Congressional Races Heating-- As GOP Goes Berserk Looking At Probable November Losses

 

The other day someone wrote a comment here about how the country is ready to explode in Civil War and all that's needed is a Ft Sumter incident. I don't agree but some kind of a half-assed insurrection would be a fitting and predictable denouement for the illegitimate, completely divisive Trump regime.

I'm no Andrew Cuomo fan and I wasn't that shocked to see some Trumpist yahoos in western New York hang him in effigy after a mock trial over the weekend, but what did surprise me was that a Republican congressman-- albeit a knee-jerk Trumpist-- took part in the proceedings. The spoiled son of a billionaire, Rep. Chris Jacobs, spoke at the pro-COVID/pro-gun/pro-QAnon/anti-Black Lives Matter largely maskless event in front of the Hamburg city hall. What Jacobs did might or might not have been sedition, but it was certainly a violation of the House Code of Ethics.

His opponent is Nate McMurray, who came within a thousand votes of winning (a fraction of a percent) in 2018, despite antipathy from the DCCC which reflexively opposes progressives running in red districts. Pelosi's DCCC head, Cheri Bustos, is again working behind the scenes to sabotage McMurray's campaign and make sure Jacobs, a fellow conservative, is reelected. The Democratic Party has had nothing to say about the Jacobs rally but McMurray pointed out in a press release yesterday that the district "has a history of political climbers like Bill Paxon, Tom Reynolds, Chris Lee, and Chris Collins who used the communities and families of NY-27 for personal gain. But the hatefulness on display Saturday was a disgraceful new low. Chris Jacobs and his comrades in Western New York have fully embraced the worst of Trumpism. Extreme Republicans like Chris know that if every American votes, they will lose. So they traffic in conspiracies, lies and the politics of fear to destabilize the electoral process and end democracy as we know it. And their march toward authoritarianism will not end with a whimper but with the bang and butt of a gun. Chris should be ashamed of how far he has debased himself, all to try and win an election. Chris Jacobs is showing us who he is and we should believe what we see. And while his behavior is deeply troubling, we need not accept it. We've got to send a message, and vote these dangerous charlatans out of office this November."

Meanwhile, Democrats who normally vote with the Republicans in the House are, somewhat ironically, the ones who are most savagely attacked by the NRCC. It's hilarious that they single out the most extreme right-wing Democrats, some of whom have voting records that are to the right of some Republicans, and call them socialists and Pelosi and AOC puppets. No one would dispute, for example, that Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN) is one of the most conservative Democrats in the House. His Progressive Punch lifetime crucial vote score is 39.09%. In other words, he earned his "F" rating by voting with Republicans against progressive legislation far more often than for anything remotely progressive. But look at the misleading ad the GOP is running against him this week. You'd get the idea he's a liberal.





Same treatment for one of the worst right-wing Democratic freshmen, Xochitl Torres Small of New Mexico. Her "F" rating is backed up with a 43.75 crucial vote score. Conservatives don't need Republicans if they have Democrats like Torres Small. In fact, she has been so relentlessly against the interests of the working class, that she was endorsed this month by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce against the GOP candidate, far right sociopath, Yvette Herrell, who Torres Small narrowly beat in 2018 by less than 1 point, 101,489 (50.9%) to 97,767 (49.1%). She's the kind of "Democrat" the DCCC supports, rather than an independent-minded FDR-oriented progressive like McMurray. Suggestion. Click on that thermometer above and contribute what you can to McMurray's campaign. So far Jacobs has put over half a million dollars of his inheritance into his own campaign and accepted around $200,000 in bribes from corporate and ideological PACs.

Conservatives Are Stomping Out Family Farms-- And Not Just Republican Conservatives Either

You know what's bipartisan in DC? Agricultural policy-- and it sucks, for farmers, for rural communities and for consumers. Jeff Hauser and Eleanor Eagan, reporting for Washington Monthly, have no doubt that the Trump Regime is up to no good when it comes to family farms, but they point out that it isn't just Trump and the Republicans. "The administration is letting agribusiness run amok, they wrote. But, they ask, where is the congressional oversight?

Collin Peterson is one of the most conservative, Republican-like Democrats-- an extreme right Blue Dog in a Trumpist district-- in Congress. Right up against the Dakotas-- from the border of Manitoba across from Kittson County, down to Pipestone County in the south-- his vast rural district has a PVI of R+12, the reddest district held by any Democrat in the House. And he holds it by playing ball with the GOP. Trump beat Hillary by over 20 points in the district, 61.8% to 31.0%. Ironically, while Trump swept MN-07, Bernie did better than Hillary-- and everyone else-- on caucus day in 2016.

• Bernie- 6,608
• Ted Cruz- 4,326
• Hillary- 3,852
• Señor Trumpanzee- 3,401

Voters wanted change-- and they knew who was offering it for real.

Last year Amy Klobuchar did well in MN-07 but neither Tina Smith, also running for the Senate, nor Tim Walz, the Democrats' successful gubernatorial candidate, did. Collin Peterson won again, though-- 146,672 (52.1%) to 134,668 (47.9%). In 2016 Peterson beat the same GOP opponent, Dave Hughes by about the same margin, having raised $1,201,913 compared to Hughes' $19,836. Much of Peterson's big fundraising advantage cames, as it always does, from agribusiness. In 2018 Peterson raised $1,425,449 (and was forced to spend more than he raised) but Hughes raised much more than he had in 2016-- $232,724. It will be a miracle if Peterson survives next year. There are 5 Republicans competing to take him on and two of them, Noel Collins (a self-funder) and Michelle Fischbach (the party favorite) have raised6 figures. Hughes is giving it another shot but isn't raising significant money. There's also a Democrat primarying Collins, Stephen Emery but he's not raising any money and he's actually challenging Peterson from the right as a Pelosi lapdog!

Here's Emery's schpiel:

He has presided over the rise of the mega corporate farm and multi-national agriculture corporation and demise of our rural communities and family farms.

He voted to allow illegal immigrants to vote in our elections!

He says he’s the most bi-partisan member of Congress, but he votes with Nancy Pelsosi almost all of the time and gives his money to extremely liberal causes that oppose the issues he says he supports.

Nancy Pelosi effectively is the Representative for the Minnesota Seventh Congressional District. The first thing Collin Peterson does after he is elected is to vote for Nancy Pelosi. He helps put her in charge of the machinery of Congress. He knows that much of what occurs there is procedural and through committees, so the leader wields incredible power. She has a say as to who serves on which committee, and how, and if, bills move through the House. Furthermore, he knows that Congress works essentially through a two party system, and they tend to vote in groups, so what the leader pushes to a large measure determines what the result will be.

So, it doesn’t matter how he votes on any particular bill, because he votes “yes” on Nancy Pelosi’s initiatives when he voted for her to lead the Democrats in Congress, and that is the vote that matters. Has his vote against a Pelosi initiative ever meant the difference of whether it passes? I don’t think so, and so it is always a safe, meaningless vote-- except for his re-electability.

So, regardless of how Collin Peterson otherwise may vote, a vote for Collin Peterson is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and gun control;

A vote for Collin Peterson is a vote for the Nancy Pelosi and Obamacare and poorer medical care;

A vote for Collin Peterson is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and sodomy and biological males in women’s showers and bathrooms;

A vote for Collin Peterson is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and Islam and Muslims and illegal aliens sweeping across the nation and voting in our elections! The rise of the Islamist has occurred on his watch and he hasn’t done anything to address it!;

A vote for Collin Peterson is a vote for the Nancy Pelosi and more and more in-your-face control by the United Nations over our lives;

A vote for Collin Peterson is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and extreme environmentalism.

A vote for Collin Peterson is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and Planned Parenthood and the butchering of babies and the sale of baby parts;

A vote for Collin Peterson is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and mega corporate farming and disenfranchising our children from remaining on the land and continuing farming which is the most common form of free enterprise;

A vote for Collin Peterson is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and more and more welfare that the nation can’t support and that isn’t good for the welfare recipient or the taxpayer, and a complete collapse of our economy due to run-away debt;

A vote for Collin Peterson is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and this massive tax and spend program that is wrapped around this lie called man-made global warming.

We need different, and far better, representation in Washington, D.C.

The people who established this nation intended for a continual rotation of citizens for elective positions, not career politicians like Collin Peterson. Let’s value private enterprise and personal responsibility. Let’s spend within our means and not create more debt for our children and grandchildren.

Most of it's a bunch of crazy Republican talking points-- except for the first complaint: "He has presided over the rise of the mega corporate farm and multi-national agriculture corporation and demise of our rural communities and family farms." There is where he has a valid point.

As we mentioned a couple of weeks ago Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, told Wisconsin dairy farmers that "In America, the big get bigger and the small go out. I don’t think in America we, for any small business, we have a guaranteed income or guaranteed profitability." In other words, wrote Hauser and Eagan, "he was telling the farmers: you’re probably screwed and there’s nothing you can do about it."

Contrary to Perdue’s claims, the deaths of small farms are not a result of natural forces. They are a consequence of explicit policy choices that have allowed for the rampant consolidation and disinvestment that are crushing rural communities. Only two decades ago, there were 600 companies that sold seed. Today, there are only four. It’s no wonder that the cost of seeds and plant corn has risen 329 percent in that time period, with similar increases for other crops.

Perdue hasn’t just failed to recognize the root causes of farmers’ pain; he has actively aided the forces responsible for it. From his first days in office, he has turned the full power of the USDA against farmers and rural communities on behalf of Big Agriculture, betraying one of the constituencies most vital to Trump’s 2016 win.

None of this should surprise anyone. What should be genuinely shocking, however, is that Congressman Collin Peterson, a Democrat from Minnesota and the chair of the House Agriculture Committee, has been practically silent about these attacks. Over the past nine months, he has only convened one full committee hearing. And while his panel heard testimony from Perdue in February, Peterson has yet to call him back despite his committing numerous transgressions since, including his continued efforts to impose work requirements on access to food stamps and pressing ahead to relocate the department’s research wing out of D.C.

Peterson, who declined our request for comment, has failed to fulfill his obligation to protect farmers and rural communities. That is not only bad on the substance, but it is a missed opportunity for Democrats to win back support among American farmers, who overwhelmingly pulled the lever for Trump in 2016.

In recent years, consolidated agribusinesses have translated their rising profits into formidable political power. They have successfully weakened or killed many measures that would have limited their control over farmers’ lives and livelihoods, including fighting laws that would give farmers the right to repair their own equipment, something that overzealous copyright protections have prevented them from doing. When these and other nasty practices get too much attention, Big Ag wields its considerable weight to silence critics, whether that means getting a newspaper cartoonist fired or suing the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to close a public comment period on a proposed merger.

Over the past few decades, Democrats have too often either supported the policies that got us here, or fallen short in resisting them. In 2008, Barack Obama made fighting consolidation a feature of his agricultural policy platform. But once in power, he failed to act decisively on those promises. His administration hesitated to enact proposed regulations that would have made it easier for contract farmers to sue packing and processing companies for unfair practices. Then, it found itself unable to move forward once Republicans took the House in 2010.

As with most things, however, the Trump administration has taken a bad problem and made it worse. Earlier this year, the Department of Justice approved a merger between two agricultural industry giants, Monsanto and Bayer, allowing for the creation of a new behemoth. And those Obama-era contracting rules? They were eventually approved in 2016, but Perdue promptly scrapped them after taking power. Worse yet, Perdue’s USDA has walked back enforcement of many of the remaining rules to protect contract farmers.

This is all without mentioning what’s at the forefront of people’s minds when they think about Trump’s impact on farmers: trade policy. Yet as these examples should make clear, the harm this administration is inflicting on farmers goes well beyond trade.

Unfortunately, House Democrats have done little to draw attention to Trump’s deleterious agricultural policies When they do respond by holding a hearing, like over the decision to move the USDA’s Economic Research Service to Kansas City, they fail to confront those responsible for their actions, or take definitive actions to stop them.

Meanwhile, in the same time span that Peterson only convened one full committee hearing, Agriculture’s six subcommittees have held a combined 19 hearings, seven of which involved testimony from USDA officials. The Committee has issued zero subpoenas to corporate or governmental actors.

Peterson should reverse course and start from the top. The USDA is a big department with a diverse set of important responsibilities, ranging from protecting farming and rural economies, to ensuring food safety and administering the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

...Democrats need to perform meaningful oversight of the Trump administration’s assault on American farmers. Impeachment doesn’t obviate the need for skeptical oversight. It underscores it. Oversight is, put simply, a basic fulfillment of Congress’ governing obligations. It can uncover abuse, create pressure for change, and facilitate the development of much needed policy alternatives. And, as an added bonus, the political upside seems clear.

This strategy might seem somewhat unorthodox. It contravenes the gospel that Democrats can only win agricultural districts by espousing a quiet, inoffensive centrism. But that would cede control of the political debate to Trump. If Democrats only play on the president’s terms, the conversation will always shift away from the real issue.

Democrats must therefore redefine the debate on agriculture policy through rigorous oversight. In rural America, they have to demonstrate their willingness to take on political corruption of all shades, and to challenge corporate America’s chokehold over the political process.

Yet Democrats have been surprisingly unwilling to take on one of the most unifying issues across the electorate: how the system is rigged to hurt ordinary people and boost big corporations.

Trump has created an opportunity for Democrats to take up this message in virtually every area of policy, but now especially with farmers. House Democrats have a unique opening to prove to rural voters that they are serious about taking on structural inequities. All they have to do is highlight and push back against the administration’s efforts to enrich corporations at the expense of small farmers. In other words, they have to simply do their jobs.

J.D. Scholten, who the day after Perdue's talk with the Wisconsin day farmers, termed his comments "a middle finger to family farmers," is running for Congress in Iowa's 4th district, the only one still in GOP hands, the only one held by a white nationalist (Steve King). King was kicked off the House Agriculture Committee by Paul Ryan for his repeated inflammatory racist comments. No one doubts that on the first day of Scholten's appearance as a member of Congress, Pelosi will make sure IA-04 is represented on that committee again. "American farmers are struggling to get by," he told me yesterday, "forced to work one, two, or more jobs off the farm to make ends meet. We, the Democratic Party, are supposed to be the party of the working class-- we’re supposed to be voice of the voiceless, the champion for those who have been left behind. As corporations further consolidate and control the markets, the Democratic Party has a responsibility to speak out and fight for workers. This administration has manipulated the trade war for the gain of Trump’s donors, abused the RFS to the benefit of big oil, dismantled the USDA, has hurt worker safety, and much more-- but we’ve given rural America no viable alternative. It’s past time for Democrats to show up: to prove that we’re trustworthy, honest and willing to fight for working people. Only then, can we elect a fighter who is willing to stand for everyday people rather than someone who can max out on a donation check."

The gospel that Democrats can only win agricultural districts by espousing a quiet, inoffensive centrism? Not J.D. Scholten. Take a look at Bernie's rural development agenda. That's about as far as you can get from inoffensive centrism. But Peterson's congressional district wasn't the only rural district where Bernie trounced Hillary.

Take the vast rural district in northeast California (CA-01). There are 11 counties. Last year, corporate Democrat Dianne Feinstein lost every one of them. Gavin Newsom, also a corporatist, lost 10 of the 11. Bernie did a lot better in 2016-- and Audrey Denney, a progressive running on much of Bernie's populist program won the biggest county in the district, Butte, and well as Nevada County. Bernie won 9 of the 11 counties and won the mostly rural and small town congressional district convincingly. Here were Bernie's numbers:

• Butte- 58.9%
• Shasta- 50.0%
• Nevada- 59.8%
• Placer- 42.0%
• Tehama- 49.6%
• Siskiyou- 58.0%
• Plumas- 53.7%
• Lassen- 50.8%
• Modoc- 50.7%
• Sierra- 55.8%
• Glenn- 48.8%

Audrey Denney is taking on Trump enabler Doug LaMalfa again this cycle. She told us that "the Trump Administration policies are directly hurting farmers all over the country. According to the American Farm Bureau, farm bankruptcy filings for 2019 through June were up 13% from 2018 and loan delinquency rates are on the rise. North State farmers are asking for trade policies that expand markets and immigration reform that helps them get the labor they need. Congressman LaMalfa-- a farmer himself-- has failed to be an advocate for the industry he represents. I’ve worked in agriculture education my entire career and can’t wait to fight for North State farmers and ranchers when they send me to DC... Every year it becomes harder and harder for farmer and ranchers to make their work pencil. Tariffs are adding increasing pressure on farmers’ already razor thin profit margins-- add this to an inability to find and retain skilled labor-- and many North State farmers are really hurting. Every multi-generational family famers’ nightmare is being the generation that loses the farm. My family lived that reality with the 2008 recession-- this is a personal issue for me."





Kathy Ellis is running in one of the reddest rural districts in America, located in the southeast corner of Missouri. Farmers and the small towns that depend on agriculture to sustain them are hurting there. "Agribusiness has taken over rural communities like mine," she told us today. "Between climate change damaging crops and the impact of Trump's tariffs, farmers are left without options other than to sell to Agribusiness Companies. It takes away local control of these farms and it damages our local economy. And to make matters worse, our current representative not only doesn't stop this, he also takes thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from these companies. He's not working on behalf of farmers. He's working on behalf of Big Agriculture, and it must stop."

Progressive North Carolina pastor Jason Butler looks at the problem beyond mere congressional policy. "Perception," he said, "is reality and the reality is: DC Democrats don’t really seem to care about the rural community. If they did-- as this article points out-- they’d step up and do something. Trump has created incredible openings in the rural community through damaging trade wars and damaging farming policies-- but corporate Democrats aren’t countering it. Instead, we too, seem bent on blaming the rural community for electing and sustaining Trump. On one hand, we are telling the rural community that we (Democrats) will help you more, but on the other hand we are blaming them for our current situation. No one wants to be part of a group that looks down on them-- even if they will help them more. I think the Democrats' problem goes much deeper than farming policy-- it goes into the reality that we don’t appreciate the rural American experience. We used to-- but we don’t anymore. And while Republican policy does not help them, and even hurts them-- they value (or pretend to value) rural life and rural values. And at the end of the day, all of us want to belong to a group of people that value us and our experience. Winning the trust of the rural community won’t be easy, and will take some time-- but here is where we should start-- places like this: making sure we stand up for farmers-- big and small, making sure we are boldly pushing policies that sustain and empower rural life, and holding this administration accountable for its lack of rural support."

If You Had To Pick One Democratic Congressman To Lose To The GOP In 2020, Who Would It Be? I have A Suggestion

Collin Peterson: DRECK!

Minnesota's 7th district is as red as it gets. The PVI is R+12 and Obama lost it both times he ran. Trump beat Hillary here-- 62 to 31%. It's about 95% of western Minnesota and borders on North and South Dakota. Folks there gave uo on the corrupted DC corporate Democrats long ago. In the 2016 primary, folks there went crazy for Bernie's populist, progressive reform message. Bernie didn't just beat Hillary in a landslide-- 63.2% to 36.8%-- more than double the number of voters came out to caucus for him than for Trump!

• Bernie- 6,608
• Trump- 3,017

When the general election came along, though, Hillary was the nominee and she lost every single county in MN-07. The biggest county in the district in terms of population, is Otter Tail. The only Democratic presidential candidates to win the county since Minnesota was granted statehood (1858 were the two most like Bernie: FDR and William Jennings Bryan).

Many MN-07 voters live across the Red Rver from North Dakota cities Fargo and Grand Forks (Clay and Polk counties) and get their news from North Dakota media. (The only states redder than North Dakota are Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Idaho.)

The congressman from MN-07, since 1991, is Collin Peterson. He's an anti-Choice fanatic, has one of the most homophobic voting records in Congress, opposes healthcare (voted against Obamacare and voted to repeal it), votes to abolish the estate tax, is anti-environment, opposes consumer protection legislation, votes for deregulation of just about everything and is one of the most pro-NRA members of Congress. He has preemptively declared that "I will not support any kind of climate change bill." And he's a war-monger. Sounds like a pretty typical Republican, right? Yes, right... but he's a Blue Dog "Democrat" and the DCCC is about to drop as much as $4 million of defending his seat next year.

Peterson famously said he "doesn't know a damn thing about the Yemen civil war" but was one of only 5 Democrats to vote with the GOP to allow Trump to keep selling weapons to the Saudis for their genocide policy there. He was the only Democrat to vote against the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act. He voted against the Violence Against Women Act and against the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. He opposes Medicare-for-All but he was one of the only Democrats to vote for Republican Medicare (Bush's bill to bilk consumers on prescription drugs while enriching the pharmaceutical companies). Pelosi has repeatedly made him chair of the House Agricultural Committee, which he has turned into a virtual meeting for corrupt Blue Dogs eager to take bribes from corporate agriculture and do their bidding.

The NRCC recognizes an ally when they see one and rarely support any local Republicans opposing him. Last cycle Republican Dave Hughes nearly beat him, 52 to 48%, with the NRCC spending exactly zero on his behalf-- and after being outspent by Peterson $1,494,741 to $229,418. (Hughes had run against him in 2016 as well with almost identical results and with no support from the NRCC.) Hughes is running against in 2020... but this time the Republican Party plans to get serious about this race-- although not on Hughes' behalf. Yesterday, David Wasserman, reporting for the Cook Report, wrote that they moved MN-07 from "lean Democrat" to "toss up."

That's because former Lt. Gov. Michelle Fischbach (R) announced that she's running against Peterson. "In an era defined by sky-high polarization and straight-ticket voting," wrote Wasserman, "Peterson is an extreme outlier. No one else in the House represents a seat where the opposite party's presidential candidate received more than 55 percent of the vote in 2016, but Peterson-- first elected in 1990-- has managed to defy political gravity a sprawling, rural district that voted for President Trump by a landslide 61 percent to 31 percent. The reason? Peterson, 75, is serving his second stint as chair of the Ag Committee, where his policy expertise is widely respected across the aisle and his farm bill-crafting clout is prized by farmers in his sugar beet and corn-rich district. Moreover, his personal style-- including flying his own plane around the sprawling district and showing up to events unstaffed in jeans and cowboy boots-- holds undeniable local appeal."

Then Wasserman goes off the rails in a direction all DC pundits go: the extreme conservative Blue Dogs, he claims, absurdly, are "moderate" and the right-wing psychopath Peterson (who refused to vote for Hillary against Trump) has "never been regarded as an ideologue."

Ironically, what may finally do Peterson in is something that Wasserman was singing his praises over: "just last month, Peterson hosted Trump-appointed Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue for a bipartisan discussion at the iconic Minnesota Farmfest at a time when China's retaliation against Trump's trade tariffs is putting serious stress on district farmers." Beltway pundits like Wasserman may soon have something to weep in their milk over. As he wrote himself, "there are signs Peterson's grasp on the 7th CD has been gradually slipping. As rural Minnesota has drifted towards the GOP, Peterson's margin of victory has shrunk in each of his past three elections. In 2016, he defeated Air Force veteran Dave Hughes by just 53 percent to 47 percent despite outspending Hughes $1.2 million to $19,000. In 2018, Peterson won a rematch by an even narrower 52 percent to 48 percent. Peterson could be even more vulnerable in 2020 with Trump atop the ballot. Given past patterns, it's likely 50,000 to 80,000 additional voters beyond the 281,000 who cast ballots here in 2018 will show up to vote. And, these casual, less politically engaged voters are less likely to be aware of or value Peterson's clout as Ag chair and independence from national Democrats. They're more likely to cast straight tickets." Ahhh... just when Democrats are getting sick of holding their noses and vote for Peterson. And it doesn't matter than Fischbach is virtually brain-dead, announcing her run by laughably "calling Peterson an enabler of 'the socialist agenda of Nancy Pelosi, Ilhan Omar and the rest of the squad.' Fischbach is married to the head of Minnesota's largest pro-life group and will have access to a large fundraising network of social conservatives. And unlike Hughes, whom she must first get past in a primary, she will have strong backing from the NRCC (which sat out the past two cycles)."

However, Fischbach isn't without vulnerabilities. In 2018, she created a minor maelstrom by trying to simultaneously keep her state Senate seat while filling the lieutenant governor vacancy (at the time, Republicans held a 34 to 33 seat majority in the chamber that depended on Fischbach's vote). Ultimately, Fischbach backed down and resigned, but the legal battle ended up costing taxpayers $146,000.

More fundamentally, Fischbach's 23-year tenure in St. Paul could give Democrats an avenue to call her a Twin Cities "career politician" and could rob Republicans of the line of attack that Peterson has been in office too long and it's time for change. Peterson and Democrats could also highlight Fischbach's movement conservatism and Twin Cities roots to cast her as a poor fit for a farm belt seat with populist roots.

The last time DC Republicans took serious interest here was in 2014, when they recruited state Sen. Torrey Westrom. Westrom, who is blind and had a good personal story, raised $1 million. But Democrats accused him of trying to shut down the state government and taking "more than $300,000 in reimbursements from taxpayers over his two decades in St. Paul." Peterson prevailed, 54 percent to 46 percent.

Look for Democrats to reprise those same attacks against Fischbach, who has an extensive St. Paul paper trail to litigate. Furthermore, they will seek to tie Fischbach to Trump's tariffs and make the case that with family farmers in distress, Peterson's clout and presence as a check are more essential than ever. For her part, Fischbach has praised Trump for taking on China for "sticking it to farmers for years."

Of course, the biggest question is whether Peterson decides to run again in 2020. On one hand, Peterson just regained his gavel and leaving a powerful post so soon after winning the majority would be atypical. But on the other, Peterson must decide whether he wants to wage a multi-million dollar campaign for what would likely be one final term, considering Minnesota is likely to lose a district after the 2020 Census.

If Peterson does run again (Minnesota's filing deadline isn't until next June), he'll have powerful allies seeking to ease his workload. American Crystal Sugar, a highly influential farmer-owned sugar cooperative based in the Red River Valley of Minnesota and North Dakota, has already created and funded a $300,000 SuperPAC, the Committee for Stronger Rural Committees, with the sole mission of reelecting Peterson.

Conventional wisdom, popular inside the Beltway, is certain that if Peterson retires, there is no Democrat who could possibly hold the seat, not even against so flawed a candidate as Fischbach. And a post-Peterson DCCC policy would be to either abandon the district entirely or to recruit and run another Republican-lite Blue Dog like Peterson... but never to try to get behind a populist, progressive Democrat who could take on the GOP form the perspective of MN-07 farming communities deep in recession because of the Trump Trade War and his knee-jerk congressional enablers. Remember, these people admire independents-- and admire Bernie-- and, wisely, hate Pelosi and the DCCC.

Blue Dogs Brag To Anyone Who Will Listen That They Have The Votes To Stop Any Progressive Legislation, Including The Green New Deal

Do you think I've been a little harsh on the Blue Dogs (and New Dems) this week/month/year/decade? Glad you noticed... no reason to stop now either. A couple of Blue Dogs celebrators at Agri-Pulse, seems to think a stronger Blue Dog Coalition gives rural America clout. It doesn't-- unless by rural America you mean corporate agri-business. Ben Nuelle and Philip Brasher wrote this week that "There are plenty of Blue Dogs now to prevent a Democratic bill from passing the House, if they want to stop or revise the measure. Democrats currently control the House 235-198, and it takes 217 votes to pass a bill with the two vacancies currently. That means Speaker Nancy Pelosi can only lose 18 Democratic votes and still pass a bill if no Republicans support it." That's what the Blue Dogs did to ObamaCare when they wanted to make sure there would be no public option. How has that worked out for everyone? These are the freshmen who joined the Blue Dogs this year and are already working furiously to undermine the progressive agenda:

• Anthony Brindisi (NY)
• Ed Case (HI)
• Joe Cunningham (SC)
• Kendra Horn (OK)
• Ben McAdams (UT)
• Max Rose (NY)
• Mikie Sherrill (NJ)
• Abigail Spanberger (VA)
• Xochitl Torres Scall (NM)
• Jeff Van Drew (NJ)

Nuelle and Brasher reported that there are 27 of them in this Congress, "up from 18 in the 115th Congress. That’s still only half the number they had in 2008 when membership peaked at 54, but the coalition is on an 'upward projection, and we have enough members to have a voice now,' said the Blue Dogs’ policy chairman, Tom O’Halleran of Arizona."

The big question is whether the Blue Dogs have the numbers and the attitude to pull the caucus to the center at a time when media-savvy progressives such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York are tugging the party to the left. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has 98 members plus one: U.S. Sen., Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Peterson doesn’t think the Blue Dogs will have the bite they did when Democrats last controlled the House from 2007-2011.

“People were different and more willing to take on the establishment. That’s the big difference. Now you have the New Democrats and the Problem Solvers (two other coalitions of moderates). It remains to be seen what niche we have if any,” Peterson said.

He doesn’t foresee any members “rocking the boat” with leadership.

But Blue Dog Rep. Kurt Schrader, a veterinarian from Oregon, thinks 27 is the sweet spot needed to influence leadership. “It’s actually better, we had some members that maybe weren’t real Blue Dogs when we were at 54. Now we’re at 26 with a couple of new ones and will be a tight-knit group and encourage leadership to move in a more bipartisan way,” Schrader said.

Schrader said in 2010, the group was a loose coalition and surprised each other which ultimately allowed them to be picked off one by one. He said the new members understand their future in Congress lies with working in a bipartisan manner.

The group also has done well at getting coveted committee assignments. “From Energy and Commerce, to Ways and Means, to Appropriations, that all bodes well for the Blue Dogs,” said California Rep. Jim Costa, who begins his 15th year as a member.

Peterson controls House Ag and has several fellow Blue Dogs on the committee, with two chairing subcommittees.

Spanberger chairs Conservation and Forestry and Costa chairs Livestock and Foreign Agriculture. Other House Ag members include: David Scott of Georgia, Brindisi, and Van Drew. Three of the members-- Peterson, Costa and Schrader-- are farmers. Although Schrader does not currently sit on the Ag committee, he helped write the 2014 farm bill during the conference committee.

The group plans to meet once a week to discuss legislative priorities. O’Halleran said they would likely continue to have a rural task force, as well as a labor task force. With the government now reopened, Schrader hopes to see some sort of deal reached with the president regarding border security, perhaps comprehensive immigration reform in return for money for the wall. Ag labor is a major concern among farmers in his district.

“For a lot of farming communities, that is absolutely the number-one issue I hear all the time. Why don’t we just fix that and take care of families at the border. I would be willing to make that trade,” Schrader said.

Some sort of physical barrier is not unpopular in his district, along with other Blue Dogs. “A lot of Republicans represent farming and ag communities, why the hell wouldn’t they be in favor of comprehensive immigration reform? I think they would, and it would be a huge win-win,” Schrader said.

On Jan. 25, the coalition sent a letter to Republican and Democratic leadership regarding border security and the government shutdown. The letter asked both parties to come together to open the government and provide a long-term solution to strengthen border security.

O'Halleran said they are going to be more proactive on policy and be more organized.

Remember, it was Blue Dogs (and New Dems)-- not Republicans-- who used their clout to get the public option taken out of Obamacare, making Obamacare much less effective-- and much less defensible-- and part iff the reason Trump is sitting in the White House now. The Blue Dogs have every intention of using their clout against the Green New Deal, which is being formally unveiled next week by Ed Markey in the Senate and AOC in the House. So far these are the House members who have signed on:

None of them are Blue Dogs. Reporting for The Hill, Ben Lilliston noted that "rural America has much at stake when it comes to climate change. The National Climate Assessment outlined a series of daunting challenges for our farmers, including 'increased rates of crop failure, reduced livestock productivity, and altered rates of pressure from pests, weeds, and diseases.' The report also identified a rural 'climate gap,' where natural resource-based economies are particularly exposed to future climate disruptions... The boldness and urgency of a proposed Green New Deal has shaken Washington’s longstanding inside the beltway climate change inertia. The Green New Deal sets an ambitious course to make the U.S. economy greenhouse gas-emission neutral, while prioritizing a just transition for workers and communities by 2030. Its emphasis on equity and locally-driven climate change responses echo principles that more than 20 rural-based climate policy organizations identified in 2015. Those groups agreed that to meet the urgency of the climate challenge, new U.S. policy must be:

• Resilient: “Policy solutions need to focus on increasing the resiliency of our communities, economy, and the natural systems they depend on. We must prioritize climate responses that minimize emissions and community risk.”
• Equitable: “Policies must be constructed and delivered in ways that recognize historical and ongoing discrimination, and work to reduce-- not increase-- current and long-standing economic, racial, cultural, gender and other forms of inequality.”
• Diverse, democratic and locally determined: “Policies should encompass diverse solutions, utilize locally produced ideas, and respect the unique characteristics, culture and knowledge of each rural community. Local and community ownership of renewable energy and other key resources should be prioritized based on the benefits that accrue to rural economies.”
• Transformative and long term: “Climate policy must support approaches that are economically, socially and environmentally sustainable in the long-term, and provide assistance and risk mitigation in making that transition, especially for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged rural communities and residents.”

This isn't the kind of help Peterson and the conservative corporate whores in the Blue Dog Coalition are taking about. As Lilliston explaoined, "while only 19 percent of the U.S. population lives in rural areas, more than 90 percent of our geography is rural. Rural communities can provide climate answers, including renewable energy production, forests, farms and rangelands that capture carbon when managed appropriately and the people and ingenuity to implement these solutions.

While rural communities will be key in the transition to a low carbon economy, they also face challenges that make a just transition critical. Rural areas have lower employment levels, lower incomes, higher childhood poverty, worse housing, and worse access to health care than urban or suburban communities. Rural areas are more reliant on food assistance and face a crippling digital divide.

Within this context, rural-based groups identified a set of Rural Climate Policy Priorities in agriculture, conservation, education, energy, fisheries, forestry, health, infrastructure, recreation and tourism. As the Green New Deal develops, these rural-focused policies should inform the plan.

Unfortunately, the ambition and urgency of the Green New Deal is not an approach Washington does well. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) rejected the call for a special Green New Deal Committee, instead reinstating a weaker Select Committee on Climate Change. Nevertheless, this committee could still play an important role. It should start with field hearings in communities that have recently experienced extreme damage associated with climate change, such as Paradise, California, devastated by recent wildfires, rural North Carolina hit by successive hurricanes, and tribal communities in Louisiana and the Inupiaq community in Alaska forced to relocate because of rising sea levels.

Rural areas forgotten by a dying coal industry are leading important conversations about a just transition, and Midwest farmers are increasingly adopting climate-resilient soil health practices that any climate committee should consider.

Washington is painfully behind the curve in responding to climate change. Earlier this month, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) downplayed climate concerns on his list of priorities. While his Senate counterpart Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) did list climate change, he oversaw the recently passed farm bill, which neglected to even mention climate change. Despite efforts in Washington to temper expectations on climate action, polling shows there is strong support for a Green New Deal.

As guideposts for a way forward, the Climate Justice Alliance has called for a Green New Deal rooted in “a just transition for workers and communities impacted by climate change” and as a tool to empower the grassroots. This approach is consistent with the principles outlined by rural-based organizations. As the Green New Deal takes shape, the transformative policies we need are unlikely to emerge from Washington, but will instead come from state and local governments, communities and leaders who have already started the movement.

The Biggest Ethnic Group In Collin Peterson's District Is Germans. Do They Know What "Dreck" Means?

Collin Peterson-- not a real Democrat, a Dreck Democrat

The other day, I mentioned on twitter that 3 House Democrats-- all extremely reactionary, odious Blue Dogs-- had voted with the Republicans to make it more difficult for women to exercise their constitutional right to Choice: Henry Cuellar (TX), Dan Lipinski (IL) and Collin Peterson (MN). Several "I'm Pro-Choice But" buttheads on my twitter feed chimed in that Peterson is in a very red district where Hillary only took 31% of the vote and that the Democratic Party needs members like this to achieve majority status. I disagree.

Let me start by acknowledging Peterson's western Minnesota district, MN-07, is prohibitively Republican. It's a largely rural district and there are no large population centers. The county that contributes the most votes, OtterTail is over 97% white, mostly people of German and Norwegian ancestry. It hasn't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1932. It's two state Reps are also Republicans and so is its state senator. However, in 2012, OtterTail went 17,257 (56%) to 12,278 (40%) for Peterson. That same day, the county went 60-39% for Romney. Oh, but wait-- pro-Choice U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar was reelected there 16,542 (54%) to 12,931 (42%). MN-07 has an R+6 PVI. It's the reddest district in the country with a Democratic congressman. Obama took just 47% of the vote in 2008 and 44% in 2012. Hillary did much worse. The district has more in common with its neighbors in North and South Dakota than with people who live in the Twin Cities area or even in the Duluth area. (Hillary won huge victories in Hennepin and Ramsey counties and took Dakota county in the Twin Cities area and won in St. Louis and Lake counties in the Duluth area. But she didn't win any of the 38 counties that make up MN-07. Obama had won 8 of them in 2012. Klobuchar won all of them. And while Hillary lost all 38 counties, Peterson won 26-- though not OtterTail).

OK, Peterson won the most backward and reactionary part of Minnesota. And he votes his district-- backward and reactionary. Let me just add before I forget, that Lipinski's Chicagoland district (IL-03) has a PVI of D+5 and gave Obama a 56-43% win over Romney and gave Hillary a 55.2-39.9% win over Trump. And Henry Cuellar's South Texas district (TX-28) has a PVI of D+7 and gave Obama a 60-39% win over Romney and gave Hillary a 58.3-38.5% win over Señor Trumpanzee.

Now about how much the House Democrats need Peterson. Although there are 3 very right-wing Democratic freshman-- Charlie Crist (FL), Stephanie Murphy (FL) and Josh Gottheimer (NJ)-- who have already served notice with their votes  that Paul Ryan can always count on them and who have worse "lifetime" voting records, the 6 worst non-freshmen ProgressivePunch crucial vote scores are held by (from bad to worse):

• Cheri Bustos (IL)- 48.06
• Sean Patrick Maloney (NY)- 45.01
• Jim Costa (CA)- 43.49
• Collin Peterson (MN)- 39.75
• Henry Cuellar (TX)- 39.04
• Kyrsten Sinema (AZ)- 36.32

As of now there are 9 Democrats with ZERO crucial vote scores for 2017: Sinema, Cuellar, Peterson, Costa, Ami Bera (New Dem-CA), Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN), Lipinski, Tim Walz (MN), and John Delaney (New Dem-MD). Ryan and McCarthy can count on them to back the GOP agenda-- more so than 11 Republicans. 11? Yep... so far 11 Republicans have better vote scores than those fake Democrats. Justin Amash (MI) has a 40.0. Walter Jones (NC) has a 25.0. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Dog LaMalfa (CA), Mike McCaul (TX) and Johnny Duncan (TN) and several others each has a 20.0 score for the current session. 20 isn't great, but it's better than Collin Peterson's ZERO.

This past cycle the Republicans didn't challenge Peterson. Republican Dave Hughes wasn't a plausible candidate and he only raised $19,511 compared to Peterson's $1,192,730. Thankfully, the DCCC didn't have to spend any money on the race. Two years earlier, however, the GOP put up a competitive candidate and the DCCC was forced to save Peterson's neck with $3,611,284 in independent expenditures, while Pelosi's House Majority PAC threw in another $332,439. That's $4 million to reelect an anti-Choice corporate whore who votes overwhelmingly with the Republicans. That $4 million could have-- and should have-- been used to elect actual Democrats in much bluer districts, Democrats who wouldn't feel pressured on every roll call to follow the lead of Ryan and McCarthy. Collin Peterson-- as well as Cuellar, Lipinski and Sinema-- have one key function in Congress: allowing Paul Ryan to claim his destructive, extremist agenda is "bipartisan," something the empty talking heads on TV repeat, with gusto, nightly.

Friday, Al Franken announced that all the Democrats on the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP)-- besides Franken, Patty Murray. Bernie Sanders, Robert Casey, Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Tammy Baldwin, Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, Tim Kaine and Maggie Hassan-- will vote NO on confirming Trump's nightmarish, dystopian nominee for Secretary of Education, dangerous sociopathic billionaire Betsy DeVos. So next week, the nomination will go to the Senate floor without a bipartisan recommendation for confirmation. But will DeVos get any Democratic votes on the floor? Half a dozen Senate Dems haven't said whether or not they would vote for her, including right-wing Democrats who tend to vote with the GOP on close issues, like Joe Manchin (WV) and Heidi Heitkamp (ND). This was Elizabeth Warren's statement to Massachusetts voters about why she is voting against confirming DeVos:

I will vote against Betsy DeVos's nomination to serve as Secretary of Education because her nomination is not in the best interests of the young people of America. She has repeatedly demonstrated her contempt for public education, she plans to maintain financial ties that could create conflicts of interest, and she is unwilling to commit to be a cop on the beat with for-profit colleges that break the law and cheat students.

Mrs. DeVos has no record in higher education, but I gave her the opportunity to prove to the American people that she is serious about standing up for students. During her confirmation hearing, I asked Mrs. DeVos basic, straightforward questions about her commitment to protecting students and taxpayers from fraud committed by shady for-profit colleges. But she was unwilling to commit to using the Department's many tools and resources to keep students from getting cheated.

Mrs. DeVos's record on K-12 education has been focused on using her vast fortune to push her own ideology on hardworking families that are just trying to get their kids a decent education in public schools. Not only are her ideas completely uninformed by experience with public schools, but the evidence is clear that her privatization theories are bad for students.

I've heard from thousands of teachers, parents, and education leaders in Massachusetts raising deep concerns about Mrs. DeVos. I hear their concerns, and I share their concerns. This includes a letter sent to me from the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association about Mrs. DeVos's devastating record of promoting for-profit and online charter schools with virtually no accountability or oversight for how well these schools actually serve students and families. Unlike the successful, thoughtful, and innovative education policies we have implemented in Massachusetts with regard to public charter schools, the policies Mrs. DeVos has bankrolled have drained valuable taxpayer dollars out of the public education system in Michigan and left kids worse off.

It is hard to imagine a less qualified or more dangerous person to be entrusted both with our country's education policy and with a trillion-dollar student loan program. Congress should reject Mrs. DeVos's nomination.

The anti-education forces, however, are countering this with a group other own, paid shills of the charter school industry called "Democrats For DeVos." They sent me a press release Friday about all the Democrats clamoring for her to be confirmed. "Today, Democratic leaders from across the country," they wrote, "some representing some of the nation's most troubled schools, have come together to announce their support for Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education." The release offers statements from notorious shills for the charter school industry, almost all of whom are on the payroll and almost none of whom ought call themselves Democrats in the real world. Like failed DC mayoral candidate Kevin Chavrous who helped devise Bobby Jindal's school voucher program in Louisiana and is on the board of DeVos' two anti-education groups, American Federation for Children and the Alliance for School Choice. "I have worked with Betsy DeVos for years," he admitted, "and she will work tirelessly to help every child in our country access a quality education. Throughout her career, she has championed much needed reform to our nation’s education system so it can give low-income and minority families the same opportunities for success that families with means already have. As Secretary of Education, Betsy will put parents and children first, which is who the system should truly serve." Other charter school Dems backing DeVos included Eva Moskowitz, who said she believes DeVos "has the talent, commitment and leadership capacity," former DC Mayor Anthony Williams, who said "Betsy makes the education establishment nervous because she shakes up the status quo," Georgia state Senator Curt Thompson, former Louisiana state Senator Ann Duplessis, former Louisiana State Senator, former Oklahoma state Senator Jabar Shumate, Tennessee state Rep.  John DeBerry, Georgia state Rep. Valencia Stovall and Shanelle Jackson, a former Michigan State Rep. Who needs Republicans when you have "Democrats" like these, Democrats who may even eventually grow up to become the next Collin Peterson.

Sometimes You Can Learn A Lot About Legislators From Their Votes On Obscure Amendments: Liz Cheney And Collin Peterson

Liz Black Lung Cheney (R-WY)

The Republicans passed, 237-187, the REINS Act— Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017— Thursday night. The bill requires Congress to approve every major executive regulation, which sounds like a good idea when you think about Trump but stopping Trump wasn’t what the Republicans had in mind when they came top with it several years ago. The bill targets environmental, public health, and consumer safety laws and, as we reported over the years. It first passed on December 7, 2011, every Republican plus 4 right-wing Blue Dogs voting for it. Three of the right-wing Blue Dogs— John Barrow (GA), Dan Boren (OK), and Mike McIntyre (NC)— have since been put out of their misery, politically-speaking, but Collin Peterson (MN) voted it for it back then… and every time the GOP has broke it top since then, including last night. Last night, though, he was joined by another far right Blue Dog shitbag, Henry Cuellar (TX).

When it passed on July 28, 2015, it was then too, all the Republicans united against regulations with their two amigos, Peterson and Cuellar. At the time, Ted Lieu (D-CA) called it “a radical, potentially unconstitutional House Republican-authored bill that guts the ability of federal agencies to establish rules protecting food safety, clear air, clean water and other crucial common-sense safeguards. The Reins Act is strongly opposed by a broad range of consumer, health, environmental, labor, scientific, and public interest groups… This bill is a blatant attempt by House Republicans to create another hurdle for the Administration to protect the environment and to act boldly on a foremost issue of our time-- combating climate change. Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will soon implement the final rule of the Clean Power Plan, a critical rule to protect the environment and public health and to strongly curb climate change-inducing pollution. The REINS Act would implement a new hurdle for the EPA to implement this crucial rule.“

Last night the Republicans— plus Peterson and Cuellar— passed it again and Lieu noted that “by requiring Congress to approve of major rules, Republicans are unabashedly preventing the Administration from protecting the environment, public health, and consumer safety. More troubling is that Republicans rejected several important Democratic amendments, including ones to reduce lead in drinking water and protect low-income communities from carbon pollution. The Senate should reject this unnecessary and harmful legislation.”

There were, in fact, 10 amendments that had roll call votes, 2 by Republicans— including an especially ominous one by Steve King that “establishes procedures for agencies and Congress to comprehensively review existing federal rules and sunset unnecessary rules.” that both passed, and 8 by Democrats, which were all defeated.

Pelosi and Hoyer managed to keep the Democrats relatively united against the GOP yesterday, relatively because Collin Peterson voted with the Republicans over and over, on amendment after amendment, the only Democrat, for example, to oppose Raul Grijalva’s amendment to exempts from the bill rules that would increase carbon emissions or specified adverse health impacts in low-income or rural communities.” Even 5 Republicans— Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), John Katko (NY), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Lloyd Smucker and Elise Stefanik (NY)— crossed the aisle and voted with the Democrats on that.

The last of the Democratic amendments was by Bobby Scott (VA) and it was referred to as “the Black Lung” amendment, aiming to exempt from the bill Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Mine Safety and Health Administration rules intended to prevent or reduce the incidence of traumatic injury, cancer, or irreversible lung disease. Even Peterson voted for this one. It was interesting, though watching congressmembers who represent big coal-mining districts. Two of West Virginia’s 3 members— Evan Jenkins and Dave McKinley— voted with the Democrats, as did Colorado’s Scott Tipton. But Alex Mooney (R-WV) didn’t seem too give a damn about coal miners in his district. And neither did the Republican freshman who represents the district that produces more coal than anywhere else in the U.S.— welcome to Congress, Liz Cheney (R-WY), who voted for miserable deaths for her own constituents yesterday in order to keep her new voting record ideologically pure.

Would Rural Outreach Have Made The Difference For The Democrats?

Last week, the Washington Post posited the assertion that A Democratic party that can't win rural districts... can't win national elections. They happen to be incorrect on two counts, one that Democrats can't win rural districts and the other that they can't win national elections. Remember, even if you don't want to accept the likelihood that "someone" (be it Putin, BigOil or a 400 pound man on his couch) hacked a few selected counties in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan to throw the elect Trump lost by over 2 million votes to him, it wasn't rural districts but suburban ones where Hillary "lost." (At least northeast suburban districts... she outdid Obama-- significantly-- in the suburbs in Texas and out west.)

The Post missive begins with a little story about the most consistently right-wing Democrat in Congress, corrupt old Blue Dog Collin Peterson (who represents the part of Minnesota abutting the Dakotas, which Bernie won in the primaries 63.2% to 37.6%. His message resonated with the rural voters there. Trump came in a distant 3rd in the district-- with 15.6% to Rubio's 47.5% and Cruz's 22.9%. There are 38 counties in the district though most of the voters live in Otter Tail, Clay (suburban Fargo), Kandiyohi, Douglas, McLeod (Minneapolis suburbs), Becker, Stearns and Polk (Grand Forks suburbs) counties. Peterson, they point out, "is one of the last members of a dying breed: the rural conservative Democrat. He has represented Minnesota's 7th Congressional District for a quarter-century, since 1991. The district encompasses most of the western half of the state. It's farm country, a broad swath of fields and open prairie running from the South Dakota border all the way up to Canada."

The people Peterson represents are overwhelmingly white and moderately conservative. According to the Cook Political Report, Peterson was one of nine Democrats sent to Congress from a district that voted for Romney in 2012.

Most counties in Peterson's district swung hard toward Trump this year, by margins of 20, 30, 40 percentage points or more. But Peterson himself still earned 52.5 percent of the vote, enough to head to Congress for a 14th term.

At this point, the Post should probably have mentioned that the NRCC didn't contest MN-07 this cycle and that his opponent, Dave Hughes, raised only $17,086 to Peterson's bribe-stuffed war-chest ($1,125,805). In 2014, when the NRCC were serious about defeating him, his opponent, Torrey Westrom, spent $1,022,303 to Peterson's $1,569,350 and the NRCC put in $4.8 million, forcing the DCCC to spend about $4 million. Peterson won 54-46%, so this year's 52.5% points to an unpleasant conclusion that this will be his last or second-to-last term. Keep in mind when you read The Post's report that Peterson was the chair of the House Agriculture Committee (and is now the ranking member) and he ran it as a fully-owned subsidiary of BigAg, making the committee into one of Congress' most notorious whore houses. Peterson has taken more in bribes from AgriBusiness than any other member of the House-- $3,823,240. The current committee chair, Mike Conaway (R-TX) has only taken $2,162,202 in AgriBusiness bribes. (Of the 6 subcommittee chairs, only one has even gotten a million dollars from Bug Agriculture, David Rouzer.) So Peterson's shpiel is that "Trump owes his victory to rural voters who feel they've been abandoned by a Democratic Party that has become increasingly urban and liberal. That abandonment has happened in part because of Republican efforts to gerrymander Democratic voters into tightly packed urban districts and that few Democratic lawmakers now represent rural districts." A total 100% NRA whore, racist and homophobic asshole, Peterson loves to whine that "voters care more about agricultural policy and trade than they do about gun control, LGBT issues or questions about minority representation."

Post: What kind of things had you been hearing from voters in this district in the run-up to the election? What issues and policies were people concerned about?

Peterson: They talked to me about farm programs and farm prices. Different specific issues that deal with agriculture. But I could tell something was going on. Just the amount of Trump signs that were out there.

Post: More than usual?

Peterson: Way more. It was clear that [the number] just kept growing, and there were no Clinton signs. People were fed up. It was kind of interesting: They didn't really want to talk about it too much. And then after the election, it's kind of like they've been unleashed.

Post: What do you mean by “unleashed”?

Peterson: A lot of it is backlash against all this political correctness that's going on. That's what I hear from people, and I was hearing that before the election, too.

They don't like the government telling them what to do or telling them how to live their lives. They think [the government is] coddling people, like when people's feelings are hurt at the colleges and they send somebody in to make them feel better. Stuff like that drives [voters here] crazy.

I heard a lot about the Affordable Care Act, too. About how people in the individual market were getting clobbered with all these increases, which is a legitimate issue. You know what the economics are like in Red Lake County. There's no way a family can pay $15,000, $20,000 a year for health insurance and make it work. You just can't do it. It's got to change.

I always run ahead of the ticket [compared to Democratic presidential candidates]. But this time there were a lot of people that just voted party line, a lot more than usual.

There's no question that Trump got elected because of rural America. And our party still is in denial. They don't get it.

Post: So what does the Democratic Party need to do to 'get it'? What do they need to start talking about to win these voters back?

Peterson: Well, I don't know if they can. What's happened is the Republicans have been smart. They've spent a lot of money redistricting and everything, getting control of these governorships and statehouses.

So they packed all the Democrats into districts, very Democratic districts. What that's done is made our party urban, more liberal, and so those people are doing what their constituents want. But that's not what my constituents want.

I don't know how you change that. There's hardly anybody left like me in the Democratic Party in Congress. These districts have been so gerrymandered that, in most of them, a Democrat can't win. Somebody like me trying to start off today, he'd never get endorsed. Because I'm too conservative.

So it's a problem. Pushing gun control drives people [in my district] crazy, gay marriage, abortion, deficit spending, you name it. All of that stuff adds up to be a problem for Democrats.

Post: Trade's been a big issue in the campaign. Do you hear a lot about that from voters out here?

Peterson: Yeah, that was clearly a factor. That was a complete reversal of where things are normally at. Usually Republicans are all for free trade. Sanders tapped into that; that was part of his support. And then when he didn't make it, some of those Sanders people went to Trump.

I agree with Trump: These trade agreements have not been good deals for America, and they need to be fixed. I fought NAFTA when it passed; it has been a big disaster for us, in my opinion. If we can renegotiate that, it would be wonderful.

Post: What have you heard from voters up here about how they've been affected by NAFTA or how they'd be affected by the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP]?

Peterson: Well, the sugar guys have been dealing with NAFTA ever since it passed. Now we've got Mexico dumping sugar that's subsidized by the Mexican government into our market in violation of the World Trade Organization, because NAFTA gave them open access to our sugar market. They claim they're not subsidized, but the government owns half the industry in Mexico.

NAFTA's been a big problem for sugar. And when it [NAFTA] was sold, we were supposed to get two or three times more exports to Canada or Mexico than they exported to us. It's been the exact opposite.

Post: So there's a big discussion happening within the Democratic coalition right now, about how the focus on issues of plurality and diversity and minority rights are essentially shutting rural voters out of the discussion. What do you make of that?

Peterson: I think that's unfortunately true. We have become a party of assembling all these different groups, the women's caucus and the black caucus and the Hispanic caucus and the lesbian-gay-transgender caucus and so forth, and that doesn't relate to people out in rural America. The party's become an urban party, and they don't get rural America. They don't get agriculture.

Post: From a purely practical standpoint, is there anything Democrats can do policy-wise to reach out to these rural voters, or do they essentially have to write them off?

Peterson: Well, they have written them off. Some of the people in my caucus, some of the people in the state party in Minnesota have basically said, “We don't want to deal with these guys because they're too conservative,” or “We don't agree with them on social issues.”

But you can't have a majority party in Minnesota or throughout the country without [support from] the people in these [rural] districts. Given the position [the Democratic Party] has taken, it's very hard to see how you can do that.

Clinton won Minnesota, narrowly-- 46.9% to 45.4%-- but that didn't just include the Twin cities area. She also won largely rural St. Louis County (with double digits), completely rural Cook County (by double digits), rural Lake County, rural Carlton County. She did lose every single county in MN-07, including the 9 Obama won in 2012. One of the anti-Pelosi Democrats in the current House leadership battle, outgoing New Dem chairman Ron Kind, is singing the same self-serving tune as Peterson. He super-serves Wall Street but he's whining that "we're getting wiped out in rural America and something needs to be done," as though all the "fault" lies with Pelosi.

At one time, rural Minnesota was a socialist heartland, filled with co-ops (including co-op-owned grain elevators) and credit unions and disdain for the banksters (and Republicans). Bernie tapped into that on a policy level. Hillary didn't even try and Trump hit emotional notes that rural Minnesotans could relate to, a combination of fuzzy populism and targeted racism and xenophobia. Bernie addressed the rural farmers and small towns' economic concerns. Hillary didn't. Bernie won every single county in the state while Hillary was easily painted as the candidate not just of the status quo but the candidate of Wall Street. That was death for her in rural counties. In July John Nichols was warning that Hillary's lack of outreach in rural America was basically leaving winnable votes for Trump to scoop up. The Democratic Party platform said "We will work to build a stronger rural and agricultural economy. Democrats will increase funding to support the next generation of farmers and ranchers, with particular attention given to promoting environmentally sustainable agricultural practices. We will encourage programs to protect and enhance family farms, a cherished way of life for millions of Americans." But that wasn't a priority for Hillary, who seemed most enthused about winning over college-educated suburban professionals.

"When President Obama won a decisive victory eight years ago," wrote Nichols, "Democrats made major inroads in rural America: Two hundred and thirteen rural counties and 49 exurban counties flipped from the Republican column in 2004 to the Democratic column in 2008. But in 2010 and again in 2014, Republicans swept rural regions. With an assist from gerrymandering, Republicans won dozens of congressional seats and hundreds of state legislative seats in rural areas that were once safely Democratic... Democrats can compete for rural votes. Hillary Clinton knows how to speak to the specific concerns of farmers and small-town voters: As the senator from New York, she was deeply involved with dairy-policy and rural-development issues (and she won the vast majority of rural counties when she sought reelection in 2006). Clinton’s 2016 campaign has taken some strong stands on rural issues and, in a serious debate about rural issues, every indication is that she could trump Donald Trump." But he warned that unless Democrats made a bold bid for rural votes they would get wiped out-- they didn't make the bold bid and they did get wiped out. The platform-- and the attitude behind it-- was weak tea.

The 2016 platform’s “agricultural communities” proposal does not mention specific initiatives (universal broadband, applying anti-trust laws to agribusiness monopolies, Country-of-Origin Labeling for imported products, programs to address historic discrimination against African-American farmers) that matter to rural voters. The draft platform language does not even embrace the impressive work the Obama’s administration’s Department of Agriculture has done. To be sure, other sections of the platform mention issues of deep concern to rural America: education, health care, and maintaining the US Postal Service. But they don’t make the specific connections that speak to the social, economic, and political circumstances of rural America.

...In Wisconsin, Tammy Baldwin ran for the US Senate in 2012 as the nation’s most prominent lesbian elected official, and as an outspoken supporter of abortion rights. She carried the majority of the state’s counties—sweeping rural western Wisconsin and winning more than a half-dozen counties across the far north. Baldwin did this in part because she was running in a high-turnout presidential election year and in part because she traveled to rural counties (a lot) and talked about rural issues (a lot).

While social issues can still be a factor in some races, they do not provide a sufficient explanation for why Democrats struggle to get traction in rural areas.

The real problem is the neglect by too many Democratic candidates-- and by the party leadership-- of the distinct economic, public service, and infrastructure concerns of rural Americans. At a time when austerity-minded Republicans are constantly proposing cuts, Democrats have a genuine opening to make appeals based on these concerns. But they do not always get around to making those appeals.

As a result, Democrats are not sufficiently identified in the minds of rural voters as a party that is focused on their needs. This disconnect has influenced election results in recent years. And it could influence them again in 2016.

What to do?

Democrats need to be more aggressive in their advocacy for rural regions.

Sustaining family farms is part of the equation. So, too, is the defense of rural schools, which are threatened by the funding cuts and privatization schemes proposed by conservative Republicans.

Specific connections should also be made between arguments for the defense of the US Postal Service-- which are well outlined in this platform-- and the defense of rural communities that rely on post offices.

...Rural post offices are more than just places where people pick up mail. They serve as informal community centers. They give small towns definition. They keep rural businesses connected to markets. The more that Democrats do to identify their party and its candidates as absolute and unequivocal defenders of rural post offices, the more the party will benefit. That’s simple, practical politics.

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders knows this. It’s one of the reasons he ran so well in rural states, and in rural regions of states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, Kentucky, and New York. Sanders says that “it makes no sense to downsize the Postal Service by tens of thousands of workers, slow mail delivery service, and devastate rural communities by closing their post offices.”

Hillary won about 2.5 million more votes than Trump did. If only shoe knew in advance which counties the Russians (or whoever) were planning on hacking!


Patrick Thornton works at Roll Call and two members of Congress sent me this OpEd by him. Noether knew the other one was sending it. It's an important piece and helps explain a very different perspective from Collin Peterson's. Thornton lives in DC but hails from the rural Ohio. "All of this talk about coastal elites needing to understand more of America," he wrote, "has it backward."

My home county in Ohio is 97 percent white. It, like a lot of other very unrepresentative counties, went heavily for Donald Trump.

My high school had about 950 students. Two were Asian. One was Hispanic. Zero were Muslim. All the teachers were white.

My high school had more convicted sexual predator teachers than minority teachers. That’s a rural American story.

In many of these areas, the only Muslims you see are in movies like “American Sniper.” (I knew zero Muslims before going to college in another state.) You never see gay couples or even interracial ones. Much of rural and exurban American is a time capsule to America’s past.

And on Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2016, they dug it up.

The first gay person I knew personally was my college roommate-- a great man who made me a better person. But that’s an experience I would have never had if I didn’t go to college and instead decided to live the rest of my life in my hometown.

That was when I realized that not supporting gay marriage meant to actively deny rights to someone I knew personally. I wouldn’t be denying marriage rights to other people; I would be denying marriage rights to Dave. I would have to look Dave in the eye and say, “Dave, you deserve fewer rights than me. You deserve a lesser human experience.”

When you grow up in rural America, denying rights to people is an abstract concept. Denying marriage rights to gay people isn’t that much different than denying boarding rights to Klingons.

...To pin this election on the coastal elite is a cop-out. It’s intellectually dishonest, and it’s beneath us.

We, as a culture, have to stop infantilizing and deifying rural and white working-class Americans. Their experience is not more of a real American experience than anyone else’s, but when we say that it is, we give people a pass from seeing and understanding more of their country. More Americans need to see more of the United States. They need to shake hands with a Muslim, or talk soccer with a middle aged lesbian, or attend a lecture by a female business executive.

We must start asking all Americans to be their better selves. We must all understand that America is a melting pot and that none of us has a more authentic American experience.

If we pin this election on coastal elites, we are excusing white working-class and rural Americans for voting for a man accused of violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to rent apartments to black people. If we pin this election on coastal elites, we are excusing white working-class and rural Americans for voting for a man who called Mexicans rapists, drug dealers and criminals. If we pin this election on coastal elites, we are excusing white working-class and rural Americans for voting for a man who called for a complete ban on Muslim immigration.

I have friends and acquaintances who are Trump supporters. They genuinely do not understand today’s shock, particularly from minorities. These Trump supporters do not understand that many minorities believe the people who voted for Trump endorse his racism and bigotry-- that those voters care more about sending a message to the political establishment than they do about the rights and welfare of human beings.

And, of course, people on the coasts could stand to meet more rural and exurban people, to understand why they are anxious about a changing world and less economic opportunity. But rural and exurban people need to see more of America. People do not understand the depths of how little rural America travels and sees other people and cultures.

I’m from the Midwest, and I love the Midwest, but it’s not representative of modern America. We cannot fetishize it as “real” America. It’s part of America-- a great, big, beautiful, messy republic-- but just a part.

What we are seeing is a reaction to a rapidly changing world. A world that is becoming more connected. A world that is more diverse. A world where education and skills are necessary for good jobs.

Change has not been kind to the Midwest and rural America.

And rather than embrace it, rural and white working-class Americans are twisting and turning, fighting it every step of the way. We will never return to the days where a white man could barely graduate high school and walk onto a factory floor at 18 and get a well-paying job for life. That hasn’t set in for much of the Midwest.

This doesn’t mean that coastal Americans can’t empathize more with their fellow Americans and try to find solutions to these problems (nor does it mean that there aren’t many struggling working-class people in coastal states). And it certainly doesn’t mean coastal Americans haven’t contributed to this divisiveness.