Bernie Endorses Marie Newman In Illinois' Hottest Congressional Primary

Reminder: today is March 9, The Illinois primaries are Match 20. And unlike the Texas primaries Tuesday, there are no runoffs. These are for keeps. The other day, we ran a guest post by Tony Sterbenc about a young progressive, Ryan Huffman, running in the crowded IL-06 primary for the Democratic nomination to take on vulnerable Republican Pete Roskam. We haven't gotten to know Huffman enough to make an official endorsement yet, but he sounds like the best better in that Chicagoland district.

Two Illinois candidates we have gotten to know well enough to make strong endorsements for are David Gill downstate and Marie Newman right in Chicagoland. And we've been trying to share our enthusiasm fro each regularly since last year. Please consider contributing to their get-out-the-vote efforts by tapping on the ActBlue congressional thermometer on the right. Yesterday Bernie Sanders weighed in on the IL-03 race, joining several progressive members of Congress who made the unprecedented move of endorsing a challenger to a sitting member. That's how bad right-wing Blue Dog incumbent Dan Lipinski is! Bernie hasn't endorsed many candidates for the House this cycle-- as far as I know, just Chuy Garcia and Randy "Iron Stache" Bryce. And now Marie Newman. This is what Bernie had to say to his supporters in Illinois yesterday morning:

Marie Newman has made it clear that she will be a champion for working families in Illinois, which is why I am proud to support her campaign. In Congress, Marie will fight for Medicare for All, a $15 an hour minimum wage, and providing workers with benefits such as paid sick leave, while protecting Medicare and Social Security. She will defend women’s rights, LGBT rights and ensure immigrants have a safe path to citizenship. I am proud to stand with Marie and look forward to continuing to fight alongside her on these and other critical issues once she’s elected to Congress.

Marie was buoyed by the support, just as she had been when Illinois congressmembers Jan Schakowsky and Luis Gutierréz-- as well as Ro Khanna (D-CA)-- announced their endorsements last month. "The tides," she wrote, "are changing here in the Third district of Illinois. For far too long, Dan Lipinski has lost no sleep over ignoring the needs of hardworking families--but that stops now. I will be the unabashedly progressive champion that women and families across this district and beyond deserve, never compromising on the values they work hard every single day to achieve. I could not be more proud to have the endorsement of Senator Bernie Sanders who has been the leading champion for working families in our nation. I look forward to working alongside him to ensure that when you work hard and play by the rules, you will have a shot at the American Dream."

As Larry Sabato explained yesterday, "As of right now, the most endangered Democratic incumbent in either a primary or general election is probably Rep. Dan Lipinski (D, IL-3), a cultural conservative and one of the only anti-abortion Democrats in Congress. Lipinski faces a seemingly stiff primary challenge from a more liberal Democrat, Marie Newman, in a district that the eventual Democratic nominee will hold in the fall (that nominee better, given that the only Republican who filed is a perennial candidate and an actual Nazi)." Keep in mind, the virulent Blue Dog organization in Washington and the pustulent DC Democratic establishment-- Hoyer has been funneling lobbyist money into his campaign-- are backing Lipinski. Bernie and progressives everywhere are working to help Marie replace him. And the way you win in a district like IL-03 is not expensive and wasteful TV ads in one of the country's most expensive media markets. It's FIELD and that's exactly what Marie Newman (and David Gill) need help with for the next 11 days. 

Who's Going To Win In November?

Meet Democraps Jon Ossoff, Conor Lamb and Andrew Janz

170 members of the American Political Science Association who specialize in presidential history participated in an annual poll that ranked every U.S. president. Trump displaced one-termer James Buchanan-- a pro-slavery Democrat from Pennsylvania-- as the nation's worst president. It was obvious from the second Putin installed him in the White House that he would wind up as the worst president ever... but this fast? In an interview yesterday on C-SPAN, historian Douglas Brinkley said "Trump represents kind of a dark underbelly of America." Richard Florida was less specific but tweeted yesterday that "In many ways, the US no longer qualifies as an advanced nation." The point he's been making since Trump took over is that this will ultimately limit ability America's "ability to attract global talent & improve its economic competitiveness."

The new Quinnipiac poll was released yesterday-- a birthday present for me. "American voters say 53 - 38 percent, including 47 - 36 percent among independent voters, they want the Democratic Party to win control of the U.S. House of Representatives this year. Voters say 54 - 39 percent, including 51 - 38 percent among independent voters, they want the Democrats to win control of the U.S. Senate this year." (That's the generic balloting people have been foolishly fretting about over the last month. That Democratic lead is 15 points. Is that why Florida Republican Tom Rooney announced he's retiring yesterday? Or wa sit because Vern Buchanan's lost a state legislative race last Tuesday to an unknown Democratic women in a district not all that far from Rooney's district? Or is because Rooney is still nauseated by Trump?

Not everybody is (nauseated by Trump). [Before we get back to Richard Florida, let me mention that last night Linda Belcher flipped the reddest district a Democrat has won since Trump got to the White House. Kentucky's state House District 49 (Bullitt County) gave Trump a colossal 72% of the vote in 2016. But yesterday voters helped Linda jturn it blue, winning the support of more than 68% of voters. How's that for a swing-- 86 points?] Now, back to Richard Florida. Last week he wrote a post on his blog, The Geography of Trump's First-Year Job Approval. "Trump’s average first-year approval rating," he noted "sits at a lowly 38 percent-- the worst of any president since Gallup started measuring presidential job approval in 1945. But this overall average belies huge variation in that approval rating across the 50 states, according to a recent Gallup poll based on surveys conducted throughout 2017. Indeed, Trump’s approval rating reaches above 60 percent in West Virginia and above 50 percent in 11 other states, including the Dakotas, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Alabama, and Oklahoma... [T]here is a broad Trump approval belt across the Plains, Appalachia, the Deep South, and parts of the Midwest, and a broad disapproval belt on the coasts and in New England, as well as in states like Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Illinois, and Minnesota... [T]his jagged geography of Trump’s approval rate mirrors the fundamental contours of America’s long-standing political, economic, and cultural divides."

Opinions of the president reflect the fundamental cleavage of class, which has long divided Americans along political as well as economic lines. Trump’s approval is overwhelmingly concentrated in less affluent, less educated, more working-class states. It is positively associated with the share of workers in blue-collar working-class jobs (0.76), and negatively associated with income (-0.72), wages (-0.79), education (measured as the share of adults with a bachelor’s degree and above, -0.86), and the share of workers doing knowledge, professional, or creative work (-0.72).

Contrary to the idea that support for Trump is a function of rising unemployment, there is no statistical association between Trump’s approval rate and a state’s unemployment rate. The conventional wisdom suggests that Trump’s rise was bolstered by those losing out from America’s gaping inequality. However, the data complicates that story. Approval of Trump is actually higher in states with lower levels of income inequality, approval being negatively correlated with the Gini coefficient measure of income inequality (-0.40). On the other hand, states with higher levels of inequality are much more likely to disapprove of Trump, with a positive correlation between income inequality and the share of people who disapprove of Trump (0.38).

Approval and disapproval of the president powerfully track America’s widening spatial divide. Approval is concentrated in less urbanized states, while disapproval is concentrated in denser, more urbanized ones. Trump’s approval rate is negatively correlated with two measures of urbanity: the urban share of population (-0.52), and to an even greater extent, the urban share of a state’s total land area (-0.62). (Interestingly, neither Trump’s approval nor his disapproval has any statistical connection to the overall population size of states.) Another dividing line is the car. Approval of the president is positively associated with the share of commuters who drive to work alone (0.45).

...Despite his record low level of overall approval, President Trump retains considerable support in traditionally conservative states in the Plains and Deep South and in parts of the Midwest. Trump’s approval rating is not a break with the past; its geography both reflects and reinforces the basic fault lines of class, geography, race, and culture that have long divided this country. If anything, Trump’s support has deepened America’s persistent red-blue divide.

All of this fits the pattern of Trump’s support as being premised on what Ron Brownstein, my colleague at The Atlantic, has aptly dubbed the “coalition of restoration”-- a geographically concentrated band of working class, white, suburban, and rural support that is bent upon restoring a bygone America.

This political backlash not only signals a more reactionary political agenda, it is also an agenda for economic retreat, undermining key pillars of America’s economic growth and rising living standards. “The much bigger, long-term danger is economic rather than political,” I wrote of the rising tide of conservatism in less prosperous states back in 2011. “American politics is increasingly disconnected from its economic engine. And this deepening political divide has become perhaps the biggest bottleneck on the road to long-run prosperity.”

This is far more the case today.

Not unrelated, the aforementioned Ron Brownstein wrote for CNN yesterday about the places that will decide the 2018 election. He wrote that control of the House will depend on what he calls "red pockets, Romneyland, and blue-collar blues."

Red Pockets

The clearest opportunity for Democrats is the relatively few remaining Republican-held districts in blue metro areas with large populations of college-educated whites, and in many cases substantial minority and youth populations as well. These are places crowded with voters who tilt toward liberal positions on social issues and recoil from Trump's volatile persona, particularly the way he talks about race.

The renewed visibility of gun control issues after the horrific Parkland, Florida, massacre could provide Democrats another lever in these districts, since the Republicans in them have almost universally voted with the National Rifle Association to loosen gun regulations in recent years.

These "red pockets" include the four seats Republicans control in Orange County -- the districts held by Mimi Walters and Dana Rohrabacher and the open seats that will be vacated by Darrell Issa and Ed Royce -- as well as their sole remaining seat in Los Angeles County, held by Steve Knight.

Others that fit this description include the seats in the western Chicago suburbs held by Republican Peter Roskam and in the eastern Denver suburbs held by Mike Coffman; the three suburban Philadelphia seats held by Ryan Costello, Mike Fitzpatrick and Pat Meehan (who has announced he will not seek re-election amid a sex scandal); the northern Virginia seat held by Barbara Comstock; two open seats in New Jersey as well as the one defended by Rep. Leonard Lance; Lee Zeldin's seat in eastern Long Island; the suburban Minneapolis seats now held by Jason Lewis and Erik Paulsen; the Seattle-area seat that Dave Reichert is leaving; as well as the Miami-area seat being vacated by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and the nearby seat held by Rep. Carlos Curbelo.

Though Romney carried many of these seats-- often narrowly-- in 2012, Hillary Clinton won all of those listed above in 2016 except for the seats held by Lewis and Fitzpatrick, which Trump won by eyelash margins. These resemble the places where Democrats showed the most dramatic gains in 2017, for instance in their sweep of legislative seats and the huge margins they generated in the governor's race in northern Virginia.

Compounding the GOP's vulnerability, the new congressional map the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued Monday, after earlier ruling that the current district lines represented an impermissible gerrymander, strengthened the Democrats' hand in all three suburban Philadelphia seats.

For Republicans, the key in these booming districts will be whether the good economy helps them recapture voters recoiling from Trump's personal behavior. One complication is these blue-state upper-middle-class suburbs are among the most likely losers from the GOP tax plan, which limits the deductibility of mortgage interest and state and local taxes. Democrats are highly unlikely to win back the House without maximizing their gains in the red pockets.

Romneyland

The next bucket of seats is demographically similar to the red pockets but politically distinct because they are in metro areas that lean much more reliably toward the GOP.

I call this group of seats Romneyland because they are filled with voters who resemble Romney demographically and ideologically: professionals and corporate middle managers who want a president who will shrink government and even pursue a center-right social agenda, but also exude professionalism and decorum.

Romney won virtually every seat in this category in 2012. In 2016, Trump lost ground relative to Romney in almost all of them, though the residual Republican strength was great enough that he still carried many, albeit often narrowly.

The districts in this bucket include the Omaha-area seat held by Don Bacon; the seats in suburban Houston and outside Dallas held by John Culberson and Pete Sessions, respectively; the two suburban Atlanta seats held by Karen Handel and Rob Woodall; David Young's seat outside Des Moines; the Tucson-area seat Martha McSally is vacating to run for the Senate from Arizona; the Lexington, Kentucky-area seat held by Andy Barr; the seats outside Detroit that Dave Trott is vacating and Mike Bishop is defending; and Kevin Yoder's seat in suburban Kansas City, Kansas.

These seats are not immune from the forces threatening the Republicans in the red pockets: Handel, for instance, only narrowly survived last June's special election in Georgia, though her predecessor Tom Price had carried over 60% of the vote there as recently as 2016.

But as Handel's slim victory over Democrat Jon Ossoff showed, Republicans have more of a cushion in these places than in the red pockets. That's partly because more of the white-collar whites in them are social conservatives than their counterparts in the Democratic-leaning metro areas.

Blue-collar blues

The third key test for Democrats is the districts I call "blue-collar blues." These are the blue-collar, exurban, small town and rural seats in states that generally lean Democratic.

These include Republican seats held by John Faso, John Katko and Claudia Tenney in upstate New York; Mike Bost, Rodney Davis and Randy Hultgren in downstate Illinois; the northeast Iowa seat of Rod Blum; Bruce Poliquin's northern Maine district; and the Central Valley, California, seats of Jeff Denham and David Valadao.

These seats present an especially revealing test for Democrats. Former President Barack Obama carried almost all of them at least once and many of them have elected Democratic House members in the recent past. But House Democrats were routed in these places in the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections under Obama, and almost all of these districts turned further toward Trump in 2016.

The 2017 results in Virginia and Alabama showed Democrats almost completely failing to crack the GOP's hold on blue-collar and rural voters. But some Democrats argue that terrain is much tougher for the party in the South than in the Northeastern and Midwestern states where these competitive House seats are concentrated.

Democrats see an opening in polling, such as the 2017 average of Gallup's daily approval ratings for Trump, that shows a significant erosion in his support across the Rust Belt among working-class white women, even as he remains very strong among blue-collar white men. Converting that female disillusionment with Trump into votes for Democratic congressional candidates is likely the key to seriously contesting the "blue-collar blue" seats.

One early test will be March's special election in the heavily blue-collar southwestern Pennsylvania district that Republican Rep. Tim Murphy has vacated: Democrat Conor Lamb, a former Marine, is running competitively against Republican state Rep. Rick Saccone in a district Trump carried by nearly 20 percentage points.

The Democrats' advantage: in like a lion, out like a Lamb

There he's wrong. Conor Lamb, as we mentioned yesterday, is a truly shit candidate, wrong for the district, wrong for the energy of the day, perfect for the Beltway Democratic establishment and nothing more. Trump-hatred may swing the district towards the Democrats somewhat but Lamb and his campaign are fighting that swing with every move they make. Candidates and campaigns matter. The more garbage candidates like Jon Ossoff and Conor Lamb the DC Democrats nominate, the safer the Republican majority will be. Yesterday, Lamb shot himself in the foot again. This from him... in a district he might have had a chance to win if he had won back the union vote: "I think [$15 an hour] sounds high based on what I’ve been told by many small business owners in our area. I would rather see something that was agreed on by both sides." Republicans already have their candidate. The Democrats desperately need one.

More candidates, for example, like Congressman Ro Khanna (D-CA), who happened to mention this to me today: "The Democrats must deserve victory. We should contrast a politics of restoration with a politics of preparing the nation for the future. And we should have candidates run on a bold platform of a $15 minimum wage, Medicare for All, regulating magazine clips and an assault weapons ban, supporting net neutrality, making college debt free as Robert Reich has proposed, and strong antitrust enforcement. These policies have broad support among people and particularly younger voters. We need a clear contrast and to stand for a substantive agenda to win."

I'm not 100% sure what category Austin Frerick's Iowa district would be in, but I asked him to take a look and he sent me a note saying that "Folks in Romneyland to those in the blue-collar blue areas loves our economic concentration message. Who doesn't want fair, free, and competitive markets? Only the robber barons of this era don't like this message. It just takes courage to stand up and say enough is enough and refuse that dirty money." As you can probably guess, he's more like a Ro Khanna candidate than from the confused Ossoff GOP-lite school.


UPDATE: How To Win In A Trump District

David Gill has a prescription: "Even in my district (IL-13), which Trump carried by 5 points, voters will respond to a message from a Democrat that actually addresses their concerns-- that's why I came within 0.3% of victory here in 2012, while all other Democrats have lost here by 50 to 60 times that margin. My message of single-payer healthcare, a $15/hour minimum wage, and tuition-free access to public higher education & trade schools resonates with voters here, whether they consider themselves left, right, or somewhere in between. If I can once again get by the corporate-funded establishment Democrats in the primary, as in 2012, I have little doubt that I can succeed in November."

Will The Blue Wave Be Enough To Win Congress On Its Own?

Don't underestimate the power of women to protect the species from Trump and his enablers

Zac Anderson is the political editor of Sarasota County's top newspaper, the Herald-Tribune. After the surprise Democratic win in a special election for an open legislative seat there last week, Anderson took a deep drive into what happened on the ground to swing a red district 12 points away from Trump in just 15 months since the district gave him a credible win against Hillary. What everyone wants to know, of course, is how to make sure this happens in congressional districts-- not just FL-16 and not just Florida-- but across the country. A 12 point swing in November would certainly hand the House back to the Democrats-- and average district swings since Putin put Trump into the White House have been around 20, not 12.

The loser last Tuesday was James Vernon Buchanan, the son of Vern Buchanan, the congressman from the area. Last November Trump beat Hillary in the older Buchanan's congressional district, 53.7% to 43.0%. All things being equal-- an absurd concept-- a 12 point swing would hand the congressional district over to Buchanan's opponent, either Jan Schneider, David Shapiro or Calen Cristiani. Does it matter which one is nominated? How could it not? Florida media always refers to Shapiro as a "serious" candidate; he's raised over a quarter million dollars and appears to be a "moderate." Neither Cristiani nor Schneider (each a progressive from the Bernie wing of the party) had reported any contributions as of December 31, although Schneider has big name ID, having run in the area multiple times. Quality of candidates and their campaigns matter. Anderson felt that had a lot to do-- besides the building wave-- with Good's win over Buchanan's son last week.

Some Democrats were nervous when polls closed Tuesday in the District 72 state House special election and it became clear that Republican Election Day turnout had far outpaced Democratic turnout.

Democrat Margaret Good appeared to have done well in absentee and early voting. Republican James Buchanan’s prospects for victory hinged on a big GOP Election Day push that brought in 8,168 Republican voters, or 2,652 more than Democrats.

Yet Buchanan only won Election Day voting by 110 votes, not nearly enough to offset Good’s big lead in absentee and early voting.

That led political analysts to conclude that a big chunk of Republican voters - and most independent voters-- went for Good.

That-- combined with strong Democratic turnout-- is how Good won a district that went for President Donald Trump in 2016 and has 12,060 more Republicans than Democrats, electrifying her party in the process and bringing national attention to Sarasota as a potential indicator for midterm elections in November.

Tom Eldon, Good’s pollster and a longtime Florida Democratic operative who once lived in Sarasota, said the fact that Good attracted support from Republican and no party affiliation voters in the northern Sarasota County state House district is not unusual. The area is known as a bastion for moderate Republicans.

But garnering enough GOP and NPA support to secure a 7.4 percentage-point victory in a district that went for Trump by 4.4 percentage points-- a 12 point swing-- is astounding, Eldon said.

“Seeing crossover support from Republicans is not uncommon in Sarasota,” Eldon said. “Seeing NPAs vote for the Democrat is not uncommon. Seeing it at this level is remarkable and at that point I think you’re seeing some Trump backlash with that.”

Good also appears to have benefited from unusually high Democratic turnout, especially among women, said Democratic consultant Steve Schale.

“Largely the story in special elections around the country, women were the story here in Sarasota,” Schale, who ran former President Barack Obama’s campaign in Florida in 2008, wrote in a blog post.

Schale said in an interview that there were two key elements to Good’s victory.

“You saw Democrats turn out, particularly women,” he said. “Then the fact that Republicans-- clearly large numbers of Republicans-- voted for her.”

Democrats make up 32 percent of the registered voters in District 72. But 40 percent of the voters who cast ballots in the special election were Democrats. And while Democratic women make up 20 percent of registered voters in the district, they accounted for 24 percent of voters in the special election.

“The Good campaign did a fantastic job in turning out Democrats,” Eldon said. “When you look at the turnout for Democrats, it’s staggering.”

Eldon believes Good appealed to women across party lines as a “highly qualified female candidate” at a time when “you’re having a national conversation on the treatment of women.”

Turnout was up among women in general, not just Democratic women. Voter registration in the district is 54 percent female but 56 percent of the voters in the special election were women.

The voters who show up in lower-profile special elections “do so for for a reason,” Eldon added.

“That’s to send a message,” he said. “A lot of women were voting who typically don’t vote in an election like this. They were fed up and they were taking it out on James Buchanan.”

Republicans also cast a greater share of the ballots in the special election than their share of registered voters in District 72, but they only went up from 42 percent to 46 percent of the electorate.

That’s a sign that Good had a strong field operation that was aggressive in getting Democratic voters to the polls, and that Democrats are more motivated to vote than Republicans.

Good had a full-time staff of eight paid employees and hundreds of volunteers knocking on doors.

“Very early we made a conscious decision to invest in the field organization and that is something you will see in all of our House races this cycle,” said Reggie Cardoza, the director of political operations for Democrats in the Florida House. “The most effective and efficient way to reach a voter is face to face.”

Eldon said the field team put together by Good and the state Democratic Party was so strong it was more reminiscent of a congressional race than a state House race. Good was able to build up a 3,368-vote lead in absentee and in-person early voting. Voters talked about being repeatedly visited by door knockers and receiving a steady stream of flyers, telephone calls and text messages.

“The get-out-the-vote effort and the field in general was just a very strong fundamental campaign execution,” said Sarasota County Democratic Party Vice Chairman Kevin Griffith, who said he knocked on a few hundred doors.

Griffith said many voters he talked to while knocking on doors “were really motivated.”

“I think it’s just the anti-Trump fervor,” he said.


So was Good destined for victory in District 72 because of the national political climate?

Schale said it’s crucial that Democrats recruited a credible candidate. Good is a lawyer with strong community connections. He also credited Good and her team with running an aggressive, disciplined campaign. Good raised more money than Buchanan and was able to do considerable advertising to complement her get- out-the-vote effort. The strength of the campaign caused prominent Democrats to take notice. Good received an endorsement and campaign help from former Vice President Joe Biden.

But Schale believes Good benefited greatly from anti-Trump backlash among Democrats and independents.

“I don’t want to take away from the campaign those guys ran,” he said. “She’s a great candidate, did a great job. There’s a certain level to this that the Democrats ran a real candidate people wanted to vote for; you can’t take that away. But at the same time independents are so open to voting for somebody different.”

Buchanan also struggled to find his footing as a candidate. Members of his own party criticized him for refusing to debate Good until the final stretch of the campaign, and questioned whether he had a compelling message. A last-ditch effort to try and boost GOP turnout by appearing at a rally with former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski raised eyebrows among some Republicans.

Eldon said Buchanan focused too much on hot-button national issues such as immigration that didn’t resonate as well in Sarasota.

“The voters down here care about the environment, they care about education, they’re very concerned about climate change and sea level rise and all they heard from James Buchanan was sanctuary cities, sanctuary cities and sanctuary cities,” Eldon said. “It just fell flat.”

The inability of Lewandowski and Trump-style messaging to pull Buchanan across the finish line indicates the backlash to Trump may be a more potent political force than pro-Trump sentiment right now.

It also means the results from Sarasota’s special election could have big ramifications throughout Florida and the nation. Schale ran state House campaigns for Florida Democrats in 2006 when there was a blue wave. He also experienced the GOP backlash in 2010 that saw Republicans do extremely well in such races. He knows what waves feel like, and he knows what districts are good indicators of where the political winds are blowing. For a Democrat to win by such a big margin in a Sarasota County legislative district that has a relatively older, whiter, more GOP-leaning electorate is a very good sign for the party.

“I don’t think you can overstate the significance of it,” he said. “It wasn’t like a squeaker.”

In Florida a 12 point swing in November would-- again all things being equal-- see the end of the congressional careers of Ted Yoho, Dennis Ross, Brian Mast, Mario Diaz-Balart and Carlos Curbelo and probably Gus Bilirakis, Bill Posey and Francis Rooney.

Around the country, you'd be saying Randy Bryce replace Paul Ryan in southeast Wisconsin, Lisa Brown replacing Cathy McMorris Rodgers in eastern Washington, Lillian Salerno replacing Pete Sessions in Dallas, Derrick Crowe taking a red seat in the Austin/San Antonio corridor seat, Jason Westin replacing John Culberson in Houston, Jess King replacing Lloyd Smucker in Lancaster, PA, Tom Guild replacing Steve Russell in Oklahoma City, DuWayne Gregory replacing Peter King on Long Island, Jenny Marshall replacing Virginia Foxx in North Carolina, Paul Clements replacing Fred Upton in Kalamazoo, Jared Golden replacing Bruce Poliquin in Maine, Austin Frerick replacing David Young in Des Moines and southwest Iowa, Sam Jammal and Doug Applegate filling the abandoned red seats in southern California, Katie Hill beating Steve Knight in Santa Clarita and David Gill replacing Rodney Davis in central Illinois.

But as Dr. Gill mentioned, "We view the November general election as a golden opportunity to move toward real change; given my past performance against the Republican incumbent, we have no doubt that I can defeat him this year. And when I get to Washington, I intend to be a game-changer, using my background as an emergency medicine physician to counter the myths advanced by those who oppose single-payer, and to help lead the charge to the type of health care system that FDR envisioned for us 75 years ago. But first, of course, I have to survive on March 20. And this primary is really a battle for the soul of the Democratic party. I'm taking on establishment-backed candidates who refuse to stand up for single-payer, the Fight for 15, or tuition freedom. I'll be out-spent, but not out-worked: my staff and I, and our passionate volunteers, have knocked on thousands of doors and talked with thousands of voters. And those Democratic voters are done with half-measures, they're done with Republican Lite. They are demanding a shift toward a government focused on ordinary people, and as a lifelong progressive populist, I look forward to being a part of such a seismic shift." Want to help David and the other Blue America candidates win those primaries against establishment candidates? That's what the thermometer just above is for.

Up To Bat In March-- Progressives In Texas And Illinois

The first two states with 2018 primaries are Texas-- March 6-- and Illinois-- March 20. The thing is about the Texas primaries is that they're going to, in most cases, lead to primary runoffs on May 22. So we're going to be waiting for another couple of months before we know who the candidates we have going up against Republicans for blue-trending seats in Houston, Austin, San Antonio and Dallas, all of which are likely to deny any candidates 50% on March 6. It's a wide open race in west Houston, where award-winning cancer researcher and doctor, Jason Westin, has a bunch of establishment candidates he's competing with, as well as another progressive. He can use some help. Our candidate in Austin/San Antonio, Derrick Crowe, one of the best candidates anywhere in America, is likely to be forced into a runoff with a multimillionaire Republican, Joseph Kopser, pretending-- although not well-- to be a Democrat. Same in Dallas, where our candidate, Lillian Salerno, Obama's deputy undersecretary of rural development for the Department of Agriculture, is facing off against two pretty garden variety establishment big money careerists.

And speaking of Lillian Salerno, tough primary, it's important to remember this is a woman with cutting edge ideas up against careerist hacks whose vision basically sees themselves as seat-holders. Lillian sees sees the ability of government to shake things top-- in a good way. "We need a wholesale, comprehensive, sustainable antitrust policy," she wrote. "We need efforts to protect and preserve the marketplace in all industries across all sectors. We also need to enforce the existing laws on the books."

When it comes to animals, we protect those on the brink or likely to be on the brink of extinction. We do this because history has taught us that regulations must be enforced and immediately kick into place to protect species whose survival is threatened. Habitat is preserved, illegal activities like poaching are prosecuted, and the public rallies for the survival of the species. Just look at the American Bald Eagle: in the 1960’s there were less than 500 nesting bald eagles. Today, there are over 14,000 breeding pairs. It all started when the government banned DDT in the 1970’s. We allowed and demanded the regulators do their job and the bald eagle was saved. That’s why we need a strong antitrust policy-- to save small businesses, family farmers, and independent manufacturers-- to bring them back from the brink of extinction.

I knew first hand as a small business owner and manufacturer that I was an endangered species. After speaking to literally hundreds of rural small businesses in my role as the lead small business official at USDA, I also knew that these folks were an endangered species. You might say, "Lillian, come on, there’s hundreds of thousands of small businesses every day. There’s hundreds of thousands of small farms too." Yet, it’s all about the numbers. You can name almost any sector of the economy and there are almost grotesque concentrations of market power. Here’s a few statistics just in the Agriculture sector:

• 2 Companies control almost the entire market for milk;
• One company dominates the sale of corn and soy seeds and pesticides;
• 90 percent of all farms are classified as small. Yet, 3 percent of the farms-- the largest farms-- account for almost half of all food production.

When it comes to selling their products; Family farms, small businesses, and independent manufacturers face obstacles every step of the way to market. The massive corporate monopolists have set up an unforgiving obstacle course filled of anticompetitive contracting practices, illegal distribution schemes, and market manipulation.

What is so strange is that we all know this exists. At USDA we tried to help. We encouraged the growth of the small, local family farm. We invested in farmer’s markets and food hubs. We tried to grow the marketplace, preserve the habitat, and ward off the poachers. USDA might be seen as a friend of big agriculture, but the last eight years also saw the rise of the local food movement-- and I am proud to say that we at USDA played a small part in the movement to create more opportunities for the small farmer. But it is not enough.

We need a wholesale, comprehensive, sustainable antitrust policy. As great as the growth of the local food movement has been, it’s really like throwing sand in the wind. We need efforts to protect and preserve the marketplace in all industries across all sectors. We also need to enforce the existing laws on the books. We can’t take much more.

As a business person and as a USDA official anticompetitive contracting practices, illegal distribution schemes, and market manipulation all of these things diminish our potential and cause real hurt and real pain for Americans.

The Illinois primaries later in the month have a more crucial sense of permanence. The candidate with the most votes will face off against the Republican. The race that's gotten the most attention is in IL-03, the Chicagoland district that starts in the southwest part of the city around Bridgeport and the Stockyards, snakes down through though Marquette Manor to Midway, through Palos Hills and to Orland Park, Homer Glen and Lockport just north of Joliet. It's one of those rare races where an excruciatingly bad entrenched incumbent, Blue Dog Dan Lipinski, is being held accountable for the first time. Progressives in the district, in the state and across America have backed Marie Newman, who would make a much-needed and excellent addition to the Illinois congressional delegation.

The Republican in the race, Arthur Jones, an admitted anti-Semite is the former leader of the American Nazi Party. No, not every Republican is a Nazi... but it's funny how they always find a home with the GOP isn't it? Remember Boehner's Nazi buddy in Ohio, Rich Iott? Anyway, whoever wins the March 20 primary-- the Blue Dog Lipinski or progressive Marie Newman-- will be sworn in next January because IL-03 isn't about to elect a Nazi to Congress. The district didn't even vote for Trump. He couldn't even muster 40% against Hillary, who had been defeated in the district primary by Bernie. Polling shows an extremely tight race and it's going to be Marie's field operation that wins this one and sends the DCCC and the Democratic old guard a message that voters are watching what they do and holding the, accountable.

The only other candidate endorsed by Blue America in Illinois is Dr. David Gill in IL-13, a sprawling central Illinois district that meanders southwest from Champaign, Normal and Bloomington down through Decatur and Springfield to suburbs north and east of St. Louis. This was Bernie-country in 2016 and he beat Hillary in the district. And Gill is the candidate who has been working on Bernie issues for as long as Bernie has. He has three big-money establishment primary opponents who will probably split the establishment vote and allow Gill to face off against Davis in November. He definitely needs financial help for his field operation that will be in full swing in the next couple of weeks. Remember, the last time Gill faced off against Republican Rodney Davis, Davis won by just a handful of votes-- 136,596 to 135,309, and that was because left-wing spoiler John Hartman, took 21,319 votes, throwing the election to a crackpot conservative.

"My campaign team and I," David told us, "have worked hard to position myself to succeed in the primary on March 20. Voters here have been very excited about my message of single-payer healthcare, a $15/hour minimum wage, and tuition-free access to public higher education and trade schools

"We view the November general election as a golden opportunity to move toward real change; given my past performance against the Republican incumbent, we have no doubt that I can defeat him this year. And when I get to Washington, I intend to be a game-changer, using my background as an emergency medicine physician to counter the myths advanced by those who oppose single-payer, and to help lead the charge to the type of health care system that FDR envisioned for us 75 years ago.

"But first, of course, I have to survive on March 20. And this primary is really a battle for the soul of the Democratic party. I'm taking on establishment-backed candidates who refuse to stand up for single-payer, the Fight for 15, or tuition freedom. I'll be out-spent, but not out-worked: my staff and I, and our passionate volunteers, have knocked on thousands of doors and talked with thousands of voters. And those Democratic voters are done with half-measures, they're done with Republican Lite. They are demanding a shift toward a government focused on ordinary people, and as a lifelong progressive populist, I look forward to being a part of such a seismic shift."

This week, we want to ask you to consider helping our Texas and Illinois candidates and leave the others for another time-- just this week. Let's make sure the progressives get into the Texas runoffs and into the Illinois general election.

Is A Republican-Lite, Pro-NRA Approach Sometimes Needed For A Democrat?

Friday morning's post, How Many Pro-NRA Candidates Is The DCCC Trying To Sneak Into Congress This Cycle? Way Too Many, dealt with the Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party who:

• back an NRA line
• are DCCC darlings.

We dealt with Conor Lamb, whose PA-18 special election is less than a month away: March 13. It's a pretty red district with a PVI of R+11. Trump beat Hillary there by a massive 58.1-38.5%. She under-performed Obama and Trump over-performed Romney. For Lamb to win, he will really need a massive wave and everything going his way. Last week the House Blue Dog coalition formally endorsed him-- just in case anyone had any doubts about where he stood.

As of the December 31 FEC reporting deadline, Lamb had raised $557,551 and had $412,186 on hand and his Republican opponent, state Rep. Rick Saccone had raised $214,675 and had $199,938 on hand. Those figures were largely obliterated as the NRCC and other GOP outside groups spent $2,160,880 attacking Lamb as a Nancy Pelosi clone and another $825,182 bolstering Saccone. The DCCC spent $236,000 on Lamb's behalf. Since those officially reported expenditures, the RNC reports it will spend $1 million on a GOTV operation and Ryan's SuperPAC has invested $1.7 in anti-Lamb ads and has opened 2 field offices in the district. The DCCC ad, up top, is mediocre, unemotional and ineffective. It ran for 2 weeks and ended Feb. 12. As the Republican support for Saccone goes into overdrove, the DCCC seems to have left the field of battle entirely.

The most recent polling-- Feb 14-- by Monmouth tests 3 models, one for low turnout, one for high turnout and one with a surge model (akin to a big blue wave). Saccone wins in all 3 scenarios, but Lamb comes closest in the surge model-- 49-46%, within the poll's margin of error. In other words, Lamb needs Democratic enthusiasm if he's going to even have a chance. But... unlike Alabama, where unbelievable minority participation won the day for Doug Jones, there are virtually no minorities in PA-18. It's a very white district-- 2.3% black, 1.6% Asian, 1.4% Latino. That's not going drag Lamb over the finish line.

So what's Lamb doing to pull this off? Taking the Jon Ossoff route, AKA, Republican-lite. After the NRA/GOP massacre in Florida this week, Lamb took a standard Republican line.

Democratic congressional candidate Conor Lamb said Friday that new gun laws aren't the answer to preventing more mass shootings like the one at a Florida high school this week.

Lawmakers should instead improve the effectiveness of existing background-check laws, said Lamb, 33, of Mt. Lebanon, who is campaigning for a March 13 special election in Southwestern Pennsylvania.

“I believe we have a pretty good law on the books and it says on paper that there are a lot of people who should never get guns in their hands,” Lamb said at a campaign event in Carnegie. “And we know that the background check system is not achieving that result. What I think it's going to take is people in Congress who are willing to do more than just talk, who are willing to actually work together and stay late, if it requires that, and do some things that would really produce change.”

He didn't provide specifics on what he thinks might produce that change.

When asked whether he would support background checks for people who buy weapons at gun shows and online-- checks are not currently required for all private sales in those situations-- he said, “I'd be willing to look at proposals that would strengthen our background check system, but I want to start where the broad agreement already is, and the broad agreement already is that we're not doing a good enough job keeping guns out of the hands of people with mental health conditions and with criminals.”

Lamb said changing individual laws-- such as a proposed ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines-- isn't the place to start addressing gun violence.

“I think that the emotions that a lot of us are feeling right now are very raw because we know that there's not one thing we can do with the stroke of a pen or one thing you can ban,” he said. “We need a comprehensive answer on mental health.”

...The National Rifle Association, which fights against new gun regulations, endorsed Saccone last month and has given him an A+ rating based on his votes in the state House. He received $1,750 in campaign donations from the NRA Victory Fund from 2010 through 2014, according to state campaign finance records. He received about $5,700 in that time from the group Firearm Owners Against Crime, which has also donated $750 to his congressional campaign, according to the records.

Pennsylvania state Senator Daylin Leach: "The problem is that the pro-gun nuts are already voting for the Republican. All this will do is suppress Democratic and Independent enthusiasm for Lamb. It would have not only been the right thing to do, but smarter politics to boldly say 'It may not be popular, but we need to pass reasonable legislation to stop this slaughter.' He would have been a hero, rather than another panderer."

David Gill is running for the Democratic nomination for Congress in a Republican-held district in central Illinois. I didn't ask him about guns but in preparation for a Blue America letter asking for last minute contributions for his get out the vote operation, I asked him for a closing statement. He's taking a very different approach than Lamb. If you prefer it, please consider tapping on the thermometer below and contributing to Dr. Gill's campaign.

My campaign team and I have worked hard to position myself to succeed in the primary on March 20. Voters here have been very excited about my message of single-payer healthcare, a $15/hour minimum wage, and tuition-free access to public higher education and trade schools.

We view the November general election as a golden opportunity to move toward real change; given my past performance against the Republican incumbent, we have no doubt that I can defeat him this year. And when I get to Washington, I intend to be a game-changer, using my background as an emergency medicine physician to counter the myths advanced by those who oppose single-payer, and to help lead the charge to the type of health care system that FDR envisioned for us 75 years ago.

But first, of course, I have to survive on March 20. And this primary is really a battle for the soul of the Democratic party. I'm taking on establishment-backed candidates who refuse to stand up for single-payer, the Fight for 15, or tuition freedom. I'll be out-spent, but not out-worked: my staff and I, and our passionate volunteers, have knocked on thousands of doors and talked with thousands of voters. And those Democratic voters are done with half-measures, they're done with Republican Lite. They are demanding a shift toward a government focused on ordinary people, and as a lifelong progressive populist, I look forward to being a part of such a seismic shift.

Do You Support Student Debt Cancellation? Here's Why You Should

The Levy Economics Institute-- a nonpartisan public policy think tank at Bard College-- just published The Macroeconomic Effects of Student Debt Cancellation by Stephanie Kelton, Scott Fullwiler, Catherine Ruetschin and Marshall Steinbaum. Sound familiar? Kelton was Bernie Sander's economic adviser and Bernie made a very big deal out of student debt all through the campaign, so big a deal that even Clinton and other states quo candidates addressed the issue seriously. I suggest you read the entire paper but this is the Executive Summary:

More than 44 million Americans are caught in a student debt trap. Collectively, they owe nearly $1.4 trillion on outstanding student loan debt. Research shows that this level of debt hurts the US economy in a variety of ways, holding back everything from small business formation to new home buying, and even marriage and reproduction. It is a problem that policymakers have attempted to mitigate with programs that offer refinanc- ing or partial debt cancellation. But what if something far more ambitious were tried? What if the population were freed from making any future payments on the current stock of outstanding student loan debt? Could it be done, and if so, how? What would it mean for the US economy?

This report seeks to answer those very questions. The analysis proceeds in three sections: the first explores the current US context of increasing college costs and reliance on debt to nance higher education; the second section works through the balance sheet mechanics required to liberate Americans from student loan debt; and the final section simulates the economic effects of this debt cancellation using two models, Ray Fair’s US Macroeconomic Model (“the Fair model”) and Moody’s US Macroeconomic Model.

Several important implications emerge from this analysis. Student debt cancellation results in positive macroeconomic feedback effects as average households’ net worth and disposable income increase, driving new consumption and investment spending. In short, we find that debt cancellation lifts GDP, decreases the average unemployment rate, and results in little inflationary pressure (all over the 10-year horizon of our simulations), while interest rates increase only modestly. Though the federal budget deficit does increase, state-level budget positions improve as a result of the stronger economy. The use of two models with contrasting long-run theoretical foundations offers a plausible range for each of these effects and demonstrates the robustness of our results.

A one-time policy of student debt cancellation, in which the federal government cancels the loans it holds directly and takes over the financing of privately owned loans on behalf of borrowers, results in the following macroeconomic effects (all dollar values are in real, in ation-adjusted terms, using 2016 as the base year):

• The policy of debt cancellation could boost real GDP by an average of $86 billion to $108 billion per year. Over the 10-year forecast, the policy generates between $861 billion and $1,083 billion in real GDP (2016 dollars).
• Eliminating student debt reduces the average unemployment rate by 0.22 to 0.36 percentage points over the 10-year forecast.
• Peak job creation in the rst few years following the elimina- tion of student loan debt adds roughly 1.2 million to 1.5 million new jobs per year.
• The in ationary effects of cancelling the debt are macro-economically insignificant. In the Fair model simulations, additional inflation peaks at about 0.3 percentage points and turns negative in later years. In the Moody’s model, the effect is even smaller, with the pickup in in ation peaking at a trivial 0.09 percentage points.
• Nominal interest rates rise modestly. In the early years, the Federal Reserve raises target rates 0.3 to 0.5 percentage points; in later years, the increase falls to just 0.2 percentage points. The effect on nominal longer-term interest rates peaks at 0.25 to 0.5 percentage points and declines thereafter, settling at 0.21 to 0.35 percentage points.
• The net budgetary effect for the federal government is modest, with a likely increase in the de cit-to-GDP ratio of 0.65 to 0.75 percentage points per year. Depending on the federal government’s budget position overall, the de cit ratio could rise more modestly, ranging between 0.59 and 0.61 percentage points. However, given that the costs of funding the Department of Education’s student loans have already been incurred, the more relevant estimates for the impacts on the government’s budget position relative to current levels are an annual increase in the de cit ratio of between 0.29 and 0.37 percentage points.
• State budget de cits as a percentage of GDP improve by about 0.11 percentage points during the entire simulation period.

• Research suggests many other positive spillover effects that are not accounted for in these simulations, including increases in small business formation, degree attainment, and household formation, as well as improved access to credit and reduced household vulnerability to business cycle downturns. Thus, our results provide a conservative estimate of the macro effects of student debt liberation.

The authors remind us that "There is mounting evidence that the escalation of student debt in the United States is an impediment to both household financial stability and aggregate consumption and investment. The increasing demand for college credentials coupled with rising costs of attendance have led more students than ever before to take on student loans, with higher average balances. This debt burden reduces household disposable income and consumption and investment opportunities, with spillover effects across the economy. At the same time, the social benefits of investment in higher education-- including human capital accumulation, social mobility, and the greater tax revenues and social contributions that flow from a highly productive population-- remain central to the economic advantages enjoyed by the United States... A program to cancel student debt executed in 2017 results in an increase in real GDP, a decrease in the average unemployment rate, and little to no inflationary pressure over the 10-year horizon of our simulations, while interest rates increase only modestly. Our results show that the positive feedback effects of student debt cancellation could add on average between $86 billion and $108 billion per year to the economy. Associated with this new economic activity, job creation rises and the unemployment rate declines."

Jenny Marshall is running for Congress in a North Carolina district occupied by Virginia Foxx, chair of the House Education Committee, kind of ironic since Foxx has worked tirelessly against public education. "Several days ago," Jenny told us, "I had a long conversation with a young pastor who has a significant amount of student loan debt from seminary. He is worried that the student loan forgiveness program is going to be eliminated because Rep. Foxx with her PROSPER Act has no sympathy for students who have to take out loans to pay for their college expenses. This pastor, who is serving his community through an outreach program for at risk Hispanic youth should not have to worry about the career choice he made with the looming student loan debt he has to repay. Why is our federal government making a profit off of students who seek a better life?  With so many jobs requiring postsecondary education why are we still shackling them with mountains of debt? If we truly want to invest in our future we must deal with the student loan bubble before it bursts. I support student loan debt cancellation and the funding of public colleges and universities."

David Gill is the candidate in central Illinois running for the congressional seat Ryan puppet Rodney Davis is wasting. "I definitely support student debt cancellation," he told us, "for the same reasons that I have long supported tuition-free access to public universities, colleges, and trade schools. Sadly, in our theoretically egalitarian society, social mobility is suppressed here in America far more than in most other developed nations. If you are born into poverty here, the overwhelming odds are that you will remain in poverty. Removing the financial barriers to higher education would be a significant step toward restoring social mobility, giving people an opportunity to improve their lot in life."

UPDATE from Albuquerque


Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, the best candidate in a crowded primary field, just told us that "This is an example of how doing the morally right thing is also fiscally smart. This research is of critical importance to the future of higher education in this country. Too many college students are burdened with crippling student loan debt. The federal government should not make a profit on the backs of college students preparing themselves to make contributions to our society. Public colleges/universities and vocational training should be free.That is why I will co-sponsor and champion the College for All Act. And, we can even do better than that for those who have been burdened with outrageous student loan debt by allowing them to re-finance federal student loan rates at a lower rate that prioritizes students rather than government profits. At $1.4 Trillion, the student loan debt crisis has reached epidemic levels, and Congress must act!" Consider contributing to her campaign-- as well as to Jenny's and David's by clicking on the Blue America congressional thermometer on the right.

How Democrats Can Win In 2018: Ignore The Party's Serial Losers-- In Other Words, The Establishment

Early yesterday morning we put up a post about how American voters see Trump's character. The premise is that the overwhelming majority of voters don't want children looking at Trump as a role model and don't see him as providing the country with moral leadership. Only 29% of the country-- virtually no one but partisan Republicans-- think Trump as a role model is just fine. Most Americans say they are "embarrassed" that he's the leader of the country, while 27% are proud to have him as the leader of our country. Only 35% believe he's honest. Only 40% think he cares about average Americans. And only 34% say he shares their values. Only 30% of respondents think he's level-headed. He's the most negatively-rated Oval Office occupier in the history of polling. How many Americans saw all this before election day?

Later in the day one of his GOP primary opponents--Jeb Bush, the establishment candidate who "everyone" thought would run away with the nomination battle-- warned that Trump's character could drag down the whole party in the midterms. He's right. Bush agrees with some of Trump's right-wing domestic agenda but the former Florida governor warned "that Republicans are in for a beating in the fall elections if congressional races focus on the rhetoric and character of President Trump." And that's exactly what many Democrats intend to make the midterms about. Alan Grayson goes even further. Although his campaign is primarily revolving around the traditional Democratic issues he's always campaigned on-- the importance of electing candidates who are unbought and unbossed, and also the overall importance of demonstrating how to use politics to improve people’s lives-- he told me that the issue of Trump’s impeachment is providing a very handy means of separating real Democrats from empty suits and posers. "The evidence," he said, "of Trump’s commission of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' already is overwhelming. He is an illegitimate President elected by means of overt collusion with a foreign power. And President Dotard is obviously unfit for office. This isn’t very complicated. As Freud once said, 'sometimes a cigar just a cigar.'" Now, back to the Jebster:

Bush lambasted Trump's erratic leadership style, obsession with Twitter and "racist" comments that could cost Republicans control of Congress in November if they can't distance themselves from the former reality TV star.

"If the election is nationalized and it's not about the economy, then we'll lose," Bush told USA Today as Trump prepares to deliver the State of the Union address rounding up his first year in office. "If it's about the economy and it's driven by state or district interest, incumbents can do well."

...Bush worried that Trump will not allow Republicans to steer clear of him because of "his incredible view that the world revolves around him."

Bush railed against reports that the president referred to Haiti, El Salvador and African nations as "shithole" countries. He criticized Trump's moves to isolate the U.S. from other global powers. And he decried the revolving door of staffers who have sullied the reputation of the White House on their way out the door.

"The character of the guy and the (turnover) and fighting, and just the constant chaos around his presidency that is self-inflicted has made it hard for him," Bush said. "I want the president to succeed. I don't think he will succeed if he continues on this path."

Derek Cressman is running for a state Senate seat in California. He penned a powerful OpEd for the Sacramento Bee on Thursday about how Democrats can win in 2018 and 2020, a point of view that the establishment-- whether Jeb Bush or Nancy Pelosi-- will never understand. "If the past year has taught us anything," he wrote, "it’s that too many voters have lost faith in key civic institutions such as the news media and political parties. If we are going to rebuild public trust, legislators need to become more partisan. That certainly flies right in the face of establishment preaching-- and Cressman knows it.

You might be surprised to hear someone like me, who has spent most of his career with nonpartisan good government groups, advocating for more partisanship. But that’s precisely what America needs right now.

Done correctly, political parties can serve as vehicles for volunteers and small donors to band together around a set of ideas-- a platform. Party endorsements inexpensively inform voters of candidates’ positions on the issues, but only if endorsements go to the candidate who most closely sticks to the platform. 
Unfortunately, too many voters now justifiably perceive parties as washing machines that launder special interest money to re-elect an old boys’ club of incumbents who promote their own careers. Huge campaign contributions from outside sources have undermined political parties since the 1970s by allowing candidates who disagree with their parties to use pricey marketing campaigns to communicate directly with voters. The Citizens United ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court has only made things worse.


Ironically, by playing the big money game to keep pace with super PACs, the Democratic Party has driven small donors into outside groups such as MoveOn.org while tarnishing the party’s own brand image with voters and activists. According to a recent survey, only 72 percent of California Democrats have a favorable view of their own party. Worse yet, 59 percent of Democrats say a third party is needed.

The movement of voters who have lost faith in the Democratic Party contributed to the 2016 election results and shows that “compromise” by corporate Democrats is anything but pragmatic.

Sam Jammal, the progressive running for the suddenly open Orange County congressional seat that Ed Royce is abandoning (CA-39), told me this morning that "We win if we actually focus on what people are concerned about-- housing affordability, out of pocket health care costs, student debt and whether they can get a raise. We lose when we obsess over Trump and don't stand for anything. This isn't science-- Democrats need to be for something. But most importantly, we win when we are on the ground and in the community. We need to elect people who reflect their districts and will fight for their districts."

Progressive David Gill has a unique perspective, since he was the near winner in the 2012 cycle, "The situation here in IL-13 is ridiculous. My progressive message of single-payer healthcare came within 0.3% of victory in the 2012 general election (my message actually WON by 7 points, but a liberal independent took 7.3% and split the vote just enough to allow the Republican to become an 'accidental Congressman'). Since then, the DCCC has insisted on running conservative candidates with bland messages, and they've been slaughtered by 18-20 points. It's amazing that my lifelong party can't get behind me, and instead persists with a message that loses by 50-60 TIMES my margin of defeat. It appears as though they don't want a single-payer pushing practicing doctor anywhere near the halls of Congress. I watch people suffer and die in the E.R. on a regular basis because of the we way finance healthcare here in America, and it frustrates me to the point that I'm running for Congress again. I have to defeat my own party in the primary again this March (as I did back in 2012), and then I have no doubt that my message of single-payer, a $15/hour minimum wage, and tuition-free access to public universities and trade schools will succeed in November."

Señor Trumpanzee's Shithole Shutdown

Congress will be seen as "a bunch of Washington bozos" if a shutdown occurs
-Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO)

Last night the House passed HR 195, the Federal Register Printing Savings Act, the name meant to obscure what it really is and make it hard for voters to find a record of who voted for and who opposed the latest Republican short term CR (continuing resolution). It funds the government through Feb. 16 without dealing with DACA if the Senate passes it and Trump signs it. It passed 230-197. 11 Republicans voted NO and 6 fake-Democrats voted YES. The 6 Democraps who broke ranks and threw the DREAMers under the bus:

• Salud Carbajal (New Dem-CA)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)

Union activist Randy Bryce, the progressive Democrat who is driving Paul Ryan out of Congress, saw the vote last night in terms of solidarity: "There are times," he told us right after the vote, "when like-minded people need to stick together in order to stand up for the most vulnerable among us. This was one of those times. Disappointed in those who turned their backs."

Two of the Republicans who opposed it-- Carlos Curbelo and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, both from overwhelmingly Hispanic districts in South Florida-- did so because Ryan refused to deal with DACA. That was the overwhelming reason behind the nearly universal Democratic opposition in the House as well-- although that wasn't the only reason. Carol Shea Porter (D-NH), for example, told her constituents she opposed it because it failed to increase resources directed at the opioid epidemic fight, failed to provide redictable funding for our military and veterans’ access to health care, failed to help disaster-stricken communities and failed to extend funding for community health centers. She told New Hampshire residents that she was refusing "join House Republicans in abandoning the fundamental tasks of governing by kicking the can down the road yet again on the most basic responsibility we have, funding the government. In a hearing this afternoon, Admiral John M. Richardson, Chief of Naval Operations, said, ‘I can’t in good conscience testify before Congress about naval power without mentioning the toxic and corrosive effect of nine years of continuing resolutions and years under the Budget Control Act…The absence of stable and adequate funding for defense makes everything that our sailors and their commanders do harder. On a scale of one to ten, the importance of stable and adequate funding scores an 11.’ This is now the fourth extension, and it is time to end the harmful cycle of lurching between short-term funding bills with the now monthly threat of a government shutdown. These monthly failures to govern are simply unacceptable, and they need to end. I will continue to stand up for Granite Staters, who are sick and tired of the constant dysfunction and excuses. We need to work together to find long-term solutions to the critical issues facing our nation, instead of kicking the can down the road one month at a time."

Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) pointed out to her constituents in Seattle that "the majority has made a mockery of our legislative process. We just voted on the fourth continuing resolution in nearly four months. This makes no sense. It is no way to govern. Republicans control the House, the Senate and the White House, and-- still-- they’re scrambling at the last minute to piece together a patchwork budget that does nothing for the American people. It does nothing but kick the can down the road for another month. It ignores the real challenges we face. Once again, we watched Republicans put in the bare minimum. They denied relief for the 1.5 million Dreamers whose future hangs in the balance. They squashed the hopes of the 122 young people who lose their status each day we wait on a DACA fix. They turned their backs on the people suffering from our nation’s rampant opioid epidemic. They told kids who rely on the Children’s Health Insurance Program that their best interests don’t matter by ignoring our need for a permanent CHIP fix. I refuse to substitute one family's pain for another's gain. This is more than just a spending decision-- it is about the lives and livelihoods of millions of people. It is about the soul of our country. And our country deserves so much better than this."

A new Quinnipiac Poll asked: If there’s a government shutdown, who would you blame?

• Congressional Democrats- 34%
• Congressional Republicans- 32%
• Trump- 21%

We reached out to some of the Blue America-endorsed candidates to see how they're handling the issue in their campaigns. All of them are in sync with what Pramila Jayapal and Carol Shea-Porter were telling their constituents:

• DuWayne Gregory (Long Island):

"The Republicans have proven again that they cannot handle the mandate to govern.  They continue to kick the can down the road while poor children go without healthcare and dreamers live in fear of deportation. America needs leadership now."

• Jenny Marshall (northwest North Carolina):

"When will we stop kicking the can down the road and demand legislation be passed that is sorely needed?  While the bill at least reauthorizes CHIP, the government shutdown is still looming and we did not address the fix needed for Dreamers. The Republicans needed the Democrats and those who voted yes took the crumbs brushed off the bargaining table while leaving the meal untouched.  They should have demanded the legislation needed to protect and serve the people who live in this country. They failed."

• David Gill (central Illinois):

"I think that passing continuing resolutions instead of actual budgets is an irresponsible way to govern. And I could never sign on to a deal which treats young people who came here as children in such a heartless manner. The resolution passed today still leaves hundreds of thousands of dreamers in jeopardy.“

• Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (Albuquerque):

"Supporting the short term funding fix without addressing the fate of DREAMERS is cruel to the 800,000 young people whose lives have been disrupted by Trump's racist and irrational decision to revoke DACA. Pitting health care for children (CHIP) against security for innocent young DREAMERS (DACA) was a Republican tactic designed to divide Democrats with a 'Sophie's Choice' and give Republicans an illusory way to try to attack Democrats for their vote. The Democrats who fell for this cynical and cruel tactic are the type of politicians that make all politicians look bad. They betrayed Democratic values of compassion and inclusion., I would not fall for this cynical Republican tactic. Republicans own this dysfunctional failure to perform the most basic function of Congress--to fund our government."

• Austin Frerick (southwest Iowa):

"We are not going to allow 800,000 young Dreamers to be deported. That is what this conservation is about and a short term fix doesn't address this uncertainty for these Dreamers. When Republicans control the Senate, House and White House, and they blame Democrats for the shutdown, I don't think anybody is going to take that seriously. Shame on any Democrat for joining them."

• Tom Guild (Oklahoma City):

This is no way to run a railroad, much less a country. Congress has not passed a budget for this year, despite an October 1, 2017 deadline for passing the current fiscal year’s budget. Trump’s lackeys in Congress continue to parrot and vote the party line. Chateaubriand and Fancy French Champagne all around at Mara Lago, even if the government shuts down! Trump & his acolytes fiddle as America burns! What a self-absorbed group of elected officials incapable of empathy. Millions of Americans will be affected & hurt by a government shutdown. Hundreds of thousands of DREAMERS cruelly twist in the wind. We have a self-absorbed president and a compliant Republican congressional majority that allows Trump’s ego and their votes to not even do the bare minimum to keep the lights on & the government functioning. How tragic that a proud country's government has come to this! The Needle & the Damage Done! If the government shuts down it will be their doing. They'll try to blame it on everyone in sight. They are severely challenged in the areas of leadership & taking responsibility for their malpractice and inadequate actions."