DCCC & Kings Landing Consultants Are Instructing Candidates How To Deceive Democratic Primary Voters On Healthcare

I know it's hard to imagine but there was a time when the DCCC used to give their candidates my contact info and tell them to talk with me about progressive issues. That was almost a decade ago. Today they tell their candidates to avoid me at all costs-- or else! And many of their candidates do... but not all. I have decent and professional relationships with some of the DCCC candidates and this week one, a centrist guy who feels his district will respond to centrism better than to a progressive approach, sent me a note about one of his primary opponents sending out a notice embracing Medicare-For-All." I wrote him back and told him that that's the Blue America standard and wondered why he sent something that we would admire about his opponent.

That's when it got interesting. He said the DCCC is now instructing their candidates to thwart progressives by pretending to be for Medicare-For-All to help them defeat progressive primary opponents who are for Medicare-For-All. This is what he sent me, in confidence:

Short version is this: As you know, "Medicare for All" is language that can either refer to Medicare as a public option or Medicare as a vehicle for single payer. It's intentionally confusing (my DC consultants advised me to use this language, and I told them I wanted to be very clear about where I stood). The language below (including talking about Medicare for All in the context of "access to health care for all" and "improving on the successes of the ACA") sounds consistent with the public option version of Medicare For All and not a single payer approach.

He was referring to his opponent's notice. On a follow up phone call he went on and on about the DCCC and their associated consultants are telling their candidates to say whatever it takes to trick Democratic primary voters. Admirably, he refuses but he's one of the few who is refusing. So now, I guess, we have to ask candidates for fuller explanations about why they're for Medicare-For-All and if they will pledge to co-sponsor John Conyers' Medicare-For-All legislation, H.R. 676, as 116 House Democrats have, the most recent being the just-elected Jimmy Gomez, who won a special election in Los Angeles this summer, beating a conservative "ex"-Republican.

First sign of trouble is when a candidate starts hemming and hawing and seem unable to give a public yes or no answer. As Kaniela Ing, Hawaii's most progressive state legislator, told us a week or so ago, "The consultant class is obsessed with having candidates try to sound like America's most popular politician while somehow not upsetting their donors. Unfortunately for them, authenticity matters, and voters are smarter than they think. A silver tsunami of aging boomers is approaching, and single-payer, Medicare-for-all is America's only sensible and sustainable healthcare solution. Anything short will continue to allow big-pharma, corporate hospitals, and insurance companies to exploit the sick and their cash-strapped families into paying way too much for needed services. This in turn could have devastating effects for our overall economy. Democrats know that healthcare is a human right. If you want to reach Republicans, add that Medicare is the most efficient system we got, and that Medicare-for-all will save taxpayers $17 trillion. We have facts on our side and shouldn't run from them. Voters in both parties recognize that the pharmaceutical industry, insurance companies, and corporate hospitals have too much power. The People's trust will go to the party or set of candidates willing to take them on."

No one has to twist Kaniela's arm to get him to say he's for Medicare-For-All, for single payer, for Conyers' H.R. 676. That's what he's about. Similarly, David Gill, a progressive candidate in Illinois' 13th district and an emergency room doctor for nearly 3 decades, has been aggressively working on this issue for 25 years. "I think the most important part of my ability to appeal to people across the political spectrum, even those who disagree with one or more of my progressive positions, is the fact that I am genuine. I simply say what I believe-- I don't try to tailor my talk or be particularly nuanced. I've been a physician for 29 years and I've been a member of Physicians for a National Health Program for 25 years, and I'm sick and tired of watching the vast majority of Americans get ripped off by a for-profit private health insurance industry that doesn't provide them with one iota of health care or actually give a damn about their well-being. I use that type of language while also incorporating the terms 'single payer' and 'improved Medicare for all', and I make it clear that I'm running because I ACTUALLY CARE about their well-being. The same caring instinct that drove me into a career in medicine is what drives my desire to be a leader in Congress. Each candidate has a unique set of circumstances, but I think that demonstrating a passion is ultimately even more important than the particular words that we put forth."

The newest Blue America candidate-- we're endorsing him officially tomorrow-- is Derrick Crowe for the TX-21 seat currently occupied by Science denier and anti-healthcare fanatic Lamar Smith. Derrick told us, simply "I support Medicare For All in virtually every speech, in front of every audience. It's in our literature and is one of our main platform planks. Democrats shouldn't shy away from it for any reason. Most Americans think our country should make sure everyone has health care coverage, and among those under 30, a stunning 89 percent support that statement, with 66 percent of those young people saying they want a single national government program. Nearly two-thirds of Americans have a positive reaction to the term, 'Medicare For All.' If Republicans want to try to attack you for supporting Medicare For All in public, hand them a microphone, because we'll take their seats. Beyond the polling, it's just simply time for America to get back into a leadership role on health care. We spend more money on health care and have worse outcomes than virtually any other well-developed nation. Of the 35 countries in the OECD, we rank 27th in life expectancy, despite spending the most on health care-- so for those worried about the cost of a single-payer system, I'd challenge them to prove the value of a private system. Tell me why we should die earlier so insurance CEOs and pharma bosses can get richer off our misery."

And Derrick is eager to co-sponsor H.R. 676. His top primary opponent is "ex"-Republican Joseph Kopser, who a year ago was happy to have himself described as a "Reagan Republican" and who sits on the board of the Texas Association of Business, which the Texas Tribune describes as "the most powerful conservative business lobby on the state." Kopser uses the misleading DCCC/Beltway consultant misdirections, talking about how he supports "health care for all," but carefully skirting anything about "single payer" or Medicare-For-All.

Geoffrey Petzel, the progressive Chicagoland candidate running for the IL-06 seat occupied by TrumpCare-backer Pete Roskam, said that "Personally I agree with Our Revolution. Dems who don't publicly support single payer should get a primary challenge. I strongly support single payer, have since I ran in 2011, and proudly show my battle scars for taking that stance. Because I support single payer I was not endorsed by local media in 2011. In a bigger picture, Dems lack of vocal support for single payer is my biggest personal issue with the party. Just the other day I had a serious discussion about running as an independent instead of a Democrat because the party isn't pushing progressive policy positions like they should. The reason I'm not running as an independent, other than the prohibitive ballot requirements in Illinois, is that I believe we need to re-set the Democratic party and place it back on a track that supports progressive ideas proudly and loudly. [Democrats who] fear to proudly promote single payer makes me believe they're not real progressive and represent the status quo we have been served by the DCCC over and over again."

Little on-topic bonus, this morning: remember a couple months ago I warned you about longtime corporate shill and Blue Dog wretch Elen Tauscher trying to worm her corrupt right-wing ass back into California Democratic politics? It didn't take long. This week she was on the attack-- against Elizabeth Warren. She could hardly wait to croak out the same old corporate shill tune to The Hill, which reported that Tauscher, a surrogate for 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton who is leading the Fight Back California super PAC aimed at winning back seven House seats for Blue Dog-type characters in the Golden State, said "We can't win the House back with progressives running in swing states." Democrats will never take back the House with people who lost it originally calling the shots. (And of course, her crooked website asks for contributions for herself, not for any candidates-- always the mark of a criminally-minded conservative.)

Is It OK To Campaign For Congress On "Medicare-For-All?"

The other day I was talking with a first-time Democratic candidate who has a bit of a reputation as a centrist, although he insist-- at least to me-- that he's a progressive. I'm not persuaded. He says he's kind of, sort of good with Medicare-For-All but there's no way he'd say he's going to co-sponsor John Conyers Medicare-For-All bill. He claims the district isn't ready for that yet and maybe he can lead them in that direction and maybe we can go to it incrementally. I do like one argument he makes, which I find refreshingly sincere: he says he doesn't want to pivot after he wins the primary and that whatever he backs now-- to appeal to Democratic audiences-- is exactly what he wants to say to general election audiences. His swingy red district is one of those districts where independents determine who goes to Congress.

Thursday L.A. Times reporter Sarah Wire posted a provocative piece about messaging: How does a progressive Democrat try to unseat a Republican? Step one: Don't talk about single-payer healthcare. And the piece was about a Blue America-endorsed candidate, Katie Hill. Katie was "sitting around a kitchen table with a local activist group last spring when one of the attendees asked her a question: Will she have to 'soft pedal' her stance on any issues to unseat Republican Rep. Steve Knight in the 25th District?"

The progressive Democrat started to answer, then paused to ask a person livestreaming the meeting on Facebook: “This isn’t going to be something that I’m going to be blasted all over Facebook for, right?”

After getting assurances that the video would only be available to a private group, Hill said one of the issues she can’t discuss directly is single-payer healthcare.

"I shouldn't go into the district and talk about single-payer, right? Like, that word by itself is going to be something that just immediately turns off a lot of people," Hill said. "But, if I talk about how we need to make sure that everybody has access to healthcare and that it's affordable for everybody and how having a government option [is needed] at the very least, that is something people can really get behind. It's more about the way we talk about things than being very far apart on issues."

The video, which was posted online to the storage site Dropbox and shared with the Los Angeles Times this week, shows the delicate line some Democratic candidates are walking as the national party goes after the more than 30 seats it needs to win back control of the House. The idea of a single-payer healthcare system, in which the government pays for a base level of healthcare for all citizens, has been growing in popularity in party circles since it became a major policy plank in Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. But it remains a nonstarter for many conservatives, and is unlikely to catch on in a Republican-controlled Congress and White House.

The path to a House Democratic majority goes through the seven California Republican-held districts that backed Hillary Clinton in 2016. That includes places like the 25th District, where voters have sent Republicans to Congress for decades, but Democrats have a 3-percentage-point voter registration lead and voters there chose Clinton by nearly 7 percentage points in 2016.

Hill said in an interview that she believes the country will eventually have single-payer healthcare, but using the term puts off people in a district with a large number of conservative voters. Hill said she asked whether the video-- shot during a May 2 gathering for the liberal activist group Indivisible-- would be widely shared because talking to a liberal group is different than talking to the general public.

“Look, is it the best idea to be talking about the strategy for how we frame conversations? Probably I wouldn’t be advised that’s what I should say,” Hill said.

Hill has spoken publicly about her wish for every person to have healthcare, and paying out of pocket for her teenage brother’s drug addiction treatment. But she said achieving a single-payer healthcare system shouldn’t be prioritized over working for healthcare solutions in the interim, including practical fixes to the system that both sides can embrace.

“It comes down to having nuanced discussions,” Hill said. “As purple districts, we have the opportunity to say, ‘No, we can’t have these binary conversations.’”

Healthcare is expected to be a key issue in the 2018 contests.

Democrats are already lambasting GOP lawmakers, including Knight, for backing their party's House healthcare bill in May. Knight has said it was a tough vote, but he thinks it was the right bill to address changes needed to the Affordable Care Act, and he isn’t worried about Democrats using it against him.

At the same time, some have threatened to make support for single-payer healthcare a litmus test for Democrats. Our Revolution, a political group inspired by Sanders, threatened primary challenges this week against Democrats who aren’t vocal about it.

Former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner, president of Our Revolution, told Politico, "We're not going to accept no more hemming and hawing. No more game playing. Make your stand."

Backers of single-payer healthcare in California are also trying to recall Democratic Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon because he shelved a bill to create a state system earlier this year.

But the National Republican Congressional Committee is trying to use single-payer healthcare against Democrats. Just last week, it went after another Democrat in the race against Knight, Bryan Caforio, over whether he supports a single-payer system. He has said for months that he does, although Caforio, like Hill, doesn’t use the phrase. He’s more likely to refer to “Medicare for all.”

“This is a universal human rights issue and I’m going to talk about that in the district,” Caforio said.

Caforio lost to Knight in 2016 by 6 percentage points. Three other Democrats have announced challenges, but Caforio and Hill have an early fundraising lead.

DCCC messaging gurus-- they literally only hire morons-- insist that candidates not campaign on "Medicare-For-All." So I asked some of the candidates who Blue America has endorsed and some of the ones we are currently vetting. The question, in fact, is part of the vetting process. We started with Katie. She told me she hasn't gotten any backlash, "Anyone who actually reads the article as opposed to just the headline knows that my comment was about messaging only. And most people who are paying attention have heard me over and over again talk about Medicare for all so they know it's something taken out of context in an attempt to make me look bad. My mistake was asking if the video was going to be shared (or thinking for a second that it wouldn't be). Everything else I said is consistent with what I have said everywhere throughout this campaign, both in public and in private."

I caught up with Randy Bryce just as he was flying back to Wisconsin from having given the keynote speech at Netroots Nation. He reminded me that he talks about Medicare-For-All-- and using that phrase-- in virtually every speech he gives. Then I asked a go-to progressive I know I can always trust to give me an unadulterated progressive perspective, Hawaii state legislator Kaniela Ing. Here's what he told me:

The consultant class is obsessed with having candidates try to sound like America's most popular politician while somehow not upsetting their donors. Unfortunately for them, authenticity matters, and voters are smarter than they think.

A silver tsunami of aging boomers is approaching, and single-payer, Medicare-for-all is America's only sensible and sustainable healthcare solution. Anything short will continue to allow big-pharma, corporate hospitals, and insurance companies to exploit the sick and their cash-strapped families into paying way too much for needed services. This in turn could have devastating effects for our overall economy.

Democrats know that healthcare is a human right. If you want to reach Republicans, add that Medicare is the most efficient system we got, and that Medicare-for-all will save taxpayers $17 trillion. We have facts on our side and shouldn't run from them.

Voters in both parties recognize that the pharmaceutical industry, insurance companies, and corporate hospitals have too much power. The People's trust will go to the party or set of candidates willing to take them on.

Wendy Reed is running in a much redder district than Katie's though they both share part of the Antelope Valley in southern California. Wendy's opponent is the Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and she told us that she disagrees "that talking about single-payer is a campaign no-no, totally disagree. As candidates, we must talk with voters about good policy, and provide the breadth and depth of information on these issues that might not be provided on mainstream media. Moreover, the only thing that wins elections is integrity. We must never shy away from our commitment to good policy. Health care is a human right and Medicare For All will save us all money. It is good policy. Of course we should have these discussions with those we hope to represent."

Two Blue America-endorsed candidates in Orange County, Doug Applegate and Sam Jammal, progressives opposing, respectively, GOP entrenched incumbents Darrell Issa and Ed Royce. Doug pointed out that "I’ve argued and my platform has always fought for single payer Medicare-for-All. That’s why I’m so proud to have earned the National Nurses United endorsement, and I’ll always have their back." Sam Jammal said simply, "I strongly support Medicare for All, because (1) I believe health care is a human right; and (2) Medicare works and we should invest in what works. Try finding a senior who hates their Medicare and wishes to get rid of their Medicare; that person doesn't exist. As a former business executive, you invest in what works and scale it. Government should be doing the same when it comes to health care. People want quality, affordability and access  Medicare provides all of this for our seniors, which is why we need to protect it and expand it. Additionally, we aren't talking enough about out of pocket costs and how they are crippling our families. This is why I will campaign on universal health care and, in particular, Medicare for All because its the best approach for lowering health care costs. Voters want solutions that will work for them, not millionaires or special interest. My campaign is about voters in my community and finding solutions that will improve their lives. This is why I will continue to campaign on Medicare for All."

Kia Hamadanchy is running for the Orange County seat occupied by Trump pawn Mimi Waters. A young attorney who once worked for Sherrod Brown in Washington, he values clarity and honesty and abhors the kind of murky approach that leaves voters trying to sift through the verbiage to understand where a candidate really is. "When I talked about healthcare," he told us, "I use the terms single payer and Medicare-for-All, because I want to make it clear to everyone as to what kind of healthcare system I believe we need in this country and to make clear then when I'm elected to Congress I will sign on as a co-sponsor of John Conyers' Medicare-for-all bill. And its also important that people know what exactly we stand for as a party and we aren't just against Donald Trump. Mimi Walters voted for a bill that would take healthcare away from 22 million people and she needs to be held accountable for that vote. But at the same time there are real issues with healthcare in this country and its important to demonstrate to the people of Orange County that we as a party have solutions to address these issues."

We also spoke to an Orange County candidate who we haven't endorsed yet but is being looking at closely. Harley Rouda was a Republican, then an independent and now he's a Democrat. Our experience with "ex"-Republicans is horrible. They get into Congress and then revert to their old conservative ways and prove to be more Republican than Democrat. All feel most comfortable joining the Blue Dogs and New Dems. Look at Charlie Crist (FL), Patrick Murphy (FL) and Tom O'Halleran (AZ)-- "ex"-Republicans with horrible voting records on core Democratic issues across the board. HOWEVER, once in a very blue moon we find an Elizabeth Warren, once a Republican who truly saw the light and did not convert for opportunistic career calculations. Is Rouda more like Elizabeth Warren or more like Charlie Crist? He says so. That's what we have to figure out as he runs for the seat currently occupied with Putin-prone GOP nut Dana Rohrabcher. His statement on healthcare was clear and straight-forward: "I support Universal Healthcare across the United States and the development of a Medicare-for-all system. It’s the right thing to do-- and it’s also the smart thing to do. There are 40 industrialized, developed nations in the world. Of these 40 countries, 39 have Universal Healthcare. Only one does not. The United States of America. The United States spends almost 19% of its annual GDP on healthcare insurance, and healthcare needs. That is 2.5 TRILLION dollars a year! The other 39 industrialized countries that do have universal healthcare spend around 10% of their annual GDP on healthcare expenses. These countries are providing better healthcare services to their citizens-- and at half the cost. Something is just not adding up in America. In addition, healthcare expenses are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States and a leading cause of homelessness. This is why I support Universal Healthcare across the United States and a single-payer system. Developing a Medicare-for-all system is right for the American people-- and right for the American economy.

We spoke to three Blue America-backed candidates in Illinois, Marie Newman who is primarying anti-healthcare Blue Dog Dan Lipinski; Geoff Petzel who is taking on Trump/Ryan rubber-stamp Peter Roskam; and Dr. David Gill in the central part of the state, who's challenging another rubber-stamp, Rodney Davis. Marie reminded us that she uses "Medicare for all" everywhere. "I also use say: 'Medicare for all is the most logical way to achieve single payer for now.' This is not new. I also say that 65-70 percent of the country wants single payer. I believe in single payer and now, most of the country does too."

Pretzel was just as clear, even if his response was more involved. "Personally I agree with Our Revolution. Dems who don't publicly support single payer should get a primary challenge. I strongly support single payer, have since I ran in 2011, and proudly show my battle scars for taking that stance. Because I support single payer I was not endorsed by local media in 2011. In a bigger picture, Dems lack of vocal support for single payer is my biggest personal issue with the party. Just the other day I had a serious discussion about running as an independent instead of a Democrat because the party isn't pushing progressive policy positions like they should. The reason I'm not running as an independent, other than the prohibitive ballot requirements in Illinois, is that I believe we need to re-set the Democratic party and place it back on a track that supports progressive ideas proudly and loudly. [Democrats who] fear to proudly promote single payer makes me believe they're not real progressive and represent the status quo we have been served by the DCCC over and over again."

Dr. Gill was reluctant to offer advice to other candidates-- but never reluctant to talk loudly and clearly about what he believes in. "As an individual who hasn't yet won a general election, far be it from me to try to advise other candidates. But I have had some relative success: I lost in IL-13 by only 0.3%, compared to other Democrats who have lost here by 18 to 20%. And I think the most important part of my ability to appeal to people across the political spectrum, even those who disagree with one or more of my progressive positions, is the fact that I am genuine. I simply say what I believe-- I don't try to tailor my talk or be particularly nuanced. I've been a physician for 29 years and I've been a member of Physicians for a National Health Program for 25 years, and I'm sick and tired of watching the vast majority of Americans get ripped off by a for-profit private health insurance industry that doesn't provide them with one iota of health care or actually give a damn about their well-being. I use that type of language while also incorporating the terms 'single payer' and 'improved Medicare for all', and I make it clear that I'm running because I ACTUALLY CARE about their well-being. The same caring instinct that drove me into a career in medicine is what drives my desire to be a leader in Congress. Each candidate has a unique set of circumstances, but I think that demonstrating a passion is ultimately even more important than the particular words that we put forth."

The progressive running in the Oklahoma City district (OK-05, where Trump beat Hillary 53.2% to 39.8%) is Tom Guild, who Blue America has endorsed. "A single payer Medicare-for-All health care system," he told us, "ensures that every American will have essential health care coverage. Since health care is a right and not a luxury, it is tragic that the United States is the only major world class nation without a health care system that covers everyone. Our system is one of the most expensive in the world, yet isn’t one that enjoys the best health care outcomes for its citizens. The current system leaves millions without coverage every year. Australia, Canada, and Great Britain all have national health care plans, that are considered three of the best health care systems in the world. The cost of health care is much higher in the U.S. than in any of these three western democracies. Single payer cuts paperwork and takes the profit motive of current insurance mega corporations out of the equation. It also reins in the huge profits and sky high prices of prescription drugs manufactured by Big Pharma. If we can cover every American for a lower cost, it makes sense to do so. We can use the trillions saved by not fighting the next expensive and endless wars and put that savings towards providing universal health care for our fellow Americans. For now, it makes sense to shore up the Affordable Care Act, and strengthen the individual market. Adding a public option would go a long way towards making the ACA function at a higher level. However, certain politicians have made a living and guaranteed their elections and re-elections recently by demonizing what they distastefully refer to as Obamacare. It is unlikely that they can get beyond their strong dislike or even hatred of anything named after former President Barack Obama, and take a mend it, don’t end it approach. If so, their inability to move forward hastens the day when America will join the rest of the world and adopt a single payer universal coverage Medicare-for-All system. When we have a majority of progressives in the U.S. House and Senate, and a new president we can make single payer a reality. As  the simple prayer goes, God grant me patience, and please hurry!"

South of Oklahoma City is Texas and one of the districts worth targeting is the Austin-San Antonio corridor seat held by crackpot science denier Lamar Smith. The progressive running against him-- likely to be Blue America's next endorsee-- is Derrick Crowe. He told us "I support Medicare For All in virtually every speech, in front of every audience. It's in our literature and is one of our main platform planks. Democrats shouldn't shy away from it for any reason. Most Americans think our country should make sure everyone has health care coverage, and among those under 30, a stunning 89 percent support that statement, with 66 percent of those young people saying they want a single national government program. Nearly two-thirds of Americans have a positive reaction to the term, 'Medicare For All.' If Republicans want to try to attack you for supporting Medicare For All in public, hand them a microphone, because we'll take their seats. Beyond the polling, it's just simply time for America to get back into a leadership role on health care. We spend more money on health care and have worse outcomes than virtually any other well-developed nation. Of the 35 countries in the OECD, we rank 27th in life expectancy, despite spending the most on health care-- so for those worried about the cost of a single-payer system, I'd challenge them to prove the value of a private system. Tell me why we should die earlier so insurance CEOs and pharma bosses can get richer off our misery."

Paul Perry is one of the Democrats running in a crowded primary in the Philly 'burbs in the hope of running against Pat Meehan. "Yes," he said, "I use Medicare for All. There's still plenty of nuance in terms of process that progressives (and folks on all sides really) can work with even when we use that term. It's about how we get there. Medicare for All is an identifiable program that successfully provides healthcare already for millions of Americans, so expanding it to cover more just plain makes sense to a lot of folks. I don't think we should be compromising on our destination which is a system that truly covers every single person in this country affordably and effectively. But the nuance on how we get there, the process, is fine. It'll of course be a phased approach."

Running in the same district is state Senator Daylin Leach who calls for Medicare for all in his platform and agrees that the way you do that successfully is embrace it openly, and defend it aggressively. "Health care," he told us, "is a basic human right. And a 'right' is something you are born with and keep until you shuffle off this mortal coil. The only way to guarantee that right is with a universal health-care system that can never be taken away from you. Medicare for all does that. Currently, we spend 25% of every health care dollar on insurance company profits. We should instead use that money to improve access to care and quality of care. I will fight to make sure that happens."

Beyond The Slogan The Democrats Stole From Papa John's Pizza...

Monday morning's NY Times had an OpEd, A Better Deal For American Workers, by Senate minority leader Little Chucky Schmucky, the non-presidential candidate politician who's taken the most in bribes from Wall Street, a cool $26,601,840 as of this morning. "Americans are clamoring for bold changes to our politics and our economy," he began. "They feel, rightfully, that both systems are rigged against them, and they made that clear in last year’s election. American families deserve a better deal so that this country works for everyone again, not just the elites and special interests. Today, Democrats will start presenting that better deal to the American people." Bold changes, unrigging the system, taking from elites and special interests to make things more equitable for ordinary working families... if that doesn't equate with Chuck Schumer in your mind, you're not alone. A less credible messenger for economic populism could never be found anywhere, ever. How comfortable are you with a crooked Wall Street whore like Schumer mouthing a Bernie message? "The wealthiest special interests can spend an unlimited, undisclosed amount of money to influence elections and protect their special deals in Washington. As a result, our system favors short-term gains for shareholders instead of long-term benefits for workers." Schumer is exactly who they're spending money on to influence the country's politics he's bemoaning. And, again, in unsell-aware self-description, he declares that "for far too long, government has gone along, tilting the economic playing field in favor of the wealthy and powerful while putting new burdens on the backs of hard-working Americans."

Schumer seems to have absorbed complaints progressives have been making about him and his kind for over a decade, writing "Democrats have too often hesitated from taking on those misguided policies directly and unflinchingly-- so much so that many Americans don’t know what we stand for. Not after today. Democrats will show the country that we’re the party on the side of working people-- and that we stand for three simple things."

I'd rather have this message than a reactionary message or no message at all, but it's going to take a lot more than an OpEd to persuade me that corrupt corporatists like Schumer mean a word of it:

First, we’re going to increase people’s pay. Second, we’re going to reduce their everyday expenses. And third, we’re going to provide workers with the tools they need for the 21st-century economy.

Over the next several months, Democrats will lay out a series of policies that, if enacted, will make these three things a reality. We’ve already proposed creating jobs with a $1 trillion infrastructure plan; increasing workers’ incomes by lifting the minimum wage to $15; and lowering household costs by providing paid family and sick leave.

...Right now, there is nothing to stop vulture capitalists from egregiously raising the price of lifesaving drugs without justification. We’re going to fight for rules to stop prescription drug price gouging and demand that drug companies justify price increases to the public. And we’re going to push for empowering Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices for older Americans.

Right now our antitrust laws are designed to allow huge corporations to merge, padding the pockets of investors but sending costs skyrocketing for everything from cable bills and airline tickets to food and health care. We are going to fight to allow regulators to break up big companies if they’re hurting consumers and to make it harder for companies to merge if it reduces competition.

Right now millions of unemployed or underemployed people, particularly those without a college degree, could be brought back into the labor force or retrained to secure full-time, higher-paying work. We propose giving employers, particularly small businesses, a large tax credit to train workers for unfilled jobs. This will have particular resonance in smaller cities and rural areas, which have experienced an exodus of young people who aren’t trained for the jobs in those areas.

If there's one thing we should have learned by now, it's that if policies are important as follow-through, rhetoric, narrative, and emotional signifiers are at least as important to voters. For one thing, the Democratic Party should focus, in some meaningful way, on changing the way it does business. There was a lesson the Democrats should have learned from the Wasserman Schultz scandal. They still haven't. Thankfully, Schumer's messaging is coming from Bernie and from Elizabeth Warren, not from the Clinton wrong of the party but unless someone has a PhD will they even understand what he's talking about? As Claiborne Deming, who helped start SumOfUs.org and is the current VP of Impact.College, explained yesterday, "In order to define an 'us' we have to define a 'them,' and that 'them' must be larger than Donald Trump. When talking about monopolies, Schumer first speaks about antitrust laws, and then says, vaguely, that they'll break up corporations 'if they're hurting consumers.' That puts the focus on policy and an economic framing. It's wonky. It has no 'them' aside from some ethereal policy failure, removed from the lives and lived experience of actual Americans. It's cautious language, designed not to offend. I would take it a step further and blame the collusion of big corporations and big government, and then name names. Point out that a Verizon lobbyist leads the FCC. If we force the GOP to side with cable companies, we've won. Instead of speaking of the opioid crisis as a natural disaster, name the companies that pocketed billions of dollars from hooking millions of Americans on drugs. Name Wall Street banks and the problems of runaway financialization. Don't be afraid to make enemies."

Deming goes on to point out that Americans' confidence in institutions is at historic lows. "Look at that list and see what Republicans are against-- the press, with an approval rate in the mid-20s, government, with approval rating in the mid-thirties (presidency and Supreme Court) or low teens (Congress). What is the Democratic Party against? None of those, really. What is the GOP for? The military and police, the two groups with the highest confidence. And organized religion, in the low forties. What are Dems for? Government and schools, in the mid-thirties. And unions, in the mid-twenties. IMHO, Dems need to be very aggressive about being for small business (70% confidence) and against big business (20% confidence). We need to explain why Congress (12% confidence and likely lower by the end of the year) is broken (big money, gerrymandering, corporate lobbying). We should be against big banks (32%)."

He believes that the Democrats' effort yesterday is "a decent start" but that they're "still committing the same errors we've seen from wonky politicians that have had difficulty connecting with Americans emotionally (Hillary, Kerry, Gore). Obama had charisma and 'hope' at the right moment. Bill Clinton had charisma, 'I feel your pain'... We'll need candidates who can connect with Americans where we are emotionally and really side with our worldviews, not merely try to lecture at us that we should rationally choose their policies. It's when people believe that the candidate is really on of them that they will do their utmost to get that person into office. And you do not get there by trying to be inoffensive and appeal to everyone at once."

That sound like the perfect definition of @IronStache-- Randy Bryce, the progressive iron worker running in Wisconsin against Paul Ryan, someone who has authenticity and a brand the DCCC has never been able to help one candidate create init's entire miserable history of abject failure and loss. His message is more credible than Schumer's or Pelosi's. The House Dems chose Rhode Island moderate David Cicilline, NYC corporate liberal Hakeem Jeffries and far far right Blue Dog corruption monger Cheri Bustos, a Rahm Emanuel protégée, co-chairs of the House Democratic Policy & Communications Committee, to deliver their messaging message (in an OpEd for CNN. "Washington Republicans," they wrote, "are unable to uphold the basic bargain they made with the American people when they were elected: to fight to create new good-paying jobs and support sustained economic growth. The simple truth is the economy isn't working the way it should; incomes and wages are not keeping up with the cost of living. Wage stagnation, underemployment, the exploding cost of a college education and the erosion of pensions are leaving many without hope. From rural towns to inner cities, millions can no longer achieve the American dream. Meanwhile, Washington special interests and powerful corporations have acquired more and more wealth." What reader wouldn't then ask himself or herself if the Democrats did more or would do more?

Through A Better Deal, we will create opportunities for those who need them most, not just those at the very top. We'll make government responsive to all hardworking Americans, not just a select few. And we'll make certain that if you work hard that you can support your family, that you can retire with the security and dignity that you've earned, and that your children can get the skills and knowledge they need to secure good-paying jobs in their hometowns.

For Democrats, this is our collective vision. This is not a slogan. It's who we are and what we intend to accomplish for the American people.

First, our plan starts by creating millions of good-paying, full-time jobs by directly investing in our crumbling infrastructure-- and putting people back to work building our roads and bridges. To help our small businesses thrive, we will prioritize entrepreneurs over giving tax breaks to special interests. We will fight for a living wage-- so parents don't have to work three or four jobs just to pay rent. And we will keep our promise to millions of workers who earned a pension, Social Security and Medicare so they can retire with dignity.

Second, we will lower the crippling cost of prescription drugs and the cost of an education that leads to a good job with a college degree or a technical skill. And we will crack down on monopolies and the concentration of economic power that has led to higher prices for consumers, workers and small businesses-- and make sure Wall Street never endangers Main Street again.

Third, we will offer new tax incentives to employers to invest in their workforce through training and education. To make sure our country stays on the cutting edge, we will bring high-speed Internet to every community in America and offer an apprenticeship to millions of new workers. We will encourage innovation, invest in advanced research and ensure start-ups and small businesses can compete and prosper. By making it possible for every American to get the skills, tools and knowledge to find a job or to move up in their career, we'll not only improve individual lives, we'll also stay competitive in the global economy.

Juan Williams, writing for The Hill Monday, pointed out a Washington Post/ABC News poll that found 51% of registered voters say Trumpanzee won't be a factor for them in their 2018 decisions and that only 24% say they plan to vote in opposition to Trump-- countered by the 20% who say they will go to the polls solely to support congressional Republicans backing Trump.

That split-- a 4-point deficit for Trump-- is smaller than the 10-point disadvantage for President Obama going into the 2014 midterms or the 14-point disadvantage for President Bush going into the 2006 midterms.

“A majority of Americans see the Democratic Party as ‘just standing against Trump’ rather than presenting a coherent alternative-- a stance that may not be enough to get voters to the polls next year,” according to an ABC News report on the poll.

...The new plan presents Democrats as the party creating jobs; offering job training; keeping healthcare costs low while making college affordable; and pushing higher wages including a hike in the minimum wage. The plan is called: “A Better Deal-- Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Wages.”

This is the “strong, bold, sharp-edged and common sense economic agenda” Schumer promised in a television interview last month.

Sen. Sanders (I-Vt.), who is the most popular national politician with a 57 percent approval rating, has been calling for this kind of clear, Trump-free branding to convince voters that Democrats are “on the side of the working class of this country.”

But what about the thrill that comes from fighting Trump? What about the blood sport of responding to his bullying tweets and his name-calling; and giving attention to the ongoing probe into his campaign’s alleged ties to Russia in the 2016 race?

That fight is a “fool’s errand,” according to Steve Phillips, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Writing in the New York Times, Phillips argued Democrats are never going to win over Trump voters. He sees only a waste of time in trying to win “support from conservative, white working-class voters susceptible to racially charged appeals.”

Phillips favors a focus on getting Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton last year to come out for the midterms-- with specific attention to black voters whose turnout rates dropped in 2016. He also wants to win back Democrats who opted to vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party or Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee.

The opposing view calls for Democrats to reach out to Trump voters.

Democrats have to “move to the center and reject the siren calls of the left, whose policies and ideas have weakened the party,” according to Mark Penn, who served as chief strategist in Clinton’s 2008 run for the presidential nomination.

This debate about the right message and the right audience for congressional Democrats going into 2018 extends to uncertainty about the right candidates to run for president in 2020.

Who would be on the perfect ticket for Democrats to keep Trump from a second term in the White House?

  Following the National Governors Association meeting this month, two Democratic governors-- Montana’s Steve Bullock and Rhode Island’s Gina Raimondo-- are getting a lot of attention in Washington. [Note: Raimondo defines Democratic political corruption, so of course hacks like Cole reflexively push her.]

They are not political firebrands like Sanders or Warren. They don’t go on liberal political talk shows. [Note #2: No, they-- or at least Raimondo-- hang out with lobbyists and Wall Street vampires.]

But they have established themselves as solution-oriented politicians able to win with Democrats while attracting support from independents and Republicans.

Solution-oriented? In reaching out to Wall Street and more elites who are loathed by voters? The Democrats don't need corrupt conservatives; that's what the GOP is for. And they don't need announcement of slogans; they need Democrats showing how to work for principles and values, men and women like Bernie and Elizabeth Warren, as 3ell as Ro Khanna, Ted Lieu, Barbara Lee, Jeff Merkley, Pramila Jayapal, Marek Pocan, Jamie Raskin, Judy Chu, Alan Grayson, Tammy Baldwin... Best advise for Democrats I heard all day: "don't just talk about it, be about it."

Ro Khanna is a member of the Budget Committee. This is what he told his constituents in the South Bay last week: "Once again, House Republicans think the best policy solution is giving a massive tax cut to the wealthy while leaving working families left to fend for themselves. First it was with health care, now it’s with the entire federal budget. The draft GOP budget resolution is an extreme case of putting special interests first. Instead of strengthening programs that help people get back on their feet, ensure regulation of the financial industry, and improve benefits for workers, the GOP is placing more than $200 billion of this funding on the chopping block. All to hopefully introduce an unfair tax reform plan. A budget should reflect the values of our nation, and I will work with my colleagues on the Budget Committee to make sure the version that goes to the House floor does just that."

We asked the two progressive stalwarts campaigning for congressional seats in Illinois, Geoffrey Petzel, who is running for the Chicagoland seat Peter Roskam is holding on it, and David Gill, who is running for the downstate seat held by sad sack Paul Ryan rubber-stamp Rodney Davis. Geoff:

"Every day I talk with voters. The unified message that I hear is that people are angry-- angry at the Trump mess, angry at Republicans for trying to take away healthcare, and angry at Democrats for doing nothing.The Democratic Party has a problem. They aren't listening to the people. They don't have a unified solution on healthcare, or minimum wage, or the big banks... or anything. For Democrats to be successful they need to be unified around progressive ideas and push to implement them. In our district, voters want elected officials to make their lives better (or at least, not make them worse). People want a healthcare solution, they want adequate environmental protections and they want a level playing field. That is why I advocate for a single payer healthcare system. I talk all the time about implementing a tax system that imposes fees on power plants that emit greenhouse gases and provides tax breaks for wind and solar investments. I advocate for breaking up large banks and large corporations that monopolize markets and prevent small businesses from having a fighting chance at success and I strongly support increasing the minimum wage. In my District, people want a Congressman who will fight for them and their families and ignore the special interests that have over run our political system."

Dr. David Gill's message on this is kind of personal, related to the career that he's been engaged in all of his adult life-- health care: "Voters are looking for politicians who actually care more about the well-being of ordinary citizens than that of insurance companies, arms manufacturers, Wall Street banks and oil and pharmaceutical companies. As a physician, I have been providing CARE to people from all walks of life for nearly 30 years. I openly criticize the corporate ownership of our politics and our government. By putting people first, both in my professional career and in my political aspirations, I have been able to perform far better than other Democratic candidates in my congressional district. I intend to keep pushing my message of single-payer healthcare, tuition-free public universities, and a $15 per hour minimum wage, and I have little doubt that this message, delivered by a demonstrated caregiver, will succeed next November."

Blue America is enthusiastic about two candidates running in the CA-45 Orange County district Mimi Walters technically represents, even though she lives in a fancy mansion on the beach in a neighboring district. One is former Sherrod Brown staffer Kia Hamadanchy. He was very frank in his assessment of the Democratic Party messaging and re-branding assault yesterday.

Personally I'm not really looking to the national party when it comes to messaging  and how we move forward as a party. One- because it's an area where we completely failed as a party and I don't think there has been a real examination as to why. Two- because we need a new vision for the Democrat party and that vision is going to come from the grassroots and from candidates all over the country who represent a new generation of leadership and the kind of different thinking that we need.

A lot of what is in the Better Deal plan is clearly designed to attempt to appeal to Trump voters in states like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. However I'm sure that when it comes to Orange County the advice I'll get will be the complete opposite and that I'll be told I need to run as a centrist Democrat to have any chance of winning. Frankly I think that's plainly wrong and if we don't strongly for progressive values in this election, we'll lose. People have to be inspired and you have to give them something to believe in and a reason to get out and vote. And that's not by running a cookie cutter campaign that doesn't resonate in any way shape or form. The biggest problem we face as Democrats right now is that we don't fight for working people anymore. And the only way to fix that is by being very clear about where we stand not just in where we are in the issues but with how we go about communicating that to voters.

The Democratic Party Brand Needs Some Work-- But Not By The People Who Ruined It

In his Rolling Stone essay after Gianforte beat Quist in Montana Thursday night, The Democrats Need A New Message, Matt Taibbi included a litany of excuses the DC Dems always have on hand to explain why they've been losing all the time-- even to monstrosities like Gianforte, Staten Island Mafia thug Michael Grimm, patient-raping-doctor Scott Desjarlais, and, worst by far, Señor Trumpanze.

One of the excuses Taibbi mentioned was how the GOP uses corporate cash to overwhelm less well-financed Democrats. It reminded me of a conversation I had with an exceptionally bright congressmember last November. I predicted that the Republicans would use their all-branch dominance to overreach and turn the voters against them. My congressional friend disagreed--not about the overreach but about voters turning against them. He predicted that they would leverage their power to unleash a flood of corporate money into party coffers and drown the Democrats with it. And Taibbi acknowledged that "Republicans have often, but not always, had fundraising advantages in key races.

Taibbi was talking about how much more Hillary had to spend in 2016 than Trump did. I want to reinforce that on a congressional level. A few days ago we looked at how the Rahm Emanuel DCCC's toxic candidate recruitment resulted in dozens and dozens of Blue Dogs and New Dems been swept out of Congress in the 2010 midterms when Democratic voters boycotted the elections rather than vote again for the DCCC's Republican-lite candidates. And that wasn't because of the Republicans having more corporate cash. In fact, in many cases it was the exact opposite. Republicans beat shitty Blue Dogs and New Dems who had more special interest cash than their GOP opponent did. Here are just a few random examples:

• Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL)- $1,435,526 vs Martha Roby- $1,240,276
• Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ)- $2,308,400) vs Dave Schweikert- $1,721,364
• Ann Kirkpatrick (New Dem-AZ)- $1,956,364 vs Paul Gosar- $1,168,287
• Tim Mahoney (Blue Dog-FL)- $2,756,453 vs Tom Rooney- $1,597,768
• Suzanne Kosmas (Blue Dog-FL)- $2,561,831 vs Sandy Adams- $1,266,664
• Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID)- $2,473,287 vs Raul Labrador- $686,293
• Debbie Halvorson (New Dem-IL)- $2,502,037 vs Adam Kinzinger- $1,827,192
• Baron Hill (Blue Dog-IN)- $2,167,570 vs Todd Young- $1,950,159
• Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD)- $2,621,893 vs Andy Harris $2,383,184
• John Adler (Blue Dog-NJ)- $3,285,638 vs Jon Runyan- $1,518,073
• Michael McMahon (Blue Dog-NY)- $2,897,473 vs Michael Grimm- $1,249,139
• Dan Maffei (New Dem-NY)- $3,114,128 vs Ann Marie Buerkle- $758,777
• Scott Murphy (Blue Dog-NY)- $5,321,745 vs Chris Gibson- $1,734,219
• Mike Acuri (Blue Dog-NY)- $1,886,555 vs Richard Hanna- $1,260,258
• Zack Space (Blue Dog-OH)- $2,931,978 vs Bob Gibbs- $1,090,872
• Kathy Dahlkemper (Blue Dog-PA)- $1,957,701 vs Mike Kelly- $1,235,460
• Patrick Murphy (New Dem-PA)- $4,287,244 vs Mike Fitzpatrick- $2,062,733
• Chris Carney (Blue Dog-PA)- $1,657,586 vs Tom Marino- $704,457

Taibbi continued that "The unspoken subtext of a lot of the Democrats' excuse-making is their growing belief that the situation is hopeless-- and not just because of fixable institutional factors like gerrymandering, but because we simply have a bad/irredeemable electorate that can never be reached. This is why the 'basket of deplorables' comment last summer was so devastating."

But the "deplorables" comment didn't just further alienate already lost Republican votes. It spoke to an internal sickness within the Democratic Party, which had surrendered to a negativistic vision of a hopelessly divided country.

Things are so polarized now that, as Georgia State professor Jennifer McCoy put it on NPR this spring, each side views the other not as fellow citizens with whom they happen to disagree, but as a "threatening enemy to be vanquished."

The "deplorables" comment formalized this idea that Democrats had given up on a huge chunk of the population, and now sought only to defeat and subdue their enemies.

Barack Obama, for all his faults, never gave in to that mindset. He continually insisted that the Democrats needed to find a way to reach lost voters. Even in the infamous "guns and religion" episode, this was so. Obama then was talking about the challenge the Democrats faced in finding ways to reconnect with people who felt ignored and had fled to "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" as a consequence.

Even as he himself was the subject of vicious and racist rhetoric, Obama stumped in the reddest of red districts. In his post-mortem on the Trump-Clinton race, he made a point of mentioning this-- that in Iowa he had gone to every small town and fish fry and VFW hall, and "there were some counties where I might have lost, but maybe I lost by 20 points instead of 50 points."

Most people took his comments to be a dig at Clinton's strategic shortcomings-- she didn't campaign much in many of the key states she lost-- but it was actually more profound than that. Obama was trying to point out that people respond when you demonstrate that you don't believe they're unredeemable.

You can't just dismiss people as lost, even bad or misguided people. Unless every great thinker from Christ to Tolstoy to Gandhi to Dr. King is wrong, it's especially those people you have to keep believing in, and trying to reach.

The Democrats have forgotten this. While it may not be the case with Quist, who seems to have run a decent campaign, the Democrats in general have lost the ability (and the inclination) to reach out to the entire population.

They're continuing, if not worsening, last year's mistake of running almost exclusively on Trump/Republican negatives... But "Republicans are bad" isn't a message or a plan, which is why the Democrats have managed the near impossible: losing ground overall during the singular catastrophe of the Trump presidency.

The party doesn't see that the largest group of potential swing voters out there doesn't need to be talked out of voting Republican. It needs to be talked out of not voting at all. The recent polls bear this out, showing that the people who have been turned off to the Democrats in recent months now say that in a do-over, they would vote for third parties or not at all.

People need a reason to be excited by politics, and not just disgusted with the other side. Until the Democrats figure that out, these improbable losses will keep piling up.

One Democratic congressman who gets it right is California's Ro Khanna. Watch this clip of a powerful messaging interview he did yesterday with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC. We talked to him about it after he was done with Andrea. He reiterated that "the Democrats need to be for fairer rules in the economy. But we also have to have a vision of job creation in middle America. We need to be a party that is both progressive and aspirational."



We talked to two Illinois progressives who are running against entrenched conservative incumbents this cycle. Marie Newman's Chicagoland district around Bridgeport, Canaryville, West Lawn, Midway Airport, Oak Lawn, Hickory Hills and the way out into the suburbs as far as Lockport and Homer Glen. It's a solid blue bungalow belt district with a far right-wing Blue Dog incumbent, Dan Lipinski. Newman's campaign platform has been very focused on the struggles of small businesses. "To be clear," she told us, "Trump’s budget is anti-small and mid market business. Defunding programs enabling small and mid-size manufacturing companies to retrain, scale and in turn, drive jobs, is ridiculous. Rather than taking away those programs, we should be increasing them. Small business is the fastest growing sector and where most jobs are being created, it should be supported. We need to stop favoring large corporations and start supporting small business."

Greg Petzel is also a small businessman and a Chicagoland candidate, running in a district further west. And his opponent, knee-jerk Republican Pete Roskam, is even further right than Lipinski.

I have always believed that the majority of people who enter political life do so because they want to make their community, state or nation better and improve the lives of the people they represent. Based on that concept I also believe that almost everyone shares the same values and that our elected officials have a responsibility to transfer those values into legislation. I believe this is fundamentally true. Have you ever met anyone who prefers polluted air and toxic water over fresh air and clean water? Have you ever met someone who seeks less opportunity at improving their income, or someone who would prefer to go without essential medical treatment? I think Americans have a united set of values.

Unfortunately we often divide ourselves into class, race, or party and our values get trampled on by rhetoric, money, power or special interest agendas. In my district, we have a large number of folks considering running against our radical right-wing congressman, Peter Roskam. Most will tell you they are running because they oppose the Trump Agenda and want to get rid of our congressman because he votes with Trump every time. But simply not liking our congressman isn't enough-- if it were, we would have 143,591 (votes against him in 2016) candidates qualified to run against him. This idea that we oppose an agenda and have no clear agenda or values as a party is exactly why we keep losing elections.

Democrats controlled the House of Representatives from 1955-1995 and stood firmly for strong values-- civil rights, workers rights, women's rights and environmental protection. During that time we created almost all of the nations environmental laws, we created Medicare, and we solidified civil rights legislation. The Democratic Party stood for values that most Americans believed in. And we won elections. And we made our nation and peoples lives better.

Today that Democratic Party-- the one I was taught growing up would fight for me, only exists through a minority of progressive members of Congress. I am happy to bash Democrats or Republicans who try to crush the values I am fighting for. As a party, or at least as individual candidates, we should be fighting for the values that historically drove the Democratic Party. Those values are American values- they are fundamentally ingrained in our hearts and minds and souls as Americans. We don't need the DCCC or any political party to tell us what our common values are. I believe that our fight should be one based on fundamental values that are shared by all people-- Democrat, Republican and Independent. If we can overcome the rhetoric and money and special interests and win elections on real fundamental values, rather than opposition and dislike of our opponents, we can re-establish not only the America I believe in, but the Democratic Party that once fought for us. And in that America, we all win.

Why Do More People Go To The Polls In Iran Than In The U.S. Nowadays?

In 2008, when Obama faced off against John McCain, turnout for an American presidential election was relatively high-- 63.7%. This past year it fell to 55%. France's voter turnout ion their presidential election earlier this month was also down-- to around 65%. Yesterday Iran voted. The voter turnout was around 70%, higher than turnout in any US election since 1900. Why is that? Well there could be a number of reasons-- some existential, but in Iran Election Day is a national holiday; people get off work to vote. (In 1860, the election that marked the end of the South's political dominance over the nation and gave us Abraham Lincoln, turnout was 81.2%)

Turnout has generally been falling in the western democracies since the 1980s, usually attributable to a widespread sense of disillusionment and futility that voting will make any difference. In the U.S. systemic efforts by the Republican Party to decrease election participation has also resulted in lower turnouts, particularly in states where the GOP has been able to enact its voter suppression agenda. Voter participation in Republican-controlled states like Wisconsin are considered responsible, at least in part, for Trump's presidency. In states that have the least voter suppression-- like North Dakota where registration is not required or in Minnesota, Idaho, Maine, and Oregon, where election day registration is permitted, voter participation is relatively high. Minnesota usually has the highest turnout and Maine, North Dakota and Oregon also usually hover around 70%. In the Scandinavian countries, France, and Germany all citizens are automatically registered to vote. Some countries even have compulsory voter participation, including Belgium, Australia, Brazil and Greece.

A report from PBS last November pointed out that "according to interviews with research institutions, advocacy groups and legislators involved in those efforts, restrictive voting laws in some states discourage the electorate from registering to vote. Additionally, they said gerrymandered districts cut across party lines reducing the number of competitive races and interest, and disgruntled citizens, fed up with the often contentious nature of politics, can choose not participate."

According to the United States Election Project, which tracks voting trends, only 36 percent of registered voters cast ballots during the 2014 election cycle, the lowest turnout in a general election since 1942, when many of the nation’s young people were out of the country fighting in World War II. Becker said only three of 10 voters participated in presidential primaries this year.

“A smaller and smaller slice of the electorate are making decisions that are important,” he said.

Voter participation also depends on the state where you vote. According to a Wall Street Journal analysis on state participation, fewer Americans vote when their states are less competitive in races between Democrats and Republicans.

Many of the states with the lowest turnout are dominated by the Republican Party in the South, where restrictive laws can hamper participation. But two states known to be solid Democratic Party supporters-- Hawaii and New York-- also fall in the bottom 20 percent of turnout.

In 2016 alone, at least 14 states installed restrictive voting laws around the country, including limitations on voter registration, photo ID mandates and narrower time periods for early voting, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

...Since 2012, New York State Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh has pushed for legislation that could address some of those issues, such as early voting, extended registration deadlines and updated technology at polling places, but so far few of them have received broad support, he said.

“Lines are often too long, poll workers are often confused, administration of polling sites are often challenging,” Kavanagh said. “I would say there’s no magic bullet. But New York has systematically failed to have an election system to keep up with election practices.”

We asked some of the candidates running for Congress in the 2018 cycle. Tim Canova, running for the South Florida seat occupied by a poster child for sleaze, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, told us that "There's no doubt that making Election Day a national holiday would result in much higher levels of voting. Too many people simply have little time to vote in between the demands of working, commuting, and taking care of family. A national Election Day holiday would also reinforce the civic ethic of voting not just as a right, but as a solemn duty of all citizens in a democracy."

Katie Hill, who's running against a knee-jerk Republican right-winger in Southern California, knows the difference in her district is going to rest with voter participation. When there's higher participation, Democrats tend to win. When more people abstain, Republicans win. "We need to do absolutely everything we can to ensure the highest possible voter participation if we want a government that truly represents the people it's supposed to serve," she told us. "Automatic voter registration and making Election Day a national holiday would be important first steps, but we should do more. Everyone should be able to vote by mail, and I would even like to see us move towards voting online. If we can verify someone's identity enough and with enough security to complete our taxes or mortgage applications entirely online, then surely we can figure out how to make it possible for people to easily exercise their most fundamental right as an American citizen."

We reached David Gill in Springfield, Illinois yesterday while he was participating in PrideFest. He's running for the swing district seat occupied by GOP backbencher Rodney Davis and he told us that "Being a democratic republic, it would be very appropriate for election day to be a national holiday here in America. We should take any and all steps possible to increase citizen participation in the selection of their elected officials, including designating election day as a national holiday. Any other approach is a slap in the face to the founders of this country, who believed so ardently that men should be permitted to rule themselves. And particularly with an economy that has been rigged against the vast majority of working people, an economy in which many people are forced to work more than one job to simply keep their heads above water, designating election day as a national holiday would allow for greater voter participation and would serve as a meaningful step toward improving the health of our democracy."

Geoff Petzel is running in the suburbs west of Chicago, a blue district held by Ryan ally Pete Roskam, Geoff understands how important it is to encourage voters. "Election Day should be a national holiday," he agreed. "I have been lucky enough to implement that concept at my company. All of my employees work only a half day on Election day.They are encouraged to use their time off to vote. One of the greatest freedoms we enjoy as Americans is the ability to elect our leaders in a democratic fashion. We should celebrate that right we have and encourage participation in the voting process by making it a national holiday."

Berniecrat Tom Wakely is running for the Austin-San Antonio corridor seat currently held by Trump extremist Lamar Smith. This voter participation problem is something he has been talking about for a very long time and he sent us this statement this morning:

Voter turnout is a huge problem. When people look at Texas they see a red state but we are not. We are a no-vote state. Let me give you an example of what I am talking. Two weeks ago we had an election here in San Antonio for city council seats and for mayor. Of the one million plus registered voters in the city barely one hundred thousand voted and that vote was split between fourteen candidates for mayor. The top two vote getters are now headed to a runoff. Their combined vote total was less than 8% of my city's registered voters and that ain't good. The same miserable voter turnout goes for both state and federal elections here in Texas.

I was at the VA hospital last week for a dermatology clinic checkup. I spoke to a bunch of vets in the waiting room and then to the two doctors I saw and guess what, none of them had voted in the election. Not one of them. I asked the doctors why and they gave me the same answers the vets in the waiting room gave me. They were too busy, they had to work, something came up; it was one excuse after another. So it didn't matter if it was a professional, a doctor who didn't vote or a retired auto mechanic who didn't vote, their reasons for not-voting were the same. So what can we do?

I believe the solution to the problem of voter turn-out is not one solution but multiple solutions, the first being national elections should be a national holiday, either a Friday or Monday, giving people a much needed three-day holiday weekend. I also think we should look at paying people to vote in national elections. Give everyone a hundred dollar tax credit might work but waiting until the following year, filing your taxes, then waiting for a refund-- but not be as good as just handing everyone who votes a pre-paid Visa debit card. As far as state and municipal elections go, same thing could apply, holiday and pre-paid Visa card.

But as good as an election day holiday and paying someone to vote may be, it doesn't really address voter apathy or voter suppression both of which are part and parcel of why people don't vote. I believe we should have same day voter registration and do every thing possible to make it easier to vote, not harder. We should move away from the old method of standing in line for hours to vote to a vote by mail system. Everyone, should be able to vote by mail. It leaves a paper trail and it is certainly more secure than electronic voting could ever be.

These aren't the kind of ideas you're going to be hearing from the establishment, let alone from dull and unimaginative careerists like Wasserman Schultz, Steve Knight, Rodney Davis, Pete Roskam and Lamar Smith. If you'd like to help progressive Democrats willing to go out on a limb for new, progressive ideas, please consider helping Tim Canova, Katie Hill, David Gill, Geoff Petzel and Tom Wakely win in 2018. If you'd like to contribute to their campaigns directly, you can so do by tapping on the Blue America ActBlue congressional thermometer on the right. Remember, there is no contribution that's too small, not in the kinds of grassroots campaigns these candidates are running to take back Congress and put a stop to the destructive and toxic Trump/Ryan-Republican Party agenda.


UPDATE: 2 More Progressive Candidates Weigh In

Tom Guild is running in the Oklahoma congressional district with the best chance-- by far-- of flipping from red to blue. The DCCC has no intention of helping him displace right-wing nut Steve Russell but his grassroots campaign is chugging along nicely. The aforementioned Brennan Center for Justice has endorsed him, as has Blue America. He just called in with his take:

Low and in many cases declining voter turnout and increased partisan efforts to suppress voter turnout by placing legal obstacles in the way by discouraging or in some cases prohibiting participation are particularly alarming. It tends to impact Americans of modest economic means, who may not be able or may not feel that they are able to take time off from work (although employers are often legally required to give them time off). Dependence on public transportation, which is important but often more time consuming, disproportionately negatively impacts the working poor and Americans of modest incomes. Access to reliable transportation may also be difficult for senior citizens and those outside metropolitan areas who lack public transportation systems. Essentially there are millions of Americans who are effectively denied the fundamental right to participate in our elections, thus skewing or even changing the results in many important elections.

Making Election Day a national holiday would make it possible for millions of disenfranchised Americans to vote on a regular basis. This and other measures could make our representative democracy more representative and more democratic. Access to health care doesn’t mean you can afford to purchase insurance. The right to vote doesn’t necessarily mean that right can be easily or practically exercised by many Americans. We should remove obstacles to participation in our elections. The problem isn’t that too many Americans are voting, but that many feel and are practically or legally excluded from exercising the voting franchise. Thus, regrettably millions of citizens don’t have their voices heard or their votes counted in the results on election day. Making Election Day a national holiday is a good step towards restoring health to our ailing representative democracy.

And the final word on this goes to Jenny Marshall, the intrepid North Carolina Berniecrat running for the Piedmont seat held by fringy Republican Virginia Foxx: "The vote is the most powerful tool we have in our Republic because it levels the playing field between moneyed interests and the citizens. The Republicans are using calculated precision to disenfranchise and discourage people from voting in an attempt to control the outcomes of elections. If you can't win on your message then you just change the rules. I, on the other hand, would like to see expanded voting locations and times to meet the needs of the voters, expanded same day registering and voting opportunities, open primaries and making election day a national holiday. There are many professions that do not have flexible hours to allow voting on election day. Even with the option of letting employees take time off to vote, many work positions that are just not feasible to do so. Making election day a national holiday would be a step in the right direction making it easier for voters to access the ballot box."