climate change bill, SB 350. Perhaps it's an intellectual evolution by Hall, but it raises questions about what his real priorities are.

By comparison, the biggest knock on Barragán is that she recently lived in Hermosa Beach, which is outside the 44th district. Federal law doesn't require members of the House to live in their districts; even so, Barragán has moved her residence to San Pedro, at the southern end of the district. More important to voters, she has historic ties to the district where she was born and raised, and where her family still calls home. Barragán does have challenges she must overcome if elected. On the Hermosa Beach City Council she displayed sharp elbows and an impatience that won't serve her well on Capitol Hill. But those are minor flaws compared with the major red flags of her main opponent.

I might add that although Hall was endorsed by a garbage-bagful of career politicians, Nanette has been endorsed by Blue America, DFA, PDA, countless Latino groups and women's groups and by a handful of standout members of Congress who Hahn wasn't able to manipulate, namely Raul Grijalva and neighboring congressmembers Linda Sánchez, Grace Napolitano and Lucille Roybal-Allard, as well as one of the icons of the Southern California environmental movement, L.A. Councilman Paul Koretz. RL Miller, who heads California's most cutting edge environmental group, Climate Hawks Vote, endorsed Nanette and told us last night that "This is the most important Congressional primary in California because the contrast between the two candidates is so stark. Nanette fights for clean air, clean water, and a brighter future for the working class families of her district. Her opponent represents the worst aspects of machine politics, funded by Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Sugar, gambling, and billboard blight." That about sums it up alright. Please consider contributing to the Barragán campaign at the thermometer below:

If Fracking Causes Earthquakes And Politicians Take Bribes To Approve Fracking In Earthquake Zones.. What Then?

The map above is from National Geographic and it shows the likelihood of human-induced earthquakes for 2016. That's not a way of tracking a team of obese volleyball players. It's all about fracking. Anyone even tangentially involved with allowing fracking in California should be subject to the... severe punishment, especially if they've accepted money from Oil and Gas interests, in return for their acquiescence, the way Governor Jerry Brown and oily state Senators Ricardo Lara and Isadore Hall have. Oklahoma is getting the most attention-- who ever heard of earthquakes in Oklahoma?-- but it's California where a real catastrophe could be triggered-- and all for the greed of criminal politicians. Yesterday, Sarah Gilman writing for the National Geographic reported that "the U.S. Geological Survey unveiled an earthquake hazard forecast for the central and eastern parts of the country that for the first time includes human-caused quakes, referred to in technical parlance as “induced seismicity.” The report suggests that seven million people in parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and Arkansas face increased risks from human-induced earthquakes in the next year... In Oklahoma, injected water helped produce the state’s largest ever recorded earthquake-- a magnitude 5.6 in Prague in 2011 that toppled chimneys and inspired at least one lawsuit against industry to cover injuries and property damage. Theoretically, injection or smaller induced earthquakes themselves could trigger even larger quakes, USGS scientists said, since the state has a fault that, prehistorically, has produced a magnitude 7 temblor."

The risks appear most widespread and significant in north-central Oklahoma and a tiny sliver of southern Kansas, where a large area has a 5 to 12 percent chance per year of an earthquake that can cause buildings to crack and, in rare cases, collapse. That’s comparable to risks in parts of more seismically famous California, USGS scientists said at a press conference on Monday.

The USGS decided to include induced seismicity in the new map because of a well-documented and sharp increase in the number and severity of human-made earthquakes in the central and eastern U.S. starting in 2009, largely tied to the energy industry.

“We want to help people understand how much concern they should have with these earthquakes,” said lead author Mark Petersen, chief of the agency’s National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project.

  The oil industry recently boomed in Oklahoma and elsewhere due to advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing-- also known as fracking-- a controversial practice that involves firing a slurry of water, sand, and chemicals into the ground to release trapped hydrocarbons. Along with the fracking fluids, the oil or gas that rises to the surface tends to come with copious amounts of brackish groundwater, which energy companies dispose of by reinjecting into the earth.

In parts of Oklahoma, this wastewater injection has increased five to tenfold. At the same time, earthquakes of magnitude 3.0 and greater spiked from fewer than 100 between 1970 and 2009 to almost 600 in 2014, and a whopping 907 in 2015.

Most of the water is going into a layer of rock called the Arbuckle Formation, which may transfer water pressure to the still deeper basement rock layer, where the earthquakes are triggered. As water input has increased, so has the pore pressure in already stressed faults there, allowing their sides-- usually clamped tightly together-- to slip more easily past each other.

...These seismic maps are mostly used to develop emergency plans, building safety standards, and insurance rates. That means the new projection of induced earthquake risk could see citizens and communities in affected areas shouldering more of the financial burden for drilling’s ripple effects, Johnson Bridgwater, director of the Sierra Club’s Oklahoma Chapter, told National Geographic.

The percent of homeowners holding earthquake insurance policies in Oklahoma has risen in recent years to around 10 percent-- similar to California. Considering that Oklahoma wasn't much of a seismic risk until the fracking boom, some citizens and nonprofits are trying to hold energy companies accountable.

Two significant temblors that shook Oklahoma City and Edmonds over the 2015 holidays resulted in lawsuits from homeowners. And the Sierra Club's state chapter recently filed another earthquake suit against energy companies after a magnitude 5.1 quake struck near the Kansas border in February.

  “Oklahoma citizens are now having to open their own pocketbooks for insurance protection,” Bridgwater said. “And they’re obviously upset and think industry should have to cover that.”

Also, while previous maps looked at natural risk over longer timeframes, induced seismicity can vary rapidly along with shifts in policy or the market, so the USGS adjusted the timescale of the new map to just one year. USGS’s Petersen noted that some parts of the country where induced quakes were more common for a time are now forecast to have far less seismic risk.

“Something is going right in Ohio,” he said, which shows that regulatory changes like reducing injections can mitigate the potential quake hazards.

Conditions are already changing in Oklahoma. Boak says the collapse of oil prices has led to steep declines in wastewater injection in the 25-county area that has been most impacted. He expects new calls by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, a state regulatory agency, to further curtail underground disposal and keep those numbers down.

Though there have been more than 200 quakes in Oklahoma so far in 2016, Boak said he is “guardedly optimistic” that there will be an overall reduction by the end of the year.

Back to California for a moment. The fracking forces are doing all they can to elect Sacramento's most corrupt legislator, Isadore Hall, Big Oil's mainstay in the state Senate. His primary opponent, progressive environmental advocate, is Nanette Barragán. This morning she told us that she's been worried about the existential dangers of fracking as well. "From creating earthquakes to polluting our drinking water, fracking puts public health in danger. I am committed to protecting our communities from irresponsible fracking by working with my colleagues in Congress to  promote safe, clean energy for our future." Blue America has endorsed Nanette for the open congressional seat in L.A.'s South Bay, an area where 71% of the residents are Latino but Latinos never get any support from the California Democratic Party, let alone from the DCCC or the corrupted and rotted out Washington Establishment. You can contribute to Barragán's campaign here.

UPDATE: Worse Yet?

This week, Bill McKibben may have shaken up the fracking world on a non-earthquake front-- a feature for The Nation about fracking's role in Global Warming. "[I]t appears," he wrote, "the United States may have gotten the chemistry wrong. Really wrong." It's not the CO2 but "the nasty little brother, methane (CH4).

In February, Harvard researchers published an explosive paper in Geophysical Research Letters. Using satellite data and ground observations, they concluded that the nation as a whole is leaking methane in massive quantities. Between 2002 and 2014, the data showed that US methane emissions increased by more than 30 percent, accounting for 30 to 60 percent of an enormous spike in methane in the entire planet’s atmosphere... Because burning natural gas releases significantly less carbon dioxide than burning coal, CO2 emissions have begun to trend slowly downward, allowing politicians to take a bow. But this new Harvard data, which comes on the heels of other aerial surveys showing big methane leakage, suggests that our new natural-gas infrastructure has been bleeding methane into the atmosphere in record quantities. And molecule for molecule, this unburned methane is much, much more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide.

...[H]ere’s the unhappy fact about methane: Though it produces only half as much carbon as coal when you burn it, if you don’t-- if it escapes into the air before it can be captured in a pipeline, or anywhere else along its route to a power plant or your stove-- then it traps heat in the atmosphere much more efficiently than CO2... [E]ven a small percentage of the methane leaked-- maybe as little as 3 percent-- then fracked gas would do more climate damage than coal. And their preliminary data showed that leak rates could be at least that high: that somewhere between 3.6 and 7.9 percent of methane gas from shale-drilling operations actually escapes into the atmosphere.

...And if we didn’t frack, what would we do instead? Ten years ago, the realistic choice was between natural gas and coal. But that choice is no longer germane: Over the same 10 years, the price of a solar panel has dropped at least 80 percent. New inventions have come online, such as air-source heat pumps, which use the latent heat in the air to warm and cool houses, and electric storage batteries. We’ve reached the point where Denmark can generate 42 percent of its power from the wind, and where Bangladesh is planning to solarize every village in the country within the next five years. We’ve reached the point, that is, where the idea of natural gas as a “bridge fuel” to a renewable future is a marketing slogan, not a realistic claim (even if that’s precisely the phrase that Hillary Clinton used to defend fracking in a debate earlier this month).

One of the nastiest side effects of the fracking boom, in fact, is that the expansion of natural gas has undercut the market for renewables, keeping us from putting up windmills and solar panels at the necessary pace. Joe Romm, a climate analyst at the Center for American Progress, has been tracking the various economic studies more closely than anyone else. Even if you could cut the methane-leakage rates to zero, Romm says, fracked gas (which, remember, still produces 50 percent of the CO2 level emitted by coal when you burn it) would do little to cut the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions because it would displace so much truly clean power. A Stanford forum in 2014 assembled more than a dozen expert teams, and their models showed what a drag on a sustainable future cheap, abundant gas would be. “Cutting greenhouse-gas emissions by burning natural gas is like dieting by eating reduced-fat cookies,” the principal investigator of the Stanford forum explained. “If you really want to lose weight, you probably need to avoid cookies altogether.”

There are a few promising signs. Clinton has at least tempered her enthusiasm for fracking some in recent debates, listing a series of preconditions she’d insist on before new projects were approved; Bernie Sanders, by contrast, has called for a moratorium on new fracking. But Clinton continues to conflate and confuse the chemistry: Natural gas, she said in a recent position paper, has helped US carbon emissions “reach their lowest level in 20 years.” It appears that many in power would like to carry on the fracking revolution, albeit a tad more carefully.

Indeed, just last month, Cheniere Energy shipped the first load of American gas overseas from its new export terminal at Sabine Pass in Louisiana. As the ship sailed, Cheniere’s vice president of marketing, Meg Gentle, told industry and government officials that natural gas should be rebranded as renewable energy. “I’d challenge everyone here to reframe the debate and make sure natural gas is part of the category of clean energy, not a fossil-fuel category, which is viewed as dirty and not part of the solution,” she said. A few days later, Exxon’s PR chief, writing in the Los Angeles Times, boasted that the company had been “instrumental in America’s shale gas revolution,” and that as a result, “America’s greenhouse gas emissions have declined to levels not seen since the 1990s.”

The new data prove them entirely wrong. The global-warming fight can’t just be about carbon dioxide any longer. Those local environmentalists, from New York State to Tasmania, who have managed to enforce fracking bans are doing as much for the climate as they are for their own clean water. That’s because fossil fuels are the problem in global warming-- and fossil fuels don’t come in good and bad flavors. Coal and oil and natural gas have to be left in the ground. All of them.

No wonder Clinton is afraid to do any more debates with Bernie. And this isn't something where she disagrees with anyone might have to debate in a general election situation. Trump, Cruz, Kasich and Ryan are all-- as in all things-- "worse than Hillary." That won't save the planet, but it will make some Democrats feel better about themselves when they vote for global catastrophe.