After Caving On The Shutdown, Loser Trump Throws His Hate-Filled Backers A Bone

Forever beleaguered in finding enough red meat for his-- in ex-Senator Alfonse D’Amato's words-- right-wing whack-a-doodle base, Trump wants to pivot away from his embarrassing loss to Pelosi over the anti-Hispanic vanity-wall to crapping all over the LGBTQ community. The asshole's latest: revving up the dead nomination for Eric Murphy Ohio Solicitor General to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Murphy was the attorney who argued against marriage equality before the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges. Trump nominated him for the judgeship 7 months ago. As home-state senator, Sherrod Brown blocked the nomination (did not return his blue slip) and the nomination died. Last week Trump renominated him. Over the weekend, the Washington Post ran an OpEd by Jim Obergefell denouncing not just Murphy and the nomination but Rob Portman, Ohio's other senator, for supporting it. "In March 2013," wrote Obergefell," Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) broke with his Republican colleagues and penned an op-ed in the Columbus Dispatch supporting same-sex couples’ right to marry, a conclusion he reached shortly after his son came out as gay. In the article, he expressed his desire for each of his three children to have 'the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment' in all aspects of their lives. So I was surprised to find out that Portman was supporting the nomination of Eric Murphy to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit even after Murphy argued against same-sex marriage at the Supreme Court."

Barely four years ago, Mr. Murphy made a forceful argument that my marriage was unconstitutional. As the attorney tasked with defending Ohio’s discriminatory ban on same-sex marriage, he used dog-whistles such as “traditional marriage” in his brief to the Supreme Court and argued that “bigotry” had nothing to do with why the state refused to recognize my lawful marriage to my late husband.

The court rejected Murphy’s arguments and overturned that law. In a landmark opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy-- for whom Murphy himself once clerked-- the Supreme Court declared that “it demeans gays and lesbians for the State to lock them out of a central institution of the Nation’s society.” Gay couples “ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law,” Kennedy wrote. “The Constitution grants them that right.”

Still, if Murphy had been successful, John and I, and tens of thousands of couples like us, would have been denied the right to marry and forced to live as second-class citizens.

Now, Murphy seeks to be a judge who will decide cases such as mine; his renomination was sent to the Senate this week. As a federal judge, Murphy would have immense power and influence over the rights of the LGBTQ community. Judges can decide if presidents can ban transgender soldiers from serving in the military. Judges can decide if people can be fired from their job for being gay. Such decisions would affect people such as me, Senator Portman’s son, and thousands of other LGBTQ people living in the 6th Circuit states of Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee.

In light of his past arguments, Murphy must show he is capable of being fair and unbiased toward the LGBTQ community.

Now that he is no longer obligated to defend the old Ohio law, he should explicitly affirm that my Supreme Court case was correctly decided and vow that discrimination against the LGBTQ community would have no place in his courtroom. Surely there is no longer anything stopping Murphy from showing the same respect and dignity to the LGBTQ community as Kennedy and Portman have.

Until Murphy makes such a statement, Portman and his fellow senators should oppose his nomination.

Trump wants a quick "win" for his base after his embarrassing defeat at the hands of Pelosi over the wall. I was happy to see that all the Blue America-endorsed congressional candidates are questioning his re-nomination of Murphy. Today Austin-based congressional candidate Mike Siegel remarked that "Unfortunately, despite high-profile losses for Trump and his party on the government shutdown, ACA repeal, and a few other issues, the Republicans continue to radically reshape our judiciary. The antidote will be the 2020 elections. With a Democratic Congress, we must finally enact comprehensive civil rights legislation that guarantees LGBT equality in every way, from employment and housing to marriage, adoption, and inheritance. In the meantime, we must oppose Murphy and other extreme nominees and hope to embarrass the GOP on a case-by-case basis."

Please consider contributing to Mike, Marie and Eva by clicking on the Blue America 2020 thermometer on the right. Needless to say, Illinois progressive Democrat, Marie Newman who's in a hot primary battle against one of the last virulent homophobes in the Democratic congressional delegation, Blue Dog Dan Lipinski, is just as disappointed in the nomination. Lipinski's voting record against the LGBTQ community is startling and there are even Republicans who are less filled with bigotry and ignorance. Marie is no fan of Trump's nomination. "I would certainly hope to see his nomination rejected," she told us today. "This is simple, Eric Murphy and his supporters want to divide the country and ruin our economy. Murphy’s goal is simply to keep folks out of the economy and prevent equality. It is morally wrong and terrible for the economy."

Eva Putzova, the Blue America-endorsed Arizona progressive in a primary against another reactionary Blue Dog, also has strong feelings about these kinds of divisive nominations by Trump. She told us that "While most Americans agree that 'love is love' and all people should be equal in pursuing happiness no matter where their partner is on the gender spectrum, it's troubling that in 2019 Eric Murphy's name even comes up in the nomination process. People who think some members of our society are less than others because of who they choose to love should have no place at any level of our judicial system."

I reached our old buddy, 2018 congressional candidate Dan Canon, a prominent Indiana civil rights lawyer who was one of the attorneys who won the Obergefell Supreme Court case. This is what he had to say about the Murphy re-nomination today:

The Sixth Circuit is already among the most hostile venues in the country for individual rights, especially where it concerns the rights of women and minorities. This is amply demonstrated by the court's ruling in Love v. Beshear, which later became known as Obergefell. When the court ruled against us in that case, it eventually led to marriage equality in all 50 states, but it was a close call-- I'm not sure it would turn out the same way today. At the time, the Supreme Court was turning down cases from other circuits because they all reached the same conclusion-- that same-sex marriage bans violated the Fourteenth Amendment rights of committed couples. The Sixth Circuit was the only federal appellate court to say otherwise. That was over four years ago.

Since then, Trump has been committed to dragging all the federal courts even further to the right by appointing inexperienced extremists to lifetime positions-- positions that give them tremendous power of the lives of other people. Democrats and activist organizations have got to take this seriously, and develop a strategy to mobilize people on this issue. It's not enough to raise hell when Trump appoints an extremist to the Supreme Court. The lower courts-- for which Senate Democrats have consistently provided rubber stamps on Trump's nominees-- are far more consequential when it comes to justice (or injustices) that affects the day-to-day lives of women, minorities, the working classes, and the poor. The trial and intermediate appellate judges that Trump silently installs are going to be the first-- and often last-- word on voting rights, abortion, employment discrimination, capital punishment, corporate accountability, immigration, etc. It is absolutely critical that voters become more engaged, and vocal, about all judicial appointments.

Impeachment Time Is Coming

Pelosi thinks it's "bad politics" to impeach Trump. (It's no less her duty than it was Paul Ryan's-- maybe more so.) She may be wrong... and her hand may be forced. A new poll, released this morning by the Associated Press, confirms that most Americans believe that Trump has obstructed the investigation by Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 election that put Trump into the White House. And a smaller majority think that if the case is proven that Trump worked with the Russians on this, he should be impeached and removed from office.

It's become painfully obvious that the Republican-controlled Senate won't vote to remove Trump regardless of what crimes he's committed (and what danger he puts the country in)-- including high treason. But if Pelosi is making her calculations based on what is good and bad politics, impeaching Trump, only to see the Republicans vote not to remove him, might be great 2020 Senate election politics. This could tip the scales in Republican-held seats in Kentucky (McConnell), Arizona (McSally), Colorado (Gardner), North Carolina (Tillis), Iowa (Ernst), Kansas (Roberts, if he runs again), Maine (Collins) and maybe even in Texas (Cornyn). 

A majority of Americans-- 58 percent-- think the president has tried to impede the Russia investigation, while 4 in 10 say he has not. An overwhelming share of Democrats, 90 percent, say the president has sought to obstruct the probe, compared with 22 percent of Republicans.

The survey also shows that if Mueller’s investigation finds that Trump did not personally have inappropriate contacts with the Kremlin but nonetheless tried to obstruct the FBI’s work, 51 percent of Americans think Congress should take steps to remove him from office, while 46 percent think it should not.

The special counsel’s obstruction investigation has shadowed the president for a year and a half, unfolding alongside his inquiry into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to sway the election and the separate campaign finance probe in New York. The last month has produced bombshell developments in the investigation, including Cohen’s sentencing, allegations that Trump’s former campaign chairman lied to prosecutors and a judge’s unexpected upbraiding of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

...About 8 in 10 Democrats and 2 in 10 Republicans think Trump should be removed from office if he committed obstruction. Nearly three-quarters of Democrats and only about 1 in 10 Republicans think Congress should take steps to impeach him if he directed illegal payments.

Overall, 45 percent said Congress should take steps to remove him from office if he orchestrated the hush money payments. Slightly more, 53 percent, said Congress should not take steps to remove Trump for that.

About 4 in 10 think he broke the law when it comes to directing Cohen’s payments, and about as many say the same of his ties to Russia. About 2 in 10 think Trump has done nothing wrong, with the remainder saying his actions were unethical, but not illegal.

About 7 in 10 Democrats believe Trump has done something illegal involving Russia. Among Republicans, 55 percent say Trump has done nothing wrong when it comes to Russia, while 35 percent think he has done something unethical but not illegal.

...The poll finds rising confidence among Democrats of the fairness and impartiality of Mueller’s investigation. Overall, about a third of Americans say they’re extremely or very confident that the inquiry is fair and impartial; another quarter say they are moderately confident. Roughly 4 in 10 say they’re not confident.

Democrats are more likely to express confidence today compared with a year ago, 51 percent to 38 percent. Just 14 percent of Republicans say they are confident, which is unchanged from last year.

Members of Congress who will have to sit in judgment of Trump, probably shouldn't be making too many public statements about impeachment at this point. I reached out to some former members and so candidates we supported who ran and didn't wind up winning. Alan Grayson has been loud and clear about his support to move forward on impeaching Trump. This morning he reiterated that "Trump said on national TV that he fired Comey because of 'that Russia thing.' He exchanged information with Manafort and dangled a pardon after Manafort signed a plea agreement. That’s obstruction of justice. Trump called on Russia to hack Democratic e-mails, and Russia did so. Russia also ran a social media campaign to suppress votes for Clinton. Trump paid back Russia by removing Ukrainian support from the GOP platform, appointing a National Security Advisory on Russia’s payroll known as 'Misha' [Flynn], giving state secrets to the Russian Ambassador in the Oval Office, refusing to implement sanctions on Russia, and now withdrawing US troops from Russian ally Syria.  That’s collusion and treason. Trump should be impeached and removed from office because he has committed impeachable offenses, in broad daylight. Q.E.D."

Dan Cannon, who ran for an Indiana congressional seat this year, sees it much differently. "It's incredible that nearly half of Americans would not support impeachment at this point, given everything we know about our incompetent, narcissistic, crime-boss president. These poll responses, especially from Democrats, say a lot about how easy it is to manipulate the public into accepting a new normal for ethical behavior and the rule of law in general, and how quickly that manipulation can be accomplished. Still, as much as I would enjoy seeing Trump impeached, imprisoned, and humiliated, I think a better outcome would be to see him decisively defeated at the ballot box next year. Without the votes in the Senate, impeachment seems an exercise in futility anyway (Trump doesn't have the dignity even of a Richard Nixon type-- he won't resign). The real question is whether American democracy can handle another two years of Trumpism."

Los Angeles progressive activist and former congressional candidate Marcy Winograd told me she's "looking forward to a Democrat-controlled House conducting vigorous hearings and investigations into multiple Trump abuses of power, most importantly the use of corporate facilitators to pose as regulators, allowing polluters to plunder our land, air and water. My concern about impeachment is that I would not want to see the Vice President, a fundamentalist, ascend to the presidency to execute a dystopian vision. If we could impeach both Trump and Pence, then so be it. As for Trump obstructing justice by interfering with the Russia probe, I think the answer to that is clear: He obstructed justice when he fired the former FBI director James Comey and when tampered with witnesses on twitter, urging them, Michael Cohen and Roger Stone, not to cooperate with the Department of Justice."

Blue America supported Norman Solomon when he ran for Congress in northern California. We'd be way better off now if he had won. "The House," he told me today, "should move toward impeachment, though at best there'll be nothing immediate about it. First step is an impeachment investigation via committee."

Mueller's report or anything coming through the courts shouldn't impede or delay the House from going ahead with impeachment proceedings. Impeachment is a legislative branch function-- it's not a judicial function-- and frankly it has a lot more to do with politics and media than legalisms.

Tactical discourse can go on indefinitely, and conventional wisdom has been wrong so often in recent years that you gotta wonder why the pundits are taken so seriously at this point. From the outset of his presidency, Trump has been violating the foreign and domestic emoluments of the Constitution of the United States-- which is supposed to be 'the supreme law of the land.'

Impeachment would anger most Republicans. No telling what would do for independents. The 'backfire' argument cites what happened after Clinton was impeached, but skips over what happened after Nixon was forced from office on the verge of impeachment-- the Republicans lost lots of congressional seats and the White House.

No one is above the law-- what a concept!

John Laesch is another great candidate Blue America strongly supported (against Denny Hastert). I asked him what he thinks about all this impeachment discussion. He said that "A Democratic majority was elected by the American people to serve in the House of Representatives during the 2018 election. When those newly elected members of Congress take office we will probably see more congressional investigations on top of the ongoing Mueller investigation into Donald Trump’s Russian dealings. At this point, I think the American people want the United States Congress to do more to make sure that nobody, not even the President of the United States, is above the law. But as the Democratic majority pursues their 'death by a thousand cuts' strategy to thwart the rest of Trump’s chaotic presidency, they should be paying attention to polls like this one. According to a Dec. 2018 poll, 51% of Americans think that Trump should be impeached if he obstructed the Mueller investigation and 45% think that he should be impeached if he initiated hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. According to a Reuters  poll on Aug. 2018, 70% of Americans now support Medicare for All, single-payer healthcare. It doesn’t seem like rocket science and the math doesn’t lie. The American people are more willing and ready to support fundamental healthcare change than they are ready to support impeachment. A stronger strategy for Democrats would be to advance a bold, populist agenda that works for working Americans. This strategy has the added benefit of undermining Trump's populist rhetoric that helped get him elected."

Doug Applegate had the least honey-coated and more dire warning. A former Marine colonel, who ran for Congress in the Orange County/San Diego district and basically ran Darrell Issa out of office, he reminded us just moments ago that "Since 2016, I have stated publicly that Donald Trump was unfit to command. Donald Trump's actions disclosed to date far exceed the wrongful conduct of Nixon. Should we fail to impeach a president attempting to slay our Republic by suicide, the parties responsible (both political and individuals) will forever lose the moral authority to stop the next Donald Trump. Worst yet those political parties and individuals will have enabled the next despot to occupy the Oval Office. Chuck and Nancy must act now or step aside."

Dan Canon: "We Ain't Done"

Dan Canon would have been a game-changer in Congress. But on Tuesday Democratic primary voters in southern Indiana decided to nominate a garden variety Democrat-- not a bad person as far as I can tell-- from DC who's friends with all the DC people. Well, they lost an opportunity... and so did we all. Up top and below were the meager efforts Blue America did to try to help at the very end of a wonderfully inspired campaign. Yesterday Dan wrote a wrap up of that campaign on this Facebook page:

Good morning!

One of the things I disliked about campaigning is that there was plenty of gratitude felt, but never enough time to express it all. And not just time, but my own inability to come up with the right words to convey how it feels to see people wearing my name and working tirelessly for little or no tangible reward. It's a bittersweet dislike, to be sure. Anyway, this is going to be a long post because there's a lot to say. If you care about what we built here, what we're doing now, and what we plan to do in the future, read on.

I'll say "we" to refer to this campaign because I'm just the "pretty face" [extreme scare quotes] of this operation. Candidates get all the credit (and the blame), and we put in a ton of time, but in a race this size but there are people working even harder in the background. Most of you know that by know even if you didn't know before watching this campaign. I couldn't have done anything substantial without these folks. Hell, there was more going on behind the scenes than I ever knew about or will know about.

First things first. My beautiful wife Valerie Canon basically gave up her husband and the father of her kids for a year to do this. She took this utterly thankless job on the chin despite the fact that she didn't ask for it. And she told me she loved me every single day of this. She's basically the best person alive, and in no universe do I deserve a woman like this. Most people have never even had a *friend* like her, let alone a spouse, and I gave up a lot of time with her to try to do this thing. When you get the urge to throw shit at a candidate over some perceived minor policy disagreement, or a gaffe, or their appearance, or whatever shit you want to throw that day, remember that that candidate and their families might be giving up a lot for this. Many politicians (though not all; fuck Ted Cruz forever) are human beings and not just objects for your amusement. Remember that as we go into the generals.

I cannot imagine a world in which I did not know Dustin Collins, but in no universe would this campaign had even a fraction of the success that it did without him. He's a part of my family, my kid brother, my nephew, my son, and somehow my mentor all rolled into one. Had he had a more conventional candidate or a friendlier set of circumstances, he would have won this race; he chose a longshot because he thought we could make real change together. He was right. Not a lot of people his age, or any age, have that kind of courage.

My dear friend Dawn Howard is a kindred spirit in a million ways. We are both only children and like it that way, but if I had a sister, I'd want it to be Dawn. She was somehow both the glue that kept the organization together, and the constant devil's advocate that kept me focused on what was right. She also made sure every t was crossed and every i dotted, which allowed me to focus on the big picture stuff. If some other campaign doesn't pick her up to do something, American politics will be worse off.

I don't know how someone can get the energy and talent of Erin McMahon, but she's just incredible. I've known Erin for 20 years and had no idea she was so amazing. All the social media stuff you saw coming from this campaign was basically Erin's work (aided in no small part by Cassie Johnston, who can turn out professional graphics and video edits on a moment's notice). She has a delightful voice that is an excellent counterbalance to my gruff vulgarity. I challenge anyone to find a campaign with a better social media presence than we had, and it's all because of Erin.

No one works harder than Cory Ray. Period. He wrangled hundreds of interns and volunteers in all 13 counties while making calls and knocking doors. I don't think he ever slept. He did it with a positive attitude and a great sense of humor. He is going to do great thing - mark my words. I want this post to be here so I can say "I told you so" when he single-handedly conquers North America or something. Cory, Michael Gibbons, Joshua Major Howerton, and Paul Bieniek were the backbone of an unprecedented field operation that registered thousands of people to vote and made hundreds of thousands of voter contacts. Watch out for these guys.

Mary Helen Ayres won't admit it, but she's the primary driver of our success in Bloomington. She's also become a member of our family. I hate that she is two hours away because I want to see her face every single day. All the misery of this campaign would be worth going through 100 times if you could get one friend like Mary Helen out of it.

El Wa is one of the very first people I met who was excited about my candidacy, and who introduced me to a whole world of people who changed my life forever. She is equal parts sweet and fierce as hell, and has damn near gotten in a couple of actual fist fights on my behalf. I am trying to talk her into running for Governor someday. We'll see how that turns out.

And of course there's my mom Pat Canon, who has basically made me everything I am, and who endured me talking about her in damn near every stump speech. She very nearly died during this campaign (seriously). She's much better now, and I'm thankful to have some extra time with her, free from the insanity of politics.

If I were to shout out everyone who worked incredibly hard on this campaign, I would be typing this for days. I'll reach out to each of you individually over time. There are literally hundreds of you, and I am overwhelmed by your support. I don't know what I did to deserve it, but I will do my best to pay it back in the future. For now, to my amazing interns and volunteers: I see you, I recognize everything you did, and I appreciate it more than I'll ever be able to say.

To all of you who put your energy, your time, and/or your money into this campaign, I want you to know that it wasn't wasted. We managed to get more than 11,000 votes from people in Indiana in a primary election where only 15% of registered voters showed up. I do believe we earned every last one of those votes-- in other words, I don't think very many people showed up and said "eh, I just like this guy's name the best" and checked a box. People showed up to vote for genuine, homegrown progress. Each of those votes is a rejection of the status quo. Each of those votes is an embrace of a brighter future. Each of those votes is a demonstration that we can make a world for our kids and grandkids where people who have been victimized by the pharmaceutical industry get real treatment, not just thrown in jail; where they have clean water to drink, clean air to breathe, and clean soil to grow food; where they can send their kids into a classroom and know they will come out again; where they can get an education without having to be saddled with debt for the rest of their lives; and where they don't have to go bankrupt or die just because they can't pay a medical bill. Each of those votes inches us closer and closer to the possibility of governance by real people who understand real problems, not just the wealthy. And that base of voters is going to grow.

Those ideas did not originate with me and are not anyone's intellectual property. Please don't make the mistake of tying them to the wins and losses of any one particular candidate. The important thing is that we're talking about a positive agenda for the future of America, and we're doing it in a way that is equal parts compassionate and fearless. If I can do that, anyone can. If we inspired even one person to go change the world because of this campaign, it was all worth it.

In fact, I know we inspired more than a few people to run for office-- people who will be on the ballot in November. There are several examples, but a big one who could use your support is Cindy Reinert for Indiana House 58. She's out there pounding the pavement, grabbing new voters, talking about the stuff that matters. She put in countless hours volunteering for us before she decided to run. Indiana needs her, and she could use your support.

I've written and spoken quite a bit about how the world of the law can be a nightmarish hell. It’s true, and probably worse, of the world of congressional politics. But that's not a reason for good people to stay out of law schools, the courtroom, party politics, or government in general. To the contrary-- if there are no good people on the inside of government, there is no possibility that government will be good. Ugly as it is, we can't leave politics to wealthy, disconnected sociopaths that are so often attracted to positions of power, lest all our complaints become self-fulfilling prophecy. If you're thinking about running, run. It turns out that even when you lose, you can win a lot.

This campaign was able to unite people who were already involved in various movements: environmental, racial justice, health justice, labor, reproductive rights, criminal justice, and all points in between. That galvanizing force is going to continue, if we have anything to say about it. A united, progressive front could be unstoppable here in Indiana, and elsewhere. Organizations that took a chance on us include Justice Democrats, Blue America, Soindivisible : Southern Indiana Indivisible, Floyd and Clark County Stonewall, Teamsters Local Union 89, and what I believe were the first ever endorsements from Democratic Socialists of America: Southern Indiana Chapter and Democratic Socialists of America-- Louisville. These groups and their candidates are the future of the American Left. We were (and are) the tie that binds those organizations and people together from coast to coast, and that feels pretty good. To the journalists that took note of what we were doing here (I'm looking at you Sean A McElwee, Michael C Powell, Jim Higdon, Sam Miro, and Adam James Oppenheim): thank you. We started national conversations about marijuana, a guaranteed jobs program, and the abolition of ICE-- which more than 15 candidates now support. When you're movement building, you have to start somewhere, and I think this was a pretty good start. As Pete Seeger said, anything worthwhile takes a little time.

As for my immediate future, it's still unknown. This is the first time in my adult life that I've been functionally unemployed. I am hatching new schemes to build a better world, of course, but your suggestions are welcome. I'm not yet sure how I can be the most useful. For now, the next thing I have coming up is arguing a case at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals against Donald Trump and some of your favorite white nationalists over whether the President has the right to incite violence against protesters at campaign rallies. That's on June 6. Out of fire, back into the frying pan. Other than that, it's all undiscovered country.

All in all, there is almost nothing bad I can take away from this experience, and there's very little I would do differently. I've learned a million things I never would have been able to learn otherwise, I've made lifelong friends, and I've come away with a renewed sense of optimism about the fundamental goodness of humankind. If you ever get tired of screaming at people through your television, phone, or computer screen, go knock some doors. Connect with people face to face. Talk about their dreams, their aspirations, their hopes, their fears, their kids, their dogs, whatever. There's not much that separates us.

Long though it may be, this post doesn't begin to cover everything I want to say about this experience or everyone who needs acknowledgment. I will probably add stuff in the comments, but my intention is to walk away from the Facebook brain parasite for a few days and get back in touch with the outside (and inside) world. If I missed something or someone, please don't hesitate to point it out. But if you don't get responses right away, it may be because we are taking an extended break to regroup, reconnect, and get focused. In the meantime, throw your support behind any of the amazing candidates we have running all over Indiana and Kentucky. They need your time, your money, your hands, and your love.

TL;DR: We ain't done. Love you all.

Yesterday's Election Results

Mostly uninteresting run-of-the-mill candidates who will make no difference to anyone won their primaries, but not entirely. Let's start with some good news in North Carolina. Durham County has just over 310,000 people, one of North Carolina's most populous. Last night the county elected the first African-American in its history, Clarence Birkhead, who beat the racist incumbent , Mike Andrews. And he beat him in a landslide-- 69-31%. Birkhead vowed to not cooperate with ICE and to get guns off the streets. There were no statewide races. There were two Republican primaries which saw far right lunatics challenging more mainstream conservatives. In the 3rd district Walter Jones, Congress' most independent-minded Republican, fended off two opponents, Phil Law and Scott Dacey.

• Walter Jones- 20,862 (43.0%)
• Phil Law- 14,266 (29.4%)
• Scott Dacey- 13,380 (27.6%)

The other contest was in the 9th district, from south Charlotte, along the southern border of the state up into Fayetteville. This was another 3-way contest but this time the extremist defeated the incumbent.

• Mark Harris- 17,223 (48.5%)
• Robert Pittenger- 16,409 (46.2%)
• Clarence Goins- 1,862 (5.2%)

The DCCC has a worthless right-wing Blue Dog, Dan McCready, who won his primary against a low-profile Berniecrat, Christian Cano. As of the April 18 FEC reporting deadline, McCready had raised the most money of anyone from either party-- $1,905,269. He also has a $1,220,648 warchest now to face Harris, who has just $70,804 left. Interestingly, McCready's 37,823 votes were more than Pittenger, Harris and Goins combined!

Sadly Berniecrat Jenny Marshall, the only North Carolina candidate endorsed by Blue America lost out to a garden variety Democrat DD Adams 15,428 (54.4%) to 12,919 (45.6%). DD spent $127,795 to Jenny's $105,874. In Indiana the one Blue America candidate in that state also suffered a defeat. That was the 9th district, where a run-of-the-mill Democrat from Inside-the-Beltway beat Dan Canon 66.4% to 30.7%, having outraised him $585,706 to $433,401.

The big race in Indiana, though, was the Republican Senate primary. Two congressmen, both right-wing nuts, Todd Rokita, the more right-wing of the two, and Luke Messer, gave up their seats to run for the nomination. They both lost out to someone even more extreme-- a wealthy Trumpist businessman Mike Braun.

• Mike Braun- 207,977 (41.2%)
• Todd Rokita- 151,306 (30.0%)
• Luke Messer- 145,853 (28.9%)

Mike Pence's older brother, Greg, won the nomination in a 5-way race in a landslide (65.3%). There were no other surprises on either side of the aisle.

West Virginia was far more interesting. In the first Congressional District, the northern third of the state, 3 Democrats lined up to run against Republican incumbent David McKinley and progressive Kendra Fershee won.

• Kendra Fershee- 23,030 (47.3%)
• Ralph Baxter- 18,542 (38.1%)
• Tom Payne- 7,131 (14.6%)

And in the 3rd district, the southern third of the state, state Senator Richard Ojeda, had a huge victory, not just beating beating his 3 Democratic opponents combined, but beating the 4 top-running Republicans combined as well! Ojeda was the guy who supported Bernie in the 2016 primary and then switched to Trump in the general. Now he feels Trump let his voters down.

• Richard Ojeda- 29,837 (52.0%)
• Shirley Love- 14,251 (24.9%)
• Paul Davis- 9,063 (15.8%)
• Janice Hagerman- 4,176 (7.3%)

The biggest news in West Virginia though was how badly Don Blankenship wound up doing after surging all week. It was probably the anti-Blankenship tweet from Trump Tuesday morning that did him him. Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, the McConnell-preferred candidate who came in first.

• Patrick Morrisey- 47,571 (34.9%)
• Evan Jenkins- 38,888 (29.3%)
• Don Blankenship- 27,153 (19.9%)

It doesn't auger well for November that despite a surprisingly strong primary from Paula Jean Swearengin, who took 30.3% of the Democratic vote, the incumbent, Joe Manchin took 111,589 votes basically the same number of votes as Morrisey, Jenkins and Blankenship did together (111,612)! And that's in a state where Trumpanzee beat Hillary 489,371 (68.5%) to 188,794 (26.4%)!

That leaves Ohio, whose Democratic Party passed away, unnoticed many years ago. There were no interesting results on the federal level or in any statewide races, except for a decision to stop partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts. The other interesting race was for a state legislative seat. Remember Rachel Crooks? She was one of the women Trump molested. No one ran against her in the primary so she will be in the November general election.

In the gubernatorial race, Richard Cordray beat Dennis Kucinich 423,264 (62.3%) to 155,694 (22.9%). On the Republican side Mike DeWine beat Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor 494,766 (59.8%) to 332,273 (40.2%). And the Republican who will face Sherrod Brown in November will he multimillionaire Jim Renacci, who beat Mike Gibbons 360,474 (47.4%) to 241,109 (31.7%). There was not a single congressional race worth noting-- and there isn't likely to be in November either.

Today's Two Most Important Primaries? Districts Trump Won In North Carolina And Indiana

It's primary day in West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana and North Carolina, all states Trump won in 2016, but all staes with pockets of resistance and all states with lots and lots of buyers' remorse. There should be plenty of interesting results up and down the ballots in November when Democrats go up against Republicans. But today is the day when each party picks which candidates. There are especially bloody Senate GOP primaries in West Virginia and Indiana. But the most important primaries for Blue America today are congressional races in North Carolina's 5th district to pick a nominee to oppose Virginia Foxx and in Indiana's 9th district to pick a nominee to oppose Trey Hollingsworth. Neither is a "normal" place for an important race.

NC-05 has a PVI of R+ 10 and Trump won the district 57.4% to 39.8%. And IN-09's PVI is worse-- R+13, with a Trump victory of 61.1% to 34.2%. Yet two of the most promising candidates Blue America has endorsed this cycle are running for those two seats. The DCCC has backed neither, nor have the Blue Dogs, New Dems nor any of the crooked Inside the Beltway groups that endorse and validate candidates in America. Jenny Marshall and Dan Canon have been on their own and today they have no one to count on but their own grassroots efforts.

Dan tackled the question of why primaries matter.

If you’ve noticed how our elected officials are mostly members of the 1%, then you’ve noticed that they are-- de facto-- not representative of the other 99% of people they are meant to serve. It’s hardly surprising when they vote for measures that favor themselves and their friends and hurt people in need. They don’t understand what most people are facing, so their “solutions”-- if they offer any at all-- are tragically out of touch, and wholly inadequate to address the myriad, complex ways everyday people are struggling.

Low voter turnout in primaries has a lot to do with this. When we don’t get to know candidates and don’t support candidates who are, in a word, us, we allow the person with the most money-- and the wealthiest friends-- to be the loudest and most persuasive voice. In order to take back our government and elect people who will in fact serve us-- all of us-- we must seek out and support candidates who are truly representative of the people they would serve.

I was raised by a single, working mom, dropped out of high school, earned my GED, and became the first person in my family to graduate college. I’m not the model of a politician that we’ve come to expect (and largely dislike) in the United States. I’ve lived paycheck to paycheck. I've gone without health insurance. I have student loan debt. I've been divorced and remarried.

From representing people here for years - and experiencing the problems of the working poor in my own life-- I've gained an intimate knowledge of the real problems we face every day. I’ve learned to listen, and I've learned that real solutions come not from Washington D.C., but from working directly with people who are experiencing real problems. I have a lifetime of personal and professional experience doing just that-- and getting real results.

My first order of business will be to establish a substantial constituent services program right here in IN-09. People here do not want platitudes and promises; they want to see you getting elbow-deep in the community and taking real action. I plan to run services out of those offices-- enough that no one has to drive a half-day to reach one - that are responsive to everyday constituent needs, and also a hub for directing people to other valuable resources in their communities. People need to know that the federal government is doing something for them, and what better way to show that than to... do things for them? Not just by voting for legislation, but on a day-to-day, personal basis. This is has been sorely lacking in IN-09 for a long time, and is something I believe will lead to this no longer being a "swing district" in the future.

Jenny Marshall came to our attention because she was a successful Bernie organizer in a state where Bernie's message hadn't penetrated yet. But Bernie did significantly better in the counties she was organizing in than in the rest of the state. We noticed right from the start that Jenny is a kind of Every Woman, a school teacher trying to make her community a better place for everyone-- and in a district where Virginia Foxx has all but ignored the 99% in favor of her own wealthy campaign contributors.

"I became a teacher," Jenny told us yesterday in her last minute message, "to stand up for those kids who needed a little more help because they didn't fit the typical model of student. I advocated for their learning and their rights to be successful against a system that wasn't built for them. I got used to being the voice in the room that demanded we do better for our students. As my level of advocacy spilled outside of my classroom, I saw bigger obstacles that needed to be addressed. The push for charter schools and voucher was draining money from our already strapped public school system.  My already struggling students were being left out in the cold. I began making trips to the state house to talk to the powers that be about the legislation they were trying to pass.  I talked to everyone who would listen and dogged everyone who avoided me. It didn't matter what party, if the representative was attacking public education I fought back. I didn't take this on alone. I created a group that grew to over 9,000 strong of both parents and educators who also took on the General Assembly. We used our collective voice to demand our representatives protect education and return education back into the hand of the professionals rather than the bureaucrats. We were able to mitigate some of the more draconian measures they were trying to push. At every turn I stood up and demanded that we do right by our communities. That is why I decided to run for Congress. We need strong leaders who are not afraid to say the truth even if it is unpopular. We need people who remember what it is like to struggle to make ends meet just like the majority of Americans. We need people who don't just look past people's troubles, but who actively seek to help those in need. We need people like me who are committed to strengthening communities, empowering people and building a better future for all of us."

It's not to late to make a difference for these two candidates who will-- unlike most candidates for Congress-- actually make a difference. If you live in their districts, you can vote today. If you have friends or family in their districts, you can call and try to persuade them to get out and vote-- for Dan Canon in Indiana and for Jenny Marshall in North Carolina. America is depending on candidates like Jenny and Dan to remake Congress and to protect the country until 2021 when Trump finally leaves the White House.

Hope... In Indiana? Yep-- A Week From Today (But Not In The Senate Race)

Indiana has a really important primary for progressives a week from today-- the 9th congressional district has a face-off between stalwart and brilliant progressive Dan Canon and some DC insider who's pretending to be part of the local community. Electing Dan can be a game-changing event because there are so few members of Congress like him. Most Democrats are just worthless garden variety seat-occupiers, some better than others, like Liz Watson, the one from DC opposing him. Please consider contributing to Dan's field operation here.

Meanwhile a much bigger deal is being made about a Senate race that will eventually result in electing either a very conservative Republican pr a very conservative Democrat. None of them are any good but-- surprise, surprise-- the very conservative Democrat, Joe Donnelly (rated "F" by ProgressivePunch and, according to them, the 4th worst Democrat in the Senate (after Doug Jones, Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp). But that contest is not 'til November. Next Tuesday the big race is for the GOP nomination to oppose Donnelly.

Donnelly was a crap Blue Dog in Congress, who realized he had ZERO chance of being reelected in 2012, so he went for a hail Mary pass and ran for the U.S. Senate and then lucked out when neo-fascist Richard Mourdock knocked out mainstream Republican Richard Lugar. Predictably, Mourdock-- though not running around with a swastika on his arm-- was caught saying insane enough things for Donnelly to actually beat him, albeit narrowly-- 1,281,181 (50%) to 1,133,621 (44.3%), with a Libertarian drawing 5.7% of the vote. Donnelly is probably hoping for a replay-- and he may get one, as the Republican candidates push each other further and further right in a quest for a lunatic, Trumpist party base. NBC covered the Republican primary fight for NBC News yesterday, noting that the Republicans are charging each other with things like "Drunken driving, self-dealing and false advertising," while all 3 candidates-- Congressman Todd Rokita, Congressman Luke Messer and former state Rep. Mike Braun-- are "doing their best to portray themselves as the second coming" of... Señor Trumpanzee.

As of the April 18 FEC reporting deadline Braun had raised the most-- $5,841,425 (though 91.6% of that, $5,350,377, was from his own pocket)-- compared to Messer ($2,895,11) and Rokita ($2,659,487). Donnelly has out-raised them all-- $9,773,228-- not counting the $3,007,557 that Schumer's Senate Majority PAC has spent on Donnelly.

If it comes down to who is the most Trump-like, Braun should have the edge.

He took the political establishment here by surprise, dumping millions of dollars of his own money into ads that introduced him to voters and framed his opponents as twin denizens of the Washington "swamp" that the president often rails against.

In one ad, Braun, 64, dressed in his trademark blue shirt with sleeves rolled, walks around with cardboard cutouts of Rokita and Messer, both in suits and matching red ties, and asks voters if they can tell his rivals apart. Spoiler alert: They can't.



Like Trump, Braun has focused on his business acumen-- in his case an auto-parts distributorship. And while critics note that he voted in Democratic primaries for many years and worked legislative levers in the Statehouse to try to win tax breaks for the timber industry, in which he has a personal stake, neither argument make him seem less like the president.

Trump won Indiana with 56 percent of the vote in 2016.

Braun lumps his primary opponents together with Donnelly, saying that the incumbent, Messer and Rokita have failed to make a positive mark in Washington-- a message that could remain consistent from the primary to the general election.

"I'm not going to waste my time," if elected, Braun told NBC News. If he can't make a dent, he pledged, "I'm going to head back to Hoosierland."

Braun has raised his profile to the point that with 45 percent still undecided in the only public poll taken, he led on April 11 with 26 percent, to Rokita's 16 percent and Messer's 13 percent. Veteran political observers here say that the combination of Braun's ad blitz, and the relatively sleepy and low-dollar campaigns of his rivals, has vaulted him to front-runner status. But they also say the race is unsettled.

"This is fascinatingly close," said former Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind. "People who are following are changing their minds. I've never seen such fluidity before."

n 2017, the American Conservative Union scored 25 votes by House members. Rokita voted with the group, which runs the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in the Washington area, all 25 times. Messer strayed just once, by voting to fund the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a federal program that shares costs with local governments and private investors to aid small and mid-size manufacturers.

Messer voted for an omnibus spending bill last month that boosted funding for both the military and domestic accounts while Rokita voted against it. But even Trump appeared to be torn on the matter, trashing it publicly before he signed it.

Both lawmakers have had to explain past allegations of driving under the influence. Messer, 49, who won his state House seat after his predecessor was killed by a drunken driver, has been convicted twice on such charges. Rokita, 48, was arrested for illegal consumption of alcohol and possessing a fake ID after a traffic stop when he was in college-- the officer reported that he seemed intoxicated-- but those charges were dismissed and his campaign has said he passed a sobriety test and was in possession only of closed-container alcohol.

Before Trump was the Republican nominee, Rokita and Messer both bashed him-- as "vulgar" and "race-baiting," respectively.

Now, though, they each want to be seen as the logical pick to help Trump advance his agenda in Washington. Messer, who represents portions of the Indianapolis suburbs and the eastern part of the state, notes that he has a slightly higher score (92.9 percent) than Rokita (90.1 percent) in FiveThirtyEight.com's rating of how often lawmakers vote with Trump.

Rokita is also talking like it's still 2016-- referring to "Crooked Hillary" on the campaign trail and keeping alive supporters' calls to "lock her up."

Tina Beck, a Trump backer who voted early for Rokita, lamented last week that Clinton had not yet been jailed, while blasting the media for trying to "get" the president.

...It's Rokita and Messer who have to make up ground in the closing days of the campaign. Both say they're better bets in November.

Rokita is embarking on a final sprint through 50 events, and his spokesman, Nathan Brand, said that push and the record he has in Congress will help put him over the top.

"Todd will continue to outwork his competition over the final days, talking directly to voters about the need for a pro-Trump, pro-life, pro-Second Amendment conservative who will stand up against the liberal elites in Washington," Brand said.

Brad Todd, a consultant to Messer's campaign, said Republicans need to put up a nominee in November who can win over swing voters in the Indianapolis suburbs.

He said honesty could be the key to the race.

"The whole argument against Donnelly is that in Washington he isn't who he says he is in Indiana," Todd said. "Braun has faced criticism for claiming to be a 'lifelong Republican' in his ads while his voter records show he was a lifelong Democrat even into the Obama years. Rokita claims to have Trump's endorsement but the president demanded he cease and desist. Luke [Messer] heads into the general with the strongest argument against Joe."

Voters here will welcome the end of the ugliness in eight days.

Pretty ugly-- all the more reason we need to elect Dan Canon to Congress-- starting with the Democratic primary next week.

Will The Country Be Cleaner If We Elect Progressive Democrats This Year? (Not A Trick Question)

A week from tomorrow 2 crucial congressional primaries will be playing out-- one on Indiana's 9th district and one in North Carolina's 5th district. The DCCC isn't exactly crazy about either of these stalwart progressives and each one will have to face a multimillionaire far right odious crackpot-- Dan Canon taking on Trey Hollingsworth and Jenny Marshall taking on Virginia Foxx.

As of the April 18th FEC reporting deadline Dan had raised $433,401, compared to Hollingsworth's $887,779, and Jenny had raised $125,476 compared to Foxx's $1,482,801. Each also has a garden variety Democrat to face on May 8 (primary day). Both Dan and Jenny (whose newest video is up top) can use some help with their field operations. Field will determine the outcome of each primary. If you'd like to chop in to either campaign-- or both-- you can do it by clicking on the Blue America ActBlue congressional thermometer on the right. Both candidates have a lot in common policy-wise and certainly protection of the environment is one of them. Dan has been very clear that protecting the environment is one of his top priorities. He promised to "demand comprehensive environmental protections, including but not limited to: legislative strengthening of the EPA-- increased enforcement powers to deal with Flint-type crises, to ensure breathable air, drinkable water, and clean soil for all; support for the Keep it in the Ground Act of 2017 (H.R. 2242); measures to address, halt, and reverse global climate change by researching the viability of responsible geoengineering and other technological innovations; facilitation of both agency and private enforcement of the root causes of climate change (e.g., deforestation and irresponsible energy consumption); protect and strengthen the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Antiquities Act, and the Endangered Species Act; support and/or introduce legislation designed to reduce carbon pollution by at least 28% by 2025 and 80% by 2050; support permanently extending the wind production tax credit (PTC) and the solar investment tax credit (ITC); support and/or introduce legislation designed to facilitate a transition to 100% clean energy by 2050; ending subsidies to the fossil fuel industry."

Similarly Jenny makes it clear that "We only have one earth and we must take care of it. This means investing in clean renewable energy sources, increasing sustainable building and clean air, soil and water protections" and makes that point that she will push for 

• ban on fracking and eliminating the EPA fracking loophole for oil and gas companies.
• reinstate the superfund tax structure so that the cleanup of such sites does not burden the citizens, but the industry who created it.
• the passing of a renewable electricity standard (RES) setting binding targets for renewable energy in the near-- and long-term to diversify the U.S. electricity generation mix, save consumers money, and reduce pollution.

And both Dan and Jenny are very concerned by how Scott Pruitt is handling the EPA. Pruitt's corruption issues are bad enough. His policy problems are even worse. And now he's further alienated and demoralized his own staff.

Several current and former EPA officials and other people close to the agency said Pruitt did himself no favors with his congressional testimony Thursday, in which he blamed his aides for installing a $43,000 privacy booth in his office and approving more than $100,000 in first-class flights that he took last year. Pruitt also denied knowing key details about raises that his top staff received last year. And he declined to defend his former policy chief against Democrats' accusations that she had failed to show up for work for three months, even though she and Pruitt had been photographed attending the same meeting during the period in question.

...A current EPA official said Friday that employees are veering between "despair" and "embarrassment," and Pruitt's televised performance did not help.

"I will tell you, it did not go unnoticed from people who watched the hearing that he did not take responsibility on the policy pieces” of the testimony, the official said. "It was not lost on us on the stuff we know about that he used very careful language, he was parsing his words, that some might say he did not speak the whole truth."

One former EPA official said even political aides are “sick of Pruitt constantly putting himself first,” and “putting himself before the president’s agenda.”

“He’s rarely been interested in selling regulatory reform as improving Americans’ lives, and is far more interested in saving his political career,” the former official said.

But Trump has shown no signs of abandoning his EPA chief, who has won the strong backing of conservative groups with his efforts to erase Obama-era environmental regulations. So far, that has outweighed the anger of White House staff members and exasperation of key Republican lawmakers at Pruitt's series of controversies over luxe travel, extensive security, a below-market D.C. condo rental from a lobbyist and history of questionable real estate deals in his native Oklahoma.

...Departed EPA aides who have said Pruitt didn't tolerate internal criticism of his spending and secrecy say current staffers still fear they’ll be similarly swept up in the scandals-- but won't be able to find jobs if they quit now and gain a reputation for disloyalty.

“They’re trying to do the best they can in a toxic environment,” one former staffer said. “You cannot express any idea that might be misconstrued as a political attack on Pruitt or any policy issues, so people just do what they’re told. They’re professional. ... They don’t want to get caught in an undertow.”

Another former EPA official has been getting phone calls from staffers who are frustrated by the controversies but keeping their heads down.

“Everyone in the building wants to come out and say something … but as soon as they say something, they’re out of a job,” that person said.

...“Administrator Pruitt speaks for a certain aspect of the Trump administration conservative movement,” the appointee said.

Support For Job Guarantee Is Growing Rapidly-- Will It Be A Campaign Issue?

A campaign manager I've worked with on a few campaigns in the past has been asking for for the last few days to consider endorsing the candidate he's working with this time. The candidate doesn't seem bad and it's a winnable race. There are 4 Democrats competing for the nomination and the DCCC isn't involved so they all seem somewhat progressive. His candidate doesn't seem financially competitive-- but when have we ever allowed that to determine supporting someone. The newly redrawn district has counties that went for Bernie and counties that backed Hillary. In the general, Trump won-- though not by double digits.

Before agreeing to speak with his candidate-- let's call him Candidate X-- I asked him a few questions... like which primary candidate is most progressive and if Candidate X supports Job Guarantee and College Debt Elimination. His response was that "It is close, but X is more progressive-- his priorities are good jobs, better public schools and quality and affordable health care for everyone-- it is still a Republican district and he will have to pick up Independents and Reasonable Republicans-- so kitchen table issues are the way to go on the surface. Below that-- he is very strongly against gun violence and pro-choice. He put out a statement against Trump's Transgender Ban in the military and is strongly for LGBTQIA+ rights. He has signed the no money from Fossil Fuels Pledge (all four candidates have)-- but X will be signing the End Citizens United No Corporate Money pledge in the next couple of days-- no other candidate has signed it... He supports plan for a job guarantee for people that want a job-- although it is new concept to him and we spoke about it."

Not very convincing. Remember, what Blue America is looking for is courageous principled candidates-- like Kaniela Ing, Jenny Marshall, Alan Grayson and Dan Canon who are going to go to Congress and not worry about voting with conservatives in order to get reelected. Another campaign manager told me last week that his candidate will do it "the West Virginia way, like Joe Manchin does." Good luck with that. It's not what we're looking for-- not even close.

So, he didn't answer the question about College Debt Elimination and didn't have anything much to say about Job Guarantee. So what will he be like in Congress? A scardy cat? Who thinks voting for equal right for gays and willing to vote pro-Choice defines a progressive? Doesn't sound like the kind of champion we're looking for this late in the cycle. But I'll keep an open mind. And send him the Marie Solis report in Newsweek from yesterday: Can A Federal Jobs Guarantee Help Democrats Defeat Trump In 2020? How about elect a Democratic House in 2018? Bernie is about to unveil plans "that would guarantee every American worker a minimum $15 an hour position complete with health care, a retirement plan and the same paid leave benefits granted to federal public-sector employees." Even less credible would-be presidential candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker are trying to jump on the bandwagon.

There’s already widespread support for a federal jobs guarantee program among voters across the country, and-- most notably-- across the political spectrum, according to Sean McElwee and his colleagues at Data for Progress, a progressive polling and analysis firm. In March, they found that a majority of voters in all 50 states supported a jobs guarantee, even in states that went overwhelmingly to Trump. The state that polled lowest was Utah, where a solid 57-percent majority still said they would favor the proposal.

When researchers at Civis Analytics, another progressive data analytics firm, narrowed the data by voting pattern, they found that 56 percent of those who went from voting for former President Barack Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016 supported a jobs guarantee, and 58 percent of non-voters looked favorably on the idea as well.

... “If we’re speaking strictly about winning campaigns, running on jobs is 100 percent a smart move, and it’s 100 percent what Democrats should be doing,” Sean McElwee, a researcher and co-founder at Data for Progress, told Newsweek. “Democrats can run on jobs without sacrificing other progressive causes.”

McElwee cautioned Democrats against getting too excited about the number of Obama-turned-Trump voters they can win over with the policy-- it’s still modest. But it’s enough to cut a path to victory in 2018, he says.

“If you can get back about one-third of Obama-Trump voters and energize non-voters, there you are,” he said. “You’ve got your House majority.”

Indeed, some who switched their votes from Barack Obama to Trump told Newsweek the idea seemed common-sense.

“If this could help the people get jobs, I support it,” said Eileen Sorokas, from Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, which went to Obama in 2012 but to Trump by 20 points four years later. “I know what it’s like not to have a job-- it’s kind of scary. If it works, I’m all for it.”

Before she retired, Sorokas, now 70, worked at a dress factory that shut down and went overseas in the mid-90s. Her husband Richard worked at Procter & Gamble for over three decades until he retired 17 years ago. He said a jobs guarantee interests him because he’d like to see fewer Americans rely on the country’s welfare system.

“I remember Trump wanted to get people off of welfare, and he said he was going to make jobs for people who want to work” he told Newsweek. “What stuck out for me was getting people off of welfare. I thought that was a great.”

Both Richard and Eileen-- who said they’d been lifelong Democrats-- said they’d consider voting for a member of their party again if they campaigned on a strong jobs platform, like the guaranteed jobs proposal.

But they’re not totally sold yet. After a beat, Richard posed what might just be a multi-billion dollar question: “Where do you get the money?”

Policy research institutes like the Center on Budget and Policy Proposals and the Center for American Progress have priced federal jobs guarantee plans similar to Booker’s and Sanders’s at $543 billion and $158 billion, respectively. The government could fund a jobs program by raising income tax on the rich-- a proposal that is controversial in some circles. But proponents of the policy in the Senate see it as a worthwhile expenditure.

...House candidates are already testing the waters for the 2020 presidential hopefuls. Dan Canon, who’s running in the Democratic primary in Indiana’s 9th District-- which went to Trump by double digits in 2016-- says he’s spoken to hundreds of voters about his proposal for a jobs guarantee, and not one of them has voiced any opposition to the idea.

“A jobs guarantee is good for the economy, it’s good for unemployment and it’s good for infrastructure,” Canon said.

In Canon’s district, home to some of the most rural parts of Indiana, he says voters have two top concerns: jobs and infrastructure. As Canon sees it, fixing the first problem with a jobs guarantee can solve the other. If people need jobs, they can take government-sponsored work fixing the district’s roads, public transit system, energy grids and broadband access, Canon says. The House candidate's proposal, and others like it, harken back to the Works Progress Administration implemented by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a program that gave some 8.5 million unemployed Americans jobs building up the country's infrastructure during the Great Depression.

“I have not found a single person in Indiana that disagrees with this idea or thinks it’s a bad one,” Canon told Newsweek. “The only pushback I ever got when presenting people with a jobs guarantee is from political theorists who think the district just isn’t ready. But those tend to be D.C. think-tank types who don’t understand the people on the ground here in Indiana."

We asked some the other candidates Blue America has endorsed how they speak about Job Guarantee to the voters. Hawaii candidate Kaniela Ing told us that "America’s promise has always been clear-- work hard and your family will prosper. Today, too many hard-working Americans feel that our leaders have gone bad on that promise. I talk to folks who tell me everyday, they grind and sweat, but struggle to get by. Wages are stagnant, unemployment and underemployment are rising, the threats of automation and globalization are becoming real, all while costs are skyrocketing. But just take a walk outside and look around at all the work that needs to be done in America. There are bridges to be built, highways needing repair, kids to be taught, aging folks needing care, oceans to be cleaned, trees to be planted. But private markets fall short. For every job opening in America, four people are gunning for it. This pits worker against worker and creates a power imbalance between workers and their bosses. It’s too risky for a worker to stand up to wage theft, inhumane working conditions, or sexual harassment, when they know there’s nowhere else to go. Our elected representatives must stop pretending that everything is okay, and that the job market will some home fix itself. It’s time for real solutions that will actually help working families across America. It’s time for a new New deal. Since the start of my campaign, I’ve been leading with a universal job guarantee, and I ask other progressive candidates to join me. Let’s remind the establishment that the ability to work for a livable wage is a human right that should be afforded to all. In these uncertain times, progressives will lead with real solutions that offer hope to the many, and just the privileged few."

Ellen Lipton is the former state legislator and progressive Democrat running for the open seat in the suburbs north of Detroit. She's interested in Bernie's Jobs Guarantee ideas and told us that "the federal government has been at the mercy of corporate-controlled lobbyists for long enough. How long are we going to allow them to offer the same tired economic policy of tax cuts for the phantom 'job-creators?' How about trying something that actually has a track record of working-- direct federal investment in people rather than profits. A guaranteed jobs program would put people to work on everything from infrastructure to IT, renewable energy to healthcare and social work-- the possibilities are endless."

Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, the Blue America-endorsed candidate running in the open Albuquerque district, is also a big fan of Job Guarantee. This is what she told us some time ago: "I believe that all human beings deserve to live in dignity, and that as part of that we build a government that ensures a well-paying job to each and every individual. Imagine if we guaranteed to all human beings a well-paying job with a livable wage that allows for healthcare, housing, transportation, food, and ultimately the dignity of work? What it would mean for our communities, poverty, racial and gender equality? Well, we've done parts of this before with the Works Progress Administration (WPA) during the New Deal era. Imagine a program that achieves delivering well-paying work to all individuals, all while overhauling our nation's infrastructure and educational systems. It has the potential to breakdown the entrenched racial and gender-based inequality that exists in our labor force, and enshrines the ideal that all Americans who want a good job will have one. It assures that the dignity of a well-paying job is not just for a plurality of Americans, but for all who seek it. In an increasingly evolving economy, it's important that our government think creatively about the future of our labor force, and ensure that people's needs are put first in the changing labor economy."

Like Dan Canon, Jenny Marshall's North Carolina primary is May 8 sees the idea of Job Guarantee as something relatively easy to explain to voters. (Maybe that's because she's a school teacher.) She's campaigning for the seat held by a multimillionaire, Virginia Foxx, who has never exhibited any interest whatsoever in giving a hand to working families. "People," Jenny told us," want to work and give back to their communities in real tangible ways. They also want to provide a decent, secure life for their family. Think of all the New Deal programs such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Works Progress Administration that helped put people to work and which began to pull us out of the Great Depression in the 1930's. While those programs did not lift all out of abject poverty it did jump start our economy in a way that can still be witnessed today. Frankly, our infrastructure is long outdated and our national parks and memorials need tending to. Here in the 5th district we have national forest that needs trail cleanup, buildings that need to be repaired and programs that need to be staffed. We need to repair dams, bridges and other infrastructure projects. People need jobs and ones that pay a living wage. Why not offer work that would put an investment back into our communities?"