Election Reflections-- Blue Dogs, Schumer, Texas, Florida... You Want To Know What Went Wrong?

Anthony Brindisi (NY) and Joe Cunningham (SC) were elected to the House in the 2018 anti-red wave-- just when Blue Dog chairwoman Kyrsten Sinema graduated to the Senate. Sinema was the worst Democrat in Congress-- by far. She voted against anything and everything that smacked of progressivism. She voted with the GOP on progressive roll calls around 75% of the time. Now she's the worst Democrat in the Senate, although we'll soon see if Frackenlooper gives her a run for her money.

Back in the House, Brindisi and Cunningham spent the last two years see-sawing back and forth for the #1 and #2 worst Dems. Both are virulent Blue Dogs with ghastly voting records that could only be analyzed in one way: Republican. At the moment, Cunningham's record is slightly worse-- 76.54% against progressive initiatives, while Brindisi "only" voted against progressivism 75.31%. None the less, Pelosi and Bustos decided to waste $4 million trying to save Cunningham and $5.5 million trying to save Brindisi. Two of the GOP's best friends inside the Democratic caucus-- but especially Brindisi-- spent their time whining about how if anything progressive was brought to the floor for a vote it would doom their reelections.

Cunningham was defeated by Republican Nancy Mace (having out-spent her by $2 million) 216,042 (50.6%) to 210,627 (49.4%). It looked like Brindisi would be joining him in the losers' column-- and he still may-- but... yesterday Syracuse.com reported that Brindisi has surged back into contention, winning the absentee count 73-27% (25,998-7,787)... Brindisi has now cut Tenney’s lead to 10,294 votes, down from 28,422 votes on Election Day. There are at least 20,000 ballots remaining to be counted across the district. Brindisi will have to win at least 77% of those ballots to overtake Tenney." That's a steep hill to climb but it isn't impossible that Congress will be stuck with Brindisi and his whining for two more years.

Let's flip back to the Senate for a minute-- although the DCCC operates exactly like to DSCC-- and take a look at a post from July by Andrew Perez, with the benefit of hindsight-- Senate Democrats’ Machine Spent $15 Million To Destroy Progressive Primary Candidates. Short version: "The Democratic establishment has successfully blocked progressive Senate candidates in primaries, with the help of labor unions, Wall Street tycoons and corporate interests."

Now that the Schumer and the DSCC have managed to confound every pollster and lose the Senate again, it's worth looking at how they undermined every single progressive who tried to run-- spending $15 million in the process during the primaries. They hate progressives and fear them more than Republicans, who they have much more in common with.

While Schumer's DSCC hand-puppet, Catherine Cortez Masto (NV) promised last year that the DSCC would support progressive incumbent Ed Markey if he faced a primary challenger, they reneged entirely when he was challenged by a far less progressive Rep. Joe Kennedy III. Although a SuperPAC set up by Kennedy, the New Leadership PAC, spent $4,126,114 bolstering him, neither the DSCC nor Schumer's slimy Senate Majority PAC, spent a nickel helping Markey. Instead, they spent millions helping very right-wing Democrats like Frackenlooper to defeat progressive former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff. "In the final weeks of the race," wrote Perez, "SMP spent $1 million to boost Hickenlooper, after he spent his failed presidential campaign attacking key tenets of progressives’ legislative agenda, including Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. At the time of the cash infusion, Hickenlooper was losing ground in the polls and engulfed in scandals: He had just been fined by Colorado’s Independent Ethics Commission for violating state ethics law as governor, the local CBS station uncovered evidence of his gubernatorial office raking in cash from oil companies, and a video circulated showed Hickenlooper comparing his job as a politician to a slave on a slave ship, being whipped by a scheduler."

The Schumer-controled SMP spent $228,490,266, "pooling cash from both organized labor and business titans to promote corporate-aligned candidates over more progressive primary challengers. Working for Working Americans, a super PAC funded by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, has donated $5 million. The Laborers' International Union of North America’s super PAC has given $1.5 million. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers’s political action committee has chipped in $1.3 million. SMP has received also big donations from groups affiliated with labor unions like the Service Employees International Union ($1 million), the National Association of Letter Carriers ($750,000), and Communications Workers of America ($500,000). Overall, the top donor to SMP so far this cycle has been Democracy PAC-- a super PAC that’s bankrolled by billionaire George Soros and the Fund for Policy Reform, a nonprofit funded by Soros. Democracy PAC has contributed $8.5 million to SMP. Other donors from the financial industry include: Renaissance Technologies founder and billionaire Jim Simons and his wife Deborah ($5.5 million) and billionaire D. E. Shaw & Co. founder David Shaw ($1 million)."

Some major donors have financial stakes in current and future legislation.

For instance: SMP received a $1 million donation from billionaire Jonathan Gray, an executive at Blackstone, which owns the hospital staffing chain, TeamHealth. SMP also received $2 million from the Greater New York Hospital Association.

In late 2019, Schumer helped stall Senate legislation that would have kept patients from receiving “surprise medical bills,” the hefty charges that occur when they visit hospitals that are in their insurance network but are unknowingly treated by providers who are considered out-of-network.

SMP is affiliated with Majority Forward, a dark money group focused on attacking Republican Senate candidates. Majority Forward received $450,000 in 2018 from pharmacy giant CVS Health-- which also owns health insurer Aetna. The group also received $300,000 from the American Health Care Association (AHCA), a trade association that represents the nursing home industry.

The Democratic primary candidates backed by the DSCC have expressed reservations about Medicare for All, arguing they believe people should be allowed to keep their private health insurance if they want it. Many of the DSCC’s favored candidates do support creating a public health insurance option.

Meanwhile, the Real Estate Roundtable, a trade group for real estate investors, donated $50,000 to Majority Forward. Schumer and Senate Democrats recently helped Republicans unanimously pass pandemic relief legislation that included a special, little-noticed provision that amounted to $170 billion worth of new tax breaks for wealthy real estate investors.

In addition to the Colorado race, SMP has waded into at least three other Senate primaries this year.

In North Carolina, SMP funded Carolina Blue, a super PAC that spent $4.5 million to help veteran and former state senator Cal Cunningham win the primary in March. Cunningham handily defeated his chief opponent, state senator Erica Smith, who was running to his left...

In Iowa, SMP spent nearly $7 million to promote real estate developer Theresa Greenfield. She easily bested her two primary opponents, including progressive Kimberly Graham, who campaigned in support of Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.

SMP has already spent more than $2 million in Maine, including nearly $500,000 to promote House Speaker Sara Gideon in the Democratic primary. Some of the group’s advertising against Republican Senator Susan Collins was also designed to boost Gideon.

The final polls and final predictions showed Sara Gideon, Theresa Greenfield and Cal Cunningham beating, respectively, Collins, Ernst and Tillis. Instead the 3 Republicans are returning to the Senate. Gideon's share of the vote was a pathetic 42.7%, Greenfield's was 45.2% and Tillis' was 47.0%. The DSCC and Schumer's PAC spent ungodly amounts, as did the Democratic candidates.

In North Carolina, Cunningham raised $46,795,495 to Tillis' $21,474,728. The DSCC spent $24,542,003 and Schumer's PAC spent $35,838,924.

In Maine, Gideon raised $68,577,474 to Collins' $26,511,555. The DSCC spent $4,667,250 and Schumer's PAC spent $27,909,459.

In Iowa, Greenfield raised $47,004,937 to Ernst's $23,536,707. The DSCC spent $27,899,050 and Schumer's PAC spent $41,225,046.

Both the DSCC and the DCCC have decided to blame progressives for their cataclysmic losses, even though every single incumbent who lost was a conservative and every single progressive-- including progressives in tough districts like Matt Cartwright, Dan Kildee, Andy Levin, Peter DeFazio and Jahana Hayes-- won.

Last week Ryan Grimm asked progressive challenger Mike Siegel this question: "Do you have to run as a kind of centrist or moderate in some of these districts, or can a progressive message win in a swing district in Texas?" Mike began by comparing his race to that of another re-match Texan, Sri Kulkarni (who had an open seat this time). Kulkarni is an avowed conservative, a corporate Democrat and careerist endorsed by both the Blue Dogs and New Dems. He raised $4,863,231 compared to Troy Nehls' (R) $1,532,299 and the DCCC and Pelosi's PAC spent $7.3 million bolstering him. He lost 209,735 (51.6%) to 181,318 (44.6%). Mike Siegel is a Squad-grade progressive who raised $2,332,415 compared to Michael McCaul's $3,515,771 (as of Oct. 14). The DCCC, which preferred a conservative Democrat run, spent $270 on Mike's race and Pelosi's PAC spent zero. Yes, you read that right-- $270. McCaul was reelected 215,896 (52.5%) to 186,350 (46.3%). Had the DCCC spent part of the $7.3 million they wasted on Sri, would Mike have won? We'll never know, will we?

In answer to Grim's question, Mike pointed out that being conservative didn't help Kulkarni and even though he campaigned loudly on Medicare for All, the Green New Deal and racial justice, Mike outperformed him by every possible metric.

[W]hat I would have liked to have tested is if we had an entire progressive ticket. You know, it could be that the most consequential decisions about my campaign were made March 3, Super Tuesday, when we decided that Bernie Sanders wasn’t gonna be the presidential nominee and, in Texas, we decided that Christina Tzintzún Ramirez wasn’t going to be our Senate nominee.

So with my analysis that I’m doing now with our team and many others in Texas is what would it take to really get out more poor voters? I mean, I’m talking about poor people. Like, when you canvass in rural Texas, in a town like Eagle Lake, or Brenham, in the summer, you meet people who are in these rundown, double-wide kind of houses, basically falling apart at the seams-- people who have to survive three months of 100-degree weather with no air conditioning at all, people who have very marginal employment. What’s it going to take to get those folks to care about an election? You know, whether you’re talking about black folks and Latinx voters in a city, or poor rural voters-- black, Latino, and white-- what’s it gonna take for them to really care about an election?

And to me, Bernie Sanders would have helped us make that populous case. You know, Texas has this tradition of populism; it goes back 100 years or more. But like, if we were really talking about farm policy, if we were really talking about water policy, if we were talking about rural jobs programs, things that really affect their lives. I mean, as a congressional candidate, I was talking about these things, but it’s hard to really break through.

Same thing with Christina. You know, statewide in Texas, we’re not going to flip Texas if we don’t win the RGV, the Rio Grande Valley. And, you know, if you haven’t been to Texas, you might not realize there are communities along the border called colonias, where they don’t even have running water and municipal sewage in some of these developments. I mean, these are like, you know, sometimes undocumented residents, sometimes U.S. citizens who are living in abject poverty. What’s it gonna take to get those folks to care? And it’s not some slick TV ads, it’s not a poll-tested message. Even for me, I got some DCCC support, and some of my messaging was about prescription drug prices and protecting pre-existing conditions. But I feel like that’s too nuanced for these folks. I mean, it has to be more direct.

You know, this, this might be a little off-topic, but one of the things I’m thinking about is, think about the movements in Venezuela under Hugo Chávez or Bolivia under Evo Morales. Evo Morales is supported by the poorest indigenous farmers from the high plains of Bolivia. Those people are engaged in the electoral process. In this country, poor people are not engaged in the electoral process.

And so, for me, on a gerrymandered map, I don’t know if I could have gotten more than 210,000 votes, like McCaul got, unless we were really doing organizing with poor people. And I think that’s a longer-term investment. That’s where it’s this question, these people who gave me $2800, when I called them and spoke to them for a minute, would they give me $1,000 if I was gonna say: We’re going to invest in a five-year project to do deep organizing these communities? Is the donor class willing to invest in changing the fundamental conditions in areas like mine that would really enable progressive change in the long term?

...[O]ne of the things I’ve been preaching on the campaign trail, you know, and I got to do some events with Bernie and he absolutely loved it-- you know, this is our New Deal moment, American history: crumbling U.S. infrastructure, massive wealth inequality, unemployment-- major crises we need to confront. In the 30s it was fascism rising in Western Europe; now, it’s climate change.

And how did we enact a New Deal in this country? You know, a 15-year program, the Works Progress Administration, massively investing in infrastructure, putting people to work in all sorts of jobs. It was FDR, when he ran for president the first time, talking about the New Deal every chance he gets: We’re gonna give you a New Deal. Whatever the question was-- economic policy, jobs, health care, you name it, we’re gonna give you a New Deal.

Imagine we had a candidate for president who for 10-12 months is talking nonstop about fundamental economic change. That’s what it takes. And that’s where the Democratic establishment, which to some extent supported me, although not as strongly as they could have, they’re not talking about that, because we’re too invested in conservative donors who don’t want us to say that.

And so we’re caught in between. You know, half the Democratic Party is still taking the corporate PAC money, moderating the message, saying: OK, we’re only going to talk about this extremely narrow issue, you know, protecting pre-existing conditions or negotiating prescription drug prices downwards, whereas like people don’t have AC and it’s 100 degrees every day, they don’t have gas in the car, they’re making $10 an hour and getting 20 hours a week. I mean, they are struggling to survive. They’re completely cynical about democracy as something that’s even real in the world. And we’re not speaking clearly to them about why it matters to vote.

Today, the Washington Post reported that "The parts of America that have seen strong job, population and economic growth in the past four years voted for Joe Biden, economic researchers found. In contrast, President Trump garnered his highest vote shares in counties that had some of the most sluggish job, population and economic growth during his term. Trump fared well among voters who said the economy was their top concern, and he even won votes in places that didn’t fare particularly well under his presidency. This is perhaps a continuation of the 2016 election, when Trump won a huge share of places that had struggled under President Barack Obama. Democrats tended to view the 2020 election more as a referendum on Trump, especially his response to the pandemic." It's worth hitting that Intercept link above and reading Ryan's whole interview with Siegel. But now I want to leave you with a quirky but apocryphal story by Richard Cooke in yesterday's Daily Beast: I Covered Congressional Races in Florida in 2018, and Boy Do I Know Why Trump Won the State in 2020. "One party’s aides were courteous and organized," he wrote. "The other’s could barely tell me when the candidate was speaking next. Wanna take a guess?" He covered FL-26 and FL-27 in 2018, when Debbie Mucarsel-Powell and Donna Shalala both flipped those very blue (but Republican-held) districts blue. This year, both flipped back to red.

Situated in and near Miami, these districts make up some of the most volatile and interesting political territory in the United States. FL-27 had voted heavily for Hillary Clinton in 2016, but the House seat had been held by a socially liberal Republican, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for 30 years. Ros-Lehtinen was retiring, and on paper the district seemed a natural Dem pick-up. The districts also overlapped with Miami-Dade, the most populous county in Florida, whose turnout would be critical in deciding a narrow gubernatorial race.

Instead of requesting interviews, I decided to see the candidates like an undecided voter would, joining the audience for stump speeches and campaign events. This seemed standard, almost old-fashioned reporting. It never occurred to me that it would be hard, let alone so hard that I’d need to extend my stay in Miami. By leaving time, I felt not like an undecided voter, but like a private detective. Finding a schedule of Republican campaign events took 15 minutes. With Democrats, this process took five days.

...Perhaps this information was at one of the other offices. Volunteers tried to be helpful. One suggested a website might have the information, and when pressed, offered unsarcastically that I “try Google.” Another showed me an event dated two weeks prior. Finally, with fanfare, someone produced a number for another campaign office. They could put me in touch with the right person. I stepped outside and dialed. I had called the switchboard for the City of Miami Gardens, Florida.

Irritation was turning into intrigue, and while the next few days were mileage and frustration-heavy, they were in some ways a reporter’s dream. The factional fighting between Miami-Dade Democrats, Florida Democrats, Senate campaign offices and the national party was flagrant. One of the few times I saw the operation energized was when I mentioned the Miami-Dade Democrats to a staffer for and she rolled her eyes. I heard more than one volunteer try to remember the names on the ballot and fail. I was left unsupervised in campaign offices, in prime eavesdropping real estate, though this was just a bonus: campaigners were ready to vent their frustrations, and I opened my confessional.

By comparison, the Republicans I encountered were courteous, organized, and dedicated. I heard a speech by the GOP challenger for FL-27, Maria Salazar, and afterwards her apparatchiks handed me business cards. At voting locations drowned in GOP paraphernalia, campaign staff showed me detailed spreadsheets, tallying how early turn-out numbers tracked with their booth-by-booth strategy. They asked if I needed anything. The competition dynamic was starting to remind me of 1980s comedy movie: a ruthless, well-heeled team up against a band of plucky misfits.

My grail quest became no easier. At one field location, I arrived just before the advertised opening time and waited by myself for hours before leaving empty-handed. Finding the number for one press secretary took phone calls to 22 different people, most of whom didn’t know who he was. Several times I was told that a particular volunteer was important and “knew everything.” Tracked down at a polling booth, he turned out to be a young backpacker, freshly arrived from Spain, who knew as little as anyone else. Later, I realized the source of this special status: he was one of the few people on the ground who could speak Spanish. Donna Shalala herself (i.e. the candidate) could not.

Following a hot tip about a possible press contact, I turned up at another campaign office with a different strategy: I would refuse to leave. After the traditional greeting-- bewilderment, being offered a chair within earshot of indiscrete conversations-- there was a short conclave. I could speak with Ben. Ben and I sat facing each other, in the middle of an open-plan office. By this time I had become a kind of connoisseur of incompetence, and I sensed that Ben was good at something, but he had not dealt with a reporter before. “Can I ask what your role with the campaign is?” Ben was a policy adviser. He had no idea if his candidate had any events that day, and no idea why he was speaking with me.

When the comms person did come in (this was treated as a special occasion), our conversation had an informality that was almost charming. I explained my difficulty with the Democratic campaigns, and the contrast with Republicans. “They’re a lot more organized than us!” she said, and I had to laugh. They sure were! Here at last was some kind of schedule, but as we stepped through it, something was missing. Through exhaustive internet searches, I had found a digital ticketing website offering a Q&A event featuring Donna Shalala. Why wasn’t it on the schedule? “Ohhh, that’s cancelled.” Perhaps, she said, they could line up an interview instead? I explained that I had been trying to see the election from the perspective of a voter, not a reporter, and how information was freely available from Republicans and almost non-existent from Democrats. Catching my drift, she started to flush.

The call came through later, when I was in a Haitian-owned coin laundry. A DNC flack in Washington, D.C. had heard I was making trouble, planning some kind of “Dems in disarray” story, and as I scribbled notes on top of an industrial dryer, I picked up the story that had been relayed to him, as much from his tone as his words. A foreign correspondent had arrived in Miami expecting VIP treatment, then got miffed when the red carpet wasn’t rolled out. Smearing the ground game would be revenge for a bruised ego. “Money at a national level has gone into these seats,” he assured me.

Walking him through what I’d seen-- and hadn’t seen-- only made him angry. “We’re going to win both of those seats,” he said, berating my ignorance. It was a strange reaction. By then I probably had as clear a snapshot of the election in Miami as anyone. Wasn’t that information useful? Potentially important, even? Instead, someone hundreds of miles away was blithely junking this eye-witness evidence in favor of obnoxious confidence. “You’ll see,” he insisted, “when we win FL-26 and FL-27 on election night, I’ll message you.” And they did, and he did.

In my reply, I pointed out that Andrew Gillum, the Democratic favorite to become Florida’s governor, had lost by a narrow margin, and that poor turnout in Miami-Dade was the culprit. And perhaps you can imagine my lack of surprise two years later, when FL-26 and FL-27 both fell to GOP challengers, one of them Maria Salazar. On the presidential ballot, Clinton’s 30-point lead in Miami-Dade shrunk to a 7-point margin for Biden.

In a piece titled What the Hell Happened to Democrats in Miami-Dade?, Rolling Stone observed ruefully that “Miami-Dade is considered safe—until election night, when suddenly it’s not,” and quoted Maria Elena Lopez, first vice-chair of the Miami-Dade Democrats.

Lopez lamented how the Democratic National Convention did not talk to, fund, or advise the local parties. “We don’t get any feedback from the DNC,” she said. “They don’t come to us and say, ‘Hey, what is the messaging that would work in your community? Where are we weak?’ [The party] doesn’t do that, at all. We are on our own.”

“Unfortunately, this is not the first time that we’ve seen this,” she said. It was not the first time I had seen it either.

Debbie Mucarsel-Powll raised $6,178,239 compared to Carlos Gimenez's $1,946,504. The DCCC and Pelosi's PAC spent about $6 million trying to save her. She lost the blue D+6 seat 177,223 (51.7%) to 165,407. Donna Shalala (the one who speaks no Spanish in a 71.7% Latino district) raised around the same $3,000,000 that her opponent, Maria Salazar (from 2018) spent. Shalala was so out of touch with her own constituents that she didn't even request help from the DCCC. In fact, she gave them money! She lost 176,114 (51.3%) to 166,705 (48.6%).

Trump Is Too Low A Bar To Measure Anything... Ever. Biden Needs To Measure Himself Against FDR

 

Except for the friends who didn't vote, I'm the only one of my friends who didn't vote for Biden. I didn't argue with them or criticize them or even feel any negativity towards them. The Orange Fascist Menace had to be defeated and they did what I just could not bring myself to do. Now however, and I bet you're noticing it too, sane progressives are trying to turn a holding-your-nose vote into a mental exercise that turns Biden into our hero. Please get over that fast if it's infecting you. He isn't. He's another president, likely to do more bad than good-- sure better than Trump, but as I always tell Nicole Sandler and David Feldman on their radio shows: a pile of runny diarrhea is better than Trump. The bar is too low to be meaningful.

Take the old video above, for example. I had hoped I'd never have to use it again... but knew I would be forced sooner or later. It's sooner and here he goes, following the instincts he's honed for more decades than many of us have been on earth.

"Lobbyists," he began, "aren't bad people." He's wrong; they are. And that includes the members of his own family and inner circle who have used their connections to make fortunes as lobbyists. He should stay the hell away from lobbyists. But, who could imagine Joe Biden staying away from lobbyists. He'd rather throw away good will with the American people-- who hate lobbyists more than they hate politicians-- than keep lobbyists at arm's length.

Today, Wall Street Journal reporters Chad Day and Andrew Restuccia wrote that Biden had already granted waivers to lobbyists so they can serve on his transition team, jeopardizing the natural goodwill millions of Americans feel towards a new president. What an idiot! And what an idiot Ron Klain must be to have allowed Biden to step into that pile of Trump. Day and Restuccia wrote that at least 40 people serving on Biden’s transition team are or were once registered lobbyists. The promise was that his administration would limit the corrupt influence of lobbyists, but-- exactly like the system Trump set up to replace the swamp with a cesspool, Biden's ethics rules "don’t impose a blanket ban on lobbyists, but they require individuals who are registered lobbyists, or have registered as lobbyists within the past year, to get approval from the transition’s general counsel to serve on the team."

Biden announced over 500 members of his transition team, which is tasked with implementing his "policy agenda, working with career government staffers to get up to speed on key issues and eventually embedding in agencies ahead of the inauguration. Five people on the teams-- Andrea Delgado, who is currently registered as a lobbyist for the United Farm Workers Foundation; Celeste Drake, who is currently registered as a lobbyist for the Directors Guild of America; Josh Nassar, who is currently registered as a lobbyist for the United Auto Workers; LaQuita Honeysucker, who was registered as a lobbyist for the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union until earlier this year; and Scott Frey, who was registered as a lobbyist for the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees until earlier this year-- are currently registered as lobbyists or were registered within the last year... All five received waivers to serve on the agency review teams."

A statement from the transition team could have easily have come from the Trump Regime:

"Agency review team members are well-respected in their fields and for their extensive experience in the federal agencies they review. We have granted a limited number of authorizations...

The same official admitted that other transition officials have also received waivers, but refused to tell Day and Restuccia their names of even how many of them there are. The Journal also "identified 35 people who had registered as lobbyists prior to this year and who do not need special approval to work on the transition. Those individuals lobbied for a range of companies, unions and advocacy groups-- from BP America, Inc. and a company that owns private prisons to the Environmental Defense Fund and the American Federation of Teachers. Some haven’t lobbied for more than a decade, while others lobbied in recent years." I wonder what the fella from BP is working on.

Political candidates of both parties have grappled with what role former lobbyists should play in their campaigns and administrations. President Trump came under criticism in 2016 for tapping lobbyists to work on his transition team, and he later installed them in senior positions at many federal agencies. During his 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump had pledged to “drain the swamp” in Washington.

A analysis by ProPublica and the Columbia Journalism School [almost a year old] in 2019 found more than 280 lobbyists had served in positions in the Trump administration.

My old friend, Jonathan Tasini, a labor-oriented podcaster and author, is starting a newsletter, Working Life, which you can find here. This afternoon he launched it with an assertion that Biden would have won Florida if he had run as a populist. He contends that Floridians are looking for candidates who want to put more money in peoples’ pockets, makes it possible for people to make a decent living and narrow the inequality gap. "What they want to see is simple: is what you are proposing going to help me pay the bills?"

What really grabbed my attention in the Florida results was a relatively unremarked upon, at least nationally, Florida victory-- the passage of Amendment 2, which will raise the state minimum wage to $15-an-hour by 2026. (Side point for now: keep in mind that $15-an-hour, though a huge leap above the putrid federal minimum wage of $7.25-an-hour, is still below what the minimum wage, federal or state, should be... at least $20-$22-an hour).

The vote on the initiative was overwhelming: 6,377,444 in favor (60.8 percent) and 4,111,094 opposed (39.2 percent) [votes are as of November 11th 2020]. That is a winning margin of over 2.2 million votes.

The presidential election results: Trump 5,658,847 (51.2 percent) versus Biden 5,284,453 (47.9 percent). That is a winning margin of just 374,000 plus votes out of more than 10.9 million votes.

I decided to look county-by-county at the Florida Trump vs. Biden race compared to the Yes-No vote on Amendment 2. In virtually every county, Amendment 2 outperformed Biden’s numbers-- in some cases, by a lot (20-70 percent)-- and that was true in counties that voted for Trump and even in counties where Amendment 2 lost but still tallied more votes than Biden.

Consider these examples, looking at the total votes cast and the percent differences, and the “under-performance” of Biden versus Amendment 2:

Miami Dade County

• Biden: 617,201 (53.4 percent)
• Trump: 532,409 (46.1 percent)

Amendment 2—

• Yes: 751,866 (70.55 percent)
• No: 313,922 (29.45 percent)

[Biden “under-performance”: 134,665]

Palm Beach County

• Biden: 429,856 (56 %)
• Trump: 332, 760 (43.4 %)

Amendment 2—

• Yes: 503,661 (68.61%)
• No: 230,457 (31.39%)

[Biden “under-performance”: 73,805]

Broward County

• Biden: 617,689 (64.6 %)
• Trump: 332, 960 (34.8 %)

Amendment 2—

• Yes: 666,522 (75.24%)
• No: 219,328 (24.76%)

[Biden “under-performance”: 48,833]

Duval County

• Biden: 251,952 (51.2 %)
• Trump: 233,316 (47.5 %)

Amendment 2—

• Yes: 278,164 (58.1 %)
• No: 200,624 (41.9 %)

[Biden “under-performance”: 26,212]

Hillsborough County (Tampa—the fourth most populous county in FL)

• Biden: 375, 714 (52.8 %)
• Trump: 326,158 (46 %)

Amendment 2—

• Yes: 402,095 (60.3 %)
• No: 267,685 (39.97 %)

[Biden “under-performance”: 26,381]

Pinellas County (Tampa Bay-St. Pete area)

• Biden: 277,191 (49.6 %)
• Trump: 275,949 (49.4 %)

Amendment 2—

• Yes: 312,569 (59.65 %)
• No: 211,452 (40.35 %)

[Biden “under-performance”: 35,378]

... [T]he above differences in the numbers are pretty stark—and raises a legitimate argument that Biden should have put a wildly popular Amendment 2 at the forefront of his campaign in Florida, ESPECIALLY in communities where he had perceived weaknesses or a lack of excitement for his candidacy. And even if Biden still fell short in the state, a full-throated embrace of a stark, pocket-book appeal would likely help win other down-ballot races and, long-term, help the party build.

Second point: I don’t share the progressive knee-jerk argument that polling shows the majority of the American people support progressives ideas like “Medicare For All” and, so, you just have to roll these ideas out and, presto, the people will vote in favor.

That’s rubbish-- because (a) polling questions are very dodgy in how they can be framed [as an aside: it’s amusing to hear my fellow progressives denounce polls…and at the same time use polls to back up a central argument…makes for great fundraising emails, though!] and (b) polling never can factor in a brutal, well-funded, pro-corporate anti-campaign once an idea hits the streets.

And that’s the point going forward: Progressive ideas are big winners BUT you need good organizing to win.

What Does The GOP Have To Do To Ever Let The Democrats Win In Florida Again?

 

If ever there should be a state party that is dead in the water, it should be the Florida Republican Party which has just presided over a horrific and on-going pandemic catastrophe from a pro-COVID Republican governor and a pro-COVID Republican state legislature. DeSantis and his pet legislature invited COVID to settle in in Florida. And it has. Yesterday the state reported 5,838 more cases of COVID, bringing the state total to 858,012. Tomorrow, Florida will surpass on ominous mark: 40,000 cases per million inhabitants. Over 17,300 Floridians have died, needlessly. And yet, Republicans did quite well in Florida, winning the state's 29 electoral votes for Trump and holding onto all their state legislative seats. Now they have to get ready to defend DeSantis and Marco Rubio in 2022.

Conventional wisdom is that Rubio will have a big, fat target on his back in 2022 when he runs for reelection. But to think about that more seriously take into account that

• Florida Democrats have a defective party that can't win races
• Florida Democrats have lost ground to Republicans among Hispanic voters
• The Democratic bench is so weak and enfeebled that they don't have even one viable candidate waiting in the wings.

Obama won Florida both times he ran. But in 2016, Trump beat the Democratic Party establishment candidate there, 4,617,886 (48.60%) to 4,504,975 (47.41%). Although votes are still being counted, with 99% reported, Trump beat Biden 5,667,474 (51.2%) to 5,294, 767 (47.8%). Both party bases were highly motivated and turned out in force, exceeding their 2016 turn-outs significantly. Trump had 1,049,588 more voters this year than in 2016 and Biden had 789,792 more voters than Hillary did.

Rubio is already working on positioning himself. Alayna Treene, writing for Axios yesterday, reported that Rubio, who is also looking towards a 2024 presidential run, told her that Republicans need to rebrand their party as the champions of working-class voters and steer away from its traditional embrace of big business. He's attempting to navigate how the to acknowledge Trump's successes while not allowing himself to be painted as a Trumpist. "The future of the party," he told her, "is based on a multiethnic, multiracial working class coalition."

Rubio said Republicans have long believed in and supported the free market, "but the free market exists to serve our people. Our people don't exist to serve the free market."

He added that working class Americans are now largely against big businesses “that only care about how their shares are performing, even if it's based on moving production overseas for cheaper labor. "They're very suspicious, quite frankly, dismissive of elites at every level. And obviously that's a powerful sentiment."

..."We still have a very strong base in the party of donors and think tanks and intelligentsia from the right who are market fundamentalists, who accuse anyone who's not a market fundamentalist of being a socialist to some degree," Rubio said.

"If the takeaway from all of them is now is the time to go back to sort of the traditional party of of unfettered free trade, I think we're gonna lose the [Trump] base as quickly as we got it... We can't just go back to being that," he added.

She also reported that when Andrew Yang was interviewed on CNN last week, he had a similar perspective, noting that when he introduced himself as a Democrat to working class voters, they would flinch. "There is something deeply wrong when working class Americans have that response to a major party that theoretically is supposed to be fighting for them. In their minds, the Democratic Party unfortunately has taken on this role of the coastal urban elites who are more concerned about policing various cultural issues than improving their way of life... This to me is a fundamental problem for the party."

Damn kids! They want a party that stands for something!

How Incompetent Do You Have To Be To Keep Losing To Florida Republicans? Let's Take A Look

 

How does the FDP keep losing to this batch of dogshit?

On Friday, Florida reported 5,245 new cases of COVID-19, bringing the already horrific state total to 832,625-- 38,767 cases per million Floridians. 52 more Floridians died from the infection on Friday-- so all told 17,016 Floridians who have been killed on the alter of Republican ideology. So far. It's probably going to get much, much worse.

You may have noticed-- Florida is a mess. And it's not just that Trump won and that 2 Democratic congresswomen in solidly blue districts in Miami-Dade-- one D+5 and one D+6-- were defeated by Republicans. The Florida Democratic Party, which some time this cycle sank below the Ohio Democratic Party to become the worst state party anywhere in America, failed up and down the ballot. Some attribute it to incompetence; some attribute it to venality and self-serving. I can't see how anyone could make the case it is anything other than the toxic combination which has laid the party so low.

Aside from losing to Trump, they managed to lose every single attempt to flip a seat in Congress, in the state House and in the state Senate. Although, to be honest, "attempt" applies they actually tried to accomplish something. Did they, though?

Trump won the state 5,646,949 (51.2%) to 5,269,926 (47.8%). As of August 31, Florida's party registration looked like this:

• Democrats: 5,203,795
• Republicans: 5,020,199
• independents: 3,653,046

Two problems come to mind. Did the FDP turn out their voters? Did the FDP fail to persuade voters with no party affiliation that Biden was the better-- or at least the less badd-- candidate? In 2016 Hillary also took 47.8% of the vote-- so the exact percentage Biden took-- while Trump increased his percentage from 49.1% to 51.2%.

Of Florida's 67 counties, Biden won 12, an increase of 3 over the 9 Hillary won. These were the 12 Biden counties with their 2020 numbers followed by their 2016 numbers:

• Alachua- Biden: 89,527 (62.7%); Hillary: 75,370 (59.0%)
• Broward- Biden: 617,689 (64.8%); Hillary: 546,956 (66.5%)
• Miami-Dade- Biden: 617,289 (53.4%); Hillary: 623,006 (63.7%)
• Duval- Biden: 251,952 (51.2%); Hillary: 210,061 (49.0%)
• Gadsden- Biden: 16,139 (67.9%); Hillary: 14,994 (67.9%)
• Hillsborough- Biden: 374,714 (52.7%); Hillary: 306,422 (51.5%)
• Leon- Biden: 103,364 (63.5%); Hillary: 91,936 (60.5%)
• Orange- Biden: 394,602 (61.0%); Hillary: 329,579 (60.4%)
• Osceola- Biden: 97,157 (56.4%); Hillary: 85,287 (60.9%)
• Palm Beach- Biden: 432,117 (56.1%); Hillary: 371,411 (56.5%)
• Pinellas- Biden: 277,191 (49.4%); Hillary: 233,327 (47.5%)
• Seminole- Biden: 132,213 (50.8%); Hillary: 105,611 (47.1%)

South Florida-- the heart of the FDP-- was the problem. The big 3-- Palm Beach Broward and Miami-Dade-- all under-performed, and in Miami-Dade's case, drastically so. While Democrat performance increased in most of the counties, it really fell apart in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach. Trump increased his Palm Beach vote from 270,762 (41.2%) in 2016 to 333,927 (43.3%) and in Miami-Dade from 333,666 (34.1%) in 2016 to 532,460 (46.1%). Why? Why so different, for example, in Alachua County where Democratic performance increased so smartly?

The FDP seems to have missed the class in Politics 101 where they teach you that if you don't play, you don't win. They backed avery narrow subset of mostly mediocre candidates and left most of the state to the Republicans, uncontested. When Janelle Christensen of the Florida Environmental Caucus and Fergie Reid of 90For90 stepped in to recruit candidates for every legislative district the FDP flipped out (in a bad way, in some cases extremely negatively and in others just deciding to ignore the candidates altogether).

Janelle Christensen of the state Environmental Caucus, who is being boosted for the state party job now, reiterated that "Running candidates EVERYWHERE, even in red districts, did not have the overwhelming results that I would have liked. However, we did see marked improvement in Democratic turnout in historically red districts. Collier county, for example, had over 90% of the registered Democrats show up to vote. Lee county and Sumnter also were very impressive. If historically blue counties had shown up in the way they did for Clinton, we would have seen the impact. It seems that we had the Trump Administration scared that he would lose his 'home state'... and we forced them to spend a lot of time and money here in Florida. If that means he lost margins elsewhere, even in other states like Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, then it was worth the effort. Please note, many of our candidates had a budget of about $10,000... and their Republican opponents spent one million in several of the state House races. That says they were scared."

In Alachua County, congressional candidate Adam Christensen was basically ignored by the FDP and the DCCC. His exciting, super-active grassroots campaign generated so much heat that Alachua and his whole district came into play. He didn't win but he did better than any Democrat ever had previously in the district and forced Trump to campaign there three times, three times that he could have been campaigning in Arizona, Georgia or Pennsylvania.

What Christensen accomplished was spectacular for this election cycle. "We ran as close to a perfect race as we could have in a +9 R district in Florida," he told me this morning. "We turned out over 80% of Democrats in Alachua, Clay, and Marion County (The 3 most populous counties in our district). We outperformed the average Democratic candidate in Florida by nearly 7% in one of the most heavily Republican counties in the state (Clay County). We also flipped nearly 8% of Republicans in Clay. On top of that we raised $225,000 completely grassroots. Our average donation was less than $23. We made over 120,000 calls, knocked on 10,000 doors in Clay County and successfully proved a new model for running in rural/Republican areas in Florida."

But that isn't all Christensen and his team accomplished. He also tested the standard Democrat data (NGP Van) and found that nearly 80% of it was wrong in Republican areas. "We bought Republican data for Clay to test it out and found that it was almost 3x more effective. It appears that the reason Democrats got absolutely crushed in Florida is because Republicans could spend $1 to $3 Democrats spent and get the same effect. The Florida Democratic Party also breached their contract with us a week before the election by refusing to release Republican data to us for us to send final persuasion messages. No amount of money or organizing can overcome that. By laying this groundwork we set the stage for 2022 when redistricting happens and a new congressional seat is drawn through Gainesville towards Tampa. We also did all of this without the help of the party or DCCC."

 

In their Wednesday election analysis of Florida, the NY Times, noted that most of the counties in Florida swung further right, "allowing him to win the state with a margin that is nearly three times what he had four years ago." They also identified Miami-Dade as the big problem, Biden underperforming in many precincts with a majority Hispanic population, particularly those in the Cuban-American communities of Miami-Dade County, which supported overwhelmingly. "The surge among Cuban-American voters boosted Mr. Trump’s vote totals in the county, where he picked up nearly 200,000 more votes than four years ago."

One of those districts was the one where Bob Lynch was running in, trying to oust GOP power-monger Dan Perez, a politician the FDP isn't interested in ousting.

The FDP should have been focused like a laser on flipping the state Senate-- thereby stopping the GOP from gerrymandering Florida for the next decade. They only needed to slip 3 seats. Instead, they targeted two, giving up in advance. The obvious district they should have contested was SD-20 (Hillsborough, Pasco and Polk counties) where Kathy Lewis had run well before and where the FDP had tried to recruit Alex Sink, who declined. When she declined, racists inside the FDP, decided an African-American candidate like Lewis couldn't win the district and they abandoned it. The biggest part of the district is in Hillsborough County and Lewis won there 63,094 to 58,024. She needed FDP help in red-leaning Pasco and Polk counties. They refused.

The FDP spent over a million dollars on Patricia Sigman's campaign in Seminole and Volusia counties and on the campaign of lobbyist Javier Fernandez in Miami-Dade and Monroe counties. They spent zero on Kathy Lewis' race. The results:

• Patricia Sigman- 47.6%
• Kathy Lewis- 45.16%
• Javier Fernandez- 42.79%

I'd also like to mention another state Senate candidate Blue America backed besides Lewis-- progressive Katherine Norman, who ran against the chairman of the Florida RepublicanParty, Joe Gruters, who the FDP didn't want to anger. They refused to help Norman in any way and she wound up getting far more votes-- 131,313-- than Fernandez's 95,088 and nearly as many as Sigman's 133,630. What is wrong with these people?

Many things-- and we'll save that for another day (literally)-- and just say that they need to be removed and replaced, for the sake of Florida and the sake of the whole country. This state is too important to leave to a gaggle of small-minded, corrupt incompetents.

Fergie Reid noted that "Trump visited Florida several times late in the 2020 campaign cycle, holding rallies in, The Villages, Pensacola, Fort Myers, Sanford, Jacksonville, Tampa, Ocala and Miami-Dade. A 'strong' GOP incumbent probably wouldn’t spend so much time in a state like Florida unless his campaign and his state managers considered it imperative. Trump was not in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, or Nevada during these visits to Florida. The rallies helped motivate an overwhelming voter turnout of his GOP supporters, leading to a great election night of victories for Florida Republicans."

He said that "Republicans are now in complete control of Florida’s horrendous COVID outbreak and response strategies, (such as they are). They’re celebrating their awesome governing situation. The GOP is dominant in Florida, and they’re providing their 29 electoral college votes to Donald J. Trump, who will soon be moving his family’s traveling grift show to Palm Beach Co.’s Mar-a-Lago, where he will no doubt take over control of the Florida Republican/Trump Party. 'Winning !!!...?????' Ask Joe Gruters, Chris Sprowls, Ron DeSantis and Wilton Simpson how that’s working out for them several months from now.

Meanwhile, Reid explained, "Grassroots rank and file Democrats in Florida owe a great debt of gratitude to the 83 Democratic candidates who challenged Republican-held seats this year. None of these challengers won their contests; many received zero help from the state party apparatus; however, their 'party building' candidacies, in some of the most Republican districts on the map, will pay dividends for years to come if the new Florida Democratic Party leadership takes proper advantage. Many thanks to these heroic, awesome Democrats."

State Legislative Races-- Big Disappointment As GOP Gets Ready To Gerrymander Like Mad

 

The National Conference of State Legislatures released this before-and-after graphic showing legislative control yesterday (bottom) and what it will look like starting in January (top). The only changes appear to possibly be in Arizona and New Hampshire, two non-gerrymander states.

NCSL executive director Tim Storey reported that "Democrats look like they will win the Arizona House for the first time since 1966. Republicans are poised to win back the New Hampshire Senate that went Democratic just two years ago." There are still enough votes being counted now to possibly change control in one or two chambers (including the Arizona state Senate and the New Hampshire House)-- but don't count on it. Also undetermined right now is who will control the Michigan House, the Pennsylvania House (both of which could flip blue) and both chambers in Nevada (where one or both could flip red).

Storey: "[T]his appears to be a remarkably status quo election in the U.S. states. It looks like this will be the least party control changes on Election Day since at least 1944 when only four chambers changed hands. It’s still possible that there could be even fewer than four flips as a result of Tuesday’s voting. In the 1926 and 1928 elections, only one chamber changed hands. And 2020 could conceivably match that."

Even adding in the governors’ races leads to hardly any change in the state partisan landscape. There was only one party change among the chief executives, and that was in the open governor’s race in Montana. Term-limited Democratic Governor Steve Bullock ran for the Senate, and Republican candidate Greg Gianforte took the mansion back for the GOP.

That win led to the only new trifecta in the nation, in Big Sky Country.

It is possible that Republicans will lose their unified control in Arizona, meaning the number of D, R and divided states stays exactly the same. No other changes are expected in the trifecta unless late returns in New Hampshire’s 400-member House, notoriously always hard to pin down, plus a GOP pick-up of the Granite State Senate leads to a new GOP trifecta there.

As it stands now, the lack of partisan change in the states is jaw dropping.

There were, however, some good results in a few places. Early in the cycle, Blue America endorsed progressive Democrat Heidi Campbell in her race to replace the last member of the Tennessee state legislature in the Nashville area, state Senator Steven Dickerson. Yesterday Heidi beat him 51.7% to 48.3%.

And up in Green Bay, Wisconsin Kristina Shelton won the Wisconsin Assembly seat to represent the 90th district with 60.2% of the vote. You may recall that last month this progressive leader told us that her personal politics align with AOC and that "We need all Democrats to get comfortable being courageous." Wisconsin needs a solid Democratic bench. She's part of it now.

Florida was the nexus of pain-- particularly Miami-Dade. Democratic turnout in red counties was through the roof while in Miami-Dade, it completely fell apart, possibly because of the tireless efforts of Trump crony Louis DeJoy and his team at the USPS. 67,385 requested Democratic absentee ballots that were sent to voters never made their way to the counting stations. Not a single legislative seat changed hands-- so Florida!

Writing for Rolling Stone, Tessa Stuart reported that "Despite months of polling that suggested Biden was a slight favorite to win the Sunshine state, Florida has slipped out of Democrats’ grasp once again... There have been clear signs in recent weeks that Republicans were turning out in higher numbers in a part of Florida where Democrats need to run up the score in order to win: Miami-Dade County... Around 55 percent of Florida’s Cuban-American vote went to Donald Trump, according to exit polls, giving him huge gains over his 2016 performance in the county, swinging some 200,000 voters into his column. But it wasn’t just Cubans breaking for Trump-- he won 30 percent of Puerto Ricans and 48 percent of 'other Latinos' in the state."

On Election Day, Rolling Stone spoke to Maria Elena Lopez, first vice chair of the Miami Dade Democrats to get a sense of the situation on the ground. Democrats had a fragile, roughly 100,000 ballot lead in the early vote, and volunteers were still out knocking doors, frantically trying to get out the vote. At the time, Lopez said turnout was on track to match 2016-- a problem, considering Hillary Clinton lost the state and the election that year. Still, Lopez was hopeful Tuesday morning that Biden might do better than Clinton did in other parts of the state, like the I-4 corridor, home to a growing Puerto Rican population.

“My worst fear would be that our Latin community believes the bullshit that Biden is a socialist and communist, and doesn’t vote for him,” Lopez said bluntly on Tuesday. “That is my main fear. It is very hard to fight misinformation, and that has been the most frustrating part for us as a party. How do you go out there and try to have a logical conversation with people that do not believe what you’re saying?”

This afternoon, Kathy Lewis, the Democrat we were hoping would flip the state Senate blue, told her followers in an e-mail that she ran the campaign she wanted to run despite the Florida Democratic Party. "Many people 'in the know'-- party leaders, consultants, people in our community-- told me this was an unwinnable race, she wrote. "They said it was especially unwinnable without the support of big money donors who would have censored my voice. Over 115,000 voters disagreed. Though we have lost this race, we have proved what is possible for future elections. We have shown that it is possible to run a truly grassroots campaign and fund it with small, individual donations-- we have raised more than $133,000 with an average donation of $80.  Considering this was a special election with a short lead time, this is a phenomenal achievement!"

In thanking her supporters, she noted that "As the late, Honorable John Lewis said, we make progress by making good trouble. That’s what we did together. Together, we have shown that it is possible to put the interests of people first, before big money and big business... This race and our campaign have focused the bright Florida sunshine on the problems so many hardworking Floridians face. We have raised the flag, bringing attention to the problems facing so many Florida families:

• to the difficulties obtaining disability and medical benefits;
• to the disenfranchisement of voters brought by poverty and race;
• to the problems workers and families have gaining equal access to quality and affordable health care;
• to women’s right to have control over their own bodies;
• to the issues of marriage equality and equal and fair employment and housing practices for the LGBTQ+ communities and for people of color;
• to the need for a realistic living wage—Amendment 2 on the ballot does not go far enough soon enough;
• to the issue of gun violence which affects too many people each and every day;
• to the problems we have in our criminal justice system with inequitable practices in our state law enforcement, the hiring of unqualified and disqualified applicants, and the need to invest in mental health services and education in law enforcement and in schools
• to the unfair burden put on our teachers to be all things to our children while being paid far less than they deserve;
• to the concerns of the environment and climate change that disproportionately affect Floridians, Florida tourism, small businesses, and people of color; and
• to our state’s haphazard, patchwork response to the pandemic, needlessly endangering millions of people, and especially our first responders, and needlessly sacrificing the lives of loved ones in the process.

She concluded that "Future Democratic candidates have a new playbook for how to run an honest, people-first campaign with sustainable grassroots support and without having to answer to corporations, special interests, or powerful, self-interested politicians."

Trump Will Lose Tomorrow-- And It Won't Be Close

 

Red America by Nancy Ohanian

The foundation to any Republican presidential victory is Texas. Bottom line: if Trump loses Texas and its 38 electoral votes tomorrow, game over. But he's not likely to lose the state. It's still just too red. But the fact that Trump looks so weak in recent polls-- ahead of a nothing like Biden by just 2.3 points according to the most recent Real Clear Politics average-- is a testament to what a disastrous presidency he's presided over. And while those weak numbers may not deny Trump Texas' 38 electoral votes, they may well presage half a dozen or more GOP congressional losses in "safe" red districts. It's likely that TX-10 (McCaul), TX-21 (Roy), TX-22 (Olson), TX-23 (Hurd), TX-24 (Marchant), TX-25 (Williams) could all flip blue tomorrow.

Over the weekend, one of the Mike Siegel campaigners told me that 366,000 people had already voted early in TX-10, more people than had ever voted in an election in that district totally. Black voters, Asian voters, first-time voters and young voters all set new participation records. (301,200 voters participated in the TX-10 congressional race in 2018.) Siegel is expecting a big turnout tomorrow as well. Big turnouts are not what Republicans encourage. And those new voters and young voters and voters of color are not who Trump is trying to appeal to now.

In fact, Toluse Olorunnipa and Josh Dawsey reported for the Washington Post that Trump's madcap super-spreader rallies are focusing exclusively on his base of uneducated white racists. They wrote about episodes likely to turn off swing voters but enthuse his beloved "poorly educated," noting that in a frenzied burst of campaigning in the last days of the presidential race, Señor Trumpanzee has "accused doctors of fabricating coronavirus deaths for money, pantomimed a physical fight with Democratic rival Joe Biden, mocked a Fox News host for wearing a mask and celebrated his supporters for using pickup trucks to ambush a Biden campaign bus on a Texas highway... [H]is closing message is a classic display of the kind of red meat tailored specifically to animate his most faithful supporters. Convinced that it’s too late to change the minds of voters who are not yet sold on Trump, the president’s advisers are intensely focused on turning out those who are. Trump’s decision to forgo a broad, unifying closing message and instead double down on appealing to a narrow but enthusiastic slice of the electorate is a gamble. Whether it pays off or becomes a cautionary tale will not be known until the polls close Tuesday and the votes are counted."

It doesn't look good for Trump. His polling numbers are falling and COVID-19 infections are rising, particularly ones that are tied specifically to his super-spreader rallies, which caused at least 700 deaths, not counting Herman Cain. Yesterday 71,321 new cases were reported, bringing the U.S. total to 9,473,911-- as well as 399 new reported deaths for a total of 236,471. Swing states, many with Republican governors and or legislatures who have followed Trump's anti-science line, are being hammered. Yesterday's swing state new cases (with number of cases per million residents):

• Texas +4,193 (33,140 cases per million residents)
• Florida +4,865 (37,593 cases per million residents)
• Wisconsin +3,493 (39,307 cases per million residents)
• Ohio +3,319 (18,738 cases per million residents)
• Iowa +2,394 (41,320 cases per million residents)
• Minnesota +2,200 (26,717 cases per million residents)
• North Carolina +2,057 (26,382 cases per million residents)
• Pennsylvania +1,684 (16,755 cases per million residents)
• Arizona +1,527 (34,000 cases per million residents)
• Georgia +1,192 (34,093 cases per million residents)

Trump is in his own fantasy world though, gaslighting his rallies 'til the very end. He spread COVID to his Pennsylvania supporters in 4 rallies on Saturday. The first was on Newton where he told the crowd, "A great red wave is forming. As sure as we’re here together, that wave is forming. And they see it, they see it on all sides and there’s not a thing they can do about it."

In front of large crowds that defied public health guidelines in the middle of a pandemic, Trump offered a defiant closing message about the forces he battled during his first term, claiming that his willingness to fight them is one reason he deserves a second term.

“We did not come this far and fight this hard only to surrender our country back to the Washington swamp,” Trump said Friday in Waterford Township, Mich.

That event kicked off a four-day stretch of rallies taking him to Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Iowa, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Wisconsin. By the time he holds his final rally in Grand Rapids, Mich., on Monday night, Trump will have given his stump speech to tens of thousands of potential voters.

The president’s allies say he is smart to make a bet on rallying his troops at this stage of the campaign, with few undecided voters left and more to be gained from juicing turnout than from winning converts.

“The weekend before election, you’re not changing minds,” said Bryan Lanza, an adviser on Trump’s 2016 campaign and transition. “You’re not IDing supporters, you’re just turning them out. That’s where we are. Persuasion is done. He’s got to turn out what’s there.”

Trump is under more pressure to turn out his base voters in the last days of the race due to the unprecedented partisan split between Americans who vote early and those voting on Election Day.

More than 90 million Americans have already voted early or by absentee ballot, according to data maintained by the U.S. Elections Project, a nonpartisan early-voting tracker. Democrats have an edge over Republicans in several swing states, and Trump has explicitly told his supporters to cast their votes in person on Tuesday.

...The president’s strategy carries risks. His embrace of the conspiracy theories spread by his most ardent supporters about the coronavirus pandemic has driven away potential supporters, according to polls.

Trump has increasingly used his rallies to promote misinformation about the deadly virus, downplaying it and bemoaning the fact that it continues to dominate news coverage. He has told supporters that the country was “rounding the turn” on the virus even as the case count soars to record levels, and claimed without evidence that a vaccine has been held up until after the election due to politics. On Friday, he mocked Fox News host Laura Ingraham for wearing a mask to his crowded Michigan rally.

“No way!” he said from the stage. “She’s wearing a mask? She’s being very politically correct!”

During the same rally, Trump made the baseless accusation that doctors are inflating the number of patients who died of covid-19 to “get more money.”

“Now they’ll say, ‘Oh that’s terrible what he said,’ but that’s true,” Trump said of his false allegation. “It’s like $2,000 more, so you get more money.”

The American Medical Association called the claim “malicious, outrageous, and completely misguided” in a statement Friday, without naming Trump.

Trump’s conspiratorial approach to the pandemic comes as the number of Americans dying each day has begun to increase, along with the rising caseload and hospitalizations.

More than 230,000 Americans have died of covid-19, and more than 9 million have been infected.

...[H]e has veered away from his prepared remarks to offer controversial running commentary to his supporters. He has fed off crowds chanting “Lock him up!” about Biden and “Superman!” about him. Shortly before his fourth rally of the day in Pennsylvania on Saturday, Trump tweeted a video of several of his supporters forming an intimidating vehicle caravan around a Biden campaign bus as it attempted to drive down a Texas highway.

“I LOVE TEXAS!” the president wrote.

On Saturday, Keith Collins, Trip Gabriel and Stephanie Saul took NY Times readers on a trip into the 20 Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin counties across the country where they claim, inaccurately, that the battle for their states' electoral votes are fiercest. Let's follow along anyway:

Miami-Dade, FL-- A Democratic stronghold, it is not a county Mr. Trump would hope to win. But this majority-Hispanic county was a disappointment for Democrats in 2018, especially in heavily Cuban-American precincts. Younger Cuban voters have started identifying as Trump Republican here.

Disappointment in 2018? The Democrats targeted 2 congressional seats in Miami-Dade and won both. Gillum won with 59.9% and Nelson won with 60.6%

Pinellas County, FL-- Perhaps the biggest swing county in the state, which backed Mr. Trump after twice backing Barack Obama, it is a Florida microcosm: solid Democrats in St. Petersburg and Midwestern retirees elsewhere.

2018 was good for Dems in Pinellas-- Gillum won with 50.7%, Nelson won with 52.6% and Charlie Crist was reelected with 57.6%

Osceola County, FL-- Part of the greater Orlando area, it is increasingly Hispanic. Conservative retirees have been joined by hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans, who did not register in expected numbers to give Democrats an advantage in 2018, and so far, are lagging behind other groups in early voting.

Osceola was another good county for Dems in 2018-- Gillum 58.4%, Nelson 59.7%, and it performed for mediocre Rep. Darren Soto D+26. It would have been way more interesting to include Polk County  

Union County, NC-- In 2016, Mr. Trump easily won this suburban Republican bastion near Charlotte. Republicans remain dominant, but signs of disaffection with the president, along with an upswing in “unaffiliated” voters, give Democrats hope they can trim Mr. Trump’s margin.

Union is one of those counties where Republicans routinely steal votes

Wake County, NC-- One of the nation’s fastest-growing counties, Wake has shifted steadily leftward over the past 20 years, supporting Hillary Clinton in 2016 by more than 100,000 votes. An influx of out-of-staters since then stands to boost the Democrats even more, potentially offsetting high Republican numbers in rural areas.

Robeson County, NC-- A former Democratic stronghold, this economically depressed county went for Mr. Trump in 2016. The prize will likely go to the candidate most popular among the Lumbee Indians, the county’s largest group. Mr. Trump held a rally here in October, and both campaigns pledged to support the tribe’s quest for federal recognition.

Robeson delivered for Democrat Dan McCready in 2018 (D+15)

Westmoreland County, PA-- Typical of other counties where Mr. Trump outperformed with white working-class voters four years ago, this area near Pittsburgh is where he must win even bigger margins to counter a likely Democratic surge in the suburbs.

Hillary screwed the pooch but 2 years later Tom Wolf took 46.4% and Bob Casey took 43.9%-- which is all Biden needs to do there and in places like it to be sure of winning Pennsylvania

Chester County, PA-- Democrats must continue their 2018 midterm surge in this suburban Philadelphia county, especially with college-educated women, or Mr. Trump could carry Pennsylvania again.

In 2018 Dems all did better than Hillary had-- Casey drew 59.2%, Wolf took 61.3% and the county performed as a D+18 for Democrat Chrissy Houlahan 

Erie County, PA-- One of three counties in the state that Mr. Trump flipped in 2016, its mix of a working-class post-industrial economy and rural towns makes it “the oracle of Pennsylvania,” in the words of a Democratic strategist.

Erie Co. regretted going for Trump in 2016 and made up for it 2 years later-- Bob Casey 55.7%, Tom Wolf 59.8 and the county is the biggest one in PA-16 and performed at a D+20 level for Democrat Ron DiNicola

Philadelphia County, PA-- The big question here is whether Mr. Biden can re-energize Black voters-- Democrats’ core supporters-- after Hillary Clinton’s lackluster showing in 2016. Mr. Biden will have to boost the numbers to counter Mr. Trump’s margins with rural white voters. The Trump campaign has taken on aggressive tactics, like videotaping voters at ballot drop boxes.

Macomb County, MI-- Heavily unionized and mostly white, the state’s third largest county has picked the statewide winner in the last seven elections for governor and president.

In 2018 Stabenow did 8 points better than Hillary and Whitmer did slightly better than Stabenow. The county performed at a D+19 level for Andy Levin

Oakland County, MI-- Once solidly Republican, it is a more affluent neighbor of Macomb County and has been trending Democratic. It is a prime example of the changes that are taking place in many of the nation’s suburbs. In 2018, it gave Gov. Gretchen Whitmer the biggest margin for a Democrat in 20 years.

Oakland was good for all the Dems running in 2018 and will be for Biden tomorrow

Kent County, MI-- This traditional Republican stronghold-- home to Grand Rapids, where President Gerald Ford was raised-- has moved away from the Republican Party in the Trump era.

Mentioning Ford is the most hawkish possible thing to say about Kent. He served from 1949 to 1973-- 100% irrelevant. Maybe they should have mentioned current Rep. Justin Amash. Stabenow and Whitmer both won the county in 2018

Brown County, WI-- Among the top counties that will decide the state’s winner is the home of vote-rich Green Bay. It’s a swing county that in 2018 voted for the Republican candidate for governor, Scott Walker, and the Democrat for Senate, Tammy Baldwin. Mr. Trump won blowout margins here compared with Mitt Romney in 2012.

Waukesha County, WI-- It is the largest of Milwaukee’s suburban counties. Long a Republican stronghold, the county underperformed for Mr. Trump in 2016. Mr. Biden has forged inroads here, but it’s not clear how deep they are.

Don't get excited; Biden has not forged any inroads in Waukesha. The writers had nothing so say so they made it up

Dane County, WI-- This is home to the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and it’s where Democrats surged in an April 2020 race for the State Supreme Court. Nearly as many votes were cast here as in Milwaukee County, even though Dane has less than 60 percent of Milwaukee’s population. Heavy turnout in early voting suggests Mr. Biden is claiming those votes.

Grant County, WI-- Emblematic of southwest Wisconsin, it is one of the state’s swingiest regions, where weak partisan identity saw voters shift from Mr. Obama to Mr. Trump.

In 2018 it swung back blue-- Tony Evers beat Scott Walker by about a point and Tammy Baldwin beta her GOP opponent by 9 points

Maricopa County, AZ-- Home to Phoenix and more than 60 percent of the state’s electorate, it is Arizona’s most important county. It went narrowly for Mr. Trump in 2016, but two years later supported a Democrat, Kyrsten Sinema, for senator. The question is whether the county’s changing demographics will tip the state to a Democratic president for the first time since 1996.

Pima County, AZ-- The home of Tucson, Democrats typically run up the score here.

Pinal County, AZ-- The state’s third-largest county is a Republican redoubt. Mr. Trump will have to turn out enough rural white voters to help protect the 3.5-point margin he won the state with in 2016.