Massachusetts Primary Results-- Progressive Movement Won The Big Prize, But...

Markey won his race handily tonight. Kennedy conceded. I bet Pelosi didn't call AOC and concede to her though. Every progressive group that endorsed Markey (other than Blue America) is trying to claim the credit but it really was a team effort that centered totally around Markey. Proof of that pudding. The other progressives picks (albeit not Blue America's)-- Alex Morse in the first congressional district and Ihssane Leckey in the 4th (the seat Kennedy gave up)-- lost.

A quick word about them. Both were perfect on policy and would have voted right all the time. That isn't all that Congress Members do though and although I thought Morse would make an infinitely better member than Richie Neal and that Leckey would have been better than Jesse Mermell, Jack Auchincloss, Becky Grossman or Natalia Linos-- each of whom appears to have out-polled her-- I didn't think I should ask Blue America contributors to give their money to either. Why? I got a feeling that neither had some intangible traits needed-- like "people skills"-- to succeed in Congress. I would have voted, without hesitation, for each of them, but that is different from contributing to them or urging other people to, especially when there are so many prospects in dire need of those contributions in a progressive universe that doesn't have infinite resources.

As for Kennedy, I expect he'll wind up in Biden's cabinet or be given some other stepping-stone job for his inevitable run for the presidency. Although... isn't he the first Kennedy to ever lose an election in Massachusetts?

Pelosi's endorsement of Kennedy turned out to be a kiss of death for him, starting with a big jump in contributions for Markey as soon as Pelosi interfered. Kennedy was never able to articulate a reason for voters to abandon Markey-- and neither could Pelosi (nor could Mark Pocan, another Kennedy endorser who fell flat on his face while splitting the Congressional Progressive Caucus from its grassroots supporters). 

The partial results available now show Markey beating Kennedy 55.52% to 44.86%. Establishment Pelosi ally Richard Neal is up over Alex Morse 59.02% to 40.98%. With all 14 precincts reporting Morse lost his own town, Holyoke, where he is mayor, to Neal, 4,366 (52.56%) to 3,940 (47.44).

With 80% of precincts counted, MA-04 is too close to call between Jesse Mermell (22.37%) and Jake Auchincloss (22.29%). Leckey came in 5th with around 11%.

All the results should be in tomorrow when I'll be a guest on Brad Friedman's radio show too discuss tonight's results.

What Will Joe Kennedy Do After His Congressional Career Ends Tomorrow? A Biden Sub-Cabinet Position?

Tomorrow is primary day in Massachusetts and the more progressive of the two candidates, incumbent Ed Markey, is ahead of Joe Kennedy III in the Senate race. Every public poll this summer has shown Markey ahead and the latest-- an Emerson poll released yesterday-- has him beating Kennedy 56-44%, The RealClearPolitics polling average has Markey ahead 52.0% to 40.8%, an 11.2% gap. That's some turn-around since the first poll taken a year ago that showed Kennedy beating Markey 42-25% (a since evaporated 17 point lead for Kennedy).

Much of the national coverage of the election has been about endorsements. One way of looking at it is that the entire progressive grassroots movement-- from MoveOn (92% of whose Massachusetts members opted for Markey), Daily Kos, NARAL, Sierra Club, HRC, Peace Action and the Working Families Party to DFA, Indivisible, Our Revolution, Sunrise, Justice Dems, PCCC, PDA and Blue America-- has come out for Markey. But the media is also looking at this as a battle between Pelosi-- who hypocritically endorsed Kennedy, probably doing him more harm than good-- and AOC, who validated Markey as the progressive choice. Kennedy was probably further harmed when the only sitting U.S. senator to endorse him was the most right-wing Democrat in Congress, Arizona crackpot Kyrsten Sinema. Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, is backing Markey. All the massachusetts members of Congress who have weighed in, have weighed in for Markey. And another major progressive validator, Ro Khanna endorsed Markey. Two other widely mistrusted members of Pelosi's leadership team-- Hoyer and Hakeem Jeffries-- have also come out for Kennedy.

Kennedy's congressional endorsement roster is a good signal to not support him. Some of Congress' most loathsome Wall Street-owned New Dems-- the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- are on Team Kennedy, from Filemon Vela, Conor Lamb and coke-freak Pete Aguilar to worthless conservative Dems like Gil Cisneros, Juan Vargas, Elissa Slotkin, Xochitl Torres Small, Sharice Davids, Sean Patrick Maloney, Derek Kilmer, Blue Dog chair Stephanie Murphy and David Trone the crooked Maryland businessman who spent a horrific $31,327,397 of his own cash over 2 cycles to buy a seat. Many are hoping to build relationships with the Kennedy Machine-- and it isn't only conservative Dems in ye ole tit-for-tat, transactional camp. Establishment progressive Mark Pocan, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who imagines himself running for Senate in 2022, has led a number of progressives into the Kennedy tent, putting them in opposition to their own grassroots supporters-- terrible mistake for a movement Pocan has never given a shit about.

Meanwhile, Gabe Debenedetti reported for New York Magazine that Bernie"has not endorsed Markey-- who backed Elizabeth Warren for president-- and shows no signs of planning to do so, despite pleas from Markey and plenty of his advocates... Markey and Sanders served together in the House for 16 years, and in the Senate-- where Warren also serves-- for six.)"

National coverage of the race has tended to focus on two big issues: Markey’s position in the progressive firmament and persistent questions about why, exactly, Kennedy is running if he has few substantive complaints about the senator. “I have been a fan of Ed Markey’s since he led the fight to reform the state’s judiciary when I was governor and that was a long time ago,” 1988 Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis told me this week. “I am also a fan of Joe Kennedy’s, my congressman, but I can’t for the life of me understand why he is putting us all through this to defeat a fine U.S. Senator. He should be in Iowa digging up votes for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.” Together, these arguments appear to have made Markey a slight favorite.

Largely inspired by the endorsements and ongoing involvement of Ocasio-Cortez and the Sunrise Movement (a group of young environmental organizers), national progressives have joined Markey’s cause. In a year where the presidential race has offered few clear opportunities for the left flank of the Democratic party to push back against the center-left, this race has seen more vicious intra-party brawling than it might have in a different political context. “Kennedy is a really good release valve when you know you can’t go after Biden,” said one national progressive leader backing Markey.

“What the progressive movement is saying-- particularly the young progressive movement-- is they’re trying to make clear that what happened in 2018 is not just a bunch of women of color knocking off a bunch of old white guys,” Markey’s campaign manager John Walsh told me, explicitly comparing his candidate to Charles Booker, who fell short in Kentucky’s Senate primary in March, and Cori Bush, who defeated longtime congressman William Lacy Clay earlier this month. “When a 74-year-old almost-50-year veteran defeats-- if it happens-- the Mt. Rushmore legacy of Massachusetts politics, maybe national politics, it’s not about how old you are. It’s not about the color of your skin. It’s actually about the policy.”

Everything Kennedy does-- every breath he takes, every move he makes, every bond he breaks, every step he takes, every word he says, every game he plays-- is all about the presidency. It's revolting because it's based on absolutely nothing but his bloodline. He hasn't accomplished a single thing and hasn't distinguished himself in any way other thinly a disgusting display of naked ambition. He's going to lose tomorrow because he never managed to explain why he's running against Markey. In the age of Trump, Massachusetts doesn't have enough low-info Democrats for JK-III to win.

Yesterday Politico reported that "Kennedy’s campaign believes Markey has an advantage among voters who have already cast ballots by mail-- namely white, well-educated voters in the suburbs-- but that high turnout on voting day would lend itself to Kennedy... Pelosi also provided a financial bump for the congressman. Kennedy raised $100,000 within a day of Pelosi's endorsement, according to his campaign. But Markey, who’s assembled a potent small-dollar fundraising operation, says he raised four times that amount-- $400,000-- in the 24 hours after Pelosi weighed in, much of it from progressives frustrated with Pelosi’s decision to intervene."

Civil War Breaking Out Among Both Congressional Parties

Pelosi made a very big mistake a couple weeks ago. She endorsed Joe Kennedy III in his bid to unseat and replace Massachusetts progressive Ed Markey. Pelosi's endorsement immediately turned the race around. Kennedy had been substantially ahead and Pelosi's kiss of death, brought a tidal wave of momentum into the race-- for Markey. Since Pelosi's endorsement there have been two public polls. Suffolk University's Massachusetts Senate poll shows Markey beating Kennedy by an astounding 10 points and the Data for Progress poll a few days ago has Markey up 7 points. This is quite the turn-around from the 17 point lead Kennedy began the race with!

Incumbents usually try to stay out of primaries, especially primaries that involve incumbents. But as all DWT readers are well aware, the only accountability for incumbents in deep blue (or deep red for that matter) districts comes through primaries. Pelosi wasn't attempting to give Ed Markey an accountability moment-- although she opposes the Green New Deal legislation he and AOC wrote-- but was instead trying to cultivate the Kennedy Clan for one reason or another. Same with 2022 Wisconsin Senate hopeful, Mark Pocan, who also endorsed Kennedy against the much more progressive Markey, even though Pocan is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Yesterday Melanie Zenona and Heather Caygle, reporting for Politico wrote that the congressional primary taboo is breaking down. They speculated that "lawmakers, aides and strategists in both parties say the pattern will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. It’s a shift that reflects the ideological-- and anti-establishment-- churn taking place in the Donald Trump era, and it’s sparking concern among the old guard about rising intraparty warfare."

"More and more members of Congress are going to look and say 'rules are rules' but if in fact there’s a district that’s suffering… we’re going to see a lot more members of Congress supporting challengers,” said Marie Newman, who knocked off longtime Illinois Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski earlier this year with the backing of several prominent Democrats.

Even as leaders in both parties have tried to paint any decision to wield influence in primaries as a “special” case, younger firebrands are interpreting their leadership’s involvement as a green light to show support and spend money on the challengers they prefer.

“If the establishment is going to start shooting at the outsiders and the pro-Trump elements of our caucus, then the bullets aren’t only going to be flying in one direction,” said Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, who backed the successful GOP challenger to Rep. Ross Spano (R-FL) after a member of GOP leadership targeted one of his other colleagues.

Playing in primaries has long been looked down upon in both the Republican and Democratic Party, where leaders deploy multi-million-dollar campaign arms to shield incumbents and squash any potential challengers. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took it a step further this cycle-- enforcing a “blacklist” of vendors who work for candidates seeking to oust sitting lawmakers, a move that outraged progressives and motivated them to get even more involved in primary campaigns this cycle.

“These places operate on members’ dues,” said Brendan Buck, a GOP strategist, referring to the parties’ campaign arms. “To be able to get members to contribute, they need to convince them it’s an incumbent protection operation.” Otherwise, he added, “that trust is eroded” and “the money stops coming in.”

Plus, it’s dangerous to take a shot and miss. Leadership used to even shy away from open primaries amid fears of picking the wrong candidate and alienating a future colleague.

“It’s a risky play, no doubt,” said Buck, who served as a top aide to former Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI). “You better be damn sure it’s gonna work if you’re gonna do it. People have long memories.”

But now, insurgent lawmakers angry with the establishment and tired of abiding by the kind of decorum that once governed Washington are looking to flex their muscles in primaries — and put leadership on notice.

“No one gets to complain about primary challenges again,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted in response to Pelosi’s endorsement of Kennedy. The freshman lawmaker, who has won the ire of some colleagues for her openness to supporting primary challenges, also called on the DCCC to get rid of its vendor blacklist. “It seems like less a policy and more a cherry-picking activity,” she wrote.

This is hardly the first time rank-and-file lawmakers have engaged in primaries-- although many more are openly doing so this year-- but it’s now easier than it was a decade ago to actually wield influence through the use of grassroots fundraising and social media.

“The old ways of Washington empower leadership through money. But we’re starting to see that the message and movement may be more important than money,” said Gaetz, who swore off PAC funding. “In today’s world of social media, digital communication and wall-to-wall cable television, the leadership no longer has a stranglehold on the brand or the messengers.”

The 2022 cycle may offer further opportunity for insurgents, as incumbents may be facing entirely new constituencies after the latest round of redistricting.

Allies of Pelosi have defended her decision to back Kennedy, arguing the speaker did not undermine her policy of fiercely protecting House incumbents since she was weighing in on a Senate race. Progressive lawmakers and strategists have dismissed that explanation.

“What we’re seeing right now is the Democratic establishment really being honest in public about what they’re doing. What’s not a change is them taking sides in primaries-- they have long done it for years and years and years, they’ve just been more private about it,” said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America.

Ocasio-Cortez, who declined to be interviewed for this story, shot to prominence after toppling one of the most powerful Democrats in the House: Joe Crowley, the Democratic Caucus chair who was often mentioned as a potential future speaker. A fellow member of her liberal “squad,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), took down longtime Rep. Mike Capuano in 2018 and has since backed other primary challengers.

Progressive challengers have already unseated several long-entrenched Democratic incumbents this year, including Lipinski, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Eliot Engel in New York, and Rep. Lacy Clay in Missouri.

If Neal is defeated by Holyoke mayor Alex Morse, it would be a huge victory for Ocasio-Cortez and a disappointment for Pelosi. The speaker spent several minutes praising Neal’s progressive bona fides at a news conference Thursday and said his district would suffer “a tremendous loss” if he’s ousted.

...But both Gaetz and Ocasio-Cortez have serious sway on the right and left, respectively, so if they do decide to get more involved next cycle, things could get messy. Several other Gaetz-backed candidates sailed to victory in open Florida GOP primaries last week, including far-right activist Laura Loomer who has been banned from Twitter and Facebook for racist comments and attacks on Islam but who has little shot at winning in November.

“One of the jobs of leadership is to keep the peace amongst your team. A real quick way to have your team fall apart is if there is suspicion that certain members are trying to unseat other ones,” Buck said. “Politics is a team sport. And if your team devolves into this type of fighting, it’s really hard to put that back together.”

As I pointed out yesterday, the increasingly dominant and uber-corrupt corporate-backed New Dem caucus has been given the keys to the DCCC. Their endorsement list is basically the Red-to-Blue program this cycle. Two of their most recent endorsements are in jungle primary states-- California and Washington-- where November elections can pit two members of the same party. Vile corporate conservative Sara Jacobs is running against progressive Georgette Gomez in San Diego and another corporate conservative, Marilyn Strickland is trying to defeat state Rep Beth Doglio for the congressional seat in Thurston (Olympia) and Pierce (Tacoma area) counties that Denny Heck is giving up. Jacobs and Strickland are both being backed by the New Dem PAC, while Gomez and Doglio are being backed by the Progressive Caucus. I'm guessing that unless the House Dems dump Pelosi as leader-- and pronto-- this kind of intra-party fighting will accelerate into all-out civil war. (NOTE: You can contribute to both Gomez and Doglio here.)

Kiss Of Death Endorsements: Trump And Pelosi

I know I don't have to interpret that Twitter poll for you, although if you don't know who Shahid Buttar is, he's the progressive Democrat who, along with Nancy Pelosi, came out of the March jungle primary and will face her one-on-one in November. (You can contribute to Shahid's campaign here, as you can see, the only candidate endorsed by this blog.)

After Pelosi exhibited startling, even breath-taking hypocrisy by endorsing Joe Kennedy III who is challenging incumbent Democratic Senator Ed Markey for his Massachusetts seat, just 6.8% of respondents said her endorsement will influence them to favor Kennedy or favor him more. On the other hand... well you can see.

Most Republican senators aren't asking for Trump's endorsement. Like Pelosi's, an endorsement by Trump is just toxic-- especially among independents. Sure, in states or districts that are so heavily Republican, an endorsement from Trump or Pence or Mitch McConnell would be a net plus... and in deep red House districts it makes sense to ask for an endorsement. Senate seats are different. Trump is still popular in Wyoming, Idaho, Oklahoma and the Dakotas but don't expect to see Trump endorsements being ballyhooed by incumbent senators where independent voters determine winners. I don't know what John Cornyn (R-TX) is going to do but I would bet that Susan Collins (ME), Cory Gardner (CO), Thom Tillis (NC), and Joni Ernst (IA) aren't going to be advertising-- at least not to a general audience on TV or radio-- that Trump is backing them.

On the other hand, in Alaska, where nearly half the voters are independents, there is a lot of ballyhooing of Trump's endorsement of Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan-- all of it from Independent Al Gross who is running on the Democratic Party line. I spoke with Gross' campaign manager yesterday and he was almost gleeful to have seen Trump endorse Sullivan. "I hope President Trump comes up here to campaign for Dan," he said. "A majority of the state doesn't approve of him, and with his help, we can make that 60%!" He sent me this:

Yesterday, Collins announced that part-time Maine resident George W. Bush-- remember, relative to Trump and for many people, the stink has worn off now-- has endorsed her-- his first endorsement of 2020. "The nod from the former president, whose politics appear centrist by Trump-era standards, may nudge some traditional Republicans into Collins’ corner," wrote David Sharp for the Associated Press. "Trump has not endorsed the Maine senator, whose race is among a handful critical to Republicans’ hopes of keeping control of the Senate, where they have a 53-47 advantage. Collins, meanwhile, has not said whether she intends to vote for Trump." Fellow New England Republican, Governor Phil Scott (R-VT) made an announcement yesterday that leaves no doubt he doesn't want and would not accept Trump's endorsement: "I won't be voting for President Trump... I have not decided, at this point, whether to cast a vote for former Vice President Biden... something I would consider."

After Pelosi's endorsement of Joe Kennedy III infuriated progressives-- not as much because of the pick as because of Pelosi's disgusting hyocrisy-- AOC sent her followers a fundraising letter from her own campaign but for for Markey, a staffer explaining the double standard:

Last year, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee instituted a new blacklist-- targeting staffers and companies who worked for primary challengers. Unsurprisingly, that overwhelmingly targeted people who worked with progressives.

Now, it’s clear: That blacklist was never just meant to "protect incumbents." It was meant to block progressive leaders from being elected, like Ayanna Pressley, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, or even Alexandria in 2018.

...Markey is not taking the safe route. He’s causing good trouble in Washington, fighting for international peace, a Green New Deal, and dismantling ICE. These are hard fights to win. Many look at them and back down. But not Ed Markey.

Markey is listening to the next generation of leaders-- the young folks on the ground working day in and day out to change the world-- and does everything in his power to amplify their voices on Capitol Hill. If Washington had more leaders like Ed Markey, we’d be a lot better off.

Scary that Pelosi is no longer self-aware enough to understand that her endorsement really is a kiss of death in most places in the country-- even in as blue a state as Massachusetts. Isn't she supposed to be retiring now and passing along her seat to her daughter? You know, the dynasty thing-- like the Kennedys.

Markey vs Kennedy-- If You're A Progressive Voter, There Should Be No Hesitation

JFK, 1960 on Kings Highway in front of Dubrow's

Progressive Power Hour? Was there one for AOC or Rashida Tlaib or Ilhan Omar when their reelections were challenged by big money reactionaries in the last couple of months? There may have been... but I never heard about them. But I did hear about tomorrow's Power Hour on behalf of Joe Kennedy's campaign to displace the far more progressive-- and effective-- Ed Markey in the Senate. This came as an e-mail over the weekend:

We're excited to share the updated panel for Wednesday's progressive power hour! This Wednesday, progressive leaders Mark Pocan, Raúl Grijalva, and Linda Sánchez will co-host a progressive power hour with Joe!

They’ll be talking about what’s at stake in this primary election, and what makes Joe the right leader to usher in the change Massachusetts needs. The discussion will also include ways you can get involved in these critical final weeks, and how to cast your ballot, whether it’s by mail or in person.

...Join us Wednesday night to hear from these progressive powerhouses about the change Joe will bring to the Senate, and about how you can get involved!

The national and the Massachusetts progressive grassroots has come out very strongly for Ed Markey-- and not just Blue America-- Our Revolution, Sunrise Movement, Peace Action, Progressive Massachusetts, MoveOn, PDA, Indivisible, the Working Families Party... So has Massachusetts' other senator, Elizabeth Warren, as well as AOC, Zephyr Teachout, Ady Barkan, and Cory Booker. Younger, issue oriented Democrats overwhelmingly want to see Markey, who is far more progressive than Kennedy, reelected. Older, fuzzily romantic Democrats seem excited about JKIII, although few seem to be able to explain why. Maybe Pocan, Grijalva and Sánchez will be able to tomorrow at their Power Hour. Alienating the progressive movement's grassroots does need to be explained, especially if Pocan is really serious about making a U.S. Senate run in 2022, something Chuck Schumer has already been making jokes about behind closed doors. He's going to be looking for allies-- allies who are very likely going to remember him stabbing Ed Markey in the back this year.





Meanwhile, some of the absolute worst Democrats in Congress are being touted by Kennedy as his supporters, Kyrsten Sinema, the closest thing to a right-wing Republican (and psychopath) among Senate Dems, coke freak New Dem, Pete Aguilar-- as well as plenty of other corrupt corporate New Dems, Blue Dogs and bought-and-paid for conservatives from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, like Juan Vargas (CA), Filomen Vela (TX), Gil Cisneros (CA), Derek Kilmer (WA), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Annie Kuster (NH), Conor Lamb (PA), Stephanie Murphy (FL), Colin Allred (TX), Ellisa Slotkin (MI), Angie Craig (MN)... odd there's no one from Massachusetts on the list. They're all either staying neutral or backing Markey. Oh, wait! He does have a high-profile Massachusetts endorsement: Republican former Governor Bill Weld.

The first big name politician I ever met was JFK-- two decades before Joe Kennedy III was born. I was 12 and my mom took me to see the charismatic somewhat conservative senator campaigning in Brooklyn, to show the Democratic establishment that he was popular in liberal bases. He was. But a police horse stepped on my foot in the tumult and I was brought inside Dubrow's where only local party big wigs were allowed. The soon-to-be-president came over and rubbed my foot and wished me well. That was nice. By the time he was assassinated I was no longer a fan. But when his brother, Robert Kennedy-- Robert Kennedy III's grandfather who was assassinated before he was born-- ran for New York senator I got a job at his campaign headquarters as an elevator operator. I wasn't a big fan of his either, although he seemed to gradually move away from his McCarthyite past and embrace progressive positions. The other brother, Teddy, was the most progressive of the trio. Never met the guy. And I never was a big fan of political dynasties.

Over the weekend, Politico published a piece by Stephanie Murray-- Markey throws shade at Kennedy family in Senate primary brawl-- that is still probably somewhat shocking for a Massachusetts Democrat to contemplate. "In an ever more contentious battle between a septuagenarian senator and the scion of one of the nation’s best-known dynasties," wrote Murray, "Markey is calling out specific Kennedy family members by name, needling the wealth and privilege that attaches to the family name, and even drawing from the Kennedy myth in his bid to fend off his youthful challenger. At one time, that approach might have been a career-killer in Massachusetts Democratic politics. Yet Markey has employed it successfully to help narrow a double-digit polling gap with the primary just over two weeks away."

When a Boston Globe columnist drove by Markey's modest house in June to see if he was there or out of state, the Malden Democrat happened to be standing in the driveway.

"Welcome to the compound!" he quipped, a sly reference to the famous Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port.

Markey often invokes his own father, who was a milk truck driver, to draw a contrast between his own working class roots and his opponent's upbringing. The senator recently posted a black-and-white childhood photo with his parents and two brothers.

"I'm the son of a milkman and a hardworking mother. I was a commuter student who paid my way through college selling ice cream. Where I come from, no one expects to become a U.S. senator," Markey captioned the photo on Instagram.

Markey has made subtle references to the Kennedy family throughout the summer, but has ramped up his messaging in recent days. The most pointed hit came at the end of a campaign video unveiled Thursday, where he drew on a famous line from the inauguration speech of his challenger’s great uncle, President John F. Kennedy.





..."He's taking the elephant in the room and just going right at it. He's using the most identifiable characteristic of Joe Kennedy, which is his name, and trying to use it against him. It's an interesting campaign tactic and one I wouldn't have anticipated," said Steve Koczela, president of the MassINC polling group. "It puts Kennedy more on the spot to explain why he's running, and that's something he's struggled with throughout the campaign."

Markey is betting that much of the Kennedy mystique has worn off, 11 years after Ted Kennedy-- who held the state’s other Senate seat for nearly a half-century-- passed away. So far, the strategy appears to be working, particularly among younger voters who have responded to his support for the Green New Deal and his endorsement from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Koczela pointed to a MassINC poll from October 2019, which showed 70 percent of voters under age 30 had no opinion or had never heard of Markey. But a UMass Amherst poll released last week found Markey now leading that group over Kennedy with 71 percent of support.

...In their most recent debate, Markey took some of his toughest shots against Kennedy, seeking to use Kennedy's powerful family against him. Kennedy's father, former Rep. Joe Kennedy II, may put his $2.8 million in leftover campaign funds into a pro-Kennedy super PAC as a last minute boost for his son's Senate bid, and Markey sought to shame him for it.

"I'm sure your father's watching right now. Tell your father right now that you don't want money to go into a super PAC that runs negative ads," Markey said in the debate. "Just tell your twin brother and tell your father you don't want any money."

In a matter of minutes, the senator's campaign turned the debate spat into a viral video. "Free advice for Joe Kennedy. Don't rely on the old man's money," Markey captioned the video, which begins with a shot of Kennedy standing on a yacht and is set to the Hall and Oates song "Rich Girl."

The Boston Globe Is Right-- Send Ed Markey Back To The Senate

As I've said many times, Joe Kennedy III doesn't take a sip of water or tie a shoelace before considering how it will impact his eventual run for the presidency. Largely on the romanticism of his name, he was elected to an open House seat in 2012, where he hasn't been an especially impressive member. He's certainly no AOC-- not on any level. A member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, he's barely a progressive. His lifetime ProgressivePunch score is B+ (that high once he decided to challenge Markey and start voting more progressively to run the score up).

Senator Ed Markey, on the other hand, has the best ProgressivePunch voting record of anyone in the Senate; someone's got to be #1; it's Markey. You might be interested in knowing he's been endorsed by Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Zephyr Teachout and AOC-- as well as the Sunrise Movement, Our Revolution, PDA and NARAL. Bad incumbents should be relentlessly primaried. Good ones, on the other hand, should be supported. That's why Blue America has endorsed Ed Markey for reelection and for the September 1 primary. Please consider clicking on our ActBlue 2020 Senate thermometer on the right and showing him some love; he's earned it. Yesterday, the editors of the Boston Globe gave him a full-throttle endorsement, noting that he's often ahead of the curve in championing progressive causes, something no one will ever accuse Joe Kennedy of. In the House and, more recently in the Senate, Markey has been a leader-- which is different from a follower-- in "cracking down on insider trading, ensuring consumer access to wireless spectrum technologies, or helping create a broad movement to put a freeze on nuclear arms."

Decades before CNN hosted its first town hall for presidential candidates devoted to climate change, and decades before Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenage activist, was named Time magazine’s “Person of the Year,” Markey worked to make the air we breathe cleaner and to stave off the catastrophic heat waves, droughts, and rising seas poised to displace millions of people around the world.

In the 1980s, he co-authored legislation, signed by President Reagan, to make household appliances more energy-efficient, which has saved Americans billions on electric bills and spared communities and the planet the toxic, heat-trapping emissions from hundreds of coal-fired power plants. He co-led the bipartisan effort to raise fuel economy standards for cars and trucks that resulted in the 2007 law that brought forth new, innovative low-emissions and electric vehicles to the marketplace and reduced Americans’ consumption of oil. And in 2009, he and Representative Henry Waxman of California successfully moved a historic cap-and-trade bill through the US House of Representatives that would have put a price on carbon emissions and made a significant impact on planetary warming, had it not faltered in the Senate amid lackluster support from an Obama White House that prioritized health care reform.

If the senator from Malden spends a lot of time in Washington, one reason might be that he’s been busy getting legislative proposals passed to improve people’s lives. With the pandemic ravaging the American economy, Markey has pushed for policies to aid vulnerable families, especially for the millions who have lost jobs, businesses, and health insurance during the crisis. He has advocated business relief targeted at enterprises owned by women and people of color, temporary assistance for gig workers, and greater oversight of corporate bailout funding.

What distinguishes Markey’s leadership from many other Democrats, however, is that he’s pushed the country to think bigger about its response to the pandemic, whether it’s a call to fight the disease with a new kind of Manhattan Project, pushing for larger-scale stimulus, or articulating that this political moment is akin to the conditions that made possible FDR’s New Deal. In this moment, the country and the Commonwealth need leaders who won’t settle for incremental progress, who recognize the profound underlying conditions of inequality and racial injustice that exacerbate our problems, and who notice that the table is set for transformational change and can help carry it out with legislative proposals.

No problem makes that need more apparent than the climate crisis. Global carbon emissions hit a record annual high before the pandemic, temperatures are rising, and the Paris agreement is in the lurch after President Trump’s avowed withdrawal. Climate disasters cost the United States more than $525 billion over the past five years. Summer heat waves kill the old and young, Siberia burns, and seas rise in coastal cities including Boston. Leading climate scientists recently have warned us that the window to act to prevent catastrophic warming is closing.

Yet political will to address climate change is growing in the American public, and the need for significant federal stimulus to address the fallout of the pandemic presents the opportunity to remake the economy to be more energy efficient and less carbon intensive. If Democrats win back the White House and the Senate, Congress may at last pass legislation to spare society the worst humanitarian and economic costs of climate disasters. Markey is poised-- and arguably more prepared than any other politician in the US government-- to fill in the conceptual aspirations of the Green New Deal resolution that he cosponsored with Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with practical policies and to get them passed in Congress.

As countless observers have pointed out, the Sept. 1 Senate primary is not a contest between candidates with competing values. Representative Joseph P. Kennedy III also cares about progressive causes, and his commitment to voting and health care access and to protecting immigrants and LGBTQ rights is laudable. A call to Joe is bound to yield insights about what’s happening on the ground in communities in the Commonwealth-- the congressman has his finger on the pulse of his constituents in the Fourth District and of Massachusetts politics. He uses his name and that trademark Kennedy charisma to help Democrats around the country win, a noble cause in an era when the GOP has made Donald Trump its flag bearer. It is clear that Kennedy has a passion for public service and the drive to have a real impact. This board looks forward to seeing what he will accomplish, whatever his next role is.

But Kennedy has not made a persuasive case for removing Markey from the Senate seat he has occupied with dignity and tenacity while achieving real results. With the window for action on the climate crisis closing, Kennedy’s candidacy looks less compelling; while he’s committed to the cause, he lacks the chops and track record that Markey would bring to a legislative effort to renew the economy with cleaner sources of energy and make communities more resilient.

Contrary to what some skeptics of Kennedy’s bid think, primary races are not inherently a waste. They can serve to usefully challenge thinking within the party and to unseat incumbents who fail to deliver for their constituents or who have become hopelessly out of touch with the needs of the nation. But Markey is not past his time; rather, his time may finally have arrived.

The crux of Kennedy’s campaign against Markey seems to come down to the question of whether a generational torch-passing is needed in the delegation this year. And here, the senator’s own words to The Globe editorial board are his best defense: “It’s not your age. It’s the age of your ideas that’s important.”

Markey’s priorities are focused not on nostalgia for America’s past but on securing a better future, whether it’s advocating access to broadband in classrooms, research on gun violence, or curbing the pollution that will change the planet for coming generations. In the protests for racial justice sweeping the country, Markey sees echoes of past social movements, a chance to listen and have the politics of the streets shape the politics on Capitol Hill.

That’s not out of touch; it’s tuned in to what the next generation is demanding. And to do right by them, it’s urgent to keep Ed Markey in the game.

During last Sunday debate, Kennedy was asked why he joined the notoriously racist join a famously racist Kappa Alpha fraternity, which worships Robert E. Lee (who they explicitly acknowledge as their "Spiritual Founder") and why it took him until last month-- 2 decades after the fact-- to disassociate himself from it. He admitted he wishes he hadn't joined but that doesn't answer the question. He always claims that the Stanford chapter had nothing to do with the national organization, which just isn't true. The frat's literature, rituals and traditions are filled with reverence for the Confederacy and the Old South and for racism. The chapters-- albeit before Joe K III joined-- used to call themselves Klans, although we're not talking ancient history here. When the first black students to integrate the University of Georgia (1961) arrived on campus, the Alpha Kappa Klan flew the Confederate flag at half mast. It wasn't until 2001 that the Alpha Kappas stopped flying the Confederate flag.

This week, Kennedy's campaign accused Markey of not including the towns of Stoughton, Blackstone, Dana, Dudley, Enfield, and Prescott on a campaign map and insisting "they do not exist in Markey's Massachusetts. Well, Dana, Enfield and Prescot actually don't exist in anyone's Massachusetts. They were flooded to make way for the Quabbin Reservoir in the 1930s. I guess if he doesn't remember the racism of his college frat, who could expect him to know not to schedule any rallies in Dana, Enfield and Prescot.

The Nature Of Conservatism-- Profiting From Societal Adversity

McConnell is a master of one thing and one thing only-- obstruction

I'm not going to argue about conservative, greed-obsessed businessmen rushing headlong into markets to profit from societal disruption. It's not illegal and anyone who ever thought a conservative had an predisposition towards ethical or Christian fundamental values was just kidding themselves anyway. My beef, though, is with conservative greed-obsessed elected officials. What I expect from private citizens of a conservative bent is not what I expect from conservative public officials. Nor should you. In two separate polls, a majority of North Carolina voters say Senator Richard Burr, who said in 2016 that he wouldn't run again, should resign for selling $1.6 million in hotel and other stocks based on inside information he obtained as chair of the Senate Intel Committee. He was only one of nearly a dozen conservatives in Congress who were doing the same thing-- selling stocks before the deluge-- although one, right-wing congressman Rob Wittman (R-VA) ran out as soon as he had some inside info and bought thousands of dollars of stock in AbbVie, Inc, which makes antiviral drugs. (His greed and lack of ethics, though, did him no good; he lost money too.) Robert Reich yesterday: Senators Loeffler and Burr-- and any other senator if found to have benefited from insider information about the pandemic, including Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)-- must resign immediately."

Last night the Washington Post reported that "Trump’s private business has shut down six of its top seven revenue-producing clubs and hotels because of restrictions meant to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus, potentially depriving Trump’s company of millions of dollars in revenue. Those closures come as Trump is considering easing restrictions on movement sooner than federal public health experts recommend, in the name of reducing the virus’s economic damage." Trump had two reactions. First was to tell Mnuchin that a bailout for [his] hotels and golf courses had to be included in any stimulus package and second was that he's opening the economy again, no matter what it does to the efforts to flatten the curve and save lives.

And now Mitch McConnell is leading Senate Republicans to pass a stimulus package that serves their own partisan interests and the desires of the donor class while screwing over working families, the same way they did in 2008. Georgia Senate candidate TeresaTomlinson saw it the same way I did. Yesterday she sent her supporters a note that included this: "Now, amidst a global pandemic, Republican senators are committing insider trading while they try to score a $500 billion slush fund for a corporate bailout that would help their donors. The world’s challenges are too important to continue with failed Republican leadership. We have to defeat the Republicans this November to fix the Affordable Care Act, guarantee universal healthcare, and protect people-- not corporations-- from the coronavirus pandemic."

But wait! Won't Trump fix everything now that we're going from "It's a hoax" to resurrection Sunday in April?

Also Yesterday, Tom Neuburger pointed out the crossroads the country has come to: a collision between two competing imperatives-- "does the nation serve the pathological wants of the few who control it or the immediate and existential needs of the many who live in it?"

The few-- the bankers and profiteers; investors and CEOs of all kinds and stripes; their well-paid enablers in the media and professional classes-- think the coronavirus emergency will pass and "business" (our modern, rapacious way of doing it) will eventually return to normal.

Thus for them, the current crisis represents once-in-a-generation opportunity for theft on the grandest of scales, the plundering of public goods and control in the time of greatest emergency. They think this theft, like the many similar others that went before it, will occur with no consequence for them and only long-term consequences for others-- thefts like the 2000 election, which cost them nothing while adding to their power and credibility, but left a great many others broken or dead; or the theft of family fortunes and futures during the 2008 global meltdown, losses that even today only they have recovered from.

...[T]he massive loss of wealth by the working class after 2008-- wealth they have still not regained-- happened slowly, and in a nation filled with "back to normal" TV propaganda (you don't see the struggling depicted on spry network dramas and comedies) their constant pain has by now been normalized and accepted as just the way things are "for some people." (Those "some people," it must be noted, put Donald Trump in the White House.)

...On whose side will government throw its weight? On the side of the pathological few or the side of the suffering many?

The answer to that question will determine the future of the nation. Will we more resemble the country of FDR and his widely loved government for the people, or that of Louis XVI and his overthrown government of the people. A crossroads indeed. Will the national needs of the many be honored and met? Or will the pathological few light a flame that burns us all?

Now listen carefully to Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), a progressive, not a conservative. Ignore the imbecile talking head asking him questions, but listen to what he is prioritizing.





Crackpot Republicans in Ohio and Texas are breaking the law by using the pandemic as cover to prohibit all abortions. That's what conservatives have always done and will always do-- look for ways to push their toxic, anti-family agenda whenever they can take advantage of an opportunity, no matter how dire.

Today, Bernie, reacting to the decision by the Trump Regime's FDA to grant Gilead Sciences a seven-year monopoly for antiviral medication remdesivir for potential treatment of the coronavirus, said "It is truly outrageous that after taxpayers put tens of millions of dollars into developing remdesivir, Trump’s FDA is exploiting a law reserved for rare diseases to privatize a drug to treat a pandemic virus. The Trump Administration must rescind this corporate giveaway to Gilead and make any treatment and vaccine free for everybody. Now is not the time for profiteering in the pharmaceutical industry. Now is the time to bring our scientists together to develop and produce the best treatment for the coronavirus as quickly as possible. When Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine 65 years ago, he understood the tremendous value it would have for all of humanity, and he refused to patent it. Right now, we must put human life above corporate profit. We cannot give pharmaceutical corporations a monopoly on treatments that could save millions of people during this crisis."

Joe Kennedy III's Senate Race-- A Picture Of Dynastic Entitlement

Joe Kennedy, who's nearly 40, was elected to Congress in 2012 when Barney Frank retired. His dad, Joe Kennedy II was RFK's son and a congressman from the Boston district currently represented by Ayanna Pressley. Joe III's biggest accomplishments are being RFK's grandson and JFK's gran nephew. His great-grandmother, Rose Kennedy, was the daughter of John Fitzgerald, who was both a mayor of Boston and another U.S. congressman. Since arriving in Congress in 2013, he's earned a "B" from ProgressivePunch, making him the 5th best of the Massachusetts members-- behind Ayanna Pressley, Katherine Clark, Jim McGovern and Lori Trahan, all of whom have earned "A"s. It's worth noting that Ed Markey, who he has decided to run against has an A, not just an A, but the highest A in the Senate, stronger than Elizabeth Warren and Bernie.

Yesterday, Kennedy made the announcement that everyone knew was coming. He's running against Markey. There's no case he can make against Markey. He's running because he's a entitled rich political celebrity with a glittery name. He's accomplished virtually nothing in Congress. Last cycle, as a regional vice chair for the DCCC is did an OK job, not a terrible as invisible do-nothings Betty McCollum and Don McEachin but nothing like what super-star Ted Lieu was able-- by dint of hard work-- was able to do. Joe III never did any substantial work. Hereditary rich people rarely do. His announcement speech yesterday was fine.

“Donald Trump has forced a long overdue reckoning in America, and how we respond will say everything about who we are,” Kennedy said. “We have to take on the broken system that gave rise to him in the first place-- the outdated structures and old rules, the everyday oppressions and injustices that hold our people back.”

...Asked how he differs from Markey, Kennedy ticked off a series of issues he supports including getting political action committee money out of politics, creating term limits for Supreme Court justices and abolishing the Electoral College. But he declined to criticize Markey directly.

“Senator Markey is a good man,” he said. “This is going to be a tough race.”

Markey also supports abolishing the Electoral College and creating term limits for Supreme Court justices.

On Saturday, the senator challenged those running against him, including Kennedy, to a climate change debate in November. Markey sees the fight against climate change and his push for the Green New Deal as signature issues in his re-election campaign.

“I was very disappointed at the Democratic National Committee’s refusal to hold a debate on climate change for our presidential candidates,” Markey said in a video released Saturday morning. “So today I’m challenging Congressman Joe Kennedy, Shannon Liss-Riordan and Steve Pemberton to a climate change debate, and to do it very soon.”

Liss-Riordan, a workers’ rights lawyer, and Pemberton, a former senior executive at Walgreens, are also challenging Markey.

Some Democratic activists have said they’re worried that a Senate primary between two high-profile Democrats could drain money and resources away from the party’s top priority: defeating President Donald Trump.

Kennedy brushed aside those concerns.

“Engaging more people in that process, bringing more voices to the table, fighting back against that-- how is that a bad thing?” Kennedy said. “People that are trying to say that this is going to divert resources-- I just don’t think that’s the case.”

First elected to Congress in 2012, Kennedy has tried to position himself as more of a pragmatist than those on the left of his party.

Nevertheless, Kennedy has adopted many of the causes driving the party’s liberal wing. He has called for Congress to initiate impeachment efforts against Trump and has backed a “Medicare for All” bill in the House. He has also said he supports the Green New Deal initiative to combat climate change, something Markey is championing along with Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York-- who has endorsed Markey.

Given his political pedigree , Kennedy has been seen as a rising star in the party. In 2018, he was tapped to deliver the Democratic response to Trump’s State of the Union address.

A Kennedy-Markey contest will put more than a few high-profile Democrats in an awkward position, most notably Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the White House hopeful from Massachusetts.

Warren has worked with Markey in the Senate and taught Kennedy at Harvard Law School. She formally endorsed Markey before Kennedy floated the idea of a challenge to Markey.

Markey, who joined thousands of young climate change activists who rallied in Boston on Friday as part of a global, youth-led day of environmental action, has the backing of many environmental activists.

One of those groups-- Environment Massachusetts-- has vowed to raise $5 million to help Markey win re-election.

“We are lucky to have one of the nation’s strongest climate champions, Ed Markey, representing Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate,” Ben Hellerstein, state director for Environment Massachusetts, said in a prepared statement, explaining that voters need to understand Markey’s record on renewable energy, clean water, clean air and the protection of public lands.

Politicians Bickering While The Last Chance To Save Mankind Slips Away?

This morning, AOC and Ed Markey unveiled a first-look Green New Deal resolution. Shortest possible version:

• 100% clean and renewable energy by 2030
• a guaranteed living-wage job for anybody who needs one
• a just transition for both workers and frontline communities

AOC was interviewed by Steve Inskeep for NPR early this morning. Morning Edition published excerpts:

"Even the solutions that we have considered big and bold are nowhere near the scale of the actual problem that climate change presents to us to our country, to the world. And so while carbon taxes are nice while things like cap and trade are nice, it's not what's going to save the planet. It could be part of a larger solution but no one has actually scoped out what that larger solution would entail. And so that's really what we're trying to accomplish."

"We're talking about mobilizing an economy which means creating jobs...we're gonna have a lot of wind energy. We're going to have a lot of solar panels. And I think the goal is to really mobilize as much around renewables as possible."

"This is really about providing justice for communities and just transitions for communities. So really the heart of the Green New Deal is about social justice and it's about allowing and fighting for things like fully-funded pensions for coal miners in West Virginia, fighting for clean water in Flint, and fighting for the ability of indigenous peoples to take a leadership role in in where we're moving as a country."

The resolution itself is leaving many details to be worked out in the sausage-making machine, which worries a vegan like myself. (I used to be a vegan; I eat fish now.) Judging by their statement this morning, I would say Friends of the Earth has some mixed emotions as well:

The Green New Deal is a strong vision for the future, stuck in the politics of today. We enthusiastically endorse the many pieces of the resolution that call for systemic change. But by failing to expressly call for an end of the fossil fuel era, the resolution misses an opportunity to define the scope of the challenge.

We are encouraged by many pieces of the resolution, including the embrace of a federal jobs guarantee, the commitment to worker rights and collective bargaining and recognition that the Green New Deal must be developed from the ground up in collaboration with frontline communities. While incomplete, the resolution is a good first step toward a Green New Deal.

It’s up to the grassroots to keep pushing at every step of this fight for an expansive vision that ends our fossil fuel addiction and solves the climate crisis.

Same for Greenpeace, which says though it stands "behind the effort to create millions of family-sustaining union jobs that protect our nation’s clean air, water and communities while confronting systematic injustices head-on" ... "the fossil fuel industry will not transition willingly and on its own to life-sustaining, renewable practices, because it is determined to trash our planet for its profit no matter the cost. We must make every effort to phase out fossil fuels at the same time as we promote renewable energy if we’re going to make it. Just two days ago in the State of the Union address Trump bragged about an all time high in oil and gas production-- willfully ignoring the global climate crisis and the inequality it exacerbates here in America. This kind of climate denial is exactly why a Green New Deal must include a just and managed phase out of oil, gas and coal, starting in the most overburdened communities. Now is the best time to be bold and confront the industry at the dead center of the climate crisis and most in need of a managed transition."

Oil Change USA's Communications Director, David Turnbull said his group was likewise "encouraged" but that "we already have an international climate agreement that fails to include the words 'fossil fuels'; we can’t afford a Green New Deal that does the same. The science is clear: If the oil, gas, and coal in currently operating wells and mines is dug up and burned, we will blow well past our climate goals. As recent research has shown, the U.S. is on the cusp of an unprecedented surge in oil and gas production at precisely the time we need to be marshalling all of our resources in the opposite direction. It’s critical that we stand with frontline and Indigenous communities fighting fossil fuel infrastructure, and a Green New Deal must not leave these communities behind." Diplomatically, he added that "Today’s resolutions mark the start of a new conversation on climate action in the United States that can finally begin, thanks to the bold leadership shown by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Markey, and we look forward to engaging fully to ensure a managed decline of fossil fuel production is a key part of that discussion."

Presidential contenders Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren have all immediately jumped onboard. I'm guessing Bernie wants to read it and think about it first. He's old fashioned that way, isn't he? (which is why he should be president and the others shouldn't).

NPR reported that "the framework, as described in the legislation as well as "FAQs" from Ocasio-Cortez's office, calls for a variety of other lofty goals:

▪ "upgrading all existing buildings" in the country for energy efficiency;
▪ working with farmers "to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions... as much as is technologically feasible" (while supporting family farms and promoting "universal access to healthy food");
▪ "Overhauling transportation systems" to reduce emissions — including expanding electric car manufacturing, building "charging stations everywhere," and expanding high-speed rail to "a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary";
▪ A guaranteed job "with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations and retirement security" for every American;
▪ "High-quality health care" for all Americans.

Which is to say: the Green New Deal framework combines big climate-change-related ideas with a wish list of progressive economic proposals that, taken together, would touch nearly every American and overhaul the economy.

Are those ideas doable?

Many in the climate science community, as well as Green New Deal proponents, agree that saving the world from disastrous effects of climate change requires aggressive action.

And some of the Green New Deal's goals are indeed aggressive. For example, Ocasio-Cortez told NPR that "in 10 years, we're trying to go carbon-neutral."

According to Jesse Jenkins, a postdoctoral environmental fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School, that may be an unreachable goal.

"Where we need to be targeting really is a net-zero carbon economy by about 2050, which itself is an enormous challenge and will require reductions in carbon emissions much faster than have been achieved historically," he said. "2030 might be a little bit early to be targeting."

Similarly, removing combustible engines from the roads or expanding high-speed rail to largely eliminate air travel would require nothing short of revolutionizing transportation.

Likewise, some of the more progressive economic policies-- universal health care and a job guarantee, for example-- while popular among some Democrats, would also be very difficult to implement and transition into.

On top of all that, implementing all of these policies could costs trillions upon trillions of dollars.

Altogether, the Green New Deal is a loose framework-- it does not lay out guidance on how to implement these policies.

Rather, the idea is that Ocasio-Cortez and Markey will "begin work immediately on Green New Deal bills to put the nuts and bolts on the plan described in this resolution."

...So will it pass?

That looks unlikely.

Yes, there's some energy for it on the left-- some House Democrats have already said they will support the bill. However, there are indications House leadership isn't prioritizing the idea as much as those more liberal Democrats would like-- Speaker Nancy Pelosi frustrated Green New Deal proponents by not giving them the kind of committee they wanted to put the policies together.

In addition, it's easy to see how the bill could be dangerous for moderate House Democrats, many of whom come from swing districts and may be loath to touch such a progressive proposal.

Among Republicans-- even those worried about climate change-- the package, with its liberal economic ideas, will also likely be a nonstarter.

"Someone's going to have to prove to me how that can be accomplished because it looks to me like for the foreseeable future we're gonna be using a substantial amount of fossil fuels," said Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL), co-chair of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, speaking to NPR before the Green New Deal's text was released.

For his part, Rooney is in favor of a carbon tax, a policy he helped propose with a bipartisan group of lawmakers in November. Information from Ocasio-Cortez's office says that the Green New Deal could include a carbon tax, but that it would be "a tiny part" of the total package of policies.

Meanwhile, there's little chance of a Green New Deal getting a vote in the Republican-controlled Senate.

If it's not going to pass and it's not even binding, why is it worth even talking about?

It's worth talking about because it already is a politically powerful idea among Democrats.

Already, presidential candidates are being asked whether they support the idea of a Green New Deal, meaning it's easy to see the issue becoming a litmus test for some voters in both the 2020 congressional elections and the presidential election.

To more liberal Democrats, the prospect of such an ambitious economic and environmental package at the center of the 2020 campaign may be particularly energizing.

"I think it's like a really weird instinct that the Democratic Party develops to not be exciting intentionally," said Sean McElwee, co-founder of the progressive think tank Data for Progress. "Most of politics is getting people excited enough to show up and vote for you. And I think that a Green New Deal and Medicare for All-- these are ideas that are big enough to get people excited and show up to vote for you."

For her part, Ocasio-Cortez says that a policy like the Green New Deal could get voters excited enough to pressure their Congress members to support it.

"I do think that when there's a wide spectrum of debate on an issue, that is where the public plays a role. That is where the public needs to call their member of Congress and say, 'This is something that I care about,' " she told NPR, adding, "Where I do have trust is in my colleagues' capacity to change and evolve and be adaptable and listen to their constituents."

That said, it's easy to see how a Green New Deal litmus test could backfire on that front, endangering some Democrats-- particularly in swing districts.

But, it's not just about national politics. The national-level energy for a Green New Deal could boost efforts in cities and states. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, for example, has been pushing a Green New Deal in his state.

Aside from the politics, of course, there's the fact that climate change remains an impending threat-- one for which the world has yet to come up with a fix.

"It's a big legislation because it's a huge [expletive] problem! We're all going to die," said McElwee. "Every week it seems like the the risks of climate change become more real, and the amount of devastation it is going to wreak upon humanity becomes larger, and that means we have to do bigger things."

Pelosi Does Some Things Well... But Basically She's A Useless Asshole And Servant Of Humanity's Mortal Enemies

Yes, she's better than Trump and that applauding thing she did at the SOTU was so cool, but...

She named the Democrats who will serve on the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, a pathetic array of mostly corporate whores, Joe Neguse and maybe Mike Levin being the exceptions. She dared to leave Alexandria Ocasio Cortez off the committee, a challenge that progressives should not let pass by unanswered. I hope that she did that is on her tombstone, but I hope it isn't on mankind's.

The utterly useless committee: Ben Ray Luján (Pure Garbage, No Better Than Trump-NM), Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), Julia Brownley (worthless New Dem crap-CA), Sean Casten (New Dem-IL), Jared Huffman (Moderate-CA), Mike Levin (D-CA), Donald McEachin (Sad-VA) and Joe Neguse (The World Is Counting On You-CO). And, of course, the chair, Kathy Castor (D-FL). Expect Less than ZERO and you won't be disappointed.