Why Did The DCCC Fail So Spectacularly On Tuesday? Let's Ask 3 Really Smart Philosophic Types: AOC, Eric Zuesse And Anand Giridharadas

 

Today's most-talked about NY Times piece, at least in my universe, is Astead Herndon's post-election interview with AOC. Short version-- AOC: "People really want the Democratic Party to fight for them." If only Pelosi and Hoyer would tattoo that on their foreheads so they saw it whenever they checked the mirror! Their DCCC chair this cycle, Cheri Bustos, a protégée of centrist bankster Rahm Emanuel, aside from losing probably a dozen House seats while Biden won the election, nearly lost her own seat-- a D+3 district that was gerrymandered by the Democrat Party-controlled Illinois legislature to elect Democrats. With votes still being counted, the race was finally called for Bustos after a few harrowing days and it looks like she squeaked by with a 51.9-48.1% win over Esther Joy King, who enjoyed no significant help from the Republican Party (while Pelosi's SuperPAC used a late IE costing $1,044,002 to smear her). As of October 14 Bustos had spent $4,573,839 to King's $1,634,304. Bustos, in line with the DCCC, offered her constituents nothing at all to vote for her. Like her fellow New Dems and Blue Dogs, she opposes every popular systemic progressive initiative to ease the burdens conservatives have put on their lives. Yesterday, Politico noted that she is being considered for a Cabinet position.

Herndon began by affirming that AOC had been "a good soldier" for the party and Biden in the battle against the fascist threat. After Biden was declared the winner on Saturday, though, she "made clear the divisions within the party that animated the primary still exist. And she dismissed recent criticisms from some Democratic House members who have blamed the party’s left for costing them important seats." [Note: except that you may consider every seat "an important seat," not a single lost seat is even remotely important and the House Democratic caucus is MUCH better off without every one of the losers.] AOC put it differently, telling Herndon that some of the members who lost had made themselves "sitting ducks." Herndon's first question was to ask her for her macro takeaway. It certainly isn't what the pundits and high-priced consultants are saying to explain the abject failure of the DCCC last week. AOC:

Well, I think the central one is that we aren’t in a free fall to hell anymore. But whether we’re going to pick ourselves up or not is the lingering question. We paused this precipitous descent. And the question is if and how we will build ourselves back up.

We know that race is a problem, and avoiding it is not going to solve any electoral issues. We have to actively disarm the potent influence of racism at the polls.

But we also learned that progressive policies do not hurt candidates. Every single candidate that co-sponsored Medicare for All in a swing district kept their seat. We also know that co-sponsoring the Green New Deal was not a sinker. Mike Levin was an original co-sponsor of the legislation, and he kept his seat.

Mike Levin and Harley Rouda were both elected in 2018 to represent adjoining districts. In Orange County, everything north of Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo and Rancho Santa Margarita in part of Rouda's district and everything south of Dana Point, San Juan Capistrano and Madera Ranch is part of Levin's district. Before their victories, both districts were occupied by odious Republicans, Dana Rohrabacher and Darrell Issa. Levin is a moderate Democrat; Rouda, a former Republican, is a conservative Democrat. Levin's victory was quickly called-- 192,105 (53.4%) to 167,423 (46.6%). With 99% of the vote counted Rouda is losing to Republican Michelle Steel-- 196,208 (50.9%) to 189,235 (49.1%). Since being elected, Levin has been on the right side of crucial progressive roll calls 79.01% of the time. Rouda, on the other hand, is a New Dem and rates an "F" from ProgressivePunch; he's voted with progressives just 64.20% of the time. Progressives in his district know him as a DINO and he campaigned as a Republican-lite candidate.

Herndon pressed AOC on this tendency among conservative Democrats to shy away from issues that are important to Democratic voters: "Democrats lost seats in an election where they were expected to gain them. Is that what you are ascribing to racism and white supremacy at the polls?"

I think it’s going to be really important how the party deals with this internally, and whether the party is going to be honest about doing a real post-mortem and actually digging into why they lost. Because before we even had any data yet in a lot of these races, there was already finger-pointing that this was progressives’ fault and that this was the fault of the Movement for Black Lives.

I’ve already started looking into the actual functioning of these campaigns. And the thing is, I’ve been unseating Democrats for two years. I have been defeating D.C.C.C.-run campaigns for two years. That’s how I got to Congress. That’s how we elected Ayanna Pressley. That’s how Jamaal Bowman won. That’s how Cori Bush won. And so we know about extreme vulnerabilities in how Democrats run campaigns.

Some of this is criminal. It’s malpractice. Conor Lamb spent $2,000 on Facebook the week before the election. I don’t think anybody who is not on the internet in a real way in the Year of our Lord 2020 and loses an election can blame anyone else when you’re not even really on the internet.

And I’ve looked through a lot of these campaigns that lost, and the fact of the matter is if you’re not spending $200,000 on Facebook with fund-raising, persuasion, volunteer recruitment, get-out-the-vote the week before the election, you are not firing on all cylinders. And not a single one of these campaigns were firing on all cylinders.

...These folks are pointing toward Republican messaging that they feel killed them, right? But why were you so vulnerable to that attack?

If you’re not door-knocking, if you’re not on the internet, if your main points of reliance are TV and mail, then you’re not running a campaign on all cylinders. I just don’t see how anyone could be making ideological claims when they didn’t run a full-fledged campaign.

Our party isn’t even online, not in a real way that exhibits competence. And so, yeah, they were vulnerable to these messages, because they weren’t even on the mediums where these messages were most potent. Sure, you can point to the message, but they were also sitting ducks. They were sitting ducks.

There’s a reason Barack Obama built an entire national campaign apparatus outside of the Democratic National Committee. And there’s a reason that when he didn’t activate or continue that, we lost House majorities. Because the party-- in and of itself-- does not have the core competencies, and no amount of money is going to fix that.

If I lost my election, and I went out and I said: “This is moderates’ fault. This is because you didn’t let us have a floor vote on Medicare for all.” And they opened the hood on my campaign, and they found that I only spent $5,000 on TV ads the week before the election? They would laugh. And that’s what they look like right now trying to blame the Movement for Black Lives for their loss.

...If you are the D.C.C.C., and you’re hemorrhaging incumbent candidates to progressive insurgents, you would think that you may want to use some of those firms. But instead, we banned them. So the D.C.C.C. banned every single firm that is the best in the country at digital organizing.

The leadership and elements of the party-- frankly, people in some of the most important decision-making positions in the party [Note: Pelosi, Perez, Hoyer...]-- are becoming so blinded to this anti-activist sentiment that they are blinding themselves to the very assets that they offer.

I’ve been begging the party to let me help them for two years. That’s also the damn thing of it. I’ve been trying to help. Before the election, I offered to help every single swing district Democrat with their operation. And every single one of them, but five, refused my help. And all five of the vulnerable or swing district people that I helped secured victory or are on a path to secure victory. And every single one that rejected my help is losing. And now they’re blaming us for their loss.

So I need my colleagues to understand that we are not the enemy. And that their base is not the enemy. That the Movement for Black Lives is not the enemy, that Medicare for all is not the enemy. This isn’t even just about winning an argument. It’s that if they keep going after the wrong thing, I mean, they’re just setting up their own obsolescence.

Herndon then asked her what her expectations are as to how open the Biden administration will be to the left? And what is the strategy in terms of moving it?

She responded that she don’t know how open they’ll be but noted that the Democratic establishment gets all lovey-dovey with the grassroots leading up to an election "and then those communities are promptly abandoned right after an election. I think the transition period is going to indicate whether the administration is taking a more open and collaborative approach, or whether they’re taking a kind of icing-out approach. Because Obama’s transition set a trajectory for 2010 and some of our House losses. It was a lot of those transition decisions-- and who was put in positions of leadership [Note: Rahm Emanuel, who Biden is already talking about giving a role to, as well as others from the bottom of the Democratic Party battle: Cheri Bustos, Heidi Heitkamp, Michele Flournoy, Antony Blinken, Tom Perez, Meg Whitman, Terry McCauliffe, Pete Buttigieg]-- that really informed, unsurprisingly, the strategy of governance.

He followed up with the obvious question that all long-time Biden watchers are worried about: "What if the administration is hostile? If they take the John Kasich view of who Joe Biden should be? What do you do?

Well, I’d be bummed, because we’re going to lose. And that’s just what it is. These transition appointments, they send a signal. They tell a story of who the administration credits with this victory. And so it’s going be really hard after immigrant youth activists helped potentially deliver Arizona and Nevada. It’s going to be really hard after Detroit and Rashida Tlaib ran up the numbers in her district.

It’s really hard for us to turn out nonvoters when they feel like nothing changes for them. When they feel like people don’t see them, or even acknowledge their turnout.

If the party believes after 94 percent of Detroit went to Biden, after Black organizers just doubled and tripled turnout down in Georgia, after so many people organized Philadelphia, the signal from the Democratic Party is the John Kasichs won us this election? I mean, I can’t even describe how dangerous that is.

At the Strategic Culture Foundation blog on Friday, investigative historian Eric Zuesse wrote a somewhat more in depth look at the struggle between progressivism and traditional liberalism, pointing to a partially flawed recent piece by Philip Giraldi, . Zuesse pointed out that Giraldi "criticized-- and very correctly so-- the U.S. Democratic Party’s mischaracterization of America’s main problem as its (supposedly) being a conflict between ethnic groups (religious, cultural, racial, or otherwise), and Giraldi unfortunately merely assumed (falsely) that the Democratic Party’s doing this (alleging that inter-ethnic conflicts are America’s top problem) reflects the Party’s being 'progressive,' instead of its being 'liberal'; but, actually, there are big differences between those two ideologies, and that Party-- just like America’s other major Party, the Republican Party-- is controlled by its billionaires, and there simply aren’t any progressive billionaires; there are only liberal and conservative billionaires. America has a liberal Party, the Democratic Party, and a conservative Party, the Republican Party, and both of those Parties are controlled by their respective billionaire donors; and there are no progressive billionaires... Giraldi was actually attacking progressivism by confusing it with liberalism."

Though the Democratic (liberal) billionaires blacklisted Bernie-- and only Bernie, "had the most-passionate supporters, and vastly more donors, than did any other candidate in the contest; and, the polls throughout the Democratic primaries showed that he was virtually always either #2 or (occasionally) #1 in the preferences of all of the polled likely Democratic primary voters. But, Sanders got no billionaire’s money. He got as far as he did, only on his mass-base. He was running as the lone progressive in the field. And, unlike any of the others, he focused on the class-conflict issue, instead of on the ethnic-conflict issue-- he focused against the money-power, instead of against “racism” (which was his #2 issue). All of the other candidates placed the ethnic-conflict issue (in the form of anti-Black racism) as being America’s most important problem."

Sanders was the only candidate who blamed America’s billionaires (the people who control both of its Parties) for being the cause of America’s problems and the beneficiaries from those problems. He was the only progressive candidate in the entire contest. Sanders’s competitors were blaming the public (as if the majority of it were anti-Black bigots)-- not the aristocracy (not the super-rich-- the few people who actually control America). So: all of Sanders’s competitors had billionaires already funding them; and, still more billionaires were waiting in the wings to do so for whomever the Party’s nominee might turn out to be-- except if it would be Sanders (who would get nothing from any of them). (And, even if Sanders had won the Democratic nomination, what chance would he have had to win against Trump if even the Democratic Party’s billionaires were donating instead to the Trump campaign?)

Back in 2016, the two most-heavily-funded-by-billionaires candidates were Hillary Clinton (#1) and Donald Trump (#2). And they became the nominees. In today’s America, the billionaires always get their man (or their woman). It’s always a contest between a Republican-billionaires-backed nominee, versus a Democratic-billionaires-backed nominee.

What Giraldi blames on “progressivism” is instead actually “liberalism” (which accepts being ruled by its billionaires) but there are more ways than only this that Giraldi misunderstands the difference between these two ideologies.

...Giraldi writes as a conservative who uses the falsehoods that are intrinsic to liberalism as cudgels with which to attack progressivism. He doesn’t understand ideology-- especially progressivism. Clearly, it’s not within his purview; and, therefore, his intended attack against progressivism misses its mark, and doesn’t even squarely hit its intended target, which is actually liberalism.

Throughout history, the aristocracies have been of two types: outright conservatives, versus the “noblesse oblige” type of aristocrats, which are called “liberals.” The main actual difference between the two is that, whereas the self-proclaimed conservatives boldly endorse their own supremacism, liberals instead slur it over with nice and kindly-sounding verbiage. Whereas conservatives are unashamed of their having all rights and feeling no obligations to the public (even trying to minimize their taxes), liberals are ashamed of it, but continue their haughty attitudes nonetheless, and refuse to recognize that such extreme inequality of wealth is a curse upon the entire society. Progressives condemn both types of aristocrat: the outright conservatives, and the hypocritical conservatives (liberals). Progressives recognize that the more extreme the inequality of wealth is in a society, the less likely that society is to be an authentic democracy, and they are 100% proponents of democracy. Liberals talk about ‘equality’, but don’t much care about it, actually. That’s why aristocrats can support liberalism, but can’t support progressivism. Progressives recognize that the super-wealthy are the biggest enemies of democracy-- that they are intrinsically enemies of the public. Progressives aren’t bought-off even by ‘philanthropists.’

Scientific studies (such as this) have documented that the more wealth a person has, the more conservative that person generally becomes. Furthermore, the richer a person is, the more callous and lacking in compassion that person tends to be. Moreover, the richer and more educated a person is, the likelier that person is to believe that economic success results from a person’s having a higher amount of virtue (and thus failure marks a person’s lacking virtue). And, studies have also shown that the wealthiest 1% tend to be extreme conservatives, and tend to be intensely involved in politics. Consequently, to the exact contrary of Giraldi’s article, the higher levels of politics tend to be filled with excessive concerns about how to serve the desires of the rich, and grossly deficient concerns about even the advisability of serving the needs of the poor. Such attitudes naturally favor the aristocracy, at the expense of the public. Confusing liberalism with progressivism advances the conservative, pro-aristocracy, agenda, at the expense of truth, and at the expense of the public, and even at the expense of democracy itself.

Furthermore: throughout the millennia, aristocracies have been applying the divide-and-conquer principle to set segments of the public against each other so that blame by the public for society’s problems won’t be targeted against themselves (the aristocrats), who actually control and benefit from the corruption that extracts so much from the public and causes those problems. Thus: Black against White, gay against straight, female against male, Muslim against Christian, and immigrant against native, etc. This divide-and-conquer strategy is peddled by both conservative and liberal aristocrats, and has been for thousands of years. Giraldi’s focusing on that as being instead generated by progressives, is not only false-- it is profoundly false. It is a fundamental miscomprehension.

So, the popular confusion between progressivism and liberalism is beneficial to the aristocracy, but harmful to the public.

Anand Giridharadas, author of Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World, is not confused and his Friday OpEd for the NY Times, Biden Can’t Be FDR He Could Still Be LBJ. On one level that scares people who lived through the "Hey, hey, LBJ, How many boys have you killed today" era. Giridharadas wrote that "if this election is to have lasting meaning, we cannot see a Biden campaign victory as license to cast away politics as a presence in our daily lives. We cannot succumb to the liberal temptation parodied by the comedian Kylie Brakeman to 'vote for Biden so we can all get back to brunch.' However effective it might have been at closing this race, this restorationist fantasy would be a terrible governing philosophy. Because the pre-Trump world-- in which voting rights were being gutted and 40 percent of Americans couldn’t afford a $400 emergency bill -- is no kind of place to go back to. Mr. Biden himself seemed to concede this point by tempering his restoration message with the slogan 'Build Back Better.'"

Giridharadas spoke with Schumer the day before the election-- when he still was tying to decide on whether to have diamonds or rubies in his Majority Leader crown-- and he wrote that Schumer, like Biden, "is an institutionalist and a moderate." He asked him about this idea of restoration versus transformation. "Almost as soon as he heard me say the word 'normalcy,' he began, for lack of a better term, to filibuster: 'No, no, I don’t buy that. My view,' he told me, 'is if we don’t do bold change, we could end up with someone worse than Donald Trump in four years' What passed for change in the past two decades (including during the Obama years) had not, he acknowledged, been 'big enough or bold enough.' When I asked if Democrats bore some responsibility for that, he deflected: 'There’s plenty of blame to go around.'"

Even if, improbably, the Senate is on Mr. Biden’s side in 2021, he and his advisers will have to pull off a grueling balancing act: pushing federal policy to reflect popular will so that people’s lives can measurably improve, while making fundamental changes to the workings of American democracy and managing to heal rather than inflame the cultural resentments, racial hatred and party polarization that still imperil the Republic (and that the Republican Party thrives on).

...If Democrats win the two presumed Georgia runoffs, Senate Democrats will represent roughly 41 million more people than the Republican half of the chamber. If Mr. Biden is to meet this moment, he can’t let his cautious temperament and deep hankering for civic comity stop him from making the policy changes families need.

...For tens of millions, the economic traumas of the pandemic have come on top of decades of stagnation and precariousness. Since 1989, the wealth of the bottom 50 percent of Americans has fallen by $900 billion. Before Covid-19, 44 percent of American workers were being paid median annual wages of $18,000. And the evictions now surging are coming in the wake of a housing market that has long been unaffordable. Even if high unemployment were reversed, it would hardly repair our increasingly classist and Uber-ized labor market.

And if Democrats do win the Senate? Senator Schumer told me he envisions a first 100 days filled with a raft of measures on the virus and economic relief, mixed in with policies that address inequality, climate change, student debt, immigration and more. A Biden administration’s early days “ought to look like F.D.R.’s,” he said. “We need big, bold change. America demands it, and we’re going to fight for it.”

Much, however, could still get in the way. First, Mr. Biden’s own instinct toward caution-- which can easily end up enabling paralysis at a time when Democrats’ window for proving the promise of an active government could be closing. Any measure of success is likely to be determined by how seriously a Biden administration takes the inevitable calls for fiscal conservatism and austerity (despite historically low interest rates).

...And there are early warning signs: Ted Kaufman, who is leading the Biden transition team, recently told The Wall Street Journal that because of Trump-era deficit spending, “when we get in, the pantry is going to be bare.”

A Biden administration could also perceive itself as owing a political debt to the most influential and visible center-right elements of his sweeping, unwieldy alliance of supporters. Young leftists of color from cities in major swing states are arguably more responsible for his win than Republican defectors like former Senator Jeff Flake and the former Republican operatives turned media darlings of the Lincoln Project. But who will have more of a voice in Washington?

On various matters of policy, Mr. Biden could find himself in an awkward fox trot with wealthy donors in liberal power centers like Silicon Valley and Wall Street-- the kind of people who may love hanging “Black Lives Matter” signs in their yards more than they love Biden proposals like a Section 8 expansion that would allow more working-class Black families to live in their midst.

...The growing sense, among both the party’s technocrats and its populists, is that their midterm fate lies in whether voters give Democrats credit for improving their lives-- not on the processes used or norms violated to do so.

“A public health and economic crisis is not the time for incremental steps, small ideas or meekness,” Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, a leading Democrat in the House Progressive Caucus, told me. “Joe Biden can deliver on this from Day 1 with executive orders and administrative actions that cancel student debt, lower drug prices, strengthen workers’ rights and cut emissions.” The American Prospect recently published “277 Policies for Which Biden Need Not Ask Permission,” based on the results of the Biden-Sanders unity task force.

Mr. Biden has an opportunity to seize on policies that, thanks to the heterodoxy of Trumpism, now have surprising resonance in both parties-- but not for the traditional reasons of being milquetoast or appealing to corporatist moderates. A wealth tax polls surprisingly well among Republican voters. Using the Department of Justice to crack down on monopolies and threats from China has some bipartisan support. As does actual infrastructure investment and, to a limited extent, raising the minimum wage.

Mr. Biden also does not need Mr. McConnell’s permission to build a down-ballot pipeline. One of the failures of the Obama years was the attrition of the Democratic Party beneath the president: By 2017, its Senate seats had dwindled to 48 from 59, and it lost 62 House seats, 12 governorships and a whopping 948 seats in state legislatures.

Amanda Litman, the executive director of Run for Something, a progressive group that grooms candidates for office at all levels, proposes this corrective: “Bring back the 50-state strategy. Invest in all state parties to build grass-roots infrastructure,” she told me. “Set the direction and tone: No office is too small, no community too unimportant. Then raise money for all of it.”

To the extent that, for the next two years, divided government severely limits the sort of public action that progressives dreamed about in their 2020 primaries, Mr. Biden could use his office to create task forces that normalize and build a public consensus for more significant small-d democratic changes to American politics achievable only down the road.

...In the end, a basic choice may stalk Mr. Biden: What matters more, the radiation of personal decency or the pursuit of structural fairness?

There are some reasons to hope that he could be a bolder president than anticipated. He is that rare candidate who tacked toward the party base rather than the center in the general election. In certain areas, such as climate change and student debt, he has shown a willingness to have his initial policy view revised by others. He is less motivated by ideology than by the path of least resistance. Whether that path aligns with donors, the Beltway consensus or organized popular movements, he takes it.

The example of Lyndon Johnson-- a longtime senator and a vice president less charismatic than the president he served and succeeded who, nevertheless, became more consequential-- provides a possible historical analogue. Mr. Biden could turn out to be an improbably deft salesman for progressive priorities, using his disarming, folksy, median-voter-friendly patois, that “C’mon, man” Americana vibe, to make major changes seem like common sense.

“Joe Biden’s magic is that everything he does becomes the new reasonable,” Andrew Yang, once Mr. Biden’s rival for the Democratic nomination, told me. “He has shown the ability to move the mainstream of the Democratic Party on issues before. As president, whatever he does, he will bring the whole center with him.”

Never Too Late For Predictions?

 

Earlier today, I quoted part of a post from William Steding's blog, Ameritecture, Tomorrow is Almost Here. I left out two paragraphs I didn't want to start a debate about at the time:

Of course, with a nation awash in guns and hatred, there will be blood. People in Kansas have already been shooting each other over yard signs. Hopefully, incidents of ignorance and violence will remain isolated and contained. Depending on where you live, have a plan to hide until cooler heads prevail. Innocents are a bully’s first target. And, a wild-eyed steroidal idiot with an assault rifle may be itching to make his video-game fantasies come true.

When all votes have been counted, and relative calm returns, Obama’s “Hope and Change,” updated by Biden as “Build Back Better,” will return to our doorstep with Joe as its shepherd. Answer the door when you hear the bell. Take a deep breath. Take a nap. Hug yourself. Then, commit yourself anew; prepare to do the crucial work to save our future.

The new work-- saving our future-- must be founded in humility and purpose. Revenge is satisfying, but only for a moment. Evening the score will compromise unification that is so urgently needed to deal with issues like Covid-19 and climate change. Vice must be set aside in favor of virtue. Healing our scarred souls and embracing unity as our highest aim--e pluribus unum-- must become, once again, our north star. Us vs. Them and Win-Lose scenarios have no place in our collective pursuit of redemption. Hate must be put asunder. America’s restoration lies in empowering others rather than coercive schemes of dominance. 

We tried that already... after the Civil War. Instead of hanging every rebel. And the result? The virtual re-enslavement of southern blacks. An inability of our country to move forward because of heel dragging from the descendants of the ones who got away without hanging. Did you watch this video?





Did you ever read any of Hunter S. Thompson's last works, like Kingdom of Fear: Loathsome Secrets of a Star-crossed Child in the Final Days of the American Century (2004)?

We have become a Nazi monster in the eyes of the whole world, a nation of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully. We are not just Whores for power and oil, but killer whores with hate and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and that is how history will judge us. No redeeming social value. Just whores. Get out of our way, or we'll kill you. Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush? They are the same ones who wanted to have Muhammad Ali locked up for refusing to kill gooks. They speak for all that is cruel and stupid and vicious in the American character. They are the racists and hate mongers among us; they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the throats of these Nazis. And I am too old to worry about whether they like it or not. Fuck them."

"Fuck the South. Fuck 'em. We should have let them go when they wanted to leave. But no, we had to kill half a million people so they'd stay part of our special Union. Fighting for the right to keep slaves-- yeah, those are states we want to keep. And now what do we get? We're the fucking Arrogant Northeast Liberal Elite?

How about this for arrogant: the South is the Real America? The Authentic America. Really? Cause we fucking founded this country, assholes. Those Founding Fathers you keep going on and on about? All that bullshit about what you think they meant by the Second Amendment giving you the right to keep your assault weapons in the glove compartment because you didn't bother to read the first half of the fucking sentence? Who do you think those wig-wearing lacy-shirt sporting revolutionaries were? They were fucking blue-staters, dickhead.

Boston? Philadelphia? New York? Hello? Think there might be a reason all the fucking monuments are up here in our backyard?

No, No. Get the fuck out. We're not letting you visit the Liberty Bell and fucking Plymouth Rock anymore until you get over your real American selves and start respecting those other nine amendments. Who do you think those fucking stripes on the flag are for? Nine are for fucking blue states. And it would be 10 if those Vermonters had gotten their fucking Subarus together and broken off from New York a little earlier. Get it? We started this shit, so don't get all uppity about how real you are you Johnny-come-lately "Oooooh I've been a state for almost a hundred years" dickheads. Fuck off.

Arrogant? You wanna talk about us Northeasterners being fucking arrogant? What's more American than arrogance? Hmmm? Maybe horsies? I don't think so. Arrogance is the fucking cornerstone of what it means to be American. And I wouldn't be so fucking arrogant if I wasn't paying for your fucking bridges, bitch. All those Federal taxes you love to hate? It all comes from us and goes to you, so shut up and enjoy your fucking Tennessee Valley Authority electricity and your fancy highways that we paid for. And the next time Florida gets hit by a hurricane you can come crying to us if you want to, but you're the ones who built on a fucking swamp. "Let the Spanish keep it, it's a shithole," we said, but you had to have your fucking orange juice.

The next dickwad who says, "It's your money, not the government's money" is gonna get their ass kicked. Nine of the ten states that get the most federal fucking dollars and pay the least... can you guess? Go on, guess. That's right, motherfucker, they're red states. And eight of the ten states that receive the least and pay the most? It's too easy, asshole, they're blue states. It's not your money, assholes, it's fucking our money. What was that Real American Value you were spouting a minute ago? Self reliance? Try this for self reliance: buy your own fucking stop signs, assholes.

Let's talk about those values for a fucking minute. You and your Southern values can bite my ass because the blue states got the values over you fucking Real Americans every day of the goddamn week. Which state do you think has the lowest divorce rate you marriage-hyping dickwads? Well? Can you guess? It's fucking Massachusetts, the fucking center of the gay marriage universe. Yes, that's right, the state you love to tie around the neck of anyone to the left of Strom Thurmond has the lowest divorce rate in the fucking nation. Think that's just some aberration? How about this: 9 of the 10 lowest divorce rates are fucking blue states, asshole, and most are in the Northeast, where our values suck so bad. And where are the highest divorce rates? Care to fucking guess? 10 of the top 10 are fucking red-ass we're-so-fucking-moral states. And while Nevada is the worst, the Bible Belt is doing its fucking part.

But two guys making out is going to fucking ruin marriage for you? Yeah? Seems like you're ruining it pretty well on your own, you little bastards.

Oh, but that's ok because you go to church, right? I mean you do, right? Cause we fucking get to hear about it every goddamn year at election time. Yes, we're fascinated by how you get up every Sunday morning and sing, and then you're fucking towers of moral superiority. Yeah, that's a workable formula. Maybe us fucking Northerners don't talk about religion as much as you because we're not so busy sinning, hmmm? Ever think of that, you self-righteous assholes? No, you're too busy erecting giant stone tablets of the Ten Commandments in buildings paid for by the fucking Northeast Liberal Elite. And who has the highest murder rates in the nation? It ain't us up here in the North, assholes.

Well this gravy train is fucking over. Take your liberal-bashing, federal-tax-leaching, confederate-flag-waving, holier-than-thou, hypocritical bullshit and shove it up your ass. And no, you can't have your fucking convention in New York next time.

Fuck off.

That said, let's look at predictions for today from Washington Post columnist Henry Olsen. I see a landslide; he doesn't but he is clear that Biden "will win comfortably unless we experience the greatest polling failure in modern history. Democrats will also gain control of the Senate and expand their majority in the House." He believes that Trump will lose every state Hillary won and lose 7 states that he won in 2016-- Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin + NE-02 (but, according to him, not ME-02).

As far as the Senate goes, he's on the straight and narrow, predicting losses for Martha McSally (R-AZ), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Susan Collins (R-ME), Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Doug Jones (D-AL)... so the narrowest of Democratic Senate majorities, dependent on right-of-center Dems like Manchin, Sinema, Warner, Carper, Hickenlooper, Kelly, Cunningham... to do anything. In other words, the progressive agenda is going nowhere. Both Georgia's Senate seats will be decided in run-offs.

In the House he predicts 30 pickups and 10 losses. I actually wish he was right about the Democratic looses in the House-- Dems would be better off without them-- but he's wrong, probably on all ten! The ten seats he sees the Dems losing Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)-- the most likely to lose of any of them but I bet he hangs on-- TJ Cox (New Dem-CA), Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (New Dem-FL), Abby Finkenauer (de facto New Dem-IA), Xochitl Torres-Small (Blue Dog-NM), Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY), Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY), Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK), Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC) and Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT). I hope he's right on some of them but if I had to bet, I'd bet they all are reelected and then lose in 2022.

The 30 districts he thinks are Democratic pick-ups start with the 2 gimmes: the two ungerryamndered North Carolina red seats, NC-02 and NC-06. Then (+ his predictions of new members):

• AK- Alyse Galvin
• AZ-06- Hiral Tipirneni
• AR-02- Joyce Elliott
• CA-25- Christy Smith
• CO-03- Diane Mitsch Bush
• GA-07- Carolyn Bourdeaux
• IL-13- Betsy Londrigan
• IN-05- Christina Hale
• MI-03- Hillary Scholten
• MI-06- Jon Hoadley
• MN-01- Dan Feehan
• MO-02- Jill Schupp
• MT- Kathleen Williams
• NE-02- Kara Eastman
• NJ-02- Amy Kennedy
• NY-02- Jackie Gordon
• NY-24- Dana Balter
• NC-08- Patricia Timmons
• NC-11- Moe Davis
• OH-01- Kate Schroder
• PA-01- Christina Finello
• PA-10- Eugene DePasquale
• TX-10- Mike Siegel
• TX-21- Wendy Davis
• TX-22- Sri Kulkarni
• TX-23- Gina Ortiz Jones
• TX-24- Candace Valenzuela
• VA-05- Cameron Webb

I want to compare two freshmen from Orange County, California-- Katie Porter and Harley Rouda. In 2018, Katie's district (CA-45) handed her a 158,906 (52.1%) to 146,383 (47.9%) win over incumbent Mimi Walters. Meanwhile Rouda beat the notorious Russian spy Dana Rohrabacher 157,837 (53.6) to 136,899 (46.4%). Rouda won bigger. But he joined the New Dems and has established himself as a do-nothing waste of a seat who is firmly ensconced as a pointless member the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. He's done exactly nothing and there is no reason to reelect him except that his Republican challenger is worse. Katie, on the other hands so beloved that the Republicans figured out she is unbeatable. She has distinguished herself in Congress as a total asset and she is untouchable.

This year Katie raised $15 million to her opponent's $1,265,078. The DCCC quickly saw she needed no outside help and contributed $840 in independent money in her race, in other words, nothing. Rouda, on the other hand, does nothing but beg for money day in and day out has only been able to raise $5,426,654, slightly less than his opponent. Because he's been such a total waste and with nothing to offer to anyone (except her donors) the DCCC and Pelosi's SuperPAC had to rush to save his worthless hide by spending nearly $10 million on his race. He'll win-- and probably lose in 2022-- but is it really worth $10 million to keep him. Why not just recruit talented and dedicated leaders like Katie Porter instead of Republican-retreads like Harley Rouda?

Most of the DCCC recruits this cycle are as bad as-- or worse-- the Harley Rouda. Schumer's Senate recruits are generally even worse. I llooked over Olsen's predictions and bolded the names of the candidates who are more like Katie Porter and less like Harley Rouda. Keep it so you can check up on me in 2 years.

Asterisked-- The Worst President In History by Nancy Ohanian

Orange County, This Coming November

Katie Porter-- a leader

There are some good politicians trying to do a good job through this. And then there are the nightmares like Trump and the Trumpists. Like Trump, governor Asa Hutchinson (R-AR), Kristi Noem (R-SD), Kevin Stitt (R-OK) and, especially, Ron DeSantis (R-FL) make everybody else look relatively good. There's a general consensus that DeSantis is the worst governor in the country, at least in terms of doing the most harm to the most people. Like Trump, who consistently-- even arrogantly-- ignored all warnings, DeSantis, reported the NY Times, helped infect the whole country due entirely to his political cowardice.

Weeks before Florida ordered people to stay at home, the coronavirus was well into its insidious spread in the state, infecting residents and visitors who days earlier had danced at beach parties and reveled in theme parks. Only now, as people have gotten sick and recovered from-- or succumbed to-- Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, has the costly toll of keeping Florida open during the spring break season started to become apparent.

Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has blamed travelers from New York, Europe and other places for seeding the virus in the state. But the reverse was also true: People got sick in Florida and took the infection back home.

The exact number of people who returned from leisure trips to Florida with the coronavirus may never be known. Cases as far away as California and Massachusetts have been linked to the Winter Party Festival, a beachside dance party and fund-raiser for the L.G.B.T.Q. community held March 4-10. Another California man died after going to Orlando for a conference and then to a packed Disney World. Two people went to Disney and later got relatives sick in Florida and Georgia.

Slow action by Florida’s governor left local leaders scrambling to make their own closure decisions during one of the busiest and most profitable times of the year for a state with an $86 billion tourism economy. The result was that rules were often in conflict, with one city canceling a major event while a neighboring city allowed another event to continue.

DeSantis finally took action on April 1-- a full month too late. Florida has over 18,500 confirmed cases and nearly 500 deaths, with the epidemic still expanding in the state. Tectonix, a data analytics and visualization firm showed how cellphones that were on one Fort Lauderdale beach at the beginning of March spread across the country-- up the Eastern Seaboard and further West-- over the next two weeks. DeSantis is literally, along with Trump, the Typhoid Mary of this pandemic.

The Orange County in the headline, though, is not Orange County the Orlando, Florida Orange County-- which luckily for the people who live there, started moving in the right direction before DeSantis did. I have the other big Orange County in mind-- southern California's.

Orange County was once the heartland of the Republican Party-- long before Texas or the rest of the Deep South could be counted on. America can thank Orange County for the Nixon and Reagan presidencies. And then Trump happened. In 2016, primary day looked like this:

• Trump- 146,888
• Hillary- 123,723
• Bernie- 100,836
• Kasich- 21,285
• Cruz- 16,844

In November, Hillary beat Trump county-wide-- 556,544 (51.0%) to 472,669 (43.3%). That was the first time Orange County went for a Democrat since 1936-- FDR's first reelection. In 2012 Romney beat Obama 541,592 (53.0%) to 457,077 (44.8%). That was quite a turn-around! And 2 years later, in the 2018 midterms, all 4 Orange County red districts-- each of which Romney had won-- flipped blue.

• CA-39 (even PVI):

Gil Cisneros (New Dem/"ex"-GOP)- 126,002 (51.6%)
Young Kim (R)- 118,391 (48.4%)
[Cisneros narrowly lost the Orange County part of the district but made up for it by winning way ahead in the Los Angeles part of the district.]

• CA-45 (R+3):

Katie Porter (D)- 158,906 (52.1%)
Mimi Waters (R)- 146,383 (47.9%)

• CA-48 (R+4):

Harley Rouda (New Dem/"ex"-GOP)-157,837 (53.6%)
Dana Rohrabacher (R)- 136,899 (46.4%)

• CA-49 (R+1):

Mike Levin (D)- 166,453 (56.4%)
Diane Harkey (R)- 128,577 (43.6%)
[Levin lost the Orange Co. part of the district but cleaned up in the San Diego part.]

Last week Kyle Konik from Sabato's Crystal Ball took a look at the California general election races and changed the rating towards the GOP in 3 of them, declaring incumbents Devin Nunes and Tom McClinton (neither with a strong opponent) as "safe" from likely Republican, and putting the open Katie Hill seat (CA-25) from "leans" Dem to "toss-up."

I'm not going to get into those races here, although I do want to mention that the voters registration plus Trump on the top of the ticket should make the district relatively safe for a Democrat, despite the fact that the Democratic establishment picked an unimaginably bad candidate who will inspire absolutely no one but her friends and whoever happens to like corporate Democrats from the Republican wing of the party and who stand for nothing at all and have nothing to offer other than a "D" next to their name-- a "D" than will turn into an "F" score once she starts voting.

This is how they rate the reelection chances of the 4 Orange County Democratic incumbents we mentioned above:

• Cisneros- CA-39 leans D
• Porter- CA-45- likely D
• Rouda- CA-48- leans D
• Levin- CA-49- safe D

In explaining why the ratings fall this way Kondik uses irrelevant pundit-speak bullshit like this: "Republicans have never won a district where they won less than 50% of the two-party primary voting." What he doesn't do is take into account the jobs the incumbents have been doing. Cisneros and Rouda, the two conservative "ex"-Republicans, are just sitting and doing nothing at all but calling campaign contributors and asking for money. Each is a complete waste of a seat, back-benchers with nothing at all to offer anyone. Contrast that with Levin, who has a relatively decent voting record and an interest in several important policies. Or, better yet, contrast Rouda's and Cisneros' inertness with Katie Porter's activism and brilliance. She is widely considered one of the most worthwhile and accomplished freshmen from the 2018 class. Her constituents-- not the hardcore Trumpists of course, but everyone else-- have come to love her and respect her. Voters in Irvine, Tustin, Villa Park, Mission Viejo, Laguna Woods, Rancho Santa Margarita, Anaheim Hills and Lake Forest have something the others don't-- a member of Congress to actually be proud of.

As of the February 12 FEC filing deadline, Katie had raised $3,825,561, 29.79% from small grassroots donors. The three other OC freshmen:

Rouda- $2,339,456 (8.91%)
Levin $2,046,561 (12.68%)
Cisneros- $1,415,849 (9.04%)

Cisneros and Rouda may sit on the phone all day asking rich people and PAC executives for money, but by primarily doing an outstanding job, Porter has raised more (combined) and has raised gigantically more from small donors who appear to appreciate what she is doing for them, their families and the country. This isn't the kind of information that pundits use in their always-wrong ratings.

Mike Levin has two twitter accounts, one with 111,600 followers and one with 15,100 followers. Harley Rouda has two twitter accounts as well, one with 77,300 followers and one with 14,000 followers. Gil Cisneros also has two twitter accounts, one with 15,800 followers and one with 9,248 followers. So all together 243,048 followers between the 3 of them. And Katie? One account with 204,200 and one with 442,000-- a total of 642,200. Maybe an indication someone gives a damn about what she's doing in Congress?

Below is the third most-viewed Katie Porter YouTube clip-- with 843,000 views. There are 2 clips with over a million views each and 8 with over half a million. None are ads or about election campaigns. Harley Rouda has 3 videos with over 100,000 views-- all paid campaign ads. Almost all of his YouTubes are campaign clips and not many people have watched any of them. Cisneros-- the self-funding lottery winner-- is even worse, with no YouTubes more than just a handful of people have watched and, like Rouda, almost all just about campaigning.

Socialism Is Coming! Socialism Is Coming! Beware! Democrats Are Going To Force You And Your Kids To Not Die In The Gutter!

For yesterday's post, Reactionary Blue Dogs And Wall Street-Owned Corporate Dems Want You To Know They're Not Socialists, we looked at a quote from Texas progressive Mike Siegel, running in a gerrymandered red district that goes from liberal north Austin into the deep red exurbs northwest of Houston. Siegel was speaking at an event with Congressman Ted Lieu and VoteCommonGood leader Rev. Doug Pagitt, a progressive evangelical activist. Asked how he would face down Republicans calling him a socialist and claiming he would turn Bastrop and Tomball into Venezuela, Siegel laughed and told the crowd that "according to the GOP, Social Security is a 'socialist' program. Medicare and Medicaid, too. Basically, any program that cares for the poor, for the elderly, for those needing a little extra help to have a fair shot at success. When Jesus threw the money-changers out of the temple, and gave alms to the poor and sick, I guess that was 'socialist' too. But it's not 'socialist' when megacorporations, whether Big Tech or Big Oil, get hundreds of millions in subsidies from the American taxpayers. The good thing about this Republican fear-mongering is that at a certain point voters tune it out, and it loses its effect. My plan is to run on a strong progressive platform that serves the needs of the people of the Texas 10th Congressional District. The Republicans refused Medicaid expansion in Texas, and as a result we have rural hospitals closing and sky-high maternal mortality rates. The alternative I support is a commitment to universal healthcare, in the form of Medicare For All. The Republican budget would cut just about every essential social program to pay for tax cuts for the rich. We will campaign on a program of caring for people, not corporations."

Yep, that's how it's done. Mike gets an "A." California freshmen Katie Hill and Harley Rouda don't. In a badly misguided and twisted piece for Real Clear Politics by Susan Crabtree, Beleaguered California GOP Sees Path To 2020 Rebound, there's a section about how the Republicans hope to take back the 7 seats they lost in 2018 by screaming "socialism!" Crabtree wrote that "Republicans aren’t the only ones recoiling from national Democrats’ far-left turn. Newly elected California House Democrats from traditionally red districts, such as Katie Hill and Harley Rouda, now fear the socialist label could cost them re-election and swing the House majority back to the GOP. Over the last week, some Democratic House freshmen have started lashing out against their brasher colleagues’ support for socialism, impeachment and the divisive Green New Deal." Let me mention that before we go on that Hill's district is certainly not red any longer and that the Democrats have a new registration advantage over the gradually dying-off GOP.

Crabtree continued by noting that "Hill, who last November flipped a Los Angeles-area district that Republicans had held for decades, made it clear she’s not jumping on the Ocasio-Cortez bandwagon. 'As we run up to this presidential [election], we need to show that Democrats, as a whole, are not socialists,' she told Politico last week. 'We’re not pushing for impeachment without serious cause and serious evidence.' Rouda, a businessman and former Republican who defeated 15-term Rep. Rohrabacher, also distanced himself from his freshman class’s far-left flank. 'I’d like to think that the Republican Party is not run by a bunch of folks that subscribe to be nationalists, like Steve King does,' he said, referring to the Iowa congressman who lost his committee seats after making controversial statements on white supremacy and nationalism. 'So while Steve King’s views don’t represent the entire Republican Party, those on the far left of the Democratic Party do not represent the mainstream caucus.' Except Steve King's views do represent the entire Republican Party and the kind of socialism AOC and her outspoken colleagues are talking about is as American as apple pie and at the heart of Democratic Party values. Re-read Mike Siegel's explanation above. The defensive crouch Rouda, and to some extent, Hill, take may turn out to be counter-productive and dysfunctional as the national GOP pours money into their messaging. Crabtree:

This open Democratic grousing is music to California GOP operatives’ ears.

“[Speaker Nancy] Pelosi is not in control of her caucus, and she has got to figure out a way to rein in these three complete narcissists,” said Jason Roe, a Southern California-based Republican campaign strategist, referring to Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib and Omar. “Any punishment that Pelosi can mete out is a victory for them. They are disrupters, and if they are being punished for disrupting, it’s exactly what they want. You can’t use traditional levers of power with them.”

Roe is telling his GOP clients running for office in California to “stay away from litigating Trump and start litigating AOC and the left-- this is the gift that keeps on giving.”

Something tells me Susan Crabtree is never going to grow up to be a Catherine Rampell, one of the sharpest and most incisive minds at the Washington Post. Last week she wrote about how the Republicans are turning their party into the boy who cried socialism. Trump's socialism ploy, she wrote, is just "more lazy name-calling from a lazy thinker, but this time the lazy name-calling may backfire. For years, Trump has premised his political pitch on the idea that he alone can protect Americans from the many invaders who wish us harm-- chiefly immigrants, terrorists and globalists. Lately, he's added another boogeyman to the bunch, one that's supposedly homegrown: socialists. In this year's State of the Union, he declared, 'Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country,' as if that were ever truly a risk. He has ramped up similar comments in recent months and has now enlisted his economic advisers in his fight against the great socialist straw man."

Ever since 1947, the White House Council of Economic Advisers has released its annual Economic Report of the President. This enormous tome is supposed to summarize the trends in the economy and lay out the president’s vision for solving ongoing and future challenges. Though the document usually has some political spin-- the president’s economic advisers want their boss to look good, after all-- it usually sticks to legitimate economic concerns facing the country.

Not so this time. When the council released its report this week, it bizarrely included an entire chapter seemingly designed to flesh out cable-news talking points about how Democrats secretly want to turn the United States into a socialist hellscape. Readers of the report-- or of even just the council's slides posted on Twitter-- might reasonably come away thinking that the most pressing economic questions facing the U.S. economy include: Was collective farming under Mao Zedong successful? How much did Joseph Stalin end up shrinking the livestock population?

If these throwbacks seem wholly unrelated to any of the debates we're actually having right now as a country, that's because they are.

The real debate Americans are having-- including those on the far left trying to gain greater control of the Democratic Party-- is about how regulated markets should be and how to make the rules fairer. No one in the 2020 race, not even relative outlier and self-proclaimed democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is proposing that we recreate the Great Leap Forward.

Despite what you may have heard from Team Trump-- and despite the many TV interviewers asking Democratic politicians whether they're "capitalist" or "socialist," as if that's a meaningful binary-- all modern countries have elements of capitalism and socialism.

That includes the United States. We have public schools, public roads, subsidized health care for the elderly and other forms of social insurance. Yet we also have private property, and the government does not control the means of production-- which is, you know, actually how socialism is defined.

Trump and his advisers pretend otherwise, in the hopes of confusing and freaking out the public. After all, most people know they’re supposed to be afraid of “socialism,” even if they have no idea what the term means.

In fact, in a Gallup poll last year that asked Americans to explain their understanding of the term "socialism," responses were all over the map. The most common answer, volunteered by about a quarter of respondents, was that it had something to do with "equality"-- "equal standing for everybody, all equal in rights, equal in distribution," something to that effect. Smaller percentages mentioned communism, government control of utilities or even "talking to people, being social, social media, getting along with people."

Given this level of confusion, it's not clear that Trump's strategy to smear the Democratic Party as a Socialist Menace will be terribly effective.

Sure, maybe it'll mobilize older people who lived through the Cold War and associate socialism with the evil Soviet Union. But Trump probably already had the old people vote locked up.

Whether it will scare younger people is a separate question. A majority of adults under age 30 already view the term "socialism" positively; about 40 percent of those ages 30 to 49 say the same.

That might be because of dissatisfaction with the results of the existing (predominantly capitalist) economic system. But it might perversely also be because Republicans have been so relentless in their alarmist attacks on socialism-- or, rather, “socialism.”

Over the past 60 years-- since Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would doom the country to the s-word-- the GOP has turned into the boy who cried socialism. If you persist in describing popular and not-all-that-radical policies as "socialist" (protections for preexisting conditions or letting kids stay on their parents' health insurance until age 26), at some point the term starts to lose its negative valence.

"Ex"-Republican businessmen, like Rouda--who likely grew up in homes where Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt were not revered the way they were in the home I grew up in-- and who found themselves swept into Congress in the blue wave-- really an anti-Trump wave-- should listen carefully to what Rampell is saying-- and to how Mike Siegel is campaigning. Here's Bernie answering a similar question:

Green New Deal-- And California

43 members as of this morning-- Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (FL), Stephen Lynch (MA) and Lloyd Doggett (TX) being the most recent 

Earlier in the week, Alexander Kaufman reported for HuffPo that "The Green New Deal is the most popular policy hardly anyone has heard of... the sweeping proposal to generate 100 percent of the nation’s electricity from clean sources within the next 10 years, upgrade the United States’ power grid, invest in energy-efficiency and renewable technology, and provide training for jobs in the new, green economy. But when asked 'how much do you support or oppose' the aforementioned suite of policies, 81% of registered voters say they either 'somewhat support' or 'strongly support' the plan, according to new survey results shared exclusively with HuffPost from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University. 92% of Democrats supported the idea, including 93 percent of liberal Democrats and 90 percent of moderate-to-conservative Democrats. But 64 percent of Republicans-- including 75% of moderate-to-liberal Republicans and 57% of conservative Republicans-- also backed the policy goals outlined in the Green New Deal. 88% of independents endorsed the policies as well."

So wouldn't that kind of bipartisan policy be a perfect tool for Democrats to reach out to independent and even Republican voters? It's not really going that way yet. So far, of the 40 members of Congress who have signed onto the proposal, just 3 represent swing districts. Most represent deep blue districts like Alexandria Ocasio's and Rashida Tlaib's, two of the freshmen who have been pushing it the hardest. Th exceptions who do represent swing districts and who realize this is a good solid bipartisan issue:

• Mike Levin (D-CA)- R+1
• Chris Pappas (D-NH)- R+2
• Ann Kuster (D-NH)- D+2

CA-48 is one of those swing districts (R+4). It is also one of the most environmentally-conscious districts in the country, taking up much of the Orange County coastline, from Seal Beach, through Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and Laguna Beach to Three Arch Bay. Harley Rouda, a New Dem who campaigned largely on progressive issues, had a pitch-perfect plank about climate change on his campaign website.

Protecting the Environment, Propelling the Economy

The 48th Congressional District is one of the most remarkable places to live in the world. However, as Republican leaders in Washington continue to deny the threat of man-made climate change, the pristine natural beauty which makes our home district so special is under attack. I will work to protect California’s most precious asset, our beautiful coastlines, from offshore drilling. We need to focus on consistently choosing clean energy over the fossil fuels of the past.

As a businessman, I know firsthand that protecting the environment and incentivizing economic growth are not mutually exclusive goals, and that is why I support making Southern California the clean tech capital of the world. Clean energy innovation is not only better for the environment, but it also creates high paying jobs, economic growth, prosperity, energy choice and freedom from foreign dependence. And there is no better place in the world to unleash America’s clean energy potential than Southern California. We have all the ingredients: one of the best places in the world to live that attracts talented workers from around the globe; over 300 days of sunshine; a well-developed infrastructure; some of the world’s leading universities; an innovative culture; forward thinking municipalities; access to capital; and numerous high-tech businesses.

Democrat Josh Harder also displaced a Republican incumbent in a tough swing district (PVI is exactly even). Harder also had a forward-looking Climate Change position during the campaign. "I strongly believe in the scientific consensus that climate change is real and man-made," states his campaign website. "I will fight back against the Trump Administration’s dangerous attempts to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency and undo international agreements on climate change. Instead, we must make sure there are adequate incentives to invest in clean energy sources and move away from polluting fossil fuels."

Like 6 of the 7 California freshmen-- Mike Levin being the exception-- Neither Rouda nor Harder has signed onto the Green New Deal proposal yet. (Rouda didn't respond to an open-ended request for a statement. Nor did Katie Hill or Katie Porter.)

California has 53 members of Congress. In January, 46 of them will be Democrats. The only California Democrats who have been actively hostile towards climate change amelioration are Blue Dog Jim Costa and New Dem Scott Peters. So that leaves 44. Instead only 8 Califonrians have signed on to the Green New Deal: Jared Huffman, Barbara Lee, Jacjie Speier, Ro Khanna, Judy Chu, Ted Lieu, Mark Takano and Mike Levin. I'm surprised that strong progressives like Mark DeSaulnier, Alan Lowenthal, Jimmy Gomez, Karen Bass, Lucille Roybal-Allard and Maxine Waters haven't come on board yet. Nor have Linda Sanchez, Grace Napolitano, Doris Matsui nor, even Nanette Barragán, who was first elected on a powerful climate change and environmental platform and whose record fighting against Big Oil is stronger than almost anyone in Congress.



I doubt the more conservative and corporate Democrats from California-- like Adam Schiff, Mike Thompson, Susan Davis, Anna Eshoo, Brad Sherman, Eric Swalwell, John Garamendi, Tony Cardenas, who is rumored to be whipping against the proposal, Julia Brownley, Ami Bera, Norma Torres, Pete Aguilar, Raul Ruiz or Jimmy Panetta will even consider getting on board until the liberals have.

Why does it matter if more members sign on or not? Hoyer is been quite hostile towards the concept of a Select Committee to deal with the Green New Deal issues and Pelosi, who is generally supportive, says she can't move forward in a meaningful way without much more support from her caucus. The committee chairs, particularly corrupt New Jersey machine hack Frank Pallone (Energy and Commerce Committee), have been whining that a select committee will take away power from them (power, meaning the ability to collect bribes from effected special interests). Unless, those 40 members are doubled or tripled, we're going to wind up with a committee with no power at all and an existential issue like Climate Change in the hands of a pay-for-play crook like Frank Pallone.

UPDATE: Betrayal On #GreenNewDeal?

Last Tuesday, we mentioned that there are only 3 members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee who do not use their positions on that honey-pot of bribery to raise campaign cash: John Sarbanes (D-MD), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Cathy Castor (D-FL). The corrupt sleazebag chairman, Frank Pallone (D-NJ), for example, has accepted $135,689 from Oil and Gas interests while serving on the committee tasked with writing legislation impacting their business. The outgoing GOP chairman and vice-chairman, Greg Walden (R-OR) and Joe Barton (R-TX) have taken, respectively $781,400 and $2,167,987, while Fred Upton, chair of the committee's Energy subcommittee has taken $1,078,150. And the 3 ethical members of the committee? People who work in the sector have made lifelong contributions that have amounted to:

• Cathy Castor- $2,951
• Jan Schakowsky- $5,030
• John Sarbanes -$28,353

Thursday E&E News reported that Democratic House leaders have tapped Castor to lead the new committee on Climate Change.

Castor said the news wasn't "official quite yet"-- as the parameters of the committee still were under discussion-- but she said one of the goals should be to "raise the profile of what America should be doing to address the climate crisis."

In taking the job, the six-term lawmaker would be walking into a delicate situation.

For weeks, establishment figures and environmental activists have feuded over the scope of the committee, which Pelosi endorsed during a protest at her office just a week after Democrats took control of the House in the midterm election.

The protesters, led by the Sunrise Movement, want the committee to focus on crafting a "Green New Deal"-- their vision of a massive climate-friendly jobs program.

An ally of the group, Rep-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), also has called for membership of the committee to be limited to lawmakers who don't accept campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry.

Asked about the committee's mission, Castor said the Green New Deal would be a component of its responsibility but not its only objective.

"I think they have some terrific ideas," she said of the Green New Deal advocates. "But that's not going to be our sole focus."

Castor also indicated that interested members would not be disqualified from serving on the committee if they take money from the fossil fuel industry. "I don't think you can do that under the First Amendment, really," she said.

The Florida lawmaker did note, however, that there should be transparency about where members get their campaign contributions. "Whether it's this committee or any other committee," she said. "Are you on Energy and Commerce and taking a lot of money from Big Pharma? People should know about that."

Most recently, Democrats have debated whether the panel should have subpoena power. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said yesterday he believed it should not-- a contrast to the last climate change committee, led by then-Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), which was granted subpoena authority when Democrats last controlled the House).

"I don't know that they think they need subpoena power," Hoyer said. "They are going to have [climate] experts who are, I think, dying to come before them."

That led to a backlash from activists, including those with the Sunrise Movement. "Whip Hoyer is standing in the way of a plan that huge majorities of Americans support," said spokeswoman Varshini Prakash.

Turf battles are driving a lot of the internal Democratic feud. Veterans such as Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), who is in line to lead the Energy and Commerce Committee, have fought against the committee's revival. Pallone said earlier that he didn't "think it's necessary."

Castor said she hoped to "develop a joint plan of action" with the other committees to tackle climate change. "I've already talked with incoming Chairman Pallone about coordinating our efforts," she said. "We have a moral obligation to our kids and our grandkids to address this and do it aggressively."

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA), a backer of the Green New Deal, said this morning Castor would be a "terrific" choice for the job.

"I think she brings a lot of thoughtfulness to the position, and she's experienced, so I can't disagree with that," Huffman said.

Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) added that he's had a "good partnership" working with Castor on drinking water and brownfields issues on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

That relationship will likely have to continue. Tonko is currently in line to chair the E&C Environment Subcommittee, where he's likely to take up climate issues in the next Congress.

Tonko was originally among the critics of the select committee proposal, but he told E&E News this morning the debate in the caucus has been "pretty well-settled."

"Any outreach we can do-- any encouragement to bring people into the discussion and the dialogue so that we can advance sound, thoughtful, science-based, evidence-based outcomes-- we will do," Tonko said.

Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA), also on Energy and Commerce, said Castor is well-versed in environmental and climate issues. "She's from Florida," he said. "She has some personal experience with severe weather."

Peters said he himself was not seeking to be on the select panel. He laughed when asked whether a turf fight between Energy and Commerce and the select committee had been resolved, saying, "I am sure it hasn't. I think it will play out over time."

Many Democratic lawmakers say the panel could be a landing place for many of the freshmen members who have said they'd like to be on Energy and Commerce.

Typically, it takes a few terms for a lawmaker to land a seat on E&C, but in the interim the select panel could offer them a chance to weigh in on issues like the New Green Deal.

Just for a hoot, this is how much others mentioned in this piece have taken from Gas and Oil interests, which in recent years have only given significantly to Republicans and a tiny handful of Democrats they feel are especially corruptible (like Hoyer). It should help you assess their comments:

• Steny Hoyer- $404,970
• Scott Peters- $47,103
• Paul Tonko- $42,625
• Jared Huffman- $18,000

Sunrise's position is that until they see a clear statement from Pelosi that the prospect of creating a Select Committee on a Green New Deal is over, they will continue building support both from the public and among the Democratic caucus. They reached out to her office for clarification on the mandate of her proposed committee. As for Blue America... we are looking for a primary opponent for NJ-06-- Middlesex and northern Monmouth counties (Woodbridge, Edison, Carteret, South Plainfield, Piscataway, Metuchen, New Brunswick, Perth Amboy, Sayreville, Marlboro, Hazlet, Longbranch).