Can A Blue Dog Party Switcher's Pledge Of Undying Loyalty To Trump Help Him Win Re-Election... In Atlantic City, Where Trump Destroyed The Economy?

 

New Jersey's second district is the only real swing district in the state. Obama won it it a tad over 53% both times he ran and then Trump beat Hillary there 50.6% to 46.0%. The district takes up the entire southern part of the state, including Atlantic City, although most of it suburban and rural. There are 8 counties and parts of counties, but most of the people live in just 4: Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland and Gloucester counties.

Frank LoBiondo, a mainstream Republican, was elected to the congressional seat in 1994 and finally retired in 2018 granting the DCCC their long-in-the-tooth and disastrous wish-- a run by the most conservative member of the New Jersey state legislature, NRA darling Jefferson Van Drew. He won but not by a huge margin-- 52.9% to 45.2%-- while losing Salem, Ocean, Camden and Burlington counties. And he spent $1,877,531 while his Republican opponent only managed to spend $299,475. Outside group spent another million-plus on bolstering Van Drew, while his GOP opponent was without allies in that department.

Now, of course, Van Drew is the Republican candidate and the Democrats snagged a moderate Democrat, Amy Kennedy. So far she's outspent him by around a million dollars-- $4,085,926 to $3,028,402 with Pelosi's superPAC kicking in another $5,275,471 and the DCCC $1,165,084 more. In all over $7 million in outside money has been spent on Kennedy's behalf while "just" $5.3 million has been spent by the GOP to defend Van Drew.





CNN reported this week that Van Drew's very public pledge of his "undying support" for Trump has not done him any good with independent voters, who ultimately decide who wins and who loses elections in NJ-02. Rebecca Buck wrote that last December, Van Drew "shocked his colleagues in the Democratic Party when he announced he would become a Republican," blaming the impeachment for his decision. His shocked colleagues would only have to know a little something about Blue Dogs-- dozens of whom have stabbed the party in the back and joined the GOP-- and Van Drew's very Republican voting record to have not been shocked. Just as they shouldn't be if others just like him-- Anthony Brindisi (NY) and Kendra Horn (OK) being prime examples-- when they hop the fence in a couple of years. Buck continued that "Van Drew's detractors point to a more craven political calculation: that he might not have been able to survive his Democratic primary."

The decision culminated in an Oval Office photo-op, where Van Drew pledged his "undying support" to the President. Camera shutters clicked as the two men vigorously shook hands. Eleven months later, those images are at the center of one of the hottest congressional races in the country, with Van Drew seeking reelection for the first time-- and, also for the first time, running as a Republican.

His GOP debut happens to coincide with a daunting year for his new party. But he says his transition is "going fine."

"What's really good about it is, I sort of feel liberated, in that I don't have somebody telling me what you can and can't vote for," Van Drew said, "and that's what really started all of it."

Van Drew's Democratic challenger, Amy Kennedy, is a former schoolteacher born and raised in South Jersey; she is also the wife of former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, a son of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.

The race is only nominally between Kennedy and Van Drew, however. As in down-ballot contests across the country this year, Trump looms large here-- perhaps even more so because of the public embrace between Van Drew and the President.

"What's happening at the top of the ticket is really defining the down-ballot races," said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, which recently surveyed the race for New Jersey's Second Congressional District. "It's much, much harder this time around than it has been in the past to establish yourself as an independent voice."

A year ago, a close association with Trump might not have sounded like such a bad thing in South Jersey. The President won this district in 2016 by 5 points; in January, when Trump traveled there for a victory-lap rally with Van Drew, thousands of supporters lined up in the frigid cold. Van Drew, reminiscing on that night, recalled an atmosphere of such exuberance that a match "just would have self-lit."

But that was before Trump stumbled responding to a global pandemic, before millions of Americans lost their jobs, and before 2020 and the election took a sharp turn in another direction.

Now, Trump's endorsement might not be enough, if it's a net positive at all-- and as the President lags in the polls with Election Day nearing, Van Drew, a former mayor and state lawmaker, is trying to remind voters of his own brand, cultivated over two decades in public service, of an independent-minded politician unconcerned with party labels.

"I don't always agree with what the Republican Party is doing or even the President is doing. And the President knew that when I got involved," Van Drew said. "I vote independently. I'm the same Jeff Van Drew I always was."

If some at-risk Republican candidates are hedging their support for Trump, however, Van Drew insists he isn't one of them.

Indeed, Van Drew's campaign website still features a large banner photo of his Oval Office handshake, swallowing up most of the screen. Van Drew was a featured speaker during the Republican National Convention over the summer. And his campaign office windows plainly bear the signs of Van Drew 2.0: not only Van Drew's logo, printed on yard signs this year in a new shade of bright GOP red, but also Trump's. The Van Drew campaign shares the office with Trump's New Jersey operation.

"I don't run away from people," Van Drew said. "...I don't think, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, whether you always agree with the President or not, that you just betray him and walk away. I don't think that's the right thing to do."

Some Democratic voters who supported Van Drew two years ago believe that's exactly what he did to them, by switching parties just one year after they sent him to Washington.

"I felt betrayed actually, that he would do something like that," said David Burr, a Democratic voter who cast his ballot this year for Kennedy. "It just seemed like he wasn't thinking about me, he was thinking about remaining in office."

And it isn't just voters: party leaders, too, felt broadsided by Van Drew's decision. Just days before Van Drew's announcement, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer headlined a lunch reception for the congressman at a townhouse on Capitol Hill. There, according to Hoyer, he praised Van Drew for his party loyalty, despite hailing from a moderate district. Donors wrote checks for as much as $5,000 to Van Drew's reelection campaign; Hoyer, for his part, had already maxed out.

Many of the actual founders of the Blue Dog coalition found it expedient to quit the Democrats and become Republicans, like Nathan Deal (GA), Billy Tauzin (LA), Jimmy Hayes (LA), Michael Parker (MS), Gene Taylor (MS), Ralph Hall (TX), Pete Geren (TX), who came up with the term "Blue Dog," and Greg Laughlin (TX). In leaving the Democratic Party, Van Drew was staying true to what Blue Dogs generally do.

However, many of these Blue Dog party switchers lose subsequent elections (or even GOP primaries). Buck reported that "Van Drew claims to be 'the only person in all of American history who ever went from the majority party to the minority party,' and insists that others who have done it have been rewarded with chairmanships and greater political clout. But that's not true, even in recent political history." She cited Blue Dog scumbag Parker Griffith (AL) who became a Republican in 2009. Alabama Republicans weren't interested and defeated him in a primary.

For Van Drew, at least, a contested GOP primary wasn't an issue after Republicans rolled out the red carpet for him. Along with Trump's endorsement of Van Drew, the President's reelection committee immediately invested $250,000 in advertisements thanking the congressman for switching parties and supporting the President.

But if the GOP welcomed Van Drew with open arms, his district's voters might make another calculation.

"Van Drew has been successful his entire career setting himself up as not the typical politician, not somebody who's beholden to partisan interests," said Murray, of Monmouth. "Yet many voters view his party switch exactly in that vein, that it was an act of political self-preservation."

In a sense, it was. As Van Drew prepared to vote against impeaching the President last year, his campaign team shared with him an internal poll suggesting the stance would doom him in a Democratic primary. Switching to the GOP was hardly a guaranteed return ticket to Washington-- but at least it wouldn't be a certain political death sentence.

...The bigger issue for Van Drew, unquestionably, will be Trump-- and their alliance symbolized by the moment when Van Drew pledged his "undying support, always" to the President.

It was that moment, Kennedy says, that motivated her to run in the first place.

"I had no intention of running for office," Kennedy said. "But it was hearing those words, 'I pledge my undying support to you Mr. President, always,' that was when I felt like this is someone who is absolutely not there to look out for our best interests. And that compelled me to want to run."

Now that moment has become a symbol of the campaign-- and a headache for Van Drew, who like voters in his district has seen his sound bite played and replayed "over and over and over again," by his count, in attack ads this year.

During CNN's interview this week, we asked Van Drew if he regretted those words that have followed him around these months and might now cost him reelection.

"I think the words didn't explain as well what I exactly felt," Van Drew conceded. "It's not undying support that, whatever you say I'm going to do, or undying support, I agree with whatever you say. It was undying support for the presidency, for the idea of the greatness of America, for a friendship, but not necessarily that I'm going to agree with everything."

But it's unclear if will voters understand what he meant versus what he said.

"I think voters understand that when you're in the Oval Office and you're having a very exciting day and you're making a little piece of history," Van Drew said, "that sometimes we all say things."

A few minutes later, after our conversation had moved on, Van Drew stopped mid-sentence to rephrase something-- and then, recognizing the humor of it, he cut himself off again. Under his mask, he might have allowed a smile.

"See how your words can come out wrong?" he said, stabbing the air playfully, laying his Jersey accent on thick. "Well, I got a chance to fix it this time."

Kennedy isn't a Blue Dog, but has been endorsed by the New Dems, basically just as bad and more firmly tied to Wall Street. Progressives have no candidate to vote for Tuesday, though many are just going to hold their noses and vote for Kennedy to express their antipathy for Van Drew.

Amy Kennedy Is Besting New Jersey Turncoat Jeff Van Drew. Is That Any Reason To Celebrate?

What's worse? This or supporting another dynast?

 

The New Dems, even more so that the withered and impotent Blue Dogs, are the heart of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. They are Wall Street and corporate-America sell outs and have more in common with Eisenhower-era Republicans than they do with progressive Democrats. They vote badly but, worse yet, they prevent progressive legislation from ever getting to the floor, even in a Democratically-controlled House.

DCCC Chair Cheri Bustos quietly resigned from the Blue Dogs to become a New Dem when she decided to work towards become Speaker. She has worked diligently and successfully to knock out progressives where ever possible to make sure Democratic Party nominees would be New Dems. The New Dems themselves have endorsed 25 candidates so far this cycle-- and have 6 others on their website as "Candidates to watch." They may be better than Republicans-- but only because the GOP has moved so far right that they can now be classified as a fascist party. The New Dems today are what the Republicans were previously-- not racist, misogynistic or homophobic, but virulently pro-corporate and anti-working class.

The new Dem leadership, chaired by Derek Kilmer (WA), is basically putrid: Ann Kuster (NH), Scott Peters (CA), Terri Sewell (AL), Suzane DelBene (WA), corrupt coke freak Pete Aguilar (CA), Kathleen Rice (NY), Ami Bera (CA), Chrissy Houlahan (PA) and Mikie Sherrill (NJ). These are cowardly careerists, not leaders. There can be no progress as long as they dominate the Democratic House caucus.

Here's dozen of their worst recruits this cycle: the Democrats who will guarantee-- along with Biden's White House and Schumer's Senate-- that there is a massive red wave in 2022.

The worst of the New Dem recruits have also been endorsed by the Blue Dogs: Eugene DePasquale (PA), Margaret Good (FL), Jackie Gordon (NY), Christina Hale (IN) and Sri Kulkarni (TX), a future Pete Aguilar pal. Both organizations are very careful with their endorsements. Believe me-- no progressives, none, never. So... when people were rejoicing at the Monmouth poll released yesterday showing former Blue Dog/New Dem/DCCC recruit, NRA hero Jefferson Van Drew-- now a devoted Trumpist and officially a Republican-- being defeated by Amy Kennedy, I wondered how many Democratic voters know what to expect from her.

Oh, she'll be a bit of an improvement over Van Drew for sure. But I would suggest you use your psychic energy to help elect these men and women, not another New Dem.

Obama won NJ's 2nd district with around 53.5% both times he ran. In 2016, Trump beat Hillary 50.6% to 46.0%. The seat opened up in 2018 and the DCCC and Blue Dogs and New Dems recruited the absolute worst member of the New Jersey state legislature, Jefferson Van Drew. He ran against a clown the GOP didn't support, Seth Grossman. Grossman spent $299,475 to Van Drew's $1,877,531. The DCCC and it's allies spent another $1.1 million bolstering Van Drew and attacking Grossman.

This cycle, Kennedy has raised $1,529,882, most of which she spent in the primary, to Van Drew's $2,548,688. But... the DCCC and it's allies have already spent nearly $2 million on Kennedy, while a Trump PAC has spent around $260,000 defending Van Drew.

Monmouth reported that "Among all registered voters, Kennedy is supported by 49% and Van Drew is supported by 44%. Another 1% say they will support a third party candidate and 5% are undecided. Among likely voters in a high turnout scenario, Kennedy holds a 50% to 44% edge. She maintains that lead in a lower turnout model with 51% supporting her to 44% for Van Drew. It should be noted that these leads are all within the survey’s margin of error. Kennedy holds a 94% to 1% advantage among Democratic voters while Van Drew has an 89% to 8% lead among his now-fellow Republicans. Independents prefer Kennedy by a 50% to 40% margin... In the presidential election, Joe Biden holds a small lead over Donald Trump in the district-- 48% to 45% among all registered voters, 50% to 45% among likely voters in a high turnout election, and 49% to 45% in a low turnout election."

Meanwhile... this powerful, incredibly well-articulated and unprecedented video by a former First Lady may upset a White House occupant trying to keep his blood pressure from spiking and killing him. All the worst of luck, Pig Man!

Today Is Primary Day In New Jersey

New Jersey has 12 congressional districts but, unfortunately, not all of them have primary battles. Primaries are healthy and in many districts the only way to hold entrenched incumbents even vaguely accountable. The only New Jersey incumbents with ProgressivePunch "A" scores are Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12) and Donald Payne (NJ-10). Bill Pascrell, Albio Sires-- each in a super-safe district-- have "D" scores while Donald Norcross, Tom Malinowski, Andy Kim, Mikey Sherrill and Josh Gottheimer, one of the most odious Democrats in the House, all have "F" grades. These are the districts where the incumbent has no primary today:

• NJ-01- Donald Norcross, (New Dem) from the corrupt South Jersey Machine family
• NJ-03- Andy Kim (D)
• NJ-07- Tom Malinowski (New Dem)
• NJ-11- Mike Sherrill (Blue Dog)

Blue America looked at the candidates running-- seriously considered several-- and only endorsed one: Hector Oseguera who is running in the 8th. Please, if you have family or friends in Hudson, Essex and Union counties and in Hoboken, Elizabeth, Weehauken, West New York, Newark, Jersey City, Kearny, Harrison, Belleville and Bayonne call them and ask them to consider voting for Hector today. The other candidate we came closest to endorsing was Will Cunningham in South Jersey. He's in a multi-candidate primary to see which Democrat will take on a Machine/DCCC right-wing sleaze bag, Jeff Van Drew, who has jumped the fence and is now running as a Republican. The would-be Machine/DCCC replacement is another moderate, Brigid Harrison, although Amy Kennedy of the famous political dynasty is said to be ahead. In endorsing Cunningham Sunday, South Jersey's most-read newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer said they " like Cunningham’s support for bold criminal justice reform. Cunningham’s is an inspiring life story-- homeless while a Vineland High School student, he earned a Brown University scholarship. His is a generation whose time has come." He's probably the best-prepared to take on Van Drew and pointed out that "Now is not the time for family dynasties or political machines that disrupt the will of the people."

That's today's biggest media race, although if any of the conservative incumbent Dems lose, it will be a big story. At HuffPo, Daniel Marans picked 3 races to watch today. NJ-02 was first, of course, noting that "Harrison has the backing of some of the same influential Garden State players who anointed Van Drew in 2018. Norcross has not officially endorsed her, but state Senate President Stephen Sweeney, a childhood friend and staunch political ally of Norcross’, has given Harrison his blessing. And a super PAC tied to Norcross has spent more than $270,000 on Harrison’s behalf. The support of machine-backed county parties helped secure Harrison preferential real estate at the top of the ballot alongside party incumbents." She's been endorsed by Machine shills Cory Booker and Bob Menendez and most of the state’s Norcross Machine-controlled labor unions.

Marans added that "for the coalition of progressives backing Harrison’s well-funded rival, Amy Kennedy-- a schoolteacher married to former Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D)-- the election is primarily about crippling the South Jersey machine. The ways in which Kennedy is to Harrison’s left on policy are hard to spot, but Kennedy is more critical of the state’s corporate tax break program, which gave more than $1 billion in incentives to Norcross’ businesses, charities and allies. That point of contrast is a key reason why the progressive New Jersey Working Families Alliance, Murphy and two left-leaning labor unions-- the New Jersey Education Association and the Communication Workers of America-- have gotten behind Kennedy’s bid. Norcross’ network has bitterly fought Murphy’s effort to raise taxes on the state’s millionaires, as well as a task force Murphy convened to review the state’s corruption-ridden corporate tax incentive program."

So what about Cunningham? Marans mostly summed it up like this: "Given the criticism of both Kennedy and Harrison-- who are also both white-- there could be a natural opening for Will Cunningham, an openly gay, Black attorney, to emerge as the alternative. Cunningham, who rose from poverty to work as an aide to Booker and as a senior investigator for the late-Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), is running as an unabashed progressive in the mold of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). He supports Medicare for All, tuition-free college and divestment of police budgets in favor of greater social spending. But... he has failed to attract the attention of major progressive groups or the Congressional Black Caucus. That’s partly because of Cunningham’s weak showing in the 2018 primary election, as well as his apparent failure to adequately court progressive stakeholders. Altman of New Jersey Working Families Alliance could not recall hearing from him prior to the group’s endorsement of Kennedy. Kennedy is 'more progressive than Brigid Harrison and she can win,' Altman said."

There is also some residual feeling-- and mistrust-- in the district that Cunningham wasn't a "real" candidate in 2018 and muddied the water so badly for progressive challenger Tanzie Youngblood that she never had a real shot against Van Drew.

Josh Gottheimer and friend

Marans then skipped over to NJ-05 to write about "one of the left's favorite villains," Josh Gottheimer, a Trump-friendly Blue Dog pile of shit. Arati Kreibich is challenging him from the left. As of the June 17 FEC filing deadline he had $8,478,312 in his campaign war chest and she had just $144,562. Indivisible has spent $126,356 trying to bolster Kreibich, while a grifter/scammy conservative operation, Patriot Majority, spent $175,092 trying to help Gottheimer. Kreibich, as well as several other progressive candidates, don't seem capable of putting together winning coalitions or doing what it takes to win other than backing progressive platform ideas. If I lived in the district I would certainly vote for her without hesitation but I wouldn't bet a nickel on her being able to win.

If I were to bet on a long-shot candidate, it would be on Hector Oseguera-- and I did-- and Marans wrote about his race, briefly, to close out his story yesterday.

NJ-8: A New Generation Challenges The Old Guard

It is hard to get worked up one way or another about Rep. Albio Sires, who has represented racially diverse and working-class urban parts of northeast New Jersey since 2006. Sires, a mainstream Democrat, is not a member of any ideological caucus, choosing not to challenge party leadership either from the right or the left.

But Sires, an immigrant from Cuba and former mayor of West New York, is part of a local political machine that local progressives believe has stymied bolder policy changes, as well as the growth of younger leadership more in line with the district’s changing demographic makeup. New Jersey’s 8th Congressional District, which includes the historically heavily Cuban American hub of Union City, is increasingly populated by immigrants from Caribbean and Central American countries.

Hector Oseguera, an attorney and anti-money laundering specialist descended from the latter group of immigrants, is challenging Sires. Oseguera, who volunteered for Sanders in 2016 and Ocasio-Cortez in 2018, is running as a progressive populist committed to eradicating “the injustices imposed by an economy rigged against working-class people.” Unlike Sires, Oseguera would fit in more with the “Squad,” the nickname for the group of outspoken progressive freshman lawmakers that includes Ocasio-Cortez and Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).

Oseguera is also part of a slate of progressive local candidates running against a particularly entrenched corner of New Jersey’s famously clannish machine politics. Through a combination of energetic organizing and a bit of luck, Oseguera’s slate will occupy the coveted Column A spot on the ballot in Hudson and Union counties, where most of the district’s residents live, The Intercept reported in May. Many voters instinctively vote Column A, since it is normally real estate reserved for machine candidates.

Oseguera’s odds of victory appear slim. The Intercept’s look at the race is one of the rare bits of national coverage of the primary in New Jersey’s 8th District. And Sires, himself not a prodigious fundraiser, has outspent the challenger by a 10-to-1 margin.

In late June, though, Oseguera picked up the influential endorsement of the New Jersey Working Families Alliance. (In addition to Kennedy, Kreibich and Oseguera, the group is backing the reelection of Democratic Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman in New Jersey’s 12th District.)

“In a deep-blue district like the 8th, you have a guy assuming that he was going to be able to sit in that seat for as long as he wants it,” Altman said. “But times are changing in the country. Times are changing in New Jersey.” 

South Jersey Democrats Have A Conundrum Coming Up Quickly

Will, Brigid and Amy

There's a red hot race for the Democratic nomination for New Jersey's 2nd congressional district, the one the South Jersey (Norcross) Machine and the DCCC screwed up when their repulsive Blue Dog pet-- Jeff Van Drew-- switched parties and (openly) became a Trump butt wipe. The same machine-- along with the DCCC-- has another candidate though... like anyone wants to trust them again-- Brigid Harrison. Everyone I know in south Jersey tells me that the progressive in the race, Will Cunningham, "can't win" and that the only chance to stop Harrison is to back Amy Kennedy. The problem with that strategy is that we'd wind up with Amy Kennedy in Congress. (That's always what's wrong with going along with lesser of two evils strategies.)

A south Jersey player who I know well but who doesn't want to be identified because he fears retribution from the Mob the Machine, sent an open letter to Amy Kennedy with a suggestion about how she could win the postponed primary, now scheduled for July 7th:


Open Letter To Amy Kennedy
-by Anonymous

Dear Amy,

You can win the Democratic nomination for the NJ-02 congressional seat, but first you have to defeat Brigid Harrison, the only other viable candidate in the race. And with the Norcross machine backing her, that won’t be easy.

You need to issue a statement embracing a popular position that will clearly distinguish you from Harrison. And there’s no better issue for that purpose than Medicare for All.

Dissatisfaction with the dysfunctional U.S. healthcare system was a factor in the 2018 wave election that gave Democrats control of the House. A 2018 Reuters-Ipsos poll found Medicare for All was supported by 70 percent of all voters, including 85 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans.

And now, with the Covid 19 pandemic devastating the economy-- and with millions of workers losing employer-provided health insurance along with their jobs-- support for Medicare for All is greater than ever.

As the Norcross candidate, Brigid Harrison can’t afford to support Medicare for All. George Norcross is not only Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Cooper; he’s also Executive Chairman of Conner, Strong & Buckelew, a huge insurance brokerage where employee benefits packages are a big part of the business. Thus the sale of private, for-profit health insurance provides much of his personal income.

As you know, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy sponsored earlier Medicare for All bills in the 109th and 110th Congresses, before the Democratic leadership took all single payer proposals off the table in 2009 in order to support the ACA. And even earlier, JFK proposed Medicare for seniors as only a first step toward universal coverage. So your embrace of Medicare for All could be seen as an embrace of a family tradition.

Supporting Medicare for All will help you win the July 7 primary. And your victory will be a major setback for the Norcross machine-- a very good thing for South Jersey!

Will There Be A Democrat In Position To Beat DCCC/Republican Jefferson Van Drew?

In 2018, after trying and failing for years, the DCCC had what it wanted and celebrated as a great triumph. They successfully recruited the single worst Democrat-- as in most conservative and most GOP/NRA-friendly-- in the New Jersey legislature, Jeff Van Drew, to run for Congress. As soon as Republican incumbent Frank LoBiondo announced his retirement, Van Drew jumped in-- with the DCCC behind him.

With heavy DCCC backing, Van Drew managed to raise $1,881,731 for the 2018 election. His GOP opponent, Seth Grossman raised just $304,872. Outside groups spent over a million dollars on behalf of Van Drew, more than half coming from the conservative National Association of Realtors, which normally contributes to Republicans and very conservative Democrats. It was surprising that the under-funded Republican in the race, Seth Grossman kept it close and that Van Drew only beat him 136,685 (52.9%) to 116,866 (45.2%).

In Congress, Van Drew was the worst Dem in the House, consistent in his support for Trump and for GOP obstructionism. A radical Blue Dog, by December he did what Blue Dogs often to-- quit the Democratic Party. He joined the GOP in return for a promise from Trump to clear the field for him so that he would have no primary.

The same corrupt party machine-- run by George Norcross-- that picked Van Drew with the DCCC, immediate teamed up with Cheri Bustos to pick Brigid Harrison as the machine candidate. They gave her the endorsements of all their hacks-- the chairs of 5 of the 8 county Democratic Party committees, state Senate president Stephen Sweeney and Cory Booker, hoping to scare off any opposition. It didn't work. A Kennedy-- Amy, wife of former Congressman Patrick Kennedy-- jumped into the race and she was endorsed by the Communication Workers of America, by the Working Families Party and, the biggest and one of the bluest of the counties Democratic Party committee, Atlantic County. A progressive also decided to run again, Will Cunningham, an openly gay African-American attorney who grew up poor and, despite being homeless at one point as a teen, went to an Ivy League university and became an Obama administration official, and Cory Booker, had taken Van Drew on in the 2018 primary. Cunningham has been endorsed by environmental groups and DFA. He backs Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, campaign finance reform and other positions that separate progressives from garden variety status quo Democrats.

"The DCCC," Cunningham said in 2018, "needs to take a look at themselves in the mirror and make sure we’re reflective of who we’re sending to D.C. We as the Democratic Party, if we’re going to talk the talk, we’ve got to walk the walk."

A South Jersey friend of mine told me that "While Cunningham is a good guy and undoubtedly the most progressive, he has zero chance. Even in a normal year, NJ-02 is a hard district to push a grassroots movement because of how spread out it is, making door knocking very challenging. But, without retail politics possible before the primary, Cunningham has done nothing to show he ought to be taken seriously as a candidate (very little money-- $79,841, compared to $258,345 for Harrison and $807,580 for Kennedy-- volunteers, events, etc).

My same South Jersey friend also told me that Kennedy is "reasonably" progressive-- more so than her husband,--and has been endorsed by many of the progressive activists in the area. "Given that Cunningham has not made himself viable--sadly-- by falling into the trap of a lot of progressive candidates of believing their good ideas will bring people to the polls, Kennedy has got to be the choice to prevent a Norcross win, even if just for the symbolic value to show the outer edges of the empire aren't as well defended as people might think. She seems to have a real chance to win."

New Jersey has been hit hard by the pandemic, second only to New York. 145,490 residents have tested positive and over 10,000 have died. the caseload per million is 16,380-- worse than Spain, Italy, the U.K. and France combined. But NJ-02-- other than Ocean County-- has gotten off relatively easy. These are the 8 counties that make up the district in order of population. The number below is the number of cases in each county:

• Atlantic- 1,693
• Cape May- 508
• Cumberland- 1,488
• Glouster- 1,788
• Salem- 446
• Ocean- 7,829
• Camden- 5,442
• Burlington- 3,849

The anger towards Republicans in areas with worse pandemic experiences are not likely to be as strong in NJ-02... at least not so far. North Jersey seems to be seeing their numbers go down. We'll see what happens to the southern part of the state.

Trump Multi-Faceted Vote Buying Schemes

On Tuesday evening, Trump held one of his lunatic rallies for the pigs in the Wildwood, New Jersey area who support him and his newest puppet, former DCCC-Blue Dog Jeff Van Drew. Trump asserted, absurdly, that Van Drew was a symbol of the future. Then he pulled out of his ass a new refrain he'll be gaslighting America with, claiming "that an increasing number of Americans were 'disgusted' by congressional Democrats who, he said, are 'obsessed with demented hoaxes, this crazy witch hunt and deranged partisan crusades'... They’ve spent the last three years and probably even before I came down on that beautiful escalator with our beautiful future first lady, trying to overthrow the last election, and we will make sure that they face another crushing defeat in the next election." His moron supporters eat that crap up but normal Americans are ready to see him go. The latest YouGov poll, just released by The Economist, shows that if the congressional elections were held today the Democrats would win 48-39% and that 47% of registered voters (and that includes Republicans) want Trump removed while just 46% oppose removing him.

Trump paid Van Drew to switch parties. This is part of the payback. Trump also forced Republican David Richter, the top Republican in the race-- who had just moved into the district-- to withdraw and go run somewhere else (where there already is a Republican challenging Democrat Andy Kim). She immediately derided Richter as a "seat shopper who apparently believes he's entitled to party support-- somewhere, anywhere." Richter is a self-funder who had already given his campaign against Van Drew $500,000. And now he was forced to endorse Van Drew, who he's been denouncing in no uncertain terms for months.

But I'm sure it surprises no one that Trump uses bribery as a political tool. He used to brag about it in 2016 during the campaign-- about buying political favors from slimy politicians. You watch Pam Bondi making a jackass out of herself at the impeachment hearings the other day? Paying back a cash debt. Does this Politico headline surprise you? Trump lures GOP senators on impeachment with cold cash. Alex Isenstadt wrote that "Trump is rewarding senators who have his back on impeachment-- and sending a message to those who don't to get on board. Trump is tapping his vast fundraising network for a handful of loyal senators facing tough reelection bids in 2020. Each of them has signed onto a Republican-backed resolution condemning the inquiry as 'unprecedented and undemocratic.' Conspicuously absent from the group is Maine Sen. Susan Collins, a politically vulnerable Republican who’s refused to support the resolution and avoided taking a stance on impeachment. With his new push, Trump is exerting leverage over a group he badly needs in his corner with an impeachment trial likely coming soon to the Senate-- but that also needs him."

Most eager to sell out to Trump were Cory Gardner (CO), Joni Ernst (IA) and Thom Tillis who signed onto the resolution and just received a fundraising letter from Trump. Another shameless whore, David Perdue (GA), also signed on and is getting a Trump-hosted fundraising event next week. Isenstadt reported that "Attendees are being asked to give up to $100,000." He's also doing one of those for Moscow Mitch.

Party officials said there are likely to be additional Trump-led digital fundraising efforts for senators and that those who weren't included in this wave could be in a later one.

The president has been a fundraising boon for Republican senators. Earlier this month, Texas Sen. John Cornyn sent out an appeal to donors that prominently featured an image of Trump flashing a thumbs-up. The plea asked givers to “Show President Trump you have his back!” and invited them to split their donations between the president and Cornyn’s reelection campaigns.

The Texas senator tweeted afterward that his campaign “had its biggest online fundraising day ever."

“The donors listen to the president, and he has the most capacity to energize small-dollar contributions by making the case that he needs a Senate majority to be successful,” said Scott Jennings, a former political aide in the George W. Bush White House.

A few hours ago, former Gov. Chris Christie told ABC News that Republicans who vote for witnesses should expect retribution. That's the stick part of Trump's carrot and stick strategy for dealing with his own party. "You could very well see the president encouraging or creating primaries against senators that are up this year if they went and voted the other way I could definitely see him at least attempting to do that."

Trump is running the most transactional swampy regime in American history. Fat cats know if they open their wallets for Trump, they get whatever they want. It's all pay-to-play. Scott Reed, the senior political strategist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that "Trump has the ability to turn on the money spigot like no one else."

Another Politico reporter, Ben Schreckinger, wrote another shocking story about the Trump Swamp: Trump allies are handing out cash to black voters. Short version: the Trumpists have begun holding events in black communities where they lavish praise on the president while handing out tens of thousands of dollars in giveaways.

The first giveaway took place last month in Cleveland, where recipients whose winning tickets were drawn from a bin landed cash gifts in increments of several hundred dollars, stuffed into envelopes. A second giveaway scheduled for this month in Virginia has been postponed, and more are said to be in the works.

The tour comes as Trump’s campaign has been investing its own money to make inroads with black voters and erode Democrats’ overwhelming advantage with them. But the cash giveaways are organized under the auspices of an outside charity, the Urban Revitalization Coalition, permitting donors to remain anonymous and make tax-deductible contributions.

The organizers say the events are run by the book and intended to promote economic development in inner cities. But the group behind the cash giveaways is registered as a 501(c)3 charitable organization. One leading legal expert on nonprofit law said the arrangement raises questions about the group’s tax-exempt status, because it does not appear to be vetting the recipients of its money for legitimate charitable need.

"Charities are required to spend their money on charitable and educational activities,” said Marcus Owens, a former director of the Exempt Organizations Division at the Internal Revenue Service who is now in private practice at the law firm Loeb & Loeb. “It's not immediately clear to me how simply giving money away to people at an event is a charitable act.”

Asked about the legality of the giveaways in a brief phone interview, the Urban Revitalization Coalition’s CEO, Darrell Scott, said that most gifts were between $300 and $500, and that the group mandates that anyone who receives over $600 fills out a W-9 form in order to ensure compliance with tax law. He did not respond to follow-up questions about how the giveaways were structured and whether they met the legal standard for a charitable act.

Scott declined to name the donors funding the effort. "I'd rather not,” he said. “They prefer to remain anonymous."

Scott, a Cleveland-based pastor, has been one of Trump’s closest and most prominent black supporters. He struck up a relationship with the real estate mogul in the years before Trump’s presidential run, and-- along with Trump’s former lieutenant Michael Cohen-- co-founded the National Diversity Coalition for Trump to promote that run.

...The group’s “Christmas Extravaganza” event in Cleveland last month featured a $25,000 giveaway and an appearance by Ja’Ron Smith, a deputy assistant to the president. A Cleveland native who worked on Trump’s criminal justice reform, Smith is among the highest-ranking black officials in the White House.

At the event, which also featured an appearance by television personality Geraldo Rivera, Lanier compared the investigative scrutiny faced by Trump to the plight of wrongfully incarcerated black men. He also defended Trump’s record on race.

"President Donald Trump-- the one that they say is racist-- is the first president in the history of this country to incentivize people who have the money to put it into ... urban areas,” he said.

...The election year initiative by the Urban Revitalization Coalition to improve Trump’s image in black communities could bolster those efforts.

The coalition planned a Martin Luther King Jr. Day event at Virginia Union University, a historically black school in Richmond. Advertisements for the event said it would feature a $30,000 cash giveaway and would honor Trump as well as his son-in-law, senior White House adviser Jared Kushner.

But school administrators canceled the Jan. 20 event, saying it had been described to them as an “economic development discussion” when it was first booked. In a letter to Lanier, university President Hakim Lucas said: “The event advertised is vastly different from the event VUU agreed to co-host.”

Scott told Politico that the school had initially “begged” him to have the event there. He said that the coalition intends to reschedule it at another venue at a later date.

Scott also said the group was planning to unveil a slate of additional future events and that he would reveal additional details. He did not respond to follow-up queries about the group’s upcoming schedule.

One Way We Know Bernie Is The Real FDR Democrat In The Race

This is not a Pritzker

The MSNBC circle of #NeverTrump conservative Republicans may hate Trump, but they hate Bernie as well, if not even more. One of the most disgusting of the lot, AOC-hater Donnie Deutsch, admitted on the air, on Morning Joe, that if Bernie is the nominee, he'd vote for Trump: "I find Donald Trump reprehensible as a human being, but a socialist candidate is more dangerous to this country... I would vote for Donald Trump, a despicable human being... (at which point Scarborough shut him up before he could say the words). Watch:





Soon after, MSNBC gave Deutsch his own show, which failed to get any viewers, was universally panned and lasted for about as long as his friend The Mooch lasted as Trump's press secretary.

On Monday morning, the Daily Beast published a piece by Lachlan Markay: They Donated to Trump’s Inauguration. Now These Big Donors Are Funding His 2020 Competition. Well, they're funding certain candidates, but not Trump's real 2020 competition. The deranged-- and mostly crooked-- multimillionaires and billionaires who hoped to buy favor from Trump by funneling millions of dollars directly into his pockets through an inaugural committee that was nothing but a payoff scheme for Trump, have been donating to almost everyone-- even John Delaney!-- but Bernie (of course).

In January 2019, Jennifer Pritzker wrote an impassioned plea to her political party: She was a lifelong Republican, but the GOP was driving her away with messaging and policies targeting transgender people.

It had only been a few years since Pritzker, the world’s only known trans billionaire and a Republican megadonor, had chipped in a whopping $250,000 to President Donald Trump’s inaugural committee. But three months after publicly objecting to the GOP’s stance on trans issues, she gave $1,000 to Democrat Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign.

Pritzker is a member of a prominent, wealthy, and politically active family (her cousin J.B. Pritzker is the Democratic governor of Illinois, and his sister Penny was Barack Obama’s commerce secretary). But she is far from the only donor to Trump’s inauguration who has financially supported one of his potential Democratic presidential challengers.

The Daily Beast tallied 15 such donors who collectively gave more than $700,000 to Trump’s inaugural committee but who have since contributed to the presidential campaigns of Democratic candidates, including Buttigieg, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Tulsi Gabbard, Amy Klobuchar, Michael Bennet, John Hickenlooper, Eric Swalwell, and John Delaney.

The donors have a mixed record of prior support for Republicans. Some, like Pritzker, consistently contributed large sums to GOP candidates. Others had more bipartisan giving histories. And some chipped in to the Trump inaugural despite largely supporting Democrats in the past.

Taken together, though, the crop of donors who ponied up to celebrate Trump’s 2016 victory only to actively combat his re-election a few years later represent some notable political defections. And while the Trump re-election effort certainly is not hurting for cash as the election year begins, those defections signal some discontent among donors who, undoubtedly for various reasons, chose to signal their support for the new president just a few years ago.

...Greg Maffei, the chief executive of the Colorado-based media company Liberty Media, is another $250,000 donor to the Trump inaugural who is backing Democrats in 2020. Though he didn’t donate to Trump’s presidential campaign, he did so for Mitt Romney in 2012 and John McCain in 2008.

This time around, though, Maffei has supported the two Democratic presidential candidates from his home state. In March 2019, he gave the per-election maximum of $2,800 to Hickenlooper, the former Colorado governor. Two months later, after a max-out donation to Republican Sen. Cory Gardner, Maffei donated $100,000 to a super PAC supporting Hickenlooper. After Hickenlooper withdrew from the race, Maffei donated the legal maximum to Bennet’s presidential campaign.

...Chrysa Tsakopoulos Demos, the chief executive of California land-development company AKT Investments, is a longtime Republican donor who backed Sen. Ted Cruz’s bid for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. She donated $5,000 to the Trump inaugural, and continued donating to Republicans through 2018, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and Great America Committee, Vice President Mike Pence’s political group.

But Demos’ only federal political contribution so far in the 2020 cycle is the $2,800 she donated last year to Biden’s presidential campaign.

...Leonard Wilf, a real-estate developer and co-owner of the Minnesota Vikings, has donated to both Democrats and Republicans. But just a few weeks before the 2016 election, he donated $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign and an additional $5,000 to a PAC supporting her. When Clinton lost, Wilf chipped in $25,000 to Trump’s inaugural committee. With Trump back on the ballot, though, Wilf is once again supporting a Democrat; in March 2019, he maxed out to Klobuchar’s campaign.

Florida physician Azzam Muftah maxed out to Clinton’s campaign in 2016 and wrote a handful of checks to the Democratic National Committee. But he donated $3,000 to the Trump inauguration, and during the 2018 cycle donated to a number of Senate Republicans, including Tom Cotton, Lindsey Graham, Mike Braun, and Jim Risch.

Come 2019, though, Muftah began chipping in to Trump challengers. So far this cycle, he’s donated to both Buttigieg and Booker.

Bruce Mosler, the chairman of real-estate giant Kushman & Wakefield’s global brokerage practice and a $25,000 donor to the Trump inaugural, really likes to hedge his bets. During the 2008 presidential race, he donated to the campaigns of Clinton, Biden, and Rudy Giuliani. In 2012, he supported both Romney and Barack Obama. Four years later, he donated to both Clinton and Trump.

In 2020, though, Mosler is supporting Biden. He’s donated $5,000 to Biden’s PAC and another $2,800 to his campaign.

Monday morning, NJ.com reported that when DCCC-Blue Dog Jeff Van Drew flipped from a Trump-supporting fake Democrat to a Trump-Worshipping Republican, his campaign manager, political operative Josh Roesch slid right into running the campaign of one of the establishment Democrats running against Van Drew, the Kennedy wife in this case.

Roesch, apparently a moron, told NJ.com, "I thought I was working for a Democrat. I’d like to go work for a Democrat still." I hope Amy Kennedy is more of a Democrat than Van Drew ever was. The DCCC recruited him when he was the most-Republican member of any Democrat in the New Jersey state legislature. It's always what the DCCC wants in candidates. These kinds of things may be important to you and I, but among the elites, a Biden or Mayo Pete or a Trump... mostly all the same. A Jeff Van Drew or a Kennedy... same/same. And that's exactly why Bernie stands out and why you won't find people like Josh Roesch, let along a Donny Deutsch, a Jennifer Pritzker or a Greg Maffei backing him. Bernie's the candidate of working men and women, not of the elites. And that's why I've embedded the ActBlue thermometer on the right. Please click on it and make Donny Deutsch, Jennifer Pritzker and Greg Maffei cry.

Last night, Politico published a more serious piece than we usually come to expect from them-- The coming clash between Bernie and Biden by Marc Caputo and Holly Otterbein. And it's about Biden's longstanding record of trying to gut Social Security and Medicare. Bernie staffer David Sirota told them that "Biden has repeatedly worked to cut Social Security, and has never offered up a good explanation for that crusade. His Social Security record is not only atrocious on a policy level, it is an enormous political vulnerability in both a primary and a general election. Bernie Sanders has exactly the opposite record-- he’s fought those cuts and fought to expand Social Security, and that is a contrast Democratic voters deserve to know." And tonight's the night.

Biden’s advisers said the former vice president will be ready to take on Sanders and prevail against his attacks onstage just as he did when opponents Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Julián Castro, and Bill de Blasio went after him, only to see their critiques fall flat as they lost ground and exited the race as Biden pressed ahead.

Sanders, though, differs from those other candidates in one important way: He has a devoted base of loyal followers who show no signs of deserting him, many of whom want to see Sanders take the fight to a rival they view as the embodiment of the Democratic establishment by focusing on one of the party’s signature legacy programs, Social Security. He has also already repeatedly criticized Biden for his votes for the Iraq War and free-trade deals on the debate stage without seemingly suffering.

The Sanders team’s expected assault comes as he is at the top of the polls in the first-in-the-nation caucus state of Iowa, but still significantly polling behind Biden among seniors. It’s not guaranteed he will execute the attack on Biden in a sustained way: After previous debates, some of his aides and supporters have been disappointed that he hasn’t confronted Biden more aggressively.

The two men’s history over the issue provides a window into their political personas, pitting Sanders, the left-wing outsider against Biden, the moderate dealmaker with a legacy of working with Republicans. Already, that positioning that has proved politically challenging for Biden in the leftward-shifting Democratic primary.

In proposing a Social Security plan during the primary with none of the cuts or changes he once countenanced, Biden has moved more toward Sanders-- a triumph for a progressive movement that fought for years to ensure Democratic politicians would only consider growing the program, instead of raising age eligibility requirements or freezing cost-of-living adjustments to make it pay out less.

“Bernie was key in that evolution,” said Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who served as Biden’s chief economist and economic adviser from 2009 to 2011.

It was in December 2010 that Sanders filibustered the Biden-negotiated deal with Republicans that extended Bush-era tax cuts, cut the estate tax, continued unemployment benefits and created a temporary Social Security payroll tax cut, or “tax holiday.”

The deal was struck just a month after Republicans, in the words of President Obama, had just “shellacked” Democrats at the polls. Obama and Biden were facing reelection in less than two years; the president wanted to position himself as a reasonable centrist who was serious about deficit reduction. He was mindful he had to deal with divided government in Congress, and feeling the pressure to stimulate the economy with tax cuts because the scars of the recession were not healed.

After Biden briefed the Democratic caucus about the plan, Sanders was angered, said his senior adviser Warren Gunnels: “You can see Bernie sitting there listening to that and his blood starting to boil.”

Sanders said he believed the only concession Democrats received was the jobless benefits extension-- but his team had determined that that such benefits had been extended on a bipartisan basis every time the unemployment rate was as high as it was at the time. And he fretted that temporarily trimming Social Security taxes could ultimately help weaken the program.

So Sanders filibustered, mentioning Biden three times only by his title-- but never saying his name-- on the Senate floor as he blasted the deal the then-vice president negotiated with Republicans.

“I know the vice president recently made the point this was originally a Republican idea,” Sanders said, referring to the caucus meeting. “Why did the Republicans come up with this idea? These are exactly the same people who do not believe in Social Security.”

Biden responded with an op-ed in USA Today a month later where he accused opponents of the deal, without naming Sanders, of spreading “misinformation.”

Sanders failed to stop the measure. And his specific fears about weakening Social Security’s tax structure didn’t come to pass, though Social Security advocates said it helped popularize the idea of payroll-tax holidays.

But it catapulted Sanders into the burgeoning progressive movement’s national spotlight by criticizing Obama and Biden from the left. His speech trended on Twitter and blanketed cable television news, and Sanders’ office was inundated with more calls than they had ever received, an aide said.

“Bernie won the debate outside the Beltway,” Gunnels said. “I really think that lit a spark for the movement that Senator Sanders has led to create. That was really kind of the launching pad.”

Bernstein, Biden’s former adviser, agreed, saying Sanders was “showing himself to dissent from the mainstream Democratic playbook, trying to break from a fold that he felt was not pursuing good politics or policy. There’s clearly been a constituency of Democrats who are seeking a more liberal or progressive set of policies than the mainstream was serving up in those years.”

“That group has gotten a lot more attention from candidates and even the more moderate candidates have to their credit evolved with this constituency,” Bernstein said.

Sanders supporters chuckle at the irony that Sanders’ national political profile-- which is helping him mount one of the biggest threats to Biden’s presidential ambitions-- is, in part, the inadvertent byproduct of Biden’s penchant for cutting deals with Republicans.

Bernstein cautions that, while there’s a “leftward drift in the evolution of our agenda” that Sanders helped harness, Democratic voters are still moderate and Biden is a “full-throated and full-blooded supporter of Social Security.”

While Biden’s campaign won’t discuss his previous support for Social Security cuts and spending freezes, his defenders acknowledge he changed. They say the major reasons for that weren’t due to Sanders, but the bad economy of the recession, the bad faith of Tea Party Republicans who dictated the congressional agenda after winning the House in 2010, and a new perception in Washington political circles that didn’t view deficits, especially from safety-net programs, as nearly as dangerous as they previously had.

Biden’s earliest forays into Social Security cuts happened in 1984, when congressional concerns over Reagan-era deficits grew and he co-sponsored a failed proposal with Republicans to freeze spending, including cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security, which would have had the effect of a financial cut for recipients and a savings for government. Reagan and the Senate Republican leadership opposed it, saying it contained serious cuts to Social Security.

Sanders’ campaign pointed out last week that Biden in 1995 recalled on the Senate floor his four prior attempts to balance the budget, saying that he had been ready “to freeze all government spending, including Social Security, including everything.”

Before his second failed bid for president, Biden in 2007 said he would “absolutely” consider Social Security and Medicare spending limits but noted the political risks in pursuit of balancing the budget.

“The political advisers say to me is ‘whoa, don’t touch that third [rail],’” Biden said in a 2007 Meet the Pres” interview. “Look: the American people aren’t stupid.”

During the 2012 reelection, Biden struck a different posture when he told voters in Virginia that “I guarantee you, flat guarantee you, there will be no changes in Social Security. I flat guarantee you.” But after reelection, the Obama administration, locked in negotiations with Republicans over what was known as the “fiscal cliff,” offered to change the way cost-of-living adjustments are calculated. Ultimately, the plan went nowhere because Republicans refused to consider tax increases and progressive Democrats balked, led partly by Sanders, at the Social Security plans.

Biden’s campaign accused Sanders and his team of failing to account for the liberal work the former vice president and president did for safety-net programs by passing Obamacare, the 2009 stimulus bill and the 2010 tax cut package that included the Social Security “tax holiday” that was deemed effective by some economists and his team said was a “godsend for working Americans hit indescribably hard by the financial crisis.”

...To progressives, though, Sanders was a voice in the wilderness standing up for Social Security during that time.

“It was a very lonely place,” said Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works and a Sanders supporter. “There was a cacophony of calls for doing something about the debt and Bernie Sanders basically rejected the premise that that’s what it was about...In 2010, the ‘grand bargain’ was at the peak of its popularity in the elite media, in the elite political circles in D.C., in this reinforcing bubble that decided that it made a lot of sense to cut benefits.”

Trump And The DCCC Are Turning NJ-02 Into A Political Cesspool Already

Van Drew was always a Republican-- and now it's official

In the 2018 cycle, conservative then-"Democrat" Jeff Van Drew wasn’t one of the party’s star fundraisers, although he did bring in $1,881,731, despite a very right-wing voting record in the Jersey state legislature. The 3 other successful challengers in New Jersey that year all did significantly better than Van Drew did:

• Andy Kim (NJ-03)- $6,339,770
• Tom Malinowski (NJ-07)- $6,254,566
• Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11)- $8,489,793

And so far this cycle, all were beating Van Drew as well, Democratic donors being unimpressed with Van Drew's repulsive record in the House and his virtual residency at Fox News.

• Jeff Van Drew (NJ-02)- $1,276,316
• Andy Kim (NJ-03)- $1,700,707
• Tom Malinowski (NJ-07)- $1,720,429
• Mikie Sherrill (NJ-11)- $1,841,106

And then Trump lured Van Drew into switching parties, promising him an active endorsement, not just against whichever Democrat wins the primary, but also against the 3 Republicans who had been running all year by screeching that Van Drew is a “Socialist!!!” and a Nancy Pelosi lover. And Trump promised money and staff. A Trump SuperPAC has already injected $250,000 into the race and, on Trump's command, the GOP sent over two notorious Jersey GOP sleaze bags to run his campaign, Bill Stepien and Ron Filan.

The Republicans running against him hadn’t raised much money and will in all likelihood now see all sources of funds, other than their own bank accounts, dry up entirely.

• David Richter- $412,760 of which $300,000 was self funded
• Bob Paterson- $100,342
• Brian Fitzherbert- $21,287

Since Van Drew is now being considered a Republican incumbent, the NRCC version of the Cheri Bustos rule applies. Anyone who works for a campaign challenging him-- even though they had been encouraged to work for that campaign until 2 weeks ago-- will be blackballed by RepublicanWorld. (Note: people like Cheri Bustos should not be part of Democratic Party leadership. Except for identity politics issues, she’s a Republican from her toes to the top of her head.)

Politico has been helping rewrite history and has participated in twisting the Van Drew story entirely. Matt Freidman wrote that Van Drew “had been planning to seek reelection as a Democrat.” That was once true, but not since Van Drew decided to vote against impeaching Trump. It was then that he saw his support starting to plunge and it was then that more observant observers noted that Van Drew would be running for reelection as a Republican-- not after the vote. into in the 20s when he announced he would vote against impeaching Trump. The head of the biggest county Democratic Party in his district warned that if he voted for impeachment he’d be toast 2 weeks earlier. Freidman wrote that “After a frantic and unsuccessful effort to shore up party support-- Democratic leaders were abandoning him-- Van Drew switched to the GOP and, in a formal announcement, pledged his ‘undying support’ to Trump as he sat next to the president in the Oval Office.” The die had been cast when Van Drew was on Fox before the impeachment vote using GOP talking points to deride Democrats and belittle the whole reason for impeachment.

The presumed front-runner before the big switch was David Richter, former CEO of a family-founded company, Hill International. “Richter,” wrote Freidman, “quickly found his top political consultants and much of his staff leaving his campaign so as not to alienate the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is backing the newly-minted GOP incumbent. ‘The NRCC basically pulled them in and said, You need to be working for a Republican incumbent, and if you work for a Republican running against an incumbent, you’ll essentially be blackballed from doing further work,’ Richter said. Chris Russell, who had been one of Richter’s consultants, said his firm’s decision not to work against a party-endorsed incumbent was ‘our choice’ because ‘we felt it was a conflict.’ NRCC spokesperson Michael McAdams said in a statement the committee ‘doesn’t blacklist consultants.’” The DCCC, pre-Bustos, used to say the same thing. It was never true, although it was Bustos who made it formal.

In his piece, Freidman put of NRCC propaganda that Van Drew is the local boy and that the other three Republicans are carpetbaggers. “The other three Republicans claim connection to the district, though they have all recently lived somewhere else.”

Richter was a longtime Princeton resident, which is far outside the district, and rented a home less than two years ago in Miami Beach, Fla., where he planned to move and where he voted in 2018 before ultimately deciding to stay in New Jersey. He moved into the district in the fall, while his children continue to go to school in Princeton.

Fitzherbert, who grew up in North Jersey, has owned a home in the district since he was 23 but has moved around the country in recent years “as a result of the demands of the job,” and only began voting in the 2nd District in June 2018.

Patterson, who grew up in a different part of South Jersey, ran unsuccessfully for Congress in New Jersey’s neighboring 1st District in 2016 after living in Virginia for about 20 years.

Prior to Van Drew, Richter had been the main target of Fitzherbert and Patterson. They both pointed out that his company, Hill International, had hired former Vice President Joe Biden’s brother as an executive of a subsidiary around the same time it secured a housing contract in Iraq, which ultimately fell through.

Richter said it was his father’s decision to hire Biden‘s brother, and that he had warned against it. “The whole time we were in this business, I was pushing my dad to end it. And finally after several years of losses, he finally ended it and shut the whole thing down,” he said.

Fitzherbert’s campaign pointed out that Richter’s voting record was spotty, and that he had not voted in nearly half the primary and general elections in recent years.

Fitzherbert and Patterson [basically vanity candidates, especially Fitzherbert, who is also considered to be severely mentally ill even for a Republican] have potential weaknesses as well.

Fitzherbert has struggled to raise money, while Patterson has a history of controversial public statements, including favorably summarizing a study in a conservative journal in which he and a co-author wrote that using condoms “robs a woman of all these remarkable chemicals” found in semen.

That statement, along with Patterson’s writings that criticized women choosing careers over marriage and raising children, led to his resignation in 2012 as an adviser to then-Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett after the Philadelphia Inquirer raised questions about them.

“I have written hundreds of articles over my career, and some of those articles dared to question or debunk liberal groupthink on many issues,” Patterson said. “In other cases, I was summarizing scientific findings of empirical studies that someone else conducted.”

With the support of Trump and the NRCC, Van Drew is the new frontrunner. Pressure will build on local leaders to back him as well, giving him the “party line,” which in most of the district bestows favorable ballot placement.

The fact that all three remain committed to the race poses another danger. Even if Republican primary voters are suspicious of Van Drew’s motives for fleeing the Democratic Party, they might split their votes among the three challengers.

…Monmouth University pollster Patrick Murray suggested the primary may get less crowded if local Republican leaders fall in line behind Van Drew-- something that’s already beginning with some local GOP chairs.

“Right now, it looks like it’s going to be crowded, but it could end up falling by the wayside if you have some key leaders ... coming out in support of a particular candidate,” Murray said. “If it happens to be Van Drew, you’re going to see the entire party get in line by the April filing deadline.”

The race won’t be over with the primary. Despite its Trump leaning, the 2nd District remains highly competitive, and Democrats plan to compete there. Three candidates-- political science professor Brigid Harrison, Atlantic County Freeholder Ashley Bennett and environmentalist John Francis-- are seeking the Democratic nomination.

“Certainly this leans Republican, and whoever the nominee is will be considered the favorite,’ but by how much of a favorite really depends on the presidential election,” Murray said.

The DCCC/EMILY’s List candidate, Brigid Harrison, also just happens to be the Norcross South Jersey machine candidate-- the same bunch of crooks who brought us Jefferson Van Drew… so of course the DCCC and EMILY’s List looked to them to pick the next candidate.